"Humans have free will. The thief creates himself."
Starving vs. stealing is not exactly free will. Are you implying that in order to retain morality, one must effectively commit suicide? Which would you choose?
"I only have the choice between supporting all taxation in all circumstances or none at all? There are certainly good reasons to tax for MUTUAL benefit. But I consider it immoral to tax A for the SPECIFIC benefit of B. Is that clearer?"
If you're taking the position that it's appropriate to take from A to give to B sometimes, it destroys your moral absolutist position from earlier.
Besides, if we used your revised definition, then taxing me for someone else's food stamps doesn't SPECIFICALLY benefit them, since I will be able to live in a neighborhood with less starving and homeless, raising my property values and my quality of life.
"This is true. It is also true that if 100% of all money were taxed by the government there would be no wealth disparity whatsoever. I do not consider either of those states to be desirable."
I have yet to dive into the texts you linked, but it seems many of them are using the flaws of socialism as a foundation to justify opposite theory.
Like I've stated before, I believe in both Socialism and Capitalism. Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses, and by hybridizing the strengths of both (where they don't overlap) we will end up with the most efficient system.
Example: Wealth disparity. In a true socialized economy, it's pretty much even across the board. This demotes innovation, kills ambition, and erases the incentive to work hard. In a fully capitalist society, eventually the wealth will be heavily tilted in one direction. America is already experiencing that, even with social protections in place. Deregulation almost lead us to collapse, so obviously the idea of a completely non-socialized system is untenable.
"I agree. Enforce the rules, punish the cheaters and when someone wins stop making him give part of the trophy to the loser. "
What a shallow answer.
What if the winner gets to write the rules for the next round? Do you think the winner might just write the rules so they win again? Who decides who is a cheater? Are the resources necessary to punish cheaters going to be recouped?
Most importantly, why do you assume everyone is playing their own game? You seem to have the mentality that only the last runner of the relay race actually wins.
Your blatant ignorance regarding the socialized nature of this country and how it affects everyone and everything is astounding. Tell me one person who has never had any help from any part of society, and has become successful.
" This is an excellent reason not to artificially sustain large numbers of people with borrowed or confiscated money. When it runs out there will be more of them to cause trouble."
The money is already spent. We're essentially either funding food subsidies, or funding prisoners. There is no option to not spend money on society.
If we funded wide-scale birth control distribution, we would be "sustaining" a large number of people. But the subsequent reduction in pregnancies would make it worth it, long term.
You just seem to want to invest in the illusion of individual accountability and wealth, despite the fact it doesn't exist. At least not in America. Every aspect of your life is intertwined with everyone else's. Whether it's taxes, social programs, police/fire departments, schools, etc.
Until you live in a seceded land, with no laws governing you, no (non-natural) resources available to you, and no wealth supply to start with, you can't pretend like your philosophies have any basis in the real world.
You'd rather let people die than try to save them. That is a window to your black soul.
" Not quite, taxation is not to sustain society as a whole but rather to serve the taxpayer. If other people happen to benefit at no additional cost, that is fine. "
I pay income taxes. Some pay more, some pay less. What is the difference in services received by myself vs. someone who pays a different rate?
"Further, you keep conflating public goods that protect inseverable groups like the fire department and private goods like shelter, food and medical treatment. Like you are fond of pointing out, it is complex, but not indecipherable."
Fire defense is only a public good because the people have designed it so. Food, shelter, and medical treatment can also be public goods, if so designated.
You pay for public fire defense in case someone needs it. It's like communal insurance. Same way our taxes fund food stamp programs, or help build homeless shelters, or even provide free clinics.
"I chose option 2. It will be cheaper in the long run."
When someone is on welfare, they have to pay it back. When someone is on unemployment insurance, it's because they paid for it.
When someone goes to jail, they cost us money we never get back.
(I wonder how your position would change if you became disabled through no fault of your own, and were denied government disability pay because it was cheaper to let you rot.)
"All individual human activities have a “shelf life”."
Not when you're speaking in societal terms. Of course an individual will only remain "homeless" until they die. But you seem to forget that people are born, too. So until you break the CYCLE, homelessness will NOT have a shelf life because there are always young people growing up into it.
"This cost will be significantly less than that which would be required to sustain them."
This assumes that the person will never be productive, and will be getting free money for their entire life.
Welfare is limited and repaid.
