Subsidy

[TV and credit cards]

fast, could your definition of subsidy be applied to compulsory auto insurance in which a claim is never made or perhaps the "uninsured motorist" portion of the premium?

 

[fast]

fast, could your definition of subsidy be applied to compulsory auto insurance in which a claim is never made or perhaps the "uninsured motorist" portion of the premium?

I don't know, but I've absolutely hated it with a passion. I have no qualms with being held financially liable and accountable for my actions, and if the government would be so inclined to withhold money (up to a predetermined reasonable limit) to cover costs attributable to what might be one day attributable to me, then fine, begrudgingly, but after I have poured in money beyond that reasonable limit, do not line the pockets of the for profit companies, and do not use my funds held on my behalf for what I might do to cover costs that are attributable to others.

 

[Bronzeage]

Convoluted is arguing that breaking into someone's house and taking a Pepsi out their fridge yet paying their light bill before leaving somehow justifies my actions because they benefitted.

- - - Updated - - -

Why can't I claim no benefit from a bridge I do not use?

Because trucks bring goods across the bridge you buy.

I did not ask them to do that. That was their choice. The cost of the bridge should be included in the cost of the goods. The trucker profits from transporting them.

 

[fast]

Convoluted is arguing that breaking into someone's house and taking a Pepsi out their fridge yet paying their light bill before leaving somehow justifies my actions because they benefitted.

- - - Updated - - -



Because trucks bring goods across the bridge you buy.

I did not ask them to do that. That was their choice. The cost of the bridge should be included in the cost of the goods. The trucker profits from transporting them.

I'm not sure which hat you want me to wear. It doesn't seem to matter which side people argue for. In the end, people are going to list the pros & cons and qualitatively judge their position to be the superior choice-and we'll wind up paying.

Let me tell you what's interesting. There is no design allowing us to elect out of the costs to our benefits. I don't want to be a moocher that enjoys the benefits without chipping in on the costs. There's just no choice in the matter as to the benefits; likewise, there's no choice in the matter concerning the costs. I'm happy with a volunteer fire department, and I'm happy to help out to the extent I can, and I'm the first someone can call on when they're in need of something. But, don't force me to pay higher taxes to support a paid fire department that doesn't even service my area. And no, I don't particularly feel so thrifty as to pay for a bridge that I will never use. Shoot, not only won't I use the bridge, I don't want the bridge, so of course I don't feel like I should service the costs.

Awe, but there will somehow someway be a benefit forced upon me to which others will then feel I should help finance. Figures. Had the people with their cost imposing selves never successfully accomplished their goals, we wouldn't be in this mess. Don't get me wrong. If group B wants a bridge, who am I to deny them? Go ahead. May they knock themselves out. Can't afford it without me chipping in? Here's an idea, make me decide between paying or moving away. Real thoughtful of them eh!

Of course, I don't truly hold that opinion on matters such as bridges, as there probably truly is some justifiable reason that even I can accept, but careful we must be when applying such things to every benefit forcing idea that comes our way. There must surely be some things that would in fact benefit a small select group of people that ought not have its costs spread amongst everyone merely to reduce the costs just so they can benefit, even if by chance we, as a community are somehow and very indirectly benefitting from.

Take away my dirt roads and wonder why I'm using the pavement ... Damn bastards, lol.

 

[untermensche]

...There is no design allowing us to elect out of the costs to our benefits...

Is somebody holding you captive? Walk into any store and start taking things. You will get a place to live and food to eat for free.

There are other places in the world to live.

By staying put you submit to the rules or face the consequences.

That is the way us apes like it.

And there is a way to elect your way out of it. Elect a government that agrees with you.

 

[Togo]

Working with others isn't really optional. The amount of help you need to stay in your own house on your own land and mind your own business is fairly substantial. Obviously we can have different solutions to how people cooperate, but simply shutting your door and pretending that people are only there when you need them is considerably more difficult, and relies on other people supporting that lifetstyle.

