Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 16:40:22 GMT -5
I did miss that. Can you explain why my thinking is wrong. ----> Instead of giving $35 million to Warner Brothers to spend in Michigan. Tax the population of Michigan $35 million dollars less then they did. Let the people who earned that money spend it instead of Warner brothers. Instead of it going to vendors to support a movie maker, it could have went to restaurants to feed the family of the man/woman who earned the money by working. Or instead of a restaurant, maybe the mall or maybe whatever the person who earned it wanted. Hickle-Warner Brothers could have filmed the movie in any state if they wished. Don't hold me to it but I think I read Warner Bros. was initially going to film the movie on Toronto. So the Michigan Film office reached out to Warner Bros and basically said, 'Hey Warner Bros-we will give you $35 million in incentives to film in Michigan.' Warner Bros. replied, 'Cool. Then we will spend $131 million of our money in Michigan, which will include employing a number of Michigan citizens while making the movie, using Michigan based vendors for our film, and eat and sleep in Michigan restaurants and hotels.' So Michigan gave up $35 million in incentives to have Warner Bros spend $131 million in Michigan. Deduct $35 million from $131 million and Michigan and its citizens made $96 million dollars. $96 million dollars that could have gone to Toronto or any other states in the U.S. Does that make sense to you? Don't you have to often invest money to make money? Did they provide some list where they spent the $131 million? Whatever it was it was not an investment and it was not capitialism. How much would the tax rate have to be on $131 million dollars in order to get back the $35 million they gave? Did they get back even 1/4 of the $35 million? As you well know, you and I have very different ideas on what government should and should not do. Taking $35 million dollars from tax payers and giving it to Hollywood moguls to make a movie is beyond horrible.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 29, 2016 16:47:22 GMT -5
I did miss that. Can you explain why my thinking is wrong. ----> Instead of giving $35 million to Warner Brothers to spend in Michigan. Tax the population of Michigan $35 million dollars less then they did. Let the people who earned that money spend it instead of Warner brothers. Instead of it going to vendors to support a movie maker, it could have went to restaurants to feed the family of the man/woman who earned the money by working. Or instead of a restaurant, maybe the mall or maybe whatever the person who earned it wanted. Hickle-Warner Brothers could have filmed the movie in any state if they wished. Don't hold me to it but I think I read Warner Bros. was initially going to film the movie on Toronto. So the Michigan Film office reached out to Warner Bros and basically said, 'Hey Warner Bros-we will give you $35 million in incentives to film in Michigan.' Warner Bros. replied, 'Cool. Then we will spend $131 million of our money in Michigan, which will include employing a number of Michigan citizens while making the movie, using Michigan based vendors for our film, and eat and sleep in Michigan restaurants and hotels.' So Michigan gave up $35 million in incentives to have Warner Bros spend $131 million in Michigan. Deduct $35 million from $131 million and Michigan and its citizens made $96 million dollars. $96 million dollars that could have gone to Toronto or any other states in the U.S. Does that make sense to you? Don't you have to often invest money to make money? In addition, for Michigan to give its residents $35 million (by not taxing them that amount) and then hoping that it gets spent, there is no benefit to the state. They give away $35 million and hope to get $3 million back? The residents derive a benefit, but the state does not. They are now $32 million short of where they would have been, and have to then make that up again, likely through taxes. The only benefit here comes from bringing in outside money that would not have existed there otherwise. That is what the state was doing with the incentives, with the additional hope that it would create future business after the film as well.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 29, 2016 16:52:08 GMT -5
Hickle-Warner Brothers could have filmed the movie in any state if they wished. Don't hold me to it but I think I read Warner Bros. was initially going to film the movie on Toronto. So the Michigan Film office reached out to Warner Bros and basically said, 'Hey Warner Bros-we will give you $35 million in incentives to film in Michigan.' Warner Bros. replied, 'Cool. Then we will spend $131 million of our money in Michigan, which will include employing a number of Michigan citizens while making the movie, using Michigan based vendors for our film, and eat and sleep in Michigan restaurants and hotels.' So Michigan gave up $35 million in incentives to have Warner Bros spend $131 million in Michigan. Deduct $35 million from $131 million and Michigan and its citizens made $96 million dollars. $96 million dollars that could have gone to Toronto or any other states in the U.S. Does that make sense to you? Don't you have to often invest money to make money? Did they provide some list where they spent the $131 million? Whatever it was it was not an investment and it was not capitialism. How much would the tax rate have to be on $131 million dollars in order to get back the $35 million they gave? Did they get back even 1/4 of the $35 million? As you well know, you and I have very different ideas on what government should and should not do. Taking $35 million dollars from tax payers and giving it to Hollywood moguls to make a movie is beyond horrible. There is also a multiplier on spending. That $131 million gets spent many times, and gets taxed on most of those. The likely benefit will be at least $35 million or else they would not have done it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 16:56:41 GMT -5
The likely benefit of us going to war in the Middle East for the last 15 years is worth the ?trillion dollars? that we spent otherwise government would not have done it.
