This thread is a responce to something Andrew R posted here.
|
Are we talking about taxation writ large - raising revenue for the financing of public sector expenditures on goods and services and the transfer of purchasing power between individuals or just focusing on the transfer of purchasing power and progressive rates (vertical equity)?
I take it from the thread that you feel that relying on market forces to distribute income results in severe injustice which leads to social unrest?
It is no accident that the countries with the most freedom also are the most prosperous.
First of all, freedom does not automatically equate good.
You can be free to suffer, you can be free to starve, you can be free to labour for pitance while your efforts enrich another. All those things are possible in a 'free' society.
There is an increasingly clear correlation and causation between income inequality and social ills. Yet many free countrys, such as england and America(the grand daddy and child of free societies) ahave staggering levels of income inequality and social ill. When your the face of freedom and you have the highest recorded infant mortality rate of the top fifty developed nations, it becomes clear that a free society is not automatically a good society.
While prosperity has demonstrable benifits, and is a massive driver for improving the lives of everyone in a society, there comes a point where benifits of simple prosperity have been shown to level out. Beyond a certain point, increased wealther simply stops making society better. At that point, income inequality takes over as the most important determining factor.
Given the fact that both the US and the UK, with their massive economies are in fact, due to their levels of massive income inequality lawful evil societies. They are increadably wealthy, but said wealth but they are wracked by social problems spawned by the social stresses caused by the existance of the super rich.
While countries like the Northern european social democracies and modern Japan are lawful good societies. Still very wealthy socieites, but which due to being more equal sociaties, less prone to social issues.
Related links:
How British society is being engined to channel wealth from the poor to the rich
...
Wow, so the good societies take from those who earn and give to those that may make a choice not to and evil societies give you nothing but what you earn for yourself. So how much can we take from you to care for the poor? Good equals thieves, awsome
First of all, no not all of the good socities use taxation as the tool by which they achieve lower levels of income inequality. I am not in anyway wed to the idea that tax is the only way to achieve a good society. While sure, the NESD's use taxation as a way of driving income equality, the Japanese have a tax system broadly similiar to the US, and achieve income equality through social and cultural pressures. Just because higher levels of Income Equality is good for a society, does not mean that it has to be achieved through taxation. The only reason taxation is a preferable approach in most cases is that it can be implemented more quickly and more successfully, as it can be centrally imposed, where social engineering and social movements tend to take longer. Long term, cultural implimentation is always preferable, but i'll take what i can get to make the world a better place.
As to your question more specifically. Well it depends on how you measure 'good'. As such the system of morality you use to judge the actions.
Personally i prefer quantitative and reductionist approach. As such i favour utilitrian in nature. It is a system of morality that is logically sound, fits well with innate human morality and which provides sensible naturalistic reasons to be good, beyond biological drives towards altruism, shaped by evolutionary pressures such as Kin Selection.
As such i am very happy to say that it depends. What are the consequences of the money being taken and used in that way? The outcome that causes least suffering is the best outsome. What the work of Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, along with many others has started to show us is that effects of income inequality are so wide ranging and so powerful that not acting to provent it causes vast amounts of suffering, certainly more suffering that the collection of taxes to off set its effects.
Just to put it into context, america is the richest country in the world. But of the top 50, it...
- has the highest levels of income in equality(world bank)
- is fourth lowest on the UNICEF index of child wellfare (UNICEF)
- is in the bottom half for levels of trust (european and world values survay)
- is in the bottom half for positive status of woman in society
- is the second lowest provider of foreign aid (by % of national income) (OECD)
- is, by a large margine, the most mentally ill country (WHO)
- is the 4th highest consumer of illigal drugs (UNODC)
- has the 4th lowest life expectancy
- has the highest infant mortality rate
- has the highest rates of obesity
- has the highest rates of child obesity (unicef)
- is the 6th worst mathimatics and literacy scores (and is worst at every than more equal societies at every stage of education).
- has the highest level of 15 year olds aspiring to low skilled work.
- has the highest rate of teenage pregnacy.
