Money - or 'Te' - Does Anyone Else Identify?

[FreelancePoliceman]

Which city is this? isn't slavery illegal.

Since I'm not charged every time I use the roads, I assume they're paid for via slavery. Just like what people who want free healthcare propose.

[Amoeba]

Since I'm not charged every time I use the roads, I assume they're paid for via slavery. Just like what people who want free healthcare propose.

Well that's just being ignorant.

[Metamorph]

Since I'm not charged every time I use the roads, I assume they're paid for via slavery. Just like what people who want free healthcare propose.

Aren't the roads paid for using slavery, though? You work your boring job as a wage-slave and then you pay taxes...

[Amoeba]

Wanting something for free is the same as vouching for slavery. I guess we still haven't gotten over slavery yet as a species.

[Alomoes]

I do spreadsheet games for fun, and I don't really worry about money beyond what I need, I'm the inverse.

I'll say one thing about free stuff. It's not slavery. It's someone giving up their income so that cost of living is cheaper overall. You know that some people can't afford cost of living, and they die, right? You understand that charity is intended to solve that problem, but it fails right? It's not a matter of them not working, they easilly produce goods and services that are required for society to function. The problem is, stuff happens, things break, and not everyone is in a position to provide for a healthy state. The obvious solution is, if we care about other people dying, is to tax people, and redistribute the money. The alternative is that people spend millions and billions of dollars on useless knickknacks.

There is a middle line though, where you can have some things that may or may not be of value, but you wanted so you bought, and I think that's what society should strive to achieve. I just think it's skewed way too far to the side of consumerism. It's entirely an attitude problem, and there's policy to solve it. The best place to look at the politics of the argument is the healthcare argument.

Paid for healthcare is basically where some people pay more for priority, and some people pay less for less priority. This allows healthcare as a profession to grow faster, but it also allows healthcare as a profession to give out more money for useless knickknacks, as the price of healthcare balloons to fill these people's pockets, leading to an economy that collapses under the weight of this stuff.

There's other stuff, for example, under a socialized health system, the burden of payments goes up and down for the health of the population at large, so there's an incentive for big government to make policy decisions that benefit public health, vs private healthcare, where the government just needs to do what it can to appease the special interests and voters. I can imagine that it would be profitable to invest in literal propaganda to get people to think that a private care system is better, just cause, for example, doctors and medical care personnel make more money.

There is a flip side to it with shortages of staff who don't want to work for so little. It's a convoluted issue with a lot of parts. France is doing a really good job with regards to medical care, but they're starting to feel the burden of a large population of people and a shrinking pool of doctors, for example.

I do believe getting paid 120k+ a year for medicine is too much, though, and that the service quality in the US is not worth that much. For some people, like critical care, maybe, but I don't know, you can live 6 years off 120k dollars a year comfortably, with two people, 4 years.

Sorry for the tangent, I'm not editing that mess. There's good information in there.

[Amoeba]

I do spreadsheet games for fun, and I don't really worry about money beyond what I need, I'm the inverse.

I'll say one thing about free stuff. It's not slavery. It's someone giving up their income so that cost of living is cheaper overall. You know that some people can't afford cost of living, and they die, right?

People can't afford the cost of living because centralized authorities print money and debase the currency and tax those who are most productive in society. Bad excuse

You understand that charity is intended to solve that problem, but it fails right? It's not a matter of them not working, they easilly produce goods and services that are required for society to function. The problem is, stuff happens, things break, and not everyone is in a position to provide for a healthy state. The obvious solution is, if we care about other people dying, is to tax people, and redistribute the money. The alternative is that people spend millions and billions of dollars on useless knickknacks.

The alternative is to stop taxing the shit out of the most productive members of our society so they can grow and innovate. The "progressive" tax system should be labelled as a regressive tax system. A flat tax would make the most sense as it encourages those who want to produce to produce and not be penalized for it.

There is a middle line though, where you can have some things that may or may not be of value, but you wanted so you bought, and I think that's what society should strive to achieve. I just think it's skewed way too far to the side of consumerism. It's entirely an attitude problem, and there's policy to solve it. The best place to look at the politics of the argument is the healthcare argument.

It shouldn't be called free healthcare it should be called stolen healthcare.

There's other stuff, for example, under a socialized health system, the burden of payments goes up and down for the health of the population at large, so there's an incentive for big government to make policy decisions that benefit public health, vs private healthcare, where the government just needs to do what it can to appease the special interests and voters. I can imagine that it would be profitable to invest in literal propaganda to get people to think that a private care system is better, just cause, for example, doctors and medical care personnel make more money.

Socialized health care system just creates shitty doctors or doctors who don't want to work more than 40 hours a week if you're fine with mediocrity than socialized healthcare is for you.

There is a flip side to it with shortages of staff who don't want to work for so little. It's a convoluted issue with a lot of parts. France is doing a really good job with regards to medical care, but they're starting to feel the burden of a large population of people and a shrinking pool of doctors, for example.

I do believe getting paid 120k+ a year for medicine is too much, though, and that the service quality in the US is not worth that much. For some people, like critical care, maybe, but I don't know, you can live 6 years off 120k dollars a year comfortably, with two people, 4 years.

Sorry for the tangent, I'm not editing that mess. There's good information in there.

LOL Europe is on the brink of collapse their currency is so debased and the price of food and other primary goods have skyrocket. So yeah France will collapse like the rest of Europe due to a socialized system that is destined to fail.

[Amoeba]

Free healthcare doesn't mean doctors work for free, the same way construction workers don't work for free to build roads even though we don't pay them directly. It's from our taxes. Nothing to do with slavery.

There is nothing consensual about taxes. Do you believe people should be raped?

[loopyclouds]

There is nothing consensual about taxes. Do you believe people should be raped?

[Alomoes]

Good luck with your uncapped medical prices, man, can't wait until your premiums rise to reflect the cost of medicine.

Unfortunately, we'll all be dead by then, but it'd be hilarious to see happen.

[Amoeba]

Good luck with your uncapped medical prices, man, can't wait until your premiums rise to reflect the cost of medicine.

Unfortunately, we'll all be dead by then, but it'd be hilarious to see happen.

I dunno what kind of drugs your on to wish harm onto another person snd think it's funny. Evil shit

[Finaplex]

Since I'm not charged every time I use the roads, I assume they're paid for via slavery. Just like what people who want free healthcare propose.

There is a spectrum of socialized health care that is useful. People should not have to be entrapped by their insurance company, or work place, to access medicine and treatment.

If I had to pay directly for everything as it stands today at 36, I might have debt for decades, or my entire lifetime from medical expenses. Which btw, is per capita longer than the average american lifespan, and I net pay less in the long run vs americans. So..its..like... kinda a no brainer?

The only good thing about pay-for-play private insurance based health care is the high level of innovation.

Thanks americans, for sacrificing your well being so the rest of the world doesn't have to!

But I get it, slippery slopes blah blah blah.

[Finaplex]

People can't afford the cost of living because centralized authorities print money and debase the currency and tax those who are most productive in society. Bad excuse



The alternative is to stop taxing the shit out of the most productive members of our society so they can grow and innovate. The "progressive" tax system should be labelled as a regressive tax system. A flat tax would make the most sense as it encourages those who want to produce to produce and not be penalized for it.



It shouldn't be called free healthcare it should be called stolen healthcare.




Socialized health care system just creates shitty doctors or doctors who don't want to work more than 40 hours a week if you're fine with mediocrity than socialized healthcare is for you.




LOL Europe is on the brink of collapse their currency is so debased and the price of food and other primary goods have skyrocket. So yeah France will collapse like the rest of Europe due to a socialized system that is destined to fail.

But flat taxes do not earn the Government as much money!

[Finaplex]

Te is more about effiencny vs money. Its also mostly about how or what gets done. The dynamic (ever changing) process of how things get done. A Te might be just as interested moving off grid and building a log cabin and living off the land, as long as there is some logics of actions available.

Money is a proxy for energy exchange and a faster way of getting things done (efficiency).

[Alomoes]

I dunno what kind of drugs your on to wish harm onto another person snd think it's funny. Evil shit

I think it fair, that if something is obviously useful to society, and you say it's not, and then it blows up in your face, then I'm a gonna laugh, especially if your opinion effects me, and we're both screwed because of it. It's not evil if I warn you prior to this. There's other reasons too, but this is hardly an 'evil' occurrence. Schadenfreude in this way occurs commonly, and is socially acceptable.

But flat taxes do not earn the Government as much money!

IDK what you're talking about. If you have income tax that generates 1 billion dollars, and flat tax that generates 1 billion dollars, what's the difference? Population loses 1 billion dollars, and government gains 1 billion dollars.

The problem with a flat tax is that it punishes a person with less money more than a person with more money. If you have 20,000 dollars, and the government takes away 50%, then you have 10,000 dollars. 10,000 dollars is poverty. Government just put someone in poverty. That's not a good thing for government to do, and it realizes this, hence the point for tax brackets.

Likewise, if you take 50% of someone's 2 million dollars they have 1 million. They're thus more likely to spend it on utilities that have less benefit, for example a private jet. What's the theory I'm basing this on called? I forget, but it has to do with utility. The more money you have, the more likely you are to splurge on some useless knickknack. Plus someone with 100 million dollars probably won't want to lose their money, but they're gonna hurt less if they lose 1 million dollars. They still have 1 million dollars. So on so forth.

But yeah, the reason why the tax code is so bloated is because government is trying to control people with taxation. This is something economists encourage. For example, if people are drinking too much soda, tax them for it. If government wants to get people to marry, give them a tax break for doing so.

IDK if it's worth it to bloat the tax code with these things. I'd prefer it if the government didn't do so, and honestly wouldn't mind a straight income tax, but that's probably not going to happen.

As an example, the social security pot is kept separate from the government spending pot. I have no idea why. The cost of social security is trivial if you use income tax to cover it, but instead you use a different tax to do so. Literally, people are saying social security is going to go bankrupt, uh. Just fund it with regular tax money. You might have to raise income tax in the future with this plan, though, as a lot of people are retiring and not dying, which inflates both healthcare costs and social security costs. Either way.

