The failure of LBJ's Great Society

[Speedwell]

The idea that there is no such thing as a free market has no facts backing it up. In reality, contracts have always been enforced by the state going back to Biblical times. It's one of the few powers given to the state by God. Outside of only the very basic limitations, such as being required to use just weights and measures, markets have been free. I choose to buy a widget from you for $5. That is a free exchange on our part and as long as I pay a legitimate $5 and you provide me a widget, the transaction is unregulated and totally voluntary.

There are actually three conditions for a classical free market, and absence of regulation isn't one of them:
1. Ease of entrance to and exit from the market.
2. Equality of market power between buyers and sellers.
3. Free circulation of product and pricing information.
Very few markets are totally free; perhaps the best example of a classical free market are the commodities exchanges.

 

[Redwingfan9]

As a woman of color with Jewish ancestry there’s a lot missing in that statement. It wasn’t wholly due to two-parent homes. It was their work ethic and emphasis on excellence that made a difference.

Jews are very communal and willing to extend themselves for loved ones and fellow Jews. The ‘Jewish mother’ trope exists for a reason. I won’t call her a tiger mom but she isn’t far off. They’re very hands-on.

Jewish parents don’t see sports as an avenue for success. Education is important. You’re encouraged to pursue a professional career or entrepreneurship.

Of course differences exist. But I’ve seen that thread in my life and other Jews. Welfare wasn’t an option. Achievement was expected. Success is celebrated. Wealth is normative. Legacy is commonplace. It’s a different mindset.

Some African-Americans have similar ideals. Its most prevalent in the upper class. Read Our Kind of People and Negroland for a different perspective.

~Bella

I'm the son of a Jew who grew up in Brooklyn in the 50's. My grandfather was apparently a lower middle class green grocer. Success in school was expected and achievement was rewarded. Two parent households were the norm. These people came here largely poor and built themselves into something within a generation or two. My father ended up an attorney and general counsel at a major insurer, his sons are a lawyer and a doctor. If my shicksa mother was jewish she would be thrilled beyond words.

Point being that the home matters. And yes, having a father and a mother there to push kids is important. I understand there are different mindsets, Jews are but one example of people who focused on education to get out of poverty. They didn't expect the state to care for them, they cared for their own families themselves.

 

[istodolez]

Tax from producers to give to those who do not produce is not one of those functions.

I love the exegeses necessary to ensure that the Bible is A-OK with our being the wealthiest nation on earth and STILL demonizing the poor for being poor.

God has left caring for the poor to the church and to voluntary charity.

That's handy! But God forgot to ensure that charity would actually be sufficient to help the need.

Somehow that managed to work out just fine for centuries

LOL. So you don't read much history?

Systematic poverty has been ensured by the welfare state, which incentivizes degenerate behavior and sloth.

We DEFINITELY see that in the advantages we give to the wealthy. The fact that capital gains are taxed less than actual work-based income is one fine example! People who do literally NOTHING get $$$ and then pay less in taxes. We also incentivize degenerate behavior in corporations and give them massive subsidies so they can offshore work away from Americans.

It has guaranteed the poor live in crime infested neighborhoods because it has eliminated men from homes and priced teenage boys out of the labor market. I would submit less government would go a long way in ending systematic poverty.

Reading American history would be quite beneficial to you.

 

[bèlla]

I'm the son of a Jew who grew up in Brooklyn in the 50's.

I’m a child of the 70s. Your comment provided a lightbulb moment. I’ve tried to understand the differences in my upbringing from others like myself. Race was understood but it wasn’t a focus. Excellence was hammered home. Not because of the color of my skin. But due to my capacity. That’s powerful.

Two parent households were the norm. These people came here largely poor and built themselves into something within a generation or two.

Very few have divorced in my family and that includes extended relations. They stay together until death. As Thomas Stanley noted in The Millionaire Next Door, that has a huge impact on your wallet. He said choosing a spouse was the most important decision you’ll make.

My father ended up an attorney and general counsel at a major insurer, his sons are a lawyer and a doctor. If my shicksa mother was jewish she would be thrilled beyond words.

LOL. I moved from finance to entrepreneurship. My daughter shifted from medicine to self-employment. And my companion is Asian and doing the same. With the requisite overachievement of course. How does that happen?

Point being that the home matters. And yes, having a father and a mother there to push kids is important.

That’s true. We’re products of influence. For good or bad.

I understand there are different mindsets, Jews are but one example of people who focused on education to get out of poverty. They didn't expect the state to care for them, they cared for their own families themselves.

