Here is a video that takes an alternative perspective on the tax redistribution debate. Though the premise is highly simplified and biased in its own way, it does say a lot about the cloud of confusion much of America's future walks on.
P.S. Dude with the chops...BB material?
| +86 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 49 | 22h | |
| +58 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 15h | |
| +48 | How to sound more eloquent? | 17 | 2h | |
| +39 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 2d | |
| +38 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 1d | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 2d | |
| +30 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 7 | 1h | |
| +27 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 10 | 17h | |
| +26 | Carnivore Diet | 9 | 16h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 16h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Already posted this back on Monday. here's the link to the thread: http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/gpa-vstax-cuts
Here you go Midas.
I was presenting arguments against Government run Health Care for my term presentation for my Microeconomics class. My Liberal teacher basically told me that whatever I said were not "fact-based" and I will probably end up getting a bad grade for this course.
I am so mad at Liberals right now.
Anyone have any solid ideas against Government run health care?
The problem with the Republican argument against Obama care is that their alternative is to give $15,000 to seniors for them to go out and buy their own health insurance. The problem is no one is going to insure a retired 70 year old, and when that 15k runs out they are shit out of luck. This is a clip from Bill Maher, I know the show is bias, but they were discussing the issue with Michael Steel and he literally could not respond because the Republicans have no fucking clue what to do about it. Watch minutes 3-6.
The problem with the Republican argument against Obama care is that their alternative is to give $15,000 to seniors for them to go out and buy their own health insurance. The problem is no one is going to insure a retired 70 year old, and when that 15k runs out they are shit out of luck. This is a clip from Bill Maher, I know the show is bias, but they were discussing the issue with Michael Steel and he literally could not respond because the Republicans have no fucking clue what to do about it. Watch minutes 3-6.
] I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about Obamacare alternatives, but Michael Steele is kind of a moron.
[quote=awm55]The problem with the Republican argument against Obama care is that their alternative is to give $15,000 to seniors for them to go out and buy their own health insurance. The problem is no one is going to insure a retired 70 year old, and when that 15k runs out they are shit out of luck. This is a clip from Bill Maher, I know the show is bias, but they were discussing the issue with Michael Steel and he literally could not respond because the Republicans have no fucking clue what to do about it. Watch minutes 3-6.
]
Jesus Christ! When will you finally understand that a lot of us aren't partisan hacks! Is someone criticizing gov't run health care, you shouldn't start attacking the republican alternative. We're trying to argue principle here. Just because someone criticizes a liberal position, doesn't mean they support the conservative position. You make this same error over and over again on this forum, and it honestly gets kind of old (and turns a seemingly interesting conversation about policy into a stupid conversation about partisan politics).
Nm
Comparing grades to income is stupid. Grades are a function of ease of classes and work ethic. Income is more of a function of where you live and what field you work in. A marine in Afghanistan works a far harder job than a New York City call girl, yet the call girl will make several times what the marine will make; does the call girl work harder? The very fact that the WSO's resident writer can post this with the implication that Income is related to GPA shows how delusional certain people are.
Wages aren't a function of effort or "working hard" Wages (the cost of labor) is set by: PRODUCTIVITY & COMPETITION.
Productivity: How much revenue can you generate? How much waste can you eliminate? Are you the lowest cost provider? Are you the highest quality provider?
Competition: How many peer companies desire your production? How many alternative uses exist for your skills?
Good point, but let me get a little nit picky anyway haha. Productivity and competition might be functions of working and, therefore, wages might be a function of working hard too.
Also, good clarification on productivity with the revenue comment. A lot of people get confused about productivity. For example, is Michael Jordan and the best lacrosse player in the world might be equally skillful/productive in their respective sports. So why does MJ make more? Because people value his output more (i.e. people enjoy consuming is productivity more than the lacrosse player). In other words, VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE!
What if we control for the ease of classes? What if after the quarter is over, in each individual class we redistribute the grades? Then would you support it?
And you're right, grades are a function of work ethic, but so is income...
I don't understand your point about the call girl vs. the soldier. Nobody said that working harder allows you to command a higher income.
Econ, I would never support the redistribution of GPA. The concept is retarded. Their is no relation between income and gpa.
If you really think that income is solely a function of work ethic, than I have bridge to sell you. Last year, I made well over a million dollars (I am still in college) from buying and selling penny stocks (PM if you want details). Does my higher income mean that I work harder and have a harder work ethic than the president? Does that mean I have a harder work ethic than a neurosurgeon who works 80 hours a week, saving people's lives? Does that mean I worked harder and had higher work ethic than a Captain leading a company in Kandahar? Please, answer the questions.
You just said that income is a function of work ethic, aka how hard you work. Do you not know what work ethic is?
Although I am not in support of increased tax on the wealthy (fair tax, baby..), their example isn't perfectly analagous. GPA basis points are not liquid; currency is. While one could argue there is value in GPA increases, that value is hardly tangible, especially compared to cash.
How is GPA not liquid? Any teacher could easily change grades in an Excel spreadsheet...
I found it hilarious when the girl in the Berkeley video proposed to raise the corporate tax rate. Does she not know the United States has one of the highest rates already?
Interesting videos
Is anyone missing the simple fact that people can survive without GPA points, but that without at least a moderate level of redistribution you would be condemning a huge proportion of the population to homelessness and starvation?
What about people who fail out of school for a lack of gpa points?
You have to do jack shit to fail out of school, and failing out of school is not the same thing as being homeless and starving due to a lack of money.
We have redistribution now and we still have starvation and homelessness? Even without redistribution, people often find ways to survive. Lastly, why do you feel you have the right to take from someone and give to someone else because you think they "need it?"
eokpar02, you're argument is retarded and does nothing to disprove the GPA/income analogy. How can you look beyond the simple premise that what you work hard for (grades or income) should not be excessively distributed to people who are unwilling to work as hard. Who are you to argue that a marine works harder than a call girl? Sure, the battlefield is arguably more dangerous (although you could argue that sleeping with sketchy men could lead to precarious situations (i.e. STDs, murder/abuse, loss of self-worth, etc.) but prostitution is the oldest profession for a reason and one of the best analogies for capitalism (supplyinh a service that meets a demand for a profit).
awm55,
Why do you liberals always have to be so literal. Sure, you cant eat or live on your GPA but the premise of rewarding hard work and sacrifice is the same. No one is arguing against a moderate level of redistribution but what you liberals want is an excessive amount and a pound of flesh.
The purpose of the government and its social programs is to provide a safety net for those individuals who persistently try to improve their situations but may falter. The purpose is not create a system of incentives that rewards lazy idiots who thought it was better to skip class to smoke weed and buy an iphone when they cant afford to pay rent.
What ever happened to personal responsibility?
I'm not liberal, I just like to try common fucking sense. People are acting as if this video simplifies the argument of redistribution when in reality it is totally irrelevant. I could easily say why do fringe right morons use barely comparable situations to make a general point which is exactly what this video did.
