CDZ When Liberals Want to Eliminate Poverty They Actually Increase It

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by grbb, Feb 10, 2019.

  1. grbb
    Offline

    grbb VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    839
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +251
    I am not fully libertarian.

    As such, I am not totally against redistribution of wealth.

    However, reading Britain's most feckless father Keith MacDonald splits from latest pregnant girlfriend | Daily Mail Online makes me think. Some guy produce 20 children, tax payers pay all the tap. Then what?

    We have 20 other children just like him in the next generation. Instead of eliminating poverty, we are breeding it.

    So the problem is not redistribution of wealth by itself.

    Thing about it. If you have a company, you get dividend. If you are a citizen in a country, and your country is well run, shouldn't you get something? So some redistribution of wealth have a case here.

    Libertarians are correct that the main purpose of government is security. At least, that's the main use I get from my government. Well, that and infrastructure. However, libertarians grossly underestimate of "security" and "peace".

    The true cost of security and peace is not just the cost of paying for armies and polices. The true cost also involve "appeasement" that powers that be choose to hold the status quo.

    If I am a feudal emperor, security and peace means I got to keep my feudal lords happy.

    The problem with feudalism is that too many people try to seize power from one another rather than making the pie bigger.

    In a democratic country, security and peace means we need to keep at least the majority of people happy. So people don't get more powah just because they can scam others or commit a coup against the current king. However, democracy also have it's flaws. Any voting blocs can get bigger share of the state through breeding.

    For example, if some people believe in a strategy that produce higher birth rate but lower economic contribution, democratic countries are pretty much hapless against such strategy. Such people will just out breed the productive and vote in favor of rules more favorable of breeding.

    And yet, that kind of strategy is the kind of strategy that is encouraged by the libtards.

    So I am not totally against redistribution of wealth. Like most libertarians I think it should be much less. More importantly, I think the way we redistribute wealth is grossly inefficient.

    Look at companies. The way a company share dividend is different than the way citizens got redistribution of wealth.

    Company doesn't share dividend out of mercy. Poorer share holders do not get more dividend than the rich ones.

    Companies give dividend mainly based on whether the business run well or not. Then it gives dividend when it realizes that the money do not earn more return in the company. So companies will have list of investments and compute the return. If by investing in the company the return is 4% and typical return of the market is 10% then of course, share holders will be happier to get dividend than having the money reinvested in the company.

    If anything, dividend, and increase valuation of stocks, provide incentives for shareholders to vote for CEO that govern companies well.

    That is not so in states.

    Every time liberals want more redistribution of wealth, they demand things that actually increase poverty.

    1. Raising income tax. That means reducing incentive to work and encouraging people to be lazy.
    2. Welfare given to only the poor give incentives to be poor.
    3. Welfare check increase incentive for the poor to breed and breed and breed and breed. No sane women would want to get knocked up by some poor guys if there is no welfare. Knowing that if she pop babies like machine guns the rest of tax payers will pay for the cost is the precise reason why we have so much poverty despite capitalism
    4. The poor simply produce too many poor people.

    Capitalism doesn't hurt the poor. All transactions under capitalism is consensual and tend to be mutually beneficial.

    However, poverty will never be eliminated if the poor outbreed the rich . No matter how prosperous we are, no matter how much money capitalism bring, if people are actually rewarded for being lazy we're fucked.

    Also liberals say that redistribution of wealth is based on mercy. That is a complete lie. If redistribution of wealth is based on mercy, you would be paying huge welfare check to some starving kids in Africa. No. Redistribution of wealth is not mercy. It's a political game where the poor that can vote uses their powah to take your money.

    I am not saying it's wrong or right, but can't we come up with something better.

    The liberals want higher income tax and welfare and the conservative wants lower income tax and lower welfare. Why not come up with a way to help the poor that actually reduce or eliminate poverty.

    Imagine that conservatives get what they want, namely lower income taxes. And libtards also get what they want, namely elimination of poverty. Imagine if the rich pay less tax and the each welfare recipient actually get more cash?

    Enough money that they can use to start a business should they fail to get a job. I personally understand this because I too can't get a job. And that's why I become a businessman. Fortunately I was thrifty and had capital 20 years ago.

    Can we pull this up? Sure.

    1. Change income tax into land tax, consumption tax, and head taxes. You wanna make babies? Pay. The rich can just pay huge head taxes. No problem. The poor cannot and will just postpone breeding. Voila. Less poor people.
    2. Do not reward poverty. Give citizen dividend in equal share for everyone. Why should Anne gets more money because she is poorer than Jane? You give Anne incentive to be poor here.
    3. Give more money to citizens with less children. Actually pay people to postpone breeding. The rich will not care. The poor will. This will greatly reduce number of poor people.
    4. Eliminate child support laws that penalize the rich. Charlie Sheen is bankrupted by $20k a month child support. Productive people make money. If those people don't breed, they go extinct. Now why should richer guy pay higher child support amount? Either let them and the girl to decide before hand what the child support amount is. The government can set minimum amount that's equal for everyone. Say government think every child "deserve" $10k a year. Then any parents, irrelevant of income, should have at least $10k a year before breeding.

