Entitlements?

[Alceste]

I should answer the Op's questions, but instead I'm going to ask even more questions.

Should only the rich be required to sacrifice for the common good or should it be every citizen's responsibility?

Progressive tax rates are distribute the financial burden of taxation evenly across the entire population. If, as is the case in the US, the top tier of taxpayers pay a lower percentage than the middle class on their income, then only the top tier must receive a tax increase to restore a progressive rate of taxation. Obviously.

The alternative is to lower the tax rates of every income group below that of the top tier. Given that the US is carrying a massive debt and deficit burden, I'm sure you can see why that is a stupid idea.

Should unproductive people be entitled to only receive things or should they be responsible as well?

Everybody, productive or not, should have a basic minimum standard of survival and equal opportunity to advance beyond this minimum standard based on their own efforts. We are all responsible for attaining our personal goals and aspirations in life, but many exceptions apply. For example, children are not responsible for their parents' lack of ambition or inability to earn enough to maintain a basic, minimum standard of living. Therefore, society must take steps to ensure children do not end up simply repeating the patterns of behavior learned from their parents, and it must take steps to ensure they don't starve to death, live in the back of a car or die of a treatable illness in the mean time.

I believe to those much is given much should be expected from them as well.

I don't believe in a society where much is expected and nothing is given in return, generation after generation. We have to break the cycle.

If all my basic needs where provided for, I would have no incentive to do anything and probably would not.

I agree we have to break that cycle: the richest 1% of the population, generation after generation, takes everything they can grab from the commons and returns as little as possible.

If you would be satisfied with a basic subsistence level of shelter, food, water, medical treatment and education and lose your ambition to work toward your personal goals, I would say you're pretty abnormal. We can't assume that EVERYBODY is as lazy as you are. Looking at the world around me, that does not appear to be the case.

 

[work in progress]

I should answer the Op's questions, but instead I'm going to ask even more questions.

Should only the rich be required to sacrifice for the common good or should it be every citizen's responsibility?

Okay, how about only those who's wealth and income has dramatically increased over the last 30 years should be asked to contribute ALOT more?

Should unproductive people be entitled to only receive things or should they be responsible as well?

That entitlement should not be conditional. Even most people who are on welfare and disability payments seek out ways to contribute and improve their personal self-esteem......I do some volunteer work with people who are living on the system, so they are real people to me, not some abstract term in a political debate.

I believe to those much is given much should be expected from them as well.

I agree! All of the trust fund babies who have been privileged with inherited wealth, should be required to do more for the general welfare of society.

 

[Valjean]

I should answer the Op's questions, but instead I'm going to ask even more questions.

Should only the rich be required to sacrifice for the common good or should it be every citizen's responsibility?

A society, ideally, should function as a very large family, with everyone co-operating and looking out for the others' interests.

Should unproductive people be entitled to only receive things or should they be responsible as well?

Responsible how? Do you mean "contributing?"

If they're physically or psychologically unable to contribute, what are you going to do, kick them to the curb? We're all one big family. How would you deal with your elderly, non-productive parents?

I believe to those much is given much should be expected from them as well.

Noblesse oblige?

If all my basic needs where provided for, I would have no incentive to do anything and probably would not.

You're in a minority, then. Social scientists and psychologists have found that there are other strong motivators. Many people will work harder for status than for money, for example.

 

[Cassiopia]

Do people deserve to have a job? Is it a basic right? How would you create a system that ensures all able-bodied people had employment?
This is actually the most difficult of your questions because in reality I don't think it will ever again be possible for all people to have a job due to mechanization, technology and the increasing population. Thus I think we need to be thinking of new socio-political models that do not depend on employment.

Do people deserve a home? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?
Yes I believe they do. It doesn't have to be grand but I do think having a roof over ones head should be a basic right in a civilized world.

Do people deserve free medical, paid for proactively, through taxation? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?
Yes absolutely, good health care free at the point of need should be a basic human right. If we can split the atom and send people to the moon but cannot give adequate care to the sick in our society then we deserve to be raptured and let the bees or the dolphins take over!

Do people deserve a "living wage"? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?
I think it is a basic right that workers should be paid fairly for what they do. I also think it is good for the economy if more people can afford more things.

Do people deserve a free education, up to and including, a doctorate? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?
Yes I believe this should be a right and that a well educated society bodes well for the future prosperity of any country. (Whereas uneducated ghettos will always bring a nations prospects down).

Do people have a responsibility to help those around them? Is it a basic obligation? If not, why not? Is so, why?
Yes absolutely. For every right there should be a responsibility, including the responsibility not to abuse your rights and privileges.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Progressive tax rates are distribute the financial burden of taxation evenly across the entire population.

Of course people who are well off should pay more taxes than others. My issue is with folks who pay zero federal income tax. There should be a minimum tax everyone pays. If we are suppose to all be in this together, everyone should contribute something right?

children are not responsible for their parents' lack of ambition or inability to earn enough to maintain a basic, minimum standard of living.

I agree, it's not the children's fault their parents are not good providers. The problem as I see it in many cases, the help we give these children never gets to the children because it has to pass through the parent's first.