...and what if the person we're "sustaining" gets a job and manages to eventually help pay into the system? Did you factor that into your cost-benefit analysis?
What if they don't die, but end up murdering someone and going to jail for life. Will that cost us less to sustain?
The only technicality is that you can be excluded from social programs if adequate need isn't demonstrated.
But the article itself listed things such as streetlights as public goods, even though we have blind people that obviously don't need or use them. So it seems the definition can bend a little.
Besides, how can you say social programs aren't public goods if they're subject to the tragedy of commons? Seems contradictory.
"Well, you are half way there then. I agree that $4e9 > $4e3. Now you only have to prove that we need to influence it."
We already have mechanisms in place to influence it. We need to adjust those existing mechanisms. Again, look back to when our country was creating the largest amount of successful people, and when the economy was strong, and emulate those conditions! Does that really seem like a radical idea?
"Sorry for the shorthand, yes, everybody should be paying taxes as required. Once they have been paid, we should be free to spend it on our heirs or give it to them, or burn it if we choose to do so."
On one hand, you are saying we have no moral justification for taking from A to give to B. Yet, A should be paying his taxes *as required*, which at present date assumes higher incomes give higher percentages. So, in essence, A may in fact be contributing more in taxes than they receive in services. According to your argument, this is immoral behavior. Why do you all of a sudden condone it?
"Sorry about that, full explanations take more space than we have. I don’t see a way around this."
I haven't had a problem. It's called multiple posts.
Your omission of a "full explanation" seems shady, especially when coupled with the fact that when the qualifiers in your "full explanation" started appearing, they started weakening your argument.
"I suspect we are talking past each other. Perhaps this would help. What is the maximum amount of wealth allowed by law to one individual?"
X% of the total money supply. Not limited legally, just in theory. With taxes, the most money someone could have it (X-t)% of the money supply, where t = taxation.
If progressive tax rates were uncapped, you would hit an eventual income cap, by mathematical standards. So our tax system, with modification, can be a full-bore wealth limiting mechanism.
"Another point where we seem to be talking past each other. Interestingly though, if we cannot accurately predict economic behavior, why are you in favor of having the government attempt to control it?"
Again with the absolutes. Government is like a football field. It sets the boundaries and provides referees. While players can not run out of bounds or commit fouls, they are free to use the entire field in order to find a way to succeed. You're never going to play an honest game without rules and structure.
We live in a hybrid Socialist/Capitalist nation, and it's a great blueprint for long term sustainability. We just need to tweak it, and stop pretending like the answers are limited to these absolutist theories.
We need to have government regulation of a capitalist market in order to provide checks and balances. It's not counter intuitive, it's taking the best of both worlds.
"In the long term, those destitute and homeless will not clog the city and prevent tourism, though they will in the short term. When there is no reason to stay in the city, they will leave if they have not died first, which is a sunk cost anyway."
I didn't realize homelessness had a shelf life. The problem isn't going to fix itself, either. Where do you think they will all go? Apparently they don't stay *anywhere* long term.
Also, how is dying a sunk cost? If the person has health insurance and savings, they pay their medical costs, and their funerals. If they die on the street, we incur the cost.
"You seem to be confusing public and private goods. A fire department protects everybody. Welfare checks are much more specifically targeted. Can you see the difference?"
Social programs are through the government, which makes it a public good. Yes, you need to have low income to utilize the service, just like you need to have an emergency to utilize the services of the fire department.
Both welfare and the fire department are funded by a community of people, to provide a public service should a crisis arise. Can you see the similarities?
"I see we are talking about different obstacles. Yes if the government creates it, then the government should certainly remove it. I was talking about the inherent obstacles to life (food, shelter, etc.) It is not the government’s job to relieve those obstacles."
Even if you feel like it doesn't make sense to get rid of the obstacles to basic living, you are again ignoring the consequential costs. Starving people en masse will probably start stealing food or maybe even riot. Homelessness has a lot of costs we've have to endure already: More police, less tourism, people don't feel safe, the city is seen as more poor and ghetto which lowers real estate values, etc. etc.
So like I've been saying, you're going to pay for it one way or another. What seems like the better option? Paying for someone to eat, or paying for extra cops to catch all the thieves? Remember, too, that by exercising the option to not help provide food, we are creating a thief from a potentially decent person.
"only what you write and the links you post. If those unnamed complexities are what I suspect you are talking about they will resolve themselves when population adjusts to available consumption."