- has the highest rate of homicide.
- has the 4th highest level of childhood exposure to violence.
- has the highest rate of imprisonment.
- has the lowest rate of social mobility
- is in the bottom five for patents held/million people.
- has the 3rd lowest rate of recycling.
Those are a LOT of social ills, and the evidence supports that simple changes, which cause very little hardship to the richest members of society, can improve the lot of vast numbers of people(including the richest).
I think that taxes are completely immoral. Unless they are paid to me, in which case I have no problem with them.
Are we talking about taxation writ large - raising revenue for the financing of public sector expenditures on goods and services and the transfer of purchasing power between individuals or just focusing on the transfer of purchasing power and progressive rates (vertical equity)?
I take it from the thread that you feel that relying on market forces to distribute income results in severe injustice which leads to social unrest?
It is more complicated that just social unrest. The effects are wide ranging, and many of them are listed above. They are both physicial and social, and all have increasingly substantial bodies of evidence supporting them, and a causative frame work which explains why they are effected by Income Inequality.
As for why i don't trust market forces to do it. Because history has shown that they don't do it. Market forces drive inequality. Sure they make every one richer, but they make the rich richer faster. A true free market could conceivibly change that, but there is not a true free market anywhere on earth, and arguably cannot be one without humanities universal embrace of transhumanism and cybernetics. And there are powerful vested interests who would not want to see a true free market, and those interests are business themselves.
Wait why does this thread only go one way. What about taxing the poor and giving to the rich or regressive taxes. If you are against income redistribution shouldn't you be against these kinds of taxes as well. It is funny that there are both kinds of taxes and only progressive kinds of taxes get labeled as redistribution of wealth. This is not really a fiar discusion if we should be taxing and giving to the poor if we are not talking about taxing and giving benefits to the rich.
I really do not see how zero redistribution of wealth is exactly possible or feasible without outlawing trade in any form which is not what people want.
|
|
Wait why does this thread only go one way. What about taxing the poor and giving to the rich or regressive taxes. If you are against income redistribution shouldn't you be against these kinds of taxes as well. It is funny that there are both kinds of taxes and only progressive kinds of taxes get labeled as redistribution of wealth. This is not really a fiar discusion if we should be taxing and giving to the poor if we are not talking about taxing and giving benefits to the rich.
I really do not see how zero redistribution of wealth is exactly possible or feasible without outlawing trade in any form which is not what people want.
Too put this in context is there a specific regressive tax or tax expenditure you have in mind? A sales tax? Spousal income splitting?
Hey Zombie:
Call me crazy, but I don't expect to see Andrew R. pop up in this thread. He wasn't looking for a discussion.
But more to the point, I do not equate taxation with theft. There are a variety of reasons, but in short: Rational parties acting in their own best interest often yield sub-optimal results.
|
Your crazy
Those supposed "social ills" are more from the fact that we are a fairly chaotic society, we put indeviduality high on a list of virtues. Stealing from the rich to "knock them down a peg" and handing it out to the lazy will give them equal money but is that right? will it solve anything?
Fair taxes are moral, taxation for social control is evil.
|
|
Personally I'm looking forward to the aristocracy sending the last American job overseas and sucking the last drop of blood from the people so that the country can be ruled by packs of wild dogs.
Wild dogs! It's going to be awesome.
Or you could go check out europe that is busy folding under the weight of its wonderfull entitlements....
|
Or you could go check out europe that is busy folding under the weight of its wonderfull entitlements....Personally I'm looking forward to the aristocracy sending the last American job overseas and sucking the last drop of blood from the people so that the country can be ruled by packs of wild dogs.
Wild dogs! It's going to be awesome.
That sounds bad! Did they have an earthquake or something?
|
|
Your crazy
Those supposed "social ills" are more from the fact that we are a fairly chaotic society, we put indeviduality high on a list of virtues. Stealing from the rich to "knock them down a peg" and handing it out to the lazy will give them equal money but is that right? will it solve anything?
Fair taxes are moral, taxation for social control is evil.
What would a fair tax look like in your estimation?
