Evergreen State offers tuition waivers to displaced mine workers

Navigation

User login

Online users

OlyDowntowner
Keith Bausch
Guglielmo

OlyBlog is powered by:

Evergreen State offers tuition waivers to displaced mine workers

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 1:47pm.

KNDO/KNDU:

OLYMPIA, Wash. The Evergreen State College says it is offering tuition waivers and other academic support to workers who were displaced when a coal mine closed in Centralia last month.
The TransAlta Corporation closed the mine and laid off 600 workers. Officials said the aging mine couldn't be sustained, especially with a spike in safety costs following recent landslides.The college in Olympia says tuition waivers of 300-dollars to 12-hundred dollars per quarter will be available, along with academic guidance, for mine workers who lost their jobs.

Evergreen is also working with Centralia College on an agreement that would allow students at the Centralia school who meet certain criteria to transfer credits to Evergreen.

Rick's blog
Login or register to post comments

Very good..

Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 2:02pm.

Kudos Evergreen!

how about Evergreen do this?

Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 2:24pm.

Instead of giving tuition waivers to a bunch of middle aged guys that were making 80k a year with overtime, maybe they should consider giving the people really impacted by the mine closure a shot at the tuition waivers. And who would those people be? What about all those low wage earners that will lose their jobs, and homes, and probably everything else because the mine closure has really screwed the economy in Centralia. Sure it is a nice headline for Evergreen to help out the poor miners, but the real damage being done is not to the miners losing their jobs, it is being done to the rest of the community that depended on their buying power. It seems to me that just about any of the displaced miners that want a job in mining will be able to get one. I suspect this "offer" by Evergreen will go largely, if not entirely, unused. So how about it Evergreen, help some people that really need help, the real victims of the mine closure, and not just grab a headline by doing absolutely nothing to earn it. Making an offer that no one will take you up on is a sad, hollow gesture.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^

Err

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 2:40pm.

Not everyone who worked at the mine made 80k. I worked there for awhile and wouldn't have made that much in 4 years.

Yes, the mine closing will

Submitted by annie on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 4:20pm.

Yes, the mine closing will affect the entire community. But it isn't fair to say the mine workers are affected less than anyone else. It is an exaggeration to claim that everyone there made 80K. There were plenty of low-wage jobs at the mine. And I'm wondering what other mine in the area you're suggesting could absorb all these displaced workers? Evergreen's offer is obviously not going to solve all of Centralia's problems. But it is a beautiful, proactive offer that I'm sure will be utilized and appreciated.

the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon

Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 6:31pm.

According to the Olympian, in 2000, the average wage at the Centralia coal mine and steam plant was $54k a year. The coal miners make significantly more money than those working at the steam plant. Most of the coal miners put in a lot of overtime. I've seen some of the coal miners interviewed saying they made more than 100k a year with overtime. They are worth every penny, no doubt about it. Indeed, one of the real reasons the mine closed is because the Centralia coal miners make significantly more than miners anywhere else in the country. The fired miners are being provided for, they will get their full wages and benefits until the end of January of 2007, again they deserve this and more.

Mines from all over the country are already holding job fairs in Centralia and recruiting the displaced miners. These are highly skilled individuals with skills that are very much in demand.

Of course I read the papers. I talk with people and city officials. I'm a tax paying home owner in Centralia. I know people that have lost their jobs at the mine and people that have worked in the mine in the past. Yup, I"m pretty much up on anything involving the mine and the displaced workers. Trust me, the miners will survive. The low wage workers in Centralia will not be so lucky. No generous severence packages, no schools offering them tuition wavers. No medical benefits. No job fairs looking for their skills. The governor is not concerned with meeting with these people. I don't come in here without my ducks in a row. People will like to nit pick about one figure or another and make it look like I might not know what I'm talking about. The truth is they know I'm on top of this, what they don't want you to think about is all the victims of the mine closure that will not be helped. I'm here to remind you the exist and they will need help, more than the displaced miners.

What is so distasteful to some people about making sure that the poor get the real help that they need? People are happy to applaud day centers for wealthy people in Bellevue who lost power recently and need a warm place to charge up their cell phones and get onto the internet with their fancy laptops. We have people living on the streets everyday in conditions far worse then people living in million dollar houses without power face. I'm here to keep the poor of our world on the front page and not on the obituary page. i'm here to see that the poor are treated fairly and with respect. I'm here to see the poor are not exploited. That's what I'm here for, what are you here for?

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^

I don't think anyone would

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 7:15pm.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your thoughts, but does it always have to be about the poor and under-privileged? I think more should be done for the people that are having the roughest time, but should we put down the college for helping out a group other than the poor? I would hope that more than one group could be helped out, to be honest, but I'm willing to give a pat on the back when a large institution is willing to help out anyone. Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong angle though?

I think that is a pretty

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 2:41pm.

I think that is a pretty nice thing to do.

So...

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 6:36pm.

Evergreen would basically be free for everyone from Centralia who can demonstrate their business (or standard of living) has been negatively impacted by the mine closure?

as a state college

Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 7:03pm.

it really should be free for all state residents that qualify for admission. It is tax supported, I see no reason for them to charge tuition at all. Same with public transit. It is tax supported, why do they bother to charge a fare? In most transit systems the fare collected only provides 20 percent of the revenues collected. Deduct from the fare what it costs to collect and process the money, throw in the delays to the schedule because the drivers have to collect fares, and fares are a losing proposition. Eliminate the fares and you will have a more efficient transit system that is better utilized by the public.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^

But then...

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 8:09pm.

Doesn't that mean that if Evergreen (or any other state school) were "free for all state residents" (which I assume you mean legal residents? This is the current dilemma facing the UC-system), the cost of tuition (taxes collected) would have a wide degree of variation?

Why should the cost of attending be tens of thousands of dollars different for Person A than Person B?

I suppose I shouldn't be asking "why," as I know the answer probably won't be too far from "the rich can take care of themselves," I just think it is unfair for one person to pay a significantly higher price (higher taxes) than another for the same service.

Tax, Tax, Tax,

Submitted by OlyCop on Thu, 12/21/2006 - 9:49am.

give me, give me, give me. I'm entitled, I'm entitled, I'm entitled! C'mon, this is exactly what Alexander Fraser Tytler was talking about.

I'm tired of being taxed to death to pay for all the people that make bad choices. I have no heartache with taxes to help those that can't care for themselves. But it pisses me off that I have to pay for those that choose not to care for themselves, or have made bad choices repeatedly and I have to keep bailing them out.

As for the Mine workers, I think a low interest loan or even a no interest loan would be a better choice than doing it on the taxpayers backs again. And frankly doing the same for the poor is fine too. Just stop the unlimited handouts.

Also I would like to see tax reform in a straight tax. I don't know the number off the top of my head, but for argument, lets use the 10% figure. So if you are rich or poor, we all pay a straight 10%. If you make 10,000 a year you pay your 1,000 and you're done. If you make 1,000,000 a year you pay your 100,000 and you're done. Everybody pays their fair share!

And one more final rant on tax. No more withholding. Everybody cuts a check to the feds/state every month, just like paying your bills. If you have to do that, see how much of your monthly income is goind out, we would think a lot harder about raising taxes.

"The World is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page." Saint Augustine (354-430 AD).

Tax Burden

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 12/21/2006 - 10:09am.

Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle (washingtonpost.com)

Since the percentage of

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 12/21/2006 - 10:12am.

Since the percentage of taxation appears to vary, doesn't this lend more support to a Flat Tax?

I am by no means a tax or

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 12/21/2006 - 11:52am.

I am by no means a tax or economic expert. But my unqualified understanding of the topic leads me to answer: yes.

Flat Tax Clafication

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 12/21/2006 - 12:16pm.

An important and major note of clarification: For example, if you are a member of the wealthy elite (i.e. your annual income is in the top 1% nationally) and the income of th wealthiest 1% accounts for, (for the purposes of this demonstration) let's say 40% of total national income, then you, along with your tax bracket, should be responsible for shouldering 40% of the tax burden. So whatever the budgetary requirements, they are supported by an income tax that is proportional to income.

further clarification: If you, as an individual, make up .00006% of the total national income, then you ought to contribute, as far as income tax is concerned, .00006% of total national budgetary requirements.