The complexities are numerous. That's part of the reason why it's such a difficult issue to face efficiently. I'll give you a couple examples in my next replies.
"While true from both of our perspectives, that does not imply we get to raid their bank accounts. Need is not a valid moral claim."
Taxation is "raiding" a bank account, so this behavior already exists. I guess taxation is immoral, right?
Here's where it gets complicated: Taxes pay for services we may or may not use, like the Fire Department. So while your idea suggests that the general public should not have authority to "raid" bank accounts, by having a system of taxation (and subsequently, services) we are already reaching into people's pockets in order to best sustain society as a whole. So it is no longer an issue of morality, but rather an understanding that we are an intertwined society that requires appropriate balancing so we can have optimal levels of universal success.
The system is rigged. The ultra-rich invest in manipulating laws in order to accelerate even more wealth to themselves. I paid more taxes than General Electric last year. At what point do you acknowledge this reality, and understand you can't use surface level arguments like, "It's wrong to take things from A to give to B"?
"True, and life is hard when homeless. It still isn’t my responsibility to pay for someone else to have a house."
You either pay for them now when it's more feasible to stay afloat, or you can let them drown and pay for the extra police/prisons/coroners. That money is eventually coming out of our pockets. Why shouldn't it go to people for a potentially good cause? At least when you fund social programs, you roll the dice on people. When you let them fail, everyone loses.
"Good for you, my story is similar. That does not show how either of us is entitled to the Walton fortune. If anything, be glad you are the person you became and not some kept ‘pet’ of an heir."
It's not supposed to show entitlement. It's supposed to be a demonstration of how disparity exists, and why we need mechanisms in place to influence it.
"In any case, it isn’t about the Walton kids. It is about the Walton who made the money in the first place. He gets to decide what to do with it. If you had been his best friend and he had left it to you then you could have decided how to spend it."
So he can decide to not pay taxes with it? I thought that was illegal. I guess we don't have full control over our own money after all. Your position doesn't seem to take this into account.
"OK then, implicitly. I’m sorry if my attempts to clarify our points of difference make you think I am weaseling my words. We are limited on this forum."
The problem lies in the fact that your theories speak in absolutes, but once we get down to the details, little qualifiers start to appear.
"The programs you refer to do not have the goal of reducing wealth disparity. They are supposed to be sustenance programs. A program aimed at limiting wealth disparity would, I imagine, limit wealth. This is not a proper goal of anyone, much less a government of a free society."
Taxes limit your wealth, do they not? Sustenance programs control wealth disparity by not letting the bottom fall out.
"This simply isn’t true. The lighter the regulation the more closely the models will predict that behavior (all other things being equal)."
This isn't true. We had deregulation and it almost lead to a collapse. You may attribute it to a 'botched prediction', but it still is proof that the principles can not be applied with accuracy.
"Oddly, the further from free a market is the more complex and error prone the models become and the less predictive validity they have. No model correctly predicts all economic behavior. You posted a video of Greenspan in which he alluded to that concept. "
Complex and error prone? Deregulation almost brought the roof down. I don't think you get to throw stones when you live in a glass house.
"Well, it is morally wrong to take from A and give to B. It is also bad to reward poor behavior. Further it is bad to establish an expectation of unlimited assistance. It is bad to encourage unsustainable population growth. Etc."
Again with the shallow arguments. If it's morally wrong to take from A to give to B, everyone who has paid for the Fire Department and never used it should be in a state of moral outrage. How ridiculous does that sound?
Also, say you have a classroom full of 30 kids. 10 are misbehaving, and 20 are behaving. You have to either reward either everyone or no one. What do you do?
This question is based on the idea that the unemployed are a singular group, because the cost-benefit analysis shows massive, individualized oversight wouldn't be realistic.
"That being said, if you would like to use your own money to provide better sneakers to everybody, that is your right. "
It's more like: Would it be smart to invest as a group, in order to maximize the services while minimizing cost, in order to achieve efficient progress as a whole?
The answer is almost always yes.
You certainly wouldn't have the internet, interstate highways, police departments, clean water, or sewage systems without a mutual investment. Just imagine the cost efficiency of each individual trying to acquire clean water. At least it would be moral, right?
"You got ‘no bearing’ from my quote? In any case, those obstacles can be removed by those who choose to do so. It is not the government’s job. "
The structure of government is the obstacle course. We are born into the course. We have to pay taxes, obey laws, etc. Those are obstacles. Obstacles the government has presented us with. Why shouldn't the creator of the obstacles be the vehicle for removal if society decides it so?
