Communism failed because...

...it was never properly implemented.
15
42%
...it's a totally flawed system.
21
58%
 
Total voters : 36

Postby Scotty on Tue 6/Jun/06 8:17pm

phunk wrote:
Panserborne wrote: I'm taking it you are against any form of taxation, since it is "your" money?

Hell no, how would I get paid if there were no taxes :p

Yeah, are we self-employed? ..and anopther thing that's been doing in my nut: how much am I being taxed if I get paid by the government that taxes me? :eh:

Like I've always said, use money to increase access to education and health-care (poor get educated, stay healthy and barriers are removed to gainful employment).

Funnily enough, this is something both National and Labour governments seem to be poor at :huh:
Scotty
User avatar
Member for: 15 years 9 months

Postby Panserborne on Tue 6/Jun/06 8:18pm

Phunk, my point about the taxes is that isn't the Government taxing us advocating the use of other people's money? And yet it is necessary. Now how, say if a UBI was applied, is it any different, the Government advocating the use of others money. That is what you were saying earlier.

You are right, throwing money at problems will not solve the problem, but certainly help it. How is it that a UBI will prevent people from getting jobs, as that is what you seem to be saying. Yet a UBI would not significantly hinder the economy. And hiring the man to help with accountant work rather than cleaning a pointless jet would help both, alot more.
Panserborne
Member for: 12 years 2 months

Postby Chris_D on Tue 6/Jun/06 8:22pm

Panserborne's justifications never fail to make me giggle out loud a little.
Chris_D
Member for: 12 years 1 month

Postby thorg on Tue 6/Jun/06 8:24pm

Panserborne wrote: Phunk, my point about the taxes is that isn't the Government taxing us advocating the use of other people's money? And yet it is necessary. Now how, say if a UBI was applied, is it any different, the Government advocating the use of others money. That is what you were saying earlier.

You are right, throwing money at problems will not solve the problem, but certainly help it. How is it that a UBI will prevent people from getting jobs, as that is what you seem to be saying. Yet a UBI would not significantly hinder the economy. And hiring the man to help with accountant work rather than cleaning a pointless jet would help both, alot more.


I think your value judgements is what is pissing most peole off, as much as the flawed logic behind your posts.

The jet may be pointless to you, but why shouldnt a person buy one? Who gets to decide what is pointless under your uber regime? what prevents people under your scheme spending more than they earn and remaining as poor as they are now?

And I belive Phunks point was taxes should be used for 'public good', not 'wage reallocation' - there is a big difference, though some wage reallocation does form part of the public good.
thorg
User avatar
"what blog?"
Member for: 13 years 6 months

Postby Panserborne on Tue 6/Jun/06 8:59pm

Helping the poor may be pointless to you, but why shouldn't starvation be prevented?

I cannot accept that a single person here would consider that a person should buy a jet when a life could be saved or considerably helped. Sure, all of us are selfish, but I hope you can at least accept that a country SHOULD be trying to help the poor for a better society, rather than just buying assesories. Otherwise, I think there is something wrong with your head.
Panserborne
Member for: 12 years 2 months

Postby Scotty on Tue 6/Jun/06 9:00pm

Otherwise, I think there is something wrong with your head.

Pot - kettle - black
Scotty
User avatar
Member for: 15 years 9 months

Postby phunk on Tue 6/Jun/06 9:02pm

Panserborne wrote: Helping the poor may be pointless to you, but why shouldn't starvation be prevented?


I have outlined the way the poor would be better helped, you have chosen to ignore that then, well done, come back and play when you have grown up a little.
phunk
User avatar
Member for: 13 years 9 months

Postby Panserborne on Tue 6/Jun/06 9:10pm

phunk wrote:
Panserborne wrote: Helping the poor may be pointless to you, but why shouldn't starvation be prevented?


I have outlined the way the poor would be better helped, you have chosen to ignore that then, well done, come back and play when you have grown up a little.


And I have outlined the way the poor would actually be better helped, i did not ignore it, rather disagreed, discuss the topic rather than throwing pointless petty insults into a computer screen.
Panserborne
Member for: 12 years 2 months

Postby Dougal on Tue 6/Jun/06 9:12pm

Panserborne wrote: Helping the poor may be pointless to you, but why shouldn't starvation be prevented?


Are there people currently starving in NZ?

If there are, how will a little more money help them?
Dougal
Member for: 14 years 7 months

Postby MikeD on Tue 6/Jun/06 10:17pm

Panserborne wrote:
Where would the money come from? Obviously taxing the rich alot more, as the idea is to balance out, and I guess some money would be saved by eliminating other welfare systems. But I'm no economist either.


I don't think you realize the amounts of money about which you're talking, and the number of 'rich' versus the number of 'poor.' While what you're describing might sound, in the abstract, like a great idea, let's say I'll need more than a little convincing on the numbers of this all. I'm theorizing that the vast majority of the population can not receive any sort of meaningful income supplement from the 'rich' (let's say, those whose taxes exceed their UBI) without bringing the rich down to an income level which will, in turn, make them just not bother to make so much money and support your system/UBI population, since it's all going away anyhow. Or, again, they WILL just move. 'Rich' people tend to do that, since they DO care a lot about their money. That's one reason they're rich in the first place.

Panserborne wrote:
A major benefit of the UBI over our current welfare system is that people have no worries about losing it. At the moment people may not get a job that pays a bit more, worried about losing their welfare, but that won't happen with a UBI.


That, to me, is one of the major flaws of your system. Welfare should, by its nature, be temporary and uncomfortable.