In the case of the water, the reason it was compulsory is probably to do with public health concerns, rather than merely supply. It's worth everyone supporting a universal water supply, so the community as a whole doesn't get sick from people who aren't connected. Without universal subscription to it, they might not be able to afford to do it at all.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Working with others isn't really optional. The amount of help you need to stay in your own house on your own land and mind your own business is fairly substantial. Obviously we can have different solutions to how people cooperate, but simply shutting your door and pretending that people are only there when you need them is considerably more difficult, and relies on other people supporting that lifetstyle.

In the case of the water, the reason it was compulsory is probably to do with public health concerns, rather than merely supply. It's worth everyone supporting a universal water supply, so the community as a whole doesn't get sick from people who aren't connected. Without universal subscription to it, they might not be able to afford to do it at all.

I don't know about water. Many in my area rely on a well or a pond for their water supply. I've seen and understand the necessity of forcing people off a septic system and tie into sewer lines. But water? I would be interested in knowing the reason the county/city had for forcing people on the public water supply.

*********

I pay into Social Security. I've worked over ninety percent of my adult life. I've seen a not inconsequential amount taken from each and every paycheck.
I've heard it said on various occasions that Social Security will go broke, that it cannot support the Baby Boomers unless changes are made. It seems to have fallen out of favor for the time being. Perhaps they regurgitated the numbers and proclaimed it solvent.
Being a twenty-three year veteran of the navy, I've noticed veterans seem to be the go-to group for governmental belt-tightening. I strongly expect this may be the case again in the not too distant future should we need to do some trimming around the edges of Social Security.
I wonder, if after paying in for these many years, will I (we retired veterans receiving a pension ) simply fall victim to the delete key on the SSA keyboard? Would there, should there be some sort of compensation for the monies contributed? I must say, while I believe in participating in society, pitching in and all that, I would feel wronged should this happen to me.
It would be an easy sell to the American public. Wait a few more years for what's left of the "We heart our troops." thing to die down. Make sure more of the public is aware that military pension starts on the day of retirement from active duty, not the age of retirement. From there, it's a small leap from war hero to double-dipper. Breaking it down, I guess my problem with it is SSI should not be necessity in a wealthy nation.
Call me a cynic but I think my small group B may soon be subsidizing the larger group A.

 

[Bronzeage]

I did not ask them to do that. That was their choice. The cost of the bridge should be included in the cost of the goods. The trucker profits from transporting them.

I'm not sure which hat you want me to wear. It doesn't seem to matter which side people argue for. In the end, people are going to list the pros & cons and qualitatively judge their position to be the superior choice-and we'll wind up paying.

Let me tell you what's interesting. There is no design allowing us to elect out of the costs to our benefits. I don't want to be a moocher that enjoys the benefits without chipping in on the costs. There's just no choice in the matter as to the benefits; likewise, there's no choice in the matter concerning the costs. I'm happy with a volunteer fire department, and I'm happy to help out to the extent I can, and I'm the first someone can call on when they're in need of something. But, don't force me to pay higher taxes to support a paid fire department that doesn't even service my area. And no, I don't particularly feel so thrifty as to pay for a bridge that I will never use. Shoot, not only won't I use the bridge, I don't want the bridge, so of course I don't feel like I should service the costs.

Awe, but there will somehow someway be a benefit forced upon me to which others will then feel I should help finance. Figures. Had the people with their cost imposing selves never successfully accomplished their goals, we wouldn't be in this mess. Don't get me wrong. If group B wants a bridge, who am I to deny them? Go ahead. May they knock themselves out. Can't afford it without me chipping in? Here's an idea, make me decide between paying or moving away. Real thoughtful of them eh!

Of course, I don't truly hold that opinion on matters such as bridges, as there probably truly is some justifiable reason that even I can accept, but careful we must be when applying such things to every benefit forcing idea that comes our way. There must surely be some things that would in fact benefit a small select group of people that ought not have its costs spread amongst everyone merely to reduce the costs just so they can benefit, even if by chance we, as a community are somehow and very indirectly benefitting from.

Take away my dirt roads and wonder why I'm using the pavement ... Damn bastards, lol.