"We all think our own ideas and theories are realistic. Is there a flaw in my reasoning you would like to point out?"
I've been pointing out the fact that you're ignoring real life complexities when you postulate theories. What have you been reading?
"I think this is a bit odd. Aren’t your proposals making life easier for some only by making it harder for others?"
Not necessarily. Refer to my analogy about giving everyone new shoes. Whose life is harder when everyone is doing better?
If you're arguing for the top 10%, then I can assure you their lives are not going to be "hard" based on any comparative measurement. Even if you get taxed from $50 million down to $10 million, you still have TEN MILLION DOLLARS. Life is not hard with ten million dollars.
"It also isn’t about what I want for others’ success. I don’t care one way or the other about their failure but they should be highly motivated to succeed. "
You should. This whole thread began with people complaining about having to fund social programs. The existence of social programs affects everyone. You turning a blind eye to it isn't going to help anyone.
If people can't afford housing, they go homeless. When the police need to hire more officers to accommodate for the increased patrols, who do you think pays for them? The homeless people?
This is what I'm talking about when I accuse you of shallow thinking. You seem to assume that ignoring other people's failures is going to have no impact on your life, without even considering who will clean up the subsequent mess.
I'm repeating myself... Let me copy-paste from earlier:
You also have to approach the situation from a long-term perspective. What good would it be getting rid of unemployment insurance if it just resulted in more homeless and destitute? Your city's potential tourism is affected by the blight. Your property values decrease due to the "poorness" of the neighborhood. You end up hiring more police to stop the more prominent stealing/panhandling/debauchery, and fill more jail cells. All of this costing you, the taxpayer, money. (Directly and indirectly)
Maybe you should actually reply to my entire posts (like I did with you), and you wouldn't have to ask me questions I've already answered.
67° A Few Clouds
Clearing The Air About Marijuana Use Among San Diego Teens
Good thing no one is advocating for teen use.
May 18, 2013 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
"Humans have free will. The thief creates himself."
Starving vs. stealing is not exactly free will. Are you implying that in order to retain morality, one must effectively commit suicide? Which would you choose?
"I only have the choice between supporting all taxation in all circumstances or none at all? There are certainly good reasons to tax for MUTUAL benefit. But I consider it immoral to tax A for the SPECIFIC benefit of B. Is that clearer?"
If you're taking the position that it's appropriate to take from A to give to B sometimes, it destroys your moral absolutist position from earlier.
Besides, if we used your revised definition, then taxing me for someone else's food stamps doesn't SPECIFICALLY benefit them, since I will be able to live in a neighborhood with less starving and homeless, raising my property values and my quality of life.
"This is true. It is also true that if 100% of all money were taxed by the government there would be no wealth disparity whatsoever. I do not consider either of those states to be desirable."
I have yet to dive into the texts you linked, but it seems many of them are using the flaws of socialism as a foundation to justify opposite theory.
Like I've stated before, I believe in both Socialism and Capitalism. Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses, and by hybridizing the strengths of both (where they don't overlap) we will end up with the most efficient system.
Example: Wealth disparity. In a true socialized economy, it's pretty much even across the board. This demotes innovation, kills ambition, and erases the incentive to work hard. In a fully capitalist society, eventually the wealth will be heavily tilted in one direction. America is already experiencing that, even with social protections in place. Deregulation almost lead us to collapse, so obviously the idea of a completely non-socialized system is untenable.
"I agree. Enforce the rules, punish the cheaters and when someone wins stop making him give part of the trophy to the loser. "
What a shallow answer.
What if the winner gets to write the rules for the next round? Do you think the winner might just write the rules so they win again? Who decides who is a cheater? Are the resources necessary to punish cheaters going to be recouped?
Most importantly, why do you assume everyone is playing their own game? You seem to have the mentality that only the last runner of the relay race actually wins.
Your blatant ignorance regarding the socialized nature of this country and how it affects everyone and everything is astounding. Tell me one person who has never had any help from any part of society, and has become successful.
May 5, 2013 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
" This is an excellent reason not to artificially sustain large numbers of people with borrowed or confiscated money. When it runs out there will be more of them to cause trouble."
The money is already spent. We're essentially either funding food subsidies, or funding prisoners. There is no option to not spend money on society.
