Loyalty towards corporate america - is it possible?

[wordsmith]

If you don't understand that there are, in fact, negative connotations to living in poverty/being a member of the working poor, there's really no point in continuing this conversation. :rolleyes:

[analogman]

The amount that trickles down definitely matters. Let's take this year's Goldman Sachs bonus as an example. Those people will probably spend some of it on things that will trickle down (dining out) but I doubt most of it will trickle down very far. If they buy a house (many of them will) the money is going to go to other rich people (if I get a 10 million bonus, you can bet I am buying a nice place if I do). Many will probably invest, but the money goes to other rich people (those who have lots of investments).

That's my whole problem with trickle down economics. The theory sounds good but the viscosity (since we are talking about money being fluidic) is much higher than the theory implies.

Maybe I am a tightwad but I certainly don’t freely spend every dime of money I make, even if it was a bonus or other unexpected source of income.

[wordsmith]

Exactly.

[CTGirl]

The amount that trickles down definitely matters. Let's take this year's Goldman Sachs bonus as an example. Those people will probably spend some of it on things that will trickle down (dining out) but I doubt most of it will trickle down very far. If they buy a house (many of them will) the money is going to go to other rich people (if I get a 10 million bonus, you can bet I am buying a nice place if I do). Many will probably invest, but the money goes to other rich people (those who have lots of investments).


Right, the money from the top goes down to the next level, who are also rich people, but isnt the idea of "trickle-down" that it does just that - trickle down?

If I get a few million dollars, and I buy a house, like you said, yeah, that money goes to the owner of that house or whatever, and then that owner goes and buys a car with it, and that money goes to the car dealer, and the car dealer buys a new wardrobe with it, and so that money goes to a number o retail stores, and then those retail employees use that money to go out to eat, so that money goes to restaurant workers. And so on.

Money is in constant motion, and it seems to me that all levels of socio-economic class have their hands in that circulation, so the more money going around, the more everyone will get (relatively speaking of course). It would be impossible for rich people to only circulate their money to other rich people. Yes, its true that more money stays at the upper levels, but thats how it works, and there is money that goes to the lower levels.

I also heard something on the news the other day about how this generation of wealthy people are giving more money to charity than ever before, so in that case, those huge amounts of money are skipping the middle and going right from the upper level to being dispersed at the lower level.

[analogman]

Right, the money from the top goes down to the next level, who are also rich people, but isnt the idea of "trickle-down" that it does just that - trickle down?

If I get a few million dollars, and I buy a house, like you said, yeah, that money goes to the owner of that house or whatever, and then that owner goes and buys a car with it, and that money goes to the car dealer, and the car dealer buys a new wardrobe with it, and so that money goes to a number o retail stores, and then those retail employees use that money to go out to eat, so that money goes to restaurant workers. And so on.

Money is in constant motion, and it seems to me that all levels of socio-economic class have their hands in that circulation, so the more money going around, the more everyone will get (relatively speaking of course). It would be impossible for rich people to only circulate their money to other rich people. Yes, its true that more money stays at the upper levels, but thats how it works, and there is money that goes to the lower levels.

I also heard something on the news the other day about how this generation of wealthy people are giving more money to charity than ever before, so in that case, those huge amounts of money are skipping the middle and going right from the upper level to being dispersed at the lower level.

I don't think we disagree that the money circulates. The thing is by the time it reaches the bottom; the amount is miniscule compared to what it started out as at the top. It's like selling a product in reverse. Every middle-person takes a cut and what the customer pays is only a small fraction of what the raw material and cost of production is.

[wordsmith]

I don't think we disagree that the money circulates. The thing is by the time it reaches the bottom; the amount is miniscule compared to what it started out as at the top. It's like selling a product in reverse. Every middle-person takes a cut and what the customer pays is only a small fraction of what the raw material and cost of production is.

Yup, trickle down economics are not the "win-win," "everybody's doing well because, shock of shocks, money is circulating" thing that they're often presented as. Just because a tiny fraction of $$$ might trickle down, doesn't make it something that promotes a livable economic situation.

[CTGirl]

I don't think we disagree that the money circulates. The thing is by the time it reaches the bottom; the amount is miniscule compared to what it started out as at the top. It's like selling a product in reverse. Every middle-person takes a cut and what the customer pays is only a small fraction of what the raw material and cost of production is.

Well, yeah, cuz there are more people that its getting dispersed to as it goes down, that's just the nature of things. Unless we totally overhaul our economic system, and become communists, things are always going to be unequal, there will always be rich people and poor people, that's just how it is.

I think a point that was attempting to be made here though, is that when rich people get more money, that is also (in a smaller way) good for the poorer people as well, cuz those rich people will then be spending more.

It is not the responsibility of the rich people to make sure that the poor people have enough money, that's not how our system works.

[wordsmith]

It's also not to any country's advantage to have a system in place that perpetuates severe disparity.

[CTGirl]

It's also not to any country's advantage to have a system in place that perpetuates severe disparity.

Well, as we've talked about before, our disparity is not all that severe by comparison to others. And I've heard many economists argue that disparity in wealth is a good thing.

