11 Jan 2014, 1:46 pm
11 Jan 2014, 1:51 pm
11 Jan 2014, 1:55 pm
11 Jan 2014, 2:00 pm
Raptor wrote:
Typical of the left to resort to profanity. 
Either the newspaper article was BS
Either the newspaper article was BS
11 Jan 2014, 2:05 pm
11 Jan 2014, 2:24 pm
11 Jan 2014, 2:37 pm
11 Jan 2014, 4:17 pm
11 Jan 2014, 4:38 pm
11 Jan 2014, 4:45 pm
appletheclown wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
All I have to say is that, in America at least, if GDP continues to grow and the gap between rich and poor continues to go (meaning the rich are getting much richer), then we can afford to raise taxes on them to help the needy. Also, consider our absolutely ginormous military budget.
CORRECTION: *Between the super-rich and everybody else.
CORRECTION: *Between the super-rich and everybody else.
Yes, but the societal organism likes the super rich as they are producers and make it bigger.
thinkinginpictures wrote:
1. You don't CHOOSE to get disability benefits. It is something you get by meeting certain strict criteria.
You CAN choose not to get it though, and starve to death, of course its a free society (although in some few cases, the municipality has the right to step in and can demand you get the disability benefit, so far this only happens in Scandinavian countries, and only to people suffering severe dementia or mental retardation or otherwise not able to even wipe their own ****).
This should debunk the myth that people can just pick any welfare benefit they like. That is NOT the case.
You CAN choose not to get it though, and starve to death, of course its a free society (although in some few cases, the municipality has the right to step in and can demand you get the disability benefit, so far this only happens in Scandinavian countries, and only to people suffering severe dementia or mental retardation or otherwise not able to even wipe their own ****).
This should debunk the myth that people can just pick any welfare benefit they like. That is NOT the case.
But the criteria can be changed to become more restrictive.
Quote:
2. The income tax is already levelled in degrees. In Scandinavian welfare countries, the Income Tax is roughly 50 %. But the income is also that much higher. Guess who's paying the show?
The employers. The big corporations. They are the ones financing the high salaries, even though there is NO standardized minimum wage by law.
And people also work less. In Denmark, you can only demand people work 37 hours a week. If they work more, they are often entitled to more rights from the employers.
This 37 hour work per week, is not defined by law. It is defined by the labor's organizations.
3. Speaking of non-Scandinavian countries, the big corporations have too much power and the labor unions has too little a say. In Germany, France, Britain and the U.S. the wages are lower and the taxes are lower. When they lower the taxes, the wages go down too.
In order to finance the welfare state, you have to invert the taxation system. You have to do as France just did, 75 % tax for the super rich, and I doubt that is enough.
The old saying that they would just flee to another country is a myth. They would have to leave their family and friends, and establish a totally new life in another country, adapting to totally other different laws and regulations. Only few people would do that.
The employers. The big corporations. They are the ones financing the high salaries, even though there is NO standardized minimum wage by law.
And people also work less. In Denmark, you can only demand people work 37 hours a week. If they work more, they are often entitled to more rights from the employers.
This 37 hour work per week, is not defined by law. It is defined by the labor's organizations.
3. Speaking of non-Scandinavian countries, the big corporations have too much power and the labor unions has too little a say. In Germany, France, Britain and the U.S. the wages are lower and the taxes are lower. When they lower the taxes, the wages go down too.
In order to finance the welfare state, you have to invert the taxation system. You have to do as France just did, 75 % tax for the super rich, and I doubt that is enough.
The old saying that they would just flee to another country is a myth. They would have to leave their family and friends, and establish a totally new life in another country, adapting to totally other different laws and regulations. Only few people would do that.
They can hide their money in other countries though.
Regarding Scandinavia, there is no indication that North America will go this route.
Again, I'm not saying I don't agree with the existence of assistence; just that one shouldn't count on it.
If you don't have to count on it then either you have other support or you're not disabled.
Tell that to the disabled who want to do it themselves.
???
11 Jan 2014, 4:50 pm
11 Jan 2014, 5:30 pm
11 Jan 2014, 6:03 pm
Ann2011 wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
I'm tired of people acting as if they have no choice in the matter of paying taxes. If you don't like paying taxes, either go somewhere you don't have to pay taxes, get a job "under the table," go live in the forest and eat nuts and berries, or vote for politicians whose taxation policies you agree with.
