Inequality: Should the government be concerned about it?

[doubtingmerle]

I have not once suggested neglecting the poor

Again, here is the question I asked of you:

Suppose a poor man without insurance shows up at a hospital with a life-threatening but treatable condition. Would it be okay for the government to pay to treat that person in that hospital, financing it through taxes on others? Would that violate your conscious [sic] to force tax money to go to helping that man? Would you rather leave him to die in the streets rather than force people to pay taxes to help him?​

Please answer. You have repeatedly railed against using tax money from the rich to help the needy. If nobody else is helping this man, would it be better to use other people's tax money to help him, or would it be better to let him die in the streets? Please answer.

If you can accept that in this case it would be OK to use taxes to help the needy man, then your whole argument that it is always morally evil to use taxes to help the needy disappears. Whifff! Gone! Then we can agree that it is sometimes good to use other people's tax money to help the poor. And if we agree on that, then it becomes a question of which programs should be employed and to what extent. Your whole argument that it should never be done disappears.

On the other hand, if you cannot accept using tax money to help this man, then few would agree with you that yours is the high moral road.

So I eagerly await your answer to this question.

 

[Inkfingers]

If nobody else is helping this man, would it be better to use other people's tax money to help him, or would it be better to let him die in the streets? Please answer.

If gang-raping one child would save 10 million people's lives, would it be right to gang-rape that child?

You are using an "end justifies the means" argument, which is always a dangerous thing to do (because it can lead you to believe that it is okay to do wrong for a 'good' purpose).

Is stealing wrong?

If stealing (taking without the owner's consent) is wrong, then taxation is attempting an "end justifies the means" argument to use one evil (stealing) to address another evil (the state of the poor man).

The problem in that should be plain to see - although less obvious is that this is salvation by works (ie: that we are so desperate to do good that we will allow ourselves any means necessary to do so....because we lack the faith in God to have everything in hand - only a desperate and faithless man chooses evil as a means to do good).

I too eagerly await your answer to these questions.

 

[MachZer0]

False. I have mentioned to you several times that others besides the government can help.

Others besides the government can help the needy also.
Others besides the government can help the needy also.

Would you like me to repeat that a few more times for your benefit?

But what happens when others do not help? What if the poor child is left abandoned in the streets. Is it morally wrong for a government to use tax dollars to build an orphanage and try to find him a home? What if a child cannot afford to pay for his elementary schooling and nobody is helping him? Is it morally wrong for the government to pay for his schooling? What if an elderly lady cannot work, has used all her savings, and nobody is there to help her? Is it morally wrong for the government to give her a social security check?

That is the issue. When people are not being helped and the government could help, why is it morally wrong to use tax dollars to help those people?

Why is it different than if you went up to someone on the street and forcibly confiscated their money to use for the benefit of someone else?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why is it different than if you went up to someone on the street and forcibly confiscated their money to use for the benefit of someone else?

Because individuals forcibly doing this would be anarchy and anarchy is bad.

But taxation is not bad. We have long accepted that if you live here then you are subject to taxes and you have the right to vote to determine how it is used. That is the opposite of anarchy.

 

[MachZer0]

Because individuals forcibly doing this would be anarchy and anarchy is bad.

But taxation is not bad. We have long accepted that if you live here then you are subject to taxes and you have the right to vote to determine how it is used. That is the opposite of anarchy.

Why is that so? If the end result is the same, what makes one right and one wrong. Monies are forcibly removed from the "haves" and freely given to the "have nots". The biggest difference is that when done by individuals, it's more efficient because there is no bureaucracy to bleed off money. The "have nots" would get more or less would have to be taken from the "haves"

 

[Albion]

Because individuals forcibly doing this would be anarchy and anarchy is bad.

But if the individual is employed by the government, it's good??????????

 

[Ken-1122]

Low wages is a problem in the lower and middle class. It is not a problem in the upper classes.

Today the top earners are having significant income increases while the lower and middle classes are largely doing worse when adjusted for inflation. That causes increasing income inequality. In the past when we saw this happening, the government stepped in to limit inequality. But support for these programs has fallen among extreme factions of the Republican party at a time when such programs are needed most. So I ask again the question of the opening post: do you agree that the government should be doing something about this?

So if I understand you correctly; income inequality is not the problem; it is merely a symptom of the problem. Is that what you are saying?


Ken

 

[doubtingmerle]

But if the individual is employed by the government, it's good??????????

There are many acts that are wrong for individuals to do, but are allowed by government officials.

