Thread: The imitaors!

Originally Posted by Jimbo

it's about what we call the Commonwealth of Australia. I take that phrase literally. I believe we are judged by how we treat our most humble citizens.

James.

I agree with you again. I just don't think the state has that particular mandate, that is a moral obligation of the people

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Well sure - inefficiency is not good, and I know how frustrating it is when you see money being wasted.

Again, I think this is a cultural (or perhaps philosophical) difference. And maybe an economy of scale thing too. Australia only has a population of 20 million or so. I see it as most efficient to have Government taking a big picture overview of welfare, rather than hundreds or thousands of small charities all vying for your dollars. In the US, the issue is raised, what, tenfold?

And it's not really all about charity for me - it's about what we call the Commonwealth of Australia. I take that phrase literally. I believe we are judged by how we treat our most humble citizens.

James.

It is a huge cultural difference. While we may be judged ultimately by how we treat the least of us. We can only be judged to have actually helped them if we are allowed to make the choice independently. When it is forced upon us it can no longer weigh in the balance of our decisions.

We are not a commonwealth, we are a union of independent states. The union was formed originally to ensure the common defense of all the states as they individually were to weak to face the world alone and to ensure that trade ran smoothly between all the independent states. That was the entire mandate given to the federation. Everything the Federal Government does is still by some convoluted logic considered a part of this mandate.

They were also originally prohibited by the constitution from laying any direct taxes on the population, all taxes were to be levied on the states with the states collecting as they decided to. Some ninety years ago The congress specifically amended the constitution to redefine the individual income tax as allowable. People have ever since objected to this infringement upon the rights of both the individual and the state government.

what hog and tim said sums it up pretty well. I don't object to helping those that deserve a helping hand. on the contrary, I find giving both my time and money to charity to be rewarding. but if that money is taken from me via threat of force (jail, if the irs catches me) it's not me being charitable, and it's not charity. it's not ME doing anything... I am simply being forced to. by your logic, prince john was being a helpful citizen every time robin hood stole his money... after all, that money went to help the poor in sherwood forest; was prince john just doing his civic guty? HELL no. he was being robbed against his will.

and yet, it seems you are lauding that very same behavior when it comes from the gov't. perhaps it's just the cultural difference between my state and your country, (although they are similar in size... Texas is around 24 million at last count.) but if some modern day robin hood went around robbing people here, it would matter very little whether he gave the money to charity or not... he would be viewed as a thief and shot at the earliest opportunity, whether by police or by private citizens, either way, the Texan who shot robin hood would be universally hailed as a hero. us Texans are very independently-minded, and fiercely proud of it.

Well that's fair enough. I can see how, in light of what WildTim posted, individual obligation is what you prefer (not sure that's the right word, but it's all I could come up with).

Australia has historically been, I think, a lot more socialist in it's outlook on the role of Government. I suppose I'm a product of that history. But that's not to say I represent all Aussies in my view either.

Actually, there was a thread some time back that linked to a quiz that placed you on a political diamond. I came out over on the left IIRC as a liberal.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Well that's fair enough. I can see how, in light of what WildTim posted, individual obligation is what you prefer (not sure that's the right word, but it's all I could come up with).

Australia has historically been, I think, a lot more socialist in it's outlook on the role of Government. I suppose I'm a product of that history. But that's not to say I represent all Aussies in my view either.

Actually, there was a thread some time back that linked to a quiz that placed you on a political diamond. I came out over on the left IIRC as a liberal.

James.

haha, i'm the one that posted that, World's Smallest Political Quiz

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Well that's fair enough. I can see how, in light of what WildTim posted, individual obligation is what you prefer (not sure that's the right word, but it's all I could come up with).

And now to inject a little religion: "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity [law]: for God loveth a cheerful giver"
Forced extraction from someone who has from someone who has not is theft in a free society, as Tim described.

on the Same quiz I plact right near the top of the diamond

Originally Posted by Wildtim

on the Same quiz I plact right near the top of the diamond

ditto, rabid libertarian here.

Well to be charitable.... Tax the poor out of existence! bring on the debtors prisons and be done with them!

if we choose to apply higher tax rates to those who earn less money they will have the incentive to move up the economic scale. the more you make the smaller a percentage of taxes you pay.

and while we are at it ... let's only tax the wage earners. no deductions for dependents or any thing else but charitable contributions! end the earned income credits and bring back the treadmill and poorhouses!


make poverty intolerable and soon there will be no more impoverished!

Originally Posted by syslight

Well to be charitable.... Tax the poor out of existence! bring on the debtors prisons and be done with them!

if we choose to apply higher tax rates to those who earn less money they will have the incentive to move up the economic scale. the more you make the smaller a percentage of taxes you pay.

and while we are at it ... let's only tax the wage earners. no deductions for dependents or any thing else but charitable contributions! end the earned income credits and bring back the treadmill and poorhouses!


make poverty intolerable and soon there will be no more impoverished!

Heck, let's just not tax anyone at all and see if the government stops spending. If it is going to spend far more than it takes in anyway, why collect at all? Just keep printing more and borrowing from others