I'm all for taxation. No, seriously, if a portion of my money goes towards social services that are both necessary and that I can use later in life, why not support taxation? Sure, there are those people who demand all their money, "they earned it," but without taxation, I'd hesitate to think about what would happen if your house were on fire.
That being said, some taxation is ridiculous, namely a tax on people who earn only minimum wage. Minimum wage, on average, nets a person only ~$15,000 per year. That is, for someone who only goes through the minimal amount of shopping, barely enough to survive. What I find appalling, however, is that some people make that in a month and don't pay taxes at all.
I make minimum wage at my part-time job. Unfortunately, it's not a great job that gives me many hours (even though I would love some more), so I've applied to a second job that will probably also pay me minimum wage if I am hired. I need all the money I can get, seeing as I will be in London this October, studying for my Master's degree. Sadly, I am not on track to make much at all.
What is the point of taking money out of the hands of people who need it the most? I realize that many taxes for lower income-earners are mandated at the state level, but still, it is quite unreasonable to tax those who rely on every single cent. I'd call it class warfare, but it seems that it's only class warfare if people with too much money are taxed.
That's my two cents, now give it back to me since I need to save my money for later.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Showing posts with label poor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poor. Show all posts
Monday, June 11, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Rights of the Minority
The right of the minority to defend themselves is a founding principle of the United States government, as is shown through the United States Senate. In the Senate, without 60 votes in favor of a bill, the minority party can deter a vote and ultimately defeat a bill without actually having to vote on that bill. It's an interesting system, as the legislative portion of the US government is divided; in the House of Representatives, the majority reigns supreme, while in the Senate, without the "super majority," the minority can easily control debate. Now, I'm not looking to analyze the US government, but the abilities of the minority to defend themselves in general.
What is a minority? A portion of a particular population that constitutes anything less than 50% of that population; for example, out of 400, 199 is the first minority number. Obviously, there are degrees of majority-minority relationships, but viable minorities (minorities with actual power) would typically have to constitute more than 20-30% of a particular population. In general, if fewer than 20% of a population is part of a minority, it's a fringe minority with some trait that is either very esoteric or idiosyncratic.
Now, why should a minority get the same rights as a majority? After all, they are essentially powerless to fight back against the majority. There are several philosophical precedents on which to make an argument, typically that all humans are deserving of equal treatment because we are all born with equal physiological standards (with some to little variation). There are also historical precedents, i.e. the Civil Rights movement, centuries of slavery, etc. Throughout all of recorded history and up to this moment, we have established that all people, regardless of their social status, are equal (or should be equal) in life, liberty, and rights implicit in life.
So why do we still see rights of minorities suppressed in certain places? From more extreme cases of genocide in Darfur, Rwanda, The Balkan Wars, etc., to more religious or social issues, there are still many instances of rejection of rights to certain minorities.
For example, an instance of this is in the recent revelation of the NYPD going beyond their given powers to spy on Muslim students in multiple schools across multiple states, including schools in New Jersey.
Another example is in China, where the Uyghur population has been suppressed violently because of the Uyghur protests against the Chinese government. Now, while China is not the best example of a country that upholds human rights, it is still necessary to hold them to some sort of standard because they are such a powerful nation.
So why do some countries insist on repressing the minority groups in their countries? A general explanation is a bit hard to elicit, since the reasons often vary on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps some majority groups feel as if they would be oppressed by the minority if the minority were to gain power (such as when Sunni Saddam Hussein ruled over predominantly Shi'a Iraq); perhaps other majority groups feel that being the majority favors them because of the ability to give oneself multiple advantages.
That being said, a minority could come with intangible powers, such as through money or through items (such as weapons, land, etc.). Manipulation then comes into play, which is an entirely different issue that I am much too tired at the moment to write about.
Oftentimes, it is the intangible items that set the two groups apart, whether they are the majority or not. The intangibles are seemingly more important than sheer numbers, as having a greater amount of resources with which to centralize power creates an environment conducive to the will of those with the intangible items.
So, if a minority controls a majority of the intangibles, and the intangibles are later de-powered or have their abilities removed, can the minority continue to feign being a majority? If the reverse is true and the majority controls the intangibles of society and those intangibles are given no value, does the minority realize their new power?
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
What is a minority? A portion of a particular population that constitutes anything less than 50% of that population; for example, out of 400, 199 is the first minority number. Obviously, there are degrees of majority-minority relationships, but viable minorities (minorities with actual power) would typically have to constitute more than 20-30% of a particular population. In general, if fewer than 20% of a population is part of a minority, it's a fringe minority with some trait that is either very esoteric or idiosyncratic.
Now, why should a minority get the same rights as a majority? After all, they are essentially powerless to fight back against the majority. There are several philosophical precedents on which to make an argument, typically that all humans are deserving of equal treatment because we are all born with equal physiological standards (with some to little variation). There are also historical precedents, i.e. the Civil Rights movement, centuries of slavery, etc. Throughout all of recorded history and up to this moment, we have established that all people, regardless of their social status, are equal (or should be equal) in life, liberty, and rights implicit in life.
So why do we still see rights of minorities suppressed in certain places? From more extreme cases of genocide in Darfur, Rwanda, The Balkan Wars, etc., to more religious or social issues, there are still many instances of rejection of rights to certain minorities.
For example, an instance of this is in the recent revelation of the NYPD going beyond their given powers to spy on Muslim students in multiple schools across multiple states, including schools in New Jersey.
Another example is in China, where the Uyghur population has been suppressed violently because of the Uyghur protests against the Chinese government. Now, while China is not the best example of a country that upholds human rights, it is still necessary to hold them to some sort of standard because they are such a powerful nation.
So why do some countries insist on repressing the minority groups in their countries? A general explanation is a bit hard to elicit, since the reasons often vary on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps some majority groups feel as if they would be oppressed by the minority if the minority were to gain power (such as when Sunni Saddam Hussein ruled over predominantly Shi'a Iraq); perhaps other majority groups feel that being the majority favors them because of the ability to give oneself multiple advantages.
That being said, a minority could come with intangible powers, such as through money or through items (such as weapons, land, etc.). Manipulation then comes into play, which is an entirely different issue that I am much too tired at the moment to write about.
Oftentimes, it is the intangible items that set the two groups apart, whether they are the majority or not. The intangibles are seemingly more important than sheer numbers, as having a greater amount of resources with which to centralize power creates an environment conducive to the will of those with the intangible items.
So, if a minority controls a majority of the intangibles, and the intangibles are later de-powered or have their abilities removed, can the minority continue to feign being a majority? If the reverse is true and the majority controls the intangibles of society and those intangibles are given no value, does the minority realize their new power?
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)