Our family was deeply committed to helping one another. The notion of welfare was unthinkable. If someone’s in need you pitch in. My grandparents believed in caring for their loved ones. I have the same convictions.

Thanks for sharing.

~Bella

 

[Redwingfan9]

I love the exegeses necessary to ensure that the Bible is A-OK with our being the wealthiest nation on earth and STILL demonizing the poor for being poor.



That's handy! But God forgot to ensure that charity would actually be sufficient to help the need.



LOL. So you don't read much history?



We DEFINITELY see that in the advantages we give to the wealthy. The fact that capital gains are taxed less than actual work-based income is one fine example! People who do literally NOTHING get $$$ and then pay less in taxes. We also incentivize degenerate behavior in corporations and give them massive subsidies so they can offshore work away from Americans.



Reading American history would be quite beneficial to you.

I'm not demonizing the poor at all. What I'm saying is we have no real poor in America. I'll take it a step further, Americans have no idea what poverty actually is, especially those claiming to be poor.

Most people in the world live on pess than $2 per day, that's just over $700 a year. Most in the American middle class make more than that in a week. Even those earning only minimum wage make that with just over 100 hours of work. The idea of poverty in America is so utterly devoid of context and perspective as to be ridiculous.

I would make an argument against income taxes across the board but I don't think it's relevant. The rate of capital gains tax has nothing to do with why some people earn less than others. Who are you or I to determine how much wealth is too much? How is government supposed to make that determination? What standard do we use? Anything you suggest will be arbitrary of course. Especially so in the ligjt of scripture where we are told not to steal or covet and where Abraham, David and many others were wealthy landowners.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm the son of a Jew who grew up in Brooklyn in the 50's. My grandfather was apparently a lower middle class green grocer. Success in school was expected and achievement was rewarded. Two parent households were the norm. These people came here largely poor and built themselves into something within a generation or two. My father ended up an attorney and general counsel at a major insurer, his sons are a lawyer and a doctor. If my shicksa mother was jewish she would be thrilled beyond words.

Point being that the home matters. And yes, having a father and a mother there to push kids is important. I understand there are different mindsets, Jews are but one example of people who focused on education to get out of poverty. They didn't expect the state to care for them, they cared for their own families themselves.

I certainly agree with you that being raised in a stable, two-parent family s the best start for a good life, but pulling the plug on social safety nets isn't going to make it happen.

 

[jayem]

Claiming people opposed to welfare don't CARE about the poor is not an argument. Such only seeks to turn the issue into one driven by emotions rather than facts. The fact is that since the Great Society, men have been removed from homes and replaced by welfare checks and other social welfare such as food stamps and WIC. Black poverty has remained fairly constant, despite other minority groups moving up.

The large majority of taxpayer funded social assistance is for the middle class. All races included. 48% of federal spending goes to Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA premium subsidies. Which mostly benefit the middle class. Are these not "welfare?" Programs that specifically assist low income persons (like SNAP, housing subsidies, child care and home heating assistance, etc.) are only 8% of the federal budget. (2019 data.) And this includes the EITC and Child Tax Credit which are used by many middle and lower income white families. SS and Medicare are beyond any doubt, the most popular government programs of all time. If you doubt this, try running for office sometime on a platform of eliminating them. See how far you get.

BTW, if you dislike "welfare," why are you ignoring corporate welfare? The government spends billions every year subsidizing big agricultural conglomerates, drug makers, defense contractors, and tech giants. Not to mention the millions of dollar each year the oil and gas industry can deduct from their taxes for exploration, new well construction, and drilling costs. All of which we the taxpayers are covering. Does this not concern you?

Charity in scripture isn't a government function, it is a voluntary action by Christians and charged to the church.

Private charity is great. But it's not close to being adequate. I worked 40+ years in health care and I'll give you a scenario. One member of your church has kidney failure. (ESRD as we say. End-stage renal disease.) Hemodialysis averages about $70,000 a year. Peritoneal dialysis is about $50,000. A transplant costs about $30,000. But add another $10-15,000 each year for anti-rejection meds. Medicare currently cover all ESRD treatment, regardless of age. Because these costs are too great even for the large, private health insurers. If there was no Medicare, who would pay for it? How many churches could afford even part of these costs for a single parishioner?

 

[DaisyDay]

Systematic poverty has been ensured by the welfare state, which incentivizes degenerate behavior and sloth. It has guaranteed the poor live in crime infested neighborhoods because it has eliminated men from homes and priced teenage boys out of the labor market. I would submit less government would go a long way in ending systematic poverty.