And I am a huge proponent of welfare reform (drug testing, 1 strike rule, no more aid if you have more kids etc). This proposed non of that, it made a ridiculously simplified argument that an 8 year old could understand and acted as if it is just that damn obvious. Do some people work the system, hell yes and it needs to stop. But its not everyone.
It is not necessarily irrelevant. You're right that it's simplified, but that's the whole fucking point. Explain to me why we should redistribute wealth, but not many other things? If you can't come up with a solid, logical answer to that question, then you miss the whole point of the video and, therefore, the whole point of the argument (and actually, this whole topic, in general).
I question your ability to operate in society in a gainful way if you think that there is any type of analogy between GPA/INCOME. Income is a function of your wage, which is a function demand and the supply of labor, among other things. GPA has no market setting mechanism. GPA is a not a zero sum game. By getting a higher grade than my classmates, I am not affecting their ability to get good grades. The same can not be said for income, since there is extensive relationship between human capital investment and taxation. GPA isn't the basis of the school, while society can not function without individuals who earn an income.
You are an idiot. Are you really arguing that their is a modicum of possibility that call-girls do work as hard as marines? Is that your argument? Call girls go to men's domiciles and get FUCKED. I really fail to see how a NYC call girl's job could be remotely as hard as marines.
Who is saying that people aren't responsible for their actions? Who on this forum said that?
Secondly, GPA is far more akin to wealth than it is to income. My GPA was accrued over 4 years. The only thing that can be compared to GPA point distribution would be some type of wealth tax.
So what you are saying is that if your only choice was getting fucked by random men in their domiciles or going on combat missions, you would rather get fucked by random men?
Wow! No offense dude, but that is the shittiest economics I've ever heard. First, their is a "market" for grades. Anyone who denies this has a narrow view of markets. (There's markets for marriage, crime, and a million other things).
Income is absolutely NOT a zero sum game. That's the fallacy that many people make. Wealth/income is created and therefore positive sum. The per capita income of the world keeps increasing, which would be impossible if wealth was zero sum.
Redistribution leads to the decay of society. People say its some shit about helping society, what a load of shit. The very idea is to foster class warfare. The "I am entitled to what he has because he has more than I do." Thats the idea they had in Greece, that worked out well for them didnt it?
EVERY developed country in the world operates some kind of redistributive policy.
Every developed country a few centuries ago used to operate some kind of institutionalized slavery. Does that make it fair, right, just, moral, efficient, good economics, etc? Seriously man, your logic skills need some work - your responses on this forum show how confused your thought process is on these topics.
I see what the video is trying to prove, but gpa doesn't buy food, water or healthcare, neither can it be adjusted for rising prices. I see the point of tackling redistribution of wealth, but its only really tackling the "redistribution" part, because wealth is not comparable to gpa. but the fact is just because you give more money to the lower income bracket, doesn't necessarily mean they will spend it well and i believe this itself will cause inefficient allocation of capital in the economy.
First: Doesn't GPA influence income? If so, than doesn't GPA indirectly by food, water, and health care?
Second: That overlooks the issue anyway. What principle says it's okay to redistribute stuff that buys food, water, and healthcare, but not other stuff? By your logic, why don't we just cut out the middleman (money) and redistribute healthcare, food, and water directly?
Interesting analogy. Sort of a legit one, too. Because think about: the same reasons people give for poor people being poor (parents' socio economic background, other random societal factors--we know all the "excuses," as it were--not trying to imply they are or are not legitimate excuses, so don't get pissed at me), are also reasons people might get bad grades. The difference is, people who would be against redistribution of GPA see school as more meritocratic than society. I see this as a dangerous argument though -- where do you draw the line? Redistribution of wealth only solves the symptoms of greater problems we have in society, merely redistributing wealth might make some peoples' lives better, but it perpetuates cultural and societal problems we already have.
One problem is, redistributing GPA makes GPA much more worthless than redistributing money does to money.
What about the unintended consequences? Like the fact that people will move and businesses will move? And, even if you could keep them here, output would be lower, price would be higher, etc?
What if the rich just accepted the tax increases to pay for social welfare programs etc. under the stipulation that the recipients of such welfare need to send a thank you card once a year as well as kiss the feet of the rich whenever they see them in public. Perhaps a free shoe shine from all recipients on demand?
Haha I say keep the thank you card though the shoe shine would be nice and all. Instead just put a shot clock on the social programs. For example, you can get government program ABC for X months then you are kicked off. Therefore rather than my tax dollars supporting someone's life for an indefinite period of time those dollars will go to helping someone who needs a hand to get back on their feet. I have no problems about giving some of my money to help someone get back on their feet and go to work. I do however take issue with my tax dollars supporting someone else's life - If I wanted that I'd get married haha. Then you can use any of my leftover tax money to pay down debt.
From one of the best SouthParks in a while the HumancentiPad. The government is Cartman's mom...just F*&king us haha.
anyone else see that flash at 4:49? subliminal message?
Apparently it's not all that easy to be a hooker:
http://womensissues.about.com/od/rapesexualassault/a/Wuornos.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234078,00.html(the initial mentioned marines are separated, not dead)
http://www.mccscherrypoint.com/healthpromotion.htm
This video explains the concept of redistribution of resources perfectly. It is the EXACT same concept at work as in the income argument: taking from those who are deemed to have an "excessive" amount of something and redistributing it to those that "don't have enough." Why are some of you guys even arguing this? Of course a GPA isn't money, but the concept holds: Taking from people who have worked hard for what they have to give it to someone else is not right, be it GPA, income, etc.
There is no argument after this post. How could you make a counter agreement to this in favor of redistribution is different just because money and GPA aren't one in the same..
SB for you sir
No one is saying that those things aren't true, that individuals have "worked hard" for what they have. However, you have to remember that everyone does not have equal circumstances. Many individuals exist in communities where no matter how hard they work, they cannot ascend beyond a certain point due to mitigating factors (inept teachers, absent parents, unsupportive community). That doesn't even take into account individuals with disabilities. Americans (myself included) believe that you can achieve "anything" with hard work and effort, but many people simply have no shot, no matter how hard they work, and those people are the ones who seek to benefit from some sort of income redistribution.
Obviously, those things I mentioned are just a feature of capitalism. However, tell that to someone struggling to pay for food.
Well said! SB for you, sir!
Not surprised to see everyone agreeing with it on WSO, but it's a very flawed analogy given that GPA is capped at 4.0. The income inequality gap is much larger than the 'GPA inequality' gap. Assuming median GPA is 2.7, on that same scale, the equivalent would be an income cap at $66,000 for everyone in the US. Redistribution of resources makes no sense without a large level of inequality in society.
Secondly, given that the top earners get massively tax pwned after $175k (33%), the equivalent would be a tax on GPA above 9.18 (3.4x above the median). The 4.0 cap makes the analogy totally flawed and useless.
Thirdly, it could be worse. You could be in london and be a first year analyst getting taxed 40% ...
Take home income for analysts is higher in London.