There's a bunch of stuff that I'd try to do to streamline things, but IDK. First and foremost, I'd try to curb the debt, which would be expensive, but would also save trillions long term. Afghanistan is nothing compared to the debt, which is going to cost us about a trillion every 2 years with our current debt payments. About a third of the deficit goes to debt payments.

Healthcare reform is just an attempt to save money on costs, and really is optional if we had the wherewithal to keep government expenses simple and make sure everyone gets enough money for living expenses.

Anyways, that's my final post on the matter, I'm gonna go do other things.

[Sol]

Ti egos might enjoy acquiring knowledge for the sake of it (e.g. become scientists in order to understand, explain, and expand on it), Te egos would do the same motivated by its potential practical application, the tangible problems it can solve, etc.

Not obligately. Te predisposes to gather different facts and info without seen practical usage too. As a part of entertainment or for slightly possible future application. People with Te types tend to have knowledge about different things, have "encyclopedic" predisposition, remember more of random facts.
Any info has "potential practical application". "might enjoy acquiring knowledge for the sake of it" can be said about Te not lesser. It's Ti types who are more selective in data, have narrower but deeper knowledge. Te more seek for surface data, while for Ti is more interesting "how it works" (inner links of data).

> Pragmatism in science; a Te perspective

Te in science is mainly about objectivity. Pragmatism is more about TS match.

Having Te I like to watch popular science videos on different themes. I have no usage to know about astronomy or ancient biology, - it's just expands my understanding of the world. Some other as history is funny too. But I have no much interest in related to formulas, to know elements of engines, etc. - I don't dig deep into and prefer to have wider knowledge. To know about several places a little and the most important, then much about a single place.

If you have no interest to wide knowledge - it's another argument against your SLI type.

[PhilCampbell]

I think it fair, that if something is obviously useful to society, and you say it's not, and then it blows up in your face, then I'm a gonna laugh, especially if your opinion effects me, and we're both screwed because of it. It's not evil if I warn you prior to this. There's other reasons too, but this is hardly an 'evil' occurrence. Schadenfreude in this way occurs commonly, and is socially acceptable.



IDK what you're talking about. If you have income tax that generates 1 billion dollars, and flat tax that generates 1 billion dollars, what's the difference? Population loses 1 billion dollars, and government gains 1 billion dollars.

The problem with a flat tax is that it punishes a person with less money more than a person with more money. If you have 20,000 dollars, and the government takes away 50%, then you have 10,000 dollars. 10,000 dollars is poverty. Government just put someone in poverty. That's not a good thing for government to do, and it realizes this, hence the point for tax brackets.

Likewise, if you take 50% of someone's 2 million dollars they have 1 million. They're thus more likely to spend it on utilities that have less benefit, for example a private jet. What's the theory I'm basing this on called? I forget, but it has to do with utility. The more money you have, the more likely you are to splurge on some useless knickknack. Plus someone with 100 million dollars probably won't want to lose their money, but they're gonna hurt less if they lose 1 million dollars. They still have 1 million dollars. So on so forth.

But yeah, the reason why the tax code is so bloated is because government is trying to control people with taxation. This is something economists encourage. For example, if people are drinking too much soda, tax them for it. If government wants to get people to marry, give them a tax break for doing so.

IDK if it's worth it to bloat the tax code with these things. I'd prefer it if the government didn't do so, and honestly wouldn't mind a straight income tax, but that's probably not going to happen.

As an example, the social security pot is kept separate from the government spending pot. I have no idea why. The cost of social security is trivial if you use income tax to cover it, but instead you use a different tax to do so. Literally, people are saying social security is going to go bankrupt, uh. Just fund it with regular tax money. You might have to raise income tax in the future with this plan, though, as a lot of people are retiring and not dying, which inflates both healthcare costs and social security costs. Either way.

There's a bunch of stuff that I'd try to do to streamline things, but IDK. First and foremost, I'd try to curb the debt, which would be expensive, but would also save trillions long term. Afghanistan is nothing compared to the debt, which is going to cost us about a trillion every 2 years with our current debt payments. About a third of the deficit goes to debt payments.

Healthcare reform is just an attempt to save money on costs, and really is optional if we had the wherewithal to keep government expenses simple and make sure everyone gets enough money for living expenses.

Anyways, that's my final post on the matter, I'm gonna go do other things.

It seems like you're expressing concerns about the complexities and implications of taxation and government spending. Your point about the potential drawbacks of a flat tax versus progressive tax systems is well taken, highlighting the impact on individuals across different income levels. Additionally, your insights into the intricacies of taxation strategies, such as using taxes to influence social behaviors like marriage or consumption habits, raise important questions about the role and effectiveness of government intervention through the tax code. Considering the context of ICOholder, your insights could prompt discussions about fiscal responsibility and economic strategies within the realm of cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies. Understanding the interplay between taxation, government spending, and emerging financial systems like cryptocurrency is essential for informed decision-making and policy development in an increasingly interconnected world. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on these complex issues.