Next time, read the post. Each person must decide for themselves what is right for their conscience, it is NOT the place of the government to create legislature for enforcement of morals. That does not mean somebody has no conscience.
One of the best arguments for redistribution is that you want to avoid extreme classes differences in the population and maybe even to avoid undermining the democratic system (if certain are so poor, hungry and uneducated you have to question whether they can really participate in our system). I think dramatic class differences are a concern, but I also believe that a fair free market system (we don't completely have that now) could address those concerns too.
I didn't answer the poll because it's overly broad.
I didn't answer the poll because it's overly broad.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
It is.
There is nothing wrong with "distribution of wealth." That's what any economy is. The difference is whether or not the distribution is done with force or done voluntarily. Forced distribution of wealth is an act of tyranny, whoever the recipient, be he poor or wealthy.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,806
- 6,362
- 126
I think the argument could be made in another way. That is that the Religious argument is really just common sense that has been integrated into the Religion. All the Religions I have any knowledge of contain certain Redistributive Principles. Perhaps this is not an accident?
Historically speaking even the US has had the best Economic conditions during periods where Redistributive Policies were enacted. Post WW2---->'60's especially, but those programs still exist today, just not to the same extent.
n yusef
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2005
- 2,158
- 1
- 0
I didn't comment on the legitimacy of your argument, but its persuasiveness. Political philosophy determines how one defines a government's role as provider of societal welfare. We must separate this judgment from its argumentation. It is doubtful that you will convince anyone against the welfare state by making it an issue of conscience, despite it's lack of popularity among Americans (relative to the rest of the world). Instead, you may consider mentioning welfare fraud and dependence, the lack of personal responsibility, and the poor decision-making that leads to poverty.
Most people consider themselves compassionate. Therefore, framing the welfare state as an issue of conscience is poor strategy for its opponents.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
I believe you should only pay for what you use. I am against redistribution of wealth and I am hardly wealthy. If it is money that you earned legally then the government has no right to it. If I use the same amount of facilities as anyone else I should pay the same thing. Does that mean I should not pay for local schools if I have no kids enrolled ? Yes it does. Raise the taxes on people with kids in school. Why should I pay for their kids to attend school ? They will never implement that though because if you actually charged people for only what they used the government would lose too much money.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Sort of true. That premise has been repeated so widely that it's generally accepted as gospel, but it's helpful to understand how and why 5% unemployment came to be considered "full" employment. From an employer perspective, that's full employment because labor costs rise dramatically as unemployment drops. That's simple supply and demand. As the labor supply drops, its "price" increases. The 4-5% range is considered optimum for keeping labor prices in check.
It might seem that ultra-low unemployment would be ideal from an employee perspective. Extremely high wages means inflated consumer prices, however, so even employees have some interest in keeping a modest level of unemployment. I'm just not sure where that optimum unemployment level is from an employee/consumer perspective. Presumably somewhere below 5%.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Demand does. Even if she's mostly a slick marketing campaign, it's obvious by the income of singers, movie stars and pro athletes that we as a society will pay substantially to be entertained. The elite of entertainment industry earn insane money. And why not? Nothing wrong with having a job that's in demand.
I think - and my memory is a little hazy on this - that an unemployment rate near 0% is a bad thing. You need a certain amount of unemployed talent around to ensure that employment contracts don't get too crazy because employees know they're unreplaceable.
I believe you. Thanks for letting us know you have no conscience. :thumbsdown:
Exactly! The concept of requiring those who are blessed well beyond their needs to help provide minimal assistance for "the least among us" is simply practical civil engineering.
At its best, religion can be a practical means of societal ethical guidance, not because of some grand cosmic truth or superiority, but because it is a channel for instilling and communicating such values.
except there is nothing stopping anyone from becoming a "serf and lord".
by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, you are just encouraging the poor to continue to be poor and lazy.
and taxing from the rich is not going to stop them from being rich. the rich will continue to be rich and the poor will continue to be poor, until they wake up and decide to break this cycle on their own.
reap what you sow.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
It's not just broad, but ambiguous. Wealth distribution which way? Most posters here are assuming it means wealth distribution from the wealthy to the poor since that's the popular right wing talking point. The simple fact is, however, we already have a system that is fundamentally slanted towards redistributing wealth from the less wealthy, particularly the middle class, to the wealthy. Strangely the folks attacking "wealth redistribution" see no problem with that at all. Indeed, most probably accept it as the only acceptable way for the system to work.
The real question is where is the proper balance between distributing wealth upwards and returning it back downwards. The right loves to cry that if that balance falls too far towards downwards, it becomes "unfair" to the wealthy, and can ultimately erode the drive to move the economy forward. That certainly can be true, though we're in no danger of that today. As you point out, when the balance shifts too far the other way, towards too much upwards redistribution of wealth, the resulting gap between the classes undermines democracy and can ultimately lead to equally damaging economic problems. Given the fairly dramatic shift in wealth over the last 30 years, I'd say it's pretty clear where the balance falls today.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,806
- 6,362
- 126
lolwut? If the Rich are going to be Rich no matter what and the Poor are going to be Poor no matter what, then why ask the question?
