Explain to me the American mindset around work, entitlement, and earning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

- Thomas Sowell

Can we apply that mindset to Medicare and social security, then? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

???

Her household made sacrifices whether that's income or personal drive or housing location. Its a choice and one that should be made in-families. The rest of the public should not be forced to pay for you to take years off to have babies and stare at your toddlers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids

1) So long as people realize that basic health care is not full access to the medical capabilities of the US. People will still have to purchase private insurance for additional coverage. 2) free universal child care must be performed by a public institution to be paid for by taxes, just like the current balance between public and private schools. Some sort of voucher system could be implemented, but I don't think that's going to fly. I don't think it's necessary to limit the number of children. I would like to see some population growth, which is a public good.

Oh please. Someone with 8 back-to-back pregnancies should not be able to take 10 years off with $100,000 in income annually on the public dime. You want to have long-term pregnancy leave, pay for it yourself. Its called stepping out of the workforce.

What are you talking about? How does free childcare equal 10 years off with 100k annual income?

In PP’s scenario if the woman had 8 kids one each year she would have 9 years off from work. In these programs the woman is paid her salary during that year of maternity leave. So if she makes 40,000 a year, she continues to earn that salary. And to be honest if this were the case I’d probably pop out three kids instead of one just to have three years paid leave from work!

Giving birth *10* times would elicit a congratulations from me. Holy crap that must be painful.

According to Hilaria its a delightful experience and she loves it each time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's because Republicans hate poor people who don't look like them. That's all there is to it.

Agreed. I remember watching a show on this topic and they asked a white woman why the US couldn’t be more like Scandinavia (more social spending, etc…) and I remember being so shocked by her answer. She basically said “all Scandinavians are “the same people”…implying…”white” and that she was okay paying taxes that benefited other white people. But the US is “different” and she would not be okay paying into such a system….Sad (and racist).

I am extremely curious what your take on this would be. The answer ought to be pretty funny and revealing of your ignorance on the topic.

The US can be more like Scandinavia. But it'll be a long road to get there. Don't expect to be living in Stockholm next year. First, change our housing and transportation infrastructure to be less sprawl and car centered. Second, increases taxes to pay for free childcare and higher salaries for teachers. A few more changes along those lines and eventually we will be there. We would have to restrict immigration also, and address the legacy of Jim Crow and redlining. We could be more like Scandinavia. I'd like to be more like Canada to start.

And this is the part that I find interesting - are you proposing flat-ish Scandanavian-style taxes or progressive American "tax the rich" style taxes?

I don't want to be more like Scandinavia. They live in darkness half the year. Their taxes are high. Their pay is low.

No thanks. You're welcome to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

- Thomas Sowell

Most of the people pushing for higher taxes don't even have jobs in the first place. So they don't care. Doesn't effect them and if it does - the outlay of being given $3,000+ a year per child with no restrictions for 18 years is a far more lucrative prospect than the increase in taxes they'll have to pay to put into the pot.

The rest of us aren't interested in paying for the family they decided to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's because Republicans hate poor people who don't look like them. That's all there is to it.

Agreed. I remember watching a show on this topic and they asked a white woman why the US couldn’t be more like Scandinavia (more social spending, etc…) and I remember being so shocked by her answer. She basically said “all Scandinavians are “the same people”…implying…”white” and that she was okay paying taxes that benefited other white people. But the US is “different” and she would not be okay paying into such a system….Sad (and racist).

I am extremely curious what your take on this would be. The answer ought to be pretty funny and revealing of your ignorance on the topic.

The US already pays a huge amount in social spending. Looking at federal and state means tested programs, along with charities, almost $1 trillion every year. About $17,500 every year for every person under the poverty line. I’m not happy with the outcomes for that social spending, and I’d rather explore why that is, rather than simply spend more.

PP here. I understand your point. But the other side of the argument is that the outcomes of the social spending are unsatisfactory because we have not spent enough - we have not crossed over an inflection point where the social programs become truly life-changing rather than just placing band-aids on structural issues. There is nothing uniquely capable/superior/different about Scandanavians that make them especially suitable for implementing social benefits. Indeed, they failed at this spectacularly leading up to the 1990s, leading to a significant drawback on the level of social benefits. We may argue that their current level seems much more sustainable.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Those are in short supply. Ok let me try a different tack. Rather than search for an elusive inflection point, let’s try something totally different (from just spending). I happen to believe that there are too many disincentives to marriage that exist for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. And I believe many social ills exist due to lack of family structure. How about we set up a special commission to review all social legislation for unintended consequences and repeal as appropriate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

???

