View from the Center and Left Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (10607)	2/2/2006 11:08:45 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) of 541812

I think the problem here is the example used. Sticking to the clear example of government spending, it's surely easier. Say (hypothetical figures), benefit claimants used to get $50/week from the state. Now they get $40/week. The state isn't 'taking away from them', as such, it's giving them less, in strictest phraseology. It may be morally repugnant, but it's not a confiscation per se. However I think you'll find such a cut pretty universally portrayed as "taking money from the poor" (especially if it's coupled with reductions in taxes paid mainly by the richest...). If you reduce someone's entitlement you are effectively taking away from their income - you are changing the moral contract implicit in government. Another example: if your employer used to pay $50/hour and then changes that to pay $40, he may be allowed to under your contract but I think such a pay cut would be described as "taking away" your pay. The implicit contract is that you are entitled to that pay, and not meeting the expectation - a change which you are unable to prevent - is taking away something rightfully yours under that contract...

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next