Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sonophos wrote:
I put forward the proposition that social equality through government benefits and welfare packages leads to a better society.

Assuming "social welfare" means "social programs" then it is very difficult to argue that they aren't necessary given the reality of the modern nation-state, if only because you will not find a developed, or successfully developing nation-state that does not have them.

Whether or not equality should be their goal, or is something that can be achieved is a different question, and one that's easy to answer with "sort of". Basically you want a system of social programs (police protection, fire protection, education, welfare, etc.) that enables people to operate in a way which they are willing to accept. Practically, this means ensuring that the middle class is fairly large, and that the income gap between it, and the wealthy, is relatively small. The poor don't really matter except in the sense of being subject to higher rates of criminal behavior, and being a political concern for some members of the middle class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

Well, there's also the issue of the state, directly and indirectly, subsidizing corporations.

They may create wealth, but they got some help along the way.

Then, of course, there's the issue of "We have more guns than you." which has a way of throwing moral arguments out the door.

sourclams wrote:Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

No, it's just that you haven't allowed for inflation. A trillion dollars now is worth a great deal less than in 1970.

Your point still falls down.

If the majority voted themselves rewards at the expense of the rich, the rich would not be so rich and the poor would not be so poor.

Kilkrazy wrote:

sourclams wrote:Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

No, it's just that you haven't allowed for inflation. A trillion dollars now is worth a great deal less than in 1970.

It's true. The (inflation adjusted) GDP in 1970 was a whopping $6 Trillion, which is pretty much the same as today's $14 trillion, and in no way indicates that the US GDP has been growing since then.

I don't actually think we're addressing a key question at the heart of this issue: Is it morally justifiable to 'redistribute' wealth from one group of people to another group of people who do nothing to earn that wealth? Also, is it possible do so with fundamentally limiting the freedom to succeed, by imposing a glass ceiling on the wealth a person is 'allowed' to accumulate? Is this not just the politics of jealousy?

Albatross wrote: Is it morally justifiable to 'redistribute' wealth from one group of people to another group of people who do nothing to earn that wealth?

Yes, especially if you have a flexible understanding of what can be done to earn a thing.

Albatross wrote:
Also, is it possible do so with fundamentally limiting the freedom to succeed, by imposing a glass ceiling on the wealth a person is 'allowed' to accumulate?

Yes, taxation limits the rate of wealth accumulation, not overall accumulation.

Albatross wrote:
Is this not just the politics of jealousy?

That's part of the popular argument, but there's more to it in terms of both that, and policy.

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote: Is it morally justifiable to 'redistribute' wealth from one group of people to another group of people who do nothing to earn that wealth?

Yes, especially if you have a flexible understanding of what can be done to earn a thing.

So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair? Please note that I'm not necessarily talking about welfare for the poor and jobless, more the general idea of redistribution for the purposes of decreasing the wealth gap throughout society. Making the rich less rich in order to make the gap smaller, in other words.

Albatross wrote:
Also, is it possible do so with fundamentally limiting the freedom to succeed, by imposing a glass ceiling on the wealth a person is 'allowed' to accumulate?

Yes, taxation limits the rate of wealth accumulation, not overall accumulation.

But to a punitive degree? Like taxing people earning large amounts at 50%? Is that fair (I assume you think 'fair' is unimportant, as do I, but I mean in the traditional sense)?

Albatross wrote:
Is this not just the politics of jealousy?

That's part of the popular argument, but there's more to it in terms of both that, and policy.

Is there though? I think 'tax the rich more because they can afford it' is class warfare, pure and simple. I also happen to think that it's probably the reason that poor people are, in general, more likely to be in favour of forcible redistribution than millionaires.

sourclams wrote:As a professional livestock economist, you don't know how happy it makes me to see someone actually cite an ERS document as opposed to a bunch of newspaper headline flimflam (although you did then go on to cite newspaper headline flimflam...)

Aye, governmental resources are always* preferrable, of course - but I confess I was lazy and didn't want to spend hours looking for more articles coming from a direct source, so I threw in a few articles from rennomated news for good measure.

*: Well, not always; there have been cases of data falsification just as it happens everywhere, but let's just assume this here is correct - at least as far as the population that actually can be tracked is concerned. Keep in mind that there will be a certain number of undetected cases simply because people fell through the grid / don't want to be found / do not register due to the aforementioned stigma.

biccat wrote:Is it correct then to say that your argument isn't that we should provide welfare for the basic necessities, it's that we should provide enough welfare so everyone has roughly the same amount of stuff? People on welfare deserve big-screen TV's because other people can afford big-screen TV's? (substitute your favorite first world luxury for big-screen TV's if you would prefer)

Hmm, that's two distinct but connected issues.
No, I do not think the stuff you mentioned should be covered by welfare. Yes, I think steps should be taken to aim for more equality in general, above basic necessities.
The latter would be more about education, job security and salaries, however.

sourclams wrote:I'm not sure you understand the question. People would have ten times as much "stuff."

