Apprently Vacationing Is A Human Right Now

[ToadBrother]

No, can't say that I have. Capitalists compete with each other in a free market and prices are driven down, not up.

It's a delightful theory, but collusion, price fixing and the creation of economic entities "too big to fail" suggest that Capitalism, like any system, can never been run pure.

[Shady]

WTF?

Vacationing a human right, EU chief says

The European Union has declared travelling a human right, and is launching a scheme to subsidize vacations with taxpayers' dollars for those too poor to afford their own trips.

Antonio Tajani, the European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry, proposed a strategy that could cost European taxpayers hundreds of millions of euros a year, The Times of London reports.

Link

If this is a human right, what isn't?

[Guest American Woman]

Wow.

Pretty soon there won't be any incentive to work. Why should one put any effort into making a better life when it's simply handed to them? The idea that travel is a right, and people should be taxed to pay for others' vacations, is mind-boggling. I would like to know who exactly would qualify for the 'paid travel, too; and who wouldn't. I have to say, this line of thought makes me glad I'm not part of the EU.

[M.Dancer]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16231&view=getnewpost&hl=&fromsearch=1

[dizzy]

comments moved to the other thread.

Edited April 21, 2010 by dizzy

[Sir Bandelot]

Why should one put any effort into making a better life when it's simply handed to them? The idea that travel is a right, and people should be taxed to pay for others' vacations, is mind-boggling. I would like to know who exactly would qualify for the 'paid travel, too; and who wouldn't. I have to say, this line of thought makes me glad I'm not part of the EU.

No you're not part of the EU. You're part of USA

Getaways, gifts suck up most of parties’ funds

[Guest American Woman]

No you're not part of the EU. You're part of USA

Getaways, gifts suck up most of parties’ funds

You do realize the difference between "donated" money and "tax" money, right? One can simply choose not to donate if they don't like the way the political parties spend their money. On the other hand, one cannot choose not to pay taxes if they don't like financing others' vacations . In other words, your post has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.

[dizzy]

Europeans must think that they are leading us to toward the marxist ideal of freedom from the tyranny of work. The only difference is that, in Marx's plan, technology was going to replace us as the labour force. In the european model, high taxes and high unemployment mean that a few skilled people with inescapable work ethics will be carrying the load.

What I'd willing to devote my tax dollars to is some form of optional service at the end of high school. For 1 yr, join the military reserves in a full-time capacity or travel somewhere to engage in volun-tourism. Qualified experiences will count as credit toward one's post-secondary schooling.

[Sir Bandelot]

You do realize the difference between "donated" money and "tax" money, right? One can simply choose not to donate if they don't like the way the political parties spend their money. On the other hand, one cannot choose not to pay taxes if they don't like financing others' vacations . In other words, your post has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.

Yes, I do realize that difference. but the point I made was (besides that headline grabbing my attention this morning) that our politicians do this constantly, in many cases using government money to travel all over the world. Not just to do work of course, there are many perks that come with the job, for the elite. Otherwise they wouldn't need to serve champagne and caviar at the UN. Whats wrong with a simple lentil soup

[BubberMiley]

Soon they'll have other forms of education covered by tax dollars, like schooling.

[Handsome Rob]

I should certainly hope, that to be traveling in this direction, there should be no homeless, no starving, no medical funding problems, and all the other things that provide security of person.

[Shady]

Soon they'll have other forms of education covered by tax dollars, like schooling.

Paying for vacations for seniors is a form of education?

How about nanny states stick to funding actual education, and leave vacations and holidays as they were. Besides, shouldn't they be collecting money to bailout Greece? Does Greece really need a new entitlement to fund?

When will socialists stop spending other people's money? Probably not until every country is bankrupt. :angry:

[Sir Bandelot]

in order for people to enjoy their wealth, if wealth is considered leisure time, vacation time, less work and more money, they have to create it first.

I don't disagree in principle, but we as a society have now moved beyond the industrial revolution. The role of government is to help elevate human beings to a point where we live in dignity. It is not their role to create the wealth, or control industries, in general but only where that is necessary for the safe continuance of society.