Why not...

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 12/21/2006 - 2:57pm.

Just charge everyone the same percentage of income earned?

Aside from charging the separate income brackets for their percentage of the national budget (essentially, paying for services rendered), I think it is the most fair system of federal taxation.

Fairness

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 2:29pm.

Charging everyone the same percentage of income would unfairly burden those in the lower income brackets.

for example, if you had a 50% flat tax, that would leave someone with a $20,000 annual income only $10,000.

but someone who makes $200,000 would have $100,000. Someone who makes $2M would still have $1M.

Basically, I don't think that's right to take so much from some one who has so little to begin with. It's an issue of fairness.

More Clarification...

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 3:50pm.

TFI: What's unclear about charging the wealthiest 1% of Americans with accounting for their fair share of budgetary requirements? If the wealthiest 1% of Americans account for (for example) 40% of the total national income wealth - then why shouldn't they account for 40% of budgetary requirements?

LOL

Submitted by OlyCop on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 4:00pm.

Rob, that is very unfair. The rich will already pay more based on the fact they make more.

"The World is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page." Saint Augustine (354-430 AD).

I Disagree

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 4:16pm.

I totally disagree. I think it is fair. If we are talking about an income tax, then people should account for their share of income wealth. If someone's income wealth accounts for 0.01% of the total national income wealth, then I think that individual should account for at least 0.01% of the national budget. What's so unfair about that?

In the Course of Events

The fact you even ask

Submitted by OlyCop on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 7:37pm.

and can't see the fundamental unfairness, nothing I say will change your mind. But I'm not surprised. I know you have made statements you support redistribution of wealth, and are likely a socialist. I'm a capitalist, so we are on completely different tracks.

Why would you want to penalize a person for working hard and being successful?

"The World is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page." Saint Augustine (354-430 AD).

remind me to stop playing

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 7:40pm.

remind me to stop playing the lotto

Help!

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 8:02pm.

Go Go Go econo to the rescue? Just Kidding. But if you know anything about this, and agree with my fairness in taxation idea, and can explain this better than I, please do!

Go Econo = inspector gadget

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 8:16pm.

Go Econo = inspector gadget tool?

Yeah, inspector gadget -

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 8:26pm.

Yeah, inspector gadget - gadget. Like go go Norm! go go go econo!

gadgets

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 8:43pm.

Of course, I don't consider go econo to be a tool or a gadget. It just happened to work with the go go bit. I tried to make a joke. This is a typical outcome of such an attempt. My sense of humor can be a little quirky.

Why would you want to

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 8:30pm.

Why would you want to penalize a person for working hard and being successful?

If I have hinted that I thought my tax fairness ideas are intended to penalize or punish anyone, then I have made a mistake. My idea is not intended to punish. Taxes, should not be intended to punish (except for sin taxes, like tobacco and booze, or luxury taxes, like on that new lexux in your driveway, OlyCop.)

I think it is fair that each individual contribute to the tax base proportionally with his or her income level. I think there is a lack of understanding here, that is why I am hoping for some assistance in explaining this phenomenon.

Income

Submitted by CIAGuy on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 8:27am.

What about unearned income, how would you deal with that TFI? I recall this coming up when the estate tax reared its head here. The vast majority of people are wage earners but the vast majority of wealth is unearned, eg, inheritances, capital gains, etc. That's one of the troubles with the current WA state tax system, it was cobbled together when the financial world was vastly different than it is today.

Taxing products and dollars multiple times

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 8:34am.

An inheritance is simply money passed down from one private individual to another. Since this money has already been taxed, I don't see why the government should be able to tax it again simply because it is changing hands among private citizens.

For instance, my family bought a used car not too long ago. When registering this car with the Wasington State Department of Licensing, we were forced to pay a tax because the title of the car was transferring. To me, it doesn't make sense that the government is able to have a hand in the private sale between individual citizens.

That same dollar or product should not be taxed multiple times.