I can not legally declare and fight a war with another country on my own. I cannot legally put a person in prison at my whim. I cannot legally force another to pay taxes to my fund. I cannot legally authorize government spending on what I want. But we allow government officials to declare wars, to imprison people through the due process of law, to raise taxes, and to spend that tax money. We understand that these officials are to be limited by the law of the land and the will of the electorate.

Its basic civics 101.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why is that so? If the end result is the same, what makes one right and one wrong. Monies are forcibly removed from the "haves" and freely given to the "have nots". The biggest difference is that when done by individuals, it's more efficient because there is no bureaucracy to bleed off money. The "have nots" would get more or less would have to be taken from the "haves"

The short answer is that if we all act on our own to take things from whomever we want and give to whomever we want, that the result would be anarchy. Everybody would be taking from everybody, there would be no rights of ownership, and business would come to a halt.

When a fairly elected government enacts the will of the people by raising taxes as willed by the electorate, and spends it on programs willed by the electorate, it is not anarchy.

Anarchy is bad. Common cooperation with a fairly elected central government is good.

Its basic Civics 101.

Are you opposed to all taxation? Or can we at least agree that some taxation is needed?

Are you in favor of some spending by government? Please let me know what spending you think government should be allowed to do.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So if I understand you correctly; income inequality is not the problem; it is merely a symptom of the problem. Is that what you are saying?


Ken

Income inequality is one name that people use for the fact that some people control more wealth than others. Where there are limits to the inequality, that can be quite fine. But when the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer, and many are stuck in poverty and starvation while others enjoy unimaginable wealth, then that is a problem. The solution to that problem is a good topic for discussion.

 

[Albion]

Income inequality is one name that people use for the fact that some people control more wealth than others. Where there are limits to the inequality, that can be quite fine. But when the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer, and many are stuck in poverty and starvation while others enjoy unimaginable wealth, then that is a problem.

So are we more concerned to lift up those who are 'starving' or to bring down those who have done well? Maybe that should be the topic.

And of course, it is not true that those who, in this society, are 'starving,' are without help, although it looks like that was assumed to be the case by your choice of words.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So are we more concerned to lift up those who are 'starving' or to bring down those who have done well? Maybe that should be the topic.

And of course, it is not true that those who, in this society, are 'starving,' are without help, although it looks like that was assumed to be the case by your choice of words.

My concern is the people that are hurting. It has nothing to do with wanting to bring down those who have done well.

I have explained this before: I am motivated by compassion, not by envy. That is why I support the poor.

Death by starvation, of course, is very limited in America, yes, but 14% of American households are food insecure. No doubt this situation would be much worse if we were to cut out programs like food stamps, Social Security, free public education, and other programs.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If gang-raping one child would save 10 million people's lives, would it be right to gang-rape that child?

I'll tell you what. I never ask moral questions on this forum unless I am willing to answer them myself. So since you asked the question, let's start with you. Please tell me if you think this would be right or wrong, and how you know your answer is the correct answer. Then I will tell you if I agree.

You are using an "end justifies the means" argument, which is always a dangerous thing to do (because it can lead you to believe that it is okay to do wrong for a 'good' purpose).

The ends do not always justify the means but sometimes they do.

If you see a sniper on a school building shooting children and the only way to stop him is to shoot the sniper, is it OK to shoot the sniper? I think this is a case where the end (stopping the carnage) justifies the means (shooting a fellow human)? Do you agree?

Is stealing wrong? If stealing (taking without the owner's consent) is wrong...

Please define "owner". If by owner you mean the person that is legally entitled to possess something, then of course, it is wrong to prevent others from possessing something they are legally entitled to possess. That is a tautology. Simple as that.

OK, but am I stealing if I breath the oxygen 10,000 feet above your land? Am I stealing if I drill a horizontal well 10,000 feet below your property and take out the oil down there? The only way I know to answer those questions is to appeal to United States law. If the law says it is illegal, then it is illegal. Do you know a better way of determining whether these two acts are "stealing"?

For that matter, is it stealing if you use land for your own purposes that somebody else has a deed for? Well, that depends on whether we accept the law of the United States government. If we were to instead accept the laws of native Indians, they might tell you the deed is worthless, and you can use any land you want. The bottom line: I think we should abide by United States law because that is generally the most practical answer on what needs to be done to reach our common good. Do you agree with me? If not, please define how you decide if a deed for land should be honored or not, and how you know your answer is correct.

