27 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzIm not saying we should neglect our needy, your getting me all wrong, Im questioning the way we do it, Your saying that everyone should pay taxes so you can pay do less yourself right? I do believe "do unto others as you would have them do to you" not "force everyone to do what you should be doing yourself" My church of about 100 people raised $7,000 dollors for the homeless, Built two houses for free for homeless familys, bought 1 ton of turkeys for the needy for thanksgiving day, and I think it was about 1000 blankets for the homeless, and all this was just this year. now just think of what would happen if you gave that to the goverment to distribute. Im just telling you that $7,000 dollors going to the goverment for welfare, only a small amount of its actually going to the needy.
You want police so that they'll protect your interests, quite unconcerned about anyone elses lot in life. Your church must be proud of you and that fine Christian attitude you are cultivating.
Ahh, to sit on your veranda and watch the poor malnourished kids scraping in the dirt for a few of your handouts, because their parents are sick and can't wor ...[text shortened]... y that me, an atheist, has got more apparent moral fibre than you - a 'christian'.
Like you I worked for everything I got, My parents didnt pay for any of my schooling, And I had to work 10 years in construction before I could even go to school.
If you think you have more moral fibre then me, fine. Im not out trying to have the biggest morals or anything, Im just trying to help out any way I can, and my method of doing it is just different then yours.
Note that I dont know what the tax laws are in the UK, nor do I know how your econamy is, Im just expressing my opionion from what I see here in the USA.
27 Dec 05
Originally posted by flyUnityOkay, you're starting to come off a little better than your original post there. I understand your point, but one of the good things about the welfare state is that it distributes the costs of building a decent society amongst all the members. I appreciate that governments aren't always the best agencies in the world, but they get the job done, by and large. personal charity giving is great, but the problem is that people see something likelast years tsunami and give big, and then there is nothing for the rest. We are willing to throw a few bucks in a bucket, or do a church drive once or twice a year (good effort by the way) but we need co-ordinated schemes, something that charities find really difficult without a secure financial input.
Im not saying we should neglect our needy, your getting me all wrong, Im questioning the way we do it, Your saying that everyone should pay taxes so you can pay do less yourself right? I do believe "do unto others as you would have them do to you" not "force everyone to do what you should be doing yourself" My church of about 100 people raised $7,000 dollor ...[text shortened]... I know how your econamy is, Im just expressing my opionion from what I see here in the USA.
The other good thing about taxation to provide for social welfare etc, is that it does tax everyone equally (or progressively). It's not perfect, but without a tax system you'd have a minority giving, the majority not giving, and some of the rich not giving at all despite having plenty...
27 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's the point I believe that the role of guvamint is to protect my life liberty and private property, so I have no probs contributing for a police force, legal system and defence force. No probs at all, nup no bitching their. As for roads the fairest system is user pays.
Do you value a cop when you're getting robbed? A highway to drive on? Forced contributions to the taxman there, sport; go ahead and bitch about them.
i.e. You use it you pay for it, not, you don't use it you pay for it.
i.e. You don't use it you don't pay for it, not, you use it but you don't pay for it.
The technology is rapidly approaching where you can pay directly for the road you drive on...drive over a sensor in the road, records your vehicle. In the meantime while not ideal (because not all gasoline is used on the road) is a petrol tax that instead of going into the big pool is used just for roads.
27 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe welfare state promotes an uncaring society, as the state takes over a greater role in caring for the needy so people abdicate any sympathy for the less fortunate:
Okay, you're starting to come off a little better than your original post there. I understand your point, but one of the good things about the welfare state is that it distributes the costs of building a decent society amongst all the members. I appreciate that governments aren't always the best agencies in the world, but they get the job done, by and ...[text shortened]... ng, the majority not giving, and some of the rich not giving at all despite having plenty...
Bloke down the road with three kids looses his job, fuggit, let the gummint look after them.
This is evident in the states as welfare has grown voluntary charities have waned...hoorah for the state
*a half hearted apology for the sarcasm*
27 Dec 05
Originally posted by WajomaIt's the residential Ayn Rand butt-kisser...
The welfare state promotes an uncaring society, as the state takes over a greater role in caring for the needy so people abdicate any sympathy for the less fortunate:
Bloke down the road with three kids looses his job, fuggit, let the gummint look after them.
This is evident in the states as welfare has grown voluntary charities have waned...hoorah for the state
*a half hearted apology for the sarcasm*
I think you should start a clan called: "We suck Ayn and Rush's arse."
27 Dec 05
Originally posted by WajomaMy own thought is that the welfare state is the product of a caring society. These governments are voted into power, with their election promises of reducing hospital waiting times (because people don't have to go without treatment if they can't pay we have waiting cues), increasing pensions, lifting children out of poverty etc. I'm not saying people shouldn't do things in their own communities, and many do, but the state provides a life-line that individuals and charities cannot always do. For example, how many families do you know that could do with an extra $50 a week to help feed and clothe their kids? Probably most - raising kids isn't cheap. But the nation needs those kids for future workers. How many people would be put off having children, or would only choose to do it later in life because they can't afford it right now - i know i can't. Charity is all well and good for buying people clothes etc, and I'm sure they're very greatful but I feel that individuals cannot provide the same levels of long term support to people thta need a bit of help that the govt can.
The welfare state promotes an uncaring society, as the state takes over a greater role in caring for the needy so people abdicate any sympathy for the less fortunate:
Bloke down the road with three kids looses his job, fuggit, let the gummint look after them.
This is evident in the states as welfare has grown voluntary charities have waned...hoorah for the state
*a half hearted apology for the sarcasm*
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzYes but doesn't welfare breed lazy-assed people who do nothing but sit around waiting for a check?
My own thought is that the welfare state is the product of a caring society. These governments are voted into power, with their election promises of reducing hospital waiting times (because people don't have to go without treatment if they can't pay we have waiting cues), increasing pensions, lifting children out of poverty etc. I'm not saying people ...[text shortened]... e same levels of long term support to people thta need a bit of help that the govt can.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by slimjimNot really,
Yes but doesn't welfare breed lazy-assed people who do nothing but sit around waiting for a check?
Check this website out to see who social security is helping
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/0665.asp
You'll notice, for example that Child poverty is falling. You'll notice that 40% of low income families with children actually are couples at least one of which is in full time employment, and about the same proportion live in single parent families. THESE CHILDREN WOULD BECOME MALNOURISHED WITHOUT INCOME SUPPORT.
You'll also notice that diabled people are more likely to be unemployed than able bodied people, and that they're more likely to be poor.
And this in a country with an unemployment rate of 2.3% (office of national statistics).
28 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI am familiar with some of her ideas but haven't yet read the bible (Atlas Shrugged) so thanks for the humorous critique, I suggest you take it to the general thread.
It's the residential Ayn Rand butt-kisser...
I think you should start a clan called: "We suck Ayn and Rush's arse."
Who or what is rush?
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut the nation needs those kids for future workers.
My own thought is that the welfare state is the product of a caring society. These governments are voted into power, with their election promises of reducing hospital waiting times (because people don't have to go without treatment if they can't pay we have waiting cues), increasing pensions, lifting children out of poverty etc. I'm not saying people ...[text shortened]... e same levels of long term support to people thta need a bit of help that the govt can.
Who's this from....Stalin or Mao?
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by WajomaWell, in the UK for example we have a falling population. Who's going to pay for roads, police etc if we don't have tax coming in?
[b]But the nation needs those kids for future workers.
Who's this from....Stalin or Mao?[/b]
Come on Waj, this is all in economics 101.