Fairness and Redistribution

[Oldstyle]

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?

You amuse me, Free...you automatically assume that anyone who "is" ambitious" puts wealth over all other aspects in their lives when that seldom is the case. Most ambitious people seek a better life for themselves and their families. Furthermore most philanthropic charity is provided by those very same "ambitious" people that you look down upon for their greed.

If you want to look at psychological conditions then let's examine why it is that some people feel that they deserve to be supported by those who DO work even though they themselves don't?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

I don't think you understand how a free market economy functions, Free. My guess is that you're one of those misguided people who buys into the whole notion of "trickle down theory". Demand is not what drives a free market economy...the anticipation of profit is what is the driving force. When you lower the anticipation of profit, you lower the incentive to invest in businesses that provide jobs. When you lower the anticipation of profit from starting or expanding businesses then you push capital into things like tax free bonds. Progressives do that with policy and then scratch their heads wondering why jobs aren't being created. It would be amusing to watch if it wasn't causing so much pain to average Americans.

 

[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?

You amuse me, Free...you automatically assume that anyone who "is" ambitious" puts wealth over all other aspects in their lives when that seldom is the case. Most ambitious people seek a better life for themselves and their families. Furthermore most philanthropic charity is provided by those very same "ambitious" people that you look down upon for their greed.

If you want to look at psychological conditions then let's examine why it is that some people feel that they deserve to be supported by those who DO work even though they themselves don't?

You misunderstand me, Oldstyle. I didn't mean to suggest that ALL ambition is driven by ill intentions; I was referring to those that seek to subjugate others for their own benefit. You know those exist, and they represent real "evil" to societies of humans.

Everyone, in my opinion, has an obligation to serve others and society. So I don't believe that anyone needs to be supported by others; however, it is entirely appropriate and necessary that people support one another. Does that make sense to you?

Consider the Buddhist approach--no material possessions are necessary for spiritual fulfillment, but not all people are ready to "take that next step" and renounce possessions. So we do what we can as we try and lead moral lives; one of the central aspects of a moral life is compassion and charity (alms). Our happiness is not from worldly gain.

I may have wandered off topic . . . but I do believe that our current political warfare injures America spiritually.

 

[Freemason9]

I don't think you understand how a free market economy functions, Free. My guess is that you're one of those misguided people who buys into the whole notion of "trickle down theory". Demand is not what drives a free market economy...the anticipation of profit is what is the driving force. When you lower the anticipation of profit, you lower the incentive to invest in businesses that provide jobs. When you lower the anticipation of profit from starting or expanding businesses then you push capital into things like tax free bonds. Progressives do that with policy and then scratch their heads wondering why jobs aren't being created. It would be amusing to watch if it wasn't causing so much pain to average Americans.

Oldstyle--without demand for goods, explain how anyone produces anything and sells it at a profit. I'd like to know how that happens.

Economies only expand when all participants are included in the expansion (i.e., Germany). When distribution of wealth derived from profit goes to the very few, you end up with a failed economy (i.e., North Korea and Somalia).

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

You amuse me, Free...you automatically assume that anyone who "is" ambitious" puts wealth over all other aspects in their lives when that seldom is the case. Most ambitious people seek a better life for themselves and their families. Furthermore most philanthropic charity is provided by those very same "ambitious" people that you look down upon for their greed.

If you want to look at psychological conditions then let's examine why it is that some people feel that they deserve to be supported by those who DO work even though they themselves don't?

You misunderstand me, Oldstyle. I didn't mean to suggest that ALL ambition is driven by ill intentions; I was referring to those that seek to subjugate others for their own benefit. You know those exist, and they represent real "evil" to societies of humans.

Everyone, in my opinion, has an obligation to serve others and society. So I don't believe that anyone needs to be supported by others; however, it is entirely appropriate and necessary that people support one another. Does that make sense to you?

