T.I.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. (There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunc) That has to be one of the biggest things that the instructor I had for economics, back in high school, mentioned. Time and again he would say it, and he is absolutely right.

Technically, with a few exceptions, none of the services a government provides are free. Someone, somewhere pays for them; usually, but not limited to the people who are receiving the benefits of the program.

I find it interesting that some people think the programs should be scrapped. These services (i guess more so theoretically) are available to every eligible citizen; Ironically, I've seen a few examples of the people I mentioned finding themselves in a position where they needed help.

I think the saying goes, "Be careful or life will bite you in the butt."

That being said, I'm curious as to what your thoughts are about the line in the US constitution's preamble that states, "...promote the general Welfare..."

I'm definitely no constitutional lawyer, though I'm considering going to law school and specializing in that very area, I find it interesting that the constitution states this. It begs the question: What does it mean by the general welfare? Well, obviously, and with hopes that this doesn't slide into a debate on semantics, welfare means happiness. So...to some, living life on the welfare system is happiness. They may not have any desire to go further.

Can we as a voting populace, theoretically, deny them the right to their happiness (general welfare)? I guess you could also say that by "general welfare" you mean life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness. Again, you get back to the point that not all people are the same.

Anyways, it's a fascinating thought really.

~AJ

Free to those who get it, that's why I said take taxpayers money and provide free services. Nothing is free, it takes money just to collect taxes.

Taking into consideration I am no expert on the Costitution and the history around it, I have to look at it 2 ways:

1) There is no real way to know what exactly our Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the Costitution. We can only interpret what it means.

2) Times change and just like the bible, people will see the meaning of the Constitution in different ways. We have to take into account that our Founding Fathers could not have predicted how much things would change in such a short amount of time.

Perhaps it was the normal language back in the days but you would think they would have made this document a bit easier to understand, make the words a bit more clearer, take into consideration those who's education may not have been as high as most of them. Kinda shows how politics have changed so little in over 200 years, even back then they made policies and bills that only they in part know what it means.

What do i think? I would have to take it word for word:

promote - as in raise to a high position or contribute to progress

general -as in everyone

welfare - as in benefit or wellbeing

Basically to raise peoples wellbeing. But how does one do that? I take the cycle of a person from birth to adulthood (say 18 years old) as an example of raising  a person wellbeing.

Why do we teach children to talk, walk, read, write, clean and defend themselves? Because once they are adults they will need to know how to do these things on their own. As adults some of these kids will not do as well as others and will need some kind of help. But what kind of help do they need? Do they need help to survive or help to live? I am bothered by the idea that there is a Gov't program called Welfare that basically goes against what the word itself means. How does giving people money without working when they don't have any benefit them? Wouldn't addressing the problem, the reason they are down and out be a better way to "promote general welfare"?

Our society today has taken a word that had a different meaning back then and related it to money and now when ever anyone says the word welfare the first thing that comes to mind is people getting checks for doing nothing from a system that does not promote getting off that same system (at least not successfully promoting it). Children are dependent of adults for everything but in the process we teach them the skills necessary to grow independent from us (most do anyways). So why, after they are all grown up, do we have a system to does the opposite? Makes them dependent again rather than teaching them to be independent?

Sure, we have programs that help people get an education, get jobs and even make them better people. But considering the poor alone outnumber the successful and our Gov't soluton to this problem is more dependence; seems to me these programs meant to "promote general welfare" are not working. So why, instead of eliminating them and replacing them with something better that works, we continue to add to them, making them worse?

Do you take a cut already wrapped in badages but still bleeding and wrap it in more bandages? Or do you take the cut and use something better that can stop the bleeding, heal the wound and cure it all together?

Promote general welfare to me means help make people better. Doing everything for them, giving them everything without them working for it, taking the pain from them because you fell bad about it does not help them; because we never know if one day this Gov't may not exist and who will they have to give them everything then? What are the odds that a baby can survive without adults?