Also, good luck getting the country to change our economic system to something more communism-based, lol.

[wordsmith]

Yes, because that's clearly what I'm trying to do. :rolleyes:

[wordsmith]

Well, as we've talked about before, our disparity is not all that severe by comparison to others.

Severity is pretty subjective...I'd argue that a developed nation shouldn't have children going hungry, or working, contributing people who can't get needed medical, dental, etc. care.

And I've heard many economists argue that disparity in wealth is a good thing.

Like you, I'm not an economist, so I really can't speak to that.

[CTGirl]

I agree with what you're saying for the most part words, but I think my perspective is just that the system is the way it is, and its not gonna change, so we've gotta work with what we've got. Nothing's ever gonna be fair, or equal, and yeah, people shouldnt be living on the streets, but we cant force people to help one another, and the people that want to help others wil keep working on that.

[analogman]

I think a point that was attempting to be made here though, is that when rich people get more money, that is also (in a smaller way) good for the poorer people as well, cuz those rich people will then be spending more.


This is the part I have problems with. Yes, rich people have money and spend/invest it and some of it gets to the people lower down. But since only a small fraction of that money makes it to the bottom, it’s a very inefficient means to do so. Then, when a tax cut is proposed for rich people with the justification that the poor will ultimately benefit, I think that’s bogus. The government could keep all the taxes and distribute a larger percentage of it (with all its governmental inefficiencies and waste) to the bottom. Of course, then the rich don’t get anything (or as much, depends on what the inefficiencies and waste are) out of it so we can’t go that way :rolleyes:

[wordsmith]

and the people that want to help others wil keep working on that.

Until their funding is cut, anway. :rolleyes:

[CTGirl]

This is the part I have problems with. Yes, rich people have money and spend/invest it and some of it gets to the people lower down. But since only a small fraction of that money makes it to the bottom, it’s a very inefficient means to do so. Then, when a tax cut is proposed for rich people with the justification that the poor will ultimately benefit, I think that’s bogus. The government could keep all the taxes and distribute a larger percentage of it (with all its governmental inefficiencies and waste) to the bottom. Of course, then the rich don’t get anything (or as much, depends on what the inefficiencies and waste are) out of it so we can’t go that way :rolleyes:

I'm certainly not about to defend our government, but what's the alternative really? Are you expecting them to force the rich people to fork over money to the poor to try and even out the system? Cuz that's just not how our economy works, nor is it how the powers that be want it to work.

A tax break for the rich does benefit the poor, not as much as it benefits the rich of course, but it does.

[analogman]

I'm certainly not about to defend our government, but what's the alternative really? Are you expecting them to force the rich people to fork over money to the poor to try and even out the system? Cuz that's just not how our economy works, nor is it how the powers that be want it to work.

A tax break for the rich does benefit the poor, not as much as it benefits the rich of course, but it does.

Keep the current tax rates and distribute the money to the poor. I see it as a better solution than pandering to the rich, but that's just me.

[CTGirl]

Keep the current tax rates and distribute the money to the poor. I see it as a better solution than pandering to the rich, but that's just me.

Ok, I wasnt sure what your argument was. I agree with this, and the money that the government currently wastes away should definitely go to help the poor. That's not gonna happen any time soon though, unfortunately.

[analogman]

I am glad we agree :)

[Xander]

It's also not to any country's advantage to have a system in place that perpetuates severe disparity.
Everyone has the opportunity to better themselves economically. It's not up to the government to bail people out of poverty, but it is their job to ensure the potential to shed poverty is freely and equally available to all.

The government could keep all the taxes and distribute a larger percentage of it (with all its governmental inefficiencies and waste) to the bottom.
Redistribution of poverty. Nice. :rolleyes:

I absolutely agree that money should be spent on the poor... but not given. It is a great disservice to the poor when you give away that which can be earned. What do they learn when they have a free meal? How are they a better person? The person must change for their lives to change.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and he'll eat for the rest of his life.

I am absolutely not saying, "let them starve", but even homeless people with only the clothes on their backs should work for that food, whether by washing the dishes they eat on, or taking classes on how to earn and preserve money. I'd happily give my money to programs that educate the poor. Again, they need to change in order for their lives to change. You cannot lock them into perpetual poverty--it isn't fair to them. But that's exactly what you do when you only work to fill their bellies, and not fill their minds. Poor people deserve better lives, and that can only happen through education.

What if a poor person doesn't want to work to change his life? What if he's only willing to stand in a line for food, but not, for example, help prepare and distribute it? Would I let him starve? Yes. I guarantee you if that person gets hungry enough, and his only option is to help out at the shelter and learn how to be self-sufficient, he will do it. If he doesn't, it's not the responsibility of anyone else to make his life better--it's his decision, and we cannot as responsible people of a society coddle the unwilling.