Consider the Buddhist approach--no material possessions are necessary for spiritual fulfillment, but not all people are ready to "take that next step" and renounce possessions. So we do what we can as we try and lead moral lives; one of the central aspects of a moral life is compassion and charity (alms). Our happiness is not from worldly gain.

I may have wandered off topic . . . but I do believe that our current political warfare injures America spiritually.

Everyone has an "obligation" to serve others? Sorry, but you've lost me right there, Free. You don't have an obligation to serve others...you have an obligation to take care of yourself and your loved ones. If you "elect" to help others then that is your "choice"...but it is not an obligation.

What I find telling is that you see ambitious people as trying to "subjugate" others for their benefit...yet you don't realize that when you choose to redistribute wealth arbitrarily according to YOUR definition of what is "fair" that you, yourself are subjugating one group of people to accomplish that goal. What's worse is that what fifty years of a growing entitlement society has shown us is that giving people things ends up making them increasingly dependent and ultimately worse off.

 

[Oldstyle]

I don't think you understand how a free market economy functions, Free. My guess is that you're one of those misguided people who buys into the whole notion of "trickle down theory". Demand is not what drives a free market economy...the anticipation of profit is what is the driving force. When you lower the anticipation of profit, you lower the incentive to invest in businesses that provide jobs. When you lower the anticipation of profit from starting or expanding businesses then you push capital into things like tax free bonds. Progressives do that with policy and then scratch their heads wondering why jobs aren't being created. It would be amusing to watch if it wasn't causing so much pain to average Americans.

Oldstyle--without demand for goods, explain how anyone produces anything and sells it at a profit. I'd like to know how that happens.

Economies only expand when all participants are included in the expansion (i.e., Germany). When distribution of wealth derived from profit goes to the very few, you end up with a failed economy (i.e., North Korea and Somalia).

People produce things because they anticipate making a profit. Demand in and of itself without a potential for profit does nothing. As an example, I KNOW that there is a huge "demand" for $15.00 lobster and filet dinners...people would line up around the block for that...but as a restaurant owner if I don't make a profit selling my surf and turf special for $15.00 then I'm NOT going to provide that item.

What progressives can't seem to understand is that profits NEVER trickle down...in reality they ALWAYS trickle up...even if no profit is ever realized. As an example, if I start a new restaurant I have to hire people to prepare the food, pour the drinks, clean the floors...I have to buy the product...I have to pay for the advertising. All this happens LONG before I ever make a profit (If in fact I ever do!)

North Korea and Somalia are not examples of a functioning free market economy.

 

[Freemason9]

I wish I had more time to respond, Oldstyle, but I must be brief:

I believe, spiritually, that everyone is obligated to help one another. My buddhist philosophy supports this through dharma, and Christians allegedly believe this through faith in the Christ's "one commandment" that instructed all followers of faith to love one another. You are not "obligated" by anything else, that's true enough; if you don't want to help anyone, you don't have to. Perhaps belief and/or faith is what separates us.

I don't understand why you argue about the importance of demand in an economy. Only demand influences supply--and, therefore, productivity (and, hence, profit). No economic activity can exist without demand.

The problem with supply side economics is hoarding. The "supply side" can accrue tremendous wealth (as it has today), without resulting in significant economic activity. That is proven both in models and history.

 

[Oldstyle]

I wish I had more time to respond, Oldstyle, but I must be brief:

I believe, spiritually, that everyone is obligated to help one another. My buddhist philosophy supports this through dharma, and Christians allegedly believe this through faith in the Christ's "one commandment" that instructed all followers of faith to love one another. You are not "obligated" by anything else, that's true enough; if you don't want to help anyone, you don't have to. Perhaps belief and/or faith is what separates us.

I don't understand why you argue about the importance of demand in an economy. Only demand influences supply--and, therefore, productivity (and, hence, profit). No economic activity can exist without demand.

The problem with supply side economics is hoarding. The "supply side" can accrue tremendous wealth (as it has today), without resulting in significant economic activity. That is proven both in models and history.

What you mistakenly refer to as "hoarding", Free is simply a reasoned reaction to economic conditions...conditions brought about by faulty political policy that doesn't understand economic priciples.

As I stated before, people who control capital are inclined to invest that capital if they anticipate the making of a profit. If you remove part of that anticipated profit...by raising taxes or increasing costs through regulations then you will cause those very same people to instead invest that capital in low risk...low reward investments that shelter them from higher taxes. When you do so you decrease money that is put into the hands of the average citizen because a job has not been created in pursuit of that anticipated profit.

 

[Freemason9]

What you mistakenly refer to as "hoarding", Free is simply a reasoned reaction to economic conditions...conditions brought about by faulty political policy that doesn't understand economic priciples.

If you are saying, then, that hoarding comes from fear . . . I agree.

As I stated before, people who control capital are inclined to invest that capital if they anticipate the making of a profit. If you remove part of that anticipated profit...by raising taxes or increasing costs through regulations then you will cause those very same people to instead invest that capital in low risk...low reward investments that shelter them from higher taxes. When you do so you decrease money that is put into the hands of the average citizen because a job has not been created in pursuit of that anticipated profit.

I think you are attempting to approach economic theory through an ideological tunnel, Oldstyle. Capitalism cannot be defended for any reason--it is unsustainable, cruel, and illogical. I won't enter into such a debate; I won't change your mind, after all, and you won't change mine.

However, I will challenge you with this concept--if science and data do not support your belief, perhaps your belief is in error, and not the data . . .

 

[Oldstyle]

What you mistakenly refer to as "hoarding", Free is simply a reasoned reaction to economic conditions...conditions brought about by faulty political policy that doesn't understand economic priciples.

If you are saying, then, that hoarding comes from fear . . . I agree.

As I stated before, people who control capital are inclined to invest that capital if they anticipate the making of a profit. If you remove part of that anticipated profit...by raising taxes or increasing costs through regulations then you will cause those very same people to instead invest that capital in low risk...low reward investments that shelter them from higher taxes. When you do so you decrease money that is put into the hands of the average citizen because a job has not been created in pursuit of that anticipated profit.

I think you are attempting to approach economic theory through an ideological tunnel, Oldstyle. Capitalism cannot be defended for any reason--it is unsustainable, cruel, and illogical. I won't enter into such a debate; I won't change your mind, after all, and you won't change mine.

However, I will challenge you with this concept--if science and data do not support your belief, perhaps your belief is in error, and not the data . . .

Actually, Free...free market capitalism has brought about the greatest gains in living standards in the history of the world in the shortest amount of time. If you find that to be "cruel" then we'll have to agree to disagree because I do not.

And people don't invest in tax shelters because of "fear"...they do so because it makes economic sense. You don't put your money into CD's instead of a checking account because of "fear"...you do so because you get a better return at an acceptable risk.

 

[Freemason9]

Risk is another word for confronting fear.

"Free market capitalism"--whatever that means--has indeed created great economic gains. Or was it industrialism, perhaps? Or even liberalism? Because all three happened at the same time.

And they are not the same things, although all were components of economic history over the last century and a half.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let's compare countries that employed free market capitalism with those that employed socialism or communism, Free. Do so and tell me that it's REALLY capitalism that is "cruel". I would make the point that capitalism has brought more joy into the lives of the people that live under it than any other economic system out there. There is a REASON why people risked death to leave other systems and make their way to the United States and it wasn't because capitalism is "cruel"...it's because capitalism offered them hope for a better life.

 

[freedombecki]

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

I think it's totally wonderful that PoliticalChic makes such good use of her research skills to make people see more clearly what is at stake if usurpers of freedom win and defenders of freedom lose.

What a better board USMB is because of PoliticalChic giving so much to all of us as her fellow countrymen through excellence, scholarship, and careful discrimination when sorting through a mountain of writings.

She's stellar imho!

 

[freedombecki]

Sorry if I made you blush PoliticalChic.