No, it isn't free to them either; they still pay for it because everyone pays taxes. Hence, those taxes go toward paying it. The idea that these services are free, is a myth, an illusion. You still pay for them; no one cannot not pay taxes. I would venture to say that maybe the only people who don't "pay" are undocumented workers, though even then i would say - due to my limited knowledge on such matters - i cannot be sure.

I'll get to the rest later because I'm getting tired. ~AJ

It took me a while to figure it out but it's my understanding that I don't really pay taxes seeing as I get just about all my taxes back every year plus what ever incentive the Gov't gives (such as the child credit my kids qualify for). That means I get back more than I pay. So, while somewhere along the long the money I pay in taxes is used to pay something and sometimes it can probably accumulate some kind of interest, I still get that money back so in reality I never really paid taxes and it was more like saving money for 1 year.

AJ, you need to stop being so literal here. It's free. The people getting welfare are usually people who don't work and therefore do not pay taxes and therefore get this money for free. The same with foodstamps. It's free to the recepient, but not to the one paying for it.

Tired of what?

"Resident individuals pay tax on worldwide income; non-residents pay tax on Finnish-source income only. An individual who has a main home in Finland or is continuously present in the country for more than six months is considered to be resident. Individual income tax is charged at progressive rates to 32% on taxable income over 60,800. A municipal income tax also applies to earned income, and is charged at rates varying from 16% to 21%, depending on the municipality. In addition, members of certain churches pay a church tax of between 1% and 2.25%, depending on the municipality. Tax on income from capital, including capital gains, is charged at 28%. The amount of national and local taxes, wealth tax and health insurance payable is limited to a maximum of 60% of taxable income. The wealth tax is to be abolished in 2006. Capital gains on the sale of an individual's permanent residence are exempt after two years of ownership. Finland has a special tax regime for qualifying foreign specialists and executives resulting in a flat tax rate of 35%."

Still want "Free" Internet?

Source: http://www.ocra.com/solutions/finland-taxation.asp

  Sounds more like someone decided maybe they were taking too much so they decided to give a little bit back.

I don't think the idea behind Finnlan's "free" Internet was redistribution of wealth. I think it's simply a matter of infrastructure. It's not a bad idea, I think.

The shortest connection between two points using a cable is a natural monopoly. (There is only one such shortest connection.) I think the state should handle natural monopolies.

Oh, and yes, I would pay almost any amount of taxes (and in Ireland I pay 41% top rate) if I had state-guaranteed DSL!

€60,800.00 = $90,476.40 as of right now.

If the highest tax bracket is $90,476.40 + in Finland (Obama says your wealthy in the US if you make $250K) and it is a progressive tax, the bottom is likely to be much lower than it is in the US (My opinion, as I can't find the bottom bracket data for Finland). If the rate is lower that probably means that few people in Finland effectively pay zero taxes (and everyone does pay VAT).

Welfare, food stamps. and child credits may appear free to the recipients. To an extent that is true. However. that cost is passed on to them (as well as taxpayers) in part through higher cost of consumables, thereby reducing the value of the benefit. But something is better than nothing, right? It also creates a spiral effect in entailments payout and taxes garnered. If we had a welfare population the size of Finland, disregarding remote areas, it would be easy to give broadband Internet to everyone. People that can (and some that can't) afford it already have it. Some people have no need for it or do not want it (even in this day and age), despite their financial means.

Ireland:

Single Taxpayers
Personal tax credits of €1,830
PAYE tax credit of €1830
Income Tax after subtracting deductions from total pay:
20% on the first €36,400
41% on the balance

30% for over 60,000 sounds very nice to me. I thought Scandinavian countries had very high taxes?

Hold on, Charles are you talking about taxes in Finland or the US? Just wanted to clarify.

You left out the additional 16% - 21% municipal taxes. Does a total 51% still sound appealing?

Nor do I. It very well may be a good/nice idea, especially when your talking about a nation (Finland) with a population approx. the same size as the city of Rio de Janeiro. Big countries, large populations, non-clustered populations, not so cheap to implement IMO. 

Not sure what exactly you are asking about but my first paragraph was about the US (which I believe is obvious) then I spoke about Finland. I don't, however, believe I spoke of Finland's taxes, Nitro did.