Panserborne wrote:
You go on saying it will have people less inclined to work. Isn't that jumping the gun a bit. How many people are currently on the doll? Nobody has to work now.


I'm not too familiar with the specifics of NZ's dole, but I bet it sucks to be on it for most people. Most people consider themselves 'having' to work, and those who don't care enough, I'm guessing, aren't what we'd consider model citizens or members of society. But being on the dole, for most people, would suck, and they don't want to be there. That's good.

Panserborne wrote:
Besides, people have great incentive to work. All work they do still gives them money over the UBI (which should not be enough to live on alone). Besides, if the problem of those not working gets out of hand (which, honestly it would not. How many of you would choose to leave your job to watch tv all day, woth no assesories, only enough cash for food) you could take the UBI away from those who refuse to work, or restrict it.


Now it's sounding like a traditional welfare system. But with the UBI, it's a welfare system which takes the negative aspects of welfare (not that welfare is an overall negative, but it has drawbacks) and spreading them over society as a whole. Recall the balancing-act calculus people will make between their work income and the UBI income. They'll have incentive to work just enough.

Panserborne wrote:
And tell me what's so absurd about taxing the rich a bit more? Effictively the rich wouldn't really recieve the UBI since they get it all taxed away. A balancing out on society must be a good thing.


I like the 'must' in here.

Panserborne wrote:
So what is so unrealistic about the UBI? The money? I have seen some information somewhere about how it could actually help the economy, or at least not make it much worse. And surely the social result of the UBI is more important than a small upset in the economy anyway? People leaving to go to another country? Not many would, and we're probably better off without greedy richasses in NZ anyway.


Well hell, sign me up. You read something somewhere about how great it is? Shit, let's do it. Especially since I don't live in NZ. Although it's such a great place that I'd hate to see it ruined.

"Richasses??" Now you're giving us a nice peek into your psyche. You don't want to help the poor so much as punish the rich. You're consistently the one bringing normative judgements into this argument, and ones based purely on someone's wealth to boot.

Anyhow, those "richasses" generally keep your country running, for better or worse. They did it under communism, too.

I just can't waste any more time on this one. I'm sure I've given you plenty of material to bitch about to your commie friends over a flat white, though, so I guess my mission is accomplished. You simply wouldn't engage E-Dogg on the philosophical issues of Marxism, and we can't seem to shake you on the complete impracticality of the practical aspects....so, um, go enjoy life. At least you'll have a lot to complain about the entire time.

MD
MikeD
Member for: 14 years 11 months

Postby mudguard on Tue 6/Jun/06 10:30pm

Shit, I looked up the dole before, I think I'm poor on $400 a week, jeez the dole's $140 for a 20-25 yo living away from home.
Where do I sign up? After rent I have ten bucks to waste.
mudguard
User avatar
Member for: 14 years 5 months

Postby SlackBoy on Tue 6/Jun/06 10:48pm

I used to get $185 when I was on the dole many years ago.
I don't know about Panser, but thats fuck all. I couldn't really live on it. Not any any stretch of a reasonable standard. Now yes I CHOOSE not to put my self thru the education system, and I choose to work low level, low stress work.
Hmmm I seem to be argueing both sides of the point here.
UBI is not the answer. And there will always be people on the dole. Some don't want to be there, but are, and others choose to be. Sure it means pretty much living on teh fringe of society, and sure some of those people are there cos they are inherrently lazy, but there are also others that aren't. Those that fall thru the cracks, those that choose to deal with their own issues without the help of institutions.
Not everyone is able to use their intelligence and be rich, or at least well off like Phunk is, or will be. The same goes for most of those posting here. Heck or even just middle of the road.
I actually think the current system works quite well. not to say that it couldn't be improved slightly. but on the whole it works.
Taxing teh rich to oblivion is stupider than Helen Clark is attractive
SlackBoy
User avatar
Member for: 15 years 11 months

Postby Chris_D on Wed 7/Jun/06 8:40am

Panserborne wrote: Helping the poor may be pointless to you, but why shouldn't starvation be prevented?

I cannot accept that a single person here would consider that a person should buy a jet when a life could be saved or considerably helped. Sure, all of us are selfish, but I hope you can at least accept that a country SHOULD be trying to help the poor for a better society, rather than just buying assesories. Otherwise, I think there is something wrong with your head.


Well then by your justification, I'm disgusted at you for buying whatever computer you're using to type this message. You're an appalling excuse for a human being for owning a bike, the value of which could have fed a dozen starving kids in africa for a year. How dare you?

And Slackboy - you certainly dont need to be an educated person to make a lot of money - in fact most of the people on the rich list never went to university.
Chris_D
Member for: 12 years 1 month

Postby phunk on Wed 7/Jun/06 10:16am

phunk
User avatar
Member for: 13 years 9 months

Postby phunk on Wed 7/Jun/06 11:41am

George Reisman wrote:Among the most important things that Mises showed is that the pursuit of self-interest is the foundation of the saving and investment and continuous innovation and improvement of products and methods of production that serves to raise the standard of living of all. In a country governed by the principle of the individual’s pursuit of his own happiness, the standard of living of the very poorest comes to surpass the standard of living of the very richest of a few generations back.
phunk
User avatar
Member for: 13 years 9 months

International Politics | Politics | Sifting - Latest Posts

Who is online

49 Users browsing this website: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], nagem, OliverBendix, Rik, Velocipedestrian, Wobbler and 40 guests

REMEBER TO CLICK THE LINKS WHEN BUYING FROM VORB SUPPORTERS


  • Vorb Shop
  • Wiggle
  • Chain Reaction Cycles
  • GT Bicycles
  • Merlin Cycles
  • ProBikeKit