Are the very wealthy paying their share?

[Dauphin]

For your information I support fairly large, in-cash transfers to the poor, mostly to other regions which are much poorer than the First World.

I am curious.....

What's your understanding/view on the effect of tax havens, including secrecy havens, in regards to generating and maintaining wealth inequality (both domestic and international)?

What, if anything, should be done in your opinion about them - in both ideal circumstances and in practical reality - to overcome such inequalities?

[KrazyHorse]

I have no view on that, sorry. I have insufficient information

[Hauldren Collider]

Why do you econ twits think we pay taxes?

So we can have cops and firefighters and schools. Not so that my money can go to some homeless bum who is richer than most people on the planet.

[Hauldren Collider]

JM, I agree that government exists to serve the people within its borders and not other nations. The point of my argument is not that we need a mass redistribution scheme to starving Africans but that we shouldn't have a redistribution scheme at all because the moral arguments behind redistribution are laughable, unless you include the entire population of the planet in the redistribution scheme.

[Aeson]

We should stop giving underprivileged children free vaccinations because we can't yet ensure that we can vaccinate all underprivileged children everywhere.[/idiot]

[Jon Miller]

Why don't those who are less well off in the US have the right to acquire wealth using the tools available to them, just as the wealthy have the right to acquire wealth using the tools available to them?

As it is, if the people of the nation are unhappy (in a democracy, the people are mostly made up of the lower/middle classes unlike in other systems of government where the people are more heavily made up of the upper classes) (this is a weighted 'people' corrected for political power), they should use the tools of government to change this to provide for themselves.

Many people agree that to assure their happiness they need:
welfare net
available health care
financial security for old age
support for the acquisition of education

Note that all of these things are important insurances even for the upper middle class who could otherwise afford it, as if investments go down or an earthquake wipes out their material possessions they still want to be provided for. It is a lot easier for a skilled laborer or even a small business owner to have a market collapse or a medical disaster or a natural disaster destroy everything they have 'built up' than for a wealthy person who has spread out their assets to a great degree that 'some' is safe (Also generally wealthy people of 'old money' type have connections would can provide for them even if their own investments/etc go sour).

Note that I am purposefully focused on the selfish reasons to support social programs.

As examples, I have libertarian types who are close to me (and still lib.) who were making 6 figures a couple years ago and are now relying upon unemployment/credit. If things continue to stay bad for them, they will start to rely upon the other social programs. If they were younger, they would rely upon the educational programs for their children.

Finally, at least the educational programs are smart because corporations need an educated work force. Some public support of education allows this, while a lack of public support creates a need (because it is a long time investment for a corporation). Note that even with the US system of supported education, that the US corporations still have a need and support education despite it being a long term and risky (what if the companies needs change, what if the people work for a competitor) investment.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

We should stop giving underprivileged children free vaccinations because we can't yet ensure that we can vaccinate all underprivileged children everywhere.[/idiot]

Public health is not the same as redistributing money. Has it occurred to you that reducing outbreaks of cholera is beneficial to everyone?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jon Miller

Well put in that a social safety net has selfish benefits for those who are already better off. It also allows for people to take more chances in their working lives, which leads to a more dynamic economy and labor market. When people think they are trapped in a job and they are done for if they lose it, it tends to stifle any impetus towards creativity (thinking outside the box may be negatively recieved and harm future job prospects at the same firm).

Of course I tend to also believe in altruistic reasons for the welfare state, but starting with selfish reasons is a good place to begin.

[MikeH]

JM FTW

[C0ckney]

it's no coincidence that the most successful countries have, to a greater or lesser extent, a welfare state.

[Aeson]

Public health is not the same as redistributing money. Has it occurred to you that reducing outbreaks of cholera is beneficial to everyone?

it's redistribution. Just because u admit it is useful redistribution doesn't change that.

[notyoueither]

So we can have cops and firefighters and schools. Not so that my money can go to some homeless bum who is richer than most people on the planet.

Why have public schools?

[giblets]

Giving everyone free admission to public schools is redistribution of wealth, but with strings attached (the wealth must be used for a very specific purpose). It benefits a poor person less if they would have wanted to use some of the money for other purposes. I take it HC considers this to be better than handing cash to the poor and letting them do what they want with it.

[David Floyd]

Without getting into the relative merits of having redistributive programs in the first place, the very obvious problem is that "in cash" wealth transfers to poor people would quite likely backfire. Don't believe me? Then use this example: If you want to help feed a homeless person, do you hand him a $20 bill? No, not if your specific intent is to feed him, because left to his own devices, he will likely spend $2 on a burger, and $18 on booze and cigarettes. What you actually do, if you intend to feed a homeless person, is you give him food.

If you change the current redistributive programs in the US from "in kind" to "in cash", as KH seems to advocate, then what you are actually going to see is a bunch of uneducated (relative term, given the current state of public schools), unhealthy alcoholics with gambling problems, who wear Nikes and eat Doritos for lunch. Exaggeration? Sure, maybe a little - but then again, if you hand a poor person $2000 and tell him that is to be used for health related purposes throughout the year, just exactly what percentage of poor people will save that $2000 for health related purposes? Exactly.

[Al B. Sure!]

Without getting into the relative merits of having redistributive programs in the first place, the very obvious problem is that "in cash" wealth transfers to poor people would quite likely backfire. Don't believe me? Then use this example: If you want to help feed a homeless person, do you hand him a $20 bill? No, not if your specific intent is to feed him, because left to his own devices, he will likely spend $2 on a burger, and $18 on booze and cigarettes. What you actually do, if you intend to feed a homeless person, is you give him food.

If you change the current redistributive programs in the US from "in kind" to "in cash", as KH seems to advocate, then what you are actually going to see is a bunch of uneducated (relative term, given the current state of public schools), unhealthy alcoholics with gambling problems, who wear Nikes and eat Doritos for lunch. Exaggeration? Sure, maybe a little - but then again, if you hand a poor person $2000 and tell him that is to be used for health related purposes throughout the year, just exactly what percentage of poor people will save that $2000 for health related purposes? Exactly.

Yeah people are stupid and some of us truly do know what's better for people than they do themselves. It's a fundamental disconnect with reality exhibited repeatedly on these boards by KH and Kuciwalker.