I've gotten to know a lot of fellow seniors when I'm playing pickleball. Every once in a while, the conversation turns to Medicare. Someone will talk about how he got surgery paid for by Medicare and paid very little himself. Then he will say, "Medicare is a godsend." Maybe I could get future such people to say, "Medicare is a taxpayersend."
Does your friend believe that he is a recipient of welfare?
In my experience people on Medicare believe that it is an entitlement that he "paid into" and that he received no help from the taxpayer (he paid for it himself) and thus owes gratitude to nobody. And that if someone proposed cutting his Medicare benefits in any way he would see it as "theft."
Your dream sounds like the situation before government got involved in welfare. Friendly Societies and guilds would look after those needing help, and the recipients would be grateful, and therefore self-limiting.
When I was young a broke, I got public assistance, and I was grateful. When I was older and flush, I paid fat taxes and saw it as part of one's life cycle.
A long time ago I read an article on "Cracked" that tried to disprove the idea that leftists hate rich people. It made an analogy between asking the rich to pay more taxes and the plot of "Return of the Jedi." Yoda didn't ask Luke Skywalker to defeat the Emperor because he hated Luke, he asked him to because no one else could do it.
I thought about that argument for a while and realized it didn't hold up. Leftists frequently justify the welfare state by arguing that the rich didn't really earn their money, so they have no right to it. Yoda didn't tell Luke that he'd somehow stolen his force powers and needed to fight the Emperor to atone for that. The characters and viewers respect and admire Luke for what he does.
This makes me wonder, like Bryan, if we could significantly raise taxes on the rich by flattering them. Tell them that their country desperately needs money, and they are special people with a unique ability to create tons of wealth, so only they can pay the taxes required. It might work, but I expect that the left would never stand for it. They'd rather let the rich keep their money than stop disrespecting them.
Totally agree. Have long thought that the IRS should send all taxpayers a personalized letter thanking them and stating what they paid. One could put it in one's window like the gold stars.
Yes, and now imagine wealthy individuals or families competing to be the ones who contributed the most to the public pot by paying taxes. Maybe a parade for the top tax-payers.
This makes me think of an argument I had some years ago with a “liberal” friend. I forcefully expressed my opposition to welfare to which he countered: “what about the old woman who doesn’t have enough savings to live on?”
My response: “why is that my problem?!”
“I guess that person would have to seek out charities that assist people like her.”
Why is this such a controversial position? There are billions of strangers in the world who are definitely worse off than that hypothetical old lady. No one is stopping people from voluntarily helping other people.
Most social spending isn't marketed as welfare, and those few on welfare are mostly minorities who think society owes them anyway.
All the big social spending is marketed as "investments". Education is an investment. Healthcare is an investment.
And of course old age stuff is marketed as "an entitlement you paid into your whole life." Not welfare.
You can argue these "investments" have poor return or that the actuarial math doesn't work on on old age retirements. But the bottom line is that "they aren't welfare and you shouldn't feel like a charity case" is the entire secret sauce behind how they get public support.
Someone doesn't grasp the concept of magnanimity nor the point of social welfare nets. They aren't for you to feel good about yourself nor to make other grovel for your scraps. You are helping people because it's the right thing to do, their ingratitude, or even outright spite, is OK. They often didn't choose their circumstances, why should feel they owe you jack? You bribe is to keep from executing the kick your door down option if you want to get crass about it (i.e. to temper social unrest that comes with hopelessness), if anything, you should thankful they are good OK with your spare change.
(In reply to your quote on your restack .. though it works even after a fuller read)
The level of ingratitude and self-entitlement of social services, food stamps, student loans, free lunches, ad nauseum is beyond the pall and absolutely disgusting. Some serious bitch-slapping is called for to engender a sense of humility and appreciation for others' sacrafices.
I've gotten to know a lot of fellow seniors when I'm playing pickleball. Every once in a while, the conversation turns to Medicare. Someone will talk about how he got surgery paid for by Medicare and paid very little himself. Then he will say, "Medicare is a godsend." Maybe I could get future such people to say, "Medicare is a taxpayersend."
