From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Aug 10 2003 - 10:30:41 MDT
Samantha writes
> > [Rafal wrote:]
> >
> > > ### Of course, those Americans who refuse to work, under the pretext of
> > > being "unemployed", will not be able to purchase more than they manage to
> > > squeeze from taxpayers in "benefits".
>
> Pretext???? It is no "pretext" for an awful lot of people right now.
> "Squeeze from taxpayers"??? The unemployed paid the unemployment taxes while
> they were working! I have paid mine up for an awful lot of years, far more
> than I could possibly consume if unemployed these days.
>
> Are we having funny slapping around hard-assed positions without due
> consideration?
No, Samantha, all these positions---on each side---are being
carefully considered by some people on each side. Your
invective is wasted ;-)
Yes, for many people, Rafal used exactly the right word: pretext.
For many others, of course, that is not the right word. So read
his sentence carefully before firing back.
You wrote
> The unemployed paid the unemployment taxes while
> they were working!
Yes, but they had no *choice*. For many, like you, had they
had the freedom to invest that money, and did so, they would
be vastly better off. But "freedom" is not a high consideration
in many socialist mind-sets.
> I have paid mine up for an awful lot of years, far more
> than I could possibly consume if unemployed these days.
Well, if you STAYED unemployed long enough, you obviously
could. See how the incentives are wrecked? Right now, the
money is not legally yours. So if you were unemployed, it
would be either use it or lose it. So the unemployed have
diminished incentive to look for work until it runs out.
Yet I do not see the other side actually grapple with the
logic my side throw out. How often do those on your side
actually use the word "incentive"?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 10:39:43 MDT