Maybe Michigan congress people want to go to a movie premier and act the big shot on government money. I would bet that before I bet you idea.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 29, 2016 16:58:42 GMT -5
The likely benefit of us going to war in the Middle East for the last 15 years is worth the ?trillion dollars? that we spent otherwise government would not have done it. Maybe Michigan congress people want to go to a movie premier and act the big shot on government money. I would bet that before I bet you idea. What are you talking about? Nothing in that post makes any sense at all.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 29, 2016 17:10:08 GMT -5
The spending multiplier is a very simple concept in economics. Here is an example. You work in construction. You get paid for working. Tax gets paid on that. You spend the money somewhere. Tax gets paid again. The business owner uses that money to pay employees. Tax gets paid again. They spend that money. Tax gets paid again. Over and over and over. Money does not get used up. It is continually reused and a new tax gets paid each time. The economic benefit of $131 million in new outside money cannot really be determined, but it will likely be at least what the state gave in incentives. That is the whole point. The war in the Middle East has zero to do with it, nor does your contention that someone wants to act like a big shot at a movie premiere. It is an economic consideration.
If you are stating that money spent on the military also has a multiplier effect, that is true. You would have to be extremely cynical to suggest that that was the reason for going to war. There would be many better ways to stimulate the economy than that.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 29, 2016 17:19:00 GMT -5
No, it's not. This has been said before and a poll taken at the time it was said proved it to be a false assumption. Liberal vs conservative was about even. Most posters were somewhat moderate. Most posters think they are moderate. Most posters think other posters are not moderate. I am happily on the extreme though. You should come join me there sometime and help fight the good fight. LOL, hickle! At my age, my moderate stance is pretty well set in stone, I'm afraid. I've had a lot of years to formulate my opinions on matters political, and those matters don't really change much. The changes to which we react are situational while the basics remain the same. I do think the further one is from the center the more likely that person is to perceive others as equally polarized. For the most part, I'm not bothered by what others might think, or support. We all come to our opinions based on our experiences.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 17:47:39 GMT -5
How much does it cost a day to keep someone in prison?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 30, 2016 0:43:04 GMT -5
The spending multiplier is a very simple concept in economics. Here is an example. You work in construction. You get paid for working. Tax gets paid on that. You spend the money somewhere. Tax gets paid again. The business owner uses that money to pay employees. Tax gets paid again. They spend that money. Tax gets paid again. Over and over and over. Money does not get used up. It is continually reused and a new tax gets paid each time. The economic benefit of $131 million in new outside money cannot really be determined, but it will likely be at least what the state gave in incentives. That is the whole point. The war in the Middle East has zero to do with it, nor does your contention that someone wants to act like a big shot at a movie premiere. It is an economic consideration.
