right vs benefit

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:46 pm

GREAT post Eric. I missed it earlier. One big problem is "specialization". As we graduated from hunter-gatherer, we began to specialize. We need a great amount of technology to intercede / intervene in supplying us with essentials. I was in the L.A. earthquakes. You learn that it takes 1100 trucks of food per day to keep us fed. The bridges were down. Most of the effort that I see from GOV is very half-assed. 1 year after Katrina, there were big floods in Iowa. FEMA had lots of surveillance helicopters but, no rescue helicopters. Iowa national guard helicopters were being trashed in Afghanistan. I doubt that they [we] can get our shit together for big problems.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:33 pm

interesting, comparing the Iowa flooding and loss to the katrina event.
I wonder how they compare in numbers of people, property loss, etc.

I think, "help" from the government, in those cases are benefits....not rights.

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:04 pm

ygmir wrote:interesting, comparing the Iowa flooding and loss to the katrina event.
I wonder how they compare in numbers of people, property loss, etc.

I think, "help" from the government, in those cases are benefits....not rights.

But might I not have the "right" to expect those "benefits" because I had the "obligation" to pay taxes to the government to provide those "services"?

JK

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:49 pm

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where we pay taxes so that gov can take care of all that sucks in life?

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:05 am

jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote:interesting, comparing the Iowa flooding and loss to the katrina event.
I wonder how they compare in numbers of people, property loss, etc.

I think, "help" from the government, in those cases are benefits....not rights.
But might I not have the "right" to expect those "benefits" because I had the "obligation" to pay taxes to the government to provide those "services"?

JK

well, yeah........I'd say, you have the right or "expect" the benefits.
but, not the right to "receive" them.

sort of like the right to the" pursuit of happiness".......but, no guarantee, or "right" of catching it.

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:26 am

â€Ž"Hey Cons, don't let the Socialist snow plows clean out your roads. That is tyranny trampling your freedom to dig yourself out. Same goes for the National Weather Service. Predict your own blizzards without the heavy hand of government ." -Brad Anderson-

JK

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:28 am

Trishntek wrote:I'm sorry, did I miss the part where we pay taxes so that gov can take care of all that sucks in life?

I must have missed that part too.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:40 am

jkisha wrote:
â€Ž"Hey Cons, don't let the Socialist snow plows clean out your roads. That is tyranny trampling your freedom to dig yourself out. Same goes for the National Weather Service. Predict your own blizzards without the heavy hand of government ." -Brad Anderson-
JK

benefits, not rights, though.

and, at least here (IIRC), we pay a direct fuel tax for road maint. including plowing.

graidawg · Post by **graidawg** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:13 am

quote from my eldest son

"its not my fault"
everytime i ask him what happened he's 25 currently 7 years unemployed because he expects the system to look after him, hes a qulified chef but doesn't want to do it because its hard work also snow studying to be a carpenter "because they get loads of money" (another quote)

Eric all your points are excellent and i agree entirely, the problem is as soemone has athere signature

"somebody should fix that" "no you fix it and somebody may want to lend there expertise"
or words to that effect

I ask the question though does it make a difference if its a "Right" if we dont exercise that Right
Is it a privelige if we are forced to do it?

About 10 years ago i told a friend that society as we know or our fathers knew it would be changed beyond recognition within 20 years due to technology i think i was possibly about 5 years out

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:46 am

ygmir wrote:
jkisha wrote:
â€Ž"Hey Cons, don't let the Socialist snow plows clean out your roads. That is tyranny trampling your freedom to dig yourself out. Same goes for the National Weather Service. Predict your own blizzards without the heavy hand of government ." -Brad Anderson-
JK
benefits, not rights, though.

and, at least here (IIRC), we pay a direct fuel tax for road maint. including plowing.

So, you'd like all taxes we pay to be earmarked then?

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:53 am

jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote:
jkisha wrote: JK
benefits, not rights, though.

and, at least here (IIRC), we pay a direct fuel tax for road maint. including plowing.
So, you'd like all taxes we pay to be earmarked then?

JK

I'd not thought of it that way, but, yeah, I think that'd be good.
very, very small amount left to "discretionary" spending by the ticks in D.C.

so, there could be a disaster fund, too.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:00 pm

ygmir wrote:
jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote: benefits, not rights, though.

and, at least here (IIRC), we pay a direct fuel tax for road maint. including plowing.
So, you'd like all taxes we pay to be earmarked then?

JK
I'd not thought of it that way, but, yeah, I think that'd be good.
very, very small amount left to "discretionary" spending by the ticks in D.C.

so, there could be a disaster fund, too.

The federal income tax began as a "War Tax" during the Civil War and was abolished after the war ended.

Fuel taxes, excise taxes on tires and licensing fees are supposed to pay for roads.

Social Security taxes are supposed to pay for SS.

Medicare taxes are supposed to pay for Medicare/medicaid.

Fees paid at nat'l parks and campgrounds are supposed to pay for their upkeep.

