Fairness and Redistribution

[PoliticalChic]

1. Milton Friedman said, “ ‘fairness’ is not an objectively determined concept. “Faimess" like. “needs," is in the eye of the beholder.” http://www.stat.uchicago.edu/~amit/MFI/NSFTC/NSFTC007a.pdf While it is difficult to define, it is central idea of life, and hugely important to nearly everybody.



2. One way economists have studied ‘fairness’ is by the ‘Ultimatum Game.” …a man approaches with a proposition. He offers you $20 in one-dollar bills and says you can keep the money, under one condition: You have to share some of it with your friend. You can offer your friend as much or as little as you like, but if your friend rejects your offer, neither of you get to keep any of the money. What do you do? Under a strictly utilitarian view of economics, you would give your friend the lowest possible amount. In this case you've got 20 dollar bills, so you would give your friend a dollar. Since it's found money, your friend should accept the dollar. Your friend might call you cheap, or perhaps offer a bit of gratitude drizzled generously with sarcasm -- but, hey, at least he or she made a dollar out of it. The thing is…(it) doesn't translate to how people actually behave when faced with this decision.”
HowStuffWorks "What's the ultimatum game?"

3. In society, the ‘giving out’ is, by some, considered a function of government. But most see providing essential services and a minimum safety net as the function, and redistributing earned income, just to get more equality, as not fair.

a. If income were handed out purely arbitrarily, most would agree that money should be distributed in a more-or-less equal way. In our system, even if it is imperfect, we earn success through hard work and initiative: merit.




4. In the early 19th century, the prescient Alexis de Tocqueville wrote on American meritocracy, saying Americans were “contemptuous of the theory of permanent equality of wealth.” Winning the fight on 'fairness' - Society and Culture - AEI

a. “To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Thomas Jefferson, The Greatest Thomas Jefferson quotes

b. The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
Aristotle The worst form of inequality... at BrainyQuote




5. “ONCE UPON A time in the land of America, there lived triplet brothers named Tom, Dick, and Harry Class. They were 45 years old, had virtually the same aptitude (skill), and were raised in the same home. Each was married and had two children. All three were employed as carpenters making $25 per hour, working50 weeks a year. While they were almost identical in most respects, they had different preferences and values.

For example, Tom, who worked 20 hours a week, had a different work ethic from his brothers, Dick and Harry, who each worked 60 hours per week. Neither Tom’s nor Dick’s wives worked, while Harry’s wife worked 40 hours per week as an office manager making $50,000 per year (the same hourly rate as her husband).

Tom and Dick spent all of their income, and were relying on Social Security to take care of them when they retired. Harry and his wife, on the other hand, saved most of her after-tax income over many years, gradually accumulating $300,000. They invested this money in bonds and real estate that produced $25,000 a year in interest and rental income.
“The Inequity of the Progressive Income Tax | Hoover Institution

a. Obama: “ If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Which one… Tom, Dick, or Harry Class?
From which one should we ‘redistribute”?
And, how much?



Is "fairness" involved?
What is?

 

[Freemason9]

You're pounding fairly hard today, PoliticalChic. You should learn to relax.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're pounding fairly hard today, PoliticalChic. You should learn to relax.

Actually....this is exactly how I relax.

I love study, and research.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

From which one should we ‘redistribute”?
And, how much?



Is "fairness" involved?
What is?

For me the issue is whether redistribution leads to the need for more or less redistribution. Liberals pervert the well intentioned notion of a safety net that catches you when you fall into a house in which you live forever while voting for the Democrat landlord mommy who sustains you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From which one should we ‘redistribute”?
And, how much?



Is "fairness" involved?
What is?

For me the issue is whether redistribution leads to the need for more or less redistribution. Liberals pervert the well intentioned notion of a safety net that catches you when you fall into a house in which you live forever while voting for the Democrat landlord mommy who sustains you.

Two reasons...

Americans are good-hearted, and worry about others,

...and a school system which indoctrinates rather than allows students to learn to think.


On the board, there are adults who are unable to apply their own experience to judge propaganda....
...they're called Liberals.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

On the board, there are adults who are unable to apply their own experience to judge propaganda....
...they're called Liberals.

yes I agree I have not found one that could be described as intelligent. They are bigots who regard themselves as morally superior merely because they blindly support every form of welfare entitlement.

 

[Freemason9]

On the board, there are adults who are unable to apply their own experience to judge propaganda....
...they're called Liberals.

yes I agree I have not found one that could be described as intelligent. They are bigots who regard themselves as morally superior merely because they blindly support every form of welfare entitlement.

Uh, this is so talk-radio of you. Drooling yet?

I think the main disconnect we have is that there are those that thirst for wealth, recognition, affirmation, power, and control over others . . .and there are those that do not.