That's not how capitalism works. If you have ten times the resources, the company will simply demand ten times (or more) the price, because it aims for maximum profit to increase shareholder value. There will be competition and a small price war going on between several suppliers, but the prices will still be set higher by default.
Why do you think I'm paying three times as much for food here in Ireland than I did in Germany? It's not because of the distance, it's because of higher salaries.
Products are being sold for whatever you are willing to pay for them, not how much they truly cost.

Albatross wrote:So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair?

In essence, yes, because the alternative would be to see the people on the receiving end may not survive without it, or at the very least will find it a lot harder to get back on their feet. By only giving them the barest minimum, however, we create an incentive for them to become active again - provided their labour is actually wanted.

I'm also putting forth the notion that there is a percentage amongst the "affording" group whose labour is in no relation to the excessive amount of money they receive - at the cost of the majority.

Albatross wrote:I think 'tax the rich more because they can afford it' is class warfare, pure and simple.

Well, 'feth welfare, let them rot' is class warfare, too, just that it gets fanned by those who would be negatively affected if the version you mentioned got out of hand. Social classes exist, which isn't so nice to begin with, but we have to acknowledge that one is inevitably trying to outmaneuver or instrumentalize another.

Lynata wrote:

Albatross wrote:So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair?

In essence, yes, because the alternative would be to see the people on the receiving end may not survive without it, or at the very least will find it a lot harder to get back on their feet. By only giving them the barest minimum, however, we create an incentive for them to become active again - provided their labour is actually wanted.

This isn't true, look at the American Indians. They've received scads of Government assistance since they'd been forced onto reservations, they have high levels of poverty, high levels of obesity, diabetes, poor dental care, chronic heart issues and high levels of alcoholism. All of this is due to not "roughing it" outside of the Reservation, but living in relative ease (with no federal taxes) under governmental assistance from birth. The "incentive" to work is entirely absent, for if they did find a good paying job off of the Reservation, they'll get whacked with taxes.

These people are having their ambition being bred out of them done in an altruistic measure of compassion from big daddy government. These populations are being controlled via bribe instead of the end of a rifle.

Stormrider wrote:

Lynata wrote:

Albatross wrote:So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair?

In essence, yes, because the alternative would be to see the people on the receiving end may not survive without it, or at the very least will find it a lot harder to get back on their feet. By only giving them the barest minimum, however, we create an incentive for them to become active again - provided their labour is actually wanted.

This isn't true, look at the American Indians. They've received scads of Government assistance since they'd been forced onto reservations, they have high levels of poverty, high levels of obesity, diabetes, poor dental care, chronic heart issues and high levels of alcoholism. All of this is due to not "roughing it" outside of the Reservation, but living in relative ease (with no federal taxes) under governmental assistance from birth. The "incentive" to work is entirely absent, for if they did find a good paying job off of the Reservation, they'll get whacked with taxes.

These people are having their ambition being bred out of them done in an altruistic measure of compassion from big daddy government. These populations are being controlled via bribe instead of the end of a rifle.

Agreed, so lets give them back the midwest and desert states to make a new native American nation and relocate all the current squatters...

CT GAMER wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Lynata wrote:

Albatross wrote:So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair?

In essence, yes, because the alternative would be to see the people on the receiving end may not survive without it, or at the very least will find it a lot harder to get back on their feet. By only giving them the barest minimum, however, we create an incentive for them to become active again - provided their labour is actually wanted.

This isn't true, look at the American Indians. They've received scads of Government assistance since they'd been forced onto reservations, they have high levels of poverty, high levels of obesity, diabetes, poor dental care, chronic heart issues and high levels of alcoholism. All of this is due to not "roughing it" outside of the Reservation, but living in relative ease (with no federal taxes) under governmental assistance from birth. The "incentive" to work is entirely absent, for if they did find a good paying job off of the Reservation, they'll get whacked with taxes.

These people are having their ambition being bred out of them done in an altruistic measure of compassion from big daddy government. These populations are being controlled via bribe instead of the end of a rifle.

Agreed, so lets give them back the midwest and desert states to make a new native American nation and relocate all the current squatters...

How about let's not treat them like the livestock out Government does treat them like?

Lynata wrote:

biccat wrote:Is it correct then to say that your argument isn't that we should provide welfare for the basic necessities, it's that we should provide enough welfare so everyone has roughly the same amount of stuff? People on welfare deserve big-screen TV's because other people can afford big-screen TV's? (substitute your favorite first world luxury for big-screen TV's if you would prefer)

Hmm, that's two distinct but connected issues.
No, I do not think the stuff you mentioned should be covered by welfare. Yes, I think steps should be taken to aim for more equality in general, above basic necessities.
The latter would be more about education, job security and salaries, however.

