quote:You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
That statement is based on the assumption that work and wealth is a zero-sum game. That is a demonstrably false assumption.
For instance, the whole concept of volunteering is based on the notion that one person receives without working while the other person receives BY working. In other words, both parties benefit by one party giving to the other.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't see how your statement applies to the quote in any way. Volunteering is voluntary. Sure, I can give my money to anyone I want. But my giving them money doesn't increase wealth in general.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Tresopax, your assumption is based on the idea that there is a large enough majority that 1) can and 2) are willing to volunteer for the sake of others. I think many people are willing and capable, but I don't in enough numbers to keep the nation based on that going.
This belief is not mere speculation. You should read about Mormon co-operatives and what is called the "United Order." The first time it was tried the LDS Church almost fell apart. The second time it was tried in various manifestations the co-operatives gave way to Capitalism. Right now human greed is too powerful and forcing financial volunteerism doesn't change that landscape.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Why must wealth be measured in items? For instance, if I give some money to someone and that keeps them alive when they otherwise would have died (assuming it doesn't cause me to die, et cetera), I very much consider the net wealth of the world to have increased.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It isn't greed, Occasional. It's the simple fact that it's natural, and good, to act for ones own benefit. All beneficence stems from that, you know. If people didn't act to obtain wealth, they'd have no wealth to voluntarily give to others. Portraying the natural human condition as "greed" is unsupportable.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But my giving them money doesn't increase wealth in general.
It does if it makes you happier to give away the money, or if the money is worth more to them than it is to you.
My point is to demonstrate that this is not a zero-sum game. One person's gain doesn't require an equal loss for another person. Therefore, the quote is mistaken on a basic economic level when it says "what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."
That's why it is possible in theory for the government to redistribute wealth in such a way that everybody benefits. That's also why it is possible in theory for the government to cut taxes and yet end up with more tax revenue as a result. Both these ideas rely on the notion that this is not a zero-sum game.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Personally, I think of it as revolution insurance. Its easier to make money with money, which leads to monopolies and a concentration of wealth. However, if a society moves too much to the extreme, then there will be a revolution and much wealth will not simply be divided, it will be destroyed.
On a less extreme note, its worth noting that some theorize that the higher savings rates in places such as China are partially due to the fact that socialised health-care *isn't* readily available (and people have to save for this contigency) and its a well-known fact that auto companies have preferred to base in Canada because taxes for Canadian health-care are actually substantially cheaper than paying US health premiums to insurance companies.
So its worth noting that some programs which on the face of it are some form of wealth redistribution (higher tuitions for the rich paying for scholarships, EI, socialised medicine) do in fact lead to greater wealth for the society as a whole.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I also think there's a major difference between the "take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor" philosophy (which is what conservatives keep arguing against) and the "if we have to tax, it makes more sense to tax people who spend a lower percentage of their income" which is what most liberals are actually in favor of.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't see how your statement applies to the quote in any way. Volunteering is voluntary. Sure, I can give my money to anyone I want. But my giving them money doesn't increase wealth in general.
Not in general, but there's such a thing as a marginal utility. If you transfer 100 dollars from a millionaire to someone homeless, you've increased the total wealth in the system; the homeless guy's position is improved a lot more than the millionaire's is worsened. You may reasonably argue that this is still immoral to do if the millionaire is not willing; but to argue that the total wealth is not increased is just false to fact.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"but to argue that the total wealth is not increased is just false to fact," just doesn't make sense. No new wealth has been created. It has simply been spread out. How is wealth created? That, I think, is an arbitrary statement. Wealth is not created (other than on an individual level), it is decided.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The point is the value of 100 dollars to a millionaire is far less than to a homeless person.
On less extreme example - if I have a bunch of dimes and pennies in my pocket, I might toss them into a well just to watch them s'plunk, because they have practically no value to me and they're creating an annoying bulge in my wallet. To a homeless person, that change could be the difference between starving to death or living another day.
