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.
Then you are in favor of an underground economy? Europe has a lot of it, and it creates a disincentive for middle class folks who work for a company that reports income to the government. The US government looks poised, with the additional staff, to try (emphasis on the word try since they won't succeed) to stop underground economies from forming.
Look, I live in a relatively poor country and I am pragmatic, in the end what matters is that people have food on their plates. A lot of people here have huge gardens or relatives who do. So they grow fruit and vegetable and since not everybody grows everything, person A gives, say, cucumbers to neighbor B and gets apples in return.
So if you ask me if I prefer people engaging in underground activities or starving, of course I opt for option one. Do you really think people with an empty stomach care whether or not their way of arranging food is an incentive for the middle class to do their jobs and pay taxes?
Well, that's the difference, I grew up with social justice, we don't believe in that social-Darwinist 'me and my clan' way of thinking from the Bible.
What the heck is "social justice"? I've never heard of that term but it sounds, the way you used it in previous posts, like INjustice to me. It sounds like wealth confication and communism.
Social justice, or economic justice as it should be called, would be a system where private property rights are preemininant. It should be a system where the government can not take your wealth or, if it must take something in the form of taxes to support the government, it takes the same amount from everyone. A less just system would take the same percent from everyone but even this isn't really a just system. Our current system is completely unjust since it takes different percentages from different people. Totally unjust.
What the heck is "social justice"? I've never heard of that term but it sounds, the way you used it in previous posts, like INjustice to me. It sounds like wealth confication and communism.
Social justice, or economic justice as it should be called, would be a system where private property rights are preemininant. It should be a system where the government can not take your wealth or, if it must take something in the form of taxes to support the government, it takes the same amount from everyone. A less just system would take the same percent from everyone but even this isn't really a just system. Our current system is completely unjust since it takes different percentages from different people. Totally unjust.
Note: social is not the same as socialist, it seems necessary to point that out from time to time
Your tax example would be correct if prices for those with low incomes would be accordingly lower, but they are the same as for rich people. Thus there are tax exempt amounts etc. If you take 30% of a working poor's salary, that will hurt them quite a bit, but if you take 30% of a rich person's income, they will still be rich.
I am referring to fiscal policies aimed at providing social justice. Taxes are not meant for this reason. They are meant to provide the minimum amount of revenue to maintain an orderly society.
The best example of how social justice destroys a nation is Chile in the late 60's. As the economy got worse, Allende began the process of "leveling the playing field" by enacting price controls, resulting in rationing. Allende made Chile poorer and essentially bankrupted the poor and middle class by making them sell their real assets for pennies on the dollar just to purchase perishable goods. After Allende got his just dessert, Foreigners flocked in and scooped up those assets on the cheap. Basically, Allende and his crew created additional wealth disparity among his own people.
I am referring to fiscal policies aimed at providing social justice. Taxes are not meant for this reason. They are meant to provide the minimum amount of revenue to maintain an orderly society.
The best example of how social justice destroys a nation is Chile in the late 60's. As the economy got worse, Allende began the process of "leveling the playing field" by enacting price controls, resulting in rationing. Allende made Chile poorer and essentially bankrupted the poor and middle class by making them sell their real assets for pennies on the dollar just to purchase perishable goods. After Allende got his just dessert, Foreigners flocked in and scooped up those assets on the cheap. Basically, Allende and his crew created additional wealth disparity among his own people.
Social justice is injustice.
Again, social justice cannot be wrong because justice is always good, no matter in which area. Now, if that Allende guy screwed up regarding the ways he tried to achieve it, that is another topic. There are many ways to social justice, some are better than others, and some turn out not to work at all. Still the goal of social justice is a good one.
Allendi was a toady of the IMF and World Bank that was happily looting Chile by privatizing government owned utilities.
Social justice means, if you have a lot of food on your "private" farm and refuse to share it with me and my starving clan, you will soon not be resident on our collective farm. Be aware the poor, thanks to Kalashnikov, are no longer unarmed. Starving people because feeding them would hurt your profit is just as much an act of violence as taking over misused "private” property.
The worst instance of this was the starvation of the Irish. Ireland grew enough food to provide for England and the landowners. None of that food was available to the unarmed, landless and poor peasants so when the potato crop failed they starved and England stayed fed. The Irish did not need more potatoes they needed more guns.
I am referring to fiscal policies aimed at providing social justice. Taxes are not meant for this reason. They are meant to provide the minimum amount of revenue to maintain an orderly society.
The best example of how social justice destroys a nation is Chile in the late 60's. As the economy got worse, Allende began the process of "leveling the playing field" by enacting price controls, resulting in rationing. Allende made Chile poorer and essentially bankrupted the poor and middle class by making them sell their real assets for pennies on the dollar just to purchase perishable goods. After Allende got his just dessert, Foreigners flocked in and scooped up those assets on the cheap. Basically, Allende and his crew created additional wealth disparity among his own people.
Social justice is injustice.
That's not social justice. Look at all the things that you mentioned; price controls, forced selling of assets etc. That was an attempt to restructure the economy.
Social justice is the effort to insure that people in a society are all treated fairly in accordance with laws in a country and that people are not discriminated against based on race, gender, sexual orientation or social status.
Examples of social justice are
Fair treatment in the courts for all members of society
Uniform public education
Fair treatment by the police for all memebrs of society
Fair treament based on solely in financial ability when buying house or applying for credit.
Fair treatment when applying for a job or getting a promotion
Again, social justice cannot be wrong because justice is always good, no matter in which area. Now, if that Allende guy screwed up regarding the ways he tried to achieve it, that is another topic. There are many ways to social justice, some are better than others, and some turn out not to work at all. Still the goal of social justice is a good one.
I disagree. Justice is not always good. Social justice is actually a particularly bad idea because it relies on rules that are constantly changing, as well as imperfect leaders who use their subjective line of reasoning to determine what is socially just. In order to avoid this form of self-destruction, a constant enumeration of laws is necessary that do not change except to adapt to those who would circumvent the law to directly harm another person.
Allende was the perfect example of an overeducated elitist who thought he could create a utopian society where every person gets a "leg up". Ironically, the very people he sought to help were hurt by his policies. Now, all of the prime Chilean real estate is owned by foreigners and Allende is to thank for that.
Note: social is not the same as socialist, it seems necessary to point that out from time to time
Your tax example would be correct if prices for those with low incomes would be accordingly lower, but they are the same as for rich people. Thus there are tax exempt amounts etc. If you take 30% of a working poor's salary, that will hurt them quite a bit, but if you take 30% of a rich person's income, they will still be rich.
Human rights are an important part, but social justice is way more than fair treatment regardless of race etc. It does include the goal of a more egalitarian society and means to achieve that including redistribution etc.
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.