Does your friend believe that he is a recipient of welfare?
In my experience people on Medicare believe that it is an entitlement that he "paid into" and that he received no help from the taxpayer (he paid for it himself) and thus owes gratitude to nobody. And that if someone proposed cutting his Medicare benefits in any way he would see it as "theft."
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9x-f1kpBqAVZTicayHlfPHV_5QBfSzEzgdUFjC4ENfCv7aXc21kOWh30&s=10
It was more than one person. I didn't ask.
Your dream sounds like the situation before government got involved in welfare. Friendly Societies and guilds would look after those needing help, and the recipients would be grateful, and therefore self-limiting.
When I was young a broke, I got public assistance, and I was grateful. When I was older and flush, I paid fat taxes and saw it as part of one's life cycle.
A long time ago I read an article on "Cracked" that tried to disprove the idea that leftists hate rich people. It made an analogy between asking the rich to pay more taxes and the plot of "Return of the Jedi." Yoda didn't ask Luke Skywalker to defeat the Emperor because he hated Luke, he asked him to because no one else could do it.
I thought about that argument for a while and realized it didn't hold up. Leftists frequently justify the welfare state by arguing that the rich didn't really earn their money, so they have no right to it. Yoda didn't tell Luke that he'd somehow stolen his force powers and needed to fight the Emperor to atone for that. The characters and viewers respect and admire Luke for what he does.
This makes me wonder, like Bryan, if we could significantly raise taxes on the rich by flattering them. Tell them that their country desperately needs money, and they are special people with a unique ability to create tons of wealth, so only they can pay the taxes required. It might work, but I expect that the left would never stand for it. They'd rather let the rich keep their money than stop disrespecting them.
Totally agree. Have long thought that the IRS should send all taxpayers a personalized letter thanking them and stating what they paid. One could put it in one's window like the gold stars.
Yes, and now imagine wealthy individuals or families competing to be the ones who contributed the most to the public pot by paying taxes. Maybe a parade for the top tax-payers.
Can you really can afford it?
This makes me think of an argument I had some years ago with a “liberal” friend. I forcefully expressed my opposition to welfare to which he countered: “what about the old woman who doesn’t have enough savings to live on?”
My response: “why is that my problem?!”
“I guess that person would have to seek out charities that assist people like her.”
Why is this such a controversial position? There are billions of strangers in the world who are definitely worse off than that hypothetical old lady. No one is stopping people from voluntarily helping other people.
Most social spending isn't marketed as welfare, and those few on welfare are mostly minorities who think society owes them anyway.
All the big social spending is marketed as "investments". Education is an investment. Healthcare is an investment.
And of course old age stuff is marketed as "an entitlement you paid into your whole life." Not welfare.
You can argue these "investments" have poor return or that the actuarial math doesn't work on on old age retirements. But the bottom line is that "they aren't welfare and you shouldn't feel like a charity case" is the entire secret sauce behind how they get public support.
Someone doesn't grasp the concept of magnanimity nor the point of social welfare nets. They aren't for you to feel good about yourself nor to make other grovel for your scraps. You are helping people because it's the right thing to do, their ingratitude, or even outright spite, is OK. They often didn't choose their circumstances, why should feel they owe you jack? You bribe is to keep from executing the kick your door down option if you want to get crass about it (i.e. to temper social unrest that comes with hopelessness), if anything, you should thankful they are good OK with your spare change.
(In reply to your quote on your restack .. though it works even after a fuller read)
I want to enslave them more
The level of ingratitude and self-entitlement of social services, food stamps, student loans, free lunches, ad nauseum is beyond the pall and absolutely disgusting. Some serious bitch-slapping is called for to engender a sense of humility and appreciation for others' sacrafices.
Needless to say, charities figured this out a long time ago and use it a lot. But a charity can’t force me to fund them, while the government…