Post by starm on Oct 4, 2004 18:07:06 GMT -5
Social services have been shown to increase the flow of money because people in good health are more productive. There are all kinds of psychological and physical advantages to having these programs. Why do you think that even the most money driven corporations usually force their employees at taking a huge part of their salary in benefices? It is because they know those healthy employees are productive employees. If the government provided a greater part of these things to its citizens it would increase productivity and quality of life in general. You have to increase taxes so that it is viable but the tax increase to corporations isn’t as high as it looks. It won’t drive companies away because they also save a lot. They don’t need to provide as much benefices to their employees since the government provides it instead. The companies benefit from workers that have profited from social services all their life and are therefore more qualified, more psychologically balanced and are able to compete better in the global economy. Therefore, the number of jobs increases, specially the good ones that need higher education and that have good pay.
Some government services like roads, a legal system, police, etc… are an obvious boost to the economy. Some services have a less obvious boost but that doesn’t mean we should not have those services. Experts in different fields will tell you that offering services save money. For example, a lot of psychologists and psychiatrists are convinced that if they could give free therapy to families and children with problems early in their life they could prevent a lot of them from becoming criminals and thus reduce the cost of crime police, and reduce criminal influence (criminals turn their peers into criminals) in the long term.
True, there are cheaters in the system. And there are probably lots of them. But I believe you should not go out of your way to punish them, that’s just punishing yourself. You should try to do everything you can that dissuade the cheating by tailoring the system so that it is not advantageous to cheat, but only if it doesn’t impair your lifestyle to do so. Cutting social services impairs your lifestyle and raises the cost of living. I know humans have an instinct against freeloaders, there’s a bell that rings in our head at the thought of the possibility of being exploited. Basic instincts can help us lots of times, but we have the advantage over animals that we are intellectual beings. Don’t let that basic instinct get to you when your intellect can tell you that you are better off if you just ignore the freeloaders sometimes. Be proud of your legacy to society and to America. Don’t be scared it will just benefit the freeloaders. Be glad that you made a better place to live for the other hard workers which are doing the same for you. Yes if you look at it directly I can see how it can seem to benefit mostly others, but it is as much for your benefit, the benefit of the economy and of corporations. You have to look at the big picture. It will be very beneficial for you that everyone around you is competent and sane. There are high costs associated with the opposite situation. You’re right taking your hard earned money and forcing you to give it to others for no reason is bad. But this is for your benefit. It also acts as a kind of insurance to you. If ever you or a member of your family gets really sick or you loose your house and everything you own in a disaster, you will have government help to fall on. One of the nice things with social services is that it is multiplicative. When people are taken car of, they can themselves help others who can help even more people.
I firmly believe capitalism (or profit maximization) is the only way for countries to work well. It is a form of economic survival of the fittest where the better, easier, cheaper alternative is the one that thrives. It is the most natural way to efficient life. But I still think you have to be intelligent about it and not view only the direct obvious causality link (my money goes to the poor), but the big picture where the sum of all direct and indirect advantages are accounted for.
One argument towards taxing the rich is that, you can rarely "hard work" your way into making a salary of $1000000 a year. If you do make that salary it’s probably that you inherited money, you manipulated the market (possibly illegally), or you were just plain lucky (you put your money at the right place at the right time). You may have worked hard. But the hard work usually doesn't account for that high a salary. A person making $1 000 000 per year probably doesn’t work five times harder or has five times more skills than a person making $200 000. I think people who have acquired their wealth through, manipulation, luck, or inheritance, should be the first ones to be taxed a lot because they haven’t worked for their money.
Also assuming we keep the incentive to be productive constant, there is a fixed amount of resources and wealth in a country. That means each time we let someone make a $1000 000/year salary that’s ten hard working, educated people that have to work at McDonald instead of making $100 000/year each in a good job that’s uses their education and makes the country more productive.