 

[Freemason9]

Let's compare countries that employed free market capitalism with those that employed socialism or communism, Free. Do so and tell me that it's REALLY capitalism that is "cruel". I would make the point that capitalism has brought more joy into the lives of the people that live under it than any other economic system out there. There is a REASON why people risked death to leave other systems and make their way to the United States and it wasn't because capitalism is "cruel"...it's because capitalism offered them hope for a better life.

A good conversation, Oldstyle. I thank you.

It is difficult to answer your comment regarding socialism and/or communism, because I am unaware of any governments that practiced those economic systems. Some used those words, but they were mostly right wing command economies. The Soviet Union began with the ideals of socialism but soon succumbed to the lure of power and control. To their credit, though, the USSR advanced far more quickly than did the US in overlapping time spans (from 1920 through 1965) before collapsing from corruption and the cost of Empire. (They went from a peasant society with no middle class to an industrial and military power with space flight technology.)

Germany is nearly socialist--they have a highly social democracy, but they have fewer conflicts because of their rather homogenous culture. Not much infighting, they work together.

And in all truthiness, one of the biggest lures for immigrants was U.S. Government handouts. Ever hear of the Homestead Act? It is probably the single greatest source of original wealth in the U.S. today. Land was stripped from the original inhabitants by the U.S. military and given to "settlers" that occupied the land. That land was sold/accumulated over time, and the descendents are now beneficiaries of that single greatest government program in history. That wasn't capitalism, by the way--it was Empire.

 

[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.

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.

"You should see the size of the research branches in any Mormon Temple."

Actually, I was in Salt Lake City, and found that the Mormon temple was closed to any who where not 'Mormons in good standing.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"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."


1. As the Brown Bomber was wont to say, 'You can run, but you can't hide.'...as you've tried to hide behind that bogus statement.
Of course giving charity is indicia of caring. As they say: 'Put your money where your mouth is."
Goes double for Liberals.


2. "They simply pay more money to entities that are tax deductions,.."
There are those who see only the worst, even when it doesn't exist.
The fact is giving
Your explanation of same is spin.


3. "Many do that to assure personal "salvation," as a sort of sacrifice to a god."
If you are refer to the same God as I, then it should be capitalized for grammatical reasons, and out of the proper respect.
If not...please advise.

a. In your attempt to see only the worst in folks, you have given one possible explanation for charity.
On the obverse, there are no well intentioned reasons for refusing to help one's fellow man.



In conclusion, my precis stands: the loudmouths who yell loudest how caring they are, Liberals, are, demonstrably, not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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.



1. More than 'somewhat literate.'

2. "I would invite you to elevate the conversation somewhat."
You are a delicate fellow..

...you must wash in Woolite.


3. Based entirely on your testimony "It doesn't matter if you contribute a bunch of money to charity blah blah blah...'...
...you are either dishonest or stupid.

As long as you live by that, I'll stand by it.


4. 'You know nothing about me at all, and yet you attribute my personal opinion to that of all "Liberals."'

Your are correct...I don't know what your favorite color....but on the subjects of truth and charity....
...you and 'all Liberals' belong to the same set.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"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."

1. When you have avoided any comment on dispositive material, as I have provided demonstrating how the generosity of conservative, religious, traditional folks, which stands in stark contrast to the mealy-mouthed explanations for the parsimony of Liberals, then the importance of your comment, "It doesn't matter..." is amplified in significance.


2. "Again, you are guilty of a very anti-intellectual approach to discussion."
Let's examine that.
The one who is direct, and open is anti-intellectual, but he that
hides behind vague and vapid phrases is the opposite?

Dunce.


3. "You are using a fascist methodology of denigrating...wha wha wha....."

I believe in merit: you're getting what you deserve.

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." Harry Truman.

Meditate on that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Couldn't agree more.


But it goes beyond this.
My tete-a-tete with Freetheft, above is an even more telling tilt....
Liberals believe that voluntary giving is based on some nefarious motive.

Further, they believe that politicians act out of altruism.


To say their heads are screwed on backwards would be the ultimate understatement.