And yet another free-market theory failure - Page 4

Unless you don't think that governments "earn" any of their tax revenue.



So you'd still pick country B to live in?



I care about those who are less fortunate also. I'm also careful that I'm not simply assuming someone is less fortunate simply because they have less money or that simply having more money will be the key to additional well-being for them.

But you were telling us what you think some of those people (the rich) need (or don't).

Well how would you define less fortunate?


But in the last sentence it sounds like you're defining what people less fortunate are or need.

I'd say this is highly individualistic. The concept of "less fortunate" is obviously a relative distinction and based on my own values. It's even the same thing as saying someone is "poor."



I wasn't. Go back an re-read if you like.

But even you current reply sounds like that and you even admit your view on this is subjective. So that's you defining what others need. What's the difference?

First, I wasn't. Second, I do have my opinions about what others need or don't based on my own values. Third, that is all highly subjective. Forth (and most importantly), I have no desires, plans or inclinations to take the excess (over what I think they need) from them.

You're still missing the point. Wealth distribution is hardwired into your brain, as are method to have government address it.

So you post the wiki link, which is fine (though there is no guarantee you've actually read and comprehended it). But you then demonstrate in the next sentence that you actually have no idea what it is. Hint: It's not lying, which is what you're accusing me of.


So not one example then?

Yeah sure SDW!

A lot of what you do is this :
So if that's lying and being intellectually dishonest you're acusing a lot of people here of lying ( in this thread and others ). But I'll just say what you always do " You're hilarious! "

But you're still defining by your own standards what they need. The very same thing you were accusing tonton ( in a negative light ) of. You might not be taking things from them but you might be keeping things from them

First, yes I have opinions about what others need or don't. I've already admitted this a couple of times.

Second, I was simply pointing out the fact that tonton was sharing his opinion about what people need or don't. The negativity appears to be your inference.

Third, third while I'm not especially concerned about anyone's opinions on the matter, I have found that leftists tend to do two things: a) assume their opinions are facts (e.g., the rich have more than they need as a matter of fact), and b) want to act, through the state, on this "fact" by forcibly taking the excess (as they see it) from people (who, presumably, don't need it).

Finally, do you have anything useful to contribute to this thread?

The Further Left You Are the Less You Know About Economics

No surprise there.

And the further right you are the less you know about reality. You are more likely to believe that a magic sky daddy ordered an iron age shepherd to fill a boat with 10,000,000 animals while he committed worldwide genocide.

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Well here's one leftist that's trying to show you that your opinions aren't facts. It looks like I might have succeeded in getting you to admit that. If you believe it is another matter.


I don't think so.


And in the end you don't have a counter argument so you hurl insults. How typical. Sad really.

Oh I know my opinions are not facts (though they are often based on them).



Of course you don't.



I simply asked a legitimate question based on the sum total of your posts thus far. Your participation in this thread seems to be chiefly about going tit for tat with me. I've yet to see you add anything in the vicinity of the topic.

According to liberals.

Reality has no liberal or conservative bias.

You do not have the credentials to say what reality is or is not.

I understand that. I realize that with liberals everything always seems to come down to money but just because someone has less money doesn't mean they're less fortunate. They may not even view themselves that way.

If what you're referring to is people who have or make less money than you, then just say that instead of wrapping it up in euphemisms.

Not to be rude but the reason your model falls apart is there aren't that many rich people in the real or hypothetical United States and thus the amount of wealth to confiscate and redistribute dramatically less and causes much more harm than you might imagine.

You ask us to consider whether the top 5% of earners would be better off with $10 million or $20 million. All of this top 5% combined in your scenario would equal $10-20 TRILLION dollars to redistribute among only 20 million people in a nation. I know it is only a hypothetical but please realize this....

The top 5% of income in the United States is $250,000. Those are the "rich" from who Obama and the Democrats want so much.

Now to use your numbers a bit more, household mortgages (in the U.S.) are often awarded at three times the median income. This is why when people in my state were inviting us over to enjoy the various toys they had purchased with a second mortgage on their home, I was quite the Debbie Downer and told them that in a couple years their house would be worth half of what it was worth then.