It is human nature to be greedy and exploit others, and government must enact laws sufficient to protect people from this, and promote a culture of opportunity and fairness. The will of the people also comes into the equation. It is not enough to say, anybody can become as rich as they want, if the will of the people feel this is unethical. Their wealth would have to be redistributed.

So let it be written, so let it be done

[Sir Bandelot]

Paying for vacations for seniors is a form of education?

They should send you on a vacation to Saudi Arabia. That would be an education.

...

Perhaps the idea is to promote a greater understanding of other cultures, by encouraging travel. Also, it's become quite apparent that travel companies and in particular Airlines have taken massive losses in profit, after September 11 with all the fear and difficulties with security, and this recent volcano problem, among others I'm sure the Airlines have lost many millions of dollars. In North America, if it was Obama he would take the tax payers money and give it to these corporations, to shore them up and try to help them survive. We puppets would moan and groan a little, but ultimately just roll over and take the hit, again.

What would we gain from this? How much would the public benefit by giving our tax dollars to Airlines. A little, perhaps but not much.

The alternative is what we see here. Give the people an incentive to travel. Take the same tax dollars that Obama would have given to the Airlines, where it gets used up paying for the bonuses of the Board of Directors, and instead let the people spend the money on travel directly... causing the money to be injected into the working part of the system. A far more effective approach. They spend it on plane tickets, on hotels, not to shore up the losses of the super-rich. Does that make sense?

Yes it does

Edited April 21, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, I do realize that difference. but the point I made was (besides that headline grabbing my attention this morning) that our politicians do this constantly, in many cases using government money to travel all over the world. Not just to do work of course, there are many perks that come with the job, for the elite. Otherwise they wouldn't need to serve champagne and caviar at the UN. Whats wrong with a simple lentil soup

It's not "government money" in the example you cited, it's "donations." Huge difference. Surely you can see that. It's not an example of the middle class, who can't afford to travel themselves, paying for the "poor" to travel. It's not an example of those who choose to live off the system being able to travel as those who put in a hard day's work are not able to. It's ludicrous that "traveling" is a right of the "poor," at the expense of the tax payers. What are the "poor" doing for the middle/working class? Hopefully politicians are at least working for the people, or the people can vote them out. Can't vote "the poor" out.

Your attempt at a comparison doesn't fly at all, and I can't believe you are in effect defending the crazy notion that "travel" is a "right."

[Sir Bandelot]

Your attempt at a comparison doesn't fly at all, and I can't believe you are in effect defending the crazy notion that "travel" is a "right."

No, as I already pointed out, the comparison is not direct but it opens up this aspect of the discussion- why is it more acceptable to some of you that politicians and bureaucrats can help themselves to tax money, with minimal oversight, and yet to return the money back to taxpayers for same is not. Because we are programed to believe that the elite in fact deserve their entitlements, so in that sense we enable them.

The article I linked clearly shows the kind of lifestyle these people expect. And if you think your tax money is immune from such abuses, well I'm sure I can provide many links for you. But that should not be necessary, for intelligent adult discussion

[BubberMiley]

When will socialists stop spending other people's money?

If a public school system was currently being proposed for the first time, would you call it "socialist?" If not, why not?

[Shady]

The role of government is to help elevate human beings to a point where we live in dignity.

No it isn't. That's complete nonsense. And even if it were true, somebody not able to vacation isn't not living in dignity.

If a public school system was currently being proposed for the first time, would you call it "socialist?" If not, why not?

I completely reject your premise. Spending money on public education is not tantamount to funding people's vacactions and holidays.

[Guest American Woman]

No, as I already pointed out, the comparison is not direct but it opens up this aspect of the discussion- why is it more acceptable to some of you that politicians and bureaucrats can help themselves to tax money, with minimal oversight, and yet to return the money back to taxpayers for same is not. Because we are programed to believe that the elite in fact deserve their entitlements, so in that sense we enable them.

It has nothing to do with "tax money," as I already pointed out. It has to do with DONATIONS. If I wanted to donate money to a poor family to travel, that's entirely my choice. If I have to pay taxes for a poor family to travel, that's not my choice at all. And I would bet money that the lower middle class, whose taxes were going to help "poor" people travel, would not receive the same travel benefits themselves, as they could not afford to travel themselves. That people should work hard so others can travel is beyond ludicrous. And again, it makes me glad that I don't live in the EU. If this is how far "people's rights" are being carried in some nations, give me the US any day; and I'm betting there are going to be plenty of people in the EU who would feel the same way if this comes to pass.

