[…]
Nope, that’s not the true nature, you’re being manipulative. How about this instead:
They need to start rebuilding the social safety net by confiscating additional tax dollars from people who actually do earn a living, or by reallocating money originally intended as welfare for someone else, so that their citizens know that if they go out on a limb and try something risky, someone will be there to catch them if things don’t work out.
When you put on your economist hat, please ensure it’s firmy attached to your head.
My bitchiness stems from my bullshit detector, which tells me, “This person is trying to manipulate their readers”, or, “This person has been manipulated by others and is spreading their false ideas further.”
Cool, it’s settled; you speak honestly, I won’t speak at all.
i can see how someone can be deemed manipulative by not including a sentence that is arguably necessary, but the use of the word ‘confiscating’ to explain the process of taxation beyond what the individual who is being taxed wants to pay for has equal bias. confiscate has connotations that paint the aforementioned taxation as inherently negative - i understand that this is the opinion of the writer, but at the same time, it’s hardly an objective analysis. confiscate is used either with the intent, or the unintended side effect, or making it sound more or less like theft via authority.
i actually disagree with the core concept of the original argument, that the purpose of a social safety net is to encourage innovation. i’d argue instead that living in a western country is more or less a decision to create certain standards - there’s a reason we outsource to other countries when we want to pay someone a substandard wage, or terrible working conditions. we like benefitting from it, but hate dealing with the realities it creates. western societies often, i think, desire a social safety net because in their experience, success is not based entirely on dedication or hard work, and although these are essential characteristics for most successes, some people need assistance to improve their situation.
inherent in creating any system to help people is the possibility of creating a system that can be taken advantage of. i think this is worth it, but then again, i’m canadian, irreperably socialism inclined, and have bias of my own.
i’m not an economist, and my understanding of economics is underdeveloped at best… but i also think ideals have an important role to play in policy, and conflating the two usually results in errors.
just saying, arguing that someone else is being manipulative, and inserting into their argument a statement that is clearly biased, followed by demanding honesty, sets my bullshit and hypocrisy detectors off.