There just as bad as these rich folks you rail against.

I want the truly needy to get what they need, not give it to the people who have proven time and time again they will make the wrong choices at every opportunity.

 

[Magic Man]

I should answer the Op's questions, but instead I'm going to ask even more questions.

Should only the rich be required to sacrifice for the common good or should it be every citizen's responsibility?

It should be every citizen's responsibility, which is why that's how it's set up. Unfortunately, right now the middle class is sacrificing a lot more than the rich, and that needs to change.

Should unproductive people be entitled to only receive things or should they be responsible as well?

This doesn't make sense. Everyone who can should be responsible for themselves and for each other.

I don't believe in a society where much is expected and nothing is given in return, generation after generation. We have to break the cycle.

What cycle? The cycle where the rich bleed everyone else dry by controlling the government? I agree.

If all my basic needs where provided for, I would have no incentive to do anything and probably would not.

Really? So, if you lived in a crappy, roach-infested apartment, had to eat Ramen noodles and ham sandwiches all the time and had 2 changes of clothes, you wouldn't have incentive to try to improve your situation? I find that sad. Unless I was being given $50,000 a year, I'd have plenty of incentive to improve my situation.

 

[Magic Man]

I'd say if you feel the need to keep pushing the conversation in a direction I wasn't discussing, then I don't really have any interest in playing your transparent game.

Her point still stands, though. Unfortunately, in any society, your economic status is not solely a result of your decisions. Plus, your decisions aren't solely under your own control. Your decisions are heavily influenced by the culture you were raised in. If you were raised in the culture of poverty, you're likely to continue to make the "poverty" choices. I understand that you came from poverty and have done well for yourself, but not everyone is wired the same. You're more of the exception than the rule.

 

[Magic Man]

Of course people who are well off should pay more taxes than others. My issue is with folks who pay zero federal income tax. There should be a minimum tax everyone pays. If we are suppose to all be in this together, everyone should contribute something right?

Everyone who can, sure. Someone making $16,000 trying to support themselves shouldn't be expected to pay much, if anything at all. However, they're still going to pay taxes, since they'll still end up paying at least some out of: payroll taxes, sales, state, local, Medicare, SS, and excise taxes, even if they don't pay federal income tax.

I'm assuming the point of this is the tired old "47% of Americans don't pay taxes". Most of those people do pay taxes; they just don't pay federal income tax. Many of the people in that group pay a higher percentage in taxes when you add in all of the other taxes we pay than many rich people. Also, all of those 47% make less than $35,000.

There just as bad as these rich folks you rail against.

Whoa there. That's a little much. People who mooch off the system are not ideal individuals, but they're nowhere near as bad as bankers who knowingly screw people over just to make a quick buck, thereby ultimately destroying not only the U.S.'s economy, but the whole world's.

I want the truly needy to get what they need, not give it to the people who have proven time and time again they will make the wrong choices at every opportunity.

I want the truly needy to get what they need, and to give help to the people who grew up in poverty to make better choices so that they can get out of poverty.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Her point still stands, though.

That's fine, as I never argued against, or even discussed her point. My point still stands also, that I think the idea of "deserving" is a rather meaningless concept. Another point that was never argued against or discussed.

 

[Alceste]

I'd say if you feel the need to keep pushing the conversation in a direction I wasn't discussing, then I don't really have any interest in playing your transparent game.

Read: "I see I have made a philosophically indefensible statement. Rather than acknowledging my error, I will now refuse to continue the conversation."

If you weren't discussing whether a person's economic situation is, more often than not, primarily the direct result of their personal choices, what were you discussing?

 

[Alceste]

That's fine, as I never argued against, or even discussed her point. My point still stands also, that I think the idea of "deserving" is a rather meaningless concept. Another point that was never argued against or discussed.

I found that point ambiguous because, after saying "deserving" is a meaningless concept, you concluded with the opinion people tend to get what they deserve, in your experience.

I do agree that "deserve" is a meaningless concept, though. I said as much in my response to the OP. Public policy should not be created out of an impulse to reward or punish various demographics for their collective merits or character flaws.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I do agree that "deserve" is a meaningless concept, though. I said as much in my response to the OP.

Then we're in agreement. Why the need to force an argument then?

I'll never understand people.

 

[Reverend Rick]

A society, ideally, should function as a very large family, with everyone co-operating and looking out for the others' interests.

I'm with you so far.

Responsible how? Do you mean "contributing?"

If they're physically or psychologically unable to contribute, what are you going to do, kick them to the curb? We're all one big family. How would you deal with your elderly, non-productive parents?

There are many ways to contribute. I don't want to kick anyone to the curb, but just because many cannot do much should not excuse the able bodied people from contributing to the family right?

You're in a minority, then. Social scientists and psychologists have found that there are other strong motivators. Many people will work harder for status than for money, for example.

History would disagree with you. Living in a project on food stamps for five generations is my example of people who are satisfied with a bare existence.

If we had a program where you could get 10,000 a year for doing absolutely nothing or 20,000 a year and you had to come to a building every day and do manual work, I guarantee you more folks would choose the former than the latter.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I found that point ambiguous because, after saying "deserving" is a meaningless concept, you concluded with the opinion people tend to get what they deserve, in your experience.