Is there some intrinsic value to education? Or is it simply a western luxury? I would argue that, for the most part, it is a luxury, and to the extent it is not a luxury, people are already willing to pay for the benefits it confers.

Job security and higher pay are simply a means towards acquiring more luxuries, basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, clean water) are remarkably easy to acquire in western nations, even if you're living on government subsidies.

biccat wrote:

Lynata wrote:

biccat wrote:Is it correct then to say that your argument isn't that we should provide welfare for the basic necessities, it's that we should provide enough welfare so everyone has roughly the same amount of stuff? People on welfare deserve big-screen TV's because other people can afford big-screen TV's? (substitute your favorite first world luxury for big-screen TV's if you would prefer)

Hmm, that's two distinct but connected issues.
No, I do not think the stuff you mentioned should be covered by welfare. Yes, I think steps should be taken to aim for more equality in general, above basic necessities.
The latter would be more about education, job security and salaries, however.

Is there some intrinsic value to education? Or is it simply a western luxury? I would argue that, for the most part, it is a luxury, and to the extent it is not a luxury, people are already willing to pay for the benefits it confers.

Job security and higher pay are simply a means towards acquiring more luxuries, basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, clean water) are remarkably easy to acquire in western nations, even if you're living on government subsidies.

I have yet to see an emaciated poor person out and about. Most of them are horribly obese. Now, I cannot speak for everyone, but this is what I have seen.

The problem with a welfare state is that it goes against the basics of survival of the fittest. When government goes beyond protecting people's rights and becomes a provider evolution stops happening. Today it is easier then ever to be an inept fether and have a bunch of fether kids that in less then two decades will repeat the cycle. In the old days if you wanted a family and kids you had to go out and provide and noting being able to provide was shameful. If one is not able to provide for a family one should wait until they are able to before reproducing. The intelligent are being out bred stupid at an astonishing rate. Only a slow believes that at 16 they are fit and able enough to provide for another human being and be responsible enough to guide its development.

Stormrider wrote:This isn't true, look at the American Indians. [...]

This is either because they receive too much money or because they aren't shown what more money could get them, i.e. the "greed factor".
Or maybe they just don't care about money as a leftover from their old days? This is not how our modern world society ticks, however. If you see fancy stuff, you'll want to get it. And if you lack the money ... there's your incentive to go to work. Simples.

biccat wrote:Is there some intrinsic value to education?

What? Of course there is. Only with education can we nurture the intellectual potential of the next generation. Only with education comes the potential to avoid mistakes of the past, to better utilize contemporary opportunities of today's technology, and to help invent tomorrow's thus shaping the future. Only education will move our civilization(s) forward.

We even have studies that suggest things like racism or sexism can be avoided with proper education by dispelling clichés, bias and false images. Not to mention that education is the stepping stone for people to move up in society and get a job that benefits themselves as well as society, ideally utilizing their skills to the fullest regardless of social background. Without education, all you'd get would be a horde of illiterate wage-slaves at the mercy of whoever wants to abuse them for cheap non-complex labour.

Stormrider wrote:Job security and higher pay are simply a means towards acquiring more luxuries, basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, clean water) are remarkably easy to acquire in western nations, even if you're living on government subsidies.

Job security and higher pay are also means to actually boost the economy, as people will feel better about spending their hard-earned cash when they don't have to fear they'll have to move to another city next month to find a new job, or worse, because they can't find a new one at all. Also, social peace. One can hardly complain about class warfare when the gap between said classes grows wider and wider. Yes, the primary purpose of job security and higher pay are the accumulation of luxuries, but it is also a huge psychological factor.
Last but not least: Fairness - though I know that morale isn't a decisive factor in this debate.

Lynata wrote:

biccat wrote:Is there some intrinsic value to education?

What? Of course there is. Only with education can we nurture the intellectual potential of the next generation. Only with education comes the potential to avoid mistakes of the past, to better utilize contemporary opportunities of today's technology, and to help invent tomorrow's thus shaping the future. Only education will move our civilization(s) forward.

That's a lot of platitudes in only two sentences. I'll just make two quick responses:

1) those only apply if the right people get the right kinds of education. There's little value in a janitor getting a masters degree in computer science. And, well I don't have a lot of respect for non-STEM degrees, but I'm sure you would agree that some don't really afford a lot of opportunities for future-shaping.

2) Higher education isn't a necessary precursor for "help[ing] invent tomorrow's [technology]."

Lynata wrote:Not to mention that education is the stepping stone for people to move up in society and get a job that benefits themselves as well as society, ideally utilizing their skills to the fullest regardless of social background.

I disagree. A college education appears to be more of a filtering mechanism than an actual improvement. Particularly given the lack of connection between college coursework and real work.

