What's a proper distribution of wealth?

[Insomniac]

In a given society, what's the ideal distribution of wealth, and what's the government's role in molding society toward that ideal?

Or if not society, what private forces work best?

I'm not a governmental socialist, but I am a Christian socialist and believe people possess things in order to give them others. Those who are good at managing money and increasing their wealth do it so that they can provide for other people when necessary. It's a pipe dream to expect this of most people, of course, but we can all still dream of better things.

Yet if you ever actually redistribute wealth, voluntarily or otherwise, it ends up in the hands of beer companies and lotteries because most people who are poor have no idea how to save money or generate wealth, which is why they aren't just poor due to bad circumstances, they stay poor most of their lives.

If everyone started on an equal material playing field, it wouldn't stay equal for long because people aren't anything resembling equal, except in worth as human life. But if you just let social Darwinism run wild, great evils and excesses take place until the system implodes on itself.

Hence any government has an interest in keeping its vitality intact and letting people do what they can do (fairness) and also taking care of everyone and keeping them happy (equality). Most everyone between communists and capitalist anarchists would agree on this.

But what is proper?

[Da Raider]

Studies have shown that people will give more when it is of their own free will as compared to when they are mandated to by law.

EDIT: More importantly, my own intuition states the same damn thing.

[Insomniac]

Yes, but people give with their prejudices intact, and that means they often don't give at all to certain people.

[Yelram]

This assumes that wealth is something that exists, and cannot be created. That a predetermined amount of wealth exists, and all you can do is divide it. In a free market system, it works itself out. Someone sees a need, and the money they can make doing it, and pow, you're in business. The people who are rich, understand how to take initial investment, and turn it into a profit. Obviously there are times where people make money criminally, and use and abuse people to benefit their bottom line. Most of the businesses I have been around in my life, know how to employ people, or they go out of business. And some other business takes their place, and does a better job. Its a constantly replacing cycle. So my answer is that wealth, on an even playing field, will usually gravitate towards those who know how to make wealth, and that usually turns into employment, or the purchase of goods, which leads to jobs, and taxes paid.

[Archetype]

Studies have shown that people will give more when it is of their own free will as compared to when they are mandated to by law.

No, they don't. People don't actively give on any widescale basis.

[Okie Medicvet]

'PROPER' DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH:

When all receive the same level of health care.

When all are able to eat their fill

When all have the same equality and justice and mercy in the legal system, regardless of color, gender, or sexual preference

When consenting adults can do what they want including legally, and that what is the one crime pursued above all others is pedophiles that need to die and quikly.

when everyone has the same chance to score better on a test than others and let college admission be part that, part alumni oriented, and part pure lottery.

When, as a scared man once said, we really do begin to learn to get along

[Archangel]

I'm all for people making money when they work hard, create something of value, and give jobs to others.

But a) bankers are a fucking stain on society (usury really IS a sin, isn't it?); and b) golden parachutes are the greatest injustice since the abolition of feudalism.

[Charlatan]

In an ideal world, wealth naturally skews toward people of ability and initiative. To that end, the government's role is ensuring equal opportunities for everyone by preventing people from using any kind of coercion to interfere with everyone's right to live their own lives as they see fit.

[Limp]

Work and earn your own fucking money.

The End.

[heelsguy]

a flat tax on incomes over $60,000. with very little tax credits and deductions. simply the more you earn, the greater you pay, but proportionate so you still have an incentive to bust ass.

think about how much our tax revenue would be under these circumstances (the key is very little tax deductions so that the rich cannot hire smart lawyers and lower their AGI by much. that way, say 15% (or some figure) of a huge $ amount is still more $ brought in than a higher rate off a greatly-reduced $ amount)

[UNC]

Welfare is the devils work

[Da Raider]

No, they don't. People don't actively give on any widescale basis.

Actually, yes, people do give more when it is of their own free will rather than WHEN mandated to by law. My comment is quantifiable. Your statement is attempting to address something entirely different (people don't give on a widescale). That was not my point. My point was if you force people to do something, they are only going to do the bare minimum.

Studies have shown that people will give more when it is of their own free will as compared to when they are mandated to by law.

[Pake Boy]

What ever happened to the American Dream where you work hard for what you earn and then you reap in the benefits of your hard work?

With this "re-distribution of wealth" philosophy, why would anyone want to work hard any more knowing that their hard work is going to possibly go to people who don't give a shit and would rather skate by??? This is bad thinking and enables those on welfare, who make it a "career" instead of what it was intended for (to help Americans over the bumps in life and to get them back on their two feet) to continue and teach the next generation that their food & money will come from the government instead of hard work.

[dantino]

I'd say %50 of the wealth in %1 of the population seems about the appropriate amount.

I'd say that globally the proportions are even worse than this.

[Jackcraver]

There should definitely be a limit on how long you can be on welfare/food stamps/etc etc. Unless of course you are a completely disabled or truly mentally fucked.

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

What ever happened to the American Dream where you work hard for what you earn and then you reap in the benefits of your hard work?

With this "re-distribution of wealth" philosophy, why would anyone want to work hard any more knowing that their hard work is going to possibly go to people who don't give a shit and would rather skate by??? This is bad thinking and enables those on welfare, who make it a "career" instead of what it was intended for (to help Americans over the bumps in life and to get them back on their two feet) to continue and teach the next generation that their food & money will come from the government instead of hard work.

x2

[redsox39]

In a given society, what's the ideal distribution of wealth, and what's the government's role in molding society toward that ideal?

Or if not society, what private forces work best?

I'm not a governmental socialist, but I am a Christian socialist and believe people possess things in order to give them others. Those who are good at managing money and increasing their wealth do it so that they can provide for other people when necessary. It's a pipe dream to expect this of most people, of course, but we can all still dream of better things.

Yet if you ever actually redistribute wealth, voluntarily or otherwise, it ends up in the hands of beer companies and lotteries because most people who are poor have no idea how to save money or generate wealth, which is why they aren't just poor due to bad circumstances, they stay poor most of their lives.

If everyone started on an equal material playing field, it wouldn't stay equal for long because people aren't anything resembling equal, except in worth as human life. But if you just let social Darwinism run wild, great evils and excesses take place until the system implodes on itself.

Hence any government has an interest in keeping its vitality intact and letting people do what they can do (fairness) and also taking care of everyone and keeping them happy (equality). Most everyone between communists and capitalist anarchists would agree on this.

But what is proper?

So as a Christian, do you believe Jesus forced others to give him money so he could distribute it as he saw fit? No, he implored good people to give what they could to help the lesser. In fact, if I remember, in most of the parables he was NOT friends with the tax man. Except for that Zachareious or whatever, but that was because he climbed up in that sycamore tree to see Jesus and become a beleiver.

[dantino]

Doesn't anyone else see that bringing everyone up is bringing humanity down. I'm not just talking wealth wise necessarily, but why are we giving food stamps to the mentally retarded and unmotivated. Not everyone deserves to live a long and happy life, a lot of us are meant to die, alone, and miserable, and childless, so that the strong can survive and extend their strength through generations.

[redsox39]

The same reason we spend millions of dollars a day to keep a 94 year cancer patient alive for 2 more days.

