Are the very wealthy paying their share?

[Kuciwalker]

So, why do the children of Virginia receive this largesse, and not the children of Vanuatu?

Because most voters don't agree with the idea that all human beings are of equal moral worth? (They are wrong, of course.)

[Kuciwalker]

If the world's distribution of material wealth were roughly similar to the US's, the justification would be that local allocation of tax revenues should generally result in less wasteful government spending.

[notyoueither]

Because most voters don't agree with the idea that all human beings are of equal moral worth? (They are wrong, of course.)

If the world's distribution of material wealth were roughly similar to the US's, the justification would be that local allocation of tax revenues should generally result in less wasteful government spending.

But it isn't, so.

You think that our social programmes are based on the premise that all human beings on the planet have the same moral worth?

How quaint.

Why do we have the social programmes that we have? Where did they come from? What was going on that led to the creation of the welfare state?

[Hauldren Collider]

Explain.

Virginia has a good education system = people move to Virginia, Virginia collects more tax revenue, Virginia ranks higher on those stupid lists, Virginia is happy. The state has an interest in improving the quality of life within its borders.

[Hauldren Collider]

Because most voters don't agree with the idea that all human beings are of equal moral worth? (They are wrong, of course.)

That's not it at all. The government shouldn't spend the money it collects in taxes to pay for things that is not in the interest of its citizens (or its citizens do not want). Just like when I pay for food at a restaurant the restaurant shouldn't give that food to somebody else. Public education greatly benefits most people. I suspect you're going to say "NO, ****, it doesn't benefit all those folks that pay taxes and don't have kids!" Yeah, it doesn't now but it did when THEY were kids.

Also, education is an investment. If we didn't educate our children we'd have no future. By educating our children, we are making an investment in human capital.

[notyoueither]

The state has an interest in improving the quality of life within its borders.

I think we're on to something here.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think we're on to something here.

Note that public education is still different from a welfare or redistribution program. It exists to correct an agency problem as Kuciwalker mentioned, not simply to move money from rich to poor.

[Aeson]

"If I think the program moves money from rich to poor for a good cause it's not redistribution."

[Hauldren Collider]

No, that's not what I said. Pay attention.

[Kuciwalker]

But it isn't, so.

You think that our social programmes are based on the premise that all human beings on the planet have the same moral worth?

Are you illiterate?

Quite clearly I stated that most voters don't agree with that premise, and therefore the policies they've enacted aren't based on it. Duh.

I also stated that they are wrong.

Goddamnit why am I arguing with nye, he is always this stupid.

Why do we have the social programmes that we have? Where did they come from? What was going on that led to the creation of the welfare state?

Why are you asking me to teach you the history of the welfare state?

[Aeson]

Yes, what you said is you think there's utility behind taking money from one group and using it for another group's benefit in this case, so it's not redistribution.

[giblets]

Note that public education is still different from a welfare or redistribution program. It exists to correct an agency problem as Kuciwalker mentioned, not simply to move money from rich to poor.

The agency problem was referenced to explain why the money is earmarked for specific purposes rather than handing out cash. It's still redistribution of wealth.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes.

[notyoueither]

Are you illiterate?

Quite clearly I stated that most voters don't agree with that premise, and therefore the policies they've enacted aren't based on it. Duh.

I also stated that they are wrong.

Goddamnit why am I arguing with nye, he is always this stupid.

The combination of stupidity, dishonesty, and condescention that you display with some frequency is severely transparent and unattractive, butt-munch.

Now, watch the bouncing ball and see if you can follow along.

Our societies work better if we redistribute some wealth within them. Educated workforce, healthy people, nourished and sheltered population, etc.

We may grant, accept, and believe that all human beings everywhere have the same moral value, but that alone would not lead a majority of voters to agree with the redistribution of wealth on a significant scale.

Voters agree with welfare programmes because it is in their interests to do so. They and their children will live better lives, with greater security, and possibly for longer if they agree that the state should take steps to ensure equal access to education, healthcare, and at least some of the wealth of society. It has vitually nothing, near-zero, to do with the moral value of anyone, except in your logically and socially challenged mind.

I agree that my neighbour and the fellow walking down Main Street in Bogota right this second have the same moral value. That does not mean that I am willing to pay the taxes for healthcare for both of them. As a city dweller I do not want to live next to someone who may have tuberculosis and goes untreated. As an employer I want my employees to be healthy and to show up for work, and I don't think I'd enjoy paying American style premiums to help ensure that. As a consumer I want the people who I have relationships with to be at work when I need them, and not home sick with a needlessly severe illness that could have been prevented with good healthcare and I certainly do not want them to be dead. As I age, I want myself and my conditions to be looked after without bankrupting my estate.

There are a lot of reasons why I would be against repealing universal healthcare where I live, even if I may be critical of how it works right now and I may think about how it could be better. However, not a single reason that I would be against the repeal of universal healthcare for would have anything to do with the moral values of the people receiving the benefits or those who don't.

Why are you asking me to teach you the history of the welfare state?

Why would I? You clearly have very little knowledge of the subject.

[Egbert]

The combination of stupidity, dishonesty, and condescention that you display with some frequency is severely transparent and unattractive, butt-munch.

NYE, you are an excellent judge of character.