I totally agree with taxation. There are things that we as a group have to contribute to. But the disabled and those on welfare are inherently marginal.
People with mental health issues especially. The diagnostics and care of people with autism and other mental disorders is not what it should be.
I mentioned in another thread that business is starting to flirt with the idea of exploiting attributes of disabilities. This makes me feel like a science experiment.
I don't know where I belong in "society." I'm trying to work, but feel like I could lose it at any moment, but I know I can't count on society to take care of me.
I'll look for the nuts and berries and just try to survive.
Heh.
You and me both.
11 Jan 2014, 6:34 pm
11 Jan 2014, 6:41 pm
beneficii wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
All I have to say is that, in America at least, if GDP continues to grow and the gap between rich and poor continues to go (meaning the rich are getting much richer), then we can afford to raise taxes on them to help the needy. Also, consider our absolutely ginormous military budget.
CORRECTION: *Between the super-rich and everybody else.
CORRECTION: *Between the super-rich and everybody else.
Yes, but the societal organism likes the super rich as they are producers and make it bigger.
thinkinginpictures wrote:
1. You don't CHOOSE to get disability benefits. It is something you get by meeting certain strict criteria.
You CAN choose not to get it though, and starve to death, of course its a free society (although in some few cases, the municipality has the right to step in and can demand you get the disability benefit, so far this only happens in Scandinavian countries, and only to people suffering severe dementia or mental retardation or otherwise not able to even wipe their own ****).
This should debunk the myth that people can just pick any welfare benefit they like. That is NOT the case.
You CAN choose not to get it though, and starve to death, of course its a free society (although in some few cases, the municipality has the right to step in and can demand you get the disability benefit, so far this only happens in Scandinavian countries, and only to people suffering severe dementia or mental retardation or otherwise not able to even wipe their own ****).
This should debunk the myth that people can just pick any welfare benefit they like. That is NOT the case.
But the criteria can be changed to become more restrictive.
Quote:
2. The income tax is already levelled in degrees. In Scandinavian welfare countries, the Income Tax is roughly 50 %. But the income is also that much higher. Guess who's paying the show?
The employers. The big corporations. They are the ones financing the high salaries, even though there is NO standardized minimum wage by law.
And people also work less. In Denmark, you can only demand people work 37 hours a week. If they work more, they are often entitled to more rights from the employers.
This 37 hour work per week, is not defined by law. It is defined by the labor's organizations.
3. Speaking of non-Scandinavian countries, the big corporations have too much power and the labor unions has too little a say. In Germany, France, Britain and the U.S. the wages are lower and the taxes are lower. When they lower the taxes, the wages go down too.
In order to finance the welfare state, you have to invert the taxation system. You have to do as France just did, 75 % tax for the super rich, and I doubt that is enough.
The old saying that they would just flee to another country is a myth. They would have to leave their family and friends, and establish a totally new life in another country, adapting to totally other different laws and regulations. Only few people would do that.
The employers. The big corporations. They are the ones financing the high salaries, even though there is NO standardized minimum wage by law.
And people also work less. In Denmark, you can only demand people work 37 hours a week. If they work more, they are often entitled to more rights from the employers.
This 37 hour work per week, is not defined by law. It is defined by the labor's organizations.
3. Speaking of non-Scandinavian countries, the big corporations have too much power and the labor unions has too little a say. In Germany, France, Britain and the U.S. the wages are lower and the taxes are lower. When they lower the taxes, the wages go down too.
In order to finance the welfare state, you have to invert the taxation system. You have to do as France just did, 75 % tax for the super rich, and I doubt that is enough.
The old saying that they would just flee to another country is a myth. They would have to leave their family and friends, and establish a totally new life in another country, adapting to totally other different laws and regulations. Only few people would do that.
They can hide their money in other countries though.
Regarding Scandinavia, there is no indication that North America will go this route.
Again, I'm not saying I don't agree with the existence of assistence; just that one shouldn't count on it.
If you don't have to count on it then either you have other support or you're not disabled.
Tell that to the disabled who want to do it themselves.
???
The disabled people who revolt the label of disabled. The people who would rather crawl, than to get help from other people. The people who want to prove they still function. The people who don't need to count on it because quite frankly, they don't give a damn their arm is gone. Now do you understand?
11 Jan 2014, 6:47 pm