I've got a pile of tax papers to write, I'm interested in different opinions.
|
|
Your crazy
Those supposed "social ills" are more from the fact that we are a fairly chaotic society, we put indeviduality high on a list of virtues. Stealing from the rich to "knock them down a peg" and handing it out to the lazy will give them equal money but is that right? will it solve anything?
Fair taxes are moral, taxation for social control is evil.What would a fair tax look like in your estimation?
I've got a pile of tax papers to write, I'm interested in different opinions.
for starters i think we need to smallest tax possible, A think that a small percent income tax and sales tax without loopholes. Do not squander the peoples money, it is there for infrastructure and safety not handouts to buy political support. Good schools and infrastructure, military and hospitals help build a society and we all need to help pay for these things. But america has become a master of inefficiency and solves with a mallet what needs a delicate touch. Poverty can be a problem, modern tech only compounds it as less manpower is needed to produce the needs and wants, but unending handouts at the expense of others it not the answer. Beyond what the governemnt does we as a people have become worse. where once the wealthy gave freely to charities to help others and build up society, now they often give only what they can for a tax writeoff and spend only on themselves.
That is one rant to start
Your crazy
Those supposed "social ills" are more from the fact that we are a fairly chaotic society, we put indeviduality high on a list of virtues. Stealing from the rich to "knock them down a peg" and handing it out to the lazy will give them equal money but is that right? will it solve anything?
Fair taxes are moral, taxation for social control is evil.What would a fair tax look like in your estimation?
I've got a pile of tax papers to write, I'm interested in different opinions.
for starters i think we need to smallest tax possible, A think that a small percent income tax and sales tax without loopholes. Do not squander the peoples money, it is there for infrastructure and safety not handouts to buy political support. Good schools and infrastructure, military and hospitals help build a society and we all need to help pay for these things. But america has become a master of inefficiency and solves with a mallet what needs a delicate touch. Poverty can be a problem, modern tech only compounds it as less manpower is needed to produce the needs and wants, but unending handouts at the expense of others it not the answer. Beyond what the governemnt does we as a people have become worse. where once the wealthy gave freely to charities to help others and build up society, now they often give only what they can for a tax writeoff and spend only on themselves.
That is one rant to start
Sales taxes are regressive as poor people spend more and thus pay more sales tax even then you are still redistributing wealth. How do you stop redistribution of wealth.
Yeah we need to stop the charity tax writeoffs which are regressive and redistribution of wealth as poor people cannot afford to give money to charity to get a tax write off and rich people benefit from them. I also want to know what the waste is the F-35 reserve engine that the military does not want? The documents that are classified that do not need to be classified. How much does that make of the federal budget.
|
|
Your crazy
Those supposed "social ills" are more from the fact that we are a fairly chaotic society, we put indeviduality high on a list of virtues. Stealing from the rich to "knock them down a peg" and handing it out to the lazy will give them equal money but is that right? will it solve anything?
Fair taxes are moral, taxation for social control is evil.What would a fair tax look like in your estimation?
I've got a pile of tax papers to write, I'm interested in different opinions.
for starters i think we need to smallest tax possible, A think that a small percent income tax and sales tax without loopholes. Do not squander the peoples money, it is there for infrastructure and safety not handouts to buy political support. Good schools and infrastructure, military and hospitals help build a society and we all need to help pay for these things. But america has become a master of inefficiency and solves with a mallet what needs a delicate touch. Poverty can be a problem, modern tech only compounds it as less manpower is needed to produce the needs and wants, but unending handouts at the expense of others it not the answer. Beyond what the governemnt does we as a people have become worse. where once the wealthy gave freely to charities to help others and build up society, now they often give only what they can for a tax writeoff and spend only on themselves.
That is one rant to start
If I may:
For your tax base you want:
So you want a low dual rate income tax. Commonly called a flat tax, but there are usually two rates in practice - 0% tax on the first x thousand dollars and then y% on the remainder.
A modest consumption tax.
A thorough examination of current tax expenditures (credits, deductions, exemptions) - the government spending programs administered through the tax system rather than through spending programs. Eliminate most of them or eliminate the egregious ones?
Have you given any thought to the appropriate tax unit? Continue with optional income splitting between spouses, go to strict individual, or do it by household like the french do? Allowing income splitting tends to favour single earner households over dual earner.
|
|
Sales taxes are regressive as poor people spend more and thus pay more sales tax even then you are still redistributing wealth. How do you stop redistribution of wealth.
Well, low income people spend a higher percentage of their income - not more as an absolute amount. Here in Canada the regressive nature of sales taxes are addressed by a tax credit available to people earning up to 30k.
|
|
Sales taxes are regressive as poor people spend more and thus pay more sales tax even then you are still redistributing wealth. How do you stop redistribution of wealth.Yeah we need to stop the charity tax writeoffs which are regressive and redistribution of wealth as poor people cannot afford to give money to charity to get a tax write off and rich people benefit from them. I also want to know what the waste is the F-35 reserve engine that the military does not want? The documents that are classified that do not need to be...
How do the poor spend more than the rich?
are they forced to spend more or just stupid with money?From my work experience it is the latter, and for many that "disposable" income came from our tax dollars. I say cut all wastefull spending and take less from the people.
Hey Zombieneighbours.
You cited a bunch of comparison numbers between the US and other nations in your first long post in this thread.
Did you research those yourself, of is there a single source / location where those numbers are aggregated?
Thanks,
-- Andy
I think the figures are a little out of date, so i should clarify that those rankings are from 2008 or 2009(can't remember of the top of my head), but they are widely endicative of america's performance on these issues over the last decade.
Specific primary sourcesHERE.
Hey Zombie:
Call me crazy, but I don't expect to see Andrew R. pop up in this thread. He wasn't looking for a discussion.
But more to the point, I do not equate taxation with theft. There are a variety of reasons, but in short: Rational parties acting in their own best interest often yield sub-optimal results.
*Shrugs* Maybe. Still an interesting subject, and this was i get a right of reply without thread crappin on someone else :D. See, this is me trying to be good.
Your crazy
Those supposed "social ills" are more from the fact that we are a fairly chaotic society, we put indeviduality high on a list of virtues. Stealing from the rich to "knock them down a peg" and handing it out to the lazy will give them equal money but is that right? will it solve anything?
Fair taxes are moral, taxation for social control is evil.
That is a lovely hypothosis. Now, what evidence do you have to support it?
A voluntary one.
What would a fair tax look like in your estimation?I've got a pile of tax papers to write, I'm interested in different opinions.
Voluntary taxation = no taxation.
No taxation = no military or governmental function beyond town level.
no military or governmental function beyond town level = no rule of law and/or invasion by hostile contry with a functioning military.
Caviat: If you live in a naturally defensible area, and alter your entire society, so that every member of your country is a soldier in their spare time, you can sort of avoid this. Thought it is more of a make the invaders victory pyriic kind of deal rather than anything else.
Zombieneighbours,
I checked the link you provided (and after editing it a bit) figured out you were pointing towards this page at "The Equality Trust."
There's not much (if anything) there pertaining to my query to you, about the numbers / comparisons you posted here.
So, again, did you "research" these yourself?
-- Andy
I did not do the original research, no.
The argument is based on work explained in the spirit level. The data i am quoting is taken from that, but goes back to the following sources, harvard cited for your convenience.
A small sample of the international figures, in graphical form.
Sources for raw data: Here
Edit: Links checked, all working as intended.
Zombieneighbours,
I checked the link you provided (and after editing it a bit) figured out you were pointing towards this page at "The Equality Trust."
There's not much (if anything) there pertaining to my query to you, about the numbers / comparisons you posted here.
So, again, did you "research" these yourself?
-- Andy
I did not do the original research, no.
The argument is based on work explained in the spirit level. The data i am quoting is taken from that, but goes back to the following sources, harvard cited for your convenience.
A small sample of the international figures, in graphical form.
Sources for raw data: Here
Edit: Links checked, all working as intended.
After having posted this, I re-checked your post and found that you had actually found the right page.
So you already had the information you needed to get hold of the data sets if you wanted to check them.
If all you want is the graphical representation, you can grab yourself a copy of the spirit level for less than £10, or find most of them on the equality trust website. If you want the data, use your local library or university libraries journal service, or sign up for an Athens account, you will be able to get you any one of the data sets with ease.
Alternatively, if you want the entire data set, make a small donation of the ET and they'll send you it.
|
|
The OECD also has excellent data: http://www.oecd.org/document/0,3746,en_2649_201185_46462759_1_1_1_1,00.html .
|
|
Zombieneighbours,
I checked the link you provided (and after editing it a bit) figured out you were pointing towards this page at "The Equality Trust."
There's not much (if anything) there pertaining to my query to you, about the numbers / comparisons you posted here.
So, again, did you "research" these yourself?
-- Andy
I did not do the original research, no.
The argument is based on work explained in the spirit level. The data i am quoting is taken from that, but goes back to the following sources, harvard cited for your convenience.
A small sample of the international figures, in graphical form.
Sources for raw data: Here
Edit: Links checked, all working as intended.
Any proof of cause not correlation between these and our supposedly evil economics? Proof that poverty causes these not vice versa? Proof that it is not the proclivities of our people (yes different culture than the socialist nations) at the heart of the matter? Numbers are so easy to twist they do make poor proof.
|
|
Voluntary taxation = no taxation.No taxation = no military or governmental function beyond town level.
no military or governmental function beyond town level = no rule of law and/or invasion by hostile contry with a functioning military.
I think others would draw the same conclusion and decide to chip in for national defense and other things they believe are essential.
I think others would draw the same conclusion and decide to chip in for national defense and other things they believe are essential.
Voluntary taxation = no taxation.No taxation = no military or governmental function beyond town level.
no military or governmental function beyond town level = no rule of law and/or invasion by hostile contry with a functioning military.
It's a matter of how many, and the larger issue of whether or not certain individuals/organizations would be bankrolling a private army off of tax dollars should be addressed as well, although I admit that last is more than a bit conspiracy-theorist.
Numbers are so easy to twist they do make poor proof.
The ease with which the numbers are twisted depends greatly on the critical thinking skill of the reader.
But really: Data makes bad evidence? What exactly are you proposing as a substitute? :P
Any proof of cause not correlation between these and our supposedly evil economics? Proof that poverty causes these not vice versa? Proof that it is not the proclivities of our people (yes different culture than the socialist nations) at the heart of the matter? Numbers are so easy to twist they do make poor proof.Zombieneighbours,
I checked the link you provided (and after editing it a bit) figured out you were pointing towards this page at "The Equality Trust."
There's not much (if anything) there pertaining to my query to you, about the numbers / comparisons you posted here.
So, again, did you "research" these yourself?
-- Andy
I did not do the original research, no.
The argument is based on work explained in the spirit level. The data i am quoting is taken from that, but goes back to the following sources, harvard cited for your convenience.
A small sample of the international figures, in graphical form.
Sources for raw data: Here
Edit: Links checked, all working as intended.
In science there is no such thing as 'proof', but yes, there is evidence to support causation. There are a number of causative pathways, but the one I know most about is Social evaluative threat(S.E.T.). S.E.T. is a very reliable generator of stress. It is a threat to our perception of self in social situations, such as having to perform a task while being observed by our social peers, and it significantly raises stress levels. It is so effective, that it is the technique used in clinical studies of stress.
And guys what, the evidence is that perceived inequality generated social evaluative threat. As such, inequality is a powerful stressor, which can have a major physiochemical effect on our brain chemistry.
Stress has been shown to have major physiological effects on human and animal health, as well as major. Stressed individuals are more likely to become ill, they are more likely to resort to violence, they are less likely to make decisions in a rational manner.
In short, stress is a b*!~&, and it describes why it is that we would expect to see negative effects of inequality.
Numbers are so easy to twist they do make poor proof.The ease with which the numbers are twisted depends greatly on the critical thinking skill of the reader.
But really: Data makes bad evidence? What exactly are you proposing as a substitute? :P
You win the thread!
So I glimpsed at that other thread...
The notion that taxation is in and of itself immoral or evil because somebody somewhere might take for granted, or take advantage of, the resources it provides, is a popular one. But it's also an incredibly naive, simplistic and ignorant one.
We have all heard the arguments over the last couple election cycles. You can't turn the TV on without seeing some ridiculous lump with a sign screaming out for the abolition of all taxes, forever.
That's just ridiculous, unrealistic, and worst of all, impractical. Taxes are necessary, and a fact of life.
People who do honest research on social matters, rather than reacting in a knee-jerk and disapproving way, or just trying to be right, will in time learn that the cost in taxes of a state that provides proactive, positive support for all of its citizens is going to be much less than the cost of cleaning up the messes of, and incarcerating the thugs that the lack of those resources produces. It is a matter of simple common sense that it costs less to produce and maintain a good citizen, than it does to clean up after all of the crime a bad citizen can generate over his lifetime.
I work for a major University. We publish on this sort of thing all the time. Yes, there are always going to be people who take advantage of the system. But the good it does is worth that. You don't abolish all tools in the world just because a few people turn them into weapons on occasion. If you did, nothing would ever get done.
I would like to point out that there are those who seem to think that being poor is synonymous with being lazy, or stupid, or both. This is a vile and reprehensible position to take. Many of the "poor" (and what counts as poor, exactly?) are born into their socioeconomic status, to parents who are young, and were also born to that socioeconomic status; many people have been since the dawn of civilization. Being born poor means that you have little - little in the way of wealth, contacts, resources, and often hope. A lack of education in fiscal matters does not make one stupid, merely uneducated, and making a bad choice due to a lack of information that one can't get and had no idea even existed is not stupid, it's just unfortunate.
Many wealthy people are only that way because they inherited their wealth, and their wealth is only maintained because smarter people than they are paid to maintain it. Wealthy people can be lazy, or stupid, or both. The thing they have over poor people with the same personal flaws is a cushion of wealth to help see them through their mistakes and/or laziness. This is not a moral or ethical judgment on inherited wealth. This is how the world works. I certainly hope to make my children's lives easier, and I certainly hope to pass wealth on to them when I am gone. So does most everybody, I'd imagine. I was born to poor parents who were born to poor parents - I don't recommend it to anybody, or begrudge the children of wealth their luck in being born to richer parents than mine.
Let me tell you about being poor. Dirt poor. Almost certainly poorer than you. And if I'm wrong, and I had it better than you growing up, then I can almost certainly say that you're probably not the type of person who thinks that the poor are lazy or stupid.
Poverty is a deep, deep pit. When you're in it, even the smallest thing can keep pushing you down. Becoming seriously injured or ill when you're poor cost a LOT more than the same issue when you can afford insurance and time off from work. A car accident that someone else is responsible for is a much bigger deal when you have only one car (which isn't worth that much). A human being can only eat so much food, but it's a proportionally much bigger chunk of your income when you make $20,000 a year instead of $100,000. Being poor means eating cheap, unhealthy food. It means that you have fewer clothes, and have to make them last longer. It means that time spent not making money is time wasted. It means no vacations. It means having people who are middle class, or wealthy (regardless of how they got there) assuming that you are lazy, or stupid, or both. Being born into a poor family means living with the consequences of someone else's mistakes, or bad luck, or both. It means that you can't afford a good lawyer when you're guilty, or worse, when you're innocent. It means people assuming that you would do anything to survive, and sometimes feeling the shame of knowing that they're right.
Being out of the pit is nice. It's great. It's f**king fantastic! I speak from experience. I know that I'm not that far from the edge of the pit, and one small nudge could send me back there. I DON'T want to be there. But one thing I certainly will not do is spit into the pit, or on the people who are in it. Some of them may be there because of their own flaws. But tarring all poor people with the same brush, without understanding who they are, is beneath me, and I WILL NOT DO IT. I also will not stand by and let such thoughtlessness go uncommented on.
Whatever your feelings about taxes, or people paying them, be a decent human being and don't make libelous assumptions about what is likely to be the vast majority of humanity as off hand comments to defend your position. You want to make the world a better place? How about starting with that.
Whatever your feelings about taxes, or people paying them, be a decent human being and don't make libelous assumptions about what is likely to be the vast majority of humanity as off hand comments to defend your position. You want to make the world a better place? How about starting with that.
Amen.
|
Whatever your feelings about taxes, or people paying them, be a decent human being and don't make libelous assumptions about what is likely to be the vast majority of humanity as off hand comments to defend your position. You want to make the world a better place? How about starting with that.Amen.
Agreed. Stating that the poor are lazy, stupid, etc. is simply a libelous assumption.
So is saying....
Many wealthy people are only that way because they inherited their wealth, and their wealth is only maintained because smarter people than they are paid to maintain it.
|
|
Whatever your feelings about taxes, or people paying them, be a decent human being and don't make libelous assumptions about what is likely to be the vast majority of humanity as off hand comments to defend your position. You want to make the world a better place? How about starting with that.Amen.Agreed. Stating that the poor are lazy, stupid, etc. is simply a libelous assumption.
So is saying....
Many wealthy people are only that way because they inherited their wealth, and their wealth is only maintained because smarter people than they are paid to maintain it.Actually, I have to disagree with your premise. It is not a libelous assumption to state that. It is a fact that many wealthy people are that way because they inherited their wealth. Or, at the very least, that they were born into wealthy or at least well-off circumstances, which afforded them many more benefits, opportunities, and head-starts towards becoming wealthy themselves. That is not a slight on them...people born with a leg-up *should* take advantage of that to make the most of themselves and their lives. It's not a criticism. But it is a factual situation.
And perhaps saying "...their wealth is only maintained because smarter people than they are paid to maintain it," sounds a little insulting or condescending. That's fair. Better to say, "their wealth is to a large extent maintained because people who are specifically more knowledgeable than they are in matters of maintaining wealth are paid to maintain it." Again, not an insult or a criticism...just a fact. If you can afford it, you're likely to hire a mechanic to maintain your car, or a landscaper to maintain your lawn, or a housekeeper to maintain your house...and if you have a lot of money, you most likely hire accountants and brokers and money managers to manage and maintain your wealth.
Not a libelous assumption...just facts. =)
...
True, it probably isn't libelous, but unless he's got facts to back up his claim, then it's just as much of an assumption as saying poor folks are lazy or stupid, which is what he was calling other people for. That's what some people might call hypocrisy.
|
|
Many poor are born poor, many poor dig a pit for themselves and cry for you to pay their way out. Most of the poor the make due are hard working folks, most of the ones sponging up tax dollars are lazy, stupid or just think that we owe them something. I come from as poor as you can get, a disabled father from a car crash, earning what he could from what work he could do. I have no premarital children, do not smoke and drink non-stop, no lotto or drug addictions, few bad habits at all. I do not and will not take one penny that is not earned. If more poor where like me we would not NEED the welfare monster, thusly less taxes on those like me that work for every scrap in life. The hypocrites are those that never witness life on the bottom and make arrogant speeches about how the poor just need help. That is a lie and free handouts are just new rome's bread and circuses. What the poor that are not worthless need is a chance to work and taxes cannot give that, only the decency of those that have the means to provide an honest days pay for an honest days work
|
|
Numbers require dissection, take gun deaths in america for example. Some will throw you a huge number of deaths in a year as evidence of how evil the gun is, they do not mention however that a number of these are not what they seem. People lump in police shooting criminals and honest citizens shooting in self defense, hardly proves the piont that the number twisters want to prove.
Let's imagine for a second that all of the poor people everywhere throughout the world ARE stupid (I'm going to leave lazy aside for now). They're all wicked dumb.
Why should they be condemned to a life of poverty because they weren't born with the same amount of intelligence as rich people? (Let's also imagine that the rich are all wicked smart.)
Granted, I'm a crazy red, but I've always thought that if there was any point to having a civilization, it was so that society could take care of the weak and stupid. (Well, that and provide a steady supply of alcoholic beverages.)
A good friend of mine was a UPS driver in downtown Boston. When we met in college, he was a devout anarcho-syndicalist. After delivering to government- and office-buildings downtown for ten years, he became a quasi-libertarian. And in any argument about taxation he would always point to the number of "retards" who worked for the state of Massachusetts and who were going to collect big, fat pensions off of his tax dollars.
Again, call me a crazy pinko, but if a society can't take care of its mentally less-developed members (whether stupid, retarded, insane, etc.) I don't see much point in belonging to that society.
|
|
Don't have a lot of time to post but I thought I would drop this off here:
Neil Brooks (co author of the Trouble with Billionaires and Canadian tax law prof) is coming to speak to my tax policy seminar about progressive tax rates - here's an excerpt of the notes / article he's sent out in advance.
Our book was motivated by the contrary view, the increasing inequality in income over the past 30 years, and in particular the increasing share of national income that is being captured by the very very rich, will make a profound change in the nature of Canadian society. This growing gap between the ultra rich and everyone else is and will continue to reshape every aspect of society to the detriment of ordinary Canadians. Basically, the rise of this super rich class is enabling them to re-write the terms of the social contract that served Canada reasonably well throughout 30 years of shared prosperity through the late 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s.Simply based on common sense and experience one might have supposed that it would be self-evident that the distribution of economic resources in a society is one of its most influential social structures and that the pattern of the distribution of income and wealth, and in particular the gap between the rich and the poor, would shape most aspects of a society. Income and wealth confer extraordinary advantages and freedom in a free market economy. Conversely, inadequate income and wealth give rise to exceptional disadvantages.
A simple thought experiment might confirm this sociological empiricism. Assume a society in which the top 1% has all the wealth and the bottom 99% has nothing and another in which the wealth is distributed absolutely equally. It is hard to imagine that these would not be dramatically different societies. One suspects that in neither of these societies would the quality of life of the typical individual be maximized. Indeed, there is likely to be a Laffer curve effect for quality of life and equality much like the Laffer curve that shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. If everyone were entitled to an equal share of income no one would have an incentive to produce and the quality of life would be low. Although there can be a valid dispute over the force of particular incentives in particular contexts, no one argues incentives don’t matter. Further, in a just society people who work harder and more efficiently than others, and make a greater sacrifice, deserve greater rewards. Conversely, in a society in which a small number of people have all of the wealth the quality of life of the typical person would also be low. Thus, the degree of equality that promotes the highest quality of life must lie between these two extremes. We argue that the quality of life in Canada would be increased if we moved further away from the present high concentration of income and wealth and towards a more equal distribution. That proposition is contestable. But the proposition that we should be indifferent to the distribution of income and wealth and only be concerned with those at the lowest end of the distribution is surely not.
In the book we review a number of consequences of a high degree of inequality:
- Countries with higher levels of inequality tend to have higher levels of a broad range of social problems at all income levels such as greater criminal violence, increased physical and mental health problems, reduced life expectancies, and less trust and feelings of social solidarity.
- Unequal societies have lower rates of social mobility and higher rates of poverty. Somewhat ironically, if one is concerned about social mobility and lower rates of poverty it appears that policies that promote broader equality are an effective way of achieving these ends.
- Typical citizens in more unequal societies have lower levels of well being.
- Unequal societies tend to have more economic instability and by some measures to be less prosperous than more equal societies.
- Large inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth lead to inequalities in political power and a less flourishing democracy.
In short, we argue that if one’s goal is maximizing the quality of life for the greatest number of citizens, inequality at the top end of the income scale is as great a problem as inequality at the low end of the income scale. We take seriously the well-known words of the famous English social critic, Richard Henry Tawney, “what thoughtful rich people call the problem of poverty, thoughtful poor people call with equal justice the problem of riches”.