If we funded wide-scale birth control distribution, we would be "sustaining" a large number of people. But the subsequent reduction in pregnancies would make it worth it, long term.
You just seem to want to invest in the illusion of individual accountability and wealth, despite the fact it doesn't exist. At least not in America. Every aspect of your life is intertwined with everyone else's. Whether it's taxes, social programs, police/fire departments, schools, etc.
Until you live in a seceded land, with no laws governing you, no (non-natural) resources available to you, and no wealth supply to start with, you can't pretend like your philosophies have any basis in the real world.
You'd rather let people die than try to save them. That is a window to your black soul.
May 5, 2013 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
" Not quite, taxation is not to sustain society as a whole but rather to serve the taxpayer. If other people happen to benefit at no additional cost, that is fine. "
I pay income taxes. Some pay more, some pay less. What is the difference in services received by myself vs. someone who pays a different rate?
"Further, you keep conflating public goods that protect inseverable groups like the fire department and private goods like shelter, food and medical treatment. Like you are fond of pointing out, it is complex, but not indecipherable."
Fire defense is only a public good because the people have designed it so. Food, shelter, and medical treatment can also be public goods, if so designated.
You pay for public fire defense in case someone needs it. It's like communal insurance. Same way our taxes fund food stamp programs, or help build homeless shelters, or even provide free clinics.
"I chose option 2. It will be cheaper in the long run."
When someone is on welfare, they have to pay it back. When someone is on unemployment insurance, it's because they paid for it.
When someone goes to jail, they cost us money we never get back.
(I wonder how your position would change if you became disabled through no fault of your own, and were denied government disability pay because it was cheaper to let you rot.)
"All individual human activities have a “shelf life”."
Not when you're speaking in societal terms. Of course an individual will only remain "homeless" until they die. But you seem to forget that people are born, too. So until you break the CYCLE, homelessness will NOT have a shelf life because there are always young people growing up into it.
"This cost will be significantly less than that which would be required to sustain them."
This assumes that the person will never be productive, and will be getting free money for their entire life.
Welfare is limited and repaid.
...and what if the person we're "sustaining" gets a job and manages to eventually help pay into the system? Did you factor that into your cost-benefit analysis?
What if they don't die, but end up murdering someone and going to jail for life. Will that cost us less to sustain?
"This is not the economic definition of public good. See here for an explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
Q.v. tragedy of the commons for overuse of public goods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_... "
The only technicality is that you can be excluded from social programs if adequate need isn't demonstrated.
But the article itself listed things such as streetlights as public goods, even though we have blind people that obviously don't need or use them. So it seems the definition can bend a little.
Besides, how can you say social programs aren't public goods if they're subject to the tragedy of commons? Seems contradictory.
May 5, 2013 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
"Well, you are half way there then. I agree that $4e9 > $4e3. Now you only have to prove that we need to influence it."
We already have mechanisms in place to influence it. We need to adjust those existing mechanisms. Again, look back to when our country was creating the largest amount of successful people, and when the economy was strong, and emulate those conditions! Does that really seem like a radical idea?
"Sorry for the shorthand, yes, everybody should be paying taxes as required. Once they have been paid, we should be free to spend it on our heirs or give it to them, or burn it if we choose to do so."
On one hand, you are saying we have no moral justification for taking from A to give to B. Yet, A should be paying his taxes *as required*, which at present date assumes higher incomes give higher percentages. So, in essence, A may in fact be contributing more in taxes than they receive in services. According to your argument, this is immoral behavior. Why do you all of a sudden condone it?
"Sorry about that, full explanations take more space than we have. I don’t see a way around this."
I haven't had a problem. It's called multiple posts.
Your omission of a "full explanation" seems shady, especially when coupled with the fact that when the qualifiers in your "full explanation" started appearing, they started weakening your argument.
"I suspect we are talking past each other. Perhaps this would help. What is the maximum amount of wealth allowed by law to one individual?"
X% of the total money supply. Not limited legally, just in theory. With taxes, the most money someone could have it (X-t)% of the money supply, where t = taxation.
If progressive tax rates were uncapped, you would hit an eventual income cap, by mathematical standards. So our tax system, with modification, can be a full-bore wealth limiting mechanism.
"Another point where we seem to be talking past each other. Interestingly though, if we cannot accurately predict economic behavior, why are you in favor of having the government attempt to control it?"