So in your hypothetical world it is very likely that houses in one country would average $150,000 and in the other $300,000. The houses wouldn't be any bigger or nicer, the average price would just be higher because that is what the market would bare. This would be true of a number of items. Bigger numbers don't relate to more purchasing power. In fact there is a term that addresses this, purchasing power parity.

One last bit and you've been more receptive lately so please think hard about this. We do not consider affluence or poverty based on individual income. We assign these based on HOUSEHOLD income. Last figure I recall, 80% of poverty level households would rise out of poverty if they simply MARRIED their partner. They are impoverished because they are single parent households.

No amount of redistribution is going to turn one person into two. So now I've used your numbers but please consider a reality-based scenario and see how this works.

You've come back to the states. We share the same street. We pop over to each other's homes and share beers. We are both married households with a kid or two and our incomes reflect these states. Regardless of which party in the household earns it or what ratio, let's presume both of our households earn approximately $90k each. This puts us in the top 25% of all households for the entire United States so we are respectively doing pretty well.

The problem isn't either of us. The problem is that third household. It is filled by a single mother and her two children. She works part time and earns $25,000 a year. The government sees her household and declares it far below the median household income of $50,000. It declares you and I must give up shares of our income to remedy this problem.

The first thing to ask is where is the partner? These kids didn't make themselves. The partner often LIVES with the single mother of the household. They just use their mother's/different address so that a household is not declared to be formed. He actually works and earns $30k a year but since it isn't at the same address for tax purposes, the household is considered impoverished. Second, all the benefits the government does bestow upon the household aren't actually added to their income. The $1,000 a month in rental subsidy, the food stamp debit card, the general relief payments, none of those are added to the household income. The government can grant them $30k a year of benefits but will not list them as income. It will reflect in their purchasing power, but it isn't income.

This money has to come from somewhere for them to redistribute of course and it does largely from you and I since we can't afford to lobby for loopholes. So our after tax income becomes $70k per household. Our neighbor down the street. Their household income is still only $25k. You declare wait, they've received $30k in benefits and even with only a single parent, they are within $15k of purchasing power to my household. You might even care to have them note that if they included Dad's income, their purchasing power is ABOVE your household.

The government declares you are wrong. They are impoverished. They live terribly. They only have $25k in household income a year. You declare they have $30k of benefits. The government states they are benefits and not income. You declare Dad is there but the stupid government simply won't count his income as part of the household. The government declares you are wrong, that the father is not in the household per his address.

You desire to remedy and reform these measures which distort and ignore the problem rather than address it. You are a racist and a sexist for wanting to address this rather than just passing out checks. How dare you want to alter any of this. You just want to fix problems on the backs of the poor. You just want to put women back in the kitchen. You just want to go back to the 50's. Slogans can suspend thought.

At the end of the day, massive amounts of money have been moved. Yet poverty isn't decreased because benefits are not income. That household whether you declare it to have $55k or $85k (including Dad's income) of purchasing power is still impoverished. The government declares they have $25k of income and thus are poor. Everyone around them is rich. If you wish to alter or change this understanding it is only because you endorse patriarchy, are a religious fundy pushing marriage on everyone, hate minorities, women, what have you.

This is a simplistic scenario but it is a reality based one. The government does not use benefits received as part of household income when discussing where they are relative to others. It does not add two parties into the equation. Marriage and the lack of it explains almost all poverty.


Would you choose A when the cause of B is lack of marriage. Would you choose to keep your child at the school where all those single parent families with either fatherless kids or adults who don't really work or see the need to become educated act out accordingly? Would you choose it when they want your child's place at the table in terms of future opportunities rather than just a share of your income? When the mob or at least several kids come after her and bully her is it not really bullying because she is privileged and model minority whereas they are dis-empowered, and disadvantaged? If they make a habit of coming after her because of her skin color, is it not racist because racism really isn't about skin color or beliefs about groups but about power and they have none so it can't be racism?

I've asked you this several times. It's not been answered. Would you throw your child out of UCLA or UC Berkeley and tell them to go to a lesser school simply because there are too many of her there already? There are too many children from Asian or white households that are married, well educated and academically high achieving and not enough from situations different or opposite than that?