The democrats have been known to give more social services than the republicans yet the unemployment rate was at its lowest and growth at its highest during times governed by the democrats (see link below). With the increased services, the government spending was lower during the years governed by the democrats even when not counting military spending. That means that even while offering social services they managed to keep the freeloaders to a very low level. The numbers prove that. If social services would be making people lazy, the unemployment rate would have gone up. The democrat administration managed to give the US citizen the benefit of social services without making more freeloaders profit from the system. The republican’s simplistic strategy of reducing taxes and hoping for the best has always failed in comparison to the democrat’s economic policies. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29205-2004Jul30?language=printer)
This comment is public domain please spread my words.
Some government services like roads, a legal system, police, etc… are an obvious boost to the economy. Some services have a less obvious boost but that doesn’t mean we should not have those services. Experts in different fields will tell you that offering services save money. For example, a lot of psychologists and psychiatrists are convinced that if they could give free therapy to families and children with problems early in their life they could prevent a lot of them from becoming criminals and thus reduce the cost of crime police, and reduce criminal influence (criminals turn their peers into criminals) in the long term.
True, there are cheaters in the system. And there are probably lots of them. But I believe you should not go out of your way to punish them, that’s just punishing yourself. You should try to do everything you can that dissuade the cheating by tailoring the system so that it is not advantageous to cheat, but only if it doesn’t impair your lifestyle to do so. Cutting social services impairs your lifestyle and raises the cost of living. I know humans have an instinct against freeloaders, there’s a bell that rings in our head at the thought of the possibility of being exploited. Basic instincts can help us lots of times, but we have the advantage over animals that we are intellectual beings. Don’t let that basic instinct get to you when your intellect can tell you that you are better off if you just ignore the freeloaders sometimes. Be proud of your legacy to society and to America. Don’t be scared it will just benefit the freeloaders. Be glad that you made a better place to live for the other hard workers which are doing the same for you. Yes if you look at it directly I can see how it can seem to benefit mostly others, but it is as much for your benefit, the benefit of the economy and of corporations. You have to look at the big picture. It will be very beneficial for you that everyone around you is competent and sane. There are high costs associated with the opposite situation. You’re right taking your hard earned money and forcing you to give it to others for no reason is bad. But this is for your benefit. It also acts as a kind of insurance to you. If ever you or a member of your family gets really sick or you loose your house and everything you own in a disaster, you will have government help to fall on. One of the nice things with social services is that it is multiplicative. When people are taken car of, they can themselves help others who can help even more people.
I firmly believe capitalism (or profit maximization) is the only way for countries to work well. It is a form of economic survival of the fittest where the better, easier, cheaper alternative is the one that thrives. It is the most natural way to efficient life. But I still think you have to be intelligent about it and not view only the direct obvious causality link (my money goes to the poor), but the big picture where the sum of all direct and indirect advantages are accounted for.
One argument towards taxing the rich is that, you can rarely "hard work" your way into making a salary of $1000000 a year. If you do make that salary it’s probably that you inherited money, you manipulated the market (possibly illegally), or you were just plain lucky (you put your money at the right place at the right time). You may have worked hard. But the hard work usually doesn't account for that high a salary. A person making $1 000 000 per year probably doesn’t work five times harder or has five times more skills than a person making $200 000. I think people who have acquired their wealth through, manipulation, luck, or inheritance, should be the first ones to be taxed a lot because they haven’t worked for their money.
Also assuming we keep the incentive to be productive constant, there is a fixed amount of resources and wealth in a country. That means each time we let someone make a $1000 000/year salary that’s ten hard working, educated people that have to work at McDonald instead of making $100 000/year each in a good job that’s uses their education and makes the country more productive.
The democrats have been known to give more social services than the republicans yet the unemployment rate was at its lowest and growth at its highest during times governed by the democrats (see link below). With the increased services, the government spending was lower during the years governed by the democrats even when not counting military spending. That means that even while offering social services they managed to keep the freeloaders to a very low level. The numbers prove that. If social services would be making people lazy, the unemployment rate would have gone up. The democrat administration managed to give the US citizen the benefit of social services without making more freeloaders profit from the system. The republican’s simplistic strategy of reducing taxes and hoping for the best has always failed in comparison to the democrat’s economic policies. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29205-2004Jul30?language=printer)
This comment is public domain please spread my words.
