Wealth distribution and the USA's political right

Post Reply New Topic

There are very wealthy peoples in third world country, but must peoples are still starving there. In true it's middle class who is bringing prosperity through it's consummation.

If wealthy peoples bring prosperity, why is the USA economy is in such in a bad state. Logicaly under such affirmation road should now be paved of gold.

USA has the largest number of millionaires in the world. If rich people hurt the poor, wouldn't the poor in USA logically be the poorest and worst off in the entire world?

Wait? And any of these metrics is that valuable to us?

Why should I laud a minimum wage?

Second, why should I value unions? I think the economist Milton Friedman pointed out that Union efforts reduced wages of non-Union workers. Even further, as we have seen with big Auto, many unions are parasites on their company.

As for taxes on the rich, well, as Mankiw points out in this article, the rich are often very sensitive to taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/busin ... .html?_r=1

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/10/ ... taxes.html

Even the negative effects are well-known. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marg ... Rates.html

Finally, given that these taxes are on the high-income, they don't do anything about those already rich, only hobble those who are the up and coming rich. So, I have to say that lowering marginal tax rates is not only important but highly important.

Going further, I don't see the complaints. Why is college education so expensive? Because the education is a positional good. The government is not going to stop an arms-race of "Can I get into Harvard?" through any level of subsidies. But rather people will continue to pick high expense colleges because they think quality is better than cost. I hardly see how you can blame the right for this.

I'm going to also agree with psychohist about these golden years.

No, because the economy of the USA is not contained to US borders, nor is its political agenda.

If my money is just going to be taken away if I make "too much", why should I bother to earn it?

Go look in the mirror. The 1932 Democratic Party Platform:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29595



Yep, the Democrats were attacking Hoover for being big government, failing to balance the budget (which they pledged to slash), etc...and were calling on the states to do the same thing, via a "zealous effort." In essence the Democrats lied through their teeth in their party platform and then stuck cute nicknames and acronyms on programs Hoover had either already started or was contemplating.

'Course FDR was also a big Mussolini fan (and vice versa) during this time, so perhaps his fascist tendencies were rather stronger than those of Hoover?



And, alas, poor Hoover never got such favorable reviews from Il Duce. So...maybe there some differences after all. It apparently looked that way to the Commando Supremo.

I can't favor a system that rewards people born into wealth over people with real merit.

What if one has both merit AND is born to wealth?

Also, it is possible to be both poor AND stupid/incompetent.

ruveyn

What if one has merit AND is NOT born to wealth? That's the real question.


It's possible to born with a silver spoon AND be stupid/incompetent.

Last edited by marshall on 30 Oct 2010, 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

for the general good of society. you have gifts of enhanced human capabilities that would be immoral to keep to yourself.

+1

Politics isn't about what is good or right for the world. Underneath all the rhetoric it's about who gets what. That's why the ultimate extension of politics is war.

I'm excellent at sniping. Perhaps I ought to be a mercenary?

I can't see how there is a way to avoid rewarding people born into wealth. The simple fact of the matter is that EVERYONE wants the best for their children. How on earth are you going to make sure that the efforts of the wealthy are ineffectual?

Even further, I don't see how you'd accomplish your wishes.
1) If you don't nationalize EVERY university, then you won't stop the problem, as what will happen is that all colleges will get A LOT more expensive faster, as the government will pay for all of this through equalization efforts. This is an arms-race.
2) Trying to control every university will create this massive bureaucratic mess, and suppress the ability of these universities to have their special and favorite programs. In effect, it would likely homogenize the entire structure. There is still the issue of how you want equalization.
3) Actually making college free is just an outright waste, period.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 30 Oct 2010, 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!! !

You realize how ridiculous it sounds to require that people work extra-hard for the "good of society". I am not saying that these people are selfish, but honestly, everybody wants the right to their lives, their free time, their hobbies and so on. Unless I get something out of this, why should *I* sacrifice time with my family? Why should *I* give up things I enjoy more? I mean, the same choice of "what do I enjoy" vs "what would society enjoy" comes into play in every life, including yours, and most of these people clearly say "I will do what I enjoy and live my happy life for my causes".

I mean, you might try to qualify this in some form or function, but honestly, anybody not living up to their fullest socially beneficial potential(often reflected in earning potential) is "keeping their gifts to themselves".

I mean, is there a real way to promote your idea without getting to the conclusion that nearly every liberal arts major is a drain on society and should be a business major, or hard science major?

i don't have any moral duty to earn any more money than i am able to, to please any right winger who can see value only in how good somebody else is at earning boatloads of money. if i were smart enough to be a physician or entrepreneur or attorney or engineer, i would gladly pay my fair share of taxes as is the practice in most western nations with the notable exception of america. but i am not that smart, so what little i'm capable of making i still fork over to uncle sam because 1] i don't like jail, and 2] i would be a hypocrite if i didn't want to contribute to the stable fundage of government services of which i have been and will continue [god-willing] to be a client until i push up the daisies. anybody who accepts uncle sam's hand and then balks at paying their share of taxes, is a hypocrite in my book. if you accept medicare and social security and unemployment insurance, you've accepted government's hand. the only fair thing then, is to just pay your taxes and be done with it, rather than waste your time and enrich some shady tax lawyer, or make the swiss bankers even richer.

Your ability to earn money isn't a set issue.

What if you take more risks? If you start a business, you have a chance of failing, but if you succeed, then you will make it big and cause large improvements. When are you obligated to do this?

What if you take a second job? I've known people who have worked 60 hour weeks, not because they strictly had to, but rather they were hard-workers, but I am less likely to contemplate that. When should it be obligated? Maybe I hypothetically *could* take on another job to work on weekends and afternoons, but I really don't want to.

Even further, what if you were more able to if you picked one investment over another? Let's say that you enjoy medicine AND childcare. In medicine you will make hundreds of thousands of dollars, but instead, you pick childcare and scrape by? Is this even a strange choice? Well, no, it is similar to the choice that liberal arts, and social science grad students often make. They likely have the talent to make more money going into a more practical field, but they sacrifice it. Is this itself immoral?

Finally, what is "their share of taxes"? If the agreement is extremely open-ended, where the proper share could be anything dependent upon a legislative process, then why should I feel obligated? Even further, even if I accept one of these services, should I feel obligated not to leave the country to pay off this notion of debt? I don't think the notion succeeds because of both problems, as this is not conceived of as a real debt, and in many ways it is not a real agreement where there is a clear-cut "fair-share". (to note it also must be recognized that a lot of these efforts are somewhat redistributionary in that benefits tend to go towards people who do less to pay for those services)