Call me crazy, but I don't think poor people like being poor, so I'm appalled by the "fix the symptoms of the problems" mentality, ignoring the causes of the problems. The problem isn't that the homeless are hungry--that's another symptom. The problem is they don't know how to dig themselves out of their situation, and people seem ignorant of the causes (otherwise we wouldn't have "free" systems). You can't throw money at symptoms of poverty and expect the causes to disappear. They haven't, and they wont... and nothing I say will change anyone's mind if you don't already agree, so forget it. I'll only add that there are great social projects in place, where the most poor are given the opportunity (and requirement) to work for their food, housing, etc. and they have had fantastic results. I haven't heard of a person like that becoming rich (like Pursuit of Happyness) but a good number of them at least become self-sufficient, some middle class. If they have kids, their kids are then in a better position to further advance, and so on...

*sigh* at least none of us are uncaring towards poverty... we just have different philosophies of the proper solution. My take on it is the same as all of my beliefs (universal application).

Oh, this is the exact same argument as a child becoming a leech to their parents (we have some of those here). The parents facilitate the child's bad behavior by allowing them to stay free of rent and obligations. Parents must demand the child get a job or get the hell out. Take some responsibility for their own lives, or be a drain to society somewhere else. Tough love. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

I agree with this, and the money that the government currently wastes away should definitely go to help the poor.
I really hope you mean money should be spent on the poor, and not that money should be given to the poor.


analogman, a question: If "rich" money never trickles down to the bottom, where does the money "at the bottom" come from?

How are all of the service industry jobs supported? Who pays the waiters, the bag boy, the bellhop? Where does the autoshop guy get his money?

I honestly can't comprehend why there's even a debate about the fluidity of money... the concept is so easy and clear to me, so I apologize if this is frustrating me.

OK, how about this: Again, with universal application of ideas, think about The Lion King. You know, the Circle of Life. The sun gives plants energy, which get eaten by a small animal, which gets eaten by another animal. The animal dies, gets partially eaten by a lion as well as other small animals, and the remnants get reabsorbed by plants, etc. Blab blab blab... nevermind. I'm becoming apathetic, and that's what's most frustrating. :neutral:

[CTGirl]

I really hope you mean money should be spent on the poor, and not that money should be given to the poor.


Well yes, giving homeless people money hardly solves the problem, as they do not know how to spend money since they're not used to having it.

[Xander]

Well yes, giving homeless people money hardly solves the problem, as they do not know how to spend money since they're not used to having it.
Oh, just wondering. It's all good. :p

[wordsmith]

Everyone has the opportunity to better themselves economically.

This isn't anything even close to remotely resembling a true statement. The playing field is in no way level, and opportunity is absolutely NOT equally available to all, or even plain available to everyone.

[WorkInProgress]

This isn't anything even close to remotely resembling a true statement. The playing field is in no way level, and opportunity is absolutely NOT equally available to all, or even plain available to everyone.

To be fair, his statement "Everyone has the opportunity to better themselves economically" does not say that it is an equal opportunity or that the playing field is level.

[wordsmith]

Oh, I know, but to me, it's not true.

Not everyone has opportunity. We could argue all day long whether it's their fault, what's representative of cycles and self-fulfilling prophecies, play the blame game (and we probably will if Xander comes back to post), but not everyone has has opportunities before them, or is able to take advantage of any that are.

[Syracuse]

Yes it would be one thing if every new born baby was raised in the same setting, in the same neighborhood with parents having the same salary, values, etc. Not the case obviously. People are a product of many things, and those things are not created equal. That's why I don't advocate throwing everyone to the wind and giving no support just because a few people abuse that support. It's immoral and greedy. No one is going to help the poor of their own accord so the govt should step in and force them with taxes. Yeah some people don't deserve it. Well some people don't deserve to be rich and yet they are. Who are any of us to judge?

[redav]

Oh, I know, but to me, it's not true.

Not everyone has opportunity. We could argue all day long whether it's their fault, what's representative of cycles and self-fulfilling prophecies, play the blame game (and we probably will if Xander comes back to post), but not everyone has has opportunities before them, or is able to take advantage of any that are.

Bingo! That was Xander's point. He said that programs should be constructed and money should be spent so that everyone has more of an equal opportunity instead of merely trying to do it for them.

However, there are many instances where giving the opportunity won't work. For example, a very large percentage of homeless individuals are mentally ill, and that's what caused them to be homeless. Merely giving them the tools other people can use to succeed won't work. For such people, society has to take care of them.

On the other hand, there was a story in my local paper of a single mother who is on food stamps. She doesn't work because she gets more money from the govt in the form of hand-outs than she could working. Why? She has no marketable skills and no means to acquire them. The govt benefits don't address that issue; rather, they create a state of codependence.

It is amazing how people can talk past each other in topics like these. There are so many deeply held biases and misconceptions (on all sides of the debate) that issues simply become polarized. It's a microcosm of our entire current political environment.

[yankeeyosh]

Yes it would be one thing if every new born baby was raised in the same setting, in the same neighborhood with parents having the same salary, values, etc. Not the case obviously. People are a product of many things, and those things are not created equal. That's why I don't advocate throwing everyone to the wind and giving no support just because a few people abuse that support. It's immoral and greedy. No one is going to help the poor of their own accord so the govt should step in and force them with taxes. Yeah some people don't deserve it. Well some people don't deserve to be rich and yet they are. Who are any of us to judge?