Once the government has taxed a dollar or product, it should no longer have any business continuing to do so.

As the ol' bumper sticker says: Taxation with representation ain't so great, either. The excessive taxes that we go through today often makes me wonder at what point would the revolutionaries who founded this country have said Enough is enough and it's time for a change.

wrong

Submitted by enpen on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 2:45am.

"An inheritance is simply money passed down from one private individual to another."

Inheritance is money one earns by being family, a friend or lucky. It amazes me watching working class America take to a standard that only benefits the very wealthy by consolidating monetary power through the generations. Not to mention proclaimed capitalists? Capitalism is about trading skills for physical capital. How does generational (not spousal) inheritance fit into that picture? "Shucks, grandpa was a brilliant engineer whose skills pushed our society forward greatly, that's why I should get to retire at 18 while you go to work in the coal mines, ya dope."

"Anybody who doesn't know that politics is crime has got a few screws loose."

Nope

Submitted by OlyCop on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 6:03am.

So how many times should government get to tax the same money? The money is mearly changing hands, it shouldn't be tax just cuz the guy that made it died. Now the interest income off the principle being taxed is reasonable.

What makes you think that the government, or some welfare mom, has more right to a piece of my grandpa's pie over me?

"The World is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page." Saint Augustine (354-430 AD).

ah prejudice

Submitted by enpen on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 9:22am.

Nice. Let's concentrate on money stuff first.

"it shouldn't be tax just cuz the guy that made it died."

Inheritance tax isn't taxing the person who actually worked for the money. That person is dead. Inheritance tax is taxing the next person in the income chain. In an ideal world this would stop the Rockefellers, Hiltons, Fords, etc., etc. from consolidating unearned power. Unfortunately, they all had their hands in political pockets and managed all kinds of inheritance loopholes to ensure a feudal social hierarchy.

On to the last part. First: welfare mom? I'm not for people calling you a 'pig' because it's rude and linguistically lazy in its prejudice. What makes you think 'welfare mom' is acceptable? As for why other people deserve a piece of your grandpa's pie; because this is a society and your grandpa wouldn't have been able to turn skill (let alone aquire it) into capital had he not been a member of said society. If you remember the previous posts on this topic on another thread I said that, ideally, there'd be a large enough cushion in inheritance to protect the poor and the middle class. I'm not advocating the complete dissolution of meaningful family heirlooms, I'm an advocate for greater equality from the start.

"Anybody who doesn't know that politics is crime has got a few screws loose."

Absurd.

Submitted by Ehver Green on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 4:20pm.

Absurd.

One Word ping-pong!

Submitted by enpen on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 6:42pm.

Why?

"Anybody who doesn't know that politics is crime has got a few screws loose."

Bookmark

Submitted by Ehver Green on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 7:00pm.

Bookmark

My turn!

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 10:44pm.

Because!

Precisely

Submitted by OlyCop on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 11:40am.

"An inheritance is simply money passed down from one private individual to another. Since this money has already been taxed, I don't see why the government should be able to tax it again simply because it is changing hands among private citizens."

"The World is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page." Saint Augustine (354-430 AD).

While I support a more level

Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 2:41pm.

While I support a more level tax system, I'm still looking for a good argument to allow for this tax double jeopardy. I don't see how anyone who speaks of fairness can support sending this private income to the government twice. Especially when government is already the bad guy.

I understand what it funds in this state, mostly education. I have a child in the OSD with two more to go. The burden to fund the education benefit isn't the responsibility of a private individual more than once. I want my son to have the best education possible, but can't support allowing the government to steal this money.

Where's go econo during this

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 12/22/2006 - 2:30pm.

Where's go econo during this conversation!

phew

Submitted by go econo on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 12:26am.

been day-jobbin' and this topic is all up in my day-job, so not going to comment here...

Grrr...Gates, Sr. That's all I got tonight.

"No one in the world ever gets what they want and that is beautiful." - John Flansburgh & John Linnell

Where is it written...

Submitted by Rick on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 4:01pm.