Postage is supposed to pay for the postal service. (edit: A specific service which continually needs more than they "earn")

Call them earmarks if you want to, but every tax is SUPPOSED to have a specific purpose. Everything seems to end up in the general fund. Then all of our smartest and wisest decide how to divide it up to benefit themselves and their buddies.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:07 am

It seems that you do not have a right to refuse to contribute to social-security. Also, you do not have a right to collect from SS either;
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5776%3Cbr

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:15 am

I would take anything coming out of The Cato Institute with a pound of salt.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:22 am

yeah, but, it reads as accurate.
I'd bet, the gov. can (and may well) deny SSI to people, legally.
and, I wonder, how do you (if making money) not pay SS tax without getting in trouble?

interesting, though not surprising, the gov. would make it seem a "right" so you'll be more willing to pay, but, hold the power to "deny".

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:29 am

ygmir wrote:yeah, but, it reads as accurate.
I'd bet, the gov. can (and may well) deny SSI to people, legally.
and, I wonder, how do you (if making money) not pay SS tax without getting in trouble?

interesting, though not surprising, the gov. would make it seem a "right" so you'll be more willing to pay, but, hold the power to "deny".

I didn't read the actual case that was cited. But, deny Social Security to the masses that even 'think' they are entitled to it and you will surely see riots in the streets. No politician would ever be able to pull that off. The outcome would make the tea baggers look meek by comparison.

Packoderm · Post by **Packoderm** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:38 am

Some might be confusing "a right to" and "free access to." Several decades a ago, African Americans were granted the right to eat in the same restaurant as white people. However, they both still need to pay for their meals. Education has been granted as free access by our government, but if you want your child to attend a class in which disruptive students (who often destroy much of the learning for all students in the classroom) can be removed from the school, you will need to pay for your child to go to private school. Some people in other nations have been granted both the right and free access to getting killed in order for U.S. and European corporations to gain preferred access to petroleum resources.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:45 am

jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote:yeah, but, it reads as accurate.
I'd bet, the gov. can (and may well) deny SSI to people, legally.
and, I wonder, how do you (if making money) not pay SS tax without getting in trouble?

interesting, though not surprising, the gov. would make it seem a "right" so you'll be more willing to pay, but, hold the power to "deny".
I didn't read the actual case that was cited. But, deny Social Security to the masses that even 'think' they are entitled to it and you will surely see riots in the streets. No politician would ever be able to pull that off. The outcome would make the tea baggers look meek by comparison.

yeah, but who will the "rioters" be?

I can see throngs of old folks, some in walkers and on oxygen, taking over the capitol................

FIGJAM · Post by **FIGJAM** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:55 pm

ygmir wrote:yeah, but, it reads as accurate.
I'd bet, the gov. can (and may well) deny SSI to people, legally.
and, I wonder, how do you (if making money) not pay SS tax without getting in trouble?

interesting, though not surprising, the gov. would make it seem a "right" so you'll be more willing to pay, but, hold the power to "deny".

Ask me at the M&G and I'll tell you.

Most of the people I know who get ssi, were turned down on the first attempt, almost like it was policy.

They would apeal and get it , in 2 years.

These were for disabilities though.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:52 pm

FIGJAM wrote:Most of the people I know who get ssi, were turned down on the first attempt, almost like it was policy.

They would apeal and get it , in 2 years.

These were for disabilities though.

Oh that's pretty standard for people with disabilities, especially mental illness. Policy, even. But it's a different animal turning 65. Everyone expects to retire, no one expects to be disabled.

FIGJAM · Post by **FIGJAM** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:55 pm

It's sad for the people that just accept the first refusal as final and don't appeal.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:48 pm

Even those who get it, don't get much. My husband was bipolar, and that was only one of the thoroughly awful stations of the cross that he had to endure.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:38 am

As long as taxes are NOT optional, the difference between right and benefit will IMHO remain largely academic.

lucky420 · Post by **lucky420** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:42 am

Max ssi in nevada is something like $670 a month. Yes people should always appeal the first refusal...

It's kind of sad when I see some people who are to sick to work any longer but always worked under the table. They can't get ssdi because they never paid taxes while working. They may not necesarrily get ssi/medicaid because they may not be determined "disabled" These people are generally older (though not always) and most likely aren't going to find employment anytime soon.

lucky420 · Post by **lucky420** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:44 am

p.s. yes these people should have paid there fair share while working...

I'm just stating that since they didn't and most likely won't get ssi/ssdi, what the hell are they going to do now?

goathead · Post by **goathead** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:33 pm

ygmir wrote:
jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote:yeah, but, it reads as accurate.
I'd bet, the gov. can (and may well) deny SSI to people, legally.
and, I wonder, how do you (if making money) not pay SS tax without getting in trouble?

interesting, though not surprising, the gov. would make it seem a "right" so you'll be more willing to pay, but, hold the power to "deny".
I didn't read the actual case that was cited. But, deny Social Security to the masses that even 'think' they are entitled to it and you will surely see riots in the streets. No politician would ever be able to pull that off. The outcome would make the tea baggers look meek by comparison.
yeah, but who will the "rioters" be?

I can see throngs of old folks, some in walkers and on oxygen, taking over the capitol................

AARP joins the Tea Party?

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:26 pm

lucky420 wrote:p.s. yes these people should have paid there fair share while working...

I'm just stating that since they didn't and most likely won't get ssi/ssdi, what the hell are they going to do now?

Yup. it's horrible. Just one more way that we keep the poor poor.
(yes, they are not all poor, but predominently are, I believe.)