This would be a more convincing argument if nations without a welfare state were kinder to their impoverished citizens.

 

[istodolez]

Most people in the world live on pess than $2 per day, that's just over $700 a year.

So if your job were fixed tomorrow to pay you $3/day you'd be fine with that? I mean it's more than most people live on in the world.

The rate of capital gains tax has nothing to do with why some people earn less than others.

No, it REWARDS those who do nothing. It gives them an advantage over people who do REAL WORK. If you and I have different tax rates and mine is lower because all I do is call up a broker every couple weeks and say "put money in fund x" and YOU work 40 hours a day in back breaking labor and your tax rate is HIGHER then I'm being incentivized to do less.

That sounds like EXACTLY the kind of thing you indicated welfare does that is bad. It incentivizes people to work less.

 

[Redwingfan9]

I certainly agree with you that being raised in a stable, two-parent family s the best start for a good life, but pulling the plug on social safety nets isn't going to make it happen.

Pulling the plug on wefare would incentivize marriage and staying in marriage.

 

[Redwingfan9]

The large majority of taxpayer funded social assistance is for the middle class. All races included. 48% of federal spending goes to Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA premium subsidies. Which mostly benefit the middle class. Are these not "welfare?" Programs that specifically assist low income persons (like SNAP, housing subsidies, child care and home heating assistance, etc.) are only 8% of the federal budget. (2019 data.) And this includes the EITC and Child Tax Credit which are used by many middle and lower income white families. SS and Medicare are beyond any doubt, the most popular government programs of all time. If you doubt this, try running for office sometime on a platform of eliminating them. See how far you get.

BTW, if you dislike "welfare," why are you ignoring corporate welfare? The government spends billions every year subsidizing big agricultural conglomerates, drug makers, defense contractors, and tech giants. Not to mention the millions of dollar each year the oil and gas industry can deduct from their taxes for exploration, new well construction, and drilling costs. All of which we the taxpayers are covering. Does this not concern you?



Private charity is great. But it's not close to being adequate. I worked 40+ years in health care and I'll give you a scenario. One member of your church has kidney failure. (ESRD as we say. End-stage renal disease.) Hemodialysis averages about $70,000 a year. Peritoneal dialysis is about $50,000. A transplant costs about $30,000. But add another $10-15,000 each year for anti-rejection meds. Medicare currently cover all ESRD treatment, regardless of age. Because these costs are too great even for the large, private health insurers. If there was no Medicare, who would pay for it? How many churches could afford even part of these costs for a single parishioner?

Corporate welfare isn't what we are discussing here, which is why it hasn't been discussed. Medicare is one of the biggest frauds in American history and social security is a mass ponzi scheme that will collapse within a generation. Both of those disincentivize work for people of all classes and races. Worse, social security isna false promise that lulls people into believing the government will actually take care of them, which it never does.

 

[Redwingfan9]

This would be a more convincing argument if nations without a welfare state were kinder to their impoverished citizens.

How does one measure government kindness?

 

[Redwingfan9]

So if your job were fixed tomorrow to pay you $3/day you'd be fine with that? I mean it's more than most people live on in the world.



No, it REWARDS those who do nothing. It gives them an advantage over people who do REAL WORK. If you and I have different tax rates and mine is lower because all I do is call up a broker every couple weeks and say "put money in fund x" and YOU work 40 hours a day in back breaking labor and your tax rate is HIGHER then I'm being incentivized to do less.

That sounds like EXACTLY the kind of thing you indicated welfare does that is bad. It incentivizes people to work less.

My point is that we should have some perspective as to what poverty actually is. We don't have financial poverty in America, we have people who are poor only in relationship to the people around them. Spiritual and moral poverty we have plenty of.

Capital gains and labor are two different things. For what it's worth I would eliminate both taxes. But as a practical matter, investments aren't labor. In fact, labor badly needs people to make investments for jobs to exist. It is wisely taxed at lower rates, even though it should not be taxed at all.

 

[Speedwell]

Pulling the plug on wefare would incentivize marriage and staying in marriage.

How?

 

[istodolez]

My point is that we should have some perspective as to what poverty actually is.

You keep comparing poverty in the US to poverty worldwide as if that has some bearing on the conversation. I note you studiously avoid answering my question of if YOU were paid $3/day would you be OK with that? If not why not? Do you think you are better than most people on earth?

Capital gains and labor are two different things.

I sense this is inconvenient for you. I'm talking about the TAX RATE ON MONEY MADE. Why is one less than the other? Because it incentivizes laziness and lack of work ethic.