How does that matter?
Great video. Great analogy. Someone commented earlier that this doesn't work because GPA isn't currency. Well to college students it kind of is... that's the most valuable thing you have as an undergrad. The analogy works because college kids feel the same way about GPA as working people do about income.
I fancy myself an independently minded citizen, who is basically a fiscal conservative and social liberal. When it comes to the topic of wealth redistribution, I definitely side with the Republicans. However, I don't believe this would be such a hot topic of debate if the middle class had a future. Back in the 50s, 60s etc, when we produced things in this country, parents of humble means didn't leverage themselves to the hilt to put their kids through college because they could live a fine middle class life working at a steel mill or at an auto plant. Once the global economy changed and those jobs left, I'm not sure what jobs exist as a replacement. Something with real estate or construction maybe? Oh wait... right.
I'm not saying it's the job of the rich to come up with a solution. I believe the only way for a solution to really take hold and be successful is for it to be dictated by social/market forces, not the government.
Another way to look at it:
The other day, I was out having beers with some people and one of my friends brought her new boyfriend along. He's a teacher. He has opinions about guys like me who work on Wall Street. After a few rounds we were all joking back and forth and he says to me:
"Do you really believe you deserve to make twice as much as me?"
Buzz kill! I tried to avoid the topic, but he kept pushing so I said, "Yes. Because I don't get off at 3:15 and I work all twelve months of the year. And because I can get fired from my job. Also, I don't make twice as much as you. It's probably more like 3x."
BUT, when the tab came, I picked it up. There's some redistribution for you! I would much prefer to supervise the spreading of my (at this point limited) wealth rather than the government because I like the feeling of at least some say in who it goes to.
My stock response has always been either "I don't think about it much, mostly just try and do my job," or "feel for you, but I don't think anyone is paid based on what they deserve in the economy" (which is totally true, deservingness is a social and psychological concept). Nice of you to pick up the tab though, classy.
The analogy is totally flawed, a better example in my opinion on the dangers of collectivism, central planning and subsidization is the housing policies of a number of schools as well as meal plans, but hey do what you can.
Don't let nit wits kill your buzz. You should of asked him: "Do you really believe you deserve to steal my wealth via force?"
I love how people have to explain the analogy in the clip. A 10 year old could could figure it out, its not complicated. But it is stupid and not comparable.
I haven't watched the whole video clip yet, but I've often asked myself the following questions: What makes income unique? Why should people clamor so much for the redistribution of wealth, but not other things?
For example, the wealthy in the US work more hours than the poor; leaving them with less leisure time for other things. It's unfair that the poor have more leisure time, so maybe leisure time should be redistributed. People with ample leisure time should "redistribute" some of it, by baby sitting, doing laundry, mowing lawns, etc. for those unfortunate enough to not have much leisure time.
Similar argument could be made for intelligence, GPA, test scores, height, weight, athletic ability, beauty, etc. What's funny though, is how people treat wealth likes it's unique: as if it's the only thing that's inequitable (or, at least, as if it's the only inequitable thing that really matters). Seriously, I just don't get it.
P.S. As an aside, I love how Thomas Sowell always says it's silly to use the word redistribution of wealth, since wealth was not "distributed" in the first place: "Despite a voluminous and often fervent literature on "income distribution," the cold fact is that most income is not distributed: It is earned."
inb4 the shitstorm.
This video is a piss-poor analogy at best.
Straw man: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Explain to me why they're not analogous. Honestly, I want to know. I don't understand why redistributing income is different in principle than redistributing other things.
Dude, really? Because in a capitalist society one is necessary to acquire life's most basic necessities. Sweet Jesus how do you not get that?
Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax FTW!!!!
Econ, regarding your first argument that GPA and income are analogous. I disagree.
Grade is a measurement of performance in a meritocratic environment. Controlling for the difficulty of classes between different institutions and majors, it is a rating system of your intellectual disposition and your work ethic ONLY.
Income is a measure of how much society values your work. Plain and simple. Its NOT a measure of how hard you work or how smart you are. The others have hit the nail on this one. Just because one is smart and hard working and it might provide you with a better opportunity to get a better job, the market does not give a shit. It is not placing value on what you did to get that job, it is placing value of what the job does.
Regarding your second implied statement that a progressive income tax is not moral because it is akin to stealing is also off-base for the following reason.
Progressive income tax makes a value statement regarding what the wealthy owe to society. It says that those who have benefited most from an orderly society should have a proportional responsibility in maintaining it. The moral imperative here is that it is more IMPORTANT to perpetuate an orderly and beneficial society than to have the wealthy keep all of their material gains. Whether you think this is moral or not is your decision, but keep in mind that most developed nations in the world have some social system based of wealth re-distribution.
What function or purpose does re-distributing GPA serve? Does distribution of GPA maintain or propagate the university that you study at? Does it serve to support the function of the university? No, re-distribution of GPA would negate the most important functions of these institutions aside from education, which is to discriminate between high and low performers. Favoring GPA re-distribution makes the value judgment that giving everyone the same measurement is preferable over maintaining the purpose of the academic system. This really doesn't make any sense to me personally, but again, whether you think this is moral or not is your decision.
You can argue whatever you want about the morality of re-distribution in society but my assessment still stands. This video is utter bullshit and GPA redistribution is in no way analogous to income distribution. This video presents a straw man argument intended to obfuscate the underlying principles.
How does anything you said back up the argument that it's okay to redistribute wealth but not grades (or a million other things)?
Who's to say the wealthy have benefited more from society? If anything, the wealthy always have a good life in every society. It's the poor who get a tremendous amount of benefit from living in capitalistic societies. The American poor have cars, don't worry about starving, own homes, etc. The reason these things have been made so affordable, is due to technological advances that made others rich. So, I don't accept your premise that the rich benefit more from our society.
Even under a flat tax system, the rich would pay much more than the poor, without necessarily deriving more benefit from the public sector.
Either way though, it's really beside the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make, is that redistributive policies at their core, operate under the idea that the rich owe the poor some of their property and labor. You can sugar coat it all you want, but at it's core, that philosophy says that one man has a rightful claim on another.
Econ, the argument you first made was that the two situations were the same/analogous. You were clearly refuted on that. Then you went on to another argument that wealth distribution is immoral. Again, I don't really care about that. It is your own value judgment to make.
Personally, I don't mind paying a bit more tax to make sure there is an orderly society and that I can enjoy my affluent life.
Analogous in the sense that the argument for redistributing income begs the question about the redistribution of a million other things. If someone has refuted me on that, please link their thread because I missed it.
Then fill free to give more money to the poor. I'm not trying to stop you. Why do you feel the need to force me to do the same? You're free to give the poor as much money as you want, without forcing me to do the same.
"Analogous in the sense that the argument for redistributing income begs the question about the redistribution of a million other things" really only came recently into your argument.
Secondly, I'm not trying to "force you" to do anything. The reality is, we live in a society which benefits us all in some way, and this necessitate some collective decision-making on behalf of it. When it comes down to it, you value your income disparity more than the overall welfare and stability of society. That is your value judgment to make.