Lynata wrote:Without education, all you'd get would be a horde of illiterate wage-slaves at the mercy of whoever wants to abuse them for cheap non-complex labour.

False choice.

Lynata wrote:Last but not least: Fairness - though I know that morale isn't a decisive factor in this debate.

Didn't realize you actually quoted me in that last block.

But just to address this last line: fairness is not a universal concept. I guarantee that my definition of the term is different than yours. If we're going to use fairness or morality as a measure, whose concept of fairness or morality do we use?

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:My first thought is that lowering the wealth of the more wealthy to give to the less wealthy (usually the lowest on the ladder) leads to a lower balance. This style of redistribution does not lead to much improved conditions for the lowest incomes.

A brief look into living conditions among the working poor in the laissez faire economies of the early 20th century would tell you otherwise.

What I would prefer is more education about opputunities for the lower income levels, and of course more oppurtunities overall.

I absolutely agree, and think that there should be a focus on getting people up and working. But part of that is recognising that you need some kind of financial base to start from.

Social Welfare programs have thier place, and I am not saying they are useless, but it seems more social mixing of the wealth levels would go a long way to improving trust between people, and overall improvement of the least wealthy among us. Giving poorer people more money to keep living the same life they live seperately from others does not help fix the critical issues in our society.

I agree, though I'd point out how much wealth inequality leads to social stratification. That is, if a guy working an unskilled job earns 1/100 of the income a professional, the two men are very unlikely to meet in social situations, and even less likely to be friends. On the other hand, in a more egalitarian society, where incomes are much closer, so perhaps the professional's income is only triple that of the unskilled labourer, then there is a reasonable chance they might be in the same social circles, and may be friends.

Consider the odds in India of a menial labourer becoming friends with a lawyer, now consider the same in the UK, Australia or the US.

Stormrider wrote:I have yet to see an emaciated poor person out and about. Most of them are horribly obese. Now, I cannot speak for everyone, but this is what I have seen.

Poor and starving aren't the same thing. The reason poor people tend to be overweight (though some are emaciated as well) is becuase crappy food tends to be much cheaper than healthier foods, gyms cost money, and hobbies tend to be more passive, like watching TV becuase it is cheaper than white water rafting. The way food is produced and distributed has changed, and the dynamic of poverty meaning starving no longer is true in first world countries. In modern society being fit and healthy is more of a sign of middle class and up, whereas fat is more of a sign of being poor.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:However, how many people in the States are rabid drug users and on welfare?

According to recent requirements to have drug testing for anyone claiming welfare, not many.

How many of them are morbidly obese, and have the nerve to complain that the food isnt enough to feed their family.

There is a considerable difference between eating enough to get really fat, and eating well. High sugar, high fat crap food is really cheap, but healthy food is not.

I am of the opinion that Welfare needs massive reforms in the states, and that starts with "employing" those on welfare... these would be truly menial jobs that NO ONE would want to do, and unless they do these state run jobs, no welfare check.

Work for welfare is actually a decent idea, and one that's been put into place around the world with good result, but the way you're suggesting it would be a complete disaster. The value of these systems comes from giving people useable skills, and getting them in the habit of getting out and getting to work on time, to do a regular job. Simply dishing out horrible jobs as a punishment will only get people stuck into a routine of suffering through anothe humiliation.

Society isn't at war with the poor.

There should obviously be mandatory drug testing for those wishing to go on welfare. As a soldier in the US Army, why should I be tested for drugs in order to have a job in the first place, and these lazy sods can do as much crack or whatever they want, and never get tested for usage?

Because you get given guns, grenades and planes, and so it's really important that your decision making isn't impaired.

And no, being on welfare doesn't automatically mean you're lazy. Note that the GFC saw several million Americans get put on welfare. Is this because several million people suddenly just got lazy, or is it because of systemic forces having a sudden impact on their lives?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:When you guarantee someone a benefit then they are more likely to use that benefit. If the guaranteed minimum welfare was $1000/month, you won't have people accepting jobs paying less than $1000/mo, thereby leaving jobs unfilled. Instead of simply destroying $1000/mo. by giving it to the recipient, you're also destroying up to $1000/mo. in benefit that could have been provided to someone else.

Which is why, of course, welfare doesn't work like that.

At this point we've basically established that biccat is opposed to a silly welfare system that no-one would ever put in place, and are left with absolutely no idea what he might think of any welfare system actually in operation.

Further, there are alternatives to government benefits - particularly social charity.

We tried this. It was called the industrial revolution. It was a complete disaster and so we stopped doing it.

Social charities are better at allocating resources because they have an incentive to weed out fraud and misuse (donors might stop giving money) and because they are better able to adapt to changes in circumstances and tailor their services to individuals.