If you are stating that money spent on the military also has a multiplier effect, that is true. You would have to be extremely cynical to suggest that that was the reason for going to war. There would be many better ways to stimulate the economy than that. this is also known as "economic turns", and is a key concept in core economic activity, such as manufacturing, and why such things are so vital to our nation.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 30, 2016 8:19:35 GMT -5
How much does it cost a day to keep someone in prison? About $50K per inmate per year. I have no doubt that if we could guarantee this program doesn't incentivize crime, it would make sense from a dollars and cents standpoint. As haapai points out, we sidestep the cost of policing, jailing, court proceedings, ... The basic cost/benefit equation needs to be looked at in terms of profits and growth in MI, not simply money spent there. This "$131M - $37M" is nonsense. Suppose a film producer come to MI and spends $130M in exchange for goods and services. This money is of benefit to the people in MI in two ways: i) if efficiently invested in the growth of the economy, it will result in an increase in MI's ability to produce goods and services in future; and ii) if the costs of producing the goods and services (G/S) is less than the price paid (i.e. if there is a profit), the citizens of MI reap a profit on the transaction. These are the only two ways the money benefits MI: growth and profit. Taxation and the degree to which the money circulates and recirculates within the MI economy are ancillary. If MI was an entirely closed system, the circulation of $130M in new money without any increase in the productive output of the state would simply inflate prices. In reality, we know that MI isn't a closed system and that $130M is quickly redeemed by MI purchasing $130M in G/S from CA. If there is no growth in the MI economy as a result of the money coming in, the cost/benefit is determined entirely by profits. Specifically: $130M flows from CA to MI in exchange for $X dollars in goods and services; the $130M eventually flows back to CA from MI in exchange for $Y dollars in goods and services. The net benefit to MI is $ Y-X, or the difference in the two profit margins. If we assume the two states have similar margins, there's zero net benefit to MI as a result of the money being spent. It's just moving from one place to another and back again. Since this is a reasonable assumption, we'll make it, in which case growth rather than profit is our motivation. In other words, this is an investment. Already MI is at a disadvantage because the government has given the producer G/S priced at $37M as an incentive. Suppose this $37M works out to be $32M in G/S if we cut out the usual profit margin. We can think of this $32M as a leveraged investment, since it brings in $130M in capital for the purposes of growth. When the trade is unwound, $130M flows back to CA at 0% (we're assuming equal profit margins). CA is left with $32M as a payment. MI is left with whatever capital gains it was able to realize using $130M during the term of investment (i.e. time between inflow and outflow). Hence to break even on the gambit, the determining question is: are the capitals gains (more specifically, is the growth in G/S production in MI) from the $130M worth $32M or more? This is an ROI of ~25%, which is a hefty figure. It's certainly possible MI makes this back over the long run, but it's also very possible that it doesn't. If we want to be brutally fair, we also have to consider that the $32M could otherwise have been invested in other projects resulting in capital growth. It's not unreasonable to posit a baseline 5% ROI (which works out to a ~1.25% ROI on the leveraged investment), meaning the ROI on this film investment would have to be > 26.25% for the gambit to benefit MI over investing the money elsewhere. Calculating the actual ROI I imagine would be a formidable task since it depends on how much a temporary injection of $130M "stimulates" the MI economy. I could see somebody making a reasoned case for just a few percent (basically, keeping a few hundred people off the unemployment rolls for a year to produce a few million in G/S) and I could see somebody making a reasoned case for percentages well in excess of 26% (maybe the money keeps MI businesses afloat through a bust period in order to prosper later, which was the sine qua non of Keynes' theory). In any case, it's not a question with an obvious answer, hence you and @hickle might try respecting each other's positions a bit more.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 30, 2016 8:21:10 GMT -5
I'm assuming that's an answer to the OP. In which case: why not? If it's cheaper and it will mean fewer dead people, why not?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 30, 2016 10:33:53 GMT -5
I'm assuming that's an answer to the OP. In which case: why not? If it's cheaper and it will mean fewer dead people, why not? Moral Hazard for one thing.