If stealing (taking without the owner's consent) is wrong, then taxation is attempting an "end justifies the means" argument to use one evil (stealing) to address another evil (the state of the poor man).

That's a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Are you saying that all taxation is stealing? Are you saying that all taxation is wrong? If so, how can government continue to function? Or did you mean something else by that mumbo jumbo?

The problem in that should be plain to see - although less obvious is that this is salvation by works (ie: that we are so desperate to do good that we will allow ourselves any means necessary to do so....because we lack the faith in God to have everything in hand - only a desperate and faithless man chooses evil as a means to do good).

I do not choose taxation because it is evil. I choose taxation because I think it is good where it is limited by the will of the people.

I too eagerly await your answer to these questions.

You got my answers. Now I eagerly await yours.

 

[Ken-1122]

Income inequality is one name that people use for the fact that some people control more wealth than others. Where there are limits to the inequality, that can be quite fine. But when the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer, and many are stuck in poverty and starvation while others enjoy unimaginable wealth, then that is a problem. The solution to that problem is a good topic for discussion.

You didn't answer my question. I just don’t see income inequality as the problem. Consider the scenario;

The USA experiences an economic boom that results in the bottom 10% to receive a 10% growth in income, but which also results in the top 10% to experience a 100% increase in income, and all the other incomes a percentage somewhere in between.

Now even though this would make the income inequality multiple times worse than it is right now, would you consider that economic boom to be good for the economy? Of course you would because as long as the bottom who really need it, receives growth; everything is better. That’s why I say income inequality is perhaps the symptom of the problem, but definitely not the problem. The problem is the bottom 10% needs to be raised, and we need to do what is necessary to raise it; even if it means making the rich richer.

Ken

 

[doubtingmerle]

You didn't answer my question. I just don’t see income inequality as the problem. Consider the scenario;

The USA experiences an economic boom that results in the bottom 10% to receive a 10% growth in income, but which also results in the top 10% to experience a 100% increase in income, and all the other incomes a percentage somewhere in between.

Now even though this would make the income inequality multiple times worse than it is right now, would you consider that economic boom to be good for the economy?

Increasing money in the economy does no good unless we increase the amount of goods and services in the economy. If the total amount of goods and services remains at the same value it was before this income rise, then there is no increase in overall prosperity. We would have far more money chasing the same supply of goods which leads to a wild round of inflation that would negate any gains from the increase of income.

So before I answer your question, I need to know how much the GDP changes in your scenario. Or does it stay the same?

 

[MachZer0]

The short answer is that if we all act on our own to take things from whomever we want and give to whomever we want, that the result would be anarchy.Everybody would be taking from everybody, there would be no rights of ownership, and business would come to a halt.

When a fairly elected government enacts the will of the people by raising taxes as willed by the electorate, and spends it on programs willed by the electorate, it is not anarchy.

Anarchy is bad. Common cooperation with a fairly elected central government is good.

Its basic Civics 101.

Are you opposed to all taxation? Or can we at least agree that some taxation is needed?

Are you in favor of some spending by government? Please let me know what spending you think government should be allowed to do.

That would be liberty, not anarchy

 

[doubtingmerle]

That would be liberty, not anarchy

Huh?

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but you placed these words in bold:

The short answer is that if we all act on our own to take things from whomever we want and give to whomever we want, that the result would be anarchy.​

And you want to call that liberty? Do you really want a world in which gangs of thugs run around taking whatever they want from other people? Can you possibly be serious? This would be liberty?

Or were you not referring to the phrase you put in bold font? What exactly were you calling liberty?

 

[doubtingmerle]

That would be liberty, not anarchy

And now back to my question: Do you or do you not think that all taxation is stealing? Because you seem to be arguing that it is. Is there ever a tax that is okay? Or is all taxation "stealing"?

 

[MachZer0]

And now back to my question: Do you or do you not think that all taxation is stealing? Because you seem to be arguing that it is. Is there ever a tax that is okay? Or is all taxation "stealing"?

I think income tax is stealing and should be eliminated. I think all taxation that takes money from a person who earned it to give to a person who didn't earn it is immoral

 

[MachZer0]

Huh?

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but you placed these words in bold:

The short answer is that if we all act on our own to take things from whomever we want and give to whomever we want, that the result would be anarchy.​

And you want to call that liberty? Do you really want a world in which gangs of thugs run around taking whatever they want from other people? Can you possibly be serious? This would be liberty?

Or were you not referring to the phrase you put in bold font? What exactly were you calling liberty?

Bolding corrected