[Jackcraver]

I dont think we should let the mentally retarded suffer and die just the people who choose not to support themselves and their families.


So as a Christian, do you believe Jesus forced others to give him money so he could distribute it as he saw fit? No, he implored good people to give what they could to help the lesser. In fact, if I remember, in most of the parables he was NOT friends with the tax man. Except for that Zachareious or whatever, but that was because he climbed up in that sycamore tree to see Jesus and become a beleiver.

Redsox- wasnt Mathew a former tax collector. I know Jesus had them leave their current jobs to follow him. Maybe with Mathew's knowledge of money making is what helped jesus amass enough wealth to travel with all his followers?

[Archangel]

Doesn't anyone else see that bringing everyone up is bringing humanity down. I'm not just talking wealth wise necessarily, but why are we giving food stamps to the mentally retarded and unmotivated. Not everyone deserves to live a long and happy life, a lot of us are meant to die, alone, and miserable, and childless, so that the strong can survive and extend their strength through generations.

Good to see that in some areas, society is still stuck in the stone age.

Doesn't a certain document of American history say that EVERYONE has the right to life?

[TylerDurden]

Doesn't anyone else see that bringing everyone up is bringing humanity down. I'm not just talking wealth wise necessarily, but why are we giving food stamps to the mentally retarded and unmotivated. Not everyone deserves to live a long and happy life, a lot of us are meant to die, alone, and miserable, and childless, so that the strong can survive and extend their strength through generations.

survival of the fittest... as it should be. if someone can't pull themselves up by the bootstraps and handle shit then why the fuck do they deserve assistance from me? from my view i stand to gain even more with less draw on the infrastructure's overhead as more and more useless fuckers drop off.

that's not to say that when a normally upstanding citizen stumbles a little i shouldn't give a helping hand, but take all the chronically useless fuckers, put 'em on a boat, and ship 'em into the arctic.

[dantino]

Just because it is an old American document doesn't mean its right. I'd say that the wussification of America comes with the over valuing of individual human life. It's this reason why I believe democracy fails, politicians spend all their time pandering to the weak and needy at the expense of actually benefiting the country as a whole.

[Archangel]

Just because it is an old American document doesn't mean its right. I'd say that the wussification of America comes with the over valuing of individual human life. It's this reason why I believe democracy fails, politicians spend all their time pandering to the weak and needy at the expense of actually benefiting the country as a whole.

Yeah, FUCK the principles America was built on. Have Dick Cheney and Richard Fuld draw up some new guidelines, starting with "fuck you broke bastards" and "greed is good".

[Jackcraver]

If Dick Cheney wrote the rules Baby eating would be required for citizenship.

[dantino]

If Dick Cheney wrote the rules Baby eating would be required for citizenship.

As long as it was down syndrome babies I'm cool with that.

[TylerDurden]

Good to see that in some areas, society is still stuck in the stone age.

Doesn't a certain document of American history say that EVERYONE has the right to life?

sure, they have the right to live, but not at the expense of everyone else. this isn't about those who are having a hard time because of the crashing economy... it's about joe f. dirt who knowingly owes a fuck ton of back child support but does nothing to remedy it, the jerkoff who does what he can to meet the minimum requirements for unemployment and stretches it out until it's gone and only then looks for the next thing to last three months to get back on unemployment, the fucking idiots who spawn fifteen kids with fifteen different baby-mamas and then those dipshits draw off the state. it's not like it's a small group of people. it's a virus on this country.

if everyone did their best day in and day out there wouldn't be an issue, but the fact of the matter is that there are some worthless sons of bitches out there that take advantage and knowingly throw a wrench into this shit.

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

Doesn't a certain document of American history say that EVERYONE has the right to life?

Yes, but not the right to my wallet.

[dantino]

Personal greed, meh. Societal greed YAY!

When you start sacrificing what is good for the collective as a whole over what is good for a certain individual that's when you start to have problems.

[TylerDurden]

arch, i'm genuinely curious: what's it like over there? do you have worthless citizens who suck off the gov't and by extension you/your wife/family? i'm not being sarcastic. i'm really curious. maybe america is doing it wrong. it's not like it would be the first time.

it's as though everyone is scrambling over each other in one massive pile of "getting there" or "keeping up with the joneses"... every once in a while one of us needs a breath of fresh air or we stumble to the bottom. down at the bottom are the feeders, the worthless feeders who simply sit down there and wait for the inevitable hand-outs or scraps that fall their way. when one of us struggles or falls down with the feeders it's usually motivation for the fallen to get back up into the pile. when someone in the pile sees the fallen and the motivation to get back up it usually works out that the fallen is given a certain amount of help back up.

or at least that's how it should work. the real problem here is how much is falling into the hands of the feeders? how much are the rest of us, the ones who actually keep everything truly moving, losing out on because it's dropped into the hands of the feeders?

[Archangel]

I'm the first to complain about criminals, illiterate Muslims, and assorted deadbeats leeching off our society. And trust me, welfare benefits here make anything in America look like even more of a pittance. Why do you think we get all the deadbeats in the first place?

Yes, all of that pisses me the fuck off.

But not enough to think that a couple of pennies saved are worth the life of even one innocent who easily could be alive through decent healthcare.

I like money. I like nice things. I come from a reasonably well-to-do family.

But the kind of greed that would let people die? Personally, I find it disgusting. Me? I pay my taxes gladly (such as 19% VAT on everything).

[Da Raider]

But the kind of greed that would let people die? Personally, I find it disgusting.

please expound.

[Archangel]

please expound.

This kind of primitive, uncivilised, nekulturny greed.

Personal greed, meh. Societal greed YAY!

When you start sacrificing what is good for the collective as a whole over what is good for a certain individual that's when you start to have problems.

Yes, but not the right to my wallet.

Just because it is an old American document doesn't mean its right. I'd say that the wussification of America comes with the over valuing of individual human life. It's this reason why I believe democracy fails, politicians spend all their time pandering to the weak and needy at the expense of actually benefiting the country as a whole.

"Over-valuing of individual human life"? What the fuck is this? The idea that every human life is equal and sacred is what our society was BUILT ON. To have something as base as greed replace this is just fucking beyond the pale.

[Stax]

A proper distribution of wealth is basically a capitalist bell curve, but with a safety net for the back-end so you don't have a class of people starving in the street (and because if you allow wealth to protect itself without protection for the consumer and lower class you get the Depression).

[TylerDurden]

I'm the first to complain about criminals, illiterate Muslims, and assorted deadbeats leeching off our society. And trust me, welfare benefits here make anything in America look like even more of a pittance. Why do you think we get all the deadbeats in the first place?

Yes, all of that pisses me the fuck off.

But not enough to think that a couple of pennies saved are worth the life of even one innocent who easily could be alive through decent healthcare.

I like money. I like nice things. I come from a reasonably well-to-do family.

