Argus Posted March 30, 2014 Author Report Posted March 30, 2014 In the bigger picture, what's the actual breakdown of money spent assisting the poor in the overall budget? How does it stack up against subsidies to big businesses, for example? And how much overlap is there in services provided through different programs? For example in the case of aboriginal people, who constitute an overwhelming majority of street-people where I live... do we have Canada Human Resources and Indian Affairs throwing money at the same problems from different angles? I think I've made myself clear on numerous occasions on what I think of the way corporations manipulate the government and the tax code to slough their taxation off onto others. No sympathy for them from this quarter. But that's just it. The rich are manipulating the system so they don't have to pay their share. The poor are having the system manipulated for them so they don't pay a thing. Which leaves the cost on the middle class. As for how much money... smarter people than we would have to figure out what it costs to completely exempt one third of the adult population from paying taxes, then add in all the subsidies which lower many other people's taxes to little or nothing, then add on what we funnel into welfare, pogey, disability, natives, etc. It's likely to add up a huge chunk of change. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 30, 2014 Author Report Posted March 30, 2014 Ok, I think I understand now. It seems you think you're already doing enough for those sometimes called the working poor. They're not really "all that poor", as you point out, so you'd like them to be more poor. You have answered the question, it seems, by saying your responsibility is currently more than it should be. If we're just going to answer the question individually on the thread, then that's fine. And I think that the answer to the question will be worked out through politics, as always. Personally, I think that we should be doing more than pushing wages down and cutting a cheque for those who can't or won't work. You see, you're making a moral judgement there, a presumption. I want them to be more poor. Isn't that a variation of "Mike Harris hates the poor" which is why he cut welfare benefits? Where have I said I want the poor to be poorer? What I want is for government to ensure no one starves, freezes or goes without housing. I think that's moral enough. I also think if you've got video games, cable TV, high speed internet, computers, an Ipod and a car, you ain't all that poor that you should be exempted from paying taxes. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 You see, you're making a moral judgement there, a presumption. I want them to be more poor. Isn't that a variation of "Mike Harris hates the poor" which is why he cut welfare benefits? Where have I said I want the poor to be poorer? I don't know if you hate the poor. You just think the working poor are getting a 'free ride'. This means you think they should have less income as far as I can tell. I can't see any other way around it. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Moonlight Graham Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Frankly, I don't trust anecdotal opinions about what the poor have and don't have because people don't often know who truly is and is not on social assistance. I agree, a lot of what Argus said about "the poor" is anecdotal. Show me some statistics, show me some studies. Argus: I do not want anyone dying or being in pain for lack of health care. I do not want anyone starving to death or freezing in the dark. I realize poor people do freeze, starve, and die for lack of services all over the world, but I don't see my responsibility as being as great there, possibly because I know we here in Canada can't really stop it, especially given the horribly bad government in most of these places. And opinion this is based on what exactly? People with this opinion (and there seems to be a lot of them) clearly haven't done much research on the matter, and instead often use it as excuse to bury their heads in the sand so they can sleep at night. I honestly don't really find your opinions in the OP to have much if any research behind them. You seem to be making assumptions about matters you don't really seem to know that much about (ie: 1st hand experience being poor does not mean you're an expert on poor Canadians). Sorry if this sounds harsh. Edited March 31, 2014 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
eyeball Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 The reason I brought up the old days was that if you didn't pay tax in the old days you didn't get to vote. You were not considered to be an equal member of society. But there are no obligations today. You are a full and equal member of society with one equal vote whether you contribute tens of millions in taxes or contribute nothing at all. Now if you' contribute tens of millions, let's not kid ourselves, you almost certainly have enormous influence, far more than most people. But what about the big majority of people in the middle who pay tens of thousands in taxes? What does that buy you as compared to the guy who contributes nothing? Nothing. So the question is, should I feel fine with this, as a lot of people seem to think I should be, given I have a high income? Is it immoral to think ill of them and not want my money going to people who contribute nothing? More than half my money goes in taxes now. Heck, I'm in a 48% tax bracket just for income taxes. That doesn't count sales and service taxes, or municipal taxes. It doesn't seem to me unreasonable to look at these other people who pay nothing and wonder how it is that they're "poor" enough to not be contributing anything, and yet, not really all that poor. If I didn't know any better I'd say you're as or more uncomfortable with an influence and power gap as opposed to an income and wealth or taxation and benefit gap. If you're talking about redistributing influence to the big majority in the middle you'll certainly have my support. Of course you do realize there is only one sector of society that we can tax take that away from. Maybe a better question and thread title would be, What is our obligation to the powerful and influential? Next to nothing for the most part IMO, at this point the burden of obligation is virtually just as concentrated as power and wealth is. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 What I want is for government to ensure no one starves, freezes or goes without housing. I think that's moral enough. I also think if you've got video games, cable TV, high speed internet, computers, an Ipod and a car, you ain't all that poor that you should be exempted from paying taxes. How would you like the government to ensure this, increased Internet surveillance? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Rue Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Well I must say I enjoy -1's discourses. Very well stated. Crusty curmudgeon Argus also has stated his position as usual-blunt, specific and to the point.Like reading them both. I am a pragmatist on this issue. I believe it is impossible in a society that is to remain civilized, to ignore the disenfranchised whether they became that way because they were lazy, mentally ill, of limited intelligence, dishonest, what-ever words or descriptions you want to pretext the marginalization with because I think if you ignore them, they will commit crimes. So I agree with one of -1's first statements in this debate.I think we need to restate the question as to whether society has an obligation to implement systems to manage the marginalized. From a purely practical point of view I say yes. It contains and prevents crime, spread of disease, and spread of drugs. Edited March 31, 2014 by Rue Quote