Again with the absolutes. Government is like a football field. It sets the boundaries and provides referees. While players can not run out of bounds or commit fouls, they are free to use the entire field in order to find a way to succeed. You're never going to play an honest game without rules and structure.
We live in a hybrid Socialist/Capitalist nation, and it's a great blueprint for long term sustainability. We just need to tweak it, and stop pretending like the answers are limited to these absolutist theories.
We need to have government regulation of a capitalist market in order to provide checks and balances. It's not counter intuitive, it's taking the best of both worlds.
May 3, 2013 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
"In the long term, those destitute and homeless will not clog the city and prevent tourism, though they will in the short term. When there is no reason to stay in the city, they will leave if they have not died first, which is a sunk cost anyway."
I didn't realize homelessness had a shelf life. The problem isn't going to fix itself, either. Where do you think they will all go? Apparently they don't stay *anywhere* long term.
Also, how is dying a sunk cost? If the person has health insurance and savings, they pay their medical costs, and their funerals. If they die on the street, we incur the cost.
"You seem to be confusing public and private goods. A fire department protects everybody. Welfare checks are much more specifically targeted. Can you see the difference?"
Social programs are through the government, which makes it a public good. Yes, you need to have low income to utilize the service, just like you need to have an emergency to utilize the services of the fire department.
Both welfare and the fire department are funded by a community of people, to provide a public service should a crisis arise. Can you see the similarities?
"I see we are talking about different obstacles. Yes if the government creates it, then the government should certainly remove it. I was talking about the inherent obstacles to life (food, shelter, etc.) It is not the government’s job to relieve those obstacles."
Even if you feel like it doesn't make sense to get rid of the obstacles to basic living, you are again ignoring the consequential costs. Starving people en masse will probably start stealing food or maybe even riot. Homelessness has a lot of costs we've have to endure already: More police, less tourism, people don't feel safe, the city is seen as more poor and ghetto which lowers real estate values, etc. etc.
So like I've been saying, you're going to pay for it one way or another. What seems like the better option? Paying for someone to eat, or paying for extra cops to catch all the thieves? Remember, too, that by exercising the option to not help provide food, we are creating a thief from a potentially decent person.
May 3, 2013 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
"only what you write and the links you post. If those unnamed complexities are what I suspect you are talking about they will resolve themselves when population adjusts to available consumption."
The complexities are numerous. That's part of the reason why it's such a difficult issue to face efficiently. I'll give you a couple examples in my next replies.
"While true from both of our perspectives, that does not imply we get to raid their bank accounts. Need is not a valid moral claim."
Taxation is "raiding" a bank account, so this behavior already exists. I guess taxation is immoral, right?
Here's where it gets complicated: Taxes pay for services we may or may not use, like the Fire Department. So while your idea suggests that the general public should not have authority to "raid" bank accounts, by having a system of taxation (and subsequently, services) we are already reaching into people's pockets in order to best sustain society as a whole. So it is no longer an issue of morality, but rather an understanding that we are an intertwined society that requires appropriate balancing so we can have optimal levels of universal success.
The system is rigged. The ultra-rich invest in manipulating laws in order to accelerate even more wealth to themselves. I paid more taxes than General Electric last year. At what point do you acknowledge this reality, and understand you can't use surface level arguments like, "It's wrong to take things from A to give to B"?
"True, and life is hard when homeless. It still isn’t my responsibility to pay for someone else to have a house."
You either pay for them now when it's more feasible to stay afloat, or you can let them drown and pay for the extra police/prisons/coroners. That money is eventually coming out of our pockets. Why shouldn't it go to people for a potentially good cause? At least when you fund social programs, you roll the dice on people. When you let them fail, everyone loses.
May 3, 2013 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
"Good for you, my story is similar. That does not show how either of us is entitled to the Walton fortune. If anything, be glad you are the person you became and not some kept ‘pet’ of an heir."
It's not supposed to show entitlement. It's supposed to be a demonstration of how disparity exists, and why we need mechanisms in place to influence it.
"In any case, it isn’t about the Walton kids. It is about the Walton who made the money in the first place. He gets to decide what to do with it. If you had been his best friend and he had left it to you then you could have decided how to spend it."
So he can decide to not pay taxes with it? I thought that was illegal. I guess we don't have full control over our own money after all. Your position doesn't seem to take this into account.
