College Students Favoring Wealth Distribution Are Asked.....

Post Reply New Topic

Those are valid reasons, it's also applicable to the GPA analogy. Thank you for addressing the substance of the arguments.

Suppose his reasoning was that he didn't want lazy people to get the money, or that he felt like he was entitled to his money. In that case, his reasoning would be inconsistent with his ideology.

1) When we talk about taxes, I don't really care which bucket is designed to do what. It's all the same concept, and it is all tax, each with the theoretical ability to make up the gaps in the neighboring bucket. Right now all the buckets are under-filled, of course, and that was just the example closest to my heart.

2) I know it can balloon. But there is only so far out of hand it can go before voters revolt, as we're seeing now. I don't see the revolt as a bad thing; it is a reality check. But reality checks are supposed to lead to compromise and improvement, not gridlock, or they can't do their job. Government needs to learn to work more like a business, no question. And it will. It has to, or spending won't get under control. But that is a different discussion than my saying there is a reason I like having it funnel through government.

3) Yeah, the healthcare act boggled my mind when I read the pieces I have to deal with. I still believe in it, however. Well, actually, I would have gone a lot further, and maybe in a fully new direction, but none of that would have been politically feasible, so I understand why we got what we got. But ... I could do this one for hours. Let's not.

4) Charities either get stuck spending too much time fundraising, too much time grant writing, or too much time dealing with government red tape. If you hadn't been government funded, you would have spent a FORTUNE on fundraising. Some are more free than others, but they are never fully free of it. The fun thing we did in the PTA was make fundraising connect to the curriculum, and a method of community building, but imagine if we had had to pay me for that, instead of getting it for free? Not affordable. I don't donate to organizations that rely too much on paid fundraisers, and I do wish there was a better way for grant donors and government agencies to oversee how their dollars get used. Why don't they just put their people on the road? Paperwork tells you nothing; being on site tells you everything. But it is definitely subjective, in a world that wants proof of objectivity ... tough nut to crack. And I know I'm rambling. Just ... if it isn't red tape, it's a ton of money to professional fundraisers, from what I've seen. Neither is a winner in my book. The only way to avoid it is to stay very small and all volunteer (which is what I love about a PTA )

5) We definitely need to simply regulations when it comes to non-profits. People over-react to badly managed situations, so they demand government do something. What government does, then, is write imperfect rules. They really should be guidelines, not rules. Yes, sometimes they will get broken, and if criminal intent is involved, deal with it as a criminal matter. But that is going to be rare. Mostly it would allow volunteers to use their judgment and common sense, which will never be perfect and can't be expected to be perfect. But it all starts from what sounds like a good, common sense position: create an objective standard. Just ... there is never a good way to create an all-encompassing objective standard. And I can't solve THAT today, either.

I think it all comes down to balance. Find the balance that creates the best efficiency possible. Use charity when that can be done with volunteers and minimal professional fundraising; use churches at the next layer (cost efficient); use government when it is bigger. Maybe. Or some other standard. Charities are good for experimenting and sitting on the cutting edge (and that is the most fun and exciting for volunteers, as well); government is good when the process is pretty set and the standards are known, and not that difficult to convey, and the job has become a job. But to ever say A is always better than B is nonsense.

Got to run. Sorry for rambles. I always have a ton of thoughts ... and I'm no good at keeping them locked up just because I don't have time to organize them

It would be, but it isn't the reason.

Not that paying more taxes would exactly be an unselfish act for someone like him. The deficit hurts the economy and hurts business, which costs them, and anyone who has made a fortune also has to have learned a few pragmatic realities. They know spending cuts alone can't fix things.

I give him credit for speaking publicly what most of the wealthy are only telling their CPA's in private.

Which is what makes Buffett a hypocrite. If he wants everyone to be FORCED to do it, then he wants to give, but retain his status gained by being wealthy.

Take $10,000 from one man, you diminish him. Take $10,000 from every man and people more or less retain their standing among their peers.

Who is Warren Buffett to say taxes should be raised on everyone because he thinks it is fair? It's his wealth, he should give it away if he believes so strongly. If not, he should shut up rather than stir the pot.

