MrBunsy said:
If we go down the route of the goverment not funding charities or charitable work, then we go back to when the fire brigade only saved your life if you'd paid them and had a plaque to proove it on your house.
I understand what you are saying here but think there may be some confusion as to what I am saying. I cannot attest to the laws in the UK or Denmark but in the USA the entire puropse of the government is to "PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE the public good."
Provide means they must do this. An army comes under this heading, as does national intelligence agencies and other items directly related to defending the nation from agressors.
Promote means to assist, aid or act so as to help bring about. The government is supposed to act so as to best help the general public but in the end is not responsible for results. At some point PROMOTOING turns into HINDERRING, like when taxes and inflation as a result of tax and spend policies begin to hurt the public good.
I have no problem with public support of some items like major road projects, fire services, National Disaster rescue services and all that they entail. Any person may be subjected to an earthquake, wildfire, tornado or hurricane. Houses may catch fire, automotive accidents happen and at the time the emergency is going on we cannot be funmbling around saying "who can pay and who cannot." At that point some reasonable taxes are understood. Take the level of urgency one level down though. People who, in the USA, elect NOT to have health insurance for example. Many people actually do decide this, taking a head in the sand approach. If they drop in the street they WILL be taken to a hospital and WILL be treated. I, the taxpayer, must pay for this. After that their own insurance should kick in and even if they have NONE in the USA they still get helped out with MY money. They may not get the best docotors, all are certified though, and there may be limits to the care they can get but they get care even with no money. If you want better care, just like if you want better housing, it is up to you to find a way to pay for it. You can either get your own insurance or pay out of pocket, your choice. Now mind you, a person with money in the bank, no insurance, and a major health problem is going to get wiped out, but then they chose not to pay for insurance now.
I have seen it first hand with my deadbeat father in law who never took responsiblity for a single action his entire life. The guy is an albatros around our neck. He had an artificial heart valve put in at 66 and did not EVER pay one dime to an insurance company or a doctor. MY taxes coverred that, then he complains about the cost of his cumanin medication when he can even get that subsidized if he got off his ass and filled out the papers...
He lives in a condo now that his sister bought for him, he pays the basic upkeep from his monthly social security check. Mind you he paid hardly anything into the system having been off the books much of his life and not having saved much, still the American taxpayer keeps his carcass paid for. He had an appartment lined up through a Catholic Charity where they based his rent on only 1/3 of his monthly income. I give credit to the church and that charity for the elderly because they do it with funds voluntarily given to them. (Perfect example of voluntary charity). His sister felt bad that it was too small so she bought the condo. That is her choice for charity and I refuse to help. As it is I am going to have to pay to bury his dead beat corpse one day since every bit of money he gets he blows. Why should he not as either a chrity, family member or government has jumped in to save his ass every day of his adult life? Part of me looks forward to being rid of him but then I am going to have to take money out of my home equity line to plant his corpse in the ground!
My wife as a child needless to say depended on assistance. I am not going to begrudge assistance to a child but why am I paying for a fully grown man who never took care of himself or his dependents?
Back to where this part of the thread started. I see no problem with government paying for emergency services. I think that certainly comes under the heading of PROMOTE without seriously hinderring the public. Anything though beyond emergency aid for adults and aid until an adult for children I oppose at every turn. People at some point need to learn to be responsible for themselves or they turn into my father in law.