Rue Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 Eyeball the answer is already coming. The technology already exists to put an implant in you to control your impulses, thoughts, etc.Its been successfully used on animals and volunteer convicts. It scares me because I see it coming around the corner no different than the red light cameras, etc. Its basically just an upgraded version of the electric shock collar some people put on dogs to get them to stop barking or jumping or running past a certain border. These implants are already used to block pain signals for people with chronic diseases that cause pain. The technology is not full proof. It has caused some to go into psychotic rage and done permanent brain damage to others. Big brother has only started. Then of course most people carry this device already and simply hold it to their brain. They call it a cell phone. Soon it will be presented as a cell phone you simply keep in your brain and people will buy into it as they did the internet and cell phone.. Quote
eyeball Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted March 31, 2014 Author Report Posted March 31, 2014 I honestly don't really find your opinions in the OP to have much if any research behind them. You seem to be making assumptions about matters you don't really seem to know that much about (ie: 1st hand experience being poor does not mean you're an expert on poor Canadians). Sorry if this sounds harsh. No, but it doesn't sound useful, either. What exacty do you question anyway? Do you question that one third of adult Canadians pay no income tax? That's pretty easily verifable. Do you question that the vast majority of these individuals are able to afford the same 'luxuries' as everyone else? Ie, cell phones, video game machines, computers, cable, internet, beer? Do you question that public housing units have parking? Ever been near any of them? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 31, 2014 Author Report Posted March 31, 2014 I don't know if you hate the poor. You just think the working poor are getting a 'free ride'. This means you think they should have less income as far as I can tell. I can't see any other way around it. They ARE getting a free ride. Or would you care to dispute that? They contribute nothing in exchange for the same rights and services I get. How is that not a free ride? We're talking about one third of the adult population here. And I'll bet none of them think of that as any kind of subsidy either.I'm willing to bet if you find some lunchpail toting guy who pays no taxes and suggest others are subsidizing his life he'd be indignant, and claim he gets nothing from the government, that he works for a living. Every time I've seen any public political discussion on issues involving taxation and benefits to the working poor it seems to be presented as a moral issue. You either want to help the poor, or you're somehow lacking, morally speaking, and greedy. I think there's an intermediate position between a libertarian "Let them fend for themselves or die" and the socialist belief in redistributing all wealth until everyone has more or less the same. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 31, 2014 Author Report Posted March 31, 2014 How would you like the government to ensure this, increased Internet surveillance? For one thing, I believe that a big chunk of those who are poor, are damned bad at managing money and making decisions. That being the case, perhaps they shouldn't be managing money and should have a lot more decisions made for them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 They ARE getting a free ride. Or would you care to dispute that? It's a value statement, not disputable. They contribute nothing in exchange for the same rights and services I get. How is that not a free ride? If we're still talking about the working poor then the system is designed that way - assuming your numbers are correct. Every time I've seen any public political discussion on issues involving taxation and benefits to the working poor it seems to be presented as a moral issue. Terms like "free ride" also imbue a morality. If you said that their taxes don't cover benefits, then that would be morally neutral IMO. I'm not going to be goaded into a moralistic debate on economics though, because those discussions go nowhere. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) ...I'm not going to be goaded into a moralistic debate on economics though, because those discussions go nowhere. Agreed...morality is far too subjective in such matters. But generalizing a bit about "standard of living", many people have forgotten what it actually means to be "poor", and the associated survival skill set is being lost. We used to save expensive aluminum foil for personal re-use, now we save it for municipal recycling. Edited March 31, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
WestCoastRunner Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 many people have forgotten what it actually means to be "poor", and the associated survival skill set is being lost. If you were to ask the working poor about survival skills, I bet they have a few things to say about that. Like, like reusing tin foil, sandwich bags, heading to the food bank to fill their cupboards before their next pay cheque comes in, signing up for xmas hamper, watering down powdered milk so it goes further, cramming 2 kids into a small one bedroom apt while the single mother sleeps on the couch, dining room, wherever. I would say those are pretty good survival skills. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
WestCoastRunner Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 And please don't say I'm off topic BC! Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) If you were to ask the working poor about survival skills, I bet they have a few things to say about that. Like, like reusing tin foil, sandwich bags, heading to the food bank to fill their cupboards before their next pay cheque comes in, signing up for xmas hamper, watering down powdered milk so it goes further, cramming 2 kids into a small one bedroom apt while the single mother sleeps on the couch, dining room, wherever. I would say those are pretty good survival skills. Dining room ? That's living "high on the hog". Nevertheless, there are some basic skills and strategies that "poor people" of yesteryear had that are no longer associated with that label and socioeconomic class. Like grade inflation, the terms "working poor" and "lower class" have come to mean a higher standard of living that far surpasses anything for actual "poor people" of one or two generations ago who went without robust safety nets and social services. Many people have forgotten how to be "poor" but still proudly independent, and the social stigma of living on welfare/pogey is mostly gone. Edited March 31, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
