Quote:
Originally Posted by JayJamJah
Wow, no one is allowed to call me cynical anymore. Wasp you don't trust people at all?
|
I tend to be very skeptical of people and think that, when raised in a country that emphasizes "winning" as a premier goal and uses one's bank account as a measure of success, people will ignore the suffering of others in favor of "winning."
Still, I don't know if there is an absolute "right" or "wrong" (and if there is, I don't think anyone really knows it. Ideas of "right" and "wrong" tend to fluctuate, like people's taste in music).
Quote:
First the money, 1% is the same to everyone. That's why you use a percentage based system. the more money you make typically the bigger your egg gets, on other words the more bills\expenses you have. So yeah a flat tax is most fair.
|
1% is not the same to everyone. Would you rather give up 1% of $1,000 (and keep the rest) or 5% of $100,000? Let's up the juice and make it 10%. Under a flat tax, a poor family that "makes" $1,000 will only keep $900. The family earning $100,000 will still have a comfortable $90,000, more than enough to pay its bills. If you're just barely scraping by on $90,000, then you really need to rethink your lifestyle. Of course, this isn't "proof" that a flat rate isn't "fair" and it's really a value judgment.
Quote:
|
As far as child labor and 18 hour work days etc. The free market takes care of that. People have the right to stop working under those conditions or stop buying th product.
|
That's far too idealistic. It didn't happen before the trustbusters and unions came along near the turn of the century; take away their power and child labor et. al. will become the norm again. Yes, people have the right to stop working...but that's not really an option when one has a family to feed, there is no such thing as welfare, and every other company is offering the same conditions.
Quote:
|
Right now if there are any existing monopolies they are the probably the oil companies which are government subsidized. I'm not for complete free reign, but the less government intervention the better. I don't think people are nearly as inherently greedy as you presume.
|
Well, in a few years that point will be moot anyway (there's not that much oil left, and besides, the price of getting it is far too high). I don't think people are necessarily inherently greedy, but when they are raised in a capitalist country that uses wealth as a yardstick for success (as in my first comment), I think that it certainly encourages greed, inherent or not.
Quote:
|
Besides that your logic is counterintuitive. Under the current system politicians make a very average salary, this leads them to make or support legislation based on bribes from lobbyists. If you take government regulation out of the picture people will make more money across the board and be less tempted to take bribes.
|
True, but that's under a capitalist system. Decrease the value of money (and the advantage in having far more than someone else) and the problem is mostly solved. Besides that, you could introduce measures to discourage lobbying or raise politician's salaries. As it is, I think all of those problems are trumped by the corrupt political system we have; flawed elections, biased media, biased elections, etc.
Quote:
|
But mostly the question of education. Look at private schools\public schools and the graduation rates\success of students beyond. Private funding allows teachers\parents\administrators to put money towards what the school needs most instead of having to buy certain items to meet federal or state curriculum's.
|
Graduation rates are a pretty meaningless statistic; they can be fudged by the schools' standards for graduation and the pressure put on teachers to make sure a certain percentage of students graduate. Private funding would mean that some students get a far better education than others, on the strictly arbitrary factor of how wealthy their parents are. As it is, children in some areas receive a heavily funded education while others attend schools that are quite literally decaying right in front of them. You might say that I favor equal funding for all schools, yet advocate teaching methods that target students' individual needs. All schools should have decent computers, textbooks, etc. but the equipment should not be used uniformly.
Quote:
|
You're right to be critical of methods of teaching, a more hands on practical approach to the application of knowledge is a great way to improve retention and enthusiasm about learning but is stifled in the public schools because of standard testing which is the archaic measuring stick used by the government to hold public schools accountable. Undermining the individuality of students and ignoring the diversity inn relation to the varying backgrounds and aspirations of each student.
|
Again, we agree on the problem, just not the solution. I don't think private enterprises would fix this problem; I think that the government should abolish its ridiculously arbitrary and meaningless "standardization" requirement. While we're at it, abolish grades. That will weed out all of the people who don't really care about getting an education (they can always return later when they find that they can't get a decent job).