...that it is intrinsically unfair to tax money twice? Fairness is determined in terms of outcomes here, not process (although procedural fairness can be important in other contexts such as voting). It is intrinsically unfair that some members of our society should have more than they need while others have less, regardless of the amount of work put in. Period.

When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow

Yeah, so if you ever come

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 6:01pm.

Yeah, so if you ever come into power remind me to not buy any lottery tickets. Or be successful at what I do, or save money in general.

or save money in general.I

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 6:28pm.

or save money in general.

I believe it is called "cash in the mattress."

eh?

Submitted by enpen on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 6:41pm.

"remind me to not buy any lottery tickets"

Norm the gamblin' man! I'll let you in on a secret...the lottery is a state sponsored scam. House wins every time.

"Or be successful at what I do, or save money in general."

How does that follow? In a true Capitalist system you'd be encouraged to be good and successful at what you do because it brings you rewards in this life time commensurate with society's benefit of keeping you around. The squeeze is getting put on the middle classes not because of our poor, but because of our wealthfare systems. Did Bush's tax cuts put a ton've coins back into your purse?

"Anybody who doesn't know that politics is crime has got a few screws loose."

Not really

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 7:17pm.

It was mostly for the sake of conversation. I haven't bought a ticket since I was 18. Doesn't a good portion of that go towards public schools anyway?

The way I look at it is this. The reason that I work is to survive, to put a little bit aside, put my money into different funds for later in life, and spend a little bit towards fun. I don't feel like that little bit of fun, retirement fund, etc. should be spent on other people, at least not anymore than it already is. I realize there are poor and people in need of help, let me help them on my own terms instead of uncle sam reaching into my pockets more and more.

I've pretty much already stopped volunteering for overtime. Everytime I do my paycheck shows very little difference. Everytime I put more time in I have more taken out, my time is worth far more than my money at this point.

As for bush, no I didn't get a whole lot of money back into my purse. I don't agree with bushies plan either.

I still find it amusing though, that for so many people on this blog that don't trust the govument, many of you want the govunment to take more money out of our check for social programs. Seems like a GREAT idea, because they really know how to spend our money wisely *cough* Iraq *cough* Iran *cough* Korea *cough* Oly nuke ordinance *cough* sidewalk ordinance *cough*

We've been over this so many times...

Submitted by Rick on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 6:44pm.

...and I still don't understand why it is so hard to get. Not only is it not fair that some people have nothing while others have too much, it is more EXPENSIVE for everyone on the long run. With a rational taxation policy, there is less crime, drugs, violence, unwanted children, suffering, death, etc.

Norm: Do people not work in other countries with governments that take a larger role in providing social programs? Please leave that canard for the dinner table.

And again, let's leave off with the labels: it's just a hybrid system that uses some principles of capitalism and some of socialism.

Life is not fair. I agree

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 7:09pm.

Life is not fair. I agree it's not fair but it's ridiculous to work hard and have more and more of your money taken away.

I have not used any labels whatsoever, I simply said that I'm going to start saving differently if we suddenly become a socialist state. I understand you are progressive and into socialism, I'm not so much. I'm not understanding where you get this labeling bit from.

It's not that I don't understand what you are saying Rick, it's that I don't agree with what you are saying. I realize certain things need taxation, I just don't think as many things need it as you do.

You have really not given me a good enough reason to believe in what you say. In your model there is no point to working. I'd be better off trying to scam my way through the system and live off of others.

Light Reading

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 8:17pm.

I got to thinking about your comments, and wondered about american socialist or american communist parties.

Neither party sounds very popular at this point. I can see why, it all seems a bit radical. Communism seems to suffer from the look of our cold war days, but socialism doesn't (at least not in my mind, but I was a youngin at the time) and it still doesn't seem attractive. I think I may start a thread on it.

From Wiki

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 8:59pm.

"Non-socialist libertarians contend that libertarian socialism is based on a false view of human nature, namely that humans will work and fulfill their natural potential without any thought of reward, which is thought to be unrealistic."

So maybe I have a bit of "Non-socialist Libertarian" in me. The above is what I think of when you speak of your ideas Rick.

I like this part too

"Some argue that freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another, and that promoting equality (as valued by socialism) will inherently require restrictions on liberty (as valued by libertarianism), forcing the society to choose one or the other as their primary value. (The Kurt Vonnegut story, "Harrison Bergeron", in which equality is enforced by imposing physical and mental handicaps on overachievers, can be seen as illustrating this point through exaggeration.)"

The Cost of the Welfare State

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 10:14pm.

I suppose what scares me the most about the welfare state is the fact that it must be authoritarian in order to maintain a low budget.

In "The High Cost of Social Welfare", Dr. Nick Gillespie points out that "the welfare state turns every individual life into a public policy matter and creates a society that must increasingly regiment its members." I know I wouldn't even consider helping an individual on the street if the state sponsored a multitude of social welfare programs. In fact, I'd be a whole lot more active in eliminating the burden from the budget (Gillespie's article points out the previous popularity of sterilization programs in welfare societies; trust me, I would be all for state-sponsored sterilization of the members who cost the most to the state. Sorry, but when you're costing me money, your life becomes my business).

Do people not work in other countries with governments that take a larger role in providing social programs?

People work under dictatorships, too. If the goal is simple employment, it doesn't matter how much earned income we are allowed to keep. Since the goal is to keep as much of my own earned income as possible, employment is not the only target.

It was really a simple question...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 12:33am.

...Do people continue to work in countries that collect more taxes in order to provide more services? So, let's look at some of those countries, eh? Let's just start with those that have single payer health care systems:

Canada
Australia
Japan
Spain
UK

Now, in addition to receiving more services, people in all the countries listed above live longer than people in the US. And, they spend 1/3 less on health care overall (around 10% of GDP, as opposed to 15% in the US).

So, I'm waiting for the statistics about how people in these countries refuse to work because they can't keep ALL their hard-earned money.

And, they spend 1/3 less on

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 12:05pm.

And, they spend 1/3 less on health care overall (around 10% of GDP, as opposed to 15% in the US).

First of all, you're taking the population on the whole. If the US were to switch to a single payer health care system, I would begin paying more for no increase in realized service. Others would pay less (or nothing in many cases) for an increase in realized service. This is a loss in earned income for me.

So, I'm waiting for the statistics about how people in these countries refuse to work because they can't keep ALL their hard-earned money.

Have you bothered to look at the unemployment rates in Germany and Canada? As of November 2006, Germany's unemployment rate was at 9.6%, down from 10.8% in May. Canada's was at 6.3% last month. Spain at 7.6% as of October of this year.

The United States? Last month our unemployment rate stood at 4.5%.

The European Union has an unemployment rate double that of the United States. So yes, there are plenty of people who aren't working in these countries (read: not paying into the system).

Unless you are part of the top tax brackets...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 12:43pm.

...you wouldn't actually be paying more. We waste so much money now on indirect costs, there is plenty of cash in the system.

Unemployment isn't actually related to people's willingness to work. Also, those unemployment rates are not that different from historical rates for this country. Other factors you have to consider are incareration rates (1.5%), and underemployment (more prevalent in an economy such as ours with little social net), both of which lower our unemployment rate.

Unless you are part of the

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 1:36pm.

Unless you are part of the top tax brackets you wouldn't actually be paying more.

For this I'm going to need clarification by what you determine to be a "top tax bracket." For instance, the University of California system made an attempt two years ago to define a "top tax bracket" as households making north of $80,000 per year for the purpose of charging those students a higher tuition rate versus their counterparts (I don't recall whether the change in tuition rate was successful, as I was not a part of the public higher education system in California).

Also, those unemployment rates are not that different from historical rates for this country.

Since 1973, the United States has had an average unemployment rate either at or below both Europe and Canada. Unless by "historical" you meant to say "Depression Era."

Other factors you have to consider are incareration rates (1.5%)

So you're saying the people in the United States who are currently incarcerated would otherwise be unemployed? This certainly lends more credibility to mandatory sterilization programs for those who are responsible for the largest percentage of the national budget, as they would be a drain one way (the prison system) or another (unemployment).

and underemployment

Oh, geez.