Either way, you were refuted on your original premise. On your second premise, I don't give a shit, value whatever you want :)
Anyway, have a good day man. I don't really feel there is anything left to argue with you.
Not true. I've asked several times in this thread: Why is it okay to redistribute income, but not grades (and a million other things)?
Yes, you are trying to force me. Taxes aren't voluntary. You're not talking about charity here. And, you've missed my point: it's not that I value income disparity more than stability. I value FREEDOM! There's a huge difference. Especially when you realize the fact that the friends of freedom do better by equality than the friends of equality do by freedom. Or as Milton Friedman put it: When a society focuses on freedom, they end up with a great deal of equality and freedom. The society who focuses on equality usually winds up with neither.
LOL - nice try. I guess it's better for you to make silly claims like this, than taking my arguments head on.
Holy shit, are you serious? I am sort of convinced you are trolling now. You don't see the benefit of ensuring minimum comfort levels for the poor and making sure the elderly have health insurance? There have been several posts trying (in vain) to make you realize that a basic level of income is needed for subsistence and that you CANNOT compare this to a freaking GPA. You are the only one trying to argue this, and you are losing. Just give up.
First off, the video sparks thinking but does not solve anything.
Wealth redistribution is for the good of society as a whole.
There are boundaries to this distribution though. If you tax the rich too much, then they may just leave the country. If you don't tax enough, the social classes may become so divided that civil war may break out in one form or another.
There is no permanent answer...but there is the collective average of society. This is the optimum amount of wealth redistribution.
I deleted my post about four times because I keep realizing the amount of material that can be discussed about this issue. I could write a book about this issue.
The rich are not part of "the society as a whole?" So, by what measure is it "good for society as a whole?"
In the simplest sense, income redistribution is necessary because if the gap between the poor and the rich widens by too much the the majority poor will rise up and overthrow the minority rich establishment. gotta sustain the poor's ability to survive or they will get pissed and kill you. like it or not it is necessary for society to function. if no-one paid taxes and anarchy reigned you would have no ability to amass wealth in the first place. and if you weren't forced to pay taxes there would be no police force or national guard to protect you, and the poor you chose not to subsidize would come for your head. Literally, see the "french revolution".
it's interesting but the analogy isn't accurate. there is an unlimited supply of gpa points but not money.
If you're bright enough (or work hard enough), the curve actually works in your favor and increases your chance of getting an A. The kid in the class who knows the most about the subject will always get an A in a curved system...
Why is it okay to redistribute income, but not grades.
This, I think, is not an easy question at first glance. Income and grades appear to be both functions of talent, effort, social-economic background, and luck. Yet most people would agree that it's wrong to redistribute the latter while there still is, as can be seen in this thread, heated debated regarding the former. The difference between the two is not the variables that are at play in the two functions, but rather the coefficients that are in front of those variables. I, for one, find it easy to believe that grade is more meritocratic than income. Throughout history, we've seen great men of learning and industry from all kinds of family background. Look around your college campuses and you'll see that the people with the highest gpas deserved them. They are the ones who are working the hardest.
And while people working on wall street might think that they are the most deserving of a high income. They should realize they play only but one of the many essential roles needed for society to run. Like-wise, many of the kids getting the best jobs do not do so because they deserve it, but because of their parents and connections. Surely, overall income is positively correlated with effort, but i think it's less correlated than with grades.
So, if redistribution is okay morally, then it's plausible to see why it would make since to redistribute income, and not grades. But the question of the morally of redistribution, of whether it is okay to do so, and if so how much, are debates that deserve discussions of their own. Some might say that people have an inherent right to property. And that it might seem a popular opinion in the US, it is not to the same degree everywhere. To find the degree where it is morally right to redistribute is a difficult one, but people should realize that from a purely social utilitarian approach, there are justifications for redistribution, and that simplifying the argument by the GPA analogy is not the end all of things.
Have any of you guys actually filed a tax return before? I can tell you the upper 10% of America does not pay their share as they did before the 70s. Not until Regan came to office and cut the rate of 70% to 28% on the highest income earners.
It was common in the 1960s to tax people 90% of their income over $1,000,000 to keep equality in America. Majority of owners had the social responsibility to redistribute the revenue that the business generated through bonuses and wages to employees. Majority of business owners never made 100 times the average employees wages in a year.
Most countries in Western Europe (France, England, Germany, etc.) tax at least 50% on income of the highest income earners.
The top 1% ($1 Million +) of the tax bracket receive their income not from EARN INCOME (work) but through INVESTMENTS and PROPERTY that are taxed at capital gains of 15% and not the 35% for income tax rate. You don't need to work hard if you have money accruing in bonds and dividends in stocks.
I don't believe in giving the poor more money then they need to live, but I believe the government needs to redistribute wealth to support education and infrastructure programs to grow the economy.
The tax system is not perfect. I believe there needs to be a new tax bracket for the ultra wealthy and a capital gain tax increase to decrease the deficit.
In no way can a simple analogy explain the complex issues of taxes and wealth distribution. I had to go through 3 tax classes. To simplify the issue to several sentences is an insult.
Define their "fair share."
I am accounting and economics major, so I do have a firm grasp of how the tax system and wealth distribution works.
Fair share is for the top 1%-4% income earners (1 million +) to pay half their ordinary income and 20% capital gain tax, what it use to be for a long time prior to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury Secretary Don Regan cutting it to 28% for the highest bracket and lowering the tax brackets. The tax would really be 35% on income after accounting for all the tax loopholes in the current system. Were people more liberal back then than today because they had a 50% tax rate on the highest wealth earners?
There should be a cut for income earners in the 5%-10% (150k-350k) bracket to 30% tax rate because this is the middle class families, professionals, and small business owners. Most innovation is driven from this wealth bracket.
Should a billionaire pay the same amount of taxes as a working professional? Did a multi-millionaire CEO work harder than a doctor? Can you sit on your GPA and see it compound interest? Taxing the middle class as the same as a millionaire is just not right.
The social welfare programs makes up 2% of the federal budget, I am willing to pay my share to not see someone starve or get an education. I do do believe there needs be a lot of reform in the tax system to hold people accountable. If I am living the American dream (1 million +), I should pay it forward for someone to have the possibility of doing the same.
If you're talking accounting tax classes (and maybe even law tax classes), then they won't teach you jack shit about this conversation. We're talking about economics and political philosophy here. That's not to say you need to have formally studied economics or political philosophy to participate, but rather that that's what we're discussing.
This is starting to approach the point where it is becoming a waste of time. GPA = METRIC. income =productivity= life blood of society. People like you turn fallacy into prospective reality. The stupid video operates on the premise that progressive taxation is akin to make people above a certain GPA give grade points. A retarded comparison since income redistribution doesn't operate under the premise of saving the poor. Taxation (income redistribution) is a part of living in a developed country.