Her household made sacrifices whether that's income or personal drive or housing location. Its a choice and one that should be made in-families. The rest of the public should not be forced to pay for you to take years off to have babies and stare at your toddlers.

Ok then don’t complain about the birth rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

- Thomas Sowell

Most of the people pushing for higher taxes don't even have jobs in the first place. So they don't care. Doesn't effect them and if it does - the outlay of being given $3,000+ a year per child with no restrictions for 18 years is a far more lucrative prospect than the increase in taxes they'll have to pay to put into the pot.

The rest of us aren't interested in paying for the family they decided to have.

PP here and I completely agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

???

Her household made sacrifices whether that's income or personal drive or housing location. Its a choice and one that should be made in-families. The rest of the public should not be forced to pay for you to take years off to have babies and stare at your toddlers.

DP. Amazing how I can tell exactly what kind of person you are by the bolded sentence.

At any rate, the PP is correct. The public should also not be forced to pay for your maternity leave and your children's daycare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

- Thomas Sowell

Most of the people pushing for higher taxes don't even have jobs in the first place. So they don't care. Doesn't effect them and if it does - the outlay of being given $3,000+ a year per child with no restrictions for 18 years is a far more lucrative prospect than the increase in taxes they'll have to pay to put into the pot.

The rest of us aren't interested in paying for the family they decided to have.

This. Takers gonna take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

???

Her household made sacrifices whether that's income or personal drive or housing location. Its a choice and one that should be made in-families. The rest of the public should not be forced to pay for you to take years off to have babies and stare at your toddlers.

Ok then don’t complain about the birth rate.

No one cares about the birth rate. You know why? The population growth is just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that so many Americans, especially on the right wing but also center and center-left, are so viscerally against the idea of someone receiving something basic that they didn't "earn"? Of all the terrible things in society, why is this the thing that generates so much outrage?

When it's about any left wing or moderately left policy - student loan debt forgiveness or free college, a public health system, a nationally higher minimum wage, family leave and childcare, public housing, the increased unemployment payouts over the pandemic, people like to mock these ideas and call them "free stuff" and "entitlements" for people who haven't earned them, as if that's some horrible thing.

I am not even arguing that I am in favor of every single one of these left ideas. There are valid criticisms of whether these things can be implemented soundly and whether we can configure a tax structure, without loopholes, that would pay for them, and whether as the assumed "world police" we can afford to reduce our military budget enough to have the social programs of the levels of other countries. There are obviously logistical criticism of any large scale government program in such a huge country being implemeneted from scratch.

But rhetorically, Americans seem so viscerally offended by the idea of someone receiving something they didn't work for... and this is almost always about low income people receiving something, and not about corporations that lie, cheat, and steal every day (or at the very least deceive, manipulate, and rig the system every day). Why is it so offensive that somebody receives a home if you don't think their low income job means they didn't work hard enough for it? Furthermore, there is an attitude that glorified suffering, like "I had to work 80 hour weeks and suffer to get into the middle class, so you should too." Is it that crazy to want things to get better and easier for future generations? Is it offensive to your great uncle who died of polio that the polio vaccine was created and people don't have it anymore? Wasn't the innovative vision of the future supposed to be a world where automation and technology makes things easier, so less labor is needed to provide for the world, and people could have more leisure time? Instead, work productivity has doubled, more or less, and work weeks and work days have gotten longer.

I'll also say that I'm not a Communist. I don't agree with state control or everything and government-appointed roles for people. I am American by marriage, not by birth, and still, some ideas are foreign to me. Why is leisure time and vacations looked down upon? even if it's just spending time with your family, caring for children or the elderly? Why is this devalued in favor of work?

Wouldn't it be better for everyone, for the environment especially, and for health, if we all just worked LESS, and produced less, consumed less? I think so many of the problems and needs that are especially prevalent in America are connected with overworking. So maybe it's not the end of the world if people receive food, healthcare, and shelter without having to "earn" it?

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Thank you for your entire thoughtful response, and most particularly, this part: "On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

- Thomas Sowell

Most of the people pushing for higher taxes don't even have jobs in the first place. So they don't care. Doesn't effect them and if it does - the outlay of being given $3,000+ a year per child with no restrictions for 18 years is a far more lucrative prospect than the increase in taxes they'll have to pay to put into the pot.

The rest of us aren't interested in paying for the family they decided to have.

This. Takers gonna take.

Wrong.

I make $120K. Tax increases almost always squeeze middle class people in high COL areas like me. I would definitely feel the sting in my paycheck, but I support tax increases. I can handle a tax increase and figure out my s***. Low income families who work several jobs and can't afford childcare have more to worry about than my privileged azz deciding whether to buy a new car or take an overseas vacation this year.