Seems you are making the argument that the Poor Deserve it and also the Rich Deserve it. Kind of an Economic Darwinist view.
The Truth is, that the Poor, when given opportunities, can improve their Lives and some of them can even become Rich given the opportunity.
It is always funny to see people ask questions set in a background they supply and wherein the very background itself answers the question. This one is a classic example. As you noted, money is a powerful motivator. It is the medium of exchange whereby you and I can pursue our self interests and barter with each other for things that we value. For money I try to maximize the value of what I produce. In this way I acquire wealth, but the poor are the very people for whom these system doesn't work. They are its failures. The system has already winnowed out the winners, those who are motivated by money and it is only they who can be successfully milked because when you remove their wealth by taxes their self interests is stimulated to new heights of productivity and they earn more and more and can be successfully milked to ever increasing levels. This is just like throwing out the weeds in a garden of roses and plucking old blooms and trimming excessive woody growth. The more you prune back the bushes the more roses they produce.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
You get too big of a gap between the poor and the rich (or concentrate most of the money in one very small group), breaking the cycle isn't the only thing the poor will break. Level the playing field with a true flat tax (no deductions) and watch the crime rate go through the roof.
Because greed drives their motivations.
You can always have a solid gold house to replace your solid copper house.
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
Whose ethics? Whose values? Yours? Your religion's? No thanks. The concept of requiring/forcing someone to give someone else money is theft, no matter the motive.
You mean the terrible paper that showed our strongest period of growth was during a time when the highest tax bracket was 91%?
Show me the correlation between tax rates and growth, and i'll concede the paper as wrong. I did 4 weeks of intensive research for that paper. I read many many articles, op-eds, journals, and economic studies from both sides before drawing my conclusions. The data i used to draw my own conclusions was from VERY reputable sources (BLS, IRS, SEC)...
I'm all for higher taxes at the top, but a 91% rate is infeasible now. Personal taxes have to be comparable to what other civilized nations charge, otherwise the rich will just move. And corporate taxes are completely cutthroat.
Go dig up your thread. I commented and you said you would get back to it. But you never did. You plotted data and did an Excel trendline fit and when it showed a slightly negative slope despite wild swinging data, you concluded there was sufficient evidence. Sorry, I learned how to do trendlines in 8th grade. What you showed was effectively nothing because even an 8th grader will know that with data like that, you can't draw an accurate trendline.
Once again you quote some sources for your data, but your other sources is based on studies designed to show that tax cuts are flawed. Great.
Here's 1 thing. I'll argue one thing at a time because this is by far the most flawed paper I've ever read. This is something the GRE will test you on and show some logical flaws and problems and ask you what's wrong with it. Maybe the ETS should put this in the GRE test.
First, your hypothesis was that Reaganomics might be true (even though you don't believe it). You play the "Hey let's assume this is true, so let's investigate it." So if your hypothesis is that Reaganomics is true then....
You show a graph where the relationship between the TOP tax bracket and private investments.
1) What is private investment? Your paper first states that Reaganomics believes that cutting taxes will cause people to invest more and create jobs. I don't think people (even conservatives) believe that investing in a savings account will improve the economy significantly. Investments like business expansion and growth, starting new businesses, VC funding, all this is what we believe to drive the economy, so if your form of personal investment includes savings accounts, 401ks, this is probably the wrong figure.
2) Top tax bracket and tax burden are two different things. While under the Bush tax cuts the top tax bracket dropped, tax burden on the rich has INCREASED. So one could argue that you cut taxes on the rich, but the rich are paying more overall. So while you argue this is a tax rate cut, if the rich are paying more, this isn't really a tax cut on the rich anymore.
You try to argue against cutting taxes on the rich, which is essentially a tax burden. You could cut the top rate but what good is this if only 5 people were paying 91% taxes or whatever?
3) There is no correlation at all between the two lines it seems. Top tax rate and personal investments. Personal investments is this zig zag squigly line that goes up and down. It's the equivalent of me scribbling with a pen. So you're saying there's no relation? How can you conclude there's no relation?
When your hypothesis is that Reaganomics principles are followed, you need definitive proof that the OPPOSITE happens. With this data, it shows no relation and thus all you can say is that there is insufficient data to show that Reaganomics is flawed. YOu have not disproven or proven the hypothesis. So your conclusion that Reaganomics is false based on this pathetic graph is unjustified.
THIS IS WHY YOUR PAPER IS SO SCREWED UP.
I don't really care what your conclusion is, but if it's completely flawed and draws conclusions out of thin air, then yes that is retarded.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter