Progressive Taxes?
In case you haven’t noticed, the economy is having severe problems. Businesses are closing or reducing workforces. There are two side effects of this trend that are mostly overlooked by the majority of people.
First, with many people out of work the tax base falls drastically. Local and state governments, already strapped by voter demands for reduced taxes, find it impossible to meet the costs of services. Services get cut to make budgets balance. The services that get cut first are those that have the least voter support. These same services are aimed at the people who most need them. The result is that more people find themselves without health services and housing support. People with treatable mental health issues loose their support and end up on the street.
Second, the people most likely to loose their jobs are, for the most part, the people who are barely making a living. They are not likely to have savings to fall back on or to pay for health insurance. They then provide additional load on services that are already being cut.
This current situation will continue to be painful and there is little hope that the state of affairs is going to turn around quickly. We must make an extra effort to support charities to help our citizens get through this mess.
What we need to understand is the reasons why we have taxes and government. If we were all equally talented and skilled, there would be little variation in incomes across the range of employees. In fact there are people who possess the skills or abilities of managers, the ambition or drive of entrepreneurs, or the talents of teachers. The person who has worked faithfully on an assembly line for 10 years (at $10.00) suddenly finds he is jobless though no fault of his own. He has minimal education and his pay rate has provided no margin for savings. He needs the government services to tide him over and help him prepare for a new job. Without some support, he becomes another homeless statistic – and a drain on society.
If, while the economy was in growth mode, we had provided a small tax increase to set aside a buffer fund, the government services would be able to weather the economic downturn without reducing services. The economic recovery just might happen sooner with fewer people loosing income. A tax – based fund is a good idea, in spite of what bean counters say. Bean counters do not know how to assign value to humanity.
One analogy that will be understandable to electrically knowledgeable people is the filter capacitor in a DC power supply. Without the capacitor (the buffer fund) the output (government services) varies greatly. The load on the power supply (the human condition of society) is degraded. With the capacitor in place the output is stable and the load does not degrade.
Please stop demanding reduced taxes just because your child has to drive a Chevy instead of a Porsche or she won’t get to go to Princeton. Allow the government to provide for the poor and the result will be an improvement in society over the long run.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Another view on religion
This is just an observation and not necessarily my real personal opinion.
I was channel surfing my TV channels this morning and stumbled across a program Named God vs. Satan. It might have been the coffee but I suddenly became aware of a different way to look at the subject. Here it is.
Looking at humans as the one (as far as we know) creature that has established civilization based on education not instinct opens a new lens on religion. There are animals that exhibit high organization and cooperation - ants for instance. These traits are based on instinct and require no training. Humans on the other hand must be trained or educated in the ways of civilization and cooperation. Religion is one of civilization's tools to promote good behaviour within the society. The concept of God in any form is rooted in the need for people to put their personal desires secondary to society's needs. The concept of Satan represents the giving in to base animal behaviour. "Good" people find a balance in their lives where society's needs generally override the animal within them. "Bad" people [at many levels] ignore society in favor of their own desires. Society says "act this way in spite of your desires" while the animal says "do this because you want to".
Satan and the concepts of evil represent the unconstrained animal in us all. Without religion and education in the ways to live in society, the animal in us would never let us mature beyond the level of a 3 or 4 year-old child. Demand and take what we want just because we can - disregard the needs of others.
God and the concepts of good represent the pressure to modify our base behavior in ways that support society and civilization. We have the intelligence to understand good and evil. We have the ability to make the choices in every thing we do. Any time we put our own wants and desires ahead of the requirements of civilization we are responding to the animal side. Without the animal side to provide competition we would never advance. Without the cooperation driven by religion and civilization we would never have evolved as the leading species on this world. As individuals we are weak and defenseless. Cooperation and civilization (promoted by religion) are our strengths. Devolving back to the animal side (evil)leaves us vulnerable to being eaten.
Donald Page
I was channel surfing my TV channels this morning and stumbled across a program Named God vs. Satan. It might have been the coffee but I suddenly became aware of a different way to look at the subject. Here it is.