    Simple right?

    So yea, poverty will be gone in no time.

    The rich will be benefited. Less poor people means less welfare spending, and that means lower tax.

    The poor will also benefited. Less poor people means for the same welfare spending, each get more. In fact, as I suggested, government can just give all money to all citizen irrelevant of poverty and everyone, including the poor still get more.

    Any poor people can easily become rich by postponing producing children. Not only they get more money, they don't have to support a child and can have more capital for business. Once they're rich, they can just produce 10 children and pay child tax.

    Somewhere in the middle there is a win win sweet spot deals that should benefit the current poor and current rich.

    Poverty in a country, or even the world will be so low in no time.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  2. Pete7469
    Offline

    Pete7469 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    21,316
    Thanks Received:
    4,562
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    The Real World
    Ratings:
    +28,115
    You begin with the delusion the DNC wants to reduce poverty even if it could.

     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. theHawk
    Online

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    25,807
    Thanks Received:
    5,667
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +27,972
    They don’t want to end poverty, they want to expand it. Why do you think they all fantasize about taxing the middle and upper class into oblivion?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. Erinwltr
    Offline

    Erinwltr Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2018
    Messages:
    6,143
    Thanks Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +3,822
    How do you know that?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Mac1958
    Offline

    Mac1958 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    64,082
    Thanks Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Trumpism is ugly, and Leftism is absurd
    Ratings:
    +53,227
    I think it's less about the programs themselves than it is about culture. Liberals, largely animated by their maternal impulses, have always made two critical mistakes when dealing with "groups" they identify and label as "victims".

    Their approach is generally three-fold:

    1. Create and implement programs, such as the various welfare-related programs and Affirmative Action, that are based on a sincere effort to help these "groups" overcome some real and significant obstacles that they face (those can be left for another thread). A perfectly noble, good and understandable concern and approach.

    But then they go off the rails.

    2. They then will defend and/or ignore and/or downplay the worst behaviors of those "groups" because they feel a need to "protect" them. At some level, they have to realize that this action ultimately enables more bad behaviors. That's fundamental human nature. Their reasons for doing this, then, are up for debate.

    3. While enabling the worst behaviors of the "groups" they're trying to "help", they try to speed up the process by attacking and trying to bring down/degrade the "groups" who are "victimizing" their protected "groups". We see this in the form of attacks on business, the successful, white males, and white Christians. Again, their reasons for doing this are up for debate. Pure, simple, angry payback would be one potential reason.

    So, as with most things, it's a mixed bag. The fundamental desire to help the less fortunate is one of the very best traits of human beings. It's the peripheral behaviors that are causing the damage, and making some wonder why those behaviors really have to happen.
    .
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  6. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    117,823
    Thanks Received:
    9,656
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +31,705
    Another one of your silly generalizations.

    We lock up more people than any other country in the world. We currently have 2 million people in prison and another 7 million on probation or parole, and yes, most of them are poor and people of color.

    I always wonder, why is it that the guy who robs a liquor store put in prison, but the guy who cheats thousands in a scam like Trump University lionized and celebrated. It seems like the wrong "bad behavior" is being enabled.

    Or maybe- get this- they deserve some of the abuse they are getting, especially business. The main reason that we don't have universal health care is because Big Insurance, Big Pharma and Big Healthcare oppose it... they won't make as much money!
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    80,595
    Thanks Received:
    5,279
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +21,046
    How would you reduce poverty?
     
  8. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    80,595
    Thanks Received:
    5,279
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +21,046
    To help the poor?
     
  9. Disir
    Offline

    Disir Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Messages:
    20,794
    Thanks Received:
    3,279
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,829
    I don't know any liberals that support any guy running around having 20 kids. Hell, I don't know any liberals running around supporting anyone having more children than they can afford. To pretend that there are men that are running around having children with women that they will not pay for is something entirely new is fantastic. The issue is that there is nothing that can legally be done to prevent it.

    Since sweeping generalizations are the thing, you are going to need to decide whether liberals are pro-choice baby killers or the masterminds behind a plot to breed as many people in poverty as possible. Being liberal is very different from being a Democrat.

    No. No. No. and sometimes.
     
  10. MoneyShaker
    Offline

    MoneyShaker BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2019
    Messages:
    91
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ratings:
    +88
    This is just silly, of course the very system that liberals champion encourages such.

    If you have a system that allows those who are so inclined to reap benefits by having children they can't afford, there will be people who are so inclined to do so.

    Surely you aren't truly arguing that there are kids in this country who's parents couldn't afford to support them but at the same time took no precautionary steps because they knew if they had children they couldn't afford, the government would help them out.

    Our system encourages people to have children, unfortunately it most encourages the very last people who should be having children.
     

Share This Page