Greed will always triumph over compassion because greed invites violence. Compassion does not.

A thirst for power will always triumph over a peaceful attitude because power lust invites violence. Peace does not.

Although the right wing has distinct advantages through a pathological willingness to resort to violent and unethical behavior (justified by the fascist "survival of the fittest" mentality), this doesn't change the spiritual and moral underpinnings of nonviolent and peaceful humans. It merely places such persons at dangerous disadvantage (see Germany, circa 1932).

I will also add that while peaceful, non-political people tend to go about their business--aggressive, patholigical monsters work continually to enslave them.

 

[Katzndogz]

Fairness and freedom are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[Freemason9]

Fairness and freedom are mutually exclusive concepts.

Oh, I completely disagree. In fact I would say that both are actually natural states of humans when they are able to understand the real cores of their existence. But this involves something far, far beyond the tragic comedy of politics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

On the board, there are adults who are unable to apply their own experience to judge propaganda....
...they're called Liberals.

yes I agree I have not found one that could be described as intelligent. They are bigots who regard themselves as morally superior merely because they blindly support every form of welfare entitlement.

Uh, this is so talk-radio of you. Drooling yet?

I think the main disconnect we have is that there are those that thirst for wealth, recognition, affirmation, power, and control over others . . .and there are those that do not.

Greed will always triumph over compassion because greed invites violence. Compassion does not.

A thirst for power will always triumph over a peaceful attitude because power lust invites violence. Peace does not.

Although the right wing has distinct advantages through a pathological willingness to resort to violent and unethical behavior (justified by the fascist "survival of the fittest" mentality), this doesn't change the spiritual and moral underpinnings of nonviolent and peaceful humans. It merely places such persons at dangerous disadvantage (see Germany, circa 1932).

I will also add that while peaceful, non-political people tend to go about their business--aggressive, patholigical monsters work continually to enslave them.

1. "Uh..."
So valley-girl of you.



2. And, here is the remedial that you so richly deserve:

"SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.




The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

...Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.




Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.
All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.




"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."




Again?
"...the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least,"
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com - Pangloss's column on Newsvine

 

[Freemason9]

What was that all about, PoliticalChic?

It doesn't matter if you contribute a bunch of money to charity if your heart is fouled. Monetary contribution is no measure of anything meaningful. It's a tax deduction, and tithing is nearly mandatory under many church precepts. As an example, Romney uses his payments to the LDS as a "charitable" donation for tax purposes. When you really look at Mormonism, Inc., though, it looks less and less like a charity.

I suppose there might also be a correlation that indicates that deeply caring individuals acquire less wealth (because they are not as motivated by greed and personal ambition), and therefore have less to donate. That might be good thesis material for someone . . .

 

[PoliticalChic]

What was that all about, PoliticalChic?

It doesn't matter if you contribute a bunch of money to charity if your heart is fouled. Monetary contribution is no measure of anything meaningful. It's a tax deduction, and tithing is nearly mandatory under many church precepts. As an example, Romney uses his payments to the LDS as a "charitable" donation for tax purposes. When you really look at Mormonism, Inc., though, it looks less and less like a charity.

I suppose there might also be a correlation that indicates that deeply caring individuals acquire less wealth (because they are not as motivated by greed and personal ambition), and therefore have less to donate. That might be good thesis material for someone . . .

1. The post is to show that scholarly study indicates that exactly what seems to be true, is....religious, conservative, traditional folks are the caring ones.

2. And your response, "It doesn't matter if you contribute a bunch of money to charity if your heart is fouled. Monetary contribution is no measure of anything meaningful. It's a tax deduction, and tithing is nearly mandatory under many church precepts," indicates
the inability of the Liberal either to tell the truth,
or to understand anything beyond the propaganda he has absorbed.

a. " -The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

-The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions. …"
Revealed: Mitt Romney’s tax returns « Hot Air

3. The most important detail of your post is this: "It doesn't matter..."

I'm certain that you treat all data that runs counter to Leftist beliefs in the same way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What was that all about, PoliticalChic?

It doesn't matter if you contribute a bunch of money to charity if your heart is fouled. Monetary contribution is no measure of anything meaningful. It's a tax deduction, and tithing is nearly mandatory under many church precepts. As an example, Romney uses his payments to the LDS as a "charitable" donation for tax purposes. When you really look at Mormonism, Inc., though, it looks less and less like a charity.

I suppose there might also be a correlation that indicates that deeply caring individuals acquire less wealth (because they are not as motivated by greed and personal ambition), and therefore have less to donate. That might be good thesis material for someone . . .

Replace your loaded term 'greed' with one that advances society, 'ambition.'