I have danced on this slippery slope. I am a strong advocate for treatment of opiate addicts- including the prescriptions of opiates to them to satiate their addictions. One of the reasons that I support that is because it decreases the stupid crimes that addicts commit (and try to commit) to feed their habits.
I cannot go into the realm of actually paying people to not commit crimes. Can't go there.
I agree. How do you determine the crimes someone might have done? It's unquantifiable.
Pay them a 'wage' while they attend a trade school for free. That way they're improving their employability and will hopefully be too busy to continue their gang lifestyle.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 30, 2016 12:36:48 GMT -5
I'm assuming that's an answer to the OP. In which case: why not? If it's cheaper and it will mean fewer dead people, why not? Moral Hazard for one thing.
I have danced on this slippery slope. I am a strong advocate for treatment of opiate addicts- including the prescriptions of opiates to them to satiate their addictions. One of the reasons that I support that is because it decreases the stupid crimes that addicts commit (and try to commit) to feed their habits.
I cannot go into the realm of actually paying people to not commit crimes. Can't go there.
Curious. I was pondering the question earlier: Is it morally wrong to give taxpayers' money to people for doing nothing? I couldn't come up with a definitive answer. Morally, I don't know of any place in scripture where the issue is addressed. The Bible addresses usury, lawful and unlawful punishment, mercy, rehabilitation, nations seeking terms of peace, but I can't think of any specific instance where it addresses the issue of paying somebody to not commit a crime. There are proverbs that relate to putting unlawful men to productive work during the term of their punishment, but it's not a close analog. Barring scripture, I'm stuck trying to reason through the issue, and I'm getting nothing. Many of you might remember Optimist's thread about chronic homelessness from last year, whereby cities are giving free lodging to the homeless as an alternative to dealing with all the problems they cause. Giving out free apartments to keep people from engaging in all the unsavoury behaviours associated with homelessness doesn't seem too far removed from paying bangers not to shoot each other. Or we might consider skate parks. A good many skate parks owe their existence to "extorted" taxpayer funding. The damage caused by skateboarders plus the cost of enforcing "no skateboarding" laws becomes so great that it makes more sense for a city to just build a skate park. Again, a policy not far removed from paying people not to shoot each other. Many major cities (Toronto included) will pay cab fare and public transit fare out of the public purse on New Year's Eve to reduce the number of fatalities due to drunk driving. This is barely removed at all from paying people not to shoot each other. I can think of at least a half-dozen other examples. deminmaine , you mention paying for drugs at safe injection sites. Various governments will pay people to not have unprotected sex, not kill endangered animals, not abuse their kids, ... and the list goes on. There are a lot of precedents only marginally removed from what's being proposed here. Assuming we support any of these other policies, it means we've draw a line between them and the policy of paying gang bangers not to shoot each other. If so, on what basis? Do we argue it's unethical? Is it impractical? What factor is it that puts this policy over the line whereas some or all of the other policies aren't over the line? Or are all of these policies a step too far? Are we witnessing the logical next slip down the slope that started when we started experimenting with seemingly benign "make the problem go away" incentives decades ago, like paying out stipends on a weekly basis to individuals on native reservations who could prove they weren't drunk. I don't see life getting any better for people on native reservations. I don't see the problems going away or communities growing more self-sufficient there. It's very rare that I come across a social policy issue where I simply have no idea which way to lean.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 30, 2016 12:38:25 GMT -5
San Francisco ? Suburb of San Francisco ? Paying murder suspects not to commit crimes ? This is extreme crazy, even from the land of fruits and nuts. The originator of this idea needs to look up the definition of the word "enabling". I'd be interested in what you think of the other pay-for-nothing policies I mention in my previous post. Do you support any of them? Are they all bad ideas in your mind?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 12:50:28 GMT -5
