"The whole point of insurance is that we all get screwed a little, so that when someone gets really fucking boned, they don't get screwed sideways on top of it."
Yes, and that would be fine & dandy if the risk pool were homogeneous. The members of each pool would pay a little in excess of their expected return (benefit), in anticipation of that rainy day.
But that's NOT what's happening with post-obamacare "insurance"! The law outlaws whole classes of risk pools, instead mandates lumping people from old & sick to young & healthy into one. That means exactly that the latter are being forced to subsidize the former. The young systematically overpay and the old systematically underpay for their respective risk profiles. That is not insurance, that is generational wealth transfer!
See also pathological altruism: "behavior in which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable"
The other difference is what I said above. Collecting less taxes from X and correspondingly cutting spending does not leave the other taxpayers Y != X worse off, whereas giving a subsidy to X and preserving other spending requires extra taxes to be taken from Y != X. The former is preservation of wealth. The latter is a transfer of wealth.
One difference may become clear once you replace some of the verbs "give" with "forced to give" to more accurately portray the subservience relationship. Another difference is that the "owe" is not any normal voluntary debt, but a threat to unilaterally take more.
In any other legal setting, it is simply not the case that not taking something from someone is the same thing as taking something from them then returning it later.
"worker control of the means of production, which is orthogonal to government regulation of pay."
It's not orthogonal. The mandate to hand control over capital to workers can only come from the state. (If it were voluntary, and it were a good idea, it would be done already.)
"See that is because you don't believe in society"
Is that like believing in a flat earth? Of course I believe society exists. Your mistake is identifying the concept with the moral righteousness of ever-greater financing of its government.
I take it "fair share" means whatever you want it to mean, but usually it's "as much as possible" vs. "as little as necessary". If so, think about why that is.
"tax relief" is not a "taxpayer-funded incentive". Only -if- other government decides to keep expenditures remain unchanged, would other taxpayers have to make up the difference.
Contrast to a "subsidy", which is by definition funding that's taxpayer-funded and transferred to the beneficiary.
Your eloquent little outburst fails to say what's wrong with being "all about money", when the topic of this whole thread is whether or not government (=taxpayers) should subsidize private solar installations. It is all about money.
"Like spending European money on European technology projects & creating European jobs - even if they seem unnecessary. That's a winner for me (speaking as a European)."
Beware of the Broken Window Fallacy though. Just because it's europeans doing it, you wouldn't want to pay for teams to dig & refill holes, would you?
The data did not come from Brazilian government. If they are accusing Google of spying on private data, then that private data to the government would be tantamount to spying on Brazilians on the.br government's behalf.
If data is private to the people, delete it, don't give it to government.
It may be a meta-satire, expecting lefties to look for parts they think is hilarious, but at an even deeper level approving it. Like the citizenship idea - something earned by e.g. being willing to put your life on the line for your country, by taking a personal responsibility. In a way, it's just an amplification of JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you..." line.
Slashdot Mirror
"The whole point of insurance is that we all get screwed a little, so that when someone gets really fucking boned, they don't get screwed sideways on top of it."
Yes, and that would be fine & dandy if the risk pool were homogeneous. The members of each pool would pay a little in excess of their expected return (benefit), in anticipation of that rainy day.
But that's NOT what's happening with post-obamacare "insurance"! The law outlaws whole classes of risk pools, instead mandates lumping people from old & sick to young & healthy into one. That means exactly that the latter are being forced to subsidize the former. The young systematically overpay and the old systematically underpay for their respective risk profiles. That is not insurance, that is generational wealth transfer!
"And if none of those things happen, then count yourself blessed and move on."
You mean count yourself screwed, as you've paid well-beyond personal-actuarial-risk level money. As designed.
No, you're not the only one.
Any scheme like this is bound to have unintended consequences up the wazoo. There is a reason centrally planned / price-controlled economies fail.
See also pathological altruism: "behavior in which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable"
"It definitely explains the problems they've been having."
Maybe a few technological parts, yes. The whole edifice, hardly.
The other difference is what I said above. Collecting less taxes from X and correspondingly cutting spending does not leave the other taxpayers Y != X worse off, whereas giving a subsidy to X and preserving other spending requires extra taxes to be taken from Y != X. The former is preservation of wealth. The latter is a transfer of wealth.
One difference may become clear once you replace some of the verbs "give" with "forced to give" to more accurately portray the subservience relationship. Another difference is that the "owe" is not any normal voluntary debt, but a threat to unilaterally take more.
In any other legal setting, it is simply not the case that not taking something from someone is the same thing as taking something from them then returning it later.
"worker control of the means of production, which is orthogonal to government regulation of pay."
It's not orthogonal. The mandate to hand control over capital to workers can only come from the state. (If it were voluntary, and it were a good idea, it would be done already.)
"See that is because you don't believe in society"
Is that like believing in a flat earth? Of course I believe society exists. Your mistake is identifying the concept with the moral righteousness of ever-greater financing of its government.
"for pretty much any answer we can agree"
No, we cannot.
I take it "fair share" means whatever you want it to mean, but usually it's "as much as possible" vs. "as little as necessary". If so, think about why that is.
"tax relief" is not a "taxpayer-funded incentive". Only -if- other government decides to keep expenditures remain unchanged, would other taxpayers have to make up the difference.
Contrast to a "subsidy", which is by definition funding that's taxpayer-funded and transferred to the beneficiary.
Everyone needs tax relief.
Your notion is completely ridiculous. After all, it's not like EPA has a SWAT team.
Oh wait, it does.
"best thing the government can do is to throw around research dollars"
Or maybe the best thing government can do is save its taxpayers' money, pay down the debt, and act fiscally prudent for a change.
"subsidies" are not the same thing as "tax relief".
Your eloquent little outburst fails to say what's wrong with being "all about money", when the topic of this whole thread is whether or not government (=taxpayers) should subsidize private solar installations. It is all about money.
"Their heat comes from a wood stove."
Just wait till the EPA comes after them.
"UK ... we have free healthcare"
I thought it was paid for by taxes and deficits.
"Like spending European money on European technology projects & creating European jobs - even if they seem unnecessary. That's a winner for me (speaking as a European)."
Beware of the Broken Window Fallacy though. Just because it's europeans doing it, you wouldn't want to pay for teams to dig & refill holes, would you?
"this is not a result of socialism per se."
Whatever you agree to call it, it is a monstrous ideological trespass upon private property.
"There are quite a few Venezuelan companies which have not been targeted"
Why were you thinking this is somehow counter-evidence for communism (or its aliases) in Venezuela?
The data did not come from Brazilian government. If they are accusing Google of spying on private data, then that private data to the government would be tantamount to spying on Brazilians on the .br government's behalf.
If data is private to the people, delete it, don't give it to government.
It may be a meta-satire, expecting lefties to look for parts they think is hilarious, but at an even deeper level approving it. Like the citizenship idea - something earned by e.g. being willing to put your life on the line for your country, by taking a personal responsibility. In a way, it's just an amplification of JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you ..." line.
That could be because your quote is not at the end of either in the slashdot extract or the original article.