“... After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of opinion that the great majority of people will always find these are moving impulses of our life. … Wealth is the product of industry, ambition, character and untiring effort. In all experience, the accumulation of wealth means the multiplication of schools, the increase of knowledge, the dissemination of intelligence, the encouragement of science, the broadening of outlook, the expansion of liberties, the widening of culture. Of course, the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence. But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well-nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it.” January 17, 1925 Given before the American Society of Newspaper Editors

Wise up.

 

[Mad Scientist]

You're pounding fairly hard today, PoliticalChic. You should learn to relax.

Actually....this is exactly how I relax.

I love study, and research.

Don't let him fool you, Freemasons, excuse me, Mormons do a lot of study and research. You should see the size of the research branches in any Mormon Temple.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Absolutely brilliant and so completely logical. The left-wing is going to go beserk over this topic PoliticalChic. Reality and facts are NOT a strong point of the "progressive" left (I still LOVE that term - progressive).

You see, they give such wonderful sounding euphamisms to robbery and theft at the point of a gun. Equally righteous sounding terms for the hatred of those who, despite every roadblock that is put in the way, actually achieve a small amount of success. Equality, fairness, social justice, doing the right thing, giving everyone a fair shot. When it's nothing more than redistribution at it's best and thievery at it's worst. We know that based upon their own actions, opposing opinions are NOT tolerated (free speech, but only so long as it's 'approved') and actions that are only in line with doctrine outlined by those that are smarter than the masses.

You cannot have those that succeed because inheritantly, that dictates that there will be those that will not. There are those that will not even try. This in completely unfair and lacks social justice. Everyone must be the same and therefore, to achieve that goal, everyone MUST strive for the level that is the common denominator, regardless of how low that is. Unless of course, you belong to the 'ruling class' or the elite. As in Soviet Russia, everyone is the same... well, unless you had a Dacha on the Black Sea and worked as a party apparachik. Then of course, you couldn't be the same because you 'led' the masses. We see the same things at work today in the modern left wing in America. Tuition goes up an average of 15% a year, but no one in the government complains because of course the universities are bastions of the progressive movement. So, anything they want therefore is okay. The left-wing professors give 'creedance' to the crap that is thoughtlessly spewed.

To achieve this goal, you MUST believe the party line. You MUST NOT espouse unapproved thoughts or you will be immediately labeled. Disapprove of same-sex marriage? Why you're a homophobe and therefore someone to be immediately ostracized, regardless of your reasons or motivation. Dislike Barry's policies? Obviously, you're a racist. Other reasons do not matter. A Christian? We have determined that the US is in fact NOT a Christian nation and the notion that Judeo-Christian principles are a bedrock of this nation is hate speech. The founding fathers were NOT Christians, they were diests. And to substantiate all of this, we have shown that the Constitution is in fact a 'living, breathing' document that is interpreted based upon the whims of the moment. The Creator didn't bestow anything, because of course, if you are a member of the ruling elite, there is NO CREATOR. Those 'rights' you are so fond of? Subject to interpretation, and nothing more.

This is the bedrock belief of the left-wing. Nothing has changed them from those of the early 20th century to now. Social Justice... Equality... Fair Share... It's all the same thing... comrade.

 

[Freemason9]

The post is to show that scholarly study indicates that exactly what seems to be true, is....religious, conservative, traditional folks are the caring ones.

Not necessarily more "caring." They simply pay more money to entities that are tax deductions, such as churches. Many do that to assure personal "salvation," as a sort of sacrifice to a god.

And your response, "It doesn't matter if you contribute a bunch of money to charity if your heart is fouled. Monetary contribution is no measure of anything meaningful. It's a tax deduction, and tithing is nearly mandatory under many church precepts," indicates
the inability of the Liberal either to tell the truth, or to understand anything beyond the propaganda he has absorbed.

This is a cheap shot, PoliticalChic. Your writing indicates that you are somewhat literate, and I would invite you to elevate the conversation somewhat. You know nothing about me at all, and yet you attribute my personal opinion to that of all "Liberals." That is just wrong-headed.

a. " -The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

(See above; it is my understanding that this is largely a payment to the LDS.)

3. The most important detail of your post is this: "It doesn't matter..."
I'm certain that you treat all data that runs counter to Leftist beliefs in the same way.

Again, you are guilty of a very anti-intellectual approach to discussion. You are using a fascist methodology of denigrating different opinions as being "inferior." I recommend that you meditate on this.

 

[Wiseacre]

Back to the issue of fairness vs redistribution. We're talking about taking wealth from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone else who has not. I see no moral or ethical way to justify that as "fair". One could say that a compassionate society should support those who cannot do support themselves, but the extent to which that is done and also the methods used are open to question. One could also make the argument that temporary support should be given to those who could support themselves but cannot due to misfortune or injury; most people are not adverse to giving a helping hand to get somebody else back and their feet and becoming productive again. Key word being temporary, when temporary stretches into year after year, at some point the aid has to stop or people become dependent and lose the motivation to provide for themselves.

But redistributing money to someone for the sole reason that they have less than someone else is not 'fair'. It is tantamount to theft, we should be looking at ways to improve opportunities for the lower income people so they can boost themselves up. I don't think most rich people mind a progressive tax rate, most are already very philanthropic with their wealth anyway. But when those tax rates get too high, at some point tax avoidance measures come into play and that is counter productive to the economic health of the country. The higher the tax rate, the more avoidance you get, and eventually they sell out, pack up, and leave. These people are very helpful to starting or expanding businesses, which grows the economy and creates jobs. That is why raising taxes on them when your economy is not strong is such a poor idea; you want them to be acively tring to make mney by investing inour economy rather than looking for ways to preserve what they already have.

 

[Oldstyle]

On the board, there are adults who are unable to apply their own experience to judge propaganda....
...they're called Liberals.

yes I agree I have not found one that could be described as intelligent. They are bigots who regard themselves as morally superior merely because they blindly support every form of welfare entitlement.

Uh, this is so talk-radio of you. Drooling yet?

I think the main disconnect we have is that there are those that thirst for wealth, recognition, affirmation, power, and control over others . . .and there are those that do not.

Greed will always triumph over compassion because greed invites violence. Compassion does not.

A thirst for power will always triumph over a peaceful attitude because power lust invites violence. Peace does not.

Although the right wing has distinct advantages through a pathological willingness to resort to violent and unethical behavior (justified by the fascist "survival of the fittest" mentality), this doesn't change the spiritual and moral underpinnings of nonviolent and peaceful humans. It merely places such persons at dangerous disadvantage (see Germany, circa 1932).

I will also add that while peaceful, non-political people tend to go about their business--aggressive, patholigical monsters work continually to enslave them.

With all due respect, Freemason...this entire post is nonsense.

Someone being ambitious does NOT make them "greedy" nor does it make them any more prone to violent or unethical behavior than anyone else. I would make the argument that it makes them LESS prone to both because they aren't trying to take something that belongs to someone else.

Your belief that ambitious people are "aggressive, patholigical (sic) monsters" is rather ridiculous.

 

[Freemason9]

Oldstyle:

I would invite you to consider the psychological roots of ambition. What, for example, drives anyone to try to possess more "stuff" than what they need? Why would anyone want to control people, or goverments, or societies? What is unique about individuals that are driven to hoard more and more money--far, far beyond what they need for personal sustainance?

What personal need drives ambitious people to elevate wealth over all other aspects in their lives?

 

[Freemason9]

Back to the issue of fairness vs redistribution. We're talking about taking wealth from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone else who has not. I see no moral or ethical way to justify that as "fair". One could say that a compassionate society should support those who cannot do support themselves, but the extent to which that is done and also the methods used are open to question. One could also make the argument that temporary support should be given to those who could support themselves but cannot due to misfortune or injury; most people are not adverse to giving a helping hand to get somebody else back and their feet and becoming productive again. Key word being temporary, when temporary stretches into year after year, at some point the aid has to stop or people become dependent and lose the motivation to provide for themselves.

But redistributing money to someone for the sole reason that they have less than someone else is not 'fair'. It is tantamount to theft, we should be looking at ways to improve opportunities for the lower income people so they can boost themselves up. I don't think most rich people mind a progressive tax rate, most are already very philanthropic with their wealth anyway. But when those tax rates get too high, at some point tax avoidance measures come into play and that is counter productive to the economic health of the country. The higher the tax rate, the more avoidance you get, and eventually they sell out, pack up, and leave. These people are very helpful to starting or expanding businesses, which grows the economy and creates jobs. That is why raising taxes on them when your economy is not strong is such a poor idea; you want them to be acively tring to make mney by investing inour economy rather than looking for ways to preserve what they already have.

In terms of economics, Wiseacre, I don't see redistribution (I prefer to call it, "distribution") as an option. If the working, productive persons in a society are not adequately compensated, then they will not spend money. If no money is spent, demand disappears; if demand disappears, there is no driver for production . . . and the economy collapses.

That is what is happening today. For some reason (I'll let you politicos hammer that out), too much wealth is concentrating in the non-producing top 1%--and far, far too little is being accrued (through labor compensation) to the working masses.

This clearly cannot continue.

I have no problem with wealth, but the sort of divide that exists in the U.S. today is absolutely absurd. No society in history with this kind of concentrated and hoarded wealth has endured.

This is insanity, and it's even crazier that so many Americans insist that it's okay.