It's called the "No man is an island" principle of social organization. The collective 'we' decides paved roads, bridges, and streetlamps are a good thing. No one is allowed to opt out, simply because they don't see the point, or don't feel there is a need. This is the nature of wealth distributing subsidies. The purpose is to raise the standard of living of the lowest segment of the population, with the idea the extra purchasing power will be an investment in the future, particularly by raising the standard of living and education of children.

There are few things which irritate me more than listening to a softshell libertarian(AKA, a selfish prick) complain about paying taxes which support schools, since said SP either has no children, sends them to private school, or home schools. This person sees no value in an educated populace, a very short sighted point of view.

At the very extreme of the wealth distribution spectrum, we have the situation where a great majority of property and capital is held in very few hands. This leaves a lot of people(pick any percentage from 75% to 98%) with no hope. An economy with no wealth distribution manufactures only one product, poor people.

Poor people can be mass produced by unskilled labor, so there is never a shortage. When it comes time to storm the castle and rip down the curtains, there will be plenty of hands for the work. This leads to another economic principle which the upper 2% of such an economy quickly discover, no matter how much wealth of power they hold, they can't kill poor people fast enough to keep them in line.

In the end, even the richest and most powerful must share, of face the ultimate consequence.

 

[fast]

All points taken. Even the one's I don't like. Food for thought.

 

[Jokodo]

Yeah, I thought it would come to that, sooner or later.

I think there is a grammar problem here. Group B receives the money. They are not paying, so it is not an expense to them. The per/person expense is simply arithmetic and not related to from where the money was collected.

But, I ask again, what does Group A gain by not helping Group B. What is their incentive to refuse to participate?

There's some kind of problem here. Maybe I don't know the inner workings of a subsidy. I suppose there might be subsidies where one group pays nothing, but I figure often times, there are subsidies where both groups pay.

What does group A gain? They get to retain (!)--their money. Take my well-water example. I would get to keep my $75 if I didn't have to support the neighborhoods the whole damn thing was truly started over.

Maybe those neighborhoods would be drawing water from the same aquifer you're using, lowering the water levels and thus making your well run low, and now they're being supplied from an upstream reservoir that won't affect the local water levels? Just because you don't use that water doesn't mean you don't benefit from them using it.

 

[fast]

Maybe

 

[Rhea]

What does group A gain? They get to retain (!)--their money. .

I cannot take this argument seriously for as long as US tax policies dictate that everyone pays taxes on money that comes to them ("income") except the wealthier ones who pay less on money that comes to them in certain ways. Tax free portions of inheritance, capital gains rates, writeoffs for certain expenses only available to those with lots of money, etc.

As long as those are all in place - and they are - this whining about "keeping my own 'hard earned' (waaaannnh!) money!" is a crock of shit. Okay?


Note before you proclaim, "you're just jealous!" I am a beneficiary of all of those named "subsidies to the wealthy" and I have made many many MANY more dollars off of these "subsidies to the wealthy FROM the poor" than the poor have ever made from welfare.

So you need to make a REAL example of the REAL wealth redistribution based on REAL dollars that the government currently has flowing FROM the pockets of the poor TO the pockets of the wealthy, mkay? Until then, blah blah blah blah whine bitch moan privilege.

 

[Rhea]

The question is: Did Group B have the same opportunity to gain wealth as Group A?

Is there a level playing field?

If we look at a concrete example, in the US, and everywhere, it is far easier to use capital to gain wealth than to use labor. Returns from capital exceed returns from personal labor.

Why does opportunity matter?

It matters because you are trying to put your thumb on the scale of financial equality. You want to stipulate without discussion that some subsidies are good (inherited income and capital gains income) when they put money in your pocket by reducing your share of the public bill below that of others and then turn the discussion to other subsidies valued at 1/1000th of the amount that you think steal out of your pocket. But we noticed that you already filled your pocket without wanting to discuss that.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't success to be born to the right parents. It is pure luck.

And of course we have an obligation to make the playing field as level as possible.

What I meant was that I'm not upset to see others more financially well-off than myself, even if they were born to a family of doctors making $250,000 a year a piece. I don't mind good hearted social policies that tilt us to equality. But, while we do that, we shouldn't just take from the upper middle class to relieve the financial burdens of the lower middle class.

even though we've already given substantially to the upper middle class? Oh! Don't want to discuss that part!