As enpen has asked you...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 2:51pm.

...do you think before you write? It might be a good idea.

do you think before you

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 2:54pm.

do you think before you write? It might be a good idea.

No. I ask the dog and he tells me what to write (and once again, you're personally calling out a poster. I really don't give a shit one way or the other, but if I sat here and questioned the thought-process and reasoning skills of a lot of people on OlyBlog, I'm sure you'd be pretty fired up. For instance, I love reading posts by people who are probably methed out as they're pecking away at the keyboard).

Now which part doesn't make sense/is incoherent?

If you notice, I tend to blockquote the portions of a post that I'm responding to, making it easier for the reader to follow along in regard to knowing what I'm looking at as I'm writing.

Blockquote the portions where I didn't think before I wrote and say Are you fucking stupid? or whatever else you feel like filling the blank with.

Give the ol' BA a PhD beatdown.

I don't really don't have the time...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 9:42pm.

...right now to give you the ol' Ph.D. smackdown (lucky for you). Besides, it's Christmas Eve, so I couldn't do that to you.

I just want you to think about the eugenics langauge that you're using. Do you know what you're implying? Do you know who's in prison right now? Do you know what you're saying when you suggest that they don't deserve to live?

Do you know what you're

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 10:19pm.

Do you know what you're implying?

I'll respond by saying this: you implied the strong connection between the incarceration and unemployment rates by pointing out that Europe's incarcertation rate is lower when offering an explanation as to why its unemployment is higher.

Thus, you seemed to be saying that those who are currently imprisoned in the United States would otherwise be unemployed.

Do you know who's in prison right now?

I am fully aware of the prison population, both racial and economic.

Do you know what you're saying when you suggest that they don't deserve to live?

I'm only suggesting those who are an excessive burden on the budget not be allowed to breed if we lived under a welfare state. It's simple cost management.

This is a lot like taking money from family or friends. So long as I don't take money from people, they can have little (and in most instances, virtually no) say over my life. Once I start taking money, they can control more. It's the same in this case. If an individual is taking enormous amounts of dollars from the state, society is going to want to have a lot more control over their life.

Trust me, the last thing you want me to start doing is conceeding that we're headed toward or living under a welfare state and working for the government. In the professional field I would like to go into, I'll have a lot more of an impact than you could ever imagine.

As it is right now, I want to go into this field working for a community in a capacity that I feel is entirely consistent with my belief of state responsibilities (in my case, I'd like to be a homicide detective in a major metropolitan area).

Luckily...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 11:01pm.

...most people don't think like you.

The only thing I implied is exactly what I said, that encarcerated populations are not in the workforce, and thus cause the unemployment rate to be underestimated. You added the rest. Now, where you chose to go with that fact is to propound racist propoganda. Is that really what you want to express? Is that really what you're trying to say?

C'mon Rick

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 3:05pm.

play the ball

That's the problem, it's not

Submitted by Ehver Green on Sat, 12/23/2006 - 6:55pm.

That's the problem, it's not written anywhere. My take is it should be. Society is large enough that wealth passed on is not going to destabilize. Read more.

We all pay federal tax and then sales tax with the money we have left. But, we have a choice in the goods we buy or don't (as some spend little on commercial goods and instead mostly live off earth's natural resources).

I'm not wealthy, but I do make a good living. I save a lot. I was part of an Internet startup after military service and was bought out. I also have stock options (MSFT) from the mid 90's that are vested and turned into stock. When I decide the time is right (when my kids get closer to college age) I will pay for their college with this income. I will pay taxes at the time of sale. I will have much more than I need to pay for my kids college. The rest will go into a trust for MY family and other strategic investments. I was not lucky. I learned a marketable trade while in service and was paid for it, too. I owed nothing to any college or bank for the 4 year education I EARNED while in the Navy. Not only was it real world experience, it was also college level courses, which coupled with my military job and experience, translated into a BA.

I worked my ass for the past 14 years so I don't have to work until I'm 65. I worked 18 hour days for weeks at a time during product release cycles and was compensated with paper options. I often don't see my wife and kids for 3-5 days at a time when traveling the country to earn my living. I get plenty of time off to make up for the lost time, but it still sucks to be in a hotel room instead of being at home.

