Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
11 Dallas police officers shot
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Commercialfarmer" data-source="post: 1346248" data-attributes="member: 14544"><p>Young grasshoper, empathy for your fellow man is good, and an argument could be made that to not have empathy and to also not act on that empathy through charital giving is imoral. </p><p></p><p>However, think through in it's entirety what you and I are saying. </p><p></p><p>Charity does not equal welfare. Charity, is the decision we can each make to give to a man in need, by whatever circumstances they are that caused them. You can decide if he or she is deserving. (Bad choices may have consequences. I believe in grace, but not in perpetuating bad choices.) There is nothing holding us back from giving what we feel morally obligated to give. There have been institutions that have existed before the creation of our government that were created with the purpose of assisting the needy and down troden. </p><p></p><p>But when you carefully disect welfare, it is the government using force (threat of jail, confiscation, fines, etc) to make one or many individuals give to another that the government has arbitrarily decided is worthy of the another person's property based on some arbitrarily decided means test, that absolutely cannot be monitored without an increase in beaurocracy to do so, and then cannot and will not be 100% accurate in its assesment.</p><p></p><p>So for welfare to exist, it does not take into consideration any ill effects it may cost in taking of the property of the one welfare is taxing, or to the family of the one they are taking from. </p><p></p><p>There is a cost to this forced "charity", a waste....a huge waste, due to all the cost of oversight by the government to force this exchange. It starts with the producer having to pay an accountant to figure in all the special rules to know how much of their earned property they have to give away. Created means testing and such... So there is a charge to even be forced to give away your property under this "moral" charity. There is threat of jail time, and people do go to jail for purposefully or nonpurposefully getting this wrong, so add the cost of housing these people that otherwise might have paid a simple constitutional tax burden.</p><p></p><p>Then, someone has to pay the thousands of government employees salaries to go back and check to see if the laws were executed as written. Plus all the attorneys to litigate any discrepencies or grey zones. </p><p></p><p>Then government organizations have to be created to decide all the basis for assistance (what factors someone should receive anothers property without exchange of goods or services and under force of threat), the means and logistics to distribute this property, and then there will need to be some type of organization and people paid to evaluate that the receivers of this coerced "giving" meet the criteria to receive it, plus people paid to look for fraud in its delivery, plus attorneys paid to pursue fraudulent situations, and jails to house those that are ruled guilty of abusing the system.</p><p></p><p>After all the hidden costs, and millions of people paid to force a person with property deemed excessive to give to one deemed insufficient not able to know the fine details of either's situation, how much of the original dollar "taxed" for the purpose of welfare do you think reaches the intended target? How much fraud do you think exists?</p><p></p><p>The intention is not what is important. What is important, is the constitutionality of a law first and foremost, and then the results. </p><p></p><p>Right to property is the first problem i see here. The rest does not matter. But is still obvious it fails.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Commercialfarmer, post: 1346248, member: 14544"] Young grasshoper, empathy for your fellow man is good, and an argument could be made that to not have empathy and to also not act on that empathy through charital giving is imoral. However, think through in it's entirety what you and I are saying. Charity does not equal welfare. Charity, is the decision we can each make to give to a man in need, by whatever circumstances they are that caused them. You can decide if he or she is deserving. (Bad choices may have consequences. I believe in grace, but not in perpetuating bad choices.) There is nothing holding us back from giving what we feel morally obligated to give. There have been institutions that have existed before the creation of our government that were created with the purpose of assisting the needy and down troden. But when you carefully disect welfare, it is the government using force (threat of jail, confiscation, fines, etc) to make one or many individuals give to another that the government has arbitrarily decided is worthy of the another person's property based on some arbitrarily decided means test, that absolutely cannot be monitored without an increase in beaurocracy to do so, and then cannot and will not be 100% accurate in its assesment. So for welfare to exist, it does not take into consideration any ill effects it may cost in taking of the property of the one welfare is taxing, or to the family of the one they are taking from. There is a cost to this forced "charity", a waste....a huge waste, due to all the cost of oversight by the government to force this exchange. It starts with the producer having to pay an accountant to figure in all the special rules to know how much of their earned property they have to give away. Created means testing and such... So there is a charge to even be forced to give away your property under this "moral" charity. There is threat of jail time, and people do go to jail for purposefully or nonpurposefully getting this wrong, so add the cost of housing these people that otherwise might have paid a simple constitutional tax burden. Then, someone has to pay the thousands of government employees salaries to go back and check to see if the laws were executed as written. Plus all the attorneys to litigate any discrepencies or grey zones. Then government organizations have to be created to decide all the basis for assistance (what factors someone should receive anothers property without exchange of goods or services and under force of threat), the means and logistics to distribute this property, and then there will need to be some type of organization and people paid to evaluate that the receivers of this coerced "giving" meet the criteria to receive it, plus people paid to look for fraud in its delivery, plus attorneys paid to pursue fraudulent situations, and jails to house those that are ruled guilty of abusing the system. After all the hidden costs, and millions of people paid to force a person with property deemed excessive to give to one deemed insufficient not able to know the fine details of either's situation, how much of the original dollar "taxed" for the purpose of welfare do you think reaches the intended target? How much fraud do you think exists? The intention is not what is important. What is important, is the constitutionality of a law first and foremost, and then the results. Right to property is the first problem i see here. The rest does not matter. But is still obvious it fails. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
11 Dallas police officers shot
Top