Syracuse, you're a breath of fresh air for these boards.

I agree 1,000,000%!!!!!!!!!

[CTGirl]

Oh, I know, but to me, it's not true.

Not everyone has opportunity. We could argue all day long whether it's their fault, what's representative of cycles and self-fulfilling prophecies, play the blame game (and we probably will if Xander comes back to post), but not everyone has has opportunities before them, or is able to take advantage of any that are.

I think its tough to argue that there are people with NO opportunities AT ALL. If you can give me an example, I'd love one, but it seems to me, that although some people have significantly more than others, everyone has some opportunities at least.

[Syracuse]

I think its tough to argue that there are people with NO opportunities AT ALL. If you can give me an example, I'd love one, but it seems to me, that although some people have significantly more than others, everyone has some opportunities at least.
We want to give them more opportunities. Even before the civil war, a slave had some opportunities. If he worked hard enough at it he could escape. Doesn't mean he didn't need help from our govt.

[wordsmith]

However, there are many instances where giving the opportunity won't work. For example, a very large percentage of homeless individuals are mentally ill, and that's what caused them to be homeless. Merely giving them the tools other people can use to succeed won't work. For such people, society has to take care of them.

Exactly one population I've worked with that springs to mind.

[yankeeyosh]

We want to give them more opportunities. Even before the civil war, a slave had some opportunities. If he worked hard enough at it he could escape. Doesn't mean he didn't need help from our govt.

Wellllll...there I disagree. Until the 70s, many African Americans had no opportunities at all outside the most menial work. And forget about slavery....even those who escaped had it rough, outside a few luckier ones.

[CTGirl]

We want to give them more opportunities. Even before the civil war, a slave had some opportunities. If he worked hard enough at it he could escape. Doesn't mean he didn't need help from our govt.

Right, I would never argue that people dont need help, all I was trying to say was that I find it hard to believe that there are people with ABSOLUTELY NO opportunities at all.

[wordsmith]

Many homeless have no opportunities...even the ones that are of sound mind will have a next to impossible time getting even a menial job with no home address to give, no suitable attire, and no dependable means of even basic cleanliness and grooming.

There are people who are in bad financial situations who don't have opportunities, because any opportunities that would be afforded them are revoked because of their credit situation. (Yes, I know, they got themselves there themselves, but getting out isn't an option when you can't get hired or housing due to your credit and financial history, so negative cycles start...how do you get out of a hole if nobody will allow you the opportunity?)

It's also arguable that tons upon tons of kids growing up in poverty in areas with severely underperforming schools don't have any real opportunities presented to them.

Opportunity isn't just about it being presented, it's about being equipped to take it.

[Xander]

To be fair, his statement "Everyone has the opportunity to better themselves economically" does not say that it is an equal opportunity or that the playing field is level.
Exactly. Opportunities exist across the board. If they don't, or are near impossible to exploit (eg. by the poor), then social programs should intervene to assist.

Social programs = not necessarily government
Assist = educate and empower, not give and make dependent

However, there are many instances where giving the opportunity won't work. For example, a very large percentage of homeless individuals are mentally ill, and that's what caused them to be homeless. Merely giving them the tools other people can use to succeed won't work. For such people, society has to take care of them.
Absolutely. And I've donated a lot to mental-health charities because mental health issues are of great concern to me. That, and mental diseases and homelessness for people who shouldn't be (hard working people who have tried but failed to get out of their situation). Oh, Habitat for Humanity (http://www.habitat.org/) is an incredible organization. It's precisely the type of charity the government should mimic. They don't hand out homes. You have to work for it. My friends and the people I know who are stewards of these homes are the type I respect most.

On the other hand, there was a story in my local paper of a single mother who is on food stamps. She doesn't work because she gets more money from the govt in the form of hand-outs than she could working. Why? She has no marketable skills and no means to acquire them. The govt benefits don't address that issue; rather, they create a state of codependence.
Exactly. I don't understand why some government benefits are discontinued once the person starts to try to improve their living conditions. Just because you get a low paying job somewhere doesn't mean unemployment benefits should discontinue. Programs should be of self-incentives, not hand outs.

It is amazing how people can talk past each other in topics like these. There are so many deeply held biases and misconceptions (on all sides of the debate) that issues simply become polarized. It's a microcosm of our entire current political environment.
Agreed. If you can point out the misconceptions on my side, I'm all ears.

Syracuse, if you're so set on equalizing economic conditions, why haven't you given away all of your wealth to the poor?

[Xander]

Many homeless have no opportunities...even the ones that are of sound mind will have a next to impossible time getting even a menial job with no home address to give, no suitable attire, and no dependable means of even basic cleanliness and grooming.
That's why programs should cater to these individuals. Provide a home if they're willing to work. Give them an address, clothes and tools to empower themselves, all on the condition that they work their assess off or make room for someone who is willing. For all the rest, do not waste money. I know that makes me a hardass. I also believe inmates shouldn't be given free homes and food at the cost of tax payers--it's no different.