If your definition of wealth can't account for a one person finding money physically annoying and another person finding it life saving, your definition of wealth could use some work.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Seen on Facebook:
quote:You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
This sort of works if I step back and pretend that socioeconomic stratums work in a zero-sum vacuum, otherwise it's inapplicable.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't see how your statement applies to the quote in any way. Volunteering is voluntary. Sure, I can give my money to anyone I want. But my giving them money doesn't increase wealth in general.
Not in general, but there's such a thing as a marginal utility. If you transfer 100 dollars from a millionaire to someone homeless, you've increased the total wealth in the system; the homeless guy's position is improved a lot more than the millionaire's is worsened. You may reasonably argue that this is still immoral to do if the millionaire is not willing; but to argue that the total wealth is not increased is just false to fact.
Magical thinking. That kind of marginal utility doesn't affect the wealth out there. And it's a matter of opinion as to whether the poor person's lot is bettered by more than the rich person's lot is worsened.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, just as it is a matter of opinion if each side of a voluntary transaction is bettered. Of course, we by default accept those opinions as improvement because the transaction is voluntary. That doesn't change that "wealth" is a matter of each person's opinion of how well off they are.
Since you're throwing it around so much (and asserting it isn't a matter of opinion), I would like to know your definition of wealth.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Let's say I have a well paying job selling widgets. The government takes x% of my money and gives it to poor people. The poor people then go and buy widgets. Now, let's say the government stops taking my money and giving it to people. Poor people stop buying widgets. I get laid off. Now I make nothing. I did much better making good money -X% then I do making nothing. In our economy, there are very few jobs that don't rely on other people. We are interconnected. I can't succeed if everyone around me is failing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Magical thinking. That kind of marginal utility doesn't affect the wealth out there.
It doesn't affect the number of loaves of bread, no. That is not what I mean by wealth, however. And I'll thank you not to accuse me of magical thinking while you believe in spirits and ghosties.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Magical thinking.
I'd be amused to see what else you consider magical thinking. Keynesianism?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"your definition of wealth could use some work."
Not really. My idea of wealth is how much value we place on things. That includes the pieces of paper and metal that goes around to get more "things." The reason the World Economy is in the tank right now is because the value placed on non-existent promises. Wealth was decided by imagination that went beyond any physical object's ability to back it up. Those who were at one time wealthy because they had a home are now poor because the value of the homes are below expectations.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Right. And the homeless guy values that 100-dollar bill a lot more than the millionaire does. So, take it from the one, give it to the other, total wealth increases.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Total wealth for that homeless guy. Sure. Not refuting that. Taken as a whole, however, wealth has neither increased or decreased; only moved.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Right. And the homeless guy values that 100-dollar bill a lot more than the millionaire does. So, take it from the one, give it to the other, total wealth increases.
haha and technically society gets a total net benefit from that kind of transaction, based on socioeconomic studies.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The argument I am seeing is that if we take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor, then the poor will spend it. That means the money will get back to the wealthy. It is sort of reverse "voodoo economics" for the liberal class.
It is an economic circular logic with the assumption that the wealthy will buy into the system. What it will do, I believe, is convince the rich to place money somewhere else. The good news for us economic capitalists is history shows time and again this only lasts for at most three generations. After that capitalism returns full boar or there is a Revolution.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Occasional: do you think wealth only moves when one person exchanges some money for a loaf of bread, and doesn't increase? Would you agree or disagree with the statement that the person selling the bread and the person purchasing it are both better off?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Total wealth for that homeless guy. Sure. Not refuting that. Taken as a whole, however, wealth has neither increased or decreased; only moved.
I disagree, and so does your definition of wealth as "how much value we place on things". Let me suggest this objective measurement of value: The value of X is the amount of maggots you're willing to eat in exchange for X. (I originally had pedalling an exercise bike, but the millionaire is likely willing to do that just for the exercise, so it's not a good example.) For the millionaire this is almost certainly zero. Ick! But for a homeless guy, one or even ten maggots might look pretty good in exchange for a warm place to sleep tonight and a good few meals. So the total maggot-equivalents of society are increased by the transfer.
