In the last post I was told "You
haven't a clue what liberals think." And I agree whole heartedly that I have no idea what Liberals think. So I asked for clarification
"Right now I am interested in how Liberals see this state run wealth distribution
plan working. How will it promote hard work and efforts from us all to
make America great for our children? One note: you cannot deny that free loaders
exist. Anyone who has worked with a group of people knows that some people are
industrious and self motivated, and others not so much so."
I received little input, so I took a shot at it. And yes there are a couple of loaded words, but over all it seems like a nice idealistic place to live. Kind of like Star Trek's Federation society.
"Liberals believe in a "fair" America. A place where there is no poverty and everyone has food, clothing, education, healthcare, phones, etc. Everyone is entitled to these things since they live on American soil.
Since these are due to all people living on American soil: work reqts, citizenship, effort, behaviors, beliefs, etc are immaterial in determining what they should have and how they should live.
The government of the people is best suited to ensure these entitlements are provided equitably, therefore it is "fair" and "right" that they forcefully transfer Private Property from the successful to the less successful"
and
"In this "fair" America, it seems unfair that poor and middle class people should
lose assets, jobs, property, money, etc for any reason. Whether the person made
good choices, did due diligence, paid for insurance, etc is immaterial.
Therefore the government should take an active role in protecting people from
most things and/or pay for the loss if it happens.
The government of the people is best suited to ensure the people are protected
adequately, therefore it is "fair" and "right" that they forcefully transfer
Private Property from the successful to fund the insurance programs and pay for
the regulatory expenses..."
At which time Hiram gave what seems like a simple and practical dream.
"My dream is that things are rewarded according to their value. But it's just a
dream."
And I asked some simple questions that seem to be the crux of the problem.
"Thoughts on how "Value" should be determined? Or how "Rewards" are to be
distributed?"
Better clarification?
18 comments:
Right now I am interested in how Liberals see this state run wealth distribution plan working.
In general, I see higher taxes for wealthier Americans, and the raising of income caps on Social Security taxes. What I would like to see is universal health care, with some efforts made at cost control, a very difficult thing admittedly. I certainly don't think Wall Street financiers have some sort of unrestricted right to engage in financial speculations, the risk of which doesn't fall on them, but on the American people generally. Nor do I think it makes sense to have a tax system which encourages the morally hazardous taking on of risk on behalf of others.
Through the Bush tax cuts, we, the American people, borrowed huge amounts of cash on the national credit card, and turned it over to America's wealthy in the belief that they were "job creators", and the implicit understanding that they would use that money to create jobs and prosperity. Didn't happen. The money was instead used to fund real estate and stock market bubbles, which crashed as they always do. Now Republicans are asking that those who didn't benefit from that redistribution to the wealthy to bear the burden of paying it back? Why should they? They didn't receive the promised benefits of that policy. Doesn't that raise a problem of fairness? But is that the crucial issue? The initial redistribution of taxes was unfair, but if it had achieved what was promised, lower employment and higher wages, I would have had no problem with it. Or is the real problem that fair or unfair, turning money over to the wealthy in order to create prosperity, just doesn't work, indeed has never worked? That wealth trickles up, not down.
--Hiram
""Thoughts on how "Value" should be determined?"
What value is, is a very complicated question. It has been said by some to be found in the eyes of beholders, in other words it's subjective concept to be determined by each of us to our own satisfaction. Oscar Wilde famously said something like "A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." A lot of the decisions we make in life, including the most important decisions, can be viewed as a mediation between price and value.
During the campaign, Mitt Romney noted that the jobs Mrs. Romney performed as a wife and mother were far more valuable than what he did as a private equity manager. Was he just mouthing a cliche, or telling some given audience what they wanted to hear, two things he would do on occasion?
Or was he saying something deeply true? And if it was true, when we are creating a system of incentives, that is, deciding the prices of things, is it wrong to take that kind of valuation into account?
--Hiram
"Through the Bush tax cuts, we, the American people, borrowed huge amounts of cash on the national credit card, and turned it over to America's wealthy"
The American people turned money over to the wealthy? Who's money was it again?
The American people turned money over to the wealthy? Who's money was it again?
Our money. Just as it is our money, that Republicans and indeed Democrats will use to pay back the money borrowed.
--Hiram
So Hiram's personal property is OUR money from your perspective?
Hiram has no personal property?
"So Hiram's personal property is OUR money from your perspective?"
Taxes are the price of government. Once we buy government with taxes, we no longer own the money we used to pay for it.
Notice, by the way, how this argument sounds in fairness. Doesn't fairness require that those who pay more in taxes, should benefit more from tax reductions? That's not an argument I find particularly compelling myself, because I am very comfortable with unfairness. But in this context, it turns out, that it is the conservatives who think their perhaps disputable, but entirely fair concept of fairness should drive policy.
--Hiram
There is a simple answer to your quandary by just changing one word in your premise. You said "liberals believe in a 'fair' America" (where everybody has a "right" to everything everybody else has. Change the word "believe" to "feel" and you will understand that liberals do not THINK about the consequences of their pipe dreams, or how their wants would need to happen. In fact, liberals really have no clue about how the world works and don't really care about "fair" as regards others. They would be perfectly happy if nobody else but THEM got the freebies, or if some rich guy lost everything while they watched from the sidelines. The whole basis of our tax code lately seems to be this idea that, somehow, if the rich get to keep LESS of what they earn then somehow we are all better off. It is not rational, logical, thoughtful, moral nor enlightened; it is slothful, envious, greedy and fueled by hate and pride. That's 5 of the 7 deadly sins AND stupid besides.
PMFBI,
J. Ewing
Hiram,
So if the government carried no debt, all of Hiram's personal property would be Hiram's. However as the government's debt grows, Hiram's personal property starts to become OUR property?
I assume "OUR" is the goverrnments?
Any other Liberals have differing view from Hiram's?
J,
I disagree. There are a lot of Liberals that want more for others, not just themselves. But I do agree though that they haven't thought it out too far since the only comments I can get from the Left to clarify their plan are from Hiram.
Hiram's personal property starts to become OUR property?
Taxes are legal, the price we pay for government.
--Hiram
But before one writes out the check to pay one's lawful taxes, who's money is it?
Hiram's or OURS....
But before one writes out the check to pay one's lawful taxes, who's money is it?
Depends on whether you are on an accrual or a cash basis accounting system, I suppose.
--Hiram
Such a simple question and such an evasive answer.
Well, it's certainly not my money.
--Hiram
I think we have identified a big philosophical difference.
See G2A believes that the money belongs to G2A until the check clears. Whereas apparently Hiram believes that the govt owns ~$50,000 of Hiram's assets. (Ie Debt / citizens)
That definitely makes for different perspectives... I wonder if all Liberals see Personal and State property this way.
Whereas apparently Hiram believes that the govt owns ~$50,000 of Hiram's assets. (Ie Debt / citizens)
The national debt is owed by the nation, not the government. The government could fail and we would still owe the debt.
I saw a commercial run by the right wing during this very election season. It talked about how every baby born in America owes fifty thousand bucks in national debt from the moment of birth. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is perhaps a debatable issue, but the commercial had it right about how the national debt is our debt.
==Hiram
I think you take the $50,000/person belief to a whole new level.
USA Savings Bond
I am thinking folks would be renegotiating if the gov't failed. All the paper has the USA all over it. Let's hope it never gets to that.
I think you take the $50,000/person belief to a whole new level.
If we don't owe the national debt, who does? Why do they call it national?
==Hiram
If our government went bankrupt, it would still be the government. The government issued the fiat money, so only the government owns the debt. If our government falls, the first thing the new government (presumably not an anarchy) would do is repudiate the debt, just as a bankrupt corporation does when it emerges from bankruptcy.
In fact, one of my preferred solutions to the huge debt we now have is to simply repudiate that part residing only on Federal Reserve bank books.
J.
Post a Comment