Except that welfare operations on administration costs are 5%. Charities are considered high performers if they lose just 40% of their income to administration. So really, that's just complete and utter nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:The problem is, what is the defined value of "minimum standard" ? I know more people on welfare that have more Cable channels than I do, pay for faster internet, have more XBox time logged than I do, etc etc. Why should ANY welfare or social program basically pay for these niceties? I work my tail off to earn what money goes into my bank account. If there were a system that "marked" money given to welfare recipients that basically told companies, if you take this money for cable and other niceties, then you can face penalties/sanctions.. the individual purchasing said niceties (internet and xbox stuff are NOT necessities), should be given first a warning, in writing, and second an actual cut from the system, saying you were given all opportunities to live on the welfare system and you abused it; Perhaps give a probationary reinstatement after a full investigation and whatnot.

But if you look at cable and internet, they really are pretty cheap ways to grind away a whole lot of hours while otherwise doing nothing. It isn't very sensible to demand an unemployed person spend all their time either searching for a job or flagellating themselves for their failures (and even then, who pays for the birch?)

I've got mates who are studying, and between government support and their part time jobs they earn bugger all, yet they've got insane internet and cable. It makes sense because that's what they do with their time - play computer games and watch TV. Meanwhile I've got rubbish internet and no cable, because I don't have the time to get value for money out of those things. When I do have a spare night I'm more likely to go to a movie or out to dinner, things my friends can't afford.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:So in other words it really is theft. Awesome.

This guy heard there was money to be made at this closed community, so he went up and banged on the door. This girl answered and told him sure, he can come in to the community and work the silver mine along with most of the workers. It pays $100 a day, and the guy said that sounded great, but he wondered who paid her to stand on the gate, and who paid to keep the walls of the community maintained? The girl replied that everyone pays a portion of what they earn, and that would include him. Given he was paid an okay wage, he'd be expected to pay $20 each day, and that was the system, all agreed to by the community, and that you had to take accept one part, or none of it. The job paid well, so he took it.

He worked hard all day, and at the end got paid $80. The man got very angry, and said he should get his full $100, and losing $20 of it to pay for the community was theft. Everyone thought him a very stupid man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:It is a psychological fact, that people will create myths about themselves to justify whatever.

Most the time,when they are successful; do not even realize how much other people, society, and the system has contributed to their own situation.

When they are not successful, they emphasize how much other people, society, and the system has contributed to their own situation.

Therefore, we must follow the idea of the Golden Mean. Sadly, what is the best balance between social welfare and taxation is not always clear.

This is an excellent post.

It's a little sad to see how people's positions on publicy policy, especially welfare, come from the personal narratives they invented to believe they're totally awesome, but unfairly put upon. It makes creating effective policy really hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:On the other hand I've not seen your exhaustive economic surveys in defense of your claims - whatever they may be.

It's even easier to pretend that money received and then paid out, all as part of a system that you agreed to be part of by accepting a job, was ever your money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:No, it's just that you haven't allowed for inflation. A trillion dollars now is worth a great deal less than in 1970.

Your point still falls down.

No, really, the US economy has grown in the last forty years. I can't believe you're arguing against that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I don't actually think we're addressing a key question at the heart of this issue: Is it morally justifiable to 'redistribute' wealth from one group of people to another group of people who do nothing to earn that wealth?

I think it's fundamentally mistaken to consider your paycheque to be something you earned in isolation from society, and the various systems it has put in place.

Also, is it possible do so with fundamentally limiting the freedom to succeed, by imposing a glass ceiling on the wealth a person is 'allowed' to accumulate?

There is no glass ceiling imposed, unless you have a top marginal rate of tax of 100%. While in the past top marginal rates have been extremely high, at present around the world you rarely see top marginal rates above 50%.

Is this not just the politics of jealousy?

It is the politics of jealousy when the argument is 'we should tax the rich, because they have too much'. This is certainly an argument that we see, and see far too often.

But there is another argument, 'we need to provide for these people to help them become self-sustaining members of society, and to pay for that we need to tax people who already have a lot', and that is an entirely different, and much better argument.

sebster wrote:

Work for welfare is actually a decent idea, and one that's been put into place around the world with good result, but the way you're suggesting it would be a complete disaster. The value of these systems comes from giving people useable skills, and getting them in the habit of getting out and getting to work on time, to do a regular job. Simply dishing out horrible jobs as a punishment will only get people stuck into a routine of suffering through anothe humiliation.

Society isn't at war with the poor.

There should obviously be mandatory drug testing for those wishing to go on welfare. As a soldier in the US Army, why should I be tested for drugs in order to have a job in the first place, and these lazy sods can do as much crack or whatever they want, and never get tested for usage?

Because you get given guns, grenades and planes, and so it's really important that your decision making isn't impaired.