But the kind of greed that would let people die? Personally, I find it disgusting. Me? I pay my taxes gladly (such as 19% VAT on everything).

i don't suggest these people simply die... i'm saying make death a choice. stopping even a small percentage of the handouts around here would make a difference.

healthcare is an odd topic for me, so i'll leave that alone. obviously hospitals shouldn't turn away someone in need, but after all is said and done if you're a worthless fuck who was drawing from the gov't: when it's suddenly pulled out from under you you're going to have two choices: live or fucking die.

a choice to live means a choice of being an upstanding citizen who carries a solid job, pays taxes, spends quality time with family, and is able to have the common decent things in life. it doesn't necessarily mean an easy life with a porsche in the driveway. not everyone can go to college or become an officer of a company. there are those who will simply have to be a fucking janitor. what it does mean is that you earn enough so that your kids have healthy food on the table every night, a moderate christmas, a safe and quality school, a sturdy roof over their heads, and durable clothes. for some this may mean a small kickstart... a "loan" if you will. obviously you need to be presentable. that doesn't mean hand out thousands of fucking dollars to this clown per month. it means a quarterly amount to ensure proper grooming, clean clothes, etc. i'm fairly certain that most shelters provide these things. there should be a checks and balances system to determine whether this is being done correctly. if it's not you're cut the fuck off.

a choice of death is eating food out of a garbage can, getting sick, and eventually dying. it means that you didn't want to help yourself and society, in kind, didn't want to help you. we're all busy providing for OUR families to worry about providing for yours. selfish? no. you had ample opportunity. we'll continue to treat you if you're sick, but we're done giving you money every fucking month because you're too goddamned lazy to go get a job. me and my family don't get to sit around all fucking day eating bon-bons and watching cable on my giant fucking t.v... so why should i pay for you to?

[Archangel]

So everybody who's down and out is just a lazy bastard?

[Jackcraver]

No just the ones that live off the government for extended periods of time. The government should help out ppl who are truly down and out that way they can get another career and continue providing for their families. The people who spend all their lives living off the government are lazy assholes.

[Archangel]

I think the actual Churchill quote goes, "I shall be sober".

[Jackcraver]

Archangel I am sorry I can not find any true source to clarify changing the word will to shall. Both have scores of non-reliable backers on the net.

[Archangel]

"Shall" sounds more like someone who was born in Blenheim fucking Palace, though.

[Jackcraver]

I do agree with you there but he was also drunk.

[TylerDurden]

So everybody who's down and out is just a lazy bastard?

not at all. on the contrary those who stumble every now and then (shit happens now and again) deserve to be lifted up a little. that's how the system SHOULD work.

one example of what i'm referring to: i have a friend who pays roughly $400-600 per paycheck in child support. his lazy fucking ex actually thinks this is her compensation for taking care of their kid a majority of the time, despite the fact that my friend wants this child and doesn't look at parenthood as a chore that should be rewarded with money. rather than treat child support as it really is, which is supplemental income, she treats it like it's her main source of bread. i have a child. my son certainly has no complaints with his life. he has good clothes, good school supplies, a proper healthy lunch every day, and when it comes time for extra-curricular activities they're paid in full. i don't get handouts, i don't take part in any income-based community or school programs... i make good money doing what i do and i still don't spend $600 per month on him (b-day/christmas aside), yet this bitch thinks she should be able to support the two of them off of it... that's not what child support is for. and it's definitely just one of many programs in this country that reference exactly what i'm talking about. somewhere this cunt got the idea that it was okay to be a bottom-feeder.

[Insomniac]

So as a Christian, do you believe Jesus forced others to give him money so he could distribute it as he saw fit? No, he implored good people to give what they could to help the lesser. In fact, if I remember, in most of the parables he was NOT friends with the tax man. Except for that Zachareious or whatever, but that was because he climbed up in that sycamore tree to see Jesus and become a beleiver.

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204:32-35;&version=31;

[TylerDurden]

not at all. on the contrary those who stumble every now and then (shit happens now and again) deserve to be lifted up a little. that's how the system SHOULD work.

a second example is necessary since i only gave one example in support of the definition of a bottom-feeder.

when in defense of those who stumble and fall... another friend of mine was recently laid off from his job from a major machine-building company. the kind of machines that make digging in mines fun. when shit started coming down, businesses could no longer afford to buy this equipment, and he was laid off. an example of shit happening.

what he didn't do: file for unemployment, go home and sit on his ass for months on end.

what he did do: file for unemployment, go home, figure out the finances on a worst-case scenario. he didn't sit on his ass for months. he immediately put out the word he was in need of a job.

[freegood]

Wouldn't it be better for the government give back to 90% of the Americans for each of them to decide what to do with that extra money saved from paying the taxes they are currently paying now?

please expound.

She might be your ex, but beating a woman is foul.

[smith42687]

If everyone started on an equal material playing field, it wouldn't stay equal for long because people aren't anything resembling equal, except in worth as human life. But if you just let social Darwinism run wild, great evils and excesses take place until the system implodes on itself.

Hence any government has an interest in keeping its vitality intact...

I agree with your premise, but disagree with your conclusion. Our difference is due to view that all life, no matter how worthless or damaging to the species, is worth maintaining.

In light of our recent global awareness to the damage our species is doing to the planet, we should probably reconsider the validity of supporting the billions of people who are using the limited resources today, thereby destroying our chances at continued survival. This designation is not based on race, religion, gender, etc... solely at social-economic status. That is the true war that is coming due to globalization, and you can already see the beginning of it in manufacturing cities within the US.

The haves and have-not's have always been at war, whether the have-not's realized it or not. Nothing new is going on in that regards, their situation is just becoming more widespread. Kudos to the new US President who was able to make them the same empty promises that party has been packaging since FDR. Best of luck to see if it actually 'pans out'.

[Archangel]

The haves and have-not's have always been at war, whether the haves realized it or not.
Fixed.

I'm pretty sure that the French peasants in 1789 knew that they were starving, as did the Russian have-nots in 1917...

[Da Raider]

Let them eat cake.

[Archangel]

Exactly.


I'm pretty sure that somebody who works his arse off or $30k a year and tries his damndest to make ends meet is more aware of incompetent glorified accountants getting tens of millions of dollars for running companies into the ground and getting untold people laid off than vice versa.

[Da Raider]

Exactly.


I'm pretty sure that somebody who works his arse off or $30k a year and tries his damndest to make ends meet is more aware of incompetent glorified accountants getting tens of millions of dollars for running companies into the ground and getting untold people laid off than vice versa.

I place highly skilled people in positions of great influence at large corporations. It's rarely incompetence. It's typically greed that creates the downfall.

As far as people who work their ass off for 30k a year, well they are obviously doing something wrong, or they need to update their skills so they can compete in a tough market place. We've gone from a battle for talent to a battle for survival.

[Archangel]

With somebody who gets paid to manage the money of untold citizens, unchecked greed is the same as incompetence.

[Da Raider]

With somebody who gets paid to manage the money of untold citizens, unchecked greed is the same as incompetence.

same result yes; but not the "same" per se.

Not so sure about this whole "tax the rich till they bleed" angle that we're working with right now. They still pay a majority of the taxes. I just want some tax breaks for the middle class. Cost of living is too damn high. My property taxes rape me annually. My paycheck gets bent over every two weeks, the State of CA has their hand in my pocket constantly, yet we're bankrupt and they have the audacity to have Propositions up for vote that total around 50 billion dollars in Bond repayments. Stop the fucking spending!!!!

