Are the very wealthy paying their share?

[KrazyHorse]

Because they are all people, and their welfare thus carries equal intrinsic weight with me.

[KrazyHorse]

Also, please explain how the political system works when you tell people who are electors for that system that they have no more import than people who have never heard of that system.

So your "moral" argument rests on the presumption that the less rich will stop the government from taxing the rich to pay the poor in other countries, therefore the government should tax the rich to pay the less rich?

Guess what, that's not n argument about what we should do; it's an example of what ends up happening, and it doesn't stop at the country's borders. What you end up with is a redistribution scheme which gives the most to the median voter instead of the poorest members even of a given country.

[KrazyHorse]

Also, it's interesting that you claim that paying X$ in taxes somehow entitles you to more than X$ in services...

[notyoueither]

Because they are all people, and their welfare thus carries equal intrinsic weight with me.

Yes, but you're a nutcase who has not completely gotten over the brainwashing of the Internationals, and have perversely increased your faith in math to explain human relations.

[notyoueither]

So your "moral" argument rests on the presumption that the less rich will stop the government from taxing the rich to pay the poor in other countries, therefore the government should tax the rich to pay the less rich?

Guess what, that's not n argument about what we should do; it's an example of what ends up happening, and it doesn't stop at the country's borders. What you end up with is a redistribution scheme which gives the most to the median voter instead of the poorest members even of a given country.

I said nothing of the sort.

[notyoueither]

Also, it's interesting that you claim that paying X$ in taxes somehow entitles you to more than X$ in services...

I'm suggesting that people who are closest to us have higher claims on our charity and obligations than people who are more distant.

[Jaguar]

The people closer to the American wealthy already benefit dramatically just from being in proximity to them.

Have you ever wondered why the wages for the same work are so much higher in the US than in less wealthy countries?

It's because production is a function of labor and capital. Specifically, a monotonically increasing one. That means that when there's more capital in the country, the marginal product of labor is greater. And the marginal product of labor determines the equilibrium wage.

This results in a system where my non-unionized high school summer job paid me $9 an hour for something that someone in Bangladesh would have gladly done for $0.50.

Since unskilled labor in America already benefits so much from the American wealthy, why not send additional charity overseas to give opportunities to the people there, instead?

[notyoueither]

There are not people in America who cannot work?

Where does the economic view account for them?

In fact, economically, you put more pressure on the very poor for the very fact that they live near the very rich. The same things that drive up wages drive up prices. See earlier posts where $100 in the third world is a lot of money with a lot of purchasing power compared to $100 in the US.

[Jaguar]

If a dollar improves welfare much more in a developing country than in a developed one, that just further strengthens the case that one should send capital to capital-poor countries. Your premise only decreases the strength of your argument.

[notyoueither]

No, it does not.

[notyoueither]

Why do you econ twits think we pay taxes?

[Aeson]

Yes

Claiming that any support for social programs in the developed world makes one a chauvinist is idiotic. First of all, support is not a zero sum game. Even if the underlying economics were a zero sum game it would not make someone who supports mutually exclusive social programs a chauvinist. It would mean they are naive or ignorant.

Something you yourself are guilty of here, since you seem to think that if we didn't tax for social programs in the developed world, that money would instead go to the most unfortunate. That there still are starving people in this world is proof enough of the indifference (and in some cases impotence) of capital to their plight.

(In fact it may be the opposite. The more we tax here, the higher the standard of living for working class here, the more incentive business has to go to the third world and create jobs there.)

[Aeson]

If a dollar improves welfare much more in a developing country than in a developed one, that just further strengthens the case that one should send capital to capital-poor countries.

I agree with your argument here, but it seems a much easier thing to say than to actually do. Just wondering what percentage of the money you have/make goes to developing countries? (Including if it's invested in developing nations in some manner.)

[Egbert]

What a pointless argument this is. It would not be possible for the US government to eliminate food stamps and welfare on the grounds that it prefers to send that money to help even poorer people in other countries. Imagine the commotion, demonstrations, riots perhaps even insurrection. Who knows how serious the resultant disturbances would be. ECONOMICS CAN NOT BE DIVORCED FROM SOCIOLOGY AND POLITICAL REALITIES. HUMAN NATURE CAN NOT BE IGNORED.

There happens to be a lot of unemployment and underemployment amongst the ranks of the unskilled. The unskilled normally get rather low wages, too often just the minimum wage. America seems to have big slums all over the place. Fix America first before worrying about the rest of the world.

It is absurd to suggest that foreigners have an equal claim to American welfare as an American citizen.

[Jon Miller]

I personally think that KH is just trolling as he doesn't provide any arguments why decreasing services/support for lower class (or even middle class) in the US will increase services/support for the lower classes in impoverished countries, other than the vague argument that wealth trickles down from the wealthy in some fashion. Note I might be misinterpreting him.

I will note that in countries where they have a very wealthy class (like arabic countries/etc), the wealth doesn't do a very good job of trickling down to the lower classes which decreases support from an already vague and lacking argument.

As far as the selfish view, the view to decrease services/support for middle/lower class in developed countries has no real argument with the vast majority of us in the middle class (nor would it with those of us in the lower class). As far as selfish reasons go, the upper classes have no reason to give to the lower classes other than what is needed to keep them happy, except for humanity which would (rightfully) cause them to give to those in the third world. Obviously us in the middle/lower classes will want the support/services that our labor/power enables us to acquire from the upper class. Just as obviously, the compromise will shift things in one direction or another depending on the power of the upper class and the frustration of the lower class. I will note that historically the highest welfare and the most aid to impoverished nations comes about when the compromise is more in the favor of the lower/middle classes (although some argue this is due to other historical factors).

Some googling gives some interesting discussions (I wish for real papers, I remember reading one in Neuron):

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/evolution-of-fairness/

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/99/5/771/

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-upper-class-people-emotions.html

Still looking for the paper I read. Or similar ones. These seem to be interested though.

In addition there is the fact (as pointed out) that governments exist to serve their people, not the people in other nations.

JM
(I currently give a couple of percent as aid to developing nations. When I have capital, I intend it to go to developing nations).