...but getting out isn't an option when you can't get hired or housing due to your credit and financial history, so negative cycles start...how do you get out of a hole if nobody will allow you the opportunity?
There are fantastic programs that address exactly this to great success. I'll try to find out exactly what they are, as I'm interested if the Chicago area has these... I've been looking for something to volunteer for.


It's also arguable that tons upon tons of kids growing up in poverty in areas with severely underperforming schools don't have any real opportunities presented to them.

Opportunity isn't just about it being presented, it's about being equipped to take it.
Exactly!! But current government programs don't equip people to take advantage of opportunities! They make them codependent. They're big brother giving away food and a place to stay. Why leave your parent's house if you have all these things without having to work?

And for the school system, that's another huge issue.

[Syracuse]

Syracuse, if you're so set on equalizing economic conditions, why haven't you given away all of your wealth to the poor?
Don't start that. It wouldn't really make a difference. Not that this thread will either, but I can still state my opinions. And you don't know me, I do a lot of volunteer work. Xander you don't understand reality.

[Xander]

Don't start that. It wouldn't really make a difference. Not that this thread will either, but I can still state my opinions. And you don't know me, I do a lot of volunteer work. Xander you don't understand reality.
That wasn't a rhetorical question. I really want to know why you haven't given away all of your wealth to the poor. I'll speculate, but first, I'll preface by returning your favor: Syracuse, you don't understand reality. (This is like 2nd grade all over again :p)

I speculate that people don't give away all of their possessions because they don't want to suffer. But people like you are willing to make everyone else suffer on a small scale (taxes) since we somehow caused the poverty, or are responsible for it. What you're saying is that people have no freedom to choose what to do with the money they've earned (regardless of how they got it--by hard labor or the lotto) so the government will take away that freedom to choose in taxes.

My position is that every individual is guaranteed life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the Constitution. Life and liberty are guaranteed. Happiness is not, but the pursuit of it should be (why I support effective social programs). Liberty... this means an absolute right of the people to choose all aspects of their own lives. Let me know if you disagree, and people don't have the right to choose for themselves.

Blab blab blab, you don't understand reality, yadda yadda, I'm finished with you. Enjoy addressing the symptoms of social issues ad infinitum.

[Syracuse]

That wasn't a rhetorical question. I really want to know why you haven't given away all of your wealth to the poor. I'll speculate, but first, I'll preface by returning your favor: Syracuse, you don't understand reality. (This is like 2nd grade all over again :p)


Didn't bother to read the rest. If you're asking me to give away all my "wealth" then yes, you have no concept of reality. We're talking about a broad subject here, let's not resort to name calling ok?

[wordsmith]

My position is that every individual is guaranteed life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the Constitution. Life and liberty are guaranteed. Happiness is not, but the pursuit of it should be (why I support effective social programs). Liberty... this means an absolute right of the people to choose all aspects of their own lives. Let me know if you disagree, and people don't have the right to choose for themselves.

You can only choose if you have $$$. Once you don't, choices are increasingly unavailable to you.

[Xander]

You can only choose if you have $$$. Once you don't, choices are increasingly unavailable to you.
Agreed. You can only choose what to do with your money if you have money...

As for choosing what to do with your life, everyone has that choice, even if you have no money. For those choosing to better their lives, and are willing to work hard to accomplish it, I'm eager to help (with or without the government). But this is only an opinion--someone can have the opinion that we shouldn't even help, and that's their choice.

If I can summarize all of my political points of view, it boils down to this:

Freedom to choose. We should all be free to choose (http://www.freetochoose.net/).

[wordsmith]

Children don't choose. Their lives are largely set by the choices of their parents. And they're the ones that suffer most hardcore in the "social problem" situations.

[Xander]

Children don't choose. Their lives are largely set by the choices of their parents. And they're the ones that suffer most hardcore in the "social problem" situations.
Absolutely agreed. And they should be educated and empowered to succeed if they choose to. I'm entirely in favor of assisting disadvantaged children (and adults) both economically and educationally so they know how to help themselves and not rely on charity. Unfortunately our education system sucks along with social programs (again with the symptoms vs. causes).

*sigh*

[wordsmith]

Absolutely agreed. And they should be educated and empowered to succeed if they choose to. I'm entirely in favor of assisting disadvantaged children (and adults) both economically and educationally so they know how to help themselves and not rely on charity. Unfortunately our education system sucks along with social programs (again with the symptoms vs. causes).

*sigh*

The services that are in place and spring up precisely TO assist disadvantaged children and famlies, though, cannot function to their optimum without government funding and support, many of the ones in the trenches are far too small and grassroots to be sustainable on donations only, and there are too many people who are of the "It's not the government/my tax dollars' job" persuasion. What funding gets routinely shaved in state and federal budget cuts? Competitive grant availability for small social service nonprofits, which are trying to do the lions' share of the work on shoestring budgets and the goodness of volunteers' hearts.

Same thing with public ed. State and federal govt. HAVE to more properly fund it.

[redav]

I speculate that people don't give away all of their possessions because they don't want to suffer. But people like you are willing to make everyone else suffer on a small scale (taxes) since we somehow caused the poverty, or are responsible for it. What you're saying is that people have no freedom to choose what to do with the money they've earned (regardless of how they got it--by hard labor or the lotto) so the government will take away that freedom to choose in taxes.

