Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
It depends on how you measure the greatest good for the greatest number. For example, tax breaks for the rich means that there will be more private investment capital available which will foster economic growth and more jobs, so by benefiting the rich, everyone benefits. On the other hand, increased social welfare benefits mean more public debt or more taxes and less private capital available for investment, meaning slower economic growth and fewer jobs. So in these examples, policies that seem to only benefit a few in fact benefit everyone, and policies aimed at benefiting everyone actually hurt everyone.
Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
It depends on how you measure the greatest good for the greatest number. For example, tax breaks for the rich means that there will be more private investment capital available which will foster economic growth and more jobs, so by benefiting the rich, everyone benefits. On the other hand, increased social welfare benefits mean more public debt or more taxes and less private capital available for investment, meaning slower economic growth and fewer jobs. So in these examples, policies that seem to only benefit a few in fact benefit everyone, and policies aimed at benefiting everyone actually hurt everyone.
Do you seriously still believe that? If tax breaks for the wealthy drove job growth, Bush II would have been able to afford his wars.
Think about it - Which factory needs more workers?
The one selling refrigerators to a market of 6 million people with an income distribution graph showing a nice bell curve and a robust middle class, or the one selling refrigerators to a market of 6 million starving peasants and one king?
It depends on how you measure the greatest good for the greatest number. For example, tax breaks for the rich means that there will be more private investment capital available which will foster economic growth and more jobs, so by benefiting the rich, everyone benefits. On the other hand, increased social welfare benefits mean more public debt or more taxes and less private capital available for investment, meaning slower economic growth and fewer jobs. So in these examples, policies that seem to only benefit a few in fact benefit everyone, and policies aimed at benefiting everyone actually hurt everyone.
Do you seriously still believe that? If tax breaks for the wealthy drove job growth, Bush II would have been able to afford his wars.
Think about it - Which factory needs more workers?
The one selling refrigerators to a market of 6 million people with an income distribution graph showing a nice bell curve and a robust middle class, or the one selling refrigerators to a market of 6 million starving peasants and one king?
Doesn't this debate illustrate exactly why government should stay out of the business of deciding who benefits?
It ain't rocket science, y'all.
It depends on the policy. The abolition of slavery, prison reform, and protection of the civil rights of people with disabilities, are good examples of policies that do not benefit the greatest number of people, but certainly make sense. A society that strives to serve only the majority, would be a pretty poor place to live.Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
Noteworthy at this moment is that by 'society' I meant any organized human activity tasked with pursuing 'public policies' that you, the writer answering the question, care to judge.
Your nation and your society are synonymous in the context of the question.
Well, in that context, sure we should seek to benefit the most people. But government policy - because it is inevitably coercive - is another matter.
It depends on the policy. The abolition of slavery, prison reform, and protection of the civil rights of people with disabilities, are good examples of policies that do not benefit the greatest number of people, but certainly make sense. A society that strives to serve only the majority, would be a pretty poor place to live.Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
It depends on how you measure the greatest good for the greatest number. For example, tax breaks for the rich means that there will be more private investment capital available which will foster economic growth and more jobs, so by benefiting the rich, everyone benefits. On the other hand, increased social welfare benefits mean more public debt or more taxes and less private capital available for investment, meaning slower economic growth and fewer jobs. So in these examples, policies that seem to only benefit a few in fact benefit everyone, and policies aimed at benefiting everyone actually hurt everyone.
Do you seriously still believe that? If tax breaks for the wealthy drove job growth, Bush II would have been able to afford his wars.
Think about it - Which factory needs more workers?
The one selling refrigerators to a market of 6 million people with an income distribution graph showing a nice bell curve and a robust middle class, or the one selling refrigerators to a market of 6 million starving peasants and one king?
It depends on how you measure the greatest good for the greatest number. For example, tax breaks for the rich means that there will be more private investment capital available which will foster economic growth and more jobs, so by benefiting the rich, everyone benefits. On the other hand, increased social welfare benefits mean more public debt or more taxes and less private capital available for investment, meaning slower economic growth and fewer jobs. So in these examples, policies that seem to only benefit a few in fact benefit everyone, and policies aimed at benefiting everyone actually hurt everyone.
Do you seriously still believe that? If tax breaks for the wealthy drove job growth, Bush II would have been able to afford his wars.
Think about it - Which factory needs more workers?
The one selling refrigerators to a market of 6 million people with an income distribution graph showing a nice bell curve and a robust middle class, or the one selling refrigerators to a market of 6 million starving peasants and one king?
In fact, the tech boom of the 1990's was almost entirely financed by rich investors. If this private capital had been taxed away to pay for social welfare benefits, there would have been no tech boom in the 1990's. The reason why the financial crisis led to high unemployment is that when so much of the nation's investment capital was tied up in bad debts, many credit worthy businesses couldn't get the capital they needed to keep employees working or hire new ones. Money that is taxed away by the government can't be invested in the private sector economy and can't create jobs.
We don't have kings and starving peasants in this country. We have people looking for jobs and investors looking for investments that will earn them profits while creating jobs for others. Tax too much of that investment capital away and you are screwing the workers.
Do you seriously still believe that? If tax breaks for the wealthy drove job growth, Bush II would have been able to afford his wars.
Think about it - Which factory needs more workers?
The one selling refrigerators to a market of 6 million people with an income distribution graph showing a nice bell curve and a robust middle class, or the one selling refrigerators to a market of 6 million starving peasants and one king?
In fact, the tech boom of the 1990's was almost entirely financed by rich investors. If this private capital had been taxed away to pay for social welfare benefits, there would have been no tech boom in the 1990's. The reason why the financial crisis led to high unemployment is that when so much of the nation's investment capital was tied up in bad debts, many credit worthy businesses couldn't get the capital they needed to keep employees working or hire new ones. Money that is taxed away by the government can't be invested in the private sector economy and can't create jobs.
We don't have kings and starving peasants in this country. We have people looking for jobs and investors looking for investments that will earn them profits while creating jobs for others. Tax too much of that investment capital away and you are screwing the workers.
Like I said Brother, fair and simple taxes, public budgets balanced by law and transparency in all things politics.
And the use of a distribution of wealth graph is not a comment on a particular or general economic policy, it's simply a gauge to see how 'government' is doing in its endeavor to serve the statistical greatest number of people.
In fact, the tech boom of the 1990's was almost entirely financed by rich investors. If this private capital had been taxed away to pay for social welfare benefits, there would have been no tech boom in the 1990's. The reason why the financial crisis led to high unemployment is that when so much of the nation's investment capital was tied up in bad debts, many credit worthy businesses couldn't get the capital they needed to keep employees working or hire new ones. Money that is taxed away by the government can't be invested in the private sector economy and can't create jobs.
We don't have kings and starving peasants in this country. We have people looking for jobs and investors looking for investments that will earn them profits while creating jobs for others. Tax too much of that investment capital away and you are screwing the workers.
Like I said Brother, fair and simple taxes, public budgets balanced by law and transparency in all things politics.
And the use of a distribution of wealth graph is not a comment on a particular or general economic policy, it's simply a gauge to see how 'government' is doing in its endeavor to serve the statistical greatest number of people.
And that's the basic difference between the left and right. Those on the left believe that government should directly serve the people's various needs and those on the right believe the government best serves the needs of the people by facilitating the efforts of the people to provide for themselves and those close to them.
The happiest place on earth is socialist....
For the past decade, social scientists and pollsters have given elaborate questionnaires to hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. Two of the largest studies that rank the happiness of countries around the world are the World Map of Happiness from the University of Leiscester and the World Database of Happiness from Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University Rotterdam. All the happiness surveys ask people basically the same question: How happy are you?
"The answer you get is not only how they feel right now, but also how they feel about their entire life," explained Dan Buettner, who has studied happiness and longevity around the world through his Blue Zones project Buettner said that if you mine all the databases of universities and research centers, you'll find that the happiest place on earth is ? Denmark. Cold, dreary, unspectacular Denmark.
Could the Danes really be the happiest people in the world? When ABC News anchor Bill Weir traveled there to find out, he asked random Danes to rate themselves in terms of happiness, on a scale of one to 10. Many people rated themselves at least an eight, and there were several nines and 10s. Finally, one grouchy Dane came along who said she didn't believe Danes were so happy. But then she quickly conceded that she herself felt rather content with her life, and said Danes in general had very little to complain about.
Danes do have one potential complaint: high taxes. The happiest people in the world pay some of the highest taxes in the world -- between 50 percent and 70 percent of their incomes. In exchange, the government covers all health care and education, and spends more on children and the elderly than any country in the world per capita. With just 5.5 million people, the system is efficient, and people feel "tryghed" -- the Danish word for "tucked in" -- like a snug child.
Those high taxes have another effect. Since a banker can end up taking home as much money as an artist, people don't chose careers based on income or status. "They have this thing called 'Jante-lov,' which essentially says, 'You're no better then anybody else,'" said Buettner. "A garbage man can live in a middle-class neighborhood and hold his head high."
Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News
Do you seriously still believe that? If tax breaks for the wealthy drove job growth, Bush II would have been able to afford his wars.
Think about it - Which factory needs more workers?
The one selling refrigerators to a market of 6 million people with an income distribution graph showing a nice bell curve and a robust middle class, or the one selling refrigerators to a market of 6 million starving peasants and one king?
Doesn't this debate illustrate exactly why government should stay out of the business of deciding who benefits?
Totally.
Taxes that are fair because they're simple, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and then build an economy that your children can drive to the stars.
And, your point?In general? That depends. As a practice? No way.
It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.
And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.
The "founding fathers" owned slaves.
In general? That depends. As a practice? No way.Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.
And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.
Doesn't this debate illustrate exactly why government should stay out of the business of deciding who benefits?
Totally.
Taxes that are fair because they're simple, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and then build an economy that your children can drive to the stars.
Gov't doesnt need to build an economy. Gov't cannot build a toilet seat efficiently.
Set a fair set of ground rules and let things go.
Let's look at the question of gay marriage, for example. One would think of all places where a majority would support such a thing would be California.In general? That depends. As a practice? No way.Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.
And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.
How exactly would making policies that benefit most people would oppress minorities? Are they not people? Why did you assume that what is good for most is not good for minorities?
The happiest people in the world pay some of the highest taxes in the world -- between 50 percent and 70 percent of their incomes. In exchange, the government covers all health care and education, and spends more on children and the elderly than any country in the world per capita. With just 5.5 million people, the system is efficient, and people feel "tryghed" -- the Danish word for "tucked in" -- like a snug child.
Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News
For example, tax breaks for the rich means that there will be more private investment capital available which will foster economic growth and more jobs, so by benefiting the rich, everyone benefits.
The happiest people in the world pay some of the highest taxes in the world -- between 50 percent and 70 percent of their incomes. In exchange, the government covers all health care and education, and spends more on children and the elderly than any country in the world per capita. With just 5.5 million people, the system is efficient, and people feel "tryghed" -- the Danish word for "tucked in" -- like a snug child.
Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News
This is a reasonable and compelling argument, and as someone who struggles with the proper size, scope and cost of our government, I have to wonder if our "pursuit of happiness" isn't all it's cracked up to be. I'm not saying it isn't, but I think it's a valid question. That pursuit has led to a society so medicated by depression medication, drugs, caffeine and other artificial crutches that a sane person can wonder. After all, if "happiness" is what we're after, and there is indeed a formula, why are we ignoring it?
I don't know.
But here's my issue - I'm not sure that we can get there from here. I'd like to know if the Danish government is as corrupt as ours. Our "leaders" are paid off thugs in many cases, open to the highest bidder. I'm therefore neither comfortable with nor confident in their ability to move us in a direction that would get us closer to where the Danes are.
.
Where did it work? How about after the 2001 Clinton recession,when the economy was back on track in 18 months? Compare that to the Obama stimulus where we still haven't seen much growth. Under Bush the UE rate was about5% on average. Under Obama it's been over 8 1/2 every day of his term.For example, tax breaks for the rich means that there will be more private investment capital available which will foster economic growth and more jobs, so by benefiting the rich, everyone benefits.
Where has that worked? The Bush tax cuts have been in place for over a decade and we saw some of the worst job losses in our country's history as a result. What were the tax policies in this country when it had it's most thriving middle class?
