Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've read it and it has nothing to do with what I am advocating for. I don't have a problem with rich people I have a problem with rich people who use there wealth and influence to further stack the deck against the working class. Paying more in tax is not making everyone equal its giving everyone an equal shot.
So you propose to change that, how? By imposing some sort of handicap or penalty on the rich? That's exactly what happens in Harrison Bergeron. Anyone above average in any way is penalized.
So you propose to change that, how? By imposing some sort of handicap or penalty on the rich? That's exactly what happens in Harrison Bergeron. Anyone above average in any way is penalized.
Yea but the difference is they are still rich and successful by your logic we should have a sort of darwinian survival of the fittest or richest society? If you look at the most developed and wealthy countries they all have generous welfare programs including the US. Take that away and you have anarchy.
Yea but the difference is they are still rich and successful by your logic we should have a sort of darwinian survival of the fittest or richest society? If you look at the most developed and wealthy countries they all have generous welfare programs including the US. Take that away and you have anarchy.
Again, why handicap or penalize those who are above average, but not anyone else?
Did you not actually read Harrison Bergeron? Did handicapping/penalizing him because he was above average accomplish the intended goal of leveling everyone? Or did it just breed intense resentment that backfired on society?
Again, why handicap or penalize those who are above average, but not anyone else?
Did you not actually read Harrison Bergeron? Did handicapping/penalizing him because he was above average accomplish the intended goal of leveling everyone? Or did it just breed intense resentment that backfired on society?
You didn't answer my question about what kind of society you advocate for. It sounds like reading between the lines you want the opposite might makes right the poor need to know there place etc.
Here's a previous post of mine that underscores another part of the issue:
Quote:
In his book The Reckoning, the late David Halberstam shared a story of an employee who embodies many of our present discontents;
The man held a skilled blue-collar job in the auto industry. He was of an age where his kids were grown, he no longer faced the financial demands of a family, and he and his own were apparently not addicted to "conspicuous consumption"; he was a disciplined worker in most respects, but missed a lot of Fridays and/or Mondays, and couldn't be counted on to work when weekend overtime was scheduled.
Finally, his manager asked him "Why is it you only want to work four days a week?"
The answer was a courteous, but to-the-point; "Because I can't live decently working three days a week."
A friend of mine who follows the local job market had a tale that underscores the point. There is a nearby plant, well-automated, which mass-produces small metal parts. The jobs are demanding, but they pay well; $16-$18/hr to start, with a potential to $22-$25 within two years.
Two candidates, both young, undencumbrered men, recently met all qualifications, but were turned down. The reason being that they asked for unpaid leave during the two-week post-Thanksgiving deer season (Vacation time during that period is hard to schedule because everybody wants it and the senior men have priority).
I suspect that the imbalance between commitment to job vs. family/personal pursuits is certain to intensify with the growth in both sophisticated-but-demanding employment and the imblance in incomes arising from the fact that people seek life partners of similar levels of intelligence: Mr. and Ms. Bright might make a lot more than Mr. and Ms. Dull, but who has the time to enjoy it? And one often-suggested solution -- job-sharing -- isn't going to resonate well with a lot of employers because it would increase the pressures to fill the jobs nobody wants, and particularly at the times when not many of us want to work.
The unfortunate fact is that most employers, particularly in "soft skills" occupations, recognize that only a minority of employees either have particularly good skills, and/or take a good deal of personal satisfaction from their work; so they burn out, but the "straight (and fully-taxable) salary" system of compensation gives the employer every incentive to run the most-productive into the ground, while tolerating the dullards who get the unwanted jobs done--albeit with more stress for anyone who's masochistic enough to attempt to manage them.
And then there's the complete and total dead weight like the individual cited below:
And as the rest of the world industrializes and confronts the same disparities, the problem is sure to worsen. As is being underscored every day by the "voluntarily dysfunctional" soiling the streets of our West Coast cities, sooner or later we are going to have to re-enact some tough vagrancy laws.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 01-04-2018 at 10:42 AM..
At the current (2016 actual) spending rate per person, approximately $5.3 trillion, or ~135% of the total federal budget for FY2016.
Lol. First of all, the total medical spending per person (from all sources) currently is around 10k. So using that would give a smaller number already. Second, everybody knows that medicare reimbursement rate is lower than private insurance, and the overhead is much smaller. Correspondingly, the total would be less. Third, the spending on 65+ year old is much much much higher than the spending on 25 year old, so of course, you should not prorate the current Medicare spending per peson. Fourth, it is highly irrelevant what the hypothetical percentage of the current total federal budget since the FICA taxes would need to be adjusted to cover medicare for all (automatically changing the federal budget). There is no free lunch, somebody pays in the end, the question is why the lunch is so expensive currently.
Take note that we're only accused of "greed" when we seek to control and invest what we made through our own efforts; stealing and "redistributing" someone else's lawful property apparently doesn't qualify as "greed".
You mean like the "Tax Reform" bill does in redistributing wealth from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy? Yes, that's it, exactly. The wealthy recipients of this unearned and unwarranted windfall are greedy.
So you propose to change that, how? By imposing some sort of handicap or penalty on the rich? That's exactly what happens in Harrison Bergeron. Anyone above average in any way is penalized.
90% tax on the weathiest, exactly like FDR did to fund the WPA and the CCC and create and grow the middle class.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