Yeah I suppose you're right, many of these students didn't have the time to properly analyze the question, and if they had been aware with the reasons you gave, they probably would have responded that way.

I personally would rather trust the wealthy with more of their own money than to give it to the government. Perhaps they can put it to better use.

I have so much distrust in the government that I think if they are given more money, they'll just waste more of it. What's the deficit running at 2.4 trillion a year or something like that? That's getting close to spending $2 for every dollar that comes in in revenues! Not to mention the fact that if they stop spending their revenues will drop.

I suppose this tax burden, while heavy is small in comparison to the cost paid by all the people who think they are benefitting, government employees and government contractors who are entrapped in a menial existence their entire lives doing nothing productive to society, (or even possibly destructive), like establishing and enforcing onerous regulations, building briges to nowhere or engaging in pursuits of war. Much of what the government does is harmful to society, or the things that are provided and needed are not produced with the efficiency a business would provide.

It's a philosophical difference the idea we view people. Without government would the person working at the DMV be a homeless person unable to get employement? or would he be a successful business owner? I have a strong feeling that a person is capable of extrodinary things when they are not corrupted by the influence of wealth redistribution. I think this influence is far more insidious than people realize.

He would only be a hyppocrite if he had reasoning which conflicted with the ideology. If his reasoning was because "he doesn't want to diminish his competetive advantage", or "not much good would come of it". He would not be hyppocritical at all. It would justify his unwillingness to voluntarily commit his own money without conflicting with his ideology.

Well, the issue is that if it is perceived that certain characteristics do not necessarily get a certain return, then the variability can be a justification for the statement: "To say that income is primarily driven by personal merit is an example of the "just world fallacy"."

After all, the claim isn't that the market is rewarding the wrong things, but rather the "just world fallacy" usually assumes that the variation in outcomes is not explained by the variation in a person's behavior, thus that a person is not responsible for their outcome. For this reason, I think you've made a valid point, but that you haven't addressed marshall's particular argument.

You do realize that Buffett DOES give away a lot of his money and intends to do more of that, right?

Honestly, I don't see this issue as centering around the deeper issues of governmental efficiency and the economy. The analogy stands or falls on its own. I think it falls. I consider this fact independent of whether government, government spending, etc, are themselves good ideas. I don't actually think the poor are all morally bankrupt or anything like that, and I have a friend who works with the impoverished who considers them some of the hardest working people he knows. While there are bad stories, I can't really ignore the other side of that. Really though, if we're talking about reducing the size of government, we're a WHOLE LOT better off by aiming at SS, Medicare, and Military Spending. That's 60% of the US budget right there. There is also the obvious waste we have in farm subsidies and various other programs. Welfare though, I would consider to be close to the bottom of the chopping block.

"It's not a fallacy. It's a philosophical supposition. You come from the assumption that in a free market income is equivalent to the value you add to society. You might suppose that killing someone and stealing their money is therefore virtuous, but that is not a free market. All the free market is is a system of voluntary action."

The fact that you think it's a fallacy has to do with you're imposing your definition of virtue or merit on the free market.

It's an apriori statement, meaning its a logical syllogism that cannot be refuted. You may question the assumptions to get at the conclusion but not the conclusion itself.

wcoltd, your point clearly runs into absurd conclusions. A black person in a highly racist market could be argued as meriting less income despite equal or greater work. The absurdity is that merit is a moral term. It won't be related to an arbitrary quality such as skin color, but rather to substantive qualities involving a person's actions.

Even further, free market income isn't exactly equivalent to value added to society. Although I know some people are very critical of the assumption, even in marginalist terms, there are problems owing the lack of knowledge and market structure. Often times these issues impact the wealth of the very rich the most. For instance, nobody knows the real value of a CEO, only that they don't want to get a bad one. Stock analysts don't usually add value but they still get high incomes.(look into the efficient market hypothesis and the relative success of actively managed funds, you might try to rebut in terms of psychic benefits, but this is more likely a failure to properly handle information) Lawyers are subject to the issue of an arms race, as really their only value is mediating legal conflicts, but because the costs of losing are so high, people dedicate large funds to lawyers, even though there is really nothing produced by the cost of a lawyer at all, all that is done is the distribution of wealth is altered, but no wealth is generated.