[Phil Theehor]

The distribution responsibility of government begins and ends here: Government should strive to ensure that every citizen has the opportunity to provide for himself. It is not the job of government to guarantee equality of result.

I will allow that there are individuals whose basic make-up denies them that opportunity. Because of our wealth we can generate, I feel we should provide basic sustenance (not flat screen TV's) to those people (and I would define that group very narrowly).

[Insomniac]

I agree with your premise, but disagree with your conclusion. Our difference is due to view that all life, no matter how worthless or damaging to the species, is worth maintaining.

In light of our recent global awareness to the damage our species is doing to the planet, we should probably reconsider the validity of supporting the billions of people who are using the limited resources today, thereby destroying our chances at continued survival. This designation is not based on race, religion, gender, etc... solely at social-economic status. That is the true war that is coming due to globalization, and you can already see the beginning of it in manufacturing cities within the US.

The haves and have-not's have always been at war, whether the have-not's realized it or not. Nothing new is going on in that regards, their situation is just becoming more widespread. Kudos to the new US President who was able to make them the same empty promises that party has been packaging since FDR. Best of luck to see if it actually 'pans out'.

Well, let me try to sum up my position again: the human race needs to scramble and claw to the top in order to stay vigorous, creative, and have ambition. But someone has to have the job of keeping people from stepping on people's faces once they're down. Yeah?

And the industrialized world uses more resources than most all those teeming billions multiplying so fast.

[vasili denisov]

In a given society, what's the ideal distribution of wealth, and what's the government's role in molding society toward that ideal?

I'm not a governmental socialist, but I am a Christian socialist and believe people possess things in order to give them others.

Yet if you ever actually redistribute wealth, voluntarily or otherwise, it ends up in the hands of beer companies and lotteries because most people who are poor have no idea how to save money or generate wealth, which is why they aren't just poor due to bad circumstances, they stay poor most of their lives.

If everyone started on an equal material playing field, it wouldn't stay equal for long because people aren't anything resembling equal, except in worth as human life.
Societies are increasingly heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity and faith; to appeal for support of a good life (of sufficient health and opportunity) for other citizens cannot be done on the basis of common tribe, faith, or interpretation of faith; such a case must be made on a secular empirical basis that the benefit of others is to our benefit (a healthy employed individual contributes to the wealth of the society of which we are members, whereas someone sick and unemployed does not) as well as our aversion to suffering; many dogs die of starvation in the state of nature, yet a dog that dies of starvation in a house with an owner incites universal animus towards the owner. Neglect of the non-human where human agency to avert it is considered unconscionable; then there is a basis that we have an emotional aversion to neglect of the human within the auspices of our society. So, there's a foundation, both learned and unlearned, of interest in the benefit of others.

A point is made that money given to some in society will be wasted on gambling and drink; this implies that such irrational behaviour is intertwined with their low state, that such irrational behaviour keeps them in their low state. We can, however, make the case that such irrationality can be found at all levels of society. Drinking obscures the hard details of a life, while gambling gives us the irrational basis that the circumstances of such a life could change; the impulse for both rely on an aversion of current circumstances and a desire for others. Circumstances could be changed through larger purchases (college, a house in a better neighbourhood), but since the disposable income left is small, it is directed towards very small, unproductive ones.

Instead of letting all income be spent in ways that might be irrational, some income can be taken and then spent in ways that are rational. There is a greater basis for a person's wealth to rise through getting an education than buying a lottery ticket. Also, an aggregation of the fractions of peoples' incomes may be put to more productive use than the individual use of such incomes. For one individual to pay the salary of a teacher and rent a lab would be prohibitive; a collection of individuals pooling their resources make it possible. That such associations are not voluntary (we all pay taxes) relies on the idea that our behaviour is not always long-term rational; public organizations take tax money and are compelled to act in the most rational manner possible, rational considered to be the safest, most secure way possible.

The ideal equilibrium is what money can be committed to such rational public works, and what should be left to private agency which will be able to put in riskier ventures, some of which may develop into secure rational investments.

[vasili denisov]

a flat tax on incomes over $60,000. with very little tax credits and deductions. simply the more you earn, the greater you pay, but proportionate so you still have an incentive to bust ass.

think about how much our tax revenue would be under these circumstances (the key is very little tax deductions so that the rich cannot hire smart lawyers and lower their AGI by much. that way, say 15% (or some figure) of a huge $ amount is still more $ brought in than a higher rate off a greatly-reduced $ amount)
The goal you've emphasized is greater tax revenue; if this is the case, then credits and deductions for the upper tier should be eliminated. This would force money that's right now staying in private hands into government coffers.

If taking all of this money out of the private sector hurts growth, then the loophole closing should be accompanied by a points cut in the top tax rate (a tax rate adjustment would allow for far greater control than the murkier area of loopholes); the focus would be entirely on the top rate, since they would be the only ones with the resources (also, since such deductions often have a high floor, the only ones with eligible income) to take advantage of the loopholes. You've made a case for a cleaner code, with possibly a lower top rate, not a flat tax.

[Archetype]

Actually, yes, people do give more when it is of their own free will rather than WHEN mandated to by law. My comment is quantifiable. Your statement is attempting to address something entirely different (people don't give on a widescale).

Wrong emphasis. People don't give actively. When someone suddenly has to give more than they were used to, they get all pissy, unless it's something they truly understand. People don't like change, they don't like giving. Sure, they don't like being forced to do things either, but there is a vital difference in the view of the people from country A that requires a certain amount in taxes, and country B that just had it's taxes raised to, let's say 5% below country A. Depending on how long it's gone on, Country A's citizens may be proud about the taxes they pay, while Country B's will be pissed off about having their taxes raised.

My point was if you force people to do something, they are only going to do the bare minimum.People only do the bare minimum as is.

What ever happened to the American Dream where you work hard for what you earn and then you reap in the benefits of your hard work?

It disappeared when hard work stopped getting you shit.

In fact, if I remember, in most of the parables he was NOT friends with the tax man.

Oh?
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples.Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;etc., etc.

[freegood]

What ever happened to the American Dream where you work hard for what you earn and then you reap in the benefits of your hard work?


Working hard by itself doesn't guarantee shit.

Working smart makes you indispensible.

Being the dyslexic son of a rich guy with a famous last name makes you the current President of the US

[Archangel]

Societies are increasingly heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity and faith; to appeal for support of a good life (of sufficient health and opportunity) for other citizens cannot be done on the basis of common tribe, faith, or interpretation of faith; such a case must be made on a secular empirical basis that the benefit of others is to our benefit (a healthy employed individual contributes to the wealth of the society of which we are members, whereas someone sick and unemployed does not) as well as our aversion to suffering; many dogs die of starvation in the state of nature, yet a dog that dies of starvation in a house with an owner incites universal animus towards the owner. Neglect of the non-human where human agency to avert it is considered unconscionable; then there is a basis that we have an emotional aversion to neglect of the human within the auspices of our society. So, there's a foundation, both learned and unlearned, of interest in the benefit of others.