My position is that every individual is guaranteed life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the Constitution. Life and liberty are guaranteed. Happiness is not, but the pursuit of it should be (why I support effective social programs). Liberty... this means an absolute right of the people to choose all aspects of their own lives. Let me know if you disagree, and people don't have the right to choose for themselves.


This viewpoint is a bit too extreme, and frankly, is why libertarian candidates don't fare so well in elections.

First, the Constitution does not give use the rights of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." (Side note: most philosophers would include "property" instead of "pursuit of happiness," which is an interesting commentary on how we view the two.) These ideas are carried through to the constitution, but it is recognized that those rights are not absolute. The constitution states that the govt has the duty to establish justice, promote general welfare, ensure domestic tranquility, and such. In order to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," we must invest (to give up or put aside for a greater good later) some of our guaranteed rights: People will die in defense of our country; we will be subject to laws; people will go to prison; a portion of our property will be taken.

We are not taxed to reduce our liberty or to punish us. We are taxed because it takes money for the govt to do its job. Taking care of people, when it is for the benefit of the nation (justice, welfare, domestic tranquility, etc), is the govt's job, so there is no usurping of responsibility going on.

There are various tax breaks for charities because they help the govt do their job, and tax breaks are cheaper than the govt doing it themselves. (The govt is incredibly inefficient--they would go out of business if they weren't a monopoly.) Generally, this is a win-win situation; the govt's job gets done more cheaply, we get taxed less, pursuit of happiness, and so forth.

We all agree that many govt programs do not work well. We also all agree that we should pursue those programs & solutions that are most effective. However, frequently the issue boils down to nothing more substantial than choosing a Mac or a PC.

[Syracuse]

This viewpoint is a bit too extreme, and frankly, is why libertarian candidates don't fare so well in elections.

First, the Constitution does not give use the rights of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." (Side note: most philosophers would include "property" instead of "pursuit of happiness," which is an interesting commentary on how we view the two.) These ideas are carried through to the constitution, but it is recognized that those rights are not absolute. The constitution states that the govt has the duty to establish justice, promote general welfare, ensure domestic tranquility, and such. In order to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," we must invest (to give up or put aside for a greater good later) some of our guaranteed rights: People will die in defense of our country; we will be subject to laws; people will go to prison; a portion of our property will be taken.

We are not taxed to reduce our liberty or to punish us. We are taxed because it takes money for the govt to do its job. Taking care of people, when it is for the benefit of the nation (justice, welfare, domestic tranquility, etc), is the govt's job, so there is no usurping of responsibility going on.

There are various tax breaks for charities because they help the govt do their job, and tax breaks are cheaper than the govt doing it themselves. (The govt is incredibly inefficient--they would go out of business if they weren't a monopoly.) Generally, this is a win-win situation; the govt's job gets done more cheaply, we get taxed less, pursuit of happiness, and so forth.

We all agree that many govt programs do not work well. We also all agree that we should pursue those programs & solutions that are most effective. However, frequently the issue boils down to nothing more substantial than choosing a Mac or a PC.
This is all true. I've discussed and argued this topic many times over the years. It's good that you just posted that but it's really just a history lesson. Do we have to accept it? You say the govt is inefficient. Let's demand better.

And what I specifically demand is more financial equality.Of course everyone is against socialism because of the propaganda campaign known as the cold war. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about improving the human condition across the board. This is 2006, I see no reason why people should be suffering throughout the world. I want to start with America because that's the country I live in. If someone is poor their entire life 9 times out of 10 they're going to be disillusioned and yeah, want to take advantage of the system that failed them anyway they can.

But please don't tell me to give away my "wealth". Guess what I admit I don't want to. I want more wealth. I want my life to be better. I want it to be easier for me to make my life better. I'm greedy, but I'm greedy for everyone in the world, I want everyone's life to be better. Sue me.

[Xander]

There are various tax breaks for charities because they help the govt do their job, and tax breaks are cheaper than the govt doing it themselves. (The govt is incredibly inefficient--they would go out of business if they weren't a monopoly.) Generally, this is a win-win situation; the govt's job gets done more cheaply, we get taxed less, pursuit of happiness, and so forth.
Exactly. But the government is using tax money on stupid shit they have no "right" to spend money on. I track government contracts for a living, and the crap I see is dumbfounding. That money can be better spent with people (cut the pork programs and return the money to the people) and/or funnel more to actual programs that work (private organizations).

We all agree that many govt programs do not work well. We also all agree that we should pursue those programs & solutions that are most effective. However, frequently the issue boils down to nothing more substantial than choosing a Mac or a PC.
:D Wholeheartedly agreed. I only go on and on about this crap because I respect (most) people here and value your opinions. I often play devil's advocate even if I don't actually believe in that position, just to hear new opinions and perspectives. (i.e. taking the opposite position I have now with my Libertarian friends)

[Xander]

But please don't tell me to give away my "wealth". Guess what I admit I don't want to. I want more wealth. I want my life to be better. I want it to be easier for me to make my life better. I'm greedy, but I'm greedy for everyone in the world, I want everyone's life to be better. Sue me.
If you are unwilling to share your wealth, why should anyone else?

