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 am not advocating complete individualism and please do not take things to the extreme.
I am saying that the taxpayers should not be the first in line to pay your bills. You and your families should be. When you and your family can't afford to pay the bills or to raise your children, it would be for the benefit of the children, aka future of the society, that the taxpayers take the children away and put them into foster care or adoption.
Is that not fair and good for the society?
Foster care is more expensive and has statistically worse outcomes than helping people raise their own offspring.
You can be ENCOURAGED to make a contribution, but shouldn't be FORCED to.
This country, and our society, is NOT communist. It's founded on individual freedom. Got that? Individual. As in solitary.
Oops, I found a solitary human! I will say your species is not listed as solitary. Cooperation with others brought our civilization, but we have a long ways to go.
No one is telling you to be a communist and you do not have to contribute to society. However, as much as you try you will never be a solitary animal and will have to interact and even benefit from your association with others.
Quote:
Animals that are solitary are often territorial and do not like the company of another animal in their territory and especially an animal of their own kind. When two of the same species meet they often show aggressive displays to try to chase off the other.
BTW, I am not against individualism and as you know we are not ants. We must find a happy medium to advance and become more civilized.
I am not advocating complete individualism and please do not take things to the extreme.
Good point! No need to look at this at the extremes of the spectrum. As I told another ploster we are not ants and total collectivism is not desirable.
Quote:
I am saying that the taxpayers should not be the first in line to pay your bills. You and your families should be. When you and your family can't afford to pay the bills or to raise your children, it would be for the benefit of the children, aka future of the society, that the taxpayers take the children away and put them into foster care or adoption.
Is that not fair and good for the society?
OK, I think you are forming your thoughts based on the folks that that live of the government and are not contributing members of society. In a sense these folks are individualists since they contribute NOTHING to society at large. And that is a subject for another day.
However, contributing members of society often have greater success when they work together. As I told you before health insurance was developed by citizens that pooled their resources to help each other out.
Somehow you think the CEO of UHC gives you health care and pays your medical bills. You are mistaken! Your health care is provided by doctors and nurses and this is paid by fellow citizens. The CEO of UHC simply skims money of the system because they are blessed by Washington DC.
There is nothing wrong with members of society helping each other.
If you want to be a loner and leave society you can always move to a remote area where there is no contact with others and where you provided for yourself 100%.
This was my latest iteration of an original question I asked many pages back:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
Please explain in detail how taxpayers are taking on the financial burden of other people's children when the mother takes maternity leave.
The FMLA sets the standard for all kinds of leave pertaining to families. The government does not compensate companies when their employees take leave.
Please explain in detail how taxpayers are taking on the financial burden of other people's children when the mother takes maternity leave.
The FMLA sets the standard for all kinds of leave pertaining to families. The government does not compensate companies when their employees take leave.
So, please explain...
There is no burden to other taxpayers if we have family leave. That is like saying vacation time is a tax burden for taxpayers. Of that employer provided health insurance is a tax burden.
According to you it is unethical to pay a nanny more than 15/hr but you see no problem with the ethics of paying 66 million a year for a CEO that does nothing out of the ordinary.
So when will you be starting your own health insurance company?
I'm sure it'll be a snap for you .... nothing out of the ordinary.
There is no burden to other taxpayers if we have family leave. That is like saying vacation time is a tax burden for taxpayers. Of that employer provided health insurance is a tax burden.
Thank you, yes, I know. I wanted Lifeexplorer to explain why she keep saying that women taking maternity leave is a burden on taxpayers.
I'm sure I won't get a reasonable response to that question.
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.
I will say your species is not listed as solitary. Cooperation with others brought our civilization, but we have a long ways to go.