My point? What the hell entitles any of you to any of my money? What right does the government have to take this tax again (remember, it has been taxed already)? Many on this blog are anti-government or favor minimal government. Why not now? What is different? I understand the taxation argument, I don't buy it.

Unfair? What's unfair about working hard for what you earn and keeping it? No, fairness is determined when you make your decisions in this life. Not all people with wealth are in the back-pockets of politicians.

So, if you can't find a loophole, you can certainly find other investments for your money, some of them highly illegal.

Nobody wants your money.

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 12:44am.

We're talking about RICH people, EG. My question is: how's it possible that the folks who really make the big bucks have convinced you that it is about "fairness" that they who have THE MOST should pay a bit more in order to insure that no one goes without. It seems to me that the first stop on the fairness express has to do with the people who don't have a roof over their heads and enough food to eat. If you want to be concerned about fairness, why aren't you concerned about them? Why are you concerned about being fair to the people who want for nothing?

I think we may all be on

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 11:17am.

I think we may all be on different scales here Rick. This may be a better one to discuss in person. Unless you want to continue the light jabs until we all wear each other out and laugh.

How so?

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 11:51am.

I'm not sure what you mean about scales.

scale as

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 11:59am.

scale as in

socialism/communism and the death of capitalism vs. retaining our current system but raising taxes and figuring out how to better distribute them into social services.

providing for those without vs. everyone becoming a drone and being equal.

equality vs. liberty

that's what I meant by scale, I'm not sure how far you and enpen want these things, and I may be looking at your thoughts on a different scale than what you are presenting. Make sense?

Sure...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 12:26pm.

...but suggesting that capitalism isn't optimal doesn't necessarily mean that communism is the only alternative. Communism, as we've seen, tends toward authoritarianism, so we've got to work out a better system. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss the flaws of capitalism! You could, too. I'm pretty sure the world wouldn't come to and end.

I agree with that.

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 12/24/2006 - 2:19pm.

I agree with that. Capitalism certainly has it's flaws. The reason I went to socialism is some of the key things stated in the thread. Also it comes from the feeling that I get from many people on the thread. Maybe that's not what you are going for, but some of the ideas posted on this blog scream socialism. I'm guilty of it too though.

Socialism and communism seem to have close connections throughout history. I'm sure that you know, socialism has many different ideas within the word and doesn't necessarily go to communism. I'm not saying it's the only other game in town, just that many ideas expressed here follow suit. Egalitarianism is another one. I hope I spelled that right ;)

You've fallen but you can still get up!

Submitted by enpen on Mon, 12/25/2006 - 1:28am.

"Society is large enough that wealth passed on is not going to destabilize."

Wealth passed on has already destabilized our country. This is a big part of why our Government has so many corruption scandals. Aside from genetic wealth conglomeration, corporate wealth inheritance is another wealth (power) hoarding anti-Republic force. I'd like to see every corporation take an inheritance tax hit every time they change a leadership position.

"we have a choice in the goods we buy or don't (as some spend little on commercial goods and instead mostly live off earth's natural resources)."

By this statement I'm assuming that you're unaware of how the Commerce Clause of our Constitution has been enforced.

"What the hell entitles any of you to any of my money? What right does the government have to take this tax again (remember, it has been taxed already)?"

I never said it did. I said the government has a right to tax the income of your descendents (spouse/life partner excluded) and as it was not previously owned by them then it is technically new income and subject to taxation.

"Many on this blog are anti-government or favor minimal government. Why not now?"

I think you're concentrating too hard on the trees and you've missed the forest. The fact that power brokering wealth is inheritable in the United States is part of the disease that has led to our corrupt government.

"Not all people with wealth are in the back-pockets of politicians."

This is back asswards. I'd say there are few politicians not in the back-pockets of those with wealth. I wonder what kind of society would result where politicians had to take a vow of poverty...

"Anybody who doesn't know that politics is crime has got a few screws loose."

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

Now playing at: