Quote:
Originally Posted by c.t.ner
I love this counter argument. So if the government sends me 300 dollars, because I think it it would be better reinvested in schools or health care, I should write a check back to the government. So my 300 dollar donation to the government is definitely going to make a much as a difference over the potential 1 Billion dollar collective reinvestment (300 x 3,645,257).
I don't think it's a mentality that people are too stupid. I think it's the idea that as a collective that money is better utilized as reinvestment as a whole. It's a collective vs. individual argument. For a majority of people the 300 dollars extra a year is a drop in a bucket. I won't argue that 300 bucks for low income families will really help out for a month or two, but I'd rather see a stronger subsidy for single parents or people on the cusp, rather than getting a small check to help me buy the next iProduct.
|
I just find it pedantic that there is some hidden value in a collective spending versus individual. You can take your $300 and invest it in your childs school directly. You could spend it on a health care supplement or alternative treatment. You could use it to offset school fees, textbooks or tutoring expenses. The idea being that an individual can best decide exactly where spurplus money is best spent to help themselves.
But yet, the argument that people are too dumb to spend this money where it would impact them the most and the government could better spend it is pervasive in left wing thinking. That people are stupid and would buy beer and popcorn instead of helping their children or families directly.