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.
Right..., now how do you get your message across to the 50 million + students in public elementary and secondary schools? How cutting their Mom's food stamps that helps put breakfast on the table will create the incentive to do what is necessary.
The better question is why are those who cannot afford to support dependents even bearing children at all?
Note, from your blog, "What's going on here? Basically, all of the progressivity of our fellow developed nations' welfare states comes on the spending side. They spend a whole lot more on transfer programs, education and health services, and other initiatives that are redistributive in impact. We, by contrast, tax progressively, and then spread the money around in a less progressive fashion."
I would agree, but clearly the point is that without collecting and SPENDING optimally for all concerned, the result is less than optimal, as obviously the case in America. You want to spend "a whole lot more on transfer programs, education and health services?" Seems you do, but awfully hard to tell from most of your comments...
Who might need to "read and learn?" Not sure, but I'm guessing you will repeat that somewhat insulting bit again, at least a few more times.
Note, from your blog, "What's going on here? Basically, all of the progressivity of our fellow developed nations' welfare states comes on the spending side. They spend a whole lot more on transfer programs, education and health services, and other initiatives that are redistributive in impact. We, by contrast, tax progressively, and then spread the money around in a less progressive fashion."
Not my blog, but that site does indeed recognize the fact that countries that are successful in providing more social welfare programs/services and in lowering income inequality use a REGRESSIVE tax code to do so.
The better question is why are those who cannot afford to support dependents even bearing children at all?
I think the better question might be the age at which we make these "choices" you are going on about.
At what age is it appropriate to suggest these "choices" are being made given the fact that most of these problems are "frequently" well underway long before kids become mature enough to choose intelligently about what goes on in the life they are born into, including very often education about sex. All too "frequently" that "education" is abuse at an early age. Or is this too part of the "inadequate education" you claim people getting social services "choose" for themselves?
Ask just about any person who's life is f**ked up, and most "frequently" you will hear the story of a "f**ked up childhood or other life tragedy of some sort, rarely chosen by anyone...
Not my blog, but that site does indeed recognize the fact that countries that are successful in providing more social welfare programs/services and in lowering income inequality use a REGRESSIVE tax code to do so.
"Your blog" as in the one you offered up, and you are being very selective in terms of focus again...
"They spend a whole lot more on transfer programs, education and health services, and other initiatives that are redistributive in impact."
Reads to me as if the key is how the tax revenues are spent rather than collected, though both ends of that equation are important of course. Point is, what many would view as the reason for success in other countries vs America in these regards is NOT the manner in which they collect taxes but how they redistribute those resources (all that comes from the highest income earners in those countries as well).
Also seems to me that what is sited as more beneficial in terms of more toward social programs is exactly what you also argue much against, but you/we can't have it both ways!
Bearing children one cannot afford to support is a CHOICE.
Failing to educate oneself is a CHOICE.
The children of such circumstances are children of CHOICE.
Got it?
"Exactly?"
Really? You could not misunderstand the question any more...
I've got to be going, and I don't enjoy circles spun from purposely ignoring the points of these comments just so your narrative will work, but my point (and reality) is that much of what happens to children that begins to develop them as adults later in life is NOT their choice. What causes a young woman to bear a child they cannot afford is "frequently" something that doesn't happen in well-to-do families like it does among the poor. Why is that do you think?
They chose to grow up believing this was somehow a path toward happiness and success? Why would anyone choose such an outcome? Or maybe you don't understand sex in general, especially for young adults, very young "adults." There are very poor people in 3rd world countries spitting out children they can't afford. Why is that according to you? Some sort of "choice?"
Given what rationale? Who wants those sorts of problems or way of life even with the help of social services?
Going to a school like my kids attended, where there isn't the constant distraction of poorly parented kids running amok in the classroom, drugs all around, even guns and violence, sex and all the rest of the bad influences that clearly take their toll..., that's not a "choice" my kids made! Just like the millions of poor kids stuck in those bad schools did not make the choice to be there either. Then they grow up and start making bad choices at what age, and why?
A good day to you. I've really got to be moving on...
If I'm so "very selective in focus," why are the poor even having a problem supporting themselves and their dependents at all?
This question is beyond comprehension...
Your "very selective focus" is only on these aspects of tax policy that suit your agenda regarding objection to a better more progressive tax code as called for by many here in America (I won't repeat the names).
Why poor folks have a problem supporting themselves and their dependents is obvious and has nothing to do with the error of your very selective focus.
The issue is proper understanding related to cause/effect when it comes to your comparison between America versus other countries, including distribution for social programs, countries all grappling with problems like poverty and lack of education, all requires better understanding, perhaps beginning with what is "choice" and what is really not.
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.
