[Rei Murasame]

Oh, a whole quintile!? No wonder all the graphs I've used on PoFo in the past do not show any mobility.

The problem is that people don't seem to know what class mobility is. Okay, so some people moved up or down a quintile (quite interesting is that we aren't told how many moved upwards, but that's beside the point I'm about to make anyway), but what does that mean?

Using myself as an example, my family have been middle class for several hundred years now, any increases in wealth are generally attributable to a growth in the wealth of the society in general. But wealth is not all there is to it, it's educational standing and social standing and career placement as well.

There are some positions and social circles that you cannot buy or blag your way into.

You've lived in the UK, you know what I'm talking about. As soon as you so much as open your mouth, your class (and also region and cultural influence too if applicable) is on display. Easy way to test this? Find a bar with working class people in it, walk into it, and talk. Tell me if their behaviour changes upon hearing you.

Class really does exist.

[grassroots1]

Every single one of those who vote for progressive taxation.

What a fucking load. You can't vote for a politician in this country without "voting for progressive taxation," although the Republicans are moving in the direction of "party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich" certainly. But people vote for taxation because it funds their SCHOOLS and police stations and ROADS and libraries and fire departments and street lighting and the list goes on forever! I mean for christ's sake, Eran, you are a traitor to the very foundation of this nation if you believe that taxation in all its forms is "theft." These Tea Partiers who were ready to let the country default were essentially advocating the destruction of this nation's economy... they are terrorists. They are the real terrorists. If a left anarchist was elected and advocated something similar, he or she would probably be in prison. But we give the fucking libertarians a pass because the rich made them and the rich own the police and the rich own this fucking society so any ideology that says, "taxation is theft, eliminate social services" is a damn good one in their mind.

[Eran]

Much more so in the UK. You are absolutely right.

But then if you divorce, at least partially, economic status from class, lack of class mobility is no longer as interesting. If a group of people like dressing in fancy clothing, speak in funny accents and drink tea together, who cares? Class lines are morally meaningless as long as the "upper" classes do not enjoy any legal privileges.

I mean for christ's sake, Eran, you are a traitor to the very foundation of this nation if you believe that taxation in all its forms is "theft."

If I had any loyalty to this (or any other) nation, and that loyalty was founded on faith in its political institutions or agreement to their arbitrary authority, then by all means, label me a traitor.

I should have emphasised the word "progressive" above. With a flat tax, wealthy people already pay more than poor ones. The wealthiest pay much more than they consume in government services. But that's not enough. Progressive tax make the disparity obscene. So yes, any net tax recipient who supports progressive taxation is after richer people's money. Why is that hard?

These Tea Partiers who were ready to let the country default were essentially advocating the destruction of this nation's economy

First, nobody was ready the let the country default. Regular cash flow is sufficient to meet all regular debt service obligations, as well as paying for emergency services.
Second, it is the establishment, through uncontrolled spending, that is leading the nation's economy towards Greece-like destruction. The Tea Party people are doing their best to slow down that particular train wrack.

All that would be required to plug the budget deficit whole is for government spending to roll back a decade or so. We are not talking about "dismantling social services" (not that I would mind), but merely scaling back some of the most recent increases in spending.

Finally, terrorists, amongst other requirements, use violence to advance their goals. Do you have any evidence that the Tea Party as a movement (not the isolated and condemned individual) advocates the use of force? In fact, it is the government which routinely and systematically uses force to accomplish its goals, isn't it?

[Rei Murasame]

All of this seems to tie right back into my old criticism of classical liberalism though. It is basically blind to anything where the rules are not actually explicitly written down. This is the only way that you could actually try to say that social class can be divorced for economic status, as though that actually really could ever happen.

In my view, they can't claim that people have ascended a class, if they haven't actually moved. If they are just talking about increases in income, then they should write that, instead of acting like a little bit of added income can cause some magical transformation of their status overnight.

The thing is, that I don't really have a problem with class boundaries existing, they will always exist in some form, what I have a problem with is when classical liberals massage statistics to try to claim that class mobility is there when it isn't, so that they can justify relieving all the top section of society of any responsibility toward those beneath them.

[grassroots1]

I should have emphasised the word "progressive" above. With a flat tax, wealthy people already pay more than poor ones. The wealthiest pay much more than they consume in government services. But that's not enough. Progressive tax make the disparity obscene. So yes, any net tax recipient who supports progressive taxation is after richer people's money. Why is that hard?

That makes it sound as if the poor are just enviously grabbing for the wealth of the rich, when that's not the case. There are wealthy people who support progressive taxation and increases in their own taxes because they understand that government revenue is used to create a foundation on which other people can thrive. I just think that if we arrived at this conclusion through the democratic process, and since it results in the provision of such basic and essential services, the existence of progressive taxation and taxation in general is ABSOLUTELY justified. It's an absolute fantasy to believe that if we moved toward the "free market," then people would see the same level of quality of life. The rich benefit from their very position, for that reason they should pay more into the system than others. Sensible.

First, nobody was ready the let the country default.

That's not true. I remember many Tea Party congressmen suggesting that they would block compromise and allow the country to default. A "fiscal responsibility at all costs" type approach.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/are-tea-party-terrorist-patriotic-cnn-fb/question-2041297/

Second, it is the establishment, through uncontrolled spending, that is leading the nation's economy towards Greece-like destruction.

We've cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans since Reagan. This also is an aspect of our fiscal irresponsibility as a nation. Just because your ideological narrative doesn't jive with that fact doesn't mean it isn't true.

[Eran]

That makes it sound as if the poor are just enviously grabbing for the wealth of the rich, when that's not the case.

Sure it is. How else do you explain the rush to over-tax the rich to pay for every social program under the sun?

Where I agree with you is that it isn't only the poor who are after the wealth of the rich. The political classes as well as many middle-class voters are also after that wealth. That some rich people also support progressive taxation is irrelevant.

There are wealthy people who support progressive taxation and increases in their own taxes because they understand that government revenue is used to create a foundation on which other people can thrive.

And yet remarkably few of them do the obvious thing, which is donate their money to the state. Why is that? Why is Warren Buffet on the one hand calling for higher taxes on the rich, but on the other hand donating his funds to Bill Gates' Foundation rather than to the US Government? Is it because he thinks there are better things to do with one's money than give it to wasteful politicians, but other people do not deserve to make that decision for themselves?

I just think that if we arrived at this conclusion through the democratic process, and since it results in the provision of such basic and essential services, the existence of progressive taxation and taxation in general is ABSOLUTELY justified.

Can we both agree that the democratic process in and by itself, doesn't justify any outcome? After all, it was the democratic process that gave us slavery and Jim Crow, Hitler and Japanese Internment Camps, sodomy laws and anti-marijuana laws.

Second, you are making an assertion (that taxes result in the provision of basic and essential services) with which I disagree. In fact, any "basic and essential" service could be provided much more efficiently without the use of coercion, just as food (for vast majority of Americans) is.

So if the democratic process can just as easily result in huge injustices, and since taxes are neither necessary nor even helpful for the provision of essential services, and since taxes are routinely used to line the pockets of government cronies and support huge bureaucratic waste, can't we agree that taxes are immoral and akin to theft (or robbery, or extortion)?

[Takkon]

How many wars were fought in the name of poor people? How many atrocities were committed in the name of poor people? Violent crime happens more among poor people, but then it doesn't really happen all that often period. Also, it depends on where the poor person is from, you're less likely to see someone that lives in a rural community commit crime than pretty much any group, and they tend not to be all that rich. It's really a very narrow statistical analysis that people seem to be taking with that topic. Seem like a lot of people in here have slave ideologies.

[grassroots1]

Sure it is. How else do you explain the rush to over-tax the rich to pay for every social program under the sun?

The point is it's not envious, it's only reasonable. We want people to have basic access to a certain level of education. We want there to be efficient police services. We want there to be safe roads. This isn't envy, it's called living in a democratic society.

And yet remarkably few of them do the obvious thing, which is donate their money to the state. Why is that?

Because that's why taxes exist. There are plenty of things our taxes go towards that many people don't support, which is why people give to charities. Your tax dollars won't go to feeding people who are starving in Somalia as a result of the drought, which is why you give to those charities instead.

Why is Warren Buffet on the one hand calling for higher taxes on the rich, but on the other hand donating his funds to Bill Gates' Foundation rather than to the US Government? Is it because he thinks there are better things to do with one's money than give it to wasteful politicians, but other people do not deserve to make that decision for themselves?

Maybe because he doesn't want to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe because he doesn't want his money to go into Blackwater's pocket? Who knows? It makes no sense to speculate. There is plenty wrong with the system but it also provides essential services and in providing those services enables social mobility. Social mobility checks the wealth and power of the wealthiest and most powerful people in this society, which is exactly why the rich are clamoring to eliminate social spending, promote your libertarian perspective, and subvert the American democracy. I have increasingly diminishing tolerance for people that hold your perspectives, Eran.

Can we both agree that the democratic process in and by itself, doesn't justify any outcome?

Of course. In this case, I believe the outcome is entirely justified.

Second, you are making an assertion (that taxes result in the provision of basic and essential services) with which I disagree. In fact, any "basic and essential" service could be provided much more efficiently without the use of coercion, just as food (for vast majority of Americans) is.

Hunger has been increasing to unprecedented levels in the United States since the financial crisis and the recession. The free market is not a sufficient replacement to these services and I have no shred of doubt that privatization of education, of health care, etc. would result not in greater access, but in a hierarchy of quality and in more limited access. This is why these programs exist in the first place and they should be defended.

Christ, you libertarians...

[Stormsmith]

On Crime by the Wealthy

Wealthy people mightn't commit armed robbery but they do commit violent crime through robbery.

Bernie Maddock stole entire life savings. Enron ripped off investers and their employees' pension funds. The big three car makers were supposed to ensure pensions for their employees. They didn't. Gave themselves two brand spanking new cars every damned year and massive raises, bonuses, and exotic business trips. Imagine being near or past retirement age, and suddenly discover you don't have two cents to rub together. Forty years of paying into a pension shot to buggery, and a bunch of fresh out-of-school- (paid for with those pension funds) -libertarians claiming the funds are unrecoverable. Now seniors are having to work at McDonald's "cradle-to-the-grave's minimum wage establishments" to make ends meet. Without health insurance, odds are that one or both married people will contract some life threatening disease and lose their homes.

That degree of stress and distress will negatively effect the health of those affected. Strokes and heart attacks are violent.

Now I see daily reports of people who are so arsingly dumb they can't think of repayment options or consider the ramifications of renegging on loans (interest free loans) from national trust funds, ie pensions. All governments require cash. If it wasn't for the loans, the money would have been borrowed, with interest, from China. Considering all the recent hoopla over repaying foreign debt (with interest) it seems a little odd that so many of you would throw your own people under buses. The people the libertarian/tea party wants to rip off already served the country through service and sacrifice in the second world war, Korea, Vietnam, etc. They paid taxes for schools, roadways, fesh water sources etc. Cheating them seems a pretty shabby way to treat the people who did right by America.

What makes you say that? rajpatel.org/2010/01/29/class-mobility-in-the-united-states is a random source of statistics. It suggested that 60% of people have changed their class by at least one quantile. Something that 60% of people manage to do is clearly not "extremely difficult".

Change isn't always good, esp. if you're in decline.

before the 70's, most women married and stayed home to rear children. The seventies, with reliable birth control, allowed young couples to marry, and continue working to amass a downpayment for a home without the added expense of having children in the early years of marriage. And for the first time, the norm was for moms to stay home until the younger child was in school, then return to work. Depending on her job and wages, coupled with the early acquisition of a house, they would have had a reasonable chance of elevating their status. It was not from the largess of the husband's employer. The continent was in a recession. Those families who did better did so with a second income. Single income families would be in decline.

In point of fact, lower income earners are falling behind; the middle class has been in a stall since 1970, with the numbers in decline due to off-shoring and unfortunate unemployment rates during Reagon and in this decade.

With lobbyests petitioning for less regulated (read fewer benefits) workplaces, and squawking over attempts to raise minimum wages, with colleges having to raise tuition while unemployment for the poor is around the 15% mark, the probability of poor people climbing out of poverty is low.

[Eran]

The point is it's not envious, it's only reasonable. We want people to have basic access to a certain level of education. We want there to be efficient police services. We want there to be safe roads. This isn't envy, it's called living in a democratic society.

Have you seen all the calls to "tax the rich"? What are those if not envy? Consider your call for "basic access" to education. Such "basic access" seems to require ever increasing levels of expenditure. In general, the pattern we observe is of an increased level of government spending as a function of GDP, even while GDP continues to climb. If taxes were really used to provide "basic" level of services, we would expect the dollar amount spent to be relatively stable (in real terms), or perhaps declining as production becomes more efficient. Instead, we see an ever increasing levels of spending. Envy.

And yes, it's also called living in a democratic society.

Because that's why taxes exist. There are plenty of things our taxes go towards that many people don't support, which is why people give to charities. Your tax dollars won't go to feeding people who are starving in Somalia as a result of the drought, which is why you give to those charities instead.

So Buffet thinks there are better things to do with his money than support the mix of purposes designated by the US Government. Right?
Yet at the same time he wants to reduce the ability of people in general (himself and others) to use their discretion as to how to spend their money.

Can you see the contradiction?

Social mobility checks the wealth and power of the wealthiest and most powerful people in this society, which is exactly why the rich are clamoring to eliminate social spending, promote your libertarian perspective, and subvert the American democracy. I have increasingly diminishing tolerance for people that hold your perspectives, Eran.

I certainly sense your diminishing tolerance.

I understand and even sympathise with your desire to see increased social mobility. Government has singularly failed to produce that social mobility. You assume that poor people would be worse-off under a libertarian society than under a benevolent and efficient socially-aware government. It is based on that assumption that you proceed to see me and people like me as the enemy.

I disagree. I think the people suffering most under the current system are precisely the people you would like government to help. That's no surprise - government is controlled by the strongest in society. Those may include well-intentioned busy-body good-wishers, but never the actual people they purport to help. The people who purport to represent the lower layers of society do not actually want their subjects to succeed. Rather, they prefer to see an ongoing dependence on their good services.

In this case, I believe the outcome is entirely justified.

So you feel that the American poor are getting a good deal out of the 24%+ of GDP that the American Government confiscates from its productive citizens? To be clear, I'd like you to focus on the actual outcomes of that level of spending, rather than the level of spending itself. Do poor people get good education? Law and order enforcement? Health care? Retirement security?

Hunger has been increasing to unprecedented levels in the United States since the financial crisis and the recession.

Yet poor people are still obese. Doesn't seem likely that hunger is an issue, does it? Reports on hunger in America are based on self-reporting of people being asked whether they ever skipped a meal due to financial concerns. Not on actual reports of malnutrition.

The free market is not a sufficient replacement to these services and I have no shred of doubt that privatization of education, of health care, etc. would result not in greater access, but in a hierarchy of quality and in more limited access.

Yes, it will result in a hierarchy of quality, just as we have with housing, electronics, transportation, etc.
But unless you value equality above absolute quality (do you?) the relevant question is not whether rich people will have it better than poor (they always will), but rather how well the poor are doing.

Do you have any cause (either empirical or theoretical) for the assertion that the privatization of education wouldn't result in access to higher quality than is currently available to America's poor?

Wealthy people mightn't commit armed robbery but they do commit violent crime through robbery.

Are we confusing violent robbery with fraud? I don't think fraud is less severe a crime than armed robbery. That wasn't really the contextual point that started this discussion. Rather, the means for defending yourself against the two are very different. To defend against armed robbery you need walls, locks, security guards and guns. To defend against fraud you need accountants and regulator (public or private).

The issues associated with retirement are entirely due to union pressure. Unions always push for defined-benefit rather than defined-contribution retirement models. The aim is to shift the investment performance risk from the employee to the employer. But the cost of that transition is that employees lose control over their money. Compare that to private retirement funds in which the employee continues to have full control over his assets, including deciding on how they are to be invested and, if necessary, moving them to different asset managers.

In point of fact, lower income earners are falling behind; the middle class has been in a stall since 1970, with the numbers in decline due to off-shoring and unfortunate unemployment rates during Reagon and in this decade.

This is a total myth. Here is a link to a fascinating presentation comparing the purchasing power of the average non-managerial worker in the mid-70s with those of today. It is very clear that, as far as products provided by the private sector are concerned (and, due to massive government involvement, I wouldn't count health-care as a privately-provided product), ordinary working people are much better off today than they were 40 years ago.

With lobbyests petitioning for less regulated (read fewer benefits) workplaces, ...

That's a common mistake. While less regulation might lead to fewer benefits, it equally leads to higher wages. When an employer is required by regulation to provide his employees with certain benefits, the cost of those benefits comes directly out of their wages. The trade-off may or may not be what the employees themselves actually want. If it is, there is no need for regulation - the employer would be happy to make the trade-off to everybody's benefit. If it isn't, the employees are actually made worse-off by the regulation.

squawking over attempts to raise minimum wages,
... while unemployment for the poor is around the 15% mark

Minimum wage doesn't help poor people. It helps skilled workers, not unskilled ones. The latter are simply priced out of the work-force. The two parts of the quote above are tightly related.

with colleges having to raise tuition..

Why do colleges have to raise tuition?

[grassroots1]

Have you seen all the calls to "tax the rich"? What are those if not envy?

Envy is jealousy, it's the desire to have something simply because someone else has it. If we're talking about people wanting some job security, wanting to maintain social services like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, then their calls to tax the rich aren't jealousy, they're simply reasonable. This suggestion that I'm jealous because I'm calling to increase taxes on the rich is absolutely absurd. The reasons are more numerous and more complex than that.

Such "basic access" seems to require ever increasing levels of expenditure.

Without an ever-expanding population, it shouldn't necessarily. That's a matter of how we structure the system.

If taxes were really used to provide "basic" level of services,

They are...

we would expect the dollar amount spent to be relatively stable (in real terms), or perhaps declining as production becomes more efficient. Instead, we see an ever increasing levels of spending. Envy.

I'm sorry, this is a non sequitur. You're idealizing the situation as if this specific form of government and the specific patterns we've seen emerge in America signify something universal about government when that's not the case, and you're also falsely labeling increasing levels of spending, which occurs for a variety of reasons, as "envy."

So Buffet thinks there are better things to do with his money than support the mix of purposes designated by the US Government. Right?
Yet at the same time he wants to reduce the ability of people in general (himself and others) to use their discretion as to how to spend their money.

Can you see the contradiction?

He doesn't want to reduce their ability to spend their money in whatever ways they want, that is a freedom they have. He wants there to be higher tax rates on the wealthy. Let's call it what it is. I'm not going to give you the same litany of reasons why I think that's a sensible decision.

I understand and even sympathise with your desire to see increased social mobility. Government has singularly failed to produce that social mobility.

I disagree 100%. What did we see in this country when there was a lack of regulation, a lack of worker protection, a lack of basic services like medicare or social security? We saw people crushed by the very system you suggest that we need to return to. They were crushed by the natural fluctuations of the market. As a result of this crushing effect, we saw a massive response in the form of the labor movement, which spawned many of the regulations, including but not limited to occupational safety and basic public education. If the poor in this country have any shred of intelligence left then they would protect these basic standards, and they wouldn't be swayed by the arguments that a free market would magically provide these things.

You assume that poor people would be worse-off under a libertarian society than under a benevolent and efficient socially-aware government. It is based on that assumption that you proceed to see me and people like me as the enemy.

Eran, you assume that poor people would be better-off under a libertarian society. This is why you see people like me as the enemy. I think my point of view makes more sense for a number of reasons.

The people who purport to represent the lower layers of society do not actually want their subjects to succeed. Rather, they prefer to see an ongoing dependence on their good services.

What? So there is a conspiracy of politicians to get people hooked on welfare like it's crack? Even you can see how absurd this line of argument is.

So you feel that the American poor are getting a good deal out of the 24%+ of GDP that the American Government confiscates from its productive citizens?

Not out of all of it, but out of a great deal of it, I think they are getting a better deal than they would if that revenue did not exist. It provides the basic foundation for our society in the form of safe roads, safety standards, and all the things I've rattled off a million times before to you. There is a REASON these regulations exist, and it's because when they did not exist, people suffered. We can question whether a minimum wage, for example, is the best way to tackle the specific problem it tries to tackle, but to suggest that it should disappear and then not propose any solution to the problem that caused it to arise in the first place is simply short-sighted.

Do poor people get good education? Law and order enforcement? Health care? Retirement security?

Some education, some health care, some retirement security, yes. Law enforcement in those times when necessary, and if we're talking about minority groups they definitely get screwed on this front in a number of ways, but ultimately I think society as a whole and is better off WITH law enforcement (don't you?) and therefore yes, everyone benefits.

Yet poor people are still obese. Doesn't seem likely that hunger is an issue, does it? Reports on hunger in America are based on self-reporting of people being asked whether they ever skipped a meal due to financial concerns. Not on actual reports of malnutrition.

Some poor are obese in this country because of the type and quality of the food they eat. This is how malnourishment and obesity can simultaneously exist.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/28630.php

Yes, it will result in a hierarchy of quality, just as we have with housing, electronics, transportation, etc.
But unless you value equality above absolute quality (do you?) the relevant question is not whether rich people will have it better than poor (they always will), but rather how well the poor are doing.

It's not a matter of valuing equality but of ensuring that people in this country have a basic level of quality of life, to the point that they are able to succeed of their own merits. This requires tax revenue to fund basic education, basic nutrition, basic health care, etc., and since we live in a democratic society, that means we will be taxing the richest Americans who benefit most from their privileged position. You clearly see the poor people as the clamoring, envious masses but I see in every individual a great deal of potential that needs to be realized for the sake of our nation, and for the sake of the world community. It's a tragedy when people are lost to cultures of drugs and violence, and not just for utilitarian reasons, as I've said before. These are problems that the state can be (and is) used to solve.

Do you have any cause (either empirical or theoretical) for the assertion that the privatization of education wouldn't result in access to higher quality than is currently available to America's poor?

Let's say two things were deconstructed completely tomorrow: 1) the public educational system and 2) the laws which ensure that kids go to school for a certain period of time. It's simply a fact that this means 1) people will make irresponsible decisions and not send their children to school and/or 2) people will not have the money to send their children to school. Let's say standards themselves were abolished. This means that education is provided according to the desires of the company in relationship with those of the teachers, students, and families. Given consolidation of wealth I think privatization of education also could create a dangerous inroad for monopolization of education.

You might say, "government has a monopoly on education now." While maybe true in a certain sense (although not really, since private options still exist), in reality government responds to the will of the people where a company responds to the will of the shareholders... ultimately it is its own tyrannical entity. I think the path you're treading is highly dangerous. I think what we need to do in this country is not turn the fate of society over to the biggest market players, but to reclaim our democratic system, strengthen public services, and ensure that level of social mobility I'm discussing. Find a nation with some level of social mobility and you'll find one with a basic (or more than basic) level of social services, it's true 100% of the time.

[Eran]

Envy is jealousy, it's the desire to have something simply because someone else has it. If we're talking about people wanting some job security, wanting to maintain social services like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, then their calls to tax the rich aren't jealousy, they're simply reasonable.

Not quite.

How do we determine what is a "reasonable" level of social services? Invariably, the scale we use is relative and not absolute. The poverty line, for example, is not expressed in terms of the income required to supply, say, a minimum level of caloric input. No. It is set in terms of the average (or median) income. In other words, when the rich get richer, the poor demand more. That's jealousy.

Moreover, when social critics bitch about the income of the wealthy, they routinely compare their lifestyle to that of average citizens. They rarely (if ever) consider whether anybody has been harmed by the wealthy in the process of their wealth accumulation.

When X complains about Y stealing money from him, that's a legitimate grievance. But when X complains about Y getting richer, even though Y is not getting richer at X's expense (in fact, in the free market, people invariably get richer by helping others), that's envy.

Now look back at criticism of the wealthy, and tell me where it falls.

Without an ever-expanding population, it shouldn't necessarily. That's a matter of how we structure the system.

No, the cost of "basic access" expands on a per-capita basis. Nothing to do with population expansion.

As average GDP in the US continued to increase over the past few decades, government spending as a fraction of GDP increased. If government primarily met stable, income-independent needs, we would have seen government spending decline as a fraction of increased GDP.

You're idealizing the situation as if this specific form of government and the specific patterns we've seen emerge in America signify something universal about government when that's not the case, and you're also falsely labeling increasing levels of spending, which occurs for a variety of reasons, as "envy."

Government expanding its spending as a fraction of GDP is universal. With rare exceptions stemming from deep fiscal crisis (as in Canada and New Zealand, and (hopefully) now in the UK), the pattern of increased government expenditures is universal.


Let me try to make my point again.

If you take the arguments of government-help advocates who, like you, use terms such as "basic" to describe the level of consumption government ought to make available to its citizens, what would we expect to happen as society becomes more prosperous?

1. Fewer and fewer people would require government assistance
2. Government assistance, as a fraction of GDP, would decline

For example, many of the critics of libertarianism like to use "lifeboat" scenarios to underscore the need for at least some level of government involvement. We don't want people starving on the streets, right? Right. How much income does a person need to avoid starvation? Pick a number (say $2/day). The wealthier society, the fewer people would make under $2/day even without government help (hence point 1 above). Further, supplementing the income of all citizens so they can make at least $2/day would constitute a declining fraction of the expanding GDP (this is true regardless of your assumptions about the distribution of income in society). Hence my point 2 above.

But actual experience with government spending (both in general and for "income redistribution") shows the exact opposite trends.
1. More and more people crowd government assistance rolls, and
2. Government expenditure, as a fraction of GDP, continues to rise.

The reason is very clear - government expenditures do not rise to the level require to furnish people with "basic" quality of life. Rather, they rise as much as the economy would bear. Both the rhetoric and the action demanded from (and actually undertaken by) governments (not just US - fairly universally) suggest that poor people want as much money as they possible can get out of rich people, and that poor people resent rich people - not because the rich are getting richer at their expense, but merely because the rich people have things they don't.

[Rugoz]

How do we determine what is a "reasonable" level of social services? Invariably, the scale we use is relative and not absolute. The poverty line, for example, is not expressed in terms of the income required to supply, say, a minimum level of caloric input. No. It is set in terms of the average (or median) income. In other words, when the rich get richer, the poor demand more. That's jealousy.

People usually feel the wealth of an individual should be related to the effort the individual makes in comparison to others. So a CEO may be a hard-working man, but its hard to say his personal effort is 500x bigger than that of a single mother who cleans the companys offices. I recently had my annual civil service in a youth hostel and had to do the dishes, prepare food and clean rooms for a few weeks. It was only 42h a week, but I was glad I could go back to my job as a software engineer afterwards. (In switzerland you do either military or civil service for 3-4 weeks a year till 30 or so, switched last year from military to civil service).

So call it jealousy or whatever you want, it doesn't matter. Libertarians have to accept what humans consider to be fair and what not. Besides that, they should finally realize that absolute wealth is almost absolutely irrelevant for personal happiness. Its where you stand in society that matters.

[Eran]

Thank you - your personal perspective is certainly interesting. Why the Swiss people feel that wasting the valuable time of a software engineer to wash dishes is beyond me - and beyond the topic of this thread.

There is no doubt that in a free economy, people's income doesn't reflect their effort or hard work. What it is supposed to reflect (theoretically) is their marginal productivity. But even that is only an asymptotic tendency rather than a reflection of the state of affairs at any given point.

What humans consider fair and what not is remarkably flexible. Societies have lasted for many centuries with greater discrepancies between effort and income than anything capitalism ever brought about. I reject any suggestion that humans are incapable of accepting the consequences of a free market and jealous respect for property rights as being a fair and just basis for structuring society.

As for happiness, I agree that it is unrelated to absolute wealth. But it is also unrelated to where you stand in society. Rich people are no happier than poor people. As far as I can tell, the most important determinant of happiness is personal character - some people are just happier than others. The second most important determinant has to do with recent changes to one's circumstances.

People are very happy when they win the lottery, although a year later they are no more happier than they were before they won. The same applies in the opposite direction as well - people are very unhappy following a personal tragedy, but typically return to their long-term state after a year or so.

[Rugoz]

There is no doubt that in a free economy, people's income doesn't reflect their effort or hard work. What it is supposed to reflect (theoretically) is their marginal productivity. But even that is only an asymptotic tendency rather than a reflection of the state of affairs at any given point.

A realistic assessment. Most libertarians here don't get this far.

What humans consider fair and what not is remarkably flexible.

Is it? All kinds of social problems correlate strongly with relative poverty and inequality.

But it is also unrelated to where you stand in society. Rich people are no happier than poor people.

Actually social status is related to personal well-being, at least according to happiness research. Of course it doesn't make a difference if you are a well-paid doctor or a billionaire.
Although I would say money is not the only factor which determines your social status.

Besides that, don't forget that equal opportunity is only achievable if children have similar care and education from early childhood. IMO this is the main reason why government services targeting families and children are absolutely necessary. The rest is debatable.

[Kman]

Envy is jealousy, it's the desire to have something simply because someone else has it. If we're talking about people wanting some job security, wanting to maintain social services like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, then their calls to tax the rich aren't jealousy, they're simply reasonable.

And if I point a gun at you in a dark alley and take the money in your wallet and your nice watch and/or Ipod then I am not taking it because I am jealous or envious of what you have, I am simply being reasonable right?

As for the claim that politicians who try and stop the spending are ''terrorists'' I would say that this is the equivolant of claiming that if you are on a train and it is heading out over a cliff and someone pulls on the emergency break in order to stop it you turn towards the fellow who did this and call him a terrorist for pulling the lever because doing this greatly disturbed all the passengers.

[Takkon]

And if I point a gun at you in a dark alley and take the money in your wallet and your nice watch and/or Ipod then I am not taking it because I am jealous or envious of what you have, I am simply being reasonable right?

Maybe you're just hungry?

[grassroots1]

From this point on I choose not to dignify dumb analogies with a response.

Eran:

How do we determine what is a "reasonable" level of social services? Invariably, the scale we use is relative and not absolute. The poverty line, for example, is not expressed in terms of the income required to supply, say, a minimum level of caloric input. No. It is set in terms of the average (or median) income. In other words, when the rich get richer, the poor demand more. That's jealousy.

Not true. In wealthier nations, cost of living (shelter, food, electricity, heating) is higher than in developed nations. The poverty line is the minimum income thought to be required for an average quality of life in a given country.

Determining the poverty line is usually done by finding the total cost of all the essential resources that an average human adult consumes in one year.[6] This approach is needs-based in that an assessment is made of the minimum expenditure needed to maintain a tolerable life. This was the original basis of the poverty line in the United States, whose calculation was simplified to be based solely on the cost of food and is updated each year.[citation needed] The largest of these expenses is typically the rent required to live in an apartment, so historically, economists have paid particular attention to the real estate market and housing prices as a strong poverty line affector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line

It's not just calculated according to an average income. Extreme poverty in so-called "developed" nations can be just as miserable as in developing nations, and it would be if certain programs did not exist. The social services I'm referring to are a basic level of education, decent health care, safe roads, programs to assist the downtrodden, etc. Desiring that rich people pay taxes into the system to pay for these essential services is not jealousy, it's common sense. They've benefited by virtue of their position while others suffer by virtue of theirs. It's the sensible option, if we're trying to reach our full potential as a nation, to ensure that each person has the opportunity for self-actualization.

What is the truly unbelievable transgression here is that rich people (and, for some reason, others who place the rich on a pedestal) have made the pretentious assumption that they are the only productive members of society, and that they are in their position not because of circumstance but because of their own superiority. This has led them to the opinion that they should pay no taxes on income they have acquired "due to their own ability," and it has led them to the absurd conclusion that the poor are being carried along by their own productivity when the reality is the opposite. The worst thing is that they imagine that we couldn't go without them when in fact we'd be much better off without them.

When X complains about Y stealing money from him, that's a legitimate grievance. But when X complains about Y getting richer, even though Y is not getting richer at X's expense (in fact, in the free market, people invariably get richer by helping others), that's envy.

People often point out the fact that someone else is gaining an incredible amount of wealth from the system (again, by virtue of their position) while they are struggling to make a living. I would call this closer to a sense of injustice than I would call it "envy." You feel envy when the girl you like loves someone else. This is beyond that base emotion. Aside from that, people point to the concentration of wealth in this society as a point of concern for the concentration of POWER. This is an argument that is based on concern for the state of our society, and cannot be called envy in any way, shape, or form.

Besides, if you're envious and desire wealth the last thing you'll do is struggle to increase taxes on the rich... that seems to be the least efficient way of gaining personal wealth, doesn't it?

Now look back at criticism of the wealthy, and tell me where it falls.

Sometimes people too vehemently attack the wealthy, and some people are envious of wealth, but generally the desire to tax the rich falls in the realm of a sense of injustice and/or from a rational assessment of our situation.

No, the cost of "basic access" expands on a per-capita basis. Nothing to do with population expansion.

As average GDP in the US continued to increase over the past few decades, government spending as a fraction of GDP increased. If government primarily met stable, income-independent needs, we would have seen government spending decline as a fraction of increased GDP.

Again, you're extrapolating the case of the United States to apply to ALL government, which is ridiculous.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Health_care_cost_rise.svg

Cost has increased because the number of people accessing care has increased and the average length of life has increased. If we live in a stable society that does not have population growth then theoretically there could be a health care systems whose costs do not increase, and could even decrease if more efficient methods of treatment or care are found. For instance, we could begin to focus more on preventative care (not the average business model of private medical firms, to say the least) which prevents future illnesses and makes future treatments unnecessary. This itself would reduce the general cost of health care in this system and make health care more efficient.

1. Fewer and fewer people would require government assistance
2. Government assistance, as a fraction of GDP, would decline

That's not what I'm suggesting. I never expect the need for the basic level of services I'm calling for to decline. You're saying that what I've been calling for, decent public education, decent health care (preventative care), occupational safety standards, etc., are "government assistance." They are not government assistance in the way that the term is generally understood. A public educational system is an investment in the quality of the nation. A nation of educated, healthy people is more productive than its opposite. I believe that these systems would reduce the amount of people who rely on TRUE 'government assistance' like welfare and food stamps. People will not "crowd" universal systems of education and health care because there's no reason to do so in the first place. That motivation exists with welfare because it can be exploited.

The wealthier society, the fewer people would make under $2/day even without government help (hence point 1 above).

What's so difficult to understand about the fact that it COSTS more to survive in a wealthier society than it does to survive in a poorer one. You cannot live on $2 a day in my city.

Both the rhetoric and the action demanded from (and actually undertaken by) governments (not just US - fairly universally) suggest that poor people want as much money as they possible can get out of rich people

This is an absurd statement.

[Eran]

Is it? All kinds of social problems correlate strongly with relative poverty and inequality.

These studies are all done in the context of a Western, social-democratic mind-set which sees government as a parental god-like entity capable, and duty-bound to fix society's ills.

Take a longer look back in history (human nature hasn't changed in the past 100 years, has it?) and you'll find many stable societal configurations with vast inequalities. Note - I am not advocating a return to feudal power-relations. But feudal societies have been stable for centuries, so any assertion that human nature is inconsistent with stable societies exhibiting sharp inequalities is very questionable.

Besides that, don't forget that equal opportunity is only achievable if children have similar care and education from early childhood. IMO this is the main reason why government services targeting families and children are absolutely necessary. The rest is debatable.

No, equal opportunity is unachievable. Period. No amount of social spending by government will change the fact that children and their parents differ individually, have different attitudes towards education and work, and live in different micro-cultures.

The fact that equal opportunity is unachievable puts a question mark around labelling services purporting to achieve this impossible goal as "absolutely necessary".

There is a separate discussion, of course, around whether it is moral to force some members of society against their will to help equalize opportunities for the children of other members of society.

The poverty line is the minimum income thought to be required for an average quality of life in a given country.

I stand (partially) corrected. Different countries employ different methods for calculating the poverty line. In many cases, that line is defined as a fraction of the average or median income. I now see that in the US, it is defined in absolute terms. There is a big question around what should constitute an "average" or "minimum acceptable" quality of life, as well as (in my mind) much more serious question about the many ways that government regulations cause the cost of living to be higher in developed countries, but those are outside the scope of this discussion.

They've benefited by virtue of their position while others suffer by virtue of theirs. It's the sensible option, if we're trying to reach our full potential as a nation, to ensure that each person has the opportunity for self-actualization.

I understand your position, and I think that as a matter of ethics it is a reasonable one to hold. As a matter of justice, the decision over how much to help poorer members of society should be left with the property owner, rather than with a (distorted) majority vote. It is particularly obscene when poor people cast their vote, swinging the decision over how much of other people's property should be confiscated and handed to them.

I also note a wide discrepancy between the theory and the practice of helping the poor - programs designed and intended to help the poor rarely do so. They rather tend to trap people into lifelong poverty. That feature of government programs makes giving people an ability to control how their money is spent (wasted) much more important. As case in point, I am happy to donate money to charity, and I routinely help people in the third world. I resent seeing my tax money being handed to free-riders who choose living off the state as a lifestyle choice.

What is the truly unbelievable transgression here is that rich people (and, for some reason, others who place the rich on a pedestal) have made the pretentious assumption that they are the only productive members of society, and that they are in their position not because of circumstance but because of their own superiority.

There is something to this, but not quite.

First, let's draw a clear distinction between "rich" meaning a person with plenty of assets, and "rich" as a person with a high income. Clearly, a person can be rich in the former sense without working a day in their lives. However, their wealth must have come from someone else (say their parents) who did earn it.

Focusing on current income then, in a free society (i.e. excluding crony capitalism and its many facets), people acquire wealth by producing it, rather than by, in any way, taking it from others. Obviously poor people also produce wealth, albeit at a lower rate than rich people. The rate at which you create wealth is generally correlated with how hard you work (i.e. other things being equal, the harder you work the more you generate), but depends on many other factors which vary from person to person.

From an ethical point of view, people, being self-owners, also own all the wealth that they personally produce (or that others gift them). There is no correlation between the amount of effort one puts in (or how hard one works) and how productive one is. A fairly lazy westerner is vastly more productive than a very hard-working peasant in a third world country. The westerner doesn't "deserve" his wealth in the sense of being justly "awarded" the wealth as a reward for his efforts. That's not how free societies work. Rather, the westerner justly owns his wealth because he justly owns himself.

It is true that (in western societies), every healthy person can create for himself a very tolerable lifestyle using his own effort. No healthy working person in the west ever starves. In fact, no healthy person in the west should be unable to afford adequate shelter, food, clothing and at least modest luxuries (TV, cell phone, etc.). Every healthy person should be able to afford all of those without getting a hand-out from the state.

This has led them to the opinion that they should pay no taxes on income they have acquired "due to their own ability," and it has led them to the absurd conclusion that the poor are being carried along by their own productivity when the reality is the opposite.

Not quite.
The reason nobody (rich or poor) should pay any taxes is because they justly own the wealth they produce, and should have absolute discretion over how to use it. Anything short of that is akin to slavery - the notion that you don't really belong to yourself, but rather than others have a claim to you, your body and the fruits of your labour.

Please note that the source of our rightly owning our justly-acquired income is not that we somehow "deserve" it, but rather that, as self-owners, it belongs to us.

As for the "reality", did you notice what fraction of taxes are being paid by the top income brackets in society? For all intents and purposes, wealthy people pay for everything the state does, from foreign wars to education, health-care and social safety-net.

The worst thing is that they imagine that we couldn't go without them when in fact we'd be much better off without them.

This is both short-sighted (to the point of being blind) and incredibly ungrateful attitude, given, as mentioned above, that the wealthy effectively fund your precious state.

Again, setting aside the cronies of the state (to which I oppose as strongly as any person), wealthy people do not acquire their wealth at others' expense. Rather, they produce their wealth from nothing. Wealth is not constant - the world today is immeasurably wealthier than it was, say, 100 years ago. The difference has been produced, and has been produced predominantly by the people who currently own it (again, ignoring the wealth expropriated by the political class and handed to themselves and their cronies).

We used to live in a world with charity, and with poor people being properly grateful for the charity they were given. Now, poor people feel that they somehow deserve charity (i.e. getting other people's property as a gift). They DON'T.

People often point out the fact that someone else is gaining an incredible amount of wealth from the system

What do you mean by "gaining ... wealth from the system"? Normal working people (whether wealthy or not) produce their wealth. They are not sucking it from some "system".


Perhaps the difference between us is that I don't think people born into the world with a set of entitlement beyond being left alone. You seem to feel that being born entitles you to other people's assistance, even against their will. In other words, every person in our society is a potential parasite living off the productive members of society.

Some people certainly deserve our pity and our assistance. But they deserve it not as a matter of right, but as a matter of other people's good will.

Aside from that, people point to the concentration of wealth in this society as a point of concern for the concentration of POWER.

The mechanism that converts wealth to power is government.

Sometimes people too vehemently attack the wealthy, and some people are envious of wealth, but generally the desire to tax the rich falls in the realm of a sense of injustice and/or from a rational assessment of our situation.

Misplaced sense of justice, stemming from a zero-sum understanding of the economy? Perhaps.

Cost has increased because the number of people accessing care has increased and the average length of life has increased.

No. Cost has increased because of government regulation of health-care provision, government subsidies (making people price-insensitive) and government-granted monopoly through the patent system.

At the end of the day, health care is no different from any other service. Most services (with the notable exception of other services provided by government such as education) have become more efficient through use of technology, outsourcing, automation, and increased efficiency. Not so education, health-care and security, precisely the areas in which governments meddle most.

A public educational system is an investment in the quality of the nation.

At best, it is an investment in the quality of individuals, who reap the vast majority of the benefits of their own education. More typically, it is a major waste of both time and money.

What's so difficult to understand about the fact that it COSTS more to survive in a wealthier society than it does to survive in a poorer one. You cannot live on $2 a day in my city.

You could, if it wasn't for government regulations.



But let's set aside the question of envy and jealousy. I think we can both agree that there is some of that going around. I can also see your point that many poor people genuinely (whether mistakenly or not) believe that, as a matter of justice, they deserve money confiscated from wealthier people. The bottom line is that either way, poor people tend to want money that belongs to the rich.

[grassroots1]

They rather tend to trap people into lifelong poverty. That feature of government programs makes giving people an ability to control how their money is spent (wasted) much more important. As case in point, I am happy to donate money to charity, and I routinely help people in the third world. I resent seeing my tax money being handed to free-riders who choose living off the state as a lifestyle choice.

Then we should change the system, not scrap it. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

in a free society (i.e. excluding crony capitalism and its many facets), people acquire wealth by producing it, rather than by, in any way, taking it from others.

In a sense, although a poor student or someone working a day-to-day will be the first to tell you that you need money to make money. It is extremely difficult to save enough money to buy a house, start a business, etc. if you are working only one or even two 9-to-5 jobs. Nearly impossible in fact.

Obviously poor people also produce wealth, albeit at a lower rate than rich people. The rate at which you create wealth is generally correlated with how hard you work (i.e. other things being equal, the harder you work the more you generate), but depends on many other factors which vary from person to person.

See, I'd disagree. The hardest working people I've ever met are also the poorest. Can you imagine having two or three different jobs at the same time? As an entitled piece of shit, I sure fucking can't.

A fairly lazy westerner is vastly more productive than a very hard-working peasant in a third world country. The westerner doesn't "deserve" his wealth in the sense of being justly "awarded" the wealth as a reward for his efforts. That's not how free societies work. Rather, the westerner justly owns his wealth because he justly owns himself.

But we can agree that the third world labor is almost certainly more hard-working. You may believe that people justly own their wealth and should not be taxed due to moral absolutist logic, but I take a more utilitarian, teleological approach to that question. Not excessively so, I'm just much further in that direction than you and other libertarians.

In fact, no healthy person in the west should be unable to afford adequate shelter, food, clothing and at least modest luxuries (TV, cell phone, etc.). Every healthy person should be able to afford all of those without getting a hand-out from the state.

"Should" morally or "should" actually? Because the fact is there are a great many young, healthy individuals right now who are unable to find a job and therefore are having trouble maintaining a basic quality of life on their own. Some have parents and relatives and friends that they can rely on. Others have friends and parents and relatives who are experiencing the same problems.

The reason nobody (rich or poor) should pay any taxes is because they justly own the wealth they produce, and should have absolute discretion over how to use it. Anything short of that is akin to slavery - the notion that you don't really belong to yourself, but rather than others have a claim to you, your body and the fruits of your labour.

I disagree, I don't think for example that a level of taxation decided on through a representative democracy is akin to slavery. We are communal beings, democracy is only an expression of that nature and of the fact that we must coordinate our actions, from time to time, as a united people. For instance, with regard to the environment. Or with regard to nuclear proliferation. I think concentration of wealth is an equally large threat to the well-being of human beings.

This is both short-sighted (to the point of being blind) and incredibly ungrateful attitude, given, as mentioned above, that the wealthy effectively fund your precious state.

What I'm saying is that we'd be better off without the attitude that says, "I am rich because I am superior, I own my wealth because I deserve it and no taxation is justified." We'd all be better off without that attitude.

Now, poor people feel that they somehow deserve charity (i.e. getting other people's property as a gift). They DON'T.

I think each person should have the right to a decent life: decent health care, education, housing, nutrition. So in a sense I do believe they are entitled to those things.

What do you mean by "gaining ... wealth from the system"? Normal working people (whether wealthy or not) produce their wealth. They are not sucking it from some "system".

What I mean is that they're born into a position where they are able to make a great deal of money. They've been successful precisely because of their position and because of the structure of the system of which they make up one part.

Perhaps the difference between us is that I don't think people born into the world with a set of entitlement beyond being left alone. You seem to feel that being born entitles you to other people's assistance, even against their will. In other words, every person in our society is a potential parasite living off the productive members of society.

I believe in the legitimacy of a representative democratic system. I believe in community and nation-hood. My political opinions don't stem from moral absolutism but from a combination of moral and practical considerations.

The mechanism that converts wealth to power is government.

This is true only in some cases. The government is the vehicle through which companies can achieve certain ends. But companies can use similar tactics, ranging from physical coercion to surveillance to sabotage to bribery to hypothetically even outright war to accomplish their goals. This is shown in minor examples through bribery of people in the judicial system, through organizations like the Pinkerton Guard, and through enclave economies that I've described in the past.

At the end of the day, health care is no different from any other service. Most services (with the notable exception of other services provided by government such as education) have become more efficient through use of technology, outsourcing, automation, and increased efficiency. Not so education, health-care and security, precisely the areas in which governments meddle most.

Those things have become more efficient. The increasing population is part of the reason that costs have increased. Regardless, this isn't the focus of this discussion is it....

What's so difficult to understand about the fact that it COSTS more to survive in a wealthier society than it does to survive in a poorer one. You cannot live on $2 a day in my city.


You could, if it wasn't for government regulations.

Quite a leap of faith.

The bottom line is that either way, poor people tend to want money that belongs to the rich.

They feel that they've been screwed by a system that is stacked against them, which they have. You just phrase the issue differently than I do.