"OK then, implicitly. I’m sorry if my attempts to clarify our points of difference make you think I am weaseling my words. We are limited on this forum."
The problem lies in the fact that your theories speak in absolutes, but once we get down to the details, little qualifiers start to appear.
"The programs you refer to do not have the goal of reducing wealth disparity. They are supposed to be sustenance programs. A program aimed at limiting wealth disparity would, I imagine, limit wealth. This is not a proper goal of anyone, much less a government of a free society."
Taxes limit your wealth, do they not? Sustenance programs control wealth disparity by not letting the bottom fall out.
"This simply isn’t true. The lighter the regulation the more closely the models will predict that behavior (all other things being equal)."
This isn't true. We had deregulation and it almost lead to a collapse. You may attribute it to a 'botched prediction', but it still is proof that the principles can not be applied with accuracy.
"Oddly, the further from free a market is the more complex and error prone the models become and the less predictive validity they have. No model correctly predicts all economic behavior. You posted a video of Greenspan in which he alluded to that concept. "
Complex and error prone? Deregulation almost brought the roof down. I don't think you get to throw stones when you live in a glass house.
May 3, 2013 at midnight ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
"Well, it is morally wrong to take from A and give to B. It is also bad to reward poor behavior. Further it is bad to establish an expectation of unlimited assistance. It is bad to encourage unsustainable population growth. Etc."
Again with the shallow arguments. If it's morally wrong to take from A to give to B, everyone who has paid for the Fire Department and never used it should be in a state of moral outrage. How ridiculous does that sound?
Also, say you have a classroom full of 30 kids. 10 are misbehaving, and 20 are behaving. You have to either reward either everyone or no one. What do you do?
This question is based on the idea that the unemployed are a singular group, because the cost-benefit analysis shows massive, individualized oversight wouldn't be realistic.
"That being said, if you would like to use your own money to provide better sneakers to everybody, that is your right. "
It's more like: Would it be smart to invest as a group, in order to maximize the services while minimizing cost, in order to achieve efficient progress as a whole?
The answer is almost always yes.
You certainly wouldn't have the internet, interstate highways, police departments, clean water, or sewage systems without a mutual investment. Just imagine the cost efficiency of each individual trying to acquire clean water. At least it would be moral, right?
"You got ‘no bearing’ from my quote? In any case, those obstacles can be removed by those who choose to do so. It is not the government’s job. "
The structure of government is the obstacle course. We are born into the course. We have to pay taxes, obey laws, etc. Those are obstacles. Obstacles the government has presented us with. Why shouldn't the creator of the obstacles be the vehicle for removal if society decides it so?
May 2, 2013 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
"We all think our own ideas and theories are realistic. Is there a flaw in my reasoning you would like to point out?"
I've been pointing out the fact that you're ignoring real life complexities when you postulate theories. What have you been reading?
"I think this is a bit odd. Aren’t your proposals making life easier for some only by making it harder for others?"
Not necessarily. Refer to my analogy about giving everyone new shoes. Whose life is harder when everyone is doing better?
If you're arguing for the top 10%, then I can assure you their lives are not going to be "hard" based on any comparative measurement. Even if you get taxed from $50 million down to $10 million, you still have TEN MILLION DOLLARS. Life is not hard with ten million dollars.
"It also isn’t about what I want for others’ success. I don’t care one way or the other about their failure but they should be highly motivated to succeed. "
You should. This whole thread began with people complaining about having to fund social programs. The existence of social programs affects everyone. You turning a blind eye to it isn't going to help anyone.
If people can't afford housing, they go homeless. When the police need to hire more officers to accommodate for the increased patrols, who do you think pays for them? The homeless people?
This is what I'm talking about when I accuse you of shallow thinking. You seem to assume that ignoring other people's failures is going to have no impact on your life, without even considering who will clean up the subsequent mess.
I'm repeating myself... Let me copy-paste from earlier:
You also have to approach the situation from a long-term perspective. What good would it be getting rid of unemployment insurance if it just resulted in more homeless and destitute? Your city's potential tourism is affected by the blight. Your property values decrease due to the "poorness" of the neighborhood. You end up hiring more police to stop the more prominent stealing/panhandling/debauchery, and fill more jail cells. All of this costing you, the taxpayer, money. (Directly and indirectly)
Maybe you should actually reply to my entire posts (like I did with you), and you wouldn't have to ask me questions I've already answered.
May 2, 2013 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )