Are the very wealthy paying their share?

[notyoueither]

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.

Actually, it is there because society benefits from it being there, and it is redistribution.

I have zero problem with paying taxes to pay for schools despite not having any children. I benefit from doing so.

I would have a big problem with paying the level of taxation required to educate the world to the same standards as my area.

[notyoueither]

That's kind of an interesting case.

In some cases the poor and childless are paying for education for the children of the rich.

[Kuciwalker]

nye, why do you continue to try to explain why the voters support the programs they do? I know why they do it and I think they are wrong. Their policy priorities are morally incorrect.

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.

There is no efficiency justification at all for spending the marginal dollar in the first world instead of the third.

Moreover, none of your arguments apply to a national redistribution system - why should my dollars be used to support a wealthy (compared to 90% of the world population) "poor" person in Oregon instead of someone living in abject poverty in Africa? They should not, of course.

[notyoueither]

nye, why do you continue to try to explain why the voters support the programs they do? I know why they do it and I think they are wrong. Their policy priorities are morally incorrect.

Is it morally incorrect to spend money to achieve a desirable end? It is not a moral question. That's the point. Framing the issues as KH and you are attempting to do is invalid criticism, because you are not addressing what is or what is intended, but what you suppose maybe should be.

I think you are a victim of fuzzy thinking.

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.

There is no efficiency justification at all for spending the marginal dollar in the first world instead of the third.

Moreover, none of your arguments apply to a national redistribution system - why should my dollars be used to support a wealthy (compared to 90% of the world population) "poor" person in Oregon instead of someone living in abject poverty in Africa? They should not, of course.

I'm predicting that you have never lived through a rebellion by the lower classes in a neighbourhood, or city near you. That is the only explanation for your position (actually, I can think of more, but ignorance is the best). If you actually knew the history of your country, and mine, you would know where our welfare states came from, and why they exist.

Alternatively, you could turn on CNN or dial in Youtube and focus on Tunisia as a recent example of why our welfare states exist.

[Egbert]

why should my dollars be used to support a wealthy (compared to 90% of the world population) "poor" person in Oregon instead of someone living in abject poverty in Africa?

For a start:

1. Because nobody cares for your "morality" (or agrees with you).
2. Because nobody cares what you think.
3. Because Americans prefer to help Americans first

[Aeson]

There is no efficiency justification at all for spending the marginal dollar in the first world instead of the third.

corruption, verification (of need and/or benefit), logistics... I could think about it for a few more seconds and maybe come up with some more if you want.

[KrazyHorse]

Given that he already addressed those objections 3 pages ago, you have to try harder.

[KrazyHorse]

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

You're going to have to try reading my posts again if you think this is what I said.

[Aeson]

That said, I think it is in the first world's best interests to bring the third world up to speed as fast as possible.

[Al B. Sure!]

NYE, here's your 'lyrical' response to Kuciwalker performed and interpreted by myself for the benefit of Asher:

[Aeson]

Given that he already addressed those objections 3 pages ago, you have to try harder.

How many posts per page do you use? 3 pages ago (50 per) all Kuci was talking about was taxes. Then he was talking about public education and how it's not paternalism. I can't find where Kuci has addressed the impact of corruption, verification, or logistics on donations to the third world in this thread.

But if you think sending money that very well may end up enriching some tin pot dictator or warlord in a third world country so he can buy more thugs to oppress his people is necessarily an efficient way to help out, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Kuciwalker]

Is it morally incorrect to spend money to achieve a desirable end?

When there are vastly more desirable ends available (i.e. preventing people from starving)? Yes.

It is not a moral question. That's the point.

The correct disposition of public funds is definitely a moral question.

I'm predicting that you have never lived through a rebellion by the lower classes in a neighbourhood, or city near you. That is the only explanation for your position (actually, I can think of more, but ignorance is the best). If you actually knew the history of your country, and mine, you would know where our welfare states came from, and why they exist.

Alternatively, you could turn on CNN or dial in Youtube and focus on Tunisia as a recent example of why our welfare states exist.

Jesus Christ you are ****ing illiterate. I know exactly the historical and present reasons that the welfare state exists.

To the degree that the Western social welfare state is necessary to maintain social order so that we may produce wealth to help bring the rest of the world out of poverty (and maintain the political will to do so), it is extraordinarily valuable. The dollars spent past that point are very wasteful.

[KrazyHorse]

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?

Is this supposed to be a ****ing argument? This isn't about "rights".

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.

Sometimes I wonder if you have any clue at all, Jon. I lose a lot of respect for you when you post idiotic **** like this. Unlike in free exchange, the majority using the apparatus of the state can choose to expropriate others without regard for their welfare up until the peak of the Laffer curve. This means that they might happily, in their own interest, destroy human welfare (even corrected for decreasing marginal utility of wealth) through the deadweight losses generated by their actions.

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.

If you want to discuss how we can increase the scope of financial markets to be able to more easily provide insurance across a greater range of misfortunes, I think there are a lot of great ideas languishing...

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.

WTF is this supposed to mean? Demand creates its own ****ing supply, Jon.

[KrazyHorse]

How many posts per page do you use? 3 pages ago (50 per) all Kuci was talking about was taxes.

Apologies, was on this page.

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.

[Aeson]

Over the last 2 years, 100% of my money (and life savings) has been spent here or in getting it over here. I wouldn't send a penny over here without verification though, as I've seen what some NGO's do with it... while there are good ones that are helping out, there is a lot of **** too. (I'm not talking about Lancer. )