Taxes take away your wealth. More and more of it, in fact, as the government grows and pisses that money away.

We need some taxes, yes, but only for the essentials.

[wordsmith]

Syracuse, do you think that some nebulous "other" people should contribute to the well-being of those that aren't helping/for whatever reason can't help themelves, but that it shouldn't be you? Because that doesn't make very much sense at all.

If you're talking about "improving the human condition across the board," and "see no reason why people should be suffering throughout the world," you have to realize that this can only come at the expense of people giving. So to say, "But...not me...I WANT my wealth," is kinda dumbfounding.

[wordsmith]

That money can be better spent with people (cut the pork programs and return the money to the people) and/or funnel more to actual programs that work (private organizations).

What? I can actually agree with you? :p

[Syracuse]

Syracuse, do you think that some nebulous "other" people should contribute to the well-being of those that aren't helping/for whatever reason can't help themelves, but that it shouldn't be you? Because that doesn't make very much sense at all.

If you're talking about "improving the human condition across the board," and "see no reason why people should be suffering throughout the world," you have to realize that this can only come at the expense of people giving. So to say, "But...not me...I WANT my wealth," is kinda dumbfounding.
"other" people? Yes. Not nebulous though. Fabulously rich people. I understand why what I'm saying perplexes you, it goes against most common thinking. I'm just trying to be creative and think outside the box. Such as perhaps it's not necessary to have an economy at all.

[wordsmith]

So what's the income cutoff for who's obligated to give to those who struggle, and who's not? Your entire position falls apart when you act as if it's certain parties' responsibilities more than others, in terms of addressing social justice and human service issues.

[redav]

And what I specifically demand is more financial equality.Of course everyone is against socialism because of the propaganda campaign known as the cold war. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about improving the human condition across the board. This is 2006, I see no reason why people should be suffering throughout the world. I want to start with America because that's the country I live in. If someone is poor their entire life 9 times out of 10 they're going to be disillusioned and yeah, want to take advantage of the system that failed them anyway they can.

But please don't tell me to give away my "wealth". Guess what I admit I don't want to. I want more wealth. I want my life to be better. I want it to be easier for me to make my life better. I'm greedy, but I'm greedy for everyone in the world, I want everyone's life to be better. Sue me.

Here's the crux: There has to be carrot dangling in front of us to pursue (work) happiness (wealth--sad, I know). That carrot is the real possibility of become rich, AND having a true benefit from being rich. Socialism--to its extreme--countermines that carrot.

For example, a super-progressive tax system is a discouragement to high income. ("Why should I work overtime when it's all going to be taken away in taxes?") It also introduces the greedy CEO phenomenon: "I want to take-home x. But since taxes are high, I'll need to give myself a bigger raise. I guess no one else gets a bonus this year." Sure, the tax revenue can be used to help those that just got cheated, but it's more efficient to prevent the cheating in the first place.

Therefore, to keep the carrot, some people will be richer than others (the "poor"). However, we can't let the rich run wild, which is what happens frequently because they also hold much of the power. In our continually changing world, we have yet to find the right balance.

Things could be different if we could decouple "wealth" and "happiness." However, I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Syracuse]

So what's the income cutoff for who's obligated to give to those who struggle, and who's not?
Hard to say, the way it's set up now is good, but with the tx cuts for the rich made by Bush it's screwed in the opposite direction than what I'd like. Come on.

[Xander]

"other" people? Yes. Not nebulous though. Fabulously rich people. I understand why what I'm saying perplexes you, it goes against most common thinking. I'm just trying to be creative and think outside the box. Such as perhaps it's not necessary to have an economy at all.
Are you for real? You talk of "equality" then suggest inequality as the answer? Really?

Are we being punked? :?:

[wordsmith]

Hard to say, the way it's set up now is good, but with the tx cuts for the rich made by Bush it's screwed in the opposite direction than what I'd like. Come on.

You do realize you're losing any and all credibility with posts like this and others, right? Just so you know.

[Syracuse]

Are you for real? You talk of "equality" then suggest inequality as the answer? Really?

Are we being punked? :?:
Only if it's a special version of punked where a visionairy is mocked by the proletariot.

[redav]

Only if it's a special version of punked where a visionairy is mocked by the proletariot.

You misspelled "proletariot" (sic). It should be "intelligentsia." :p

[WorkInProgress]

You misspelled "proletariot" (sic). It should be "intelligentsia." :p

Yay! Fun with socialist revolutionary terminology.

[wordsmith]

"visionairy" isn't looking much better...I wasn't gonna mention it, but, hell...

[yankeeyosh]

Here's the crux: There has to be carrot dangling in front of us to pursue (work) happiness (wealth--sad, I know). That carrot is the real possibility of become rich, AND having a true benefit from being rich. Socialism--to its extreme--countermines that carrot.