Please econ, tell us all about the big bad income redistribution programs. Off the top of my head, I can think of two; TANF and unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits are far people who pay into the system, so that isn't income redistribution.
I love the fact that since this is on the front page everyone starts commenting on it, even though this topic has been posted for about a week now. Clearly just unfair.
Marketing - haha. I didn't even see this topic until it was on the front page.
Your value to society (an elusive concept in any case) partly depends on work ethic (how hard you work) and intelligence.
Work ethics and intelligence help measure your value to society. It turns out that income is a good proxy for intelligence and hard work.
So is GPA.
The moral argument behind income redistribution is that people are born with different endowments (e.g. intelligence). Given that, it is OK to tax the better endowed - who we recognize through their income - to give to the poor. Same argument goes for GPA.
QED: I just explained why one, on moral grounds, must either reject both or accept both income and GPA redistribution.
I like that. Well played, sir.
^^ troll, you live in society, if you want freedom then run into the woods.
LOL! Great societies are founded on freedom. Society doesn't mean collectivism. People can live together in harmony voluntarily. We don't need coercion and the maxim that what's mine is yours and what's yours is mine.
People seem to misunderstand the role of taxation and government. It is to get money out of you. You cant get 50,000 out of someone earning 40,000. You've seen the numbers showing what 1% of the country earns in terms of its GDP etc whatever. To get the money they need they have to tax the richer people. It's not about fairness.
One part where the analogy falls down on heavily is that you can't get a GPA of 10 or 100 or 1000. it's a limit. The socialists would love to have money 4.0 lol.... T
Define "need." Do we really need a lot of the things the government spends time, money, labor, and other resources on?
The clear implication of econ's statements in this thread is that he'd rather live in a society where the streets are littered with elderly homeless people who don't have the income to support their basic needs and can't afford the healthcare they need instead of our current society where social insurance policies designed specifically to prevent this are funded by a redistributive tax policy.
Thanks for demonstrating that all of my points were completely lost on you.
Your points weren't lost on me at all. You've repeatedly stated that you don't think you should be forced to pay taxes that are are used for redistributive social insurance policies. Without the safety net created by those policies, a large population of elderly people in this country would be unable to support their basic living needs and their healthcare needs.
I have been trying to get him to address this issue since the first page of this thread but he refuses to answer. He apparently prefers highly theoretical bull shit that isn't grounded in any practical context.
Yep, you just proved it again - my points were lost on you. The idea that we'd have tons of elderly people in the streets is ludacris. You realize, right, that people's children (and other family members) used to help them out so they wouldn't wind up on the streets? And, plenty of children still do so today. You also realize, right, that there is such a thing as private charity? You also realize, right, that if you walk down any big city today, we have tons of people on the street? So, where's the proof that under my proposed policies, we'd have more of it? Oh that's right, there wasn't any proof, you just assumed it. I guess you don't need to back up your arguments when you treat them as axioms.
So the hundreds of thousands of people living in public housing in NYC would just be magically taken care of without government support via kind people and charities? What planet are you on?
Where are those people supposed to go? How are they supposed to get medical care? How are they supposed to eat?
Come on man, you clearly have no real answer and are clutching at straws now.
Got it. You support social insurance, but you want others to foot the bill for it. You think that this will take the form of private charities that will not only receive enough in donations to support a large population of the elderly, but that those charities will have the administrative capacity and integration with one another to effectively allocate that support to a nationwide population of the elderly, and that they will build and maintain a database of information to accurately track that population. And in the event that charities are not able to foot the bill, you're an advocate of people's children and grandchildren bearing the financial burden of supporting parents and grandparents that either fail to properly prepare for their later years or that suffer large unexpected costs (such as serious health issues) that they aren't able to pay for themselves.
Or you think that current social insurance programs are expensive, futile enterprises that don't accomplish anything, and that cutting off support to the people that rely on these programs to live will not increase to the homeless and poverty stricken populations in the U.S.
There is no unowned land in the U.S. All land is either privately owned or owned by the government. And the squatters rights you mentioned don't exist in Alaska any more. Squatters used to be able to gain ownership over property that was owned by somebody else (but not unowned land, which hasn't existed in the U.S. for some time), but that was overturned in 2003.
Actually, you're right. I was behind on the times. The government seized up all the land and said no more squatters. And you're sitting here talking about individuals hoarding all the land, when it turns out it's the overly powerful government that you seem to be advocating. It seems that this proves my point. No one could privately hoard all that land, that's why the government had to step in. And again, why are you confusing the issue? 99.9999% of the things you consume were produced on land you didn't own, by machines you didn't own, by intellectual property you don't own, and by people you didn't employ. This idea that someone could hoard all the land and the food and prevent anyone from using it, is the most ridiculous thing in all four pages of this thread! If you want me to take your argument seriously, explain to me how someone would buy up every singe piece of land, every single animal, every single tree, and every single seed? And if they did, why on earth would they want to hoard it? Wouldn't others presumably have ways of trading value for value? Wouldn't they need to employ people to cook the food, harvest the food, etc? If so, would those people likely use some of their wages to buy food and turn around and sell it (since they could make a killing)? Wouldn't a market spring up, even under your ridiculous scenario that could never, ever happen? If your ridiculous example is supposed to be a thought experiment, please explain what it's supposed to illuminate.
Buffet and Gates on the tax system.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/iVOwaMWewGY
Buffet and Gates are free to pay more taxes if they want to. They don't need to force all other "rich" people. I agree with Buffet here that his assistants have too high of a tax rate. However, I also think that "rich" people pay too high of a tax rate too. Why can't Gates and Buffet have their opinion and act accordingly by voluntarily paying more taxes, and allow me the same opportunity to disagree and pay less taxes? I enormously respect both of these individuals as businessmen. But, I don't agree with their political philosophy. They're making the argument that I've been trying to refute with God knows how many posts in this thread! That is, when you argue for the rich to pay additional taxes for the benefit of the poor, you're saying one man has a claim on the property and labor of another man.
Econ, I see your point. Humanity was able to survive before our tax system- this country didn't even have any appreciable income tax until 1916 (I think).
However, I am a believer in some sort of safety net. Individuals are risk averse, not risk neutral; in order to optimally allocate capital, there must be some social insurance to compensate. Social security, if it's eligibility age and benefits were increased, would fit the bill nicely. There must be some safety net to encourage people to invest their retirement savings; otherwise, the remote chance of another event like this last crisis could decrease investment.
Beyond that, I don't think we need so many entitlements. Medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, etc. all seem like they would operate more efficiently if they were up to the private market. In all honesty, we spend too much on healthcare, mainly because people do not directly experience the costs. Especially at the end of life, we can burn millions of dollars for just days of semi-conscious life. What's more, the massive amount of money allocated to healthcare has reduced efforts to cut costs.
Likewise, I am not convinced everybody is entitled to the same standard of care. If Bill Gates decides he wants to fund the construction of some cyborg body so that he can live 200 years, good for him; he earned it. Joe the hobo? Not so much. I think if we did stop subsidizing healthcare, even common (but vital) inpatient procedures like appendectomies would be vastly more affordable. Right now, I doubt even the hospital knows exactly how much an appendectomy costs.
Regardless, if we are to have public anything, everybody needs some skin in the game. If you don't pay taxes, the government's waste doesn't really affect you. A national VAT would be the best system in my opinion. It's transparent, fair, and does not distort the market.
Ideally, only a very few people would receive more than they contribute to the government: those that really need it, for instance people with severe disabilities who will never be able to produce independently.
Great post West Coast rainmaker. Seriously, that was some quality stuff.
With this one thing though, I'd like to see if you'd agree with me: That safety net, need not be provided by the government. For one thing, you could potentially have some sort of insurance that handles that issue. If not, private charity would probably do the trick (since there wouldn't be much need for it if the policies you mentioned were adopted). Even if you won't agree with me though, let me just say once again: Great post!
This is a pretty popular point of view (at least with the healthcare components, I've never heard anybody suggest that unemployment insurance would be better off handled in the private market) that seems to be based on the religious belief that market-based systems always generate the most optimal outcomes. Medicare and Medicaid, from a cost standpoint, actually operate more efficiently than the private insurance market. That's not to say that those systems don't suffer from too much bureaucracy and inefficiency -- that obviously exists.
The basic problem with this belief is that the private insurance market isn't incentivized to provide the best healthcare to people -- it's incentivized to maximize profits. And profit maximizing behavior often includes behavior that is detrimental to the health outcomes of consumers, such denial of coverage to policyholders that have a need for legitimate care and procedures.
Everybody on all sides of the debate -- with the possible exception of enterprises with obvious vested interests, such as pharmaceutical or medical device companies -- agrees with this. The number one issue facing this country is getting health care costs under control over the long term. That's not simply a matter of reducing or eliminated Medicare of Medicaid, as all that serves to do is shift those costs to people themselves. Of course, any discussion of the end of life care you mention triggers a torch and pitchfork crowd like reaction with cries of "death panels."
Nope, it seems to be based on an understanding of the way in which markets work (both from a theoretical and practical view). That, coupled with the experience of government run systems. Socialist economies failed miserably. Even just looking at government run stuff in the US gives one insights into how shitty the public sector is. Where do you find worse results, performance, and service than public education, The DMV, and The Post Office?
And nobody is saying that markets work perfectly. But, obviously, neither does government. Therefore, the question becomes, which one of two imperfect systems works better? There seems to be sufficient evidence that relying on the market is superior in practice. Markets have flaws, but they just pail in comparison to the flaws of the public sector.
First of all, who ever said that maximizing profits wasn't incentive compatible? Have you ever heard of a book written in 1776 titled "The Wealth of Nations?" This guy who wrote it, Adam Smith, talked about this thing called "the invisible hand." This quote from the book pretty much sums up the concept entirely: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own neccessities but of their advantages."
And, even if you could prove that there were some incentive problems in the private market, it wouldn't prove we need the government. First of all, the government is already involved, so the issues in the private market might be caused by bad policy and regulations (and argument that many people have made quite persuasively). Second, even if you could prove that it was a problem of the private market, you'd have to have some reason to think the government could improve upon it (like I said above, you have to consider how markets work in reality vs. how government works in reality). There's plenty of reason to suspect that the incentives would be even worse in the public sector. For example, public choice theory demonstrates that the incentives of politicians and beauracrats is not in line with "the people." Furthermore, F.A. Hayek and many other economics show how markets disseminate dispersed information, which is lacking in the public sector.
If maximizing profits doesn't lead to good outcomes in this market, than why should it in any other market? Why shouldn't we just have socialism then, since the market can't be called upon to provide food, clothing, housing, or anything else? If socialized medicine and health insurance is optimal and efficient, then why wouldn't socialized everything else be optimal and efficient?
How do you get costs under control when it's a heavily regulated, heavily subsidized industry? Costs don't get controlled in the public sector. Why do you think our debt is massive, despite having tax revenue account for a significant percentage of GDP? The only way you get costs down, is through private markets, competition, and decentralized decision making. Have you ever heard of companies like Wal-Mart, Saturn, and Aeropostale? Why do you think they offer such cheap products and control costs?
I agree that it could be done. However, as much as I hate the government saying it knows how to spend my money better than me, if it was optional, you might have individuals refuse to pay in. This would be exacerbated if there were numerous private charities existed to help out- basically a moral hazard issue.
And to really qualify as insurance and not just a savings plan, it would need some sort of insurance itself anyways. This is an instance where I think a private market could do it, but it just seems more natural for the government to step in.
A private service would have to be really harsh about not helping those who opt out. Remember that story about some unincorporated farm that didn't pay for fire services, then burnt down as the fire department watched? That's the sort of scenario we might see (at least until people get the message).
I am not saying that Medicare/Medicaid are worse than private insurers; really, Medicare is fantastic at what it does. However, the profit margins are pretty slim even for profitable insurance companies. It's just like any service subsidy: it drives up prices e.g. tuition and government backed loans.
The problem is how we view medicine, in my opinion. The current model breeds overuse, and does not reward cutting costs. Actually, due to patent laws, it is almost necessary for pharma to continue producing more expensive, yet only marginally more effective procedures.
Look at plasma TV's: what used to be luxury is now affordable to most segments of society. But in medicine, instead of learning to make cheaper plasmas, they begin developing 3d TVs (which may even have inferior pictures). And, they more or less eliminate the option to invest in making cheaper plasmas once the first 3d set hits the market.
The insurance companies will pay for the 3d TVs (the new procedures), so it is almost a tragedy of the commons type scenario. The patient is not affected by the several-fold increase in costs (at least in HMOs) for maybe a 1% decrease in mortality, so why not get the more expensive procedure?
It would be great if even the poorest man could have the latest in medicine. But that quest for the latest and greatest is bankrupting us and keeping insurance premiums high. Like you said, it is political suicide to say, "no, we don't think X days of your life is worth Y dollars". At some point, we are going to have to put a dollar value on human life, and the quality of that life.
We are pricing life to an extent in war; we could definitely buy better battle armor, but the decrease in mortality versus the increase in costs doesn't make sense.
The problem with this attitude is that it introduces a classic free rider problem. Providing a social safety net benefits virtually everybody in society. Compared to the alternative, it reduces crime, it helps people a maintain a greater ability to be productive members of society and of the economy, it increases public health, etc. And of course, it allows us to live in a society with more dignity than one where many people would have no option other than living on the streets.
If I say it doesn't benefit me, will you allow me to opt out if I promise never to claim any SS payments?
This video is completely ridiculous. The logic they are using could hypothetically apply to anything quantifiable. For this to make any sense the factors influencing income would have to be the exact same as the factors influencing GPA, which they are not.
I am currently a college student, and if I decided I wanted a 4.0 next semester above all else, I would take very easy classes and study my ass of 24/7, and I would most likely get that 4.0. If I decided I wanted to be incredibly wealthy next semester, I could not just go out and get a $300,000 job, no matter how hard I worked trying to find it or how many hours I would be willing to put in on the job.
Why? If people aren't allowed to keep the income they earn, why should they be allowed to keep anything else they earn? Just because somewhat different factors determine GPA and income, why does their analogy make no sense?
Because for an analogy to make sense the underlying factors for both things must be the same, that's the whole point of an analogy. If not, we could just play this game all day with anything quantifiable that you "earn"--Raj Rajaratnam "earned" all the money he got via inside information, so I guess by this logic we should not take that away from him, if I "earned" 10 arrests on my record by committing various crimes I guess by this logic I could petition to have them removed and given to other people. These analogies are also apt if we are operating under the idea that the way these things are acquired do not have to be the same.
Easy is a relative word... This implies you have the intelligence to get a 4.0, you do not have the ability to go out next semester and get a $300,000 because if you did you would do it.
Heard about the Californian girl from Harvard that graduated with a 4.0 in psychology? She is currently working at Blockbuster. Apparently, she didn't get the memo.
This is exactly my point. I think anyone with decent intelligence (1900+ on SAT for example) could get a 4.0 or at least a 3.8 if they took easy classes and studied their asses off all semester. But I could not get that $300,000 job because it simply is not available to me, thus the mechanisms of acquiring high GPAs and high incomes are different.
The stupidity exhibited in some of the posts in this thread is quite shocking. Some of you guys are real morons...
I agree with most of Econ's points except for the fact that i believe some moderate level of taxation is required to maintain a properly functioning infrastructure, defense system, educational system, etc.
I question whether many of the posters have even ever had to write a significant tax check because it sounds like a lot of jerk off dorm room pontification.
Let me make it really easy for you to understand, keeping in mind my original statement...what you earn through your own hard work and sacrifice should not be redistributed to lazy degenerate assholes. Stop making the argument any more complicated than that.
I see...but a whole lot of us would like to see our tax money going towards things like infrastructure as opposed to boondoggles in the middle east / nation building exercises. To act as though most money gets wasted on "lazy" people is simply not true. The idea that welfare programs are killing our country and driving our deficits more or less ignores reality from September 12th, 2001 onward.
This post highlights the crux of the issue, and I think the fundamentally different viewpoints of the two opposing sides. You, econ, and honestly much of the country believe that the overwhelming reason people are poor is because they are lazy and dumb. Many others (including myself), however, believe social class is much more a function of the conditions you are born into and the opportunities they provide (essentially luck) as it is willingness to work hard.
Someone on here said they doubted whether some of us who are advocating some form of wealth redistribution had ever paid taxes. I would respond to that by saying I doubt many of those on here arguing against this safety net have ever spent time or volunteered with low income families or had witnessed the struggle immigrant families and those born into poverty face in moving from poverty into the middle class. I can assure you, many of these people work harder and longer hours than many people I know in M&A, which includes myself, for far less income. I volunteer with a low income educational facility locally and have witnessed this struggle with my own eyes, and it is not as trivial an issue as many of you make it out to be. I am sure there are plenty of "lazy" people who try to get a "free ride" on the system as well, but the despite what you believe the system was not designed to make that possible. It was designed to help these hardworking lower-class individuals have a chance at a better life. Just because they work hard does not ensure this will happen, and the safety net is there to make sure that if they are not able to ascend social classes, they will not starve to death and their children will still have a chance at a decent education.
I, like everyone here, would LOVE to see the system work more efficiently to weed out these "free riders" who are taking advantage of a system designed to meet a legitimate need, but I don't believe just eliminating the system altogether is a valid option.
You have wonderful intentions. I don't doubt that.
But you assume that gov't aid is a good thing. That hasn't been proven. If anything, we have examples where gov't aid is poisonous:
-Native Americans: they receive more $$$ than any other group. They get cash, land, subsidized health care, housing, jobs, university admissions. The official tribes on the dole are complete and utter failures. They receive tons of $$$ yet live in conditions of poverty. Alcoholism and unemployment. Casinos instead of healthy businesses. The Native American tribes that DO NOT receive gov't certification (and therefore don't get funding) are THRIVING. They own local banks and manufacturing. Their kids graduate high school, go to college and get jobs. Less addiction, less dependency.
-Public Education: we have poured billions into gov't schools for decades. We have gotten nothing compared to the results of private and parochial schools. (The parochial schools often serve even poorer communities with tinier budgets). Gov't $$$ perverts the incentive structures needed to secure success.
I am glad we have people with your sense of altruism. But I would love to see you questioning some sacred cows.
This video is comparing two completely different things. Like many have said before me: GPA is 100% a function of hard work and intelligence (mainly hard work). Income is completely different. We don't live in a fucking meritocracy. It's easy to sit behind your computer (which I'm sure 99% of you didn't pay for) and talk about how poor people don't deserve a cent of your money while your parents are paying your $40k/year tuition + textbooks + living expenses. Oh and good thing your parents bought insurance and you don't need a $200k liver transplant or something. Hell good thing you're even able to get insurance because you don't have any pre-existing conditions.
Optimum redistribution gives enough to support people in need who were fucked up for reasons outside of their control (eg. expensive medical operation, grown up in a shitty environment, laid off), while not giving too much so as to disincentive hard work (eg. giving a crackhead $100 to go buy more crack). I'm generalizing like crazy here btw.
The point is, trying to compare grades to wealth in order to argue against redistribution is stupid because they're completely different. If income was determined strictly by grades (say 3.0 -> $35k/yr, 3.5 -> $70k/yr, 3.8 -> $150k/yr, 3.9 -> $500k/yr, 4.0 -> $1 mil/yr), then I'd prob be against wealth distribution too (for the most part).
The comparison is apples and oranges.
Also, how do the students making the example account for grade equivalents for transfers of wealth from the majority of Americans to the top of the heap (i.e. bailout programs, TARP, TALF).
I wonder, would the 4.0 GPA average students sign on to a program that insured them against sub-A grades while rewarding them for A level grades? Perhaps they could propose to the C-level students a program in which they need to allow the best students to get straight A's no matter what, or else the system will collapse and no one will get any grades at all.
Ron Raygun is also the first guy to realize he could fund overseas adventures by dipping into the Social Security trust fund.
Earlier in the thread I mentioned the concept of personal responsibility to which some loser complained that the comment was irrelevant. This entire argument boils down to personal responsibility and the sacrifices that are required to ensure that the next generation of your family is better off than the current generation. This generational destiny should be determined by the decisions of the family and not the government. There is nothing wrong with creating a safety net
Veritas, i made the comment regarding the fact that most of you have never cut a real tax check and felt that pain of being robbed. I completely agree that many of the families you are referencing are incredibly hard-working but many of those same families have too many kids, support family members in other countries, do not pursue higher levels of education, mismanage their finances, etc. I also agree that we do not all start on the same footing and have the same opportunities but there are countless examples of people who have overcome those obstacles to become successful.
