Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (5174)	1/7/2017 3:19:13 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 367367

>> I don't feel bound to tradition or doing things the same old way, just that certain noble functions, like caring for the poor, are non-negotiable. Our first priority in econ should be to change the circumstance for poor people for their betterment and for the common good. I think most people agree with that, but the reality is there is no money for it unless people are willing to give up an awful lot to get it. I don't think they are. What if you put a box on Form 1040 that says, "Amount You Wish to Contribute to the Poor People's Health Care fund (this will increase the amount you owe)"? What percentage of the total needed do you think people are actually willing to pay for? I don't think it would be much. MAYBE 5%, I would guess. Maybe 10%. I don't know. Koan might put a big number, but most of us, I don't think so, because we'd be forced to weigh the common good against our personal good.

To: one_less who wrote (5174)	1/7/2017 4:10:10 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 367367

I don't feel bound to tradition or doing things the same old way, just that certain noble functions, like caring for the poor, are non-negotiable. There's a critical difference between the old way and the current way. The old way was treated as charity. Now we have entitlement, which doesn't have the same commitment on either side.