CDZ When Liberals Want to Eliminate Poverty They Actually Increase It

[grbb]

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.

 

[Pete7469]

You begin with the delusion the DNC wants to reduce poverty even if it could.

 

[theHawk]

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?

 

[Erinwltr]

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?

How do you know that?

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

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.

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.

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!

 

[sealybobo]

You begin with the delusion the DNC wants to reduce poverty even if it could.

How would you reduce poverty?

 

[sealybobo]

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?

To help the poor?

 

[Disir]

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.

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.

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.

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.

• Raising income tax. That means reducing incentive to work and encouraging people to be lazy.

• Welfare given to only the poor give incentives to be poor.

• 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

• The poor simply produce too many poor people.

No. No. No. and sometimes.

 

[MoneyShaker]

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.

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.

 

[Disir]

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.

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.

Buck v Bell has never been overturned.

Your move.

 

[candycorn]

You begin with the delusion the DNC wants to reduce poverty even if it could.

How would you reduce poverty?

I know you didn't ask me but here is my answer...

Clearly whatever we're trying isn't working in this regard especially. This goes for any number of things however. From education to poverty reduction, to pregnancy prevention to traffic to pollution, etc...

It'll never happen since we no longer have a government but actually a schizoid referee. But what I would recommend is that you take a number of states between 10 and 15 and use them as laboratories to try out new remedies to any given problem. Take 3-5 large states, 3-5 medium states, and 3-5 rural states and try different remedies in each group.

• Like for poverty reduction, try increasing welfare in one of the groups and see what the result is over 5-10 years. My guess is that after 5-10 years, you'll have record numbers of people on welfare in those states that did that. But lets try it and see what happens.
• In another group, try reducing the welfare and see how the population reacts. My guess is that you'll have a great migration to other states or you'll have people get off their ass. But lets try it and see what happens.
• Get creative in the third group.
  • Set up some of the areas setting up encampments for the chronically homeless--hell call them reservations if you like.
  • Engage the Churches and other FBOs through grants and see if you can generate some true outreach with a little muscle behind it.
  • Incentivize (sp?) families staying together in states that have an income tax by tripling the tax credit for joint filers; hopefully the result would be that instead of taking a marginal job to help make ends meet, the government steps in and lets you keep more money and you don't take that job; instead you have a parent who would other wise be sacking groceries or working a security job staying home with their kid and making sure that she or he is not running the streets or involved in gangs or the drug trade.
  • Increase the amount of college grants to these laboratories to get more kids into college; expand that program to allow for vocational training instead of the old and frankly tired "full time or no time" requirements we may still have--I haven't looked into college funding much lately I'll admit. Seems to me like work is the best antidote to poverty. More people qualified to work would address the issue some what.

Lets try it and see what happens.


The important thing is to get the data. Set the goals--which should be to get people off of welfare--and see which solutions did the best job of doing that and implement it nationwide where it is appropriate.

 

[sealybobo]

You begin with the delusion the DNC wants to reduce poverty even if it could.

How would you reduce poverty?

I know you didn't ask me but here is my answer...

Clearly whatever we're trying isn't working in this regard especially. This goes for any number of things however. From education to poverty reduction, to pregnancy prevention to traffic to pollution, etc...

It'll never happen since we no longer have a government but actually a schizoid referee. But what I would recommend is that you take a number of states between 10 and 15 and use them as laboratories to try out new remedies to any given problem. Take 3-5 large states, 3-5 medium states, and 3-5 rural states and try different remedies in each group.

• Like for poverty reduction, try increasing welfare in one of the groups and see what the result is over 5-10 years. My guess is that after 5-10 years, you'll have record numbers of people on welfare in those states that did that. But lets try it and see what happens.
• In another group, try reducing the welfare and see how the population reacts. My guess is that you'll have a great migration to other states or you'll have people get off their ass. But lets try it and see what happens.
• Get creative in the third group.
  • Set up some of the areas setting up encampments for the chronically homeless--hell call them reservations if you like.
  • Engage the Churches and other FBOs through grants and see if you can generate some true outreach with a little muscle behind it.
  • Incentivize (sp?) families staying together in states that have an income tax by tripling the tax credit for joint filers; hopefully the result would be that instead of taking a marginal job to help make ends meet, the government steps in and lets you keep more money and you don't take that job; instead you have a parent who would other wise be sacking groceries or working a security job staying home with their kid and making sure that she or he is not running the streets or involved in gangs or the drug trade.
  • Increase the amount of college grants to these laboratories to get more kids into college; expand that program to allow for vocational training instead of the old and frankly tired "full time or no time" requirements we may still have--I haven't looked into college funding much lately I'll admit. Seems to me like work is the best antidote to poverty. More people qualified to work would address the issue some what.

Lets try it and see what happens.


The important thing is to get the data. Set the goals--which should be to get people off of welfare--and see which solutions did the best job of doing that and implement it nationwide where it is appropriate.

Great post. And we can’t let them distract us and constantly tell us it can’t be done when it can.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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".

A libertarian will tell you that the role of government is to protect liberty.


Security is a Democrat/Republican thing.

See?

That's what security gets us.

Nothing libertarian about that at all.

 

[MarathonMike]

Democratic leaders have never wanted to solve the problems of the poor. If they did, they would lose control of their voting base.

 

[sealybobo]

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".

A libertarian will tell you that the role of government is to protect liberty.


Security is a Democrat/Republican thing.

See?

That's what security gets us.

Nothing libertarian about that at all.

You don’t have to fly on their airplane. Take a boat to europe. You can easily smuggle a bomb on a cruise ship.

Could you imagine Isis takes over a cruise ship and kills everyone then sails home?

 

[Dekster]

I personally don't see that poverty in general is a problem. We could do a better job of addressing the by-products of poverty like crime. Most of the redistribution schemes add up to just another wall street subsidy.

 

[grbb]

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.

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.

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.

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!

Hei BOTH the conservative and liberal have a point here.

Yes I think the liberal expand poverty. So conservative is correct. They don't do it consciously though. Expanding poverty is probably not on what's liberal's mind. Liberals simply cannot process that humans are selfish and giving welfare encourage breeding.

.Welfare causes moral hazard.

However, the liberal is correct again when it complains why those who rob liquor stores get jailed for a long time while those that scam millions are not.

That is actually reasonable. I noticed that my self.


What happen is BOTH conservative and liberal is correct. But they're not completely correct. So we have this tug of war and resources are spent on those tug of war.

For example, liberal give money to the poor. The conservative instinctively do not like it. Why? Because if you give money to the poor they breed. So the solution is to make life shitty for the poor.

How? There, the liberal said it. Robbing liquor store, smoking weed, land you in jail for a long time. The conservative wants to say to those poor people stop breeding. Life is shit if you're poor. But they can't directly says that.

And that is why I think governments should be privatized.

In a privatized states, we will realize that giving shareholdership to poor people that cannot buy shares is a bad idea. Then we'll come up with better solution.

We can, for example, give citizen dividend to all citizens. However, we can pay citizens not to have children. Poor citizen that produce kids they can't afford can be temporarily sterilized. The sterilization can be reopened once they are rich.

That'll do it.

The key is not raising tax (liberal solution), or lowering tax (conservative solution). It's not lowering punishment (liberal solution), or raising penalty (conservative solution).

What about if we keep tax rate the same or lower tax and lower punishment. So liberal and conservatives can be happy. And then we reduce number of poor people. Just give them more money to stop breeding.

Now, each poor people can have more (for the same amount of tax rate). They're happy. Conservative happy. Liberal happy.

That is the point.

I think I wrote a thread about privatization of corporations in this forum. You can look that up.

 

[grbb]

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.

Wait a minute. Are you a liberal?

What do you mean there is nothing that can legally be done to prevent it?

In fact, there is a lot of laws in US that prevent the rich from breeding. US prohibits polygamy, prohibits prostitution, prohibits rich men from hiring and fucking a woman (under sexual harassment laws).

And you think there is nothing that can legally be done to prevent someone poor producing 20 children?

Just force sterilize (temporarily) anyone that produce kids they can't afford. That's a solution. Is it a best solution, I don't know.

Or pay people to postpone having children. Rather than giving more welfare to poorer people, give more cash to those with less.

OR privatization of states. That's another way.

In fact, I have a hard time understanding the concept of humans' right in liberal.

Why it's okay to disallow prostitution, when it's victimless, but it's not okay to prohibit the poor from breeding.

Here, Charlie Sheens cannot reproduce more children because he can't afford child support

Charlie Sheen Claims He Can't Afford Current Child Support Payments

However, it's legal for some feckless father to produce 30-40 children

40 children by 20 mothers: the feckless father who insists 'God says go forth and multiply'

I mean. This situation is created by legal system. You can't reverse it using legal system?

 

[grbb]

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".

A libertarian will tell you that the role of government is to protect liberty.


Security is a Democrat/Republican thing.

See?

That's what security gets us.

Nothing libertarian about that at all.

Hmmm.... What I mean by security is security from threat.

If I can choose to be free but have to handle Osama bin Laden by my self or to be governed and taxed but have someone else sending MOAB to Osama, I would choose the latter.

So yea, I agree with libertarian on so many things. May be 80% of the time. Most libertarians would call me centrist.