Looking at humans as the one (as far as we know) creature that has established civilization based on education not instinct opens a new lens on religion. There are animals that exhibit high organization and cooperation - ants for instance. These traits are based on instinct and require no training. Humans on the other hand must be trained or educated in the ways of civilization and cooperation. Religion is one of civilization's tools to promote good behaviour within the society. The concept of God in any form is rooted in the need for people to put their personal desires secondary to society's needs. The concept of Satan represents the giving in to base animal behaviour. "Good" people find a balance in their lives where society's needs generally override the animal within them. "Bad" people [at many levels] ignore society in favor of their own desires. Society says "act this way in spite of your desires" while the animal says "do this because you want to".
Satan and the concepts of evil represent the unconstrained animal in us all. Without religion and education in the ways to live in society, the animal in us would never let us mature beyond the level of a 3 or 4 year-old child. Demand and take what we want just because we can - disregard the needs of others.
God and the concepts of good represent the pressure to modify our base behavior in ways that support society and civilization. We have the intelligence to understand good and evil. We have the ability to make the choices in every thing we do. Any time we put our own wants and desires ahead of the requirements of civilization we are responding to the animal side. Without the animal side to provide competition we would never advance. Without the cooperation driven by religion and civilization we would never have evolved as the leading species on this world. As individuals we are weak and defenseless. Cooperation and civilization (promoted by religion) are our strengths. Devolving back to the animal side (evil)leaves us vulnerable to being eaten.
Donald Page
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Why do we care about gay marriage laws?
First you need to know my perspective: I am a 57 year old heterosexual male who was raised in the rural south. The vast majority of the people I have known in my life believe homosexuality is a sin. They see marriage as a religious union more than a civic agreement.
I will not speak to the morality of homosexuality, there is a higher authority that will make that decision for us and that is not the government of any state or country.
My thoughts on gay marriage:
In our society marriage has two main components. There is the marriage license that is the civil component and the wedding ceremony that is the religious and personal component. We have always maintained a large degree of separation between the two; only intersecting them at the point where the person officiating over the ceremony
signs the license indicating the ceremony was performed.
The civil component is the basis for all the legal rights and responsibilities that are part of the marriage convention. These laws are intended to protect all parties from being harmed in any way from the marriage or any subsequent divorce. Divorce laws generally ignore the religious component completely.
The religious component ignores the civil component and focuses on the relationship and moral responsibilities of the parties involved.
It is generally legal to be married by a Justice of the Peace or a recognized official of any religious organization. If you are married by a priest or Rabbi you are expected to follow the teachings of your religion based on the vows you take during the ceremony. These vows do not bind you to or release you from the legal issues connected to the signed marriage license. The license does not bind you to the views of your religion. I say let anyone marry anyone in whatever combination their personal religious beliefs support. Let all parties sign legal documents declaring the union and accepting the civil rights and responsibilities that are part of the license. Let them have whatever ceremony they want as long as the officiating person is recognized as an acceptable signer.
Since I was married by a preacher and made vows to my wife, I accept the moral responsibilities of our marriage. Since this same preacher signed and made the license a legal document I am bound by the local laws. What ever those people across town decide to do is their business. I am not in the position to judge them. I certainly have opinions but judging is not my responsibility. Their marriage does not in any way affect me. Laws imposing moral arguments are against the spirit of this country. If you disagree with what a group is doing you have the right to let your opinion be heard. I do not believe you have the right to prevent them from doing it just because you do not believe the same way they do.
We are all familiar with the way women are treated under strict Islamic law as enforced by the Taliban. This is only one example of the ultimate destination when we travel too far down the road of legislating morality. We should put our efforts into educating others in our beliefs and helping them with their problems; not on making legislation to force them into our mold.
D. Page
I will not speak to the morality of homosexuality, there is a higher authority that will make that decision for us and that is not the government of any state or country.
My thoughts on gay marriage:
In our society marriage has two main components. There is the marriage license that is the civil component and the wedding ceremony that is the religious and personal component. We have always maintained a large degree of separation between the two; only intersecting them at the point where the person officiating over the ceremony
signs the license indicating the ceremony was performed.
The civil component is the basis for all the legal rights and responsibilities that are part of the marriage convention. These laws are intended to protect all parties from being harmed in any way from the marriage or any subsequent divorce. Divorce laws generally ignore the religious component completely.