 

[Rhea]

The cost of having water supplied to residents and businesses of the county is spread across all the taxpayers who pay property taxes.

There are many people that don't benefit yet have to pay.

You are benefiting from having lots and lots of people, including increased usage from more housing, move their water draw AWAY from your well (unless the municipal well is next door to you?) leaving you with a more reliable well. Moreover, municipalities typically store water, drawing from the well at night and dispensing during the day which further stabilizes the recharge of the aquifer you use. A direct result of that is fewer max-min excursions on the aquifer depth which result in temporarily high salt and mineral content (including natural arsenic).


Yeah, you benefit. Directly.

 

[Togo]

I certainly benefit.

I was privately educated and still paid taxes to support state schools. I have to pay taxes in more than one country, and get taxed on transferring money from one country to another. I paid huge taxes when I bought my house, when I bought my uncle's house. I pay for roads despite not having a car, for the upkeep of local parks I don't visit, cemetaries that contain noone I know, and war archives I don't care about. Very little about this is fair in isolation.

But then I enjoy national electricity, sewerage, water, rail transport, road, police, civil justice and monetary system that never would have been possible to organise on an entirely voluntary basis. I pay more than my fair share of tax, because I get paid more than my fair share of money, in an attempt to incentivise me to do particular kinds of job. It seems like a silly system to me, but it means I end up with much more money that most people, for working the same hours.

Despite paying more tax than most for services I tend to use less than most, I still recognise that the system is violently tilted in my favour.

 

[fast]

But we noticed that you already filled your pocket without wanting to discuss that.

Wow.

 

[fast]

I certainly benefit.

I was privately educated and still paid taxes to support state schools. I have to pay taxes in more than one country, and get taxed on transferring money from one country to another. I paid huge taxes when I bought my house, when I bought my uncle's house. I pay for roads despite not having a car, for the upkeep of local parks I don't visit, cemetaries that contain noone I know, and war archives I don't care about. Very little about this is fair in isolation.

But then I enjoy national electricity, sewerage, water, rail transport, road, police, civil justice and monetary system that never would have been possible to organise on an entirely voluntary basis. I pay more than my fair share of tax, because I get paid more than my fair share of money, in an attempt to incentivise me to do particular kinds of job. It seems like a silly system to me, but it means I end up with much more money that most people, for working the same hours.

Despite paying more tax than most for services I tend to use less than most, I still recognise that the system is violently tilted in my favour.

Interesting perspective. Very positive. I like it.

 

[Rhea]

But we noticed that you already filled your pocket without wanting to discuss that.

Wow.

I'm sorry. Forgive me for sounding attacking. I was not actually picturing YOU when I said that, but the nasty hypocrite Republican rich-boys and their poor rural fan-boy sycophants who complain about welfare.

Seriously, I am sorry to have projected all that emotion onto you!

 

[Bomb#20]

But we noticed that you already filled your pocket without wanting to discuss that.

Wow.

Exactly. As you've probably discerned, what you're up against in this thread is a level of smug reality avoidance that is rarely achieved without religious motivation. What it takes for you to achieve the level of patience you display, here and in thread after thread, I have no idea. But I'm in awe.

I'm sorry. Forgive me for sounding attacking. I was not actually picturing YOU when I said that, but the nasty hypocrite Republican rich-boys and their poor rural fan-boy sycophants who complain about welfare.

Seriously, I am sorry to have projected all that emotion onto you!

What she will probably go to her grave without ever having grasped about her intended targets is that she was projecting onto them, too.

 

[Rhea]

I'm sorry. Forgive me for sounding attacking. I was not actually picturing YOU when I said that, but the nasty hypocrite Republican rich-boys and their poor rural fan-boy sycophants who complain about welfare.

Seriously, I am sorry to have projected all that emotion onto you!

What she will probably go to her grave without ever having grasped about her intended targets is that she was projecting onto them, too.

My apology was sincere.
Go ahead and make some comments about the actual points I raised, they are relevant to the OP.