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

[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.

Bullshit. We have an HHI of $250k and I would be fine with paying a bit more if it helps others who need it - and accordingly, anyone with a higher HHI than myself can DEFINITELY afford to pay more.

[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

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

Given both are taken by law ‘for your own good?’. Sure

[Anonymous]

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!

There is no logical distinction between supporting someone who has one child, two children, versus 10 children, so long as the children are being properly raised and not subject to neglect or abuse by the parents. We as a society see it as a public good to sustain or grow our population. One way we encourage this is through he subsidy of child rearing. If someone wants to keep rearing children - I'll note that this is quite a common practice in some parts of the world even today - then I don't see a justification for there to be an artificial limit.

[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?

I would argue it's the same consideration as public schools - plenty of people pay property taxes that go towards paying for the schooling of other people's children. We decided that an educated population is a public good.

[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

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

Given both are taken by law ‘for your own good?’. Sure

Uh, no. Both those are paying in now for benefits later. It's akin to forced savings. Not at all the same as loan forgiveness. Otoh, I also don't want to pay higher taxes for someone else's maternity leave.

[Anonymous]

Those who are fine with spending some of their HHI for other families are certainly free to do so, and many do. We donate quite a bit to local programs b/c I feel they do a better job than those run by the government.

I worked in a safety net program in Baltimore. It was related to healthcare for children( birth - teen), including mental health services. We had a committee that met routinely that included many such programs. Honestly, there were a tremendous amount of services many of them vying for the same population. Are use the term vying as they were grant funded.

I walked away from that program after four years coming to the realization that there is a lot of money, time and other resources spent for a fairly small population. And the results were alarmingly and depressingly poor. Throwing more money at the problem sadly is not the best answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those who are fine with spending some of their HHI for other families are certainly free to do so, and many do. We donate quite a bit to local programs b/c I feel they do a better job than those run by the government.

I worked in a safety net program in Baltimore. It was related to healthcare for children( birth - teen), including mental health services. We had a committee that met routinely that included many such programs. Honestly, there were a tremendous amount of services many of them vying for the same population. Are use the term vying as they were grant funded.

I walked away from that program after four years coming to the realization that there is a lot of money, time and other resources spent for a fairly small population. And the results were alarmingly and depressingly poor. Throwing more money at the problem sadly is not the best answer.

I do like the work of the Dream Center in Los Angeles, but I won’t get on board with the head’s views on vaccines.

[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?

I would argue it's the same consideration as public schools - plenty of people pay property taxes that go towards paying for the schooling of other people's children. We decided that an educated population is a public good.

Education is primarily funded at the local level giving citizens the ability to choose form a variety of taxing schemes and funding mechanisms. That you can move to Texas or Wyoming where tax policy is more aligned with your personal views is an important societal outlet. That’s not what people are pushing here.

[Anonymous]

People do receive shelter, food, and all other benefits without a huge uprising by the public. I think your narrative that most people are opposed to it is false. I don’t see a bunch of people complaining about the programs, and there are many. Here are just a few:


Medicaid
Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidies
Children's Health
Maternal and child health services
Title X Family Planning Program
Older Americans Act Nutrition Program
Head Start
Health professions student loans and scholarships
Community Services Block Grant
Social Services Block Grant (Including Transfers from TANF)
Low-income Home Energy Assistance
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
National School Lunch Program
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Child and Adult Care Food Program
School Breakfast Program
Summer Food Service Program
Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP)
Special Milk Program for Children
Etc etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bullshit. We have an HHI of $250k and I would be fine with paying a bit more if it helps others who need it - and accordingly, anyone with a higher HHI than myself can DEFINITELY afford to pay more.

Okay? You’re still defined as a taker. You and the PP before you would be getting more back in taxes on annual basis between the CTC, paid leave, subsidized daycare than the individuals living in your neighborhoods making the same income and no kids.

What you’re not getting is no one wants to pay to subsidize you ESPECIALLY with a higher average HHI. Pay for it yourself.

[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!

There is no logical distinction between supporting someone who has one child, two children, versus 10 children, so long as the children are being properly raised and not subject to neglect or abuse by the parents. We as a society see it as a public good to sustain or grow our population. One way we encourage this is through he subsidy of child rearing. If someone wants to keep rearing children - I'll note that this is quite a common practice in some parts of the world even today - then I don't see a justification for there to be an artificial limit.

The artificial limit should be imposed because neither adult nor children are contributing to the tax base sustaining them - in this case for at least 10 years. And to be honest - who thinks she’ll come back after that? That’s Germany problem right now - only half of their female workforce is employed and within that more 60% are partially employed in low income, domestic or administrative white collar jobs. They’re dumbing the female constituency down by keeping them in the kitchens cooking and in the living rooms cleaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People do receive shelter, food, and all other benefits without a huge uprising by the public. I think your narrative that most people are opposed to it is false. I don’t see a bunch of people complaining about the programs, and there are many. Here are just a few:


Medicaid
Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidies
Children's Health
Maternal and child health services
Title X Family Planning Program
Older Americans Act Nutrition Program
Head Start
Health professions student loans and scholarships
Community Services Block Grant
Social Services Block Grant (Including Transfers from TANF)
Low-income Home Energy Assistance
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
National School Lunch Program
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Child and Adult Care Food Program
School Breakfast Program
Summer Food Service Program
Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP)
Special Milk Program for Children
Etc etc.

Did you notice 90% you posted is food?

It gives hungry children meals. Vastly different from paying an adult to sit on his or her butt for a year while the checks roll in and they video game. Their are numerous examples of parents using the CTC to plug the gaps to avoid finding sustainable work.

[Anonymous]

OP conflating student loan debt relief with free college is idiotic. I’m all for free state schools but the idea that taxpayers would foot the bill for unemployable gender studies majors rewards imbeciles who have made a long stream of bad decisions.

[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?

I would argue it's the same consideration as public schools - plenty of people pay property taxes that go towards paying for the schooling of other people's children. We decided that an educated population is a public good.

Education is primarily funded at the local level giving citizens the ability to choose form a variety of taxing schemes and funding mechanisms. That you can move to Texas or Wyoming where tax policy is more aligned with your personal views is an important societal outlet. That’s not what people are pushing here.

Where and how childcare is funded is a tangential discussion. All states have compulsory schooling requirements paid by taxes. I am sure something similar in terms of fundingcan be put in place for childcare. I agree that it should be implemented at the local level rather than federal.

[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?

I would argue it's the same consideration as public schools - plenty of people pay property taxes that go towards paying for the schooling of other people's children. We decided that an educated population is a public good.

Education is primarily funded at the local level giving citizens the ability to choose form a variety of taxing schemes and funding mechanisms. That you can move to Texas or Wyoming where tax policy is more aligned with your personal views is an important societal outlet. That’s not what people are pushing here.

Where and how childcare is funded is a tangential discussion. All states have compulsory schooling requirements paid by taxes. I am sure something similar in terms of fundingcan be put in place for childcare. I agree that it should be implemented at the local level rather than federal.

Its not tangential if 90% of it is being funded by the federal government. Whereas with schools, the local tax base determines both the cost and quality of the schools.