All I hear from most of the posters are excuses for people who are unwilling to take personal responsibility.
Good post.
Another massive problem with this is the use of term "redistribution", which some people love to use to attempt to link things to socialism. Taxes are nowhere near as simple as just taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people. Taxes go to other things like Defense, Social Security (which is not progressively taxed), Medicare, Infrastructure, Public Schools, etc. In fact, a tiny percentage of tax money goes to welfare programs of any sort.
So if this GPA thing was a realistic reflection of how taxes are spent and was asking to give shave 0.5 off my 4.0 to give 0.05 to improving roads around campus, 0.12 to increase on-campus security, 0.12 to save for me and give back to me after I graduate (retire), 0.1 to help pay for old professors medical needs, 0.08 to directly improve the school, and 0.03 to lower GPA students, I might be okay with that.
Federal taxes are WORSE! We take billions, send them to DC, the Feds take a huge cut to fund the bureaucracy, they mis-allocate it back to the states who then take their own cut out during distribution.
This process has NOTHING in common with a for-profit, private-sector supply chain in which assets flow to the firms which use them most efficiently (thus value them the highest).
Econ,
Do you believe in anti-trust laws?
Do you believe in a company not being able to acquire another due to monopoly regulations? After all, this regulation is essentially "stealing" future income from company and distributing it to some other company.
This is to promote competition. Competition is healthy in an economy. A functioning society is also healthy for an economy. Wealth redistribution attempts help make society function better.
And to note, I am in favor of extreme reform regarding redistribution (taxes to hand-outs). I believe this country needs LESS redistribution.
But if you believe redistribution is a bad idea, you are saying taxes are a bad idea.
If you can find a country that can operate without taxes and has a higher quality of life than the U.S, then I can find your logic believable. Until then, I think your absolute style of thinking is harmful and only accepts a yes or no answer which is detrimental to any argument or economic concept.
I am against anti-trust laws.
Non-governmental monopolies have VERY short lives. The monopolist earns temporary high rates of return on investment which eventually attract additional investors to the sector. Eventually competitors emerge and the profit margin drops in line with the overall market rate.
Dolor eum sit cumque aliquam aliquid dignissimos quis. Impedit beatae laudantium quibusdam doloremque laudantium quae repudiandae. Autem est incidunt neque error dolore. Et accusantium labore reprehenderit doloremque quam et.
Non dolorum dolorem laudantium at explicabo voluptatem. Sed minima ut ab expedita enim. Omnis illo placeat enim ratione. Modi ducimus aut ea iusto sit. Quidem sequi impedit maiores nulla quia ducimus sit.
Quia ex temporibus quia nobis totam. Pariatur recusandae distinctio quidem id quos et. Deserunt molestias totam consequatur veritatis dolore assumenda quia. Libero eos sed labore qui repudiandae.
Voluptatem atque iste est aliquam tenetur dolorem quaerat. Pariatur est placeat a sint.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Nihil labore qui quos vel voluptates et. Libero qui rerum sed explicabo. Rerum necessitatibus quisquam harum sunt officia eveniet neque. Qui voluptatibus et sed id aspernatur adipisci.
Possimus provident praesentium itaque sint deleniti. Nostrum expedita sint aut et veritatis. Molestias aut provident cumque quaerat incidunt quos reiciendis. Odit nesciunt impedit id quo. Impedit et cupiditate dolor porro eligendi iusto debitis. Aspernatur labore quas velit nobis facere perferendis similique iusto. Vel tempore qui labore debitis.
Ut libero repudiandae ex est vero aut quo mollitia. Commodi nam ducimus sint vel aspernatur repudiandae et.
Soluta id eos sint saepe nesciunt aut eveniet aut. Voluptatem enim ab dolores vero. Nemo vitae et cum.
Sint sed labore explicabo aliquam quidem fugiat id. Nulla voluptatem id iure deleniti est et. Quia quos ab quasi delectus et officia quis. Ducimus aut dolores libero labore illum. Ipsum adipisci eum voluptatem.
Est maiores occaecati ea iusto iusto qui rem. Blanditiis iure reiciendis ullam aut placeat quisquam. Recusandae eaque sunt voluptatem eveniet ducimus qui ipsam. Eveniet quia aliquam odio nulla iusto esse sed aperiam. Numquam aut aspernatur sed ea qui optio nihil.
Ab rerum est quia tenetur eum. Sequi doloribus magni error et cumque quas ut et. Magnam fuga ut optio a cupiditate iusto. Officiis ea sunt velit et ea ad quis dolorum. Doloremque qui officia consequatur quia sapiente consequatur et.
Tempore voluptatibus sed reiciendis corrupti corrupti. Sequi eum laboriosam animi sed velit esse et. Id exercitationem id non ipsa. In aliquam reprehenderit culpa quasi animi laborum.
Fugiat et explicabo deleniti et. Totam aut exercitationem reiciendis doloremque. Laborum provident consectetur et excepturi sed at quisquam. Placeat a perspiciatis rerum quia nostrum est. Illum aliquam distinctio vel voluptate rerum voluptas. Eveniet consequatur vel iste aut qui in qui. Est quia officiis excepturi velit cum accusamus.
Excepturi error eligendi omnis pariatur cupiditate natus harum. Vero sit a deserunt quae eos omnis numquam. Aut debitis esse et sit ea. Ex iusto iure aperiam nobis dolorum accusantium. Fuga vero aut aut adipisci eos. Vel officiis aliquid omnis iste sed explicabo. Earum praesentium ex non quia autem.
At voluptatem et rerum nemo eos maiores non. Blanditiis velit omnis earum qui similique.
Voluptates qui impedit enim cum. Sit et cumque illo ut nisi voluptatem.
Autem et ut alias incidunt aut. Pariatur ut non possimus aut expedita. Deserunt qui odit beatae nobis rem optio. Nihil voluptatem enim ut a sint illum rerum.
Aperiam sequi facilis praesentium porro aut. Tempore animi et sit. Reiciendis temporibus accusamus expedita. Aperiam libero asperiores laboriosam et aut velit corporis.
Nihil doloremque aut ut consequatur dolore illo. Quo numquam eos ut aut officia.
Et dolorem dolorum consequatur voluptas voluptas repudiandae. Veritatis impedit tempore officia aut omnis ut inventore. Autem et nostrum aut sunt doloremque.
Doloribus itaque rerum ex distinctio deleniti. Culpa occaecati aut et tenetur nihil. Accusantium minima in sit mollitia enim aperiam dolor. Dolores aut dolore molestiae sequi nostrum deserunt.
Assumenda officiis reprehenderit nulla rerum. Dolor quia nobis aut ducimus sunt aut id iure.
Nihil impedit a aperiam iste ex adipisci alias. Quo eaque explicabo quam nihil quas.
Et fuga rerum aut ab. Consequuntur est quia porro dicta consequatur nihil. Consequatur suscipit magnam commodi. Doloribus nam facilis sed est.