Wisconsin in the news

[_asbestosman]

I get the idea of fairness behind a progressive tax system--that of ability to pay and still have money left over for needs and wants. Those who make more can afford to be taxed more. I don't believe it fair to tax someone making $20,000 / year at the same rate I'm taxed. So, I do indeed believe in some sort of progressive tax system. I just see the brackets differently than most people do. I'm not barely scraping by, therefore I shouldn't be treated as such for tax purposes. If we need more taxes to pay for the projects we voted on, then I should pay the same as the wealthy since both of us can afford it. Yes, they can afford it more than I can. However, they are not more responsible to bear the burden than I am. Otherwise I see a danger of being willing to spend someone else's money without having much of my own skin in the game.

[_asbestosman]

Since the way to control government is to control it's spending, one should never expect "living" wages as a government employee much less that to equal the private sector.

Are you saying that nobody should work for the government because one should expect the government to pay you pennies if you're lucky enough to get any pay at all?

By the way, I hope you realize that if we don't pay government workers a fair wage, we're inviting bribery and corruption. Sure, that happens anyhow, but you're more likely to consider selling your soul when you're having trouble making ends meet.

[_Eric]

You and I are considered obscenely wealthy compared to people in, say, Haiti. I wouldn't like it if they got to set taxes and taxed me until I was what they considered rich but not obscenely wealthy.

I imagine that this is exactly how the obscenely rich feel about us.

The rich are people too. As much as I don't like it, I think people have the right to be rude and uncaring to each other.

Sure, but we don't afford people the right to rape and murder and steal from each other. You don't have to be nice and caring to your fellow human to not exploit and enslave them.

Furthermore, I think many wealthy people are good people.

Well, you know what they say about every fortune...

[_asbestosman]

Sure, but we don't afford people the right to rape and murder and steal from each other. You don't have to be nice and caring to your fellow human to not exploit and enslave them.

Yes. I just don't see the wealthy as exploiting and enslaving me. I'm living the good life. If anything, we're exploiting and enslaving poor people in other countries. Should we spend the bulk of our tax money on them? Even a trillion dollars gets spread out pretty thin over several billion people.

Well, you know what they say about every fortune...

What they say is so often contradictory:

The pen is mightier than the sword.
Actions speak louder than words.

Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Many hands make light work.

You are never too old to learn.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[_Eric]

Yes. I just don't see the wealthy as exploiting and enslaving me.

I'm assuming a bank or financial institution owns the mortgage on your house, and not you. What would happen to you and your family if you were unable to continue to pay the bank what it wants you to pay?

I'm living the good life.

I understand the feeling, as I also feel very blessed in life. What about a single mother who has to work two jobs just to make ends meet? Is she living the good life?

And life may be good for us, but what about when compared to the obscenely rich like Angelo Mozilo or Paris Hilton?

If anything, we're exploiting and enslaving poor people in other countries.

I agree, but there are also more than enough poor people in this country who are being exploited and enslaved.

Should we spend the bulk of our tax money on them? Even a trillion dollars gets spread out pretty thin over several billion people.

Obviously, I think the root of the problem is with the capitalist system, so giving to the poor under the current economic and political conditions would only be a band-aid. Still, I think it would be a noble cause. More than enough resources already exist on this planet to end hunger, for example.

[_asbestosman]

I'm assuming a bank or financial institution owns the mortgage on your house, and not you. What would happen to you and your family if you were unable to continue to pay the bank what it wants you to pay?

If we don't live up to our contract, we lose our home. Actually, we have enough savings that we could sell the house before they take it by force. We are also lucky that we are not underwater in what we owe. We might even be able to pay it off outright if we borrow from our 401Ks. I wish more people would be a bit more considerate about what they can reasonably afford and have contingency plans in place. If we could not find another place to live, we would then end up moving in with family. Not ideal, but we've helped out others in our family too. Obviously not everyone is as lucky.

I understand the feeling, as I also feel very blessed in life. What about a single mother who has to work two jobs just to make ends meet? Is she living the good life?

No, my grandmother was not living the good life when she raised 7 kids as a widow after my grandpa died while my uncle was 2 by working two jobs. I can't speak as to whether she felt exploited, but I do know that she and her generation strongly oppose communism. I can speak more to my father's experience of that situation. It is in part due to him that I do not feel the rich are greedily exploiting poor people. He does feel we need to provide the poor with some help, but does not think we need to make the rich pay for all our wants or make the rich be more comparable to us in terms of wealth.

And life may be good for us, but what about when compared to the obscenely rich like Angelo Mozilo or Paris Hilton?

Why the need to compare? I have more than enough for myself. Sure, I wouldn't mind a few more tropical vacations, but even I've been to Hawaii. More money would not make me happier. It would only help me feel a bit more secure in case I lose my job or have an expensive emergency in my family.

I agree, but there are also more than enough poor people in this country who are being exploited and enslaved.

I don't see it as exploitation. Oh, some are probably exploited. I just don't think low wages = exploitation. Supply and demand would generally take care of that, but I admit that hiccups exist in capitalism so I do not believe in letting greed reign without any checks.