WestCoastRunner Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 Many people have forgotten how to be "poor" but still proudly independent, and the social stigma of living on welfare/pogey is mostly gone. Many people, including single working parents are fiercely proud and independent, which is why they are called 'the working' poor and do not live off welfare and work for a living to support their families. And come on, let's be real. Sleeping on a couch or a mattress on the dining room is living high off the hog? Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
The_Squid Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 It's pretty simple... It's probably the basis for our morality, whether we actually realize it or not. Society has a responsibility towards the least fortunate because by helping them it has been shown that it is a net benefit to society. e.g. providing welfare to poor people keeps them from going hungry. Hungry people steal food and commit crime. It is cheaper and more beneficial to provide welfare than let them and their families starve. Individuals have a responsibility because one day that could be us and it would be nice if someone helped us if we were in that situation. Of course, some people don't adhere to societal norms and would prefer the poor were not helped and wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone. Luckily for those people, we do have social programs and we do have individuals who help their neighbours when they're in a bind without those other people pitching in. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 Many people, including single working parents are fiercely proud and independent, which is why they are called 'the working' poor and do not live off welfare and work for a living to support their families. And come on, let's be real. Sleeping on a couch or a mattress on the dining room is living high off the hog? Perhaps I should have been clearer...having a separate "dining room" would not have been something associated with "poor people" and bottom tier housing. There is nothing wrong with being "poor" or "working class"...most of the world's people would fit such a description based on bloated middle and upper class standards of living. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
WestCoastRunner Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 There is nothing wrong with being "poor" or "working class"...most of the world's people would fit such a description based on bloated middle and upper class standards of living. I don't believe I said there was anything wrong with being 'working poor'. I have after all, been there, done that. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
cybercoma Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 I think you were looking for this --> Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) They contribute nothing in exchange for the same rights and services I get. How is that not a free ride? They contribute by not rioting and stealing your stuff. Every time I've seen any public political discussion on issues involving taxation and benefits to the working poor it seems to be presented as a moral issue. You either want to help the poor, or you're somehow lacking, morally speaking, and greedy. I think there's an intermediate position between a libertarian "Let them fend for themselves or die" and the socialist belief in redistributing all wealth until everyone has more or less the same. Yes, presenting it as a moral issue is the wrong approach. Which is why I suggested rewording the question and gave 3 'arguments' for some level of income distribution that are less morally controversial and are relatively easy to evaluate empirically. 2 of the arguments I gave can even be potentially pareto improving. For one thing, I believe that a big chunk of those who are poor, are damned bad at managing money and making decisions. That being the case, perhaps they shouldn't be managing money and should have a lot more decisions made for them. Are you advocating some central planning??? Terms like "free ride" also imbue a morality. I do not think that the free ride term is imbued with morality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem Society has a responsibility towards the least fortunate because by helping them it has been shown that it is a net benefit to society. Your statement is too strong. Whether you have a net benefit or not depends on the amount redistributed, the economic inefficiency of redistribution, implement costs of a redistribution program, etc. Individuals have a responsibility because one day that could be us and it would be nice if someone helped us if we were in that situation. Economic outcome is not something that is completely random. Edited March 31, 2014 by -1=e^ipi Quote
The_Squid Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 Your statement is too strong. Whether you have a net benefit or not depends on the amount redistributed, the economic inefficiency of redistribution, implement costs of a redistribution program, etc. In general, this is why society should help people. I never said, nor implied, that we should use all our wealth to help poor people... and clearly, it is not happening that way anyway. The statement is not too strong. The statement explains why it is beneficial for scoiety not to let people starve... or suffer with a medical condition... It benefits society to not allow that to happen. Economic outcome is not something that is completely random. I never said it was. Are you implying that people who need help deserve to be poor? Accidents happen. Bad luck happens. Poor health happens. People get in bad situations and we all deserve a helping hand, becasue that could be us one day. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Squid, you said "by helping them it has been shown to be of net benefit to society". You put zero restrictions on under what conditions helping them leads to a net benefit. You did not include words like 'sometimes' or 'usually', so yes your statement is too strong. You also said that "one day it could be us". How does that not imply that every person is at risk of being poor? Is Bill Gates at risk of being poor? Or are some people not at risk of being poor? In which case how can you confidently use the word 'us'. Just be more modest in your claims. It is not my fault if your literal meaning and intended meaning differ. Edited March 31, 2014 by -1=e^ipi Quote
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.