Ah, I see the confusion. I said people get what they "deserve" (in quotes) to stress my statement that it's a meaningless concept. If you continued to read my explanation, I went on to say that I didn't think the idea that there was an underlying fairness was valid. To elucidate, I guess I would define "deserve" as "things are what they are." Do children in Africa "deserve" to starve? No. Do they "deserve" food and housing? No. The whole concept is flawed when taking into account the human animal. It's certainly not a bad thing, in the short term, to attempt to build a structure which embodies this idea of "deserving," but, looking at psychology, sociology, history, and cycles, it isn't consistent or sustainable in any way.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Ah, I see the confusion. I said people get what they "deserve" (in quotes) to stress my statement that it's a meaningless concept. If you continued to read my explanation, I went on to say that I didn't think the idea that there was an underlying fairness was valid. To elucidate, I guess I would define "deserve" as "things are what they are." Do children in Africa "deserve" to starve? No. Do they "deserve" food and housing? No. The whole concept is flawed when taking into account the human animal. It's certainly not a bad thing, in the short term, to attempt to build a structure which embodies this idea of "deserving," but, looking at psychology, sociology, history, and cycles, it isn't consistent or sustainable in any way.

Excellent point Mr.Trout

I wonder if people see the hypocrisy when they could be sending 20 bucks a month somewhere to help starving people and then turn around and want to drive a nicer car or live in a bigger house while condemning wall street and the millionaires for doing the exact same thing.

Yes, they want someone else to do the right thing but turn a blind eye to their own social responsibility.

 

[Magic Man]

Excellent point Mr.Trout

I wonder if people see the hypocrisy when they could be sending 20 bucks a month somewhere to help starving people and then turn around and want to drive a nicer car or live in a bigger house while condemning wall street and the millionaires for doing the exact same thing.

Yes, they want someone else to do the right thing but turn a blind eye to their own social responsibility.

There's quite a difference, though. I'm already paying my share of taxes. I haven't intentionally screwed people over to make a quick buck. I donate to charities. I don't have anything especially nice. I don't have loads of money left over after I pay my basic bills. I am doing my social responsibility. Sure, I could do more. I could live in a crappy apartment, drive a car that's always in danger of breaking down on me (rather than a 4 year-old one with 40,000 miles that cost me $11,000), eat just enough to get by, and give the rest of my money to help others. But I'm not asking anyone else to do that, and I don't expect it of myself. I'm asking people to do basically what I'm doing as outlined above (although, of course if you're making 10 times as much as me, you're welcome to have nice things and have money left over, as long as you're paying your share of taxes).

 

[Reverend Rick]

There's quite a difference, though. I'm already paying my share of taxes. I haven't intentionally screwed people over to make a quick buck. I donate to charities. I don't have anything especially nice. I don't have loads of money left over after I pay my basic bills. I am doing my social responsibility. Sure, I could do more.

Good for you Matt. If your paying any federal income tax at all, you most likely are paying your fair share.

The top 10% of Americans pay 70% of the taxes. I believe they are paying their fair share as well.

All I am saying is, it is very hypocritical to expect someone else to solve all the problems for everyone else. We all need to roll our sleeves up and do more, all of us.

Until every American gets their oar in the water and starts rowing, we will go nowhere.

Surely you don't expect one person out of a hundred to fix everything while the other 99 sit on their butts do you?

 

[Alceste]

Good for you Matt. If your paying any federal income tax at all, you most likely are paying your fair share.

The top 10% of Americans pay 70% of the taxes. I believe they are paying their fair share as well.

All I am saying is, it is very hypocritical to expect someone else to solve all the problems for everyone else. We all need to roll our sleeves up and do more, all of us.

Until every American gets their oar in the water and starts rowing, we will go nowhere.

Surely you don't expect one person out of a hundred to fix everything while the other 99 sit on their butts do you?

When that 1 person controls 8 times as much wealth as the other 99 combined, but pays taxes at a lower rate than the average, it makes sense that she needs to do a little bit more to restore the balance of effort. If the middle class is paying enough tax and the top 1% are paying less than the middle class, how are the top 1% paying enough? Shouldn't they AT LEAST be paying the same rate as the middle class?

 

[Reverend Rick]

When that 1 person controls 8 times as much wealth as the other 99 combined, but pays taxes at a lower rate than the average, it makes sense that she needs to do a little bit more to restore the balance of effort. If the middle class is paying enough tax and the top 1% are paying less than the middle class, how are the top 1% paying enough? Shouldn't they AT LEAST be paying the same rate as the middle class?

I believe everyone should have to pay something and many should pay more.

 

[Willamena]

Of late, I have been wondering where people got the idea that they deserve different things.

Ego and possession. The "I" gets it in its head that it owns things --a brain, a body, a thought. Self-worth is born, the idea that the self has worth, found in having things. "Life" gave them to it; "nature" gave them to it; "god" gave them to it --so it must be worthy of these things (self-worth extrapolated to a giver). And because some of them are inalienable (cannot be taken away), it is special for having certain things given it. De-serving is being served (life... on a platter...).