San Francisco ? Suburb of San Francisco ? Paying murder suspects not to commit crimes ? This is extreme crazy, even from the land of fruits and nuts. The originator of this idea needs to look up the definition of the word "enabling". I'd be interested in what you think of the other pay-for-nothing policies I mention in my previous post. Do you support any of them? Are they all bad ideas in your mind? I just don't get it. When I was a kid, none of those things existed. (The ideas you listed) I didn't go around shooting anyone as a gang member, or destroy anything when the sidewalk surfing craze got started, or anything else. Sales tax was also 1% in the state I lived in at that time. Now I pay almost ten times that amount every time I go to the store and there seems to be more problems not less. I consider it enabling a problem, not fixing it. I don't know what else to say. I just can't see paying someone for a crime they "might" commit. It sounds beyond crazy IMO. Are politicians that removed from the source of "their" tax money ? (I did delete that post of mine you quoted though, as it seemed a little offensive upon re-reading.)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 30, 2016 13:34:35 GMT -5
I'd be interested in what you think of the other pay-for-nothing policies I mention in my previous post. Do you support any of them? Are they all bad ideas in your mind? I just don't get it. When I was a kid, none of those things existed. (The ideas you listed) I didn't go around shooting anyone as a gang member, or destroy anything when the sidewalk surfing craze got started, or anything else. Sales tax was also 1% in the state I lived in at that time. Now I pay almost ten times that amount every time I go to the store and there seems to be more problems not less. I consider it enabling a problem, not fixing it. I don't know what else to say. I just can't see paying someone for a crime they "might" commit. It sounds beyond crazy IMO. Are politicians that removed from the source of "their" tax money ? (I did delete that post of mine you quoted though, as it seemed a little offensive upon re-reading.) It's no secret that spending on welfare and government programs has been on an upward trajectory, even in GDP-normalized terms, for decades. It's also no secret that the trend is accelerating. Paying for good behaviour has its cost, and it's getting more expensive all the time.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 30, 2016 15:12:54 GMT -5
Moral Hazard for one thing.
I have danced on this slippery slope. I am a strong advocate for treatment of opiate addicts- including the prescriptions of opiates to them to satiate their addictions. One of the reasons that I support that is because it decreases the stupid crimes that addicts commit (and try to commit) to feed their habits.
I cannot go into the realm of actually paying people to not commit crimes. Can't go there.
Curious. I was pondering the question earlier: Is it morally wrong to give taxpayers' money to people for doing nothing? I couldn't come up with a definitive answer. Morally, I don't know of any place in scripture where the issue is addressed. The Bible addresses usury, lawful and unlawful punishment, mercy, rehabilitation, nations seeking terms of peace, but I can't think of any specific instance where it addresses the issue of paying somebody to not commit a crime. There are proverbs that relate to putting unlawful men to productive work during the term of their punishment, but it's not a close analog. Barring scripture, I'm stuck trying to reason through the issue, and I'm getting nothing. Many of you might remember Optimist's thread about chronic homelessness from last year, whereby cities are giving free lodging to the homeless as an alternative to dealing with all the problems they cause. Giving out free apartments to keep people from engaging in all the unsavoury behaviours associated with homelessness doesn't seem too far removed from paying bangers not to shoot each other. Or we might consider skate parks. A good many skate parks owe their existence to "extorted" taxpayer funding. The damage caused by skateboarders plus the cost of enforcing "no skateboarding" laws becomes so great that it makes more sense for a city to just build a skate park. Again, a policy not far removed from paying people not to shoot each other. Many major cities (Toronto included) will pay cab fare and public transit fare out of the public purse on New Year's Eve to reduce the number of fatalities due to drunk driving. This is barely removed at all from paying people not to shoot each other. I can think of at least a half-dozen other examples. deminmaine , you mention paying for drugs at safe injection sites. Various governments will pay people to not have unprotected sex, not kill endangered animals, not abuse their kids, ... and the list goes on. There are a lot of precedents only marginally removed from what's being proposed here. Assuming we support any of these other policies, it means we've draw a line between them and the policy of paying gang bangers not to shoot each other. If