Do you have a different definition of 'value'?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "but to argue that the total wealth is not increased is just false to fact," just doesn't make sense. No new wealth has been created. It has simply been spread out. How is wealth created? That, I think, is an arbitrary statement. Wealth is not created (other than on an individual level), it is decided.
Wealth is absolutely created. When you turn a bunch of rocks that contain metal ore into refined metal, you've added wealth to the world.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Only because some human finds the refined metal more useful than the original rocks. If the same chemistry occurred during a volcano eruption on Titan, no wealth would be created. Conversely, if you make so much steel that nobody can think of a use for the last couple of hundred tons, then you've destroyed wealth.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Occasional: do you think wealth only moves when one person exchanges some money for a loaf of bread, and doesn't increase? Would you agree or disagree with the statement that the person selling the bread and the person purchasing it are both better off?
I know you're asking Occasional, but of course wealth only moves when one person exchanges some money for a loaf of bread. That's all money is: a symbol for wealth. It isn't wealth itself, and the amount of money you spend on a loaf of bread has the exact same value as the loaf of bread. To you. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the trade. Value is subjective.
When you harvest the wheat and turn it into bread, on the other hand, you've added wealth, because the bread can be eaten, while the raw wheat can't, really. And almost everyone would value bread more than wheat.
There are exceptions, of course. When it comes time to plant a wheat crop, wheat for seeding is worth a lot more to the farmer than the bread which could be made from it. Value depends on context. In the context of planting wheat, turning all the available wheat into flour would actually decrease the total wealth, because doing so makes it impossible to plant any more wheat. In almost any other context, bread is of greater value, and turning wheat into bread increases wealth.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Only because some human finds the refined metal more useful than the original rocks. If the same chemistry occurred during a volcano eruption on Titan, no wealth would be created. Conversely, if you make so much steel that nobody can think of a use for the last couple of hundred tons, then you've destroyed wealth.
You're right, of course. Context is involved. But when the vast majority of contexts involving human beings show an increased value by refining the ore, wealth has been increased.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Yes, just as it is a matter of opinion if each side of a voluntary transaction is bettered. Of course, we by default accept those opinions as improvement because the transaction is voluntary. That doesn't change that "wealth" is a matter of each person's opinion of how well off they are.
If you spend $50 on a book, it means that the book is worth $50 to you. If you say, "No, it's really only worth $20 to me, but I couldn't find it for that price, and I rilly, rilly wanted it," you're only fooling yourself. Because if it was true, you wouldn't have bought it.
Value is subjective and contextual.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Since you're throwing it around so much (and asserting it isn't a matter of opinion), I would like to know your definition of wealth.
It's mostly synonymous with value. Nothing has objective value, and there's no such thing as objective wealth. But when A is worth more than B to the vast majority of people in the vast majority of cases, it can be reasonably said that A has a greater value than B (always keeping in mind that there are cases where it doesn't, and that you're speaking in generalities), and if you can convert B into A, you've increased its value.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:... the amount of money you spend on a loaf of bread has the exact same value as the loaf of bread. To you.
Not the exact same. The value of the bread is at least as valuable to you as the value of the money. To you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If you spend $50 on a book, it means that the book is worth $50 to you.
At least $50, as fugu said. You might have been willing to spend $100 on that book, but you were lucky and got a bargain.
I think the maggots are a better measure of value, because they don't get all mixed up with opportunity costs. But whether you use dollars or maggots, the total value is increased by transferring that 100 dollars to the homeless guy.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wealth is absolutely created. When you turn a bunch of rocks that contain metal ore into refined metal, you've added wealth to the world.
You've added wealth to the human world. The physical world (which we are all deeply dependent upon) has lost something. The land and and life that was destroyed to get the rocks, the loss of clean air and water due to the processes that refine those rocks into something shiny or conductive or malleable, and so on.