The article I linked clearly shows the kind of lifestyle these people expect. And if you think your tax money is immune from such abuses, well I'm sure I can provide many links for you. But that should not be necessary, for intelligent adult discussion

Again, it's nowhere near the same situation. As I already pointed out, if people are displeased with how politicians are spending, they can vote them out. But they have no recourse with "poor people," many who are "poor" because they think the world owes them a living and it's easier to sit back and have the world hand them things rather than have to put forth the effort for them. Or they have more kids than they can afford, while others limit their family size to what they can.

Again, the idea that "travel" is a "right" is ludicrous.

Having pointed that out yet again, please do provide me with links the show where politicians have taken family trips on the taxpayers' dime. Give me examples of politicians who have traveled on the taxpayers' money. And I'm talking strictly personal trips; ie: vacations.

And for the record, that article you cited wasn't in support of the spending habits of some politicians. In other words, it wasn't saying that they 'have the right' to use funds that way. And again, it's donated funds. So why you would think your 'point' has anything to do with this situation is impossible to understand.

Edited April 22, 2010 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

I completely reject your premise. Spending money on public education is not tantamount to funding people's vacactions and holidays.

Nice deflection, but that wasn't my premise. I asked you if you consider public education to be a socialist cause, and if not, why not?

[Guest American Woman]

Shady, on 22 April 2010 - 12:34 PM, said: I completely reject your premise. Spending money on public education is not tantamount to funding people's vacactions and holidays.

Nice deflection, but that wasn't my premise. I asked you if you consider public education to be a socialist cause, and if not, why not?

Shady's not the one deflecting; your question about public education was the "nice deflection."

[BubberMiley]

Shady's not the one deflecting; your question about public education was the "nice deflection."

Why? Is travel not a form of education? Don't public schools often include a travel option in their senior years? I went to Jamaica in Grade 12, subsidized by the public school system, and learned a whole new lifestyle. I agree that government subsidies for education could be considered socialist. How is that a deflection?

[M.Dancer]

Why? Is travel not a form of education?

Can be..but if we take that line of reasoning, everything is a form of education. Going to the pub with your mates..watching TV...dining at a 5 star restaurant...spending a week at at a caribbean an all inclusive singles resort....can all be very educational.

Never the less, vacation time, going to the pub, watching TV, dining out and spending a dirty week at Hedonism II are all more commonly and properly call leisure activities.

[Guest American Woman]

Why? Is travel not a form of education? Don't public schools often include a travel option in their senior years? I went to Jamaica in Grade 12, subsidized by the public school system, and learned a whole new lifestyle. I agree that government subsidies for education could be considered socialist. How is that a deflection?

It's a deflection because while a school sponsored class trip would (hopefully) be an educational trip, the "right to an education" ends after grade twelve. The right to an education doesn't go on indefinitely. For the rest of one's life. One has the right to an education so one can get a job and earn the money to travel/take vacations, not rely on others to provide it for them. That's why it's a deflection.

But the fact is, not all schools have the budget to travel to Jamaica, or anywhere else; the trip wasn't part of your "right" to an education. Not everyone who has received a public education has gone on such a trip, and their "right to an education" has not been violated. Lots of things that could be considered educational are not part of a "right" to an education. That's another reason why it's a deflection.

Edited April 22, 2010 by American Woman

[Shady]

It's a deflection because while a school sponsored class trip would (hopefully) be an educational trip, the "right to an education" ends after grade twelve. The right to an education doesn't go on indefinitely. For the rest of one's life. One has the right to an education so one can get a job and earn the money to travel/take vacations, not rely on others to provide it for them. That's why it's a deflection.

But the fact is, not all schools have the budget to travel to Jamaica, or anywhere else; the trip wasn't part of your "right" to an education. Not everyone who has received a public education has gone on such a trip, and their "right to an education" has not been violated. Lots of things that could be considered educational are not part of a "right" to an education. That's another reason why it's a deflection.

Wow Bubber. You were pwned pretty badly there. It's probably best you call it a day, and leave posting again in the forum till tomorrow. After a good night's sleep.