For what it's worth I would eliminate both taxes.

Because you think all this is like a giant free lunch? Talk about entitlement! Sorry, no, this nation costs money. All that you enjoy about living here in the US requires someone pay for it. That's what taxes are all about.

But as a practical matter, investments aren't labor.

So the money the investor makes isn't real money? Because it looks to me like they get to keep more of their money made from investments than you get to keep from working at the coal mine or whatever it is you do.

In fact, labor badly needs people to make investments for jobs to exist.

Thank heavens investors don't need goods or services! Because that would mean that THEY need labor as much as labor needs investors! I am SO THANKFUL that the jobs creators make jobs for us out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Redwingfan9]

How?

Because welfare in effect has removed the incentive to be married. Government checks and programs have made men expendable in families, their paycheck no longer required. Getting rid of welfare would place an incentive for men to stick around, in the very least it would give women incentive to wait to have kids.

 

[Speedwell]

Because welfare in effect has removed the incentive to be married. Government checks and programs have made men expendable in families, their paycheck no longer required. Getting rid of welfare would place an incentive for men to stick around, in the very least it would give women incentive to wait to have kids.

What paycheck?

 

[Redwingfan9]

You keep comparing poverty in the US to poverty worldwide as if that has some bearing on the conversation. I note you studiously avoid answering my question of if YOU were paid $3/day would you be OK with that? If not why not? Do you think you are better than most people on earth?



I sense this is inconvenient for you. I'm talking about the TAX RATE ON MONEY MADE. Why is one less than the other? Because it incentivizes laziness and lack of work ethic.



Because you think all this is like a giant free lunch? Talk about entitlement! Sorry, no, this nation costs money. All that you enjoy about living here in the US requires someone pay for it. That's what taxes are all about.



So the money the investor makes isn't real money? Because it looks to me like they get to keep more of their money made from investments than you get to keep from working at the coal mine or whatever it is you do.



Thank heavens investors don't need goods or services! Because that would mean that THEY need labor as much as labor needs investors! I am SO THANKFUL that the jobs creators make jobs for us out of the goodness of their hearts.

I am not a ne'er-do-well, my labor is worth more than $3/day because I put the time into my education and learned on the job. It's not a matter of me being better than anyone, it's supply and demand.

Capital gains are less because they are post-labor. In other words, someone has already worked and earned money and has invested their savings and have earned money on the investment. It has never been treated the same as labor nor should it. Any tax that disincentivizes investment would be disastrous for everyone. For the record, I favor repeal of the 16th amendment.

 

[jayem]

Corporate welfare isn't what we are discussing here, which is why it hasn't been discussed. Medicare is one of the biggest frauds in American history and social security is a mass ponzi scheme that will collapse within a generation. Both of those disincentivize work for people of all classes and races. Worse, social security isna false promise that lulls people into believing the government will actually take care of them, which it never does.

That doesn’t answer my question. Do you really think churches and other charities are able to meet the financial needs of seriously ill people lacking health insurance?

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. With what would you replace Medicare and SS? Honestly, it seems to me that you’re living 200 years in the past. I don’t at all want every citizen’s upkeep being provided by government. But an advanced 21st century society without a systematic, adequately funded social safety net is untenable. It’s like Dickensian London, or 18th century France. You have a small group of wealthy elites at the top. A slightly larger middle class. And masses of have-nots and working poor at the bottom. That’s an unstable society. And just like the 1790s, it’s at high risk for violent revolution.

 

[istodolez]

I am not a ne'er-do-well, my labor is worth more than $3/day because I put the time into my education and learned on the job.

So you're better than most people on earth? You know there are highly skilled people in 3rd world countries that do jobs for pennies on the dollar of what Americans do jobs for. (This is where you realize your comparison of poverty in the US to the rest of the world fails)

Capital gains are less because they are post-labor

Again, you avoid the real discussion here. If I make the majority of my income from capital gains I am paying less taxes for my income than you are for yours. Regardless of where it shows up in the value-chain.

. In other words, someone has already worked and earned money and has invested their savings

That's pretty hypothetical. I believe I could point to about a thousand Americans who were born rich and invested to become richer. What "work" are you talking about?

It has never been treated the same as labor nor should it.

Income is income.

Any tax that disincentivizes investment would be disastrous for everyone.

And paying the same taxes on that income as you pay on yours is a "disincentive"? Interesting. Sounds like special pleading.

For the record, I favor repeal of the 16th amendment.

I'm sure you do. And thankfully that's a fringe movement that will gain no following anyway. Taxes are only a problem for those people who want a free lunch.