For example, a super-progressive tax system is a discouragement to high income. ("Why should I work overtime when it's all going to be taken away in taxes?") It also introduces the greedy CEO phenomenon: "I want to take-home x. But since taxes are high, I'll need to give myself a bigger raise. I guess no one else gets a bonus this year." Sure, the tax revenue can be used to help those that just got cheated, but it's more efficient to prevent the cheating in the first place.

Therefore, to keep the carrot, some people will be richer than others (the "poor"). However, we can't let the rich run wild, which is what happens frequently because they also hold much of the power. In our continually changing world, we have yet to find the right balance.

Things could be different if we could decouple "wealth" and "happiness." However, I don't see that happening any time soon.


Interestingly, in the Forties and Fifties, at the height of Cold War paranoia and McCarthyism, the US had a 90% marginal tax bracket. Other than for African-Americans, who were still living under a pharaohic system, that period was one of the most prosperous times in American history until this past decade. It was only in the past couple of decades...thanks to Reaganomics..that the tax brackets for the wealthiest Americans have been decreased.

I am not saying we have to necessarily bring back the 90% bracket, but I do think there needs to be a more equitable structure to the tax system. The current max rate is 35%...if it got bumped up just 5%, and the additional money was siphoned into programs that would assist the poor...not necessarily handouts, but for programs like loans for small businesses and day care for their children, I think the system would be a lot more fair. We can hope and pray for trickle down economics to work till the cows come home, but during the Eighties...the original decade of greed (I still think it's worse in the Oh-Ohs)...the disparity between rich and poor didn't go down...it went straight up to the moon.

[redav]

Interestingly, in the Forties and Fifties, at the height of Cold War paranoia and McCarthyism, the US had a 90% marginal tax bracket. Other than for African-Americans, who were still living under a pharaohic system, that period was one of the most prosperous times in American history until this past decade. It was only in the past couple of decades...thanks to Reaganomics..that the tax brackets for the wealthiest Americans have been decreased.


However, that prosperity was due to the fact that a huge fraction (IIRC, 50%) of all manufactured goods in the world were coming out of the USA. We were pulling money in from everywhere. It's hard not to be prosperous when that's happening. Just look at China now. That the US economy is still strong even though we don't make anything, and everyone else has caught up with our science is damn impressive.

Theoretically, there is an "optimal" tax rate. A rate that maximizes revenue for the govt. At the low end, if the rate were 0%, revenue would also be $0. If it were 100%, it would also be $0, because every business would go out of business. Many think we're fairly close to that optimal point. Conversely, there is a different, lower optimal tax point to maximize the economy. Which scenario is better for people? A better economy means more jobs, but bigger difference between haves & have-nots. More govt revenue means more social programs, but less work.

Generally, I think taxes are a bit too low right now. But they could be just right if we cut back on the waste. Regardless, I think the 15% capital gains tax rate is unfair, and ought to go away. (Income is income, and should be taxed the same.) I would repeal the tax deductibility of home equity loans since they encourage people not to save. I support raising the minimum wage, but I also think it's good for each state to do it themselves. I like the idea of flatter tax brackets (that, by definition, is "more equitable"), but with a much higher standard deduction, albeit that could hit middle & upper-middle class families the hardest. I also would phase out the upper limit for the soc. sec. tax. I'm not a fan of a national sales tax, but it has some merits.

The simple fact is that there are lots of things that could be done, but no one will do them because they're political suicide. Just look at social security. Every one knows it's broken; everyone knows it will run out of money in our lifetime. Yet, it gets ignored.

[CTGirl]

The simple fact is that there are lots of things that could be done, but no one will do them because they're political suicide. Just look at social security. Every one knows it's broken; everyone knows it will run out of money in our lifetime. Yet, it gets ignored.

I think this is the whole issue in this thread, it seems like for the most part, people here seem to be on the same page (just looking at things a bit differently) but we can sit here and complain about what the government is doing wrong all we want, but that doesnt change a thing. They're going to continue doing things this way regardless.

[Xander]

I think this is the whole issue in this thread, it seems like for the most part, people here seem to be on the same page (just looking at things a bit differently) but we can sit here and complain about what the government is doing wrong all we want, but that doesnt change a thing.
I need to find a girl with your brain in Chicago... but not in the zombie "me eat brain" way, but in the "lets hang out" way.

[CTGirl]

I need to find a girl with your brain in Chicago... but not in the zombie "me eat brain" way, but in the "lets hang out" way.

LOL, I'm not exactly sure what to say to that one, but thank you. I've heard good things about Chicago - dont think I could ever live in the midwest, but I would love to visit there some day.

[wordsmith]

I'm nearly afraid to ask, but I do wonder why it is you could "never live in the midwest."

[Xander]

I'm nearly afraid to ask, but I do wonder why it is you could "never live in the midwest."
She's afraid of corn.

[CTGirl]

I'm nearly afraid to ask, but I do wonder why it is you could "never live in the midwest."

I certainly don't mean any offense to the midwest, it's just generally not a culture that suits me personally. Different regions have different cultures, obviously, and from what I've experienced thus far, the culture here in the northeast suits my personality the best (I've heard that northern CA would be good for me too, but I've never been).

[CTGirl]

She's afraid of corn.

We have plenty of corn here too :p