Is anyone here receiving a govt. pension, social security or support payments from govt?

[Adrock]

Thats true, there are many "services" that you or I are not benefiting from but there certainly are services we are. We "get" something from the taxes we pay. Even if its less effective and more costly then it could be provided otherwise. Heck we even get things from the taxes we don't pay. We all are indebt to our foreign borrowers. At some point those debts become real. Now whether we choose to pay for them is another thread.

The "something" we get in return is the wealth originally taken from the population in another form.

[helmuth_hubener]

You don't need housing either. You could sleep on a bench somewhere. Debt for housing is probably one of the more justifyible debt one could take on.

I have nothing against housing. But stick-built site-built houses are tremendously overpriced. If you can get the same benefits, for ten times less, why not?

But, I'm glad you and so many others equate mobile home living to sleeping on a bench somewhere. If you ever stopped, the prices would go up from their current ridiculously low levels. But that will never happen, and we merry few -- the lucky, the clear-thinking, the trailer trash -- will continue to get a much, much better deal than you.

[jbauer]

Two people having an informed and free interaction is superior. Both individuals are going the naturally act in their own self interest. It is this self interest that increases efficiency, sets the potential for wealth to be created, and puts a value on the item or service being traded. This value is key on determining if wealth is created.

Even the most honest and competent bureaucrat will always lack the element of self interest in a transaction. This is why government is always inefficient at best and cannot create wealth.

Efficiency/cost effectiveness has nothing to do with the conversation. I've already admitted and I'm sure most would that the government does a crappy job on that front. The argument was made that government doesn't provide value.

[jbauer]

The "something" we get in return is the wealth originally taken from the population in another form.

No doubt. But the thread is about whether it is moral to accept payments/services from the state. Not whether its moral for the state to take it in the first place. My argument is that we all in one from or fasion utilize things provided with our tax dollars to the population.

[jbauer]

I have nothing against housing. But stick-built site-built houses are tremendously overpriced. If you can get the same benefits, for ten times less, why not?

But, I'm glad you and so many others equate mobile home living to sleeping on a bench somewhere. If you ever stopped, the prices would go up from their current ridiculously low levels. But that will never happen, and we merry few -- the lucky, the clear-thinking, the trailer trash -- will continue to get a much, much better deal than you.

One of my ex-employees worked for clayton homes. She sold prefab houses. She was always talking in the $55/sqft range plus site prep. Atleast around here you're probably looking at the very low 100s for stick built (site prep included). Insurance is harder to get on prefab, they don't retain value like stick built (alteast here) and its much much much harder to get a loan (atleast here) because the banks look at it as a riskier loan. Pick your poison I guess.

[Adrock]

Efficiency/cost effectiveness has nothing to do with the conversation. I've already admitted and I'm sure most would that the government does a crappy job on that front. The argument was made that government doesn't provide value.

I used efficiency and tied it to acting in one's self interest to relate it to something you understood already. The same lack of self interest that does not allow the government to act efficiently is the same self interest that a society possesses in order to put worth onto a product. If the government cannot sense this, it cannot possibly create wealth (or add value). The only value provided is from the wealth it originally took from the population.

[Adrock]

No doubt. But the thread is about whether it is moral to accept payments/services from the state. Not whether its moral for the state to take it in the first place. My argument is that we all in one from or fasion utilize things provided with our tax dollars to the population.

I agree that we all use the public services the government provides. My argument is that it is moral since everything the government provides originates from us anyways.

[libertygrl]

So what exactly are you sugesting people that are now too old to return to the workforce do? You seem to be passing a lot of judgement?

Unfortunatey, I've noticed a lot of that over the years on these forums and it pisses me off. Some people are under the misguided impression that ALL seniors like my parents (who were blue collar workers) are wealthy and playing golf all day in Palm Beach.

The truth is, my parents are on a fixed income. They worked hard all of their lives and put into S.S. At one point my father worked 2 jobs to support his family. Maybe if there wasn't a tax on personal income, we wouldn't need S.S. because people would have been able to kept more of the fruit of their labor. So please, let's drop the judgemental attitudes. Thanks....

[helmuth_hubener]

She was always talking in the $55/sqft range plus site prep. Atleast around here you're probably looking at the very low 100s for stick built (site prep included).

That's for new.

they don't retain value like stick built

Exactly. That's precisely the advantage to them. They get very cheap, very fast. The 1,000 sq. ft. site-built home from the 1970s will have appreciated to $200,000, whereas the 1,000 sq. ft. mobile home from the 1970s with better build quality will have gone down to $2,000.

its much much much harder to get a loan (atleast here) because the banks look at it as a riskier loan.

Again, precisely my point! Why get a loan for $2,000?

[helmuth_hubener]

I agree that we all use the public services the government provides. My argument is that it is moral since everything the government provides originates from us anyways.

More precisely, it is moral because the wealth originated from someone, from whom it was stolen. It doesn't have to have come from us or you. The mere fact that it was stolen, that the state is a thief, writes the moral equation.