A point is made that money given to some in society will be wasted on gambling and drink; this implies that such irrational behaviour is intertwined with their low state, that such irrational behaviour keeps them in their low state. We can, however, make the case that such irrationality can be found at all levels of society. Drinking obscures the hard details of a life, while gambling gives us the irrational basis that the circumstances of such a life could change; the impulse for both rely on an aversion of current circumstances and a desire for others. Circumstances could be changed through larger purchases (college, a house in a better neighbourhood), but since the disposable income left is small, it is directed towards very small, unproductive ones.

Instead of letting all income be spent in ways that might be irrational, some income can be taken and then spent in ways that are rational. There is a greater basis for a person's wealth to rise through getting an education than buying a lottery ticket. Also, an aggregation of the fractions of peoples' incomes may be put to more productive use than the individual use of such incomes. For one individual to pay the salary of a teacher and rent a lab would be prohibitive; a collection of individuals pooling their resources make it possible. That such associations are not voluntary (we all pay taxes) relies on the idea that our behaviour is not always long-term rational; public organizations take tax money and are compelled to act in the most rational manner possible, rational considered to be the safest, most secure way possible.

The ideal equilibrium is what money can be committed to such rational public works, and what should be left to private agency which will be able to put in riskier ventures, some of which may develop into secure rational investments.


Best Philo post in ages.

Recently, vasili has made me feel woefully inadequate. I cannot but tip my hat.

[TylerDurden]

The distribution responsibility of government begins and ends here: Government should strive to ensure that every citizen has the opportunity to provide for himself. It is not the job of government to guarantee equality of result.

I will allow that there are individuals whose basic make-up denies them that opportunity. Because of our wealth we can generate, I feel we should provide basic sustenance (not flat screen TV's) to those people (and I would define that group very narrowly).

perfectly stated.

[lusonico]

Shit, I've read vasili denisov essay after writing my post, i'm just going to post it because i spent half an hour writing it.:o

If everyone started on an equal material playing field, it wouldn't stay equal for long because people aren't anything resembling equal, except in worth as human life. But if you just let social Darwinism run wild, great evils and excesses take place until the system implodes on itself.

Hence any government has an interest in keeping its vitality intact and letting people do what they can do (fairness) and also taking care of everyone and keeping them happy (equality). Most everyone between communists and capitalist anarchists would agree on this.

But what is proper?

For the survival of a thriving society the most important thing is the contribution of the individual to society, his work, intelectual inovation, children. These things are essential for the survival of society so they should be the priorities of society. Nothing else should matter and in practice, nothing does really.

It's in society best interest to potentiate the contribution of the individual, so it should make possible that every individual gets the best possible opportunities to fully develop his physical and intelectual capacities so he can retribute to society with his productivity renewing the cycle and pushing civilization forward. In principle, a society cannot afford to ignore the contributive potential of someone because of his race, gender or economic background, it should give equal chances to it's citizens so their potential doesn't go to waste. Welfare should exist as something who supports productive individuals in time of need, in a system oriented to make them active again.

Humanitarian actions can exist whitin this parameters, you can sustain the disabled or the retarded who contribute nothing but cost allot, but only if it does not affect society success. If something occured in our environment which degraded our DNA and mentally disabled children made 8 out of 10 births all of good intentions would not matter, it would not be possible to sustain such growing unproductive population, period. It all boils down to society success.

I said humanitarian actions because advanced and successfull societies give manuever space for the expression of human nature. Survival is the most basic human expression but once that is assured we empathize with everything, with the deformed and disabled, with babies even not our own, even with other species. That's human and it is a victory for civilization to be able to express them, but this has never happened at the expenses of the essential, success and survival.

So capitalism is not bad unless it gets in the way of society's goal of making its citizens fully developed productive individuals. If it's a feudal stagnated kind of system, where the limited land and resources are owned by a few while the rest work there for a wage, and not everybody gets a chance to educate themselves and climb the ladder by own merit, than it's "bad".

It's also not in the best interest for society to sponsor useless breeders, you see, education is optional not mandatory, and family is the first and most important vehicle of culture. So this system gap allows to "some" people just not to give a flying fuck about improving themselves, and instead spend time fucking and producing babies, wich in a society wich places "humanitarian values" above success, must be sustained, while letting them at the care of their useless parents who will make their children mini versions of them, perpetuating and enlarging a cultural problem... The thing is, there is no way to resolve this problem other than either making each parent responsible for supporting their offspring, or, society intervention to STOP those incapable of raising children from conceiving them in the first place.

So societies must be efficent, only after they can be humanitarian, it always has been this way and it always WILL be.

[smith42687]

Well, let me try to sum up my position again: the human race needs to scramble and claw to the top in order to stay vigorous, creative, and have ambition. But someone has to have the job of keeping people from stepping on people's faces once they're down. Yeah?

And the industrialized world uses more resources than most all those teeming billions multiplying so fast.

The first place I would start making 'cuts' is in the industrialized world. Those are the worst cases because opportunity after opportunity has been handed to those people, yet they continue to refuse to produce and create the most dramatic decreases in chances for our species' long-term survival on this planet.

Why is it 'the laws of nature', 'survival of the fittest', 'Darwinism', etc applies to everything other than human beings? I would be curious to hear what kinds of voluntary efforts are made by other species to continually prop-up, without hesitation, the lowest members like humans do. Many people may hate organized religion, but I think the previous attitude may be its greatest achievement (or failure) because it otherwise just doesn't make sense for us to feel that way unless a supreme being is telling us to value everyone else, no matter how stupid they are.

[Archetype]

Why is it 'the laws of nature', 'survival of the fittest', 'Darwinism', etc applies to everything other than human beings?
Because those aren't laws of nature. Idiot.

[Menace2Sobriety]

I'm all for people making money when they work hard, create something of value, and give jobs to others.

But a) bankers are a fucking stain on society (usury really IS a sin, isn't it?); Good luck buying a house without us fucker.

[Mustard]

How about we just do away with money altogether?

It is worthless anyway, who needs it?

[Axel]

Distribution of wealth is an ambiguous term, I’d rather use a term socio-economic balance.

A society should strive for a reasonable balance between Communism and Plutocracy (= the rule of the wealthiest); a balance that prevents excessive concentration of wealth & power, while providing for economic growth and maintaining high domestic consumption (= maintaining a strong middle class). A government can provide for it largely by a fiscal policy and an equal opportunity education system.

The enforced material equality kills motivation any thus any kind of development, while extreme concentration of wealth abolishes democracy: money enables power, power in return enables more money, and more money enables even more power, and so on…

When you find out that your government takes decisions in favor of the wealthiest – like cutting taxes to wealthiest OR waging unnecessary wars that only few lobbies benefit from them OR granting huge unconditional transfers to banking system – than you should know that your country is on the way into Plutocracy.

[Menace2Sobriety]

With somebody who gets paid to manage the money of untold citizens, unchecked greed is the same as incompetence.Yeah, maybe people who are responsible for the livelihoods of people in their retirements should be paid next to nothing. Lord knows we wouldn't want highly qualified and educated people in that kind of position.

[Archangel]

Hmmm. What country could he be talking about?