I'm not disagreeing that wealth can be created, I just didn't like your example.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Value is subjective and contextual.
quote:It's(morality) mostly synonymous with value
Doesn't this make wealth a pretty arbitrary idea? Take that book you're talking about, not only am I spending money on that book that could possibly be spent in another way, but the act of reading the book is time spent that could be spent in other ways. One of which could be working to make more money. Now sure, an argument can be made that the knowledge that I gain from reading the book could increase my capacity to make more money in a shorter amount of time and thus the time devoted to reading the book would be more than made up by the extra value of my monetary wealth increase after reading the book.
But that is only under one strict definition of wealth. What if my definition of wealth doesn't only include material possessions? What if I feel like a wealthier individual by increasing my knowledge, just for its own sake, and not for the purpose of increasing my financial wealth? What if I feel that by volunteering my time or money I'm not only increasing the wealth of the people I help, but increasing my own wealth by leading an ethical life? If wealth is subjective but related to value, and value is subjective, than those things I value would be increasing my wealth, correct?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, now that [edit: White Whale's post] is magical thinking. The physical world has nothing in it that values clean air and water. Only humans value those things. Now it's possible that your process is so inefficient and dirty that it would be better for humans that you'd left the ore alone, but it is still humans who make this value judgement.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
KoM, okay. The physical world, which many do value, has lost something.
Or, another example, the biosphere has value, both for humans and for the life living in it. So a process that mines, say, forest land to get at something below it while destroying the life above it can be looked at two different ways. One is that the life lost is an externality, and that the material harvested is free, created wealth. The other is that the life lost is not an externality, and then wealth is not freely created.
I like Lisa's wheat example better for showing how wealth can be created.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote: It isn't wealth itself, and the amount of money you spend on a loaf of bread has the exact same value as the loaf of bread.
Strange, I'm pretty sure I value the loaf of bread more than the money, or I would not have done the exchange, and that the grocery store values the money more than the loaf of bread, or they would not have done the exchange. If I didn't value the loaf of bread more than the money, why do I still buy bread when the price goes up? Does how much I value the loaf of bread mysteriously and exactly track the changes in bread prices?
So, now that we've established value/wealth is subjective and contextual in your view, why is it a condemnation that it is only opinions the world is better off saving a life by having the state take a sum of money from a rich person? And note that the evidence is pretty clear most people in the world are okay with that -- the vast majority.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you have more wealth, including lives, after than before, then you've created wealth. This "freely created" stuff is a straw man; wealth creation does not require that there be no input.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Not in general, but there's such a thing as a marginal utility. If you transfer 100 dollars from a millionaire to someone homeless, you've increased the total wealth in the system; the homeless guy's position is improved a lot more than the millionaire's is worsened.
quote: Right. And the homeless guy values that 100-dollar bill a lot more than the millionaire does. So, take it from the one, give it to the other, total wealth increases.
quote: The point is the value of 100 dollars to a millionaire is far less than to a homeless person.
On less extreme example - if I have a bunch of dimes and pennies in my pocket, I might toss them into a well just to watch them s'plunk, because they have practically no value to me and they're creating an annoying bulge in my wallet. To a homeless person, that change could be the difference between starving to death or living another day.
(The first two quotes are from KoM, the second is from Raymond Arnold.)
Regarding these points, or, rather, the concept summed up by these points: None of these addresses the idea that the hundred dollars may be very valuable to the richer man, in his subjective opinion. You may think he's not worse off if he loses it, but he may not agree with you. In fact, quite a lot of rich people are rich specifically because they place an incredibly high value on all money, even small amounts. Just because Raymond Arnold might rid his pocket of change doesn't mean Warren Buffett would. I'd be surprised if he did.
I make this point because we've been defining wealth subjectively. I agree that it's subjective. I don't agree that it's okay for the majority (meaning those with lower than average incomes) to legislate their definition of value onto the minority (those with above average incomes) which is essentially what happens when tax increases for the highest income level get passed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: ... Just because Raymond Arnold might rid his pocket of change doesn't mean Warren Buffett would. I'd be surprised if he did.
... I don't agree that it's okay for the majority (meaning those with lower than average incomes) to legislate their definition of value onto the minority (those with above average incomes) which is essentially what happens when tax increases for the highest income level get passed.
There's some merit to that idea (although I would argue, not enough merit in the context of the US) but Warren Buffet might not be the best candidate for this particular argument against a progressive income tax system.
quote: Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.
So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.
And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:
I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.
PSI: Are you okay with value statements being legislated from the majority onto the minority along the lines of "no murder"?
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote: In fact, quite a lot of rich people are rich specifically because they place an incredibly high value on all money, even small amounts.
I've seen this argument before and I don't buy it. Certainly many rich people are rich because they put a lot of value on making money, but they don't do it by micromanaging every bit of change that passes through their possession. They do it with a combination of luck and knowing how to deal with the big picture. Which includes knowing when not to care about losing chump change. (See Steve Pavlina's classic blog post to get an idea of this way of looking at things.)
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: I make this point because we've been defining wealth subjectively. I agree that it's subjective. I don't agree that it's okay for the majority (meaning those with lower than average incomes) to legislate their definition of value onto the minority (those with above average incomes) which is essentially what happens when tax increases for the highest income level get passed.
But the wealthy make much more than the average income, and many of the poor make up much less than the average income. I think it's the vast majority, meaning those with incomes of anything but the very high, who are imposing their definition of value onto the tiny percentage that are very wealthy. And I think it's only exacerbated when the wealthy are much, much wealthier than the average or poor.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:None of these addresses the idea that the hundred dollars may be very valuable to the richer man, in his subjective opinion.
Sure. That's quite possible. I do think, though, that it would be rare to find a rich man who would be willing to eat a live, wriggling maggot in exchange for $100; while quite a few homeless people might do that. I introduce this as an objective test of subjective opinion, because I distrust assertions that "every dollar is valuable to me". Talk is cheap; practically anyone will be willing to put out some tough talk about how much they value money if it means they get to keep their hundred dollars. I believe that if you ran the experiment with the maggots, you really would find that 100 dollars is more valuable to the homeless guy than the millionaire.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Would it be helpful for us to agree to distinguish here between wealth and value, or else to define wealth as a function of total value?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It would at least be helpful to know whether we actually have two concepts or not. I've been using the two interchangeably because I think there's only one concept: Human value, or how many maggots would you eat in exchange for X. But if anyone has a useful second concept that we could refer to as 'wealth', I'd be happy to make the distinction.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
One definition of an individual's wealth could be the sum of the value (or utility) of each thing that he/she possesses to him/her. And a nation's wealth is the sum of the value of each thing that members of that nation possesses to members of that nation.
I think it's also possible to find value in something one doesn't possess, like the stars in the sky or a work of art, but I'm not sure if that should be included in your wealth. If you went out into nature and gave up all your possessions, but were extremely happy with your life, would you be wealthy?
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It's the simple fact that it's natural, and good, to act for ones own benefit.
I think my biggest problems with your economics ideas stem from this. How are you able to say what is natural and what is good, I find it much more probable that I will be trying to benefit everyone or my family before solely myself. So I do not think that you can say that is a "simple fact"
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think it's also possible to find value in something one doesn't possess, like the stars in the sky or a work of art, but I'm not sure if that should be included in your wealth.
How about one's community? If someone lives in a loving, supporting community, he is "wealthier" than someone who lives in a caustic, abusive community. But neither of them possesses their community.
How about finding value in access to clean air, clean water, and clean food? No one specifically owns the infrastructure that provides the clean water, air, or food. It has something to do with where you live, and what land you own, but owning land doesn't necessarily guarantee you access to these things.
Someone who has easy access to these things may not say they value them, but if you ask someone who has limited or no access to these things, they would say that they value them very much.
But in neither case does the person own that access. I don't possess the access to air, or the access to water, or the access to food. And while I can own food, and some amount of water, I cannot own air.
I guess what I'm trying to show is that defining wealth as $$$ leaves out a lot of valuable things that cannot reasonably be assigned $$$.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: PSI: Are you okay with value statements being legislated from the majority onto the minority along the lines of "no murder"?
Sure. But I think we have to draw a distinction between which value statements must be legislated in order to preserve basic human rights. I don't believe it is the right of one human to forcibly take from another, through the use of legislation, what they need to survive. You may disagree.
ETA: I should clarify. I don't literally mean "to survive". I think that there are very bare-bones services that are good for the government to provide. But most of our government services go beyond that, in my opinion.
quote: There's some merit to that idea (although I would argue, not enough merit in the context of the US) but Warren Buffet might not be the best candidate for this particular argument against a progressive income tax system.
You might be right.
quote: But the wealthy make much more than the average income, and many of the poor make up much less than the average income. I think it's the vast majority, meaning those with incomes of anything but the very high, who are imposing their definition of value onto the tiny percentage that are very wealthy. And I think it's only exacerbated when the wealthy are much, much wealthier than the average or poor.
I'm not sure if this is a counter or not, but I agree with you. Those who make a higher than average income are a tiny majority that are basically at the whims of the less wealthy majority. Unfairly, I believe.
KoM: I like your Maggot Standard. I'm thinking about it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I guess what I'm trying to show is that defining wealth as $$$ leaves out a lot of valuable things that cannot reasonably be assigned $$$.
That is precisely why the maggots are so useful. How many maggots would you eat - say monthly - in exchange for living in a vibrant, neighbourly community where you knew lots of cool people?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
No, my point was that this is part of living in a democracy.
If you are only in a small minority, you still have a right to fight for your beliefs, but you still have to follow the rules of the vast majority.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:I guess what I'm trying to show is that defining wealth as $$$ leaves out a lot of valuable things that cannot reasonably be assigned $$$.
That is precisely why the maggots are so useful. How many maggots would you eat - say monthly - in exchange for living in a vibrant, neighbourly community where you knew lots of cool people?
Can we swallow without chewing?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sure, if you think the wriggling sensation of a non-chewed maggot going down your throat is any improvement. These are live maggots, remember.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That's cool. My nerve endings kind of stop working about halfway down anyway.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I like the maggot example, but it only works if we lived in a world where maggots were the only form of commerce, and to be honest, that world is pretty nonsensical. I'm not a particularly rich person but I don't think I'd be willing to eat a maggot to pay for anything, period. (You might be able to persuade me to eat for a million dollars, but even then it'd have to be in a pretty controlled environment). And there's no such thing as "half a maggot" because once you start chopping them into pieces it starts to lose the gross-ness factor.
Anyways...
I think it's perfectly justifiable for the government to do it's best to bring about the greatest good for everyone, and I think raising taxes to pay for services that benefit the public is worthwhile.
However, there's a limit to what specific means will be effective here. Raise the taxes on the rich too much, and they'll just move to another country with a lower taxrate (or hell, build their own island-nation where they get to make up whatever rules they want).
Rich people in general have more ability to avoid rules than poor people, and I think that's a good enough self selecting factor to offset the unfairness of majority tyranny.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I'm not a particularly rich person but I don't think I'd be willing to eat a maggot to pay for anything, period.
Right, because you are wealthy beyond dreams of avarice by most standards. But try it the other way: Suppose I get elected to the Presidency in 2012 on my innovative "Maggot Economy" ticket, and decide to reform the tax system thusly: Either you eat a maggot, or the IRS confiscates all your property. I think you'd see quite a bit of maggot-eating, humans being generally more attached to things they already own than things they might gain in the future.
Anyway, for maggots, feel free to substitute "some unpleasant task". Flipping burgers at McDonalds', maybe. The point is that there are many things the homeless guy is willing to do for 100 bucks, which the millionaire won't do; therefore the subjective value of the dollars is objectively greater for the homeless guy.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think it's also possible to find value in something one doesn't possess, like the stars in the sky or a work of art, but I'm not sure if that should be included in your wealth.
We're using the term "value" differently. I don't value stars in the sky; I value being able to see them. That's something I can attain or acquire. The stars themselves are not. It doesn't actually matter to me if they're actual stars out there, or if they're a projection against a solid sky.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"(You might be able to persuade me to eat for a million dollars, but even then it'd have to be in a pretty controlled environment)."
I'd probably eat one for a dollar, as long as I keep getting a dollar for each maggot I eat. (In a reasonably controlled environment.) I could retire within a few years, and I think they are quite nutritious.
If I couldn't be sure they wouldn't give me a tummyache, my price would be higher.
I'd eat just about anything that had a low chance of killing me for a million dollars, though.
What's so bad about eating a maggot anyway?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
You will go far in KoM's coming regime.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We're using the term "value" differently. I don't value stars in the sky; I value being able to see them. That's something I can attain or acquire. The stars themselves are not. It doesn't actually matter to me if they're actual stars out there, or if they're a projection against a solid sky.
It matters to me a great deal if the stars are real or if they're a projection. I think that by limiting the value of objects like stars to the happiness that they bring you when you look at them ignores much of what they are. Our sun is a subset of all the stars in the sky, and it wouldn't be here if the stars were a mere projection on a big sphere.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The stars themselves are not. It doesn't actually matter to me if they're actual stars out there, or if they're a projection against a solid sky.
I suspect that it does, in that you'd eat fewer maggots for the privilege of looking at stars you knew to be created by a clever illusion.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think we're all agreeing on the definition of value, but different people are always going to value things differently. I'm sure there are people out there who care more about the stars existing than their ability to see them (this value is perhaps parallel to someone who values God's existence rather than direct contact with Him).
The points of disagreement seem to be:
1. Is it moral to force a minority to be taxed at higher rates for non-essential benefits to the majority and/or other minorities.
2. Is a higher tax rate for the rich a plan that will actually be effective in increasing the overall welfare of America? (or other countries)
3. Assuming that #1 is okay, what specific programs would actually be beneficial?
I can understand why people disagree with the morality of point 1. It mostly comes down to what you think the government's role is. But in a democracy, the government's role is neatly defined by the results of elections, which poor people have the ability to manipulate via numbers and rich people have the ability to manipulate via lots of money to spend on advertising and manipulate those numbers. Not to mention a much easier time leaving the country if they don't like the results. All things considered, I don't think rich people can complain about our government being "biased" against them.
Now even if you agree it's OKAY to tax rich people more, is it a good idea? Again, I think the fact that rich people can leave makes this an easy to answer question. If we err on the side of taxing them too much, we'll figure out soon when they start to leave and overall tax revenue drops.
For number 3, I have no idea. Economics is complicated. I think the government should help everyone achieve as much of their potential as possible, but I don't have the background to argue which methods are most effective. Better educated people than me can argue about that.
In any case, I definitely don't buy the "rich people worked hard for their money" argument. The super rich make most of their money from a combination of luck and inertia. The medium rich get a higher proportion of their income from actual work but would also be taxed less the super rich. No one's suggesting we take so much money away that actual work is discouraged.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.
What an amazing false dichotomy!
By "legislating the wealthy out of freedom," of course, this means taking money from the rich and giving to the poor. First, of course, is the fact that taking someone's money isn't the same as taking their freedom.
But of course, all income redistribution schemes are based on the idea that the rich are on the receiving end of a system that is inherently imbalanced. It's not possible to get rich without the cooperation of that system, and everyone else in the system gets shafted, because the rich are those who are in control of where the money goes.
So:
quote:When (less than) half of the people (the idle rich) get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them (because they own the corporations that the other half works for), and when the other half (the workers, who actually create wealth to start with) gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for (Because they aren't paid a living wage), that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
As they say: "Fixed that for ya!"
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
I used to be a fervent Ayn Rand fan. Still am, but objectivism is the idealogical opposite of communism and is about as possible.
In her world, things were given value for value. Everyone who worked was given according to the value of their work. The rich were rich because htey did things of great value. The poor were poor because they didn't.
In our world, the rich are rich because they lie, philander, cheat, and steal. Very few actually do anything of value. Many of those who work, are not accorded their value.
You can drop the taxes on the rich when they start acting more like objectivists and less like slovenly swine.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
These are live maggots, remember.