Obviously, I think the root of the problem is with the capitalist system, so giving to the poor under the current economic and political conditions would only be a band-aid. Still, I think it would be a noble cause. More than enough resources already exist on this planet to end hunger, for example.

I agree that we could end hunger on this planet--at least if we could overcome political/military hurdles in certain countries which prevent aid from reaching the needy.

I don't see the problem as being caused by capitalism. I agree that there are problems in capitalism, but I do not see any realistic alternatives other than a few patches here and there. Sure, we could follow the example of Denmark or other socialist European countries. I think that is a viable alternative (although not currently my preference). I just don't think communism would work.

Even so, we cannot address all medical needs. We have made medical advances that weren't possible a few years ago. Unfortunately, many of these are very expensive such as cancer treatments. If we do not treat people with cancer, it allows more suffering. If we do try to treat them, we'll find there isn't enough money for everyone. Furthermore, by focusing only on the present medical treatments against suffering, we miss opportunities for other research. Should we stop space exploration? What if colonizing space helps prevent the extinction of our species?

[_Eric]

If we don't live up to our contract, we lose our home.

Why should the bank own your home? Who has a right to the land?

No, my grandmother was not living the good life when she raised 7 kids as a widow after my grandpa died while my uncle was 2 by working two jobs. I can't speak as to whether she felt exploited, but I do know that she and her generation strongly oppose communism.

That's probably because your grandmother knew nothing about Communism and was naturally influenced by all the Cold War propaganda. She probably would confuse Stalinism for Communism.

I can speak more to my father's experience of that situation. It is in part due to him that I do not feel the rich are greedily exploiting poor people.

I don't even think this is disputable. How can you say that people who get paid minimum wage, only enough to stay alive and keep working, aren't being exploited by shareholders making 200 times that much to do absolutely nothing?

He does feel we need to provide the poor with some help, but does not think we need to make the rich pay for all our wants or make the rich be more comparable to us in terms of wealth.

Uh... No one said anything about the rich paying for all our wants and making us rich. That is a straw man.

Why the need to compare? I have more than enough for myself.

Good for you. So because you have more than enough for yourself, all is well in the world? I'm sure if we took the time to find out, we would learn that a lot of what you enjoy in life today is the result of privilege and opportunities not afforded to other, less fortunate people.

Sure, I wouldn't mind a few more tropical vacations, but even I've been to Hawaii. More money would not make me happier. It would only help me feel a bit more secure in case I lose my job or have an expensive emergency in my family.

It's not about having "more money," it's about exploitation and disparity.

I don't see it as exploitation. Oh, some are probably exploited. I just don't think low wages = exploitation.

Low wages absolutely does equal exploitation. And worse. People can't live off low wages. They are often forced to work more than one job, just so they can make enough money to survive in poverty. When it happens unnecessarily, that is slavery. That is exploitation.

Sure, we could follow the example of Denmark or other socialist European countries. I think that is a viable alternative (although not currently my preference). I just don't think communism would work.

What do you see as the difference? I see Communism as an extension of Socialism.

Even so, we cannot address all medical needs. We have made medical advances that weren't possible a few years ago. Unfortunately, many of these are very expensive such as cancer treatments.

It's expensive because we merchandise it.

If we do not treat people with cancer, it allows more suffering. If we do try to treat them, we'll find there isn't enough money for everyone. Furthermore, by focusing only on the present medical treatments against suffering, we miss opportunities for other research.

So what is it you propose? Allowing the so-called "Free Market" decide who gets treatment and who doesn't?

Should we stop space exploration?

If we can't afford to take care of our fellow humans, and thousands of children are dying everyday from starvation while Rush Limbaugh gorges on turkey legs and oxi-contin, then yes. Let's stop spending money on space exploration until we can figure this problem of not having enough food out.

What if colonizing space helps prevent the extinction of our species?

Are you serious?

[_EAllusion]

Why should the bank own your home? Who has a right to the land?

What a bizarre statement. The phrase your home certainly implies property rights in the same breath as denying them. If people don't have the right to own where you live because no one has the right to own land, then you don't own your home either. That is to say, you don't have authority over how that part of the world is used. It's up for grabs (to the strongest one would presume.)

[_Eric]

What a bizarre statement.

I don't see anything bizarre about communal ownership of land for the benefit of the people. It seems much less bizarre than allowing major financial institutions to own most of the land and be our landlords.

The phrase your home certainly implies property rights in the same breath as denying them. If people don't have the right to own where you live because no one has the right to own land, then you don't own your home either. That is to say, you don't have authority over how that part of the world is used. It's up for grabs (to the strongest one would presume.)

^
I'm not sure what any of that is supposed to mean. "Your home" means the home you live in.

[_EAllusion]

Communal property rights presume property rights. People have the right to own land. This is flawed on so many fronts it's difficult to no where to start, but I suppose the important point for this chain of conversation is that it supplies a positive answer to the rhetorical question, "who has the right to own land?"