[Axel]

Hey, I was being only hypothetical with those examples.

[Archangel]

Yeah, maybe people who are responsible for the livelihoods of people in their retirements should be paid next to nothing. Lord knows we wouldn't want highly qualified and educated people in that kind of position.

That's the dumbest fucking argument I've ever heard. These people aren't Nobel laureates, they're not NBA All-Stars, they're fucking ACCOUNTANTS. Are you honestly telling me that you cannot find a qualified accountant to take that kind of job for, say, $5 million a year? Do you starve with that kind of money?
"Highly qualified"? How are these people any more qualified than university professors - responsible for the education of an entire generation - or doctors, responsible for actual human fucking lives? They don't buy yachts and shit, either. These people go to college, then to business school. That's fucking it. They are not better than any other academic.

There is a difference between "next to nothing" and $100 million a year. I'm shocked that I have to actually spell this out for anyone.

[Archangel]

What kind of insanity is it that people have to pull out the "next to nothing" argument when talking about millions of fucking dollars? How is this any less ridiculous than Latrell Sprewell talking about how he cannot feed his family on $5 million a year?

[Menace2Sobriety]

That's the dumbest fucking argument I've ever heard. These people aren't Nobel laureates, they're not NBA All-Stars, they're fucking ACCOUNTANTS. Are you honestly telling me that you cannot find a qualified accountant to take that kind of job for, say, $5-10 million a year? Do you starve with that kind of money?
"Highly qualified"? How are these people any more qualified than university professors - responsible for the education of an entire generation - or doctors, responsible for actual human fucking lives? They don't buy yachts and shit, either. These people go to college, then to business school. That's fucking it.

There is a difference between "next to nothing" and $100 million a year. I'm shocked that I have to actually spell this out for anyone.No, I don't think a 'qualified accountant' would be capable of holding that position. How many accountants are willing to work 80-90 hours a week? How many accountants are capable of dealing with the complexity of the financial models that investment bankers use? How many accountants have the people skills to deal with clients and can network well enough to get a handle on everything involved in the market?

You think there aren't people in these positions who are highly capable of being doctors, but chase the financial rewards that can be found in corporate finance?
Is a brain surgeon just a glorified GP?

[Menace2Sobriety]

What kind of insanity is it that people have to pull out the "next to nothing" argument when talking about millions of fucking dollars? How is this any less ridiculous than Latrell Sprewell talking about how he cannot feed his family on $5 million a year?
Kirk Penney would do an honest job playing SG for the Knicks too. I wonder why the the knicks haven't offered him a deal? He'd be cheaper than Spree.

[Archangel]

Brain surgeons don't make $50 million a year. And they don't get golden parachutes if they fuck up an OP.

And no, I don't think these people could be anything but bankers.

Somebody posted this in the "Greed" thread, and I think it's fitting here...

4beL8coMc2A


Also, you haven't answered my core point. Accountants or not, it's bloody ludicrous to suggest that you cannot find anyone to do any job for $5 million per annum. To pull out the "next to nothing" argument, no less, is beneath human reasoning.

I don't mind somebody doing a great job getting paid serious money. Wendelin Wiedeking makes $100 million a year: But Porsche is the most profitable car maker in the world. He is obviously doing something right, and making money for everybody from his stockholders to his employees.

But the guys at AIG and Lehman? The fuck were they getting paid for?

[Menace2Sobriety]

- You have workaholics in every industry.
- Corporate corruption is not limited merely to the finance industry.
- The fact increased competition has led to the creation of more complex entities which are more difficult to evaluate doesn't mean the entire industry is like this. Investors who ignore credit ratings and gamble on securities they cannot understand get what they deserve.
- Bankers trade on, and measure their worth on money. That's their job. They create wealth. I would not want to be operated on by a surgeon who thought the most important thing he did at work was get paid.

[Archangel]

No, they shuffle wealth around. They don't "create" jack shit.

[Menace2Sobriety]

I see. You're an idiot with no understanding of economics whatsoever.

[Archangel]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the ones who define the world through economics are the actual idiots, because money overrides both common sense and decency.

Dude, you just said that you can't get incompetent jackasses to run companies into the ground for under $100 million a year, because anything below that, they will starve.


And I'm the idiot?

[freegood]

- The fact increased competition has led to the creation of more complex entities which are more difficult to evaluate doesn't mean the entire industry is like this. Investors who ignore credit ratings and gamble on securities they cannot understand get what they deserve.

The Credit ratings industry and monoline insurers is partly why banks and city finance planners are in trouble right now.

How they are escaping public scrutiny is beyond me.

[redsox39]

A proper redistribution would be, keep what you earned, and donate whatever makes you feel good. Inheritence should be taxed at a much higher rate.

[Archangel]

Um, no.

[lusonico]

A proper redistribution would be, keep what you earned, and donate whatever makes you feel good. Inheritence should be taxed at a much higher rate.

You should have the right to pass on your descendants what you've build.

[Archangel]

Exactly. One of the principal motivations for accumulating wealth always has been the possibility to help make your childrens' lives easier.

Sure, it leads to the creation of some worthless layabouts (ahem...), but all in all, it's as fair as it gets.

[Archetype]

You should have the right to pass on your descendants what you've build.

I'm not totally sure about that, because that's where nobility comes from. And nobility is fucking gay. Old-school capitalism is the reason for communism boyz. Plus, Paris Hilton.

[Phil Theehor]

I'm not totally sure about that, because that's where nobility comes from. And nobility is fucking gay. Old-school capitalism is the reason for communism boyz. Plus, Paris Hilton.

Interesting point. You are on to something. I think a lot of people would actually be better off without a silver spoon.

But who has the right to your property besides the people you designate? Do you want to give it to government and see it wasted? Or do you want to see crazed Seniors on spending binges to avoid giving the fruits of their life's labor to such a woefully unworthy institution?

Hell, if I grew old to the point that I thought I was going to die with money and see it fall into governmental hands, I might just take up blow and hookers.

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

A proper redistribution would be, keep what you earned, and donate whatever makes you feel good. Inheritence should be taxed at a much higher rate.

Red, you had it spot on until the last line. What will be the point of giving to your spouse, kids, etc....if the Govt is gonna get their hands all over it?

[Menace2Sobriety]

The Credit ratings industry and monoline insurers is partly why banks and city finance planners are in trouble right now.

How they are escaping public scrutiny is beyond me.
Not really the same thing. I don't see how you blame credit raters for corrupt corporate policies which don't allow for transparency. If you want to blame anyone you can take a look at Arch's beloved accountants and their mark-to-market theories.

[Menace2Sobriety]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the ones who define the world through economics are the actual idiots, because money overrides both common sense and decency.

Dude, you just said that you can't get incompetent jackasses to run companies into the ground for under $100 million a year, because anything below that, they will starve.


And I'm the idiot?
Nice strawman, that's exactly what I said. How is it that the guy who criticizes people for having a view on God without going to Sunday School feels qualified to comment on finance?

Economic growth is a myth.

[Archetype]

Interesting point. You are on to something. I think a lot of people would actually be better off without a silver spoon.

But who has the right to your property besides the people you designate? Do you want to give it to government and see it wasted?