so, on what basis? Do we argue it's unethical? Is it impractical? What factor is it that puts this policy over the line whereas some or all of the other policies aren't over the line? Or are all of these policies a step too far? Are we witnessing the logical next slip down the slope that started when we started experimenting with seemingly benign "make the problem go away" incentives decades ago, like paying out stipends on a weekly basis to individuals on native reservations who could prove they weren't drunk. I don't see life getting any better for people on native reservations. I don't see the problems going away or communities growing more self-sufficient there. It's very rare that I come across a social policy issue where I simply have no idea which way to lean. giving money to lost causes is not unusual among governments, churches, or charities. there is nothing immoral about it.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 30, 2016 16:15:43 GMT -5
I think rewarding good behavior is a better idea than rewarding bad behavior.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 30, 2016 16:20:41 GMT -5
I think rewarding good behavior is a better idea than rewarding bad behavior. if you make treatment options available to people with mental health and addiction issues (at a cost to taxpayers), and they CHOOSE to utilize them, then you might find that the country is less populated with people who are addicts and have untreated mental illnesses. would you call that "rewarding bad behaviour"?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 30, 2016 16:31:52 GMT -5
Not really but I believe that rewarding those who do right and not that do wrong might encourage more to do right than emulate wrong behavior.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 30, 2016 16:36:09 GMT -5
Not really but I believe that rewarding those who do right and not that do wrong might encourage more to do right than emulate wrong behavior. i have always figured that doing right was it's own reward. but who knows, i guess.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 16:44:08 GMT -5
Maybe think of it as some kind of reparation. The country failed generations with welfare. Welfare far too often pays people to lessen themselves, to make themselves and their families weaker. I don't think government money should go to pay people not to murder, but private money would be spent well there, imo. Government fails because it can't discriminate based on individual traits. A program like this would need people who can choose who to sponsor based on what the person they want to sponsor is like.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 30, 2016 17:11:56 GMT -5
Not really but I believe that rewarding those who do right and not that do wrong might encourage more to do right than emulate wrong behavior. i have always figured that doing right was it's own reward. but who knows, i guess. Look around you, how well is that working?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 30, 2016 17:21:29 GMT -5
i have always figured that doing right was it's own reward. but who knows, i guess. Look around you, how well is that working? i almost never look outside myself for axioms. if you are asking how it is working FOR ME, it is working perfectly, thanks. how's your negativity (or "realism", as most cynics prefer to call it) working for you?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 30, 2016 18:23:03 GMT -5
Look around you, how well is that working? i almost never look outside myself for axioms. if you are asking how it is working FOR ME, it is working perfectly, thanks. how's your negativity (or "realism", as most cynics prefer to call it) working for you? When I see people emulating behavior that used to be relegated to those with bad upbringing, because now it's applauded and rewarded with taxpayer benefits and isn't considered shameful or bad, I do not think it sets a good example for those who try to do the right thing. I'd like to see those who don't get pregnant in high school, or don't drop out, or don't become gang members rewarded and those who don't choose better, not get rewarded for those choices. I do like the idea of taking young men and young women away from their bad environment and poor parenting and sending them away to a trade school or another area totally removed from the bad one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 30, 2016 19:49:21 GMT -5