I guess I should really explain more of "my" idea for a work for welfare system... I didn't want to because it is directly tied to the US's "immigration problem", which is off topic here. Basically, the govt. would remove those who are in the US illegally, and give those on or wishing to go on welfare the choice: job skills training, with job application assistance, or work the fields (or really any other jobs that are currently being done by predominately illegal folks). In my mind, this would most likely free up the entry level jobs (such as fast food) for those just starting into the workforce (ie, those who are 15-18 and still in high school or whatever it is called in various countries). I may be way out in left field here, but I think it would be fairly safe to assume that most people on welfare would take up the "school" option and try to move up.


And for the drug testing thing, I know that my father, who works for a sporting goods store has gotten drug testing. So really, I should have explained that it's those who do have jobs and are required to get drug testing to keep that job are well in their rights to demand those on welfare get tested as well. I have no idea how many states actually do this, and how well it works, I just know that I have recently seen on the national news, and cable news sources that there have been moves to require drug testing, and many people including the ACLU are getting up in arms about it for some ridiculous reason.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And for the drug testing thing, I know that my father, who works for a sporting goods store has gotten drug testing. So really, I should have explained that it's those who do have jobs and are required to get drug testing to keep that job are well in their rights to demand those on welfare get tested as well. I have no idea how many states actually do this, and how well it works, I just know that I have recently seen on the national news, and cable news sources that there have been moves to require drug testing, and many people including the ACLU are getting up in arms about it for some ridiculous reason.

I mean, its not that ridiculous as you'll find quite a few people that object to private employers drug testing. I know I've only ever been drug tested at entry level positions in warehouses, garages, gyms, etc. I wasn't drug tested for either of my current jobs, one of which has an NDA and numerous regulations on behavior outside the office.

I also know that, when I was managing a gym, my boss made me get applicants drug tested, and I basically just ignored the results. My rule was basically that if you can show up sober to an interview, any drug use you may engage in isn't my problem.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

sourclams wrote:Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

No, it's just that you haven't allowed for inflation. A trillion dollars now is worth a great deal less than in 1970.

It's true. The (inflation adjusted) GDP in 1970 was a whopping $6 Trillion, which is pretty much the same as today's $14 trillion, and in no way indicates that the US GDP has been growing since then.

That does not answer the point.

If the GDP had grown a thousand, and the poor majority were voting it to themselves, we would not see the change in income distibution that has occurred, which has been to squeeze the money upwards.

Albatross wrote:
So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair? please not that I'm not necessarily talking about welfare for the poor and jobless, more the general idea of redistribution for the purposes of decreasing the wealth gap throughout society. Making the rich less rich in order to make the gap smaller, in other words.

Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how you understand fairness, and what you consider to be important factors in establishing it. Its pretty easy to argue that redistribution isn't, but its also easy to argue that wealth inequality isn't fair.

I think a better question is "Is it necessary?" And that the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is, particular in Western, first world countries if only because people seem to want it. There are ways to change that (basically, oppression), of course, but they're very painful and largely against convention Western values.

Albatross wrote:
But to a punitive degree? Like taxing people earning large amounts at 50%? Is that fair (I assume you think 'fair' is unimportant, as do I, but I mean in the traditional sense)?

Your assumption is correct. At least until fairness enters into the serious part of the public debate, that is lots of people believe roughly the same thing about what is and is not fair (it doesn't happen often regarding taxes). However, it cuts both directions, many a government has faced a revolution because the people considered economic conditions to be unfair (Egypt is a good example).

I think its reasonable to consider punitive taxes to be bad, if their intention is not to be punitive, or behaviorally motivating; which is almost never the case with income taxes.

biccat wrote:
Is there some intrinsic value to education? Or is it simply a western luxury? I would argue that, for the most part, it is a luxury, and to the extent it is not a luxury, people are already willing to pay for the benefits it confers.

Not having intrinsic value, or even having intrinsic value, does not make something a luxury or not a luxury. Of course, nothing has intrinsic value, they simply tend to be valued more highly by more people than other things.

That being said, there are obvious incentives for the state to educate its population.

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:The problem with a welfare state is that it goes against the basics of survival of the fittest.

The basics of survival of the fittest are that it happens, not that it is good thing for it to happen.

It's also a big mistake to think biological evolution takes place on a time frame relevant to the present rate of social evolution.

When government goes beyond protecting people's rights and becomes a provider evolution stops happening. Today it is easier then ever to be an inept fether and have a bunch of fether kids that in less then two decades will repeat the cycle.

Which is why we're having poor families with more and more children in every generation. Except of course, the exact opposite is happening.

In the old days if you wanted a family and kids you had to go out and provide and noting being able to provide was shameful.

Except of course, that's complete and utter nonsense. People got horny and had sex, and ended up with a baby. Thinking otherwise is confusing Leave it to Beaver with history. They dealth with it differently, mosty by providing it with a wildly inadequate diet, minimal education, and then shipping it off to work at 12. Or abandoning it.