Who has the right? Not to be ultra capitalist, but property belongs insofar as you can protect it. Whomever claims it and can keep it deserves it. However, who needs it, and who can best provide for with it also matters.

[Archangel]

Nice strawman, that's exactly what I said. How is it that the guy who criticizes people for having a view on God without going to Sunday School feels qualified to comment on finance?

Economic growth is a myth.

I've never been to sunday school in my life; the fact that you equate my views on religion with sunday school pretty much tells me everything that I need to know.

Also, I don't use financial logic, using which Richard Fuld making $500 million in the past six years probably is the most sensible thing in the world, I use bloody common sense. The fact that the two apparently have nothing to do with each other is pretty telling.

[vasili denisov]

How about we just do away with money altogether?

It is worthless anyway, who needs it?
Money is a very useful tool allowing a very large number of people who may not possess items they'll trade reciprocally, to still conduct business. Person A who sells wool may have no interest in bread, but if there's a currency in existence, A will be able to sell wool to Person B, a baker, and then buy carrots from Person C.

That a currency has no inherent use, that it is "worthless", is very important in keeping its value related only to the supply and demand of products and services. Here's a piece about mackarel as currency in a prison economy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290720439096481.html) and another about a prison camp economy with cigarettes as currency (http://www.bkmarcus.com/cache/POW/). In the first case, cans of mackarel are an excellent currency due to a) the impossibility of counterfeit b) that almost no one in prison ate them. The disadvantage (other than their lack of value outside of prison) is that a shortage of mackarel caused a drop in the money supply and artificial deflation (unrelated to an increase in production or a decrease in consumers). In the second case, the very fact that people were smoking cigarettes caused the money supply to fluctuate dramatically, again, in no relation to the amount of non-cigarette products sold or consumed.

[Da Raider]

I prefer my currency to be "clean urine".

[Mustard]

Money is a very useful tool allowing a very large number of people who may not possess items they'll trade reciprocally, to still conduct business. Person A who sells wool may have no interest in bread, but if there's a currency in existence, A will be able to sell wool to Person B, a baker, and then buy carrots from Person C.

That a currency has no inherent use, that it is "worthless", is very important in keeping its value related only to the supply and demand of products and services. Here's a piece about mackarel as currency in a prison economy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290720439096481.html) and another about a prison camp economy with cigarettes as currency (http://www.bkmarcus.com/cache/POW/). In the first case, cans of mackarel are an excellent currency due to a) the impossibility of counterfeit b) that almost no one in prison ate them. The disadvantage (other than their lack of value outside of prison) is that a shortage of mackarel caused a drop in the money supply and artificial deflation (unrelated to an increase in production or a decrease in consumers). In the second case, the very fact that people were smoking cigarettes caused the money supply to fluctuate dramatically, again, in no relation to the amount of non-cigarette products sold or consumed.
I don't think human beings are going to need currency in the future anyway... but since we're not there yet, I will go on trading my inherently worthless paper for food, land, clothing, and entertainment.

[merlin13]

This is all I want...
I want to be able to go to work and earn an honest days wages. Be able to pay the bills I have and whatever is leftover be able to have some fun.
I would like to squirrel away some for a rainy day or whatever.

[freegood]

Not really the same thing. I don't see how you blame credit raters for corrupt corporate policies which don't allow for transparency. If you want to blame anyone you can take a look at Arch's beloved accountants and their mark-to-market theories.

Because it was very easy for them to put gold stamps on products that smelled like festering feces. If it wasn't transparent for the ratings agencies, then they had no business putting their reputation on the line for the clients who paid them to rate it.

I agree somewhat wrt to monoline insurers though. They were just a convenient loophole for greed to run around. Anyone with half a sensible mind could realize that these low billion dollar companies could not back up high hundreds of billions of dollars in assets. A solid company like AIG couldn't....

Also, it wasn't really transparency that is/was the issue. I spoke to an accountant once, and he said the problem wasn't transparency, but rather the schemes firms used to makes things too transparent. They'd load up on esoteric jargon and arcane formulas in hundreds and hundreds of pages to bury even the most experienced eyes. With time and money at stake, managers started to take things for granted. He did not like SarBox..

And it was that mindset that made even good managers copy whatever other firms that made money out of phD created derivatives because they assumed that these instruments were time and battle tested.

Blind leading the blind.

[Phil Theehor]

I already posted my philosophy on this topic and it was pretty simple: Government has neither the right nor the duty to redsitribute wealth per se, but they do have the obligation to strive to ensure that every citizen has the opportunity to provide for himself (allowing for the fact that it should take care of those who truly lack the ability to do so).

But, I have been wrestling with something. I'm not so sure that it is a philsophy question anymore because it deals more with execution than philosophy, but I'll throw it out there and will be interested in your collective thoughts.

Understand, please, that I am only speaking to the U.S., because I don’t know other countries’ systems well enough to discuss them.
As it stands right now, we have achieved that aim. Every adult of able body and mind has the opportunity to provide for himself as of today. Opportunities exist. If you don’t take advantage of them, it’s because you either aren’t trying or you don’t know they exist.

The easiest example of this is the military. Anyone can go to college after serving in the U.S. military. And you don’t need to dodge bullets or kill people to serve. The Army, Navy & Air Force have legions of clerks and support personnel who never touch a weapon or set foot in the field. They get the same benefits that the grunts do.

And even beyond going to college, you can learn a civilian trade in the military that will give you the means with which to provide for yourself.

And there are a thousand other ways. I, like many, many others, served in the reserves and delivered pizza to put myself through school. And I don’t hold myself up as a model of motivation and drive. I was kind of a slacker who just found a way to get by.

So this is my question about execution: How do we fix this? There is so much opportunity here. How do we make it visible to those who don’t see it?

One of my best friends in boot camp was a kid from South Central LA. This was only a couple of years after the riots. He enlisted after losing two of his friends to gunfire the previous year and figured that it was his only way out. He was smart and motivated and I would bet the left one that he has since made a good life for himself. But, it never occurred to me ask him why he saw the need to find a path and chose to do it whereas the majority of his peers did not.

My overarching point is this: Everyone who is mostly whole has the opportunity today in the U.S. to provide for himself. But those opportunities aren’t visible to everyone.

If you sought to blame something for this, I guess that it would be broken cultures, a lack of examples, or a lack of hope.

This thread has largely focused on the question of fairness. I think that fairness can be achieved if we can just get people to see and take the opportunities that exist.

I just don’t know how to do it.

[Okie Medicvet]

How do we do it? We let people know about opportunities they might not otherwise be aware of by educating them. It still gets to me how much more we as a nation invest in incarceration as opposed to education. Now, if someone is aware of what their opportunities are and are given a leg up instead of a hand out then that is a fair society. I hate to say this, but even with what the election proved, we are still NOT a fair society overall..there is a lot we still need to work on. But if we can acknowledge progress while striving for perfection, then that is about as good a society as it is feasible for us to be able to get. We will never see a perfect society, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for a better one.

[freegood]

I already posted my philosophy on this topic and it was pretty simple: Government has neither the right nor the duty to redsitribute wealth per se, but they do have the obligation to strive to ensure that every citizen has the opportunity to provide for himself (allowing for the fact that it should take care of those who truly lack the ability to do so).