i almost never look outside myself for axioms. if you are asking how it is working FOR ME, it is working perfectly, thanks. how's your negativity (or "realism", as most cynics prefer to call it) working for you? When I see people emulating behavior that used to be relegated to those with bad upbringing, because now it's applauded and rewarded with taxpayer benefits and isn't considered shameful or bad, I do not think it sets a good example for those who try to do the right thing. I'd like to see those who don't get pregnant in high school, or don't drop out, or don't become gang members rewarded and those who don't choose better, not get rewarded for those choices. I do like the idea of taking young men and young women away from their bad environment and poor parenting and sending them away to a trade school or another area totally removed from the bad one. yeah. that must suck. but i don't see any of that behavior. except for in my sister. my sister got pregnant when she was 16. my dad threw her boyfriend in jail for statutory rape. when he got out, he and my sister (who dropped out) fled to Nevada and got married. she then moved to Colorado and got a degree in advertising (i think. can't remember now). they spent many years on the dole while she was in college. she then worked many years for Quaker Oats. quit, and got a job working with stock brokers. is now a VP for a minor brokerage firm. never divorced. own their home free and clear. raised that son reasonably well. he has two daughters of his own. they are good kids. oh, and the government footed the bill for my dad to attend Stanford. and they waived my SBA fee when i bought my building in 2010. yeah, we are a real welfare family. but i can say without reservation that we have used our government cheese very wisely, and have had uniformly great results.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 30, 2016 20:14:40 GMT -5
Yes, she was paid and paid well by taxpayer dollars to become a productive citizen. She's not overwhelmed by student loan debt. Why? Because she had a child. My daughter told me how the ones with babies got apartments to themselves and free everything while the ones that didn't, worked, got loans, paid for everything. What was their reward for not having a baby at 16? How is that fair? How about doing something for the kids who don't cause trouble in school? Who do well and don't get pregnant? I've watched the steadfast attention on those who cause the most problems while those that don't, get ignored. Your Dad got a free ride to Stanford? I'm assuming the GI Bill which isn't exactly a free ride. I'm not saying don't try to save someone who has made ONE mistake but I am saying STOP penalizing those that don't. Reward them. Treat them well and praise them. Honor them and point them out as examples to be followed.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,898
|
Post by haapai on Mar 30, 2016 20:48:45 GMT -5
Er...the reward for not having a baby at 16 is not having a baby to care for when you are 17, a toddler to care for when you are 18, and fast little bugger to keep track of while you are trying to study during your college years. The reward is you get to have roommates during college and all of the mixed learning experiences that come with it, instead of being mind-boggling lonely in your solo apartment. The reward is having the freedom to date or not date during college without worrying too much about finding a partner who is ready, willing and able to share the tremendous load of raising a child.
If you offered me a choice between teen motherhood and crushing college debt, I'd take the debt. I'm really not detecting much moral hazard here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 30, 2016 21:05:55 GMT -5
Yes, she was paid and paid well by taxpayer dollars to become a productive citizen. She's not overwhelmed by student loan debt. Why? Because she had a child. My daughter told me how the ones with babies got apartments to themselves and free everything while the ones that didn't, worked, got loans, paid for everything. What was their reward for not having a baby at 16? How is that fair? How about doing something for the kids who don't cause trouble in school? Who do well and don't get pregnant? I've watched the steadfast attention on those who cause the most problems while those that don't, get ignored. Your Dad got a free ride to Stanford? I'm assuming the GI Bill which isn't exactly a free ride. I'm not saying don't try to save someone who has made ONE mistake but I am saying STOP penalizing those that don't. Reward them. Treat them well and praise them. Honor them and point them out as examples to be followed. but by all measure, my sister was successful. she has done very well, and paid back in whatever she took MANIFOLD. can you see that, or not? ditto for my father. ditto for me. i think it is the case that many occasionally need a lift up- a step up from the gutter. and if they get it, they often turn out OK. i KNOW the case you are making- you are making a case AGAINST lifetime freeloaders. please note that i am not now, nor have i EVER made that case. how are apart are we, zib?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 31, 2016 5:01:22 GMT -5
Not at all. I just want to see those that don't screw up finally rewarded for doing tthe right thing, for a change. Society used to punish wrong doing and reward the good. Now it's the opposite and we wonder why there's more bad behavior. Duh.
|
|