Wealth distribution and the USA's political right

Post Reply New Topic

No child deserve to be a beggar. But the only ones that deserve the guilt are the parents that chose to reproduce without the financial capacity to rear them. Maybe the whole wealth distribution scheme is encouraging these parasites to produce more mouths they can't feed?

The problem I have is that they try make the re-distribution part "applicable" to anyone earning a honest income, regardless how much. By taking a cut of my poor wages in the name of "wealth distribution" really desensitizes my sympathy to the unfortunate, and less inclined to be charitable.

But of course. Enforced hysterectomies and vasectomies with military supervision for anyone under a specified income level. That should protect our hard earned wages.

How about not feeding the children of people who are so irresponsible as to bring them into this world without the means of supporting them. If we support such children we are rewarding irresponsibility.

ruveyn

so just let them starve to death instead? how inhumane. once the kids are here it is too late to do anything but feed them and educate them unless you want more homeless and muggers.

But of course. Starvation is torture and reputed to be unpopular in the USA, at least in some quarters. Shoot them and get it over quickly and mercifully. Gun owners would be delighted for the target practice.

[quote="Sand"

But of course. Starvation is torture and reputed to be unpopular in the USA, at least in some quarters. Shoot them and get it over quickly and mercifully. Gun owners would be delighted for the target practice.[/quote]

Do you know the difference between commission and omission?

ruveyn

Do you know the difference between commission and omission?

ruveyn[/quote

Omission is when somebody neglects to pay me my commission.

Last edited by Sand on 31 Oct 2010, 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

No, it really freaking doesn't. Gary Becker, in his research on the family, is one of the more influential economists in research on altruism in economics. This is Gary Becker, the student of Milton Friedman. In general models, I would guess that this is not thrown in too much, but still, in handling altruism, the Chicago school is apparently better, or at least no worse than any other school.


You mean that they held to a different model of behavior, instead trying to use more traditional economic factors to explain these situations? I hardly see how this is a huge condemnation of them, even if they were wrong on this model.

Many of the growth economists were outside of the Chicago school. Even further, "consumer demand" isn't usually expressed as at all relevant for economic growth. Rather, the biggest emphasis is just on capital growth, which is signified by investment. Finally, most people know that our growth models fit the data rather poorly, leaving something like 50% of the variance unexplained, for this I see no reason to blame any modern growth economist though.

(Side note: I am not addressing your point on chimps, however, these experiments are going to be questionable. Chimps refusing to work doesn't mean Americans will, particularly given that most Americans compare themselves to peers. I don't feel less motivated to make money by African poverty. Even further, it has also been found in experiments, that human dealings with things, such as the ultimatum game, tend to be somewhat culturally contingent, which undermines earlier findings done by these experiments.)

No cut is taken from poor or often even modest salaries. The rebate checks at the end of the year are often overlooked. Some tax credits are even refundable, such as the earned income tax credit. This means that even if you're net liability at the end of the year is 0, you still get the credit as a sort of subsidy. I find it ironic that those shouting the loudest about taxes being too high are usually the ones who don't pay any.

Opportunity cost can't be measured, so it can't be considered very well in this context, especially since the opportunity costs are different for every single individual. There is always an opportunity cost, so even at a tax rate of zero there are some financially profitable endeavours that would not be economically profitable. It is up to the individual to decide whether he or she has anything better to do than pursue additional financial profit. Our tax system does not under any circumstances turn a financial gain into a financial loss.

Stealing? And you're the one always complaining about people on the left using sensational language.

We needn't measure opportunity cost to know that transactions that were only marginally economically profitable at a lower rate will not be economically profitable at a higher rate. I never claimed that our tax system turned a financial gain into a financial loss.

It is not stealing. It's this type of moral absolutist nonsense that will destroy society utterly. Funny that both Ayn Rand and the Koch Brothers have a Soviet past - Rand being from there, the Kochs' parents having made their fortune there working for Stalin. There have been no more people who have done more to undermine capitalism than Ayn Rand and the Koch Brothers.

Who decides who earns what? The owners, or more precisely the boards of directors. What gives them the right to play God? It's clear that they'd take far more than their fair share and give the people who do the work less than their fair share. That goes without saying.

As for people who are unemployed, governments in the West are committed to a Reserve Army of Labour to increase corporate profits. As long as this is so, the unemployed must be well-paid - it is immoral to do otherwise.

Hedge fund managers are the real parasites and don't you forget it.

Call it whatever you want, it's still forcibly taking one persons money to support another person's political ideals. Many conservatives just think this is wrong, it's not moral absolutism.