But, I have been wrestling with something. I'm not so sure that it is a philsophy question anymore because it deals more with execution than philosophy, but I'll throw it out there and will be interested in your collective thoughts.

Understand, please, that I am only speaking to the U.S., because I don’t know other countries’ systems well enough to discuss them.
As it stands right now, we have achieved that aim. Every adult of able body and mind has the opportunity to provide for himself as of today. Opportunities exist. If you don’t take advantage of them, it’s because you either aren’t trying or you don’t know they exist.

The easiest example of this is the military. Anyone can go to college after serving in the U.S. military. And you don’t need to dodge bullets or kill people to serve. The Army, Navy & Air Force have legions of clerks and support personnel who never touch a weapon or set foot in the field. They get the same benefits that the grunts do.

And even beyond going to college, you can learn a civilian trade in the military that will give you the means with which to provide for yourself.

And there are a thousand other ways. I, like many, many others, served in the reserves and delivered pizza to put myself through school. And I don’t hold myself up as a model of motivation and drive. I was kind of a slacker who just found a way to get by.

So this is my question about execution: How do we fix this? There is so much opportunity here. How do we make it visible to those who don’t see it?

One of my best friends in boot camp was a kid from South Central LA. This was only a couple of years after the riots. He enlisted after losing two of his friends to gunfire the previous year and figured that it was his only way out. He was smart and motivated and I would bet the left one that he has since made a good life for himself. But, it never occurred to me ask him why he saw the need to find a path and chose to do it whereas the majority of his peers did not.

My overarching point is this: Everyone who is mostly whole has the opportunity today in the U.S. to provide for himself. But those opportunities aren’t visible to everyone.

If you sought to blame something for this, I guess that it would be broken cultures, a lack of examples, or a lack of hope.

This thread has largely focused on the question of fairness. I think that fairness can be achieved if we can just get people to see and take the opportunities that exist.

I just don’t know how to do it.

I know where you're coming from, but I don't agree that should be the overriding principle against tax breaks for 90% of the population funded by the top 10%. Even after the fact, it wouldn't be as high as the tax raise against the rich from Bush 1.

Then you have rich dudes like Warren Buffet who support the tax increases, if only to compensate for the loopholes that allow him to pay the government less.

Overall, while people can scrounge a decent living, they're making less while working more. We're way overworked compared to Europe when comparing hours and vacation time. Wage increases are stagnant for the middle class while the rich has exploded. Sure, some can jimmy up some figures of a rise by taking health benefits into account, but 40 million Americans are severely lacking in adequate health insurance. That's a huge financial and personal liability to each one should there be unexpected accidents. And steers attention away from the fact that wealth has not trickled down.

There was a time when one person from the household could be the breadwinner and a decent living could be attain with a family of four and five. Now both parents work, are overworked, and the family values pundits scream of a deteriorating moral fabric for our nation. Of course, that was the age of the retirement watch funded by company pensions after 20 years of service and dedication to the same company.

So the underlying principle behind this is that working hard, keeping your head down, and leaving the government alone will somehow allow a person to take care of himself and make the nation greater. Yet for anyone who is considering retiring in the next year and was banking upon their 401k, they will have to work even harder to achieve their Golden Parachutes.

At least they can sleep nice and well knowing that billion dollar portions of the publicly financed bailouts are being devoted to bonuses and severance packages for financial employees because of the hard work and great results they have acheived.

At least they can keep their head high knowing that Haliburton and other companies with severe conflicts of interest won no-bid billion dollar contracts for repairing Iraq and the billion dollar gaps in accounting that followed.

Socialism indeed.

[redsox39]

Red, you had it spot on until the last line. What will be the point of giving to your spouse, kids, etc....if the Govt is gonna get their hands all over it?


Kind of a last 'Thank you' for living in a country that lets even the dumbest people get rich if they want.

Your kids and Wife can make due with the other millions you got.

[STDSkillz]

I already posted my philosophy on this topic and it was pretty simple: Government has neither the right nor the duty to redsitribute wealth per se, but they do have the obligation to strive to ensure that every citizen has the opportunity to provide for himself (allowing for the fact that it should take care of those who truly lack the ability to do so).

But, I have been wrestling with something. I'm not so sure that it is a philsophy question anymore because it deals more with execution than philosophy, but I'll throw it out there and will be interested in your collective thoughts.

Understand, please, that I am only speaking to the U.S., because I don’t know other countries’ systems well enough to discuss them.
As it stands right now, we have achieved that aim. Every adult of able body and mind has the opportunity to provide for himself as of today. Opportunities exist. If you don’t take advantage of them, it’s because you either aren’t trying or you don’t know they exist.

The easiest example of this is the military. Anyone can go to college after serving in the U.S. military. And you don’t need to dodge bullets or kill people to serve. The Army, Navy & Air Force have legions of clerks and support personnel who never touch a weapon or set foot in the field. They get the same benefits that the grunts do.

And even beyond going to college, you can learn a civilian trade in the military that will give you the means with which to provide for yourself.

And there are a thousand other ways. I, like many, many others, served in the reserves and delivered pizza to put myself through school. And I don’t hold myself up as a model of motivation and drive. I was kind of a slacker who just found a way to get by.

So this is my question about execution: How do we fix this? There is so much opportunity here. How do we make it visible to those who don’t see it?

One of my best friends in boot camp was a kid from South Central LA. This was only a couple of years after the riots. He enlisted after losing two of his friends to gunfire the previous year and figured that it was his only way out. He was smart and motivated and I would bet the left one that he has since made a good life for himself. But, it never occurred to me ask him why he saw the need to find a path and chose to do it whereas the majority of his peers did not.

My overarching point is this: Everyone who is mostly whole has the opportunity today in the U.S. to provide for himself. But those opportunities aren’t visible to everyone.

If you sought to blame something for this, I guess that it would be broken cultures, a lack of examples, or a lack of hope.

This thread has largely focused on the question of fairness. I think that fairness can be achieved if we can just get people to see and take the opportunities that exist.

I just don’t know how to do it.
I concur with this assessment.

[winkeraw]

Equality cannot be achieved regardless of the desire to implement such a plan.

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

People like to be rich, if you have those people, namely Paris Hilton, the world will never have equality. maybe all the greedy people, for example, Paris Hilton, like being filthy rich, and they don't know how to spend it, like Paris Hilton. Some rich folks seem only to distribute their bodies, like Paris Hilton.... But no one would want that anyway... And then there are the rich people you gotta show who's boss, Like Donald Trump.

I'd strongly suggest you heed these following words, sonny.

"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation."
　
- Dr. Adrian Rogers

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

Go and ask a poor person for a job and see how successful you are. Trickle up economics has never worked, and never will.

[bdjlo09]

whatever it is, it doesn't involve robbing or stealing.

[Bassmonster]

If your rich yes.....

Or if you set high moral standards for yourself... Double standards are for retards and girls.

[freefire]

distribution of wealth? Those who earn it keep it, those who don't shouldn't. What makes someone entitled for governmental support when they don't contribute to the system?