The system we have now isn't wonderful, but we got rid of the old system and brought this in because the old system sucked about as hard as could be.

The intelligent are being out bred stupid at an astonishing rate.

Which is why each generation is testing lower and lower in intelligence tests. Except, of course, the exact opposite is happening. Hmmm, it's almost as if human intelligence is a much more complex thing, involving education, upbringing and all kinds of other factors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I guess I should really explain more of "my" idea for a work for welfare system... I didn't want to because it is directly tied to the US's "immigration problem", which is off topic here. Basically, the govt. would remove those who are in the US illegally, and give those on or wishing to go on welfare the choice: job skills training, with job application assistance, or work the fields (or really any other jobs that are currently being done by predominately illegal folks). In my mind, this would most likely free up the entry level jobs (such as fast food) for those just starting into the workforce (ie, those who are 15-18 and still in high school or whatever it is called in various countries). I may be way out in left field here, but I think it would be fairly safe to assume that most people on welfare would take up the "school" option and try to move up.

I agree in principal, but it gets complicated pretty quickly. A mate got a job in a call centre, they identified he was pretty cluey and charismatic and promoted him through the ranks quickly, until he became a trainer of other staff. The company was pretty screwy, so about three months after his last promotion they laid him and about half the training team off, giving them all pretty generous redundancies. He lived off that money for ages, before qualifying for the dole

And for the drug testing thing, I know that my father, who works for a sporting goods store has gotten drug testing. So really, I should have explained that it's those who do have jobs and are required to get drug testing to keep that job are well in their rights to demand those on welfare get tested as well. I have no idea how many states actually do this, and how well it works, I just know that I have recently seen on the national news, and cable news sources that there have been moves to require drug testing, and many people including the ACLU are getting up in arms about it for some ridiculous reason.

I think there's an issue with people being seriously weird about marijuana, because even though you can smoke marijuana and hold a steady job just as easily as you can drink beer and hold a steady job, people pretend that isn't true. Someone losing their job or being denied benefits because they smoked a joint last week is really crazy.

The other issue is that drug testing isn't cheap, and only likely to save money if we accept the 'everyone knows' idea that most people on welfare are just drug taking losers. The problem is that isn't true, and it looks like drug use among people claiming welfare is about as common as it is in regular society.

As for the civil liberties of it... well I think if you're going to ask the state for money to help you out, the state gets the right to know things about you. Like if you're looking for work, or if you're taking drugs (serious ones, not dope). So that part isn't a problem, but those other two bits are.

sebster wrote:

When government goes beyond protecting people's rights and becomes a provider evolution stops happening. Today it is easier then ever to be an inept fether and have a bunch of fether kids that in less then two decades will repeat the cycle.

Which is why we're having poor families with more and more children in every generation.

Also, protecting what people think are their rights goes against that understanding of "survival of the fittest", which always leads to the question Fit for what?"

sebster wrote:

The intelligent are being out bred stupid at an astonishing rate.

Which is why each generation is testing lower and lower in intelligence tests. Except, of course, the exact opposite is happening. Hmmm, it's almost as if human intelligence is a much more complex thing, involving education, upbringing and all kinds of other factors.

It also assumes is entirely genetic, which it almost certainly isn't.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:I don't actually think we're addressing a key question at the heart of this issue: Is it morally justifiable to 'redistribute' wealth from one group of people to another group of people who do nothing to earn that wealth?

I think it's fundamentally mistaken to consider your paycheque to be something you earned in isolation from society, and the various systems it has put in place.

I'm not sure that's connected to the question I asked... If I have more (which I don't, generally), why should some be taken from me and given to someone who has less, just to make us equal?

There is no glass ceiling imposed, unless you have a top marginal rate of tax of 100%. While in the past top marginal rates have been extremely high, at present around the world you rarely see top marginal rates above 50%.

To me, 50% seems punitive - it's like a punishment for simply being rich. Shouldn't we be encouraging people to be rich?

Is this not just the politics of jealousy?

It is the politics of jealousy when the argument is 'we should tax the rich, because they have too much'. This is certainly an argument that we see, and see far too often.

But there is another argument, 'we need to provide for these people to help them become self-sustaining members of society, and to pay for that we need to tax people who already have a lot', and that is an entirely different, and much better argument.

It's an almost identical argument, because it entails looking at what someone has and saying 'yep, you've got enough - you can give up 50% of your yearly income'.

Albatross wrote:
To me, 50% seems punitive - it's like a punishment for simply being rich. Shouldn't we be encouraging people to be rich?

As always, it depends. The middle class has a habit of objecting to people being too rich (Not the poor though, they care more about eating.), and since they tend to make up the majority of any given military...messiness can ensue.

