Masonic Perspectives Wanted: Meritocracy

reply to post by OratoryHeist


That last bit was a joke. I was implying that you were actually President Obama posting under a fake name. (your political views seem more inline with his)

I get what you are saying and I probably went a tiny bit overboard in my interpretation. I just cannot agree with rewarding anyone for doing a poor job. Help those who truly need it, but those who would rather sit and watch need to be paid accordingly. The way the US is built, anyone can have a dream, start a business, and either make their fortune, or loose it based on how good their idea was and how well they acted on their dream. And if they fail, they are free to try again. Unfortunately, there are also folks being rewarded for choosing to live in government provided hosing and not having a real job. And they get money and food and housing and it all get's paid for by the ones who decided to work and earn their living. It's either the greatest thing on earth, or it's the most disgusting thing on earth depending on where you are in the game.

Good luck with your ideals. I am happy with mine.

Originally posted by network dude
And they get money and food and housing and it all get's paid for by the ones who decided to work and earn their living.

Do not forget free cell phones, laptops, internet, etc.

These are all crucial to life.

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213


It's perfectly clear. It's just that a 100% inheritance tax likely will go to expanding the welfare system, thus disincentivizing people to get off it.

I am a bit confused, I do not know where I brought up a 100% inheritance tax, and didn't know that was part of this theory, but I've not been back to this thread for a while, I may have fogotten things.
But all taxes go to government spending.
"Expanding the welfare system" means what? I don't think I understand what you mean by that?
What about using that money to hire more social workers and investigators that will enforce laws and rules upon those receiving aid? Less abuse and less freedom for them tends to be a deterent, I have seen.
In this country, you don't get a check each month- you are put into government housing and put into a system which controls what you do and forces you to take steps towards re-insertion into the society. You are obligated to take courses and classes, and have daily surveillence and guidance.
If you want freedom, you have to get off the state.
Funding could go to that sort of program and would not encourage people to become (or remain) dependant.

That's my point; that you presume Paris Hilton is a representative sample. It seems like everyone's mind just defaults to idle, ill-behaved socialites when the children of the rich are mentioned.

Okay I see what you meant then! But I will raise the question in another way then-
How can one claim to hold a value upon individual merit, and simultaneously support inheritance of this sort?

Do you mean to say "I believe in individual merit for one generation, then the second is exempt"?

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by network dude
And they get money and food and housing and it all get's paid for by the ones who decided to work and earn their living.

Do not forget free cell phones, laptops, internet, etc.

These are all crucial to life.

How silly of me. I forgot all about the right to have an iphone and the right to be able to correct someone who is wrong on the internet.

And the saddest part of it, is that it's an inherited skill. The kids are taught to live on the system. Trying to get them to break away is like pulling teeth. It's almost like it's engineered to be that way.

Originally posted by Bluesma
I am a bit confused, I do not know where I brought up a 100% inheritance tax, and didn't know that was part of this theory, but I've not been back to this thread for a while, I may have fogotten things.

It's in the OP.

"Expanding the welfare system" means what? I don't think I understand what you mean by that?
What about using that money to hire more social workers and investigators that will enforce laws and rules upon those receiving aid? Less abuse and less freedom for them tends to be a deterent, I have seen.
In this country, you don't get a check each month- you are put into government housing and put into a system which controls what you do and forces you to take steps towards re-insertion into the society. You are obligated to take courses and classes, and have daily surveillence and guidance.
If you want freedom, you have to get off the state.
Funding could go to that sort of program and would not encourage people to become (or remain) dependant.

I'll admit I have seen this issue through red-white-and-blue-colored glasses. This is a fantastic way of doing things. (I have a few quibbles, but they're minor.) If your country has the money to do this, more power to you.

Unfortunately, however, this is not how the American welfare system works, and never will be. Any attempt, at all, to turn public assistance into anything more than an unearned paycheck is met with accusations of heartlessness and, often, racism. A certain segment of our population is either can't or won't discuss the issue honestly, and will never allow even the most reasonable of accountability measures (not even a drug test). Any money poured into the American public assistance system will either expand the eligibility pool or increase the subsidy given.

How can one claim to hold a value upon individual merit, and simultaneously support inheritance of this sort?

Do you mean to say "I believe in individual merit for one generation, then the second is exempt"?

What I mean to say is this: I believe that individual merit is one of the values of the kind of place I want my country to be. It is not, however, the only value in that consideration, and every value occasionally finds itself in competition with one or more of its peers.

In this case, individual merit has found itself in conflict with individual freedom, ethical taxation, and limited government. A radical estate tax encroaches upon the individual's right to do with his resources as he sees fit. A tax based on anything other than absolute need of the money gained to fund essential operations is inherently unethical; more so if the justification is simply the government attempting to solve a problem it has yet to prove exists. Every value loses to one of the others somewhere.

Originally posted by ELectricalApprentice

Maybe 100% is a little steep. Would you be opposed to 100% Inheritance Tax applied to anyone with an income of say, over a million dollars?

Yes, I would be opposed to that. Id be OK with 20% Flat Tax for all.

(Disclaimer: This has nothing to do with Freemasonry, nor does Freemasonry teach or make any economic recommendations. Freemasonry is a system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols).

reply to post by Skyfloating


The sad thing is, some people would of had a field day with that if you hadn't put the disclaimer in.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by OratoryHeist

 

That last bit was a joke. I was implying that you were actually President Obama posting under a fake name. (your political views seem more inline with his)

Well done Sherlock, you have discovered my true identity. I'll have to go speak with Rockefeller, see what the boss wants me to do now.

I just cannot agree with rewarding anyone for doing a poor job. Help those who truly need it, but those who would rather sit and watch need to be paid accordingly.

No one suggested otherwise, guess you didn't bother reading what i wrote previously, or maybe you are just trying to twist things, again.