Stop making it about the hypothetical "rich" and realize it is about YOU if you were here. Tell us what you would do. I'm not abroad advocating solutions for those here. I'm here. I'm the one calling the cops on the Section 8 neighbors in the past and my brother is the one having to deal with it in his neighborhood now.



I'd endorse a delusional and mythical biblical genocide over the very real ones put upon human kind multiple times by various communist regimes seeking to equalize society. If you think what he believes is pure fantasy then so is the genocide created by it. Meanwhile the genocide created by the worldview you advocate is very real and has happened multiple times resulting in well over 100 million deaths.


Are you going to throw him in an oven and gas him? What give you the right to include or exclude people? What give you the right to grant or deny?


Have you ever seen what a profound level of responsibility and accountability does to a person tonton? I'm not talking "Gee our kids make us gray" type responsibility. There's a reason our presidents seem to age overnight. There's a reason you see so many performers, athletes and others that end up with medical and substance problems. Try to take a day or hours off when lives and livelihoods are on the line for so many.

Look at Apple computer , our one thing in common for so many at these forums. The kindergarten teacher gets pancreatic cancer. It is sad. They call in a substitute. How much wealth can be lost? How many jobs are at stake? Steve Jobs gets pancreatic cancer. It is sad. He let's someone do his job but think about how much wealth can be lost? How many jobs are at stake?

You don't think that weighs on a person?

According to liberals. But it seems they don't really know much about economics. So we don't really pay much serious attention to what they think about free-marketism.

I didn't see if you ever answered or not. Would you still chose country B in the example I presented?

I hope you'll forgive my conclusion, but it seems that all evidence points to the fact that liberals are obsessed with money. They seem to be obsessed with those they think have too much money (usually those who have more than they do) and appear convinced that the only problems with people who have too little (everyone who has less than they do) are simply about money. Every solution offered is about money (take some from those who have "too much" and give it those who have "too little.") The problem with education? Not enough money. The problem with healthcare? Not enough money. The problem with defense spending? Too much money. The problem with corporations? Greed and too much money. Etc.

So you would still pick country B? Good for you. Now, you realize that country B, as compared to country A has a wider "income gap" right? And you also realize that the rich are richer in country B compared to country A?

BTW, countries A and B could be the same country...at different points in time where B is the later time and the rich got richer and the income gap increased.



Thanks for showing us some insight into the twisted leftist mindset that equates fiscal wisdom with lack of empathy and budget cuts that would return the US federal budget to the level it was in the year 2000 as inhumane and "eliminating the food, medicine and oxygen necessary to sustain human life."

Your ideas of what constitutes credentials and their importance in forming an opinion are not consistent with reality.

Reality: what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Global Warming could be solved if we just eliminated child birth.

It must be nice to think in bumper sticker platitudes.

No. You thought you'd throw a little dirt my way to get rid of me. It was on topic and it's your double standard in looking at this I wanted to point out.

You made a statement to tonton :
I mearly pointed out you were doing the same thing in reverse. You were defining what the less fortunate need. I think that's on topic. I think since you mentioned it first it's an important part. But apparently you think it's ok to site things like this with others but not yourself.

Before that you made this statement to him :
Well thanks for sharing your opinion about what everyone else needs. But you'll say that's differerent of course but I'd call it a lack of empathy like Borowitz says .

Tell me what do you think will happen when the conservatives threaten the largest voting block with cutting their benifits? I mean you're always talking about Boomers.

Back to just after Clinton? Well I don't believe it would cure our current ills just like that. But of course by the time we found out if it would or not it would be too late, we'd have all these people without benifits, and still have a huge problem.

Actually I wasn't. But don't let that get in your way.



I was merely hoping you'd contribute to the thread topic.



But I haven't.

Yes you were.


Again more meaningless dirt.


Trying to jump back over the fence won't help you.

Point it out or shut up.







I'm simply telling the truth.

Double post

I already did.


Now we're getting belligerent.


Yes.


As you see it.

I'm telling the truth also. I'm sorry to be pointing out things that might make you uncomfortable about your answers but there you are.

No.



I have that tendency when people lie about what I've said.



Whatever.



Whatever.

Yes.


I quoted you. Show me where I " lied ".


Yes. Whatever.