The religious component ignores the civil component and focuses on the relationship and moral responsibilities of the parties involved.
It is generally legal to be married by a Justice of the Peace or a recognized official of any religious organization. If you are married by a priest or Rabbi you are expected to follow the teachings of your religion based on the vows you take during the ceremony. These vows do not bind you to or release you from the legal issues connected to the signed marriage license. The license does not bind you to the views of your religion. I say let anyone marry anyone in whatever combination their personal religious beliefs support. Let all parties sign legal documents declaring the union and accepting the civil rights and responsibilities that are part of the license. Let them have whatever ceremony they want as long as the officiating person is recognized as an acceptable signer.
Since I was married by a preacher and made vows to my wife, I accept the moral responsibilities of our marriage. Since this same preacher signed and made the license a legal document I am bound by the local laws. What ever those people across town decide to do is their business. I am not in the position to judge them. I certainly have opinions but judging is not my responsibility. Their marriage does not in any way affect me. Laws imposing moral arguments are against the spirit of this country. If you disagree with what a group is doing you have the right to let your opinion be heard. I do not believe you have the right to prevent them from doing it just because you do not believe the same way they do.
We are all familiar with the way women are treated under strict Islamic law as enforced by the Taliban. This is only one example of the ultimate destination when we travel too far down the road of legislating morality. We should put our efforts into educating others in our beliefs and helping them with their problems; not on making legislation to force them into our mold.
D. Page
Politics and religion
This posting might stir up some response.
First, I have to comment on the recent flurry of activity following Miss California's answer to a pagent question. She answered the question in a manner fully compatible with the original intentions of our founding fathers. She indicated her acceptance of the way the country allows open discussion of thr subject and presented her personal view. She did not condem the views of others and she did not attempt to promote her views as the only valid views.
The many people who subsequently condemmed her response went too far. They had the right and maybe some responsibility to respond with their own views. They went too far when they declared her unqualified for the pagent crown because of her views. She fully exemplified the spirit of free speach and freeedom of religion that are the backbone of America. People have the right to believe their own way and the right to express those beliefs. The do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others.
Secondly, I have strong personal views on abortion. I accept the concept that the fetus is a life. I believe the anti-abortion groups should make all efforts to educate people in this fact. They should put their efforts into providing alternatives and promoting prevention. Unwanted pregnacies are a disease that is 99%preventable.
I differ from the traditional pro-life groups in that I do not believe government and politics is the proper environment for these efforts. Over the centuries we have seen that laws do not stop unwanted behaviours, only criminalize them. Put your efforts and support into education and non-government support programs and your results will be greater. Teach people to think. Let our politicians run the country as an efficient business; do not expect them to legislate morals. Most of them are immoral anyway and only say whay you want to hear to get your vote.
D. Page
First, I have to comment on the recent flurry of activity following Miss California's answer to a pagent question. She answered the question in a manner fully compatible with the original intentions of our founding fathers. She indicated her acceptance of the way the country allows open discussion of thr subject and presented her personal view. She did not condem the views of others and she did not attempt to promote her views as the only valid views.
The many people who subsequently condemmed her response went too far. They had the right and maybe some responsibility to respond with their own views. They went too far when they declared her unqualified for the pagent crown because of her views. She fully exemplified the spirit of free speach and freeedom of religion that are the backbone of America. People have the right to believe their own way and the right to express those beliefs. The do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others.
Secondly, I have strong personal views on abortion. I accept the concept that the fetus is a life. I believe the anti-abortion groups should make all efforts to educate people in this fact. They should put their efforts into providing alternatives and promoting prevention. Unwanted pregnacies are a disease that is 99%preventable.
I differ from the traditional pro-life groups in that I do not believe government and politics is the proper environment for these efforts. Over the centuries we have seen that laws do not stop unwanted behaviours, only criminalize them. Put your efforts and support into education and non-government support programs and your results will be greater. Teach people to think. Let our politicians run the country as an efficient business; do not expect them to legislate morals. Most of them are immoral anyway and only say whay you want to hear to get your vote.
D. Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