Everybody when evaluating social policies is going to be using their notions of value. This isn't odd and pointing it out doesn't mean anything. Most people will take it as true that lowered incomes based upon arbitrary traits or luck is not meritorious/moral/whatever have you, thus a position that a certain institution is correct to have can be questioned on grounds of arbitrarily unjust outcomes.

Given that you've never presented an argument, and the statement isn't self-evidently/definitionally true by standard word usage, it's not a logical syllogism. Even further, yes, I can question the conclusion itself. It's called a reductio ad absurdum, if we recognize that a conclusion is horribly wrong, then we can infer that the premises are wrong EVEN IF we don't know which premise is wrong.

And the situation doesn't actually match reality in any meaningful sense. The circumstances of transfer are completely different. The proportions are all wrong as wealth scales more than GPA and to provide welfare doesn't take as much as the example took from GPA. The institution in question is consciously designed to be fair. And the comparative outcomes are not meaningfully the same, as it is very different to drop out of college than it is to be in poverty. All of these factors are very significant in any meaningful comparison and those opposing the analogy have pointed this out at great length.

I think something Democrats and many "economists" are deliberately not taking into account the fact that taxes are not the only factor when it comes to how economies perform. If someone doesn't feel it is safe to invest in a business in a certain country due to tons of new regulations every day that are extremely anti-business, then the tax rate on returns could be 0%, and they still wouldn't invest because they would be wasting money.

I figure, if we repeal almost everything put in place by the Democrats and the Obama administration, we would see an explosion of economic growth.


You want to argue about taxes being too low is the problem, sorry but face the facts, the issue damaging the economy currently is the debt, and insane amounts of red tape coming out of Washington DC from the Executive Branch.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! You do realize that this has nothing to do with anything in this topic, right?

In any case, yes, rapid structural change is a problem in the economy. It probably both held Herbert Hoover and FDR back somewhat as both presidents were known for a lot of silly activism. At the same time though, claiming that repealing everything will cause an explosion of growth is a ridiculous claim. I mean, we'd have to go further than that to cause an explosion of economic growth, for instance, legalizing soft drugs, or something else where the workings of the economy have to change more dramatically.

Actually.... the economy is just a matter of being bad because we're in a recession. It likely has nothing to do with any of the variables you spoke about. America's credit rating going down being more likely the result of politicizing the debt ceiling as many other economies have higher debts as a percentage of GDP. Given that almost nobody has really recovered yet, I somehow doubt that the problem is just American policy.

They are only absurd because you are imposing your own morality on the system. If you take the supposition that the free market rewards merit. That merit is defined by success (income) in the free market. In this instance our definitions of merit conflict. That is the source of our contention. The free market is not a perfect system but it has proven to be the best at rewarding virtue. Qualities like hard work, innovation, efficiency, and even racial tolerance.

The racially tolerant person is rewarded with the business of the segregated consumer, because there are fewer competetors he can charge a higher rate and is rewarded for his racial tolerance.

I suppose to take this topic into absurd territory you could argue that as long as a market for prostitution or child pornography exists, a person would be rewarded by servicing these despicable clients. This is true, and is why laws are necessary, what the markets percieve to be "virtuous" are actually regarded by society to be despicable.

A reporter is rewarded by exposing disgusting vagrants. So ultimately the market can assist the law.

The supposition that a particular institution rewards a moral quality can't be taken as basic. It has to fit into a pre-existing moral schema. You assuming it as basic is a ridiculous assumption and one that nobody should tolerate. marshall was clearly making his appeal to basic moral intuition.


And if the preference isn't strong in the community, which... why would it be? Then what's the point? If there is no real ability to determine desegregation, then again, what's the point? The real driver for desegregation through market forces was market-efficiency, but that's not going to change a lot in the short-run, and for smaller markets and/or more staunchly racist markets, the impact will be minimal.


Markets don't have a moral valuation function, so... assuming they do is a ridiculous assumption. This isn't to say that markets are incompatible with morality or that markets do not promote certain moral values, etc, just that... profit != virtue.