Saturn Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 We may support welfare programs because we feel compassion. We may support SSM, or anti-discriminatory legislation out of a sense of fairness. There are are many other motivations beyond "self-interest" which should factor into which programs and policies we do or don't support. This is why I disagreed with Saturn when he advocated that each should be looking at issues strictly from the perspective of self-interest. Like it or not, self-interest is the single biggest force in human behaviour. Ideology or morals are also have a major influnce on how we act. Your morals may dictate that you should support SSM out of a sense of fairness. But they could also dictate that you should oppose it because of your religious views. You may support welfare programs because you feel compassion, others may oppose welfare because they view welfare recipients as scum who steal their hard earned tax dollars and welfare as an incentive for more people to join the lazy scum ranks thus hurting society in some way. You can decide which view you agree with but most people on both sides base their views on ideology and very few actually take a hard look and make a clear assessment on what's really in their own interest. I happen to think that if people were more rational and less ideological, things would not be perfect but we would see far more balance between young and old, races, sexes, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 You may think that welfare is a program you will never use, but most people who have collected welfare didn't ever think they would need it. I'm sure they didn't. But I can only assess my own situation, and it is based upon what chances I'm willing to take. If I deem that the chances of me collecting welfare are very low, and the personal savings are comparitively high, then it is in my interest to take the chance. If you have no kids and you vote against childcare, you would be missing the fact that you benefit from childcare indirectly, whether because children who are better taken care of are less likely to cost you money by ending up in jail or on welfare or whether or because you will need someone to take care of you when you get older and presumably a half-literate, former inmate would not be the best person to do so. Again I have to do a personal assessment of benefit. If I think the indirect benefit I get is less than the personal cost, then it woudl be in my self-interest to not support child care. Again, if people are properly able to assess what their interests are and vote accordingly, we will have a much more balanced system than we currently do. So then how do I determine if a program is in my self-interest when so many of the benefits are not easily quantifiable? How do you assess potential benefit of someone else's cared for children to me? Do I take it on faith that it is good value? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Like it or not, self-interest is the single biggest force in human behaviour. I agree. I happen to think that if people were more rational and less ideological, things would not be perfect but we would see far more balance between young and old, races, sexes, etc. Actually I see just the opposite. I see most people acting out of self-interest and not ideology reinforcing your point above. Personally, I'd like to see more people put ideology ahead of self-interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturn Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Actually I see just the opposite. I see most people acting out of self-interest and not ideology reinforcing your point above. Personally, I'd like to see more people put ideology ahead of self-interest. Well, they are. From shooting doctors who provide abortions, to spending most of their time fighting SSM and to blowing up buildings due to xenophobic or religios beliefs, people are putting ideology ahead of self-interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 How the hell this topic about government intervention still has legs is mindboggling. Reagan is the most populcar president in American history and the Soviet Union collapsed. It's over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Reagan is the most populcar president in American history and the Soviet Union collapsed. It's over. The best selling album of all time (The Eagles' Greatest Hits) was released the same year I was born. It's over. Hey, one non-sequiter deserves another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Actually I see just the opposite. I see most people acting out of self-interest and not ideology reinforcing your point above. Personally, I'd like to see more people put ideology ahead of self-interest. Well, they are. From shooting doctors who provide abortions, to spending most of their time fighting SSM and to blowing up buildings due to xenophobic or religios beliefs, people are putting ideology ahead of self-interest. Sure, but many abortion clincs were opened by doctors who put ideology above self-interest. Many of the population supports SSM for ideological reasons, and many more are putting themselves in harm's way to protect buildings from being blown up. So acting out of ideology cuts both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 What I am saying is that if you increase the maximum income a person can have and still receive a full benefit and cut off those above, there is a point where they will out number those who now receive no benefit at all. I don't know what that point is, I just picked 30K because I thought it might be in the ball park. I'm not advocating anything, just that changing the program without affecting its total cost is likely a far more complicated process than we might think. You know what it appears to me to be is that at some point OAP is clawed back completely. Maybe around $30 now. I don't really know but I do know people complain about receiving it and having to pay it back in income tax. So the worry about the baby boomers just isn't there. They appear to be the richest retires yet and while they will collect OAP they will pay it back and they, of course, never qualify for Government assisted pensions. Are there figures to show how many of this age group will be able to collect OAP and are we discussing a staw discussion. Yes everyone receives OAP but how any keep it. Very few I bet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturn Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 How the hell this topic about government intervention still has legs is mindboggling.Reagan is the most populcar president in American history and the Soviet Union collapsed. It's over. If Hitler had won the war, he would have been the most popular chanselor for sure. You could even argue that he is the most popular even though he lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturn Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 You know what it appears to me to be is that at some point OAP is clawed back completely. Maybe around $30 now. I don't really know but I do know people complain about receiving it and having to pay it back in income tax. So the worry about the baby boomers just isn't there. They appear to be the richest retires yet and while they will collect OAP they will pay it back and they, of course, never qualify for Government assisted pensions. Are there figures to show how many of this age group will be able to collect OAP and are we discussing a staw discussion. Yes everyone receives OAP but how any keep it. Very few I bet Given that OAS is clawed back completely at $103,000 (not $30 as you suggest), I would guess that most seniors do get it. I'd guess that only 1 or 2% of seniors make over $103,000 annually, so the remaining 98% or so do get OAS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturn Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Sure, but many abortion clincs were opened by doctors who put ideology above self-interest. Many of the population supports SSM for ideological reasons, and many more are putting themselves in harm's way to protect buildings from being blown up. So acting out of ideology cuts both ways. Agreed. But I still think that people will do more stupid things out of ideology rather than the lack of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 You know what it appears to me to be is that at some point OAP is clawed back completely. Maybe around $30 now. I don't really know but I do know people complain about receiving it and having to pay it back in income tax. So the worry about the baby boomers just isn't there. They appear to be the richest retires yet and while they will collect OAP they will pay it back and they, of course, never qualify for Government assisted pensions. Are there figures to show how many of this age group will be able to collect OAP and are we discussing a staw discussion. Yes everyone receives OAP but how any keep it. Very few I bet Given that OAS is clawed back completely at $103,000 (not $30 as you suggest), I would guess that most seniors do get it. I'd guess that only 1 or 2% of seniors make over $103,000 annually, so the remaining 98% or so do get OAS. Do you mean these seniors are still working at a paid job. So how is this set up? If I have an income of over $1700 I am immediately penalized. My OAP and Government assisted Pension is cut by that amount. It seems to me that we are talking apples and oranges. here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Do you mean these seniors are still working at a paid job. So how is this set up? The could be but most are not. Most of this additional income is usually withdrawal from RRSPs, company pension, or investment income. If I have an income of over $1700 I am immediately penalized. My OAP and Government assisted Pension is cut by that amount. It seems to me that we are talking apples and oranges. here. Yes you are. It is not your OAS which is cut. It is your GIS. The GIS is clawed back at $14,904. The OAS doesn't start to be clawed back until $63,511. Pensioners with an individual net income above $63,511 must repay part or all of the maximum Old Age Security pension amount. The repayment amounts are normally deducted from their monthly payments before they are issued. The full OAS pension is eliminated when a pensioner's net income is $102,865 or above.return Old Age Security Benefit Payment Rates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 But I still think that people will do more stupid things out of ideology rather than the lack of it. As always, what is "stupid" is a matter of perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.