People probably should try and get rich, you know enough about me to know I have few, if any, scruples. But there will always be more relatively less fortunate people, and the hands of the rich can only hold so many guns.

Albatross wrote:
It's an almost identical argument, because it entails looking at what someone has and saying 'yep, you've got enough - you can give up 50% of your yearly income'.

Its also not far from the "Work harder!" argument.

The vagaries of morality/ethics.

History shows that taxation rates above ~40% tend to be followed by rebellions and civil wars. -- Sorry I can't cite examples I've just heard this from too many knowledgable sources.

I keep seeing examples like: Do the poor need widescreen TVs? (Well No, No-one NEEDS a widescreen TV)

I would posit that the rich don't need private jets and houses the size of hotels either.

The ability to acumulate wealth should be available to people who wish to.

I once had the thought to introduce Taxation rate on a curve rather than as block sections as we have it now and incorporate a welfare aspect to it. So your Tax free allowance would change with your circumstances and you would be taxed an extra 1% per unit of income on that unit (1% on the first 1000, 2% on the second 1000 etc.) up to a maximum rate of 42% total (because I like Douglas Adams's work). An extra 2% tax to be charged for the first 3 multiples of 20 times avarage wage.
This would produce a curve and would mean companies would not have to give huge pay rises for individuals to receive small pay rises.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

sourclams wrote:Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

No, it's just that you haven't allowed for inflation. A trillion dollars now is worth a great deal less than in 1970.

Your point still falls down.

If the majority voted themselves rewards at the expense of the rich, the rich would not be so rich and the poor would not be so poor.

And inflation would be astronomical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I don't actually think we're addressing a key question at the heart of this issue: Is it morally justifiable to 'redistribute' wealth from one group of people to another group of people who do nothing to earn that wealth? Also, is it possible do so with fundamentally limiting the freedom to succeed, by imposing a glass ceiling on the wealth a person is 'allowed' to accumulate? Is this not just the politics of jealousy?

One could argue that there comes a point where accumulation of wealth is taking money from the majority in a fashion that is not "earned".

Personally I am not jealous of the rich, I am suspicious. I also wonder why a person on a single national average wage can not afford to raise a family in this country without some form of benefit.

Sonophos wrote:History shows that taxation rates above ~40% tend to be followed by rebellions and civil wars. -- Sorry I can't cite examples I've just heard this from too many knowledgable sources.

In certain brackets. Just look at US tax history, it doesn't reflect what you're saying.

It also depends on who its assessed on. The Netherlands aren't in danger of revolt.

Sonophos wrote:
This would produce a curve and would mean companies would not have to give huge pay rises for individuals to receive small pay rises.

They don't, and haven't ever in recent history. Even the Health Care Bill doesn't entail that.

dogma wrote:

Sonophos wrote:History shows that taxation rates above ~40% tend to be followed by rebellions and civil wars. -- Sorry I can't cite examples I've just heard this from too many knowledgable sources.

In certain brackets. Just look at US tax history, it doesn't reflect what you're saying.

It also depends on who its assessed on. The Netherlands aren't in danger of revolt.

Sonophos wrote:
This would produce a curve and would mean companies would not have to give huge pay rises for individuals to receive small pay rises.

They don't, and haven't ever in recent history. Even the Health Care Bill doesn't entail that.

The UK PAYE tax system has large "jumps" at certain income levels so it is possible to recieve a pay rise and have your take home pay decrease, this is a stupid state of affairs.

Ahtman wrote:The reason poor people tend to be overweight (though some are emaciated as well) is becuase crappy food tends to be much cheaper than healthier foods

Actually, crappy food is more expensive than healthier foods - it's just easier to acquire in a state fit for consumption. A cheeseburger at McDonalds costs what, a couple dollars? For that you could buy enough food to sustain you all day. The price per calorie of food in the US is around $.001/calorie; a 2000 calorie/day diet costs about $2/day.

It's easy to eat crappy foods, it's more difficult to eat healthy food.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:When you guarantee someone a benefit then they are more likely to use that benefit. If the guaranteed minimum welfare was $1000/month, you won't have people accepting jobs paying less than $1000/mo, thereby leaving jobs unfilled. Instead of simply destroying $1000/mo. by giving it to the recipient, you're also destroying up to $1000/mo. in benefit that could have been provided to someone else.

Which is why, of course, welfare doesn't work like that.

Funny, I thought that's exactly what the 1996 Welfare Reform Act was intended to correct.

Of course, I'm not strictly speaking of "Welfare," but all public welfare benefits, including food stamps, etc. Those tend to be fixed amounts of money. Again, when you don't know what you're talking about, it's usually best not to speak.

sebster wrote:Further, there are alternatives to government benefits - particularly social charity.

We tried this. It was called the industrial revolution. It was a complete disaster and so we stopped doing it.