![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 85. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 14:01:10
This is a bit long, but I do think it is worth it. He is terrific because he doesn't tell you WHAT to think he just tries to get people thinking in the first place...
Justice (from "What Does it all Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy")
‘Is it unfair that some people are born rich and some are born poor? If it’s unfair, should anything be done about it?
The world is full of inequalities – within countries, and from one country to another. Some children are born into comfortable, prosperous homes, and grow up well fed and well educated. Others are born poor, don’t get enough to eat, and never have much access to much education or medical care. Clearly, this is a matter of luck: we are not responsible for the social or economic class or country into which we are born. The question is, how bad are the inequalities which are not the fault of the people who suffer from them? Should governments use their power to try to reduce inequalities of this kind, for which the victims are not responsible?
Some inequalities are deliberately imposed. Racial discrimination, for example, deliberately excludes people of one race from jobs, housing, and education which are available to people from another race. Or women may be kept out of jobs or denied privileges available only to men. This is not merely a matter of bad luck. Racial and sexual discrimination are clearly unfair: they are forms of inequality caused by factors that should not be allowed to influence people’s basic welfare. Fairness requires that opportunities should be open to those who are qualified, and it is clearly a good thing when governments try to enforce such equality of opportunity.
But it is harder to know what to say about inequalities that arise in the ordinary course of events, without deliberate racial or sexual discrimination. Because even if there is equality of opportunity, and any qualified person can go to a university or get a job or buy a house or run for office – regardless of race, religion, sex, or national origin – there will still be plenty of inequalities left. People from wealthier backgrounds will usually have better training and more resources, and they will tend to be better able to compete for good jobs. Even in a system of equality of opportunity, some people will have a head start and will end up with greater benefits than others whose native talents are the same.
Not only that, but differences in native talent will produce big differences in the resulting benefits, in a competitive system. Those who have abilities that are in high demand will be able to earn much more than those without any special skills or talents. These differences too are partly a matter of luck. Though people have to develop and use their abilities, no amount of effort would enable most people to act like Meryl Streep, paint like Picasso, or manufacture automobiles like Henry Ford. Something similar is true of lesser accomplishments. The luck of both natural talent and family and class background are important factors in determining one’s income and position in a competitive society. Equal opportunity produces unequal results.
These inequalities, unlike the results of racial and sexual discrimination, are produced by choices and actions that don’t seem wrong in themselves. People try to provide for their children and give them a good education, and some have more money to use for this purpose than others. People pay for the products, services, and performances they want, and some performers or manufacturers get richer than others because what they have to offer is wanted by more people. Businesses and organizations of all kinds try to hire employees who will do the job well, and pay higher salaries for those with unusual skills. If one restaurant is full of people and another next door is empty because the first has a talented chef and the second doesn’t, the customers who choose the first restaurant and avoid the second haven’t done anything wrong, even though their choices have an unhappy effect on the owner and employees of the second restaurant, and on their families.
Such effects are most disturbing when they leave some people in a very bad way. In some countries large segments of the population live in poverty from generation to generation. But even in a wealthy country like the United States, lots of people start life with two strikes against them, from economic and educational disadvantages. Some can overcome those disadvantages, but it’s much harder than making good from a higher starting point.
Most disturbing of all are the enormous inequalities in wealth, health, education, and development between rich and poor countries. Most people in the world have no chance of ever being as well off economically as the poorest people in Europe, Japan, or the United States. These large differences in good and bad luck certainly seem unfair; but what, if anything, should be done about them?
We have to think about both the inequality itself, and the remedy that would be needed to reduce or get rid of it. The main question about the inequalities themselves is: What kinds of *causes* of inequality are wrong? The main question about remedies is: What *methods* of interfering with the inequality are right?
In the case of deliberate racial or sexual discrimination, the answers are easy. The cause of the inequality is wrong because the discriminator is *doing* something wrong. And the remedy is simply to prevent him from doing it. If a landlord refuses to rent to blacks, he should be prosecuted.
But the questions are more difficult in other cases. The problem is that inequalities which seem wrong can arise from causes which don’t involve people *doing* anything wrong. It seems unfair that people born much poorer than others should suffer disadvantages through no fault of their own. But such inequalities exist because some people have been more successful than others at earning money and have tried to help their children as much as possible; and because people tend to marry members of their own economic and social class, wealth and position accumulate and are passed on from generation to generation. The actions which combine to form these causes – employment decisions, purchases, marriages, bequests, and efforts to provide for and educate children, don’t seem wrong in themselves. What’s wrong, if anything, is the result: that some people start life with undeserved disadvantages.
If we object to this kind of bad luck as unfair, it must be because we object to people’s suffering disadvantages through no fault of their own, merely as a result of the ordinary operation of the socioeconomic system into which they are born. Some of us may also believe that all bad luck that is not a person’s fault, such as that of being born of a physical handicap, should be compensated if possible. But let us leave those cases aside in this discussion. I want to concentrate on the undeserved inequalities that arise through the working of society and the economy, particularly in a competitive economy.
The two main sources of these undeserved inequalities, as I have said, are differences in the socioeconomic classes into which people are born, and differences in their natural abilities or talents for tasks which are in demand. You may not think there is anything wrong with inequality caused in these ways. But if you think there is something wrong with it, and if you think society should try to reduce it, then you must propose a remedy which either interferes with the causes themselves, or interferes with the unequal effects directly.
Now the causes themselves, as we have seen, include relatively innocent choices by many people about how to spend their time and money and how to lead their lives. To interfere with people’s choices about what products to buy, how to help their children, or how much to pay their employees, is very different from interfering with them when they want to rob banks or discriminate against blacks and women. A more indirect interference in the economic life of individuals is taxation, particularly taxation of income and inheritance, and some taxes on consumption, which can be designed to take more from the rich than the poor. This is one way a government can try to reduce the development of great inequalities in wealth over generations – by not letting people keep all of their money.
More important, however, would be to use the public resources obtained through taxes to provide some of the missing advantages of education and support to children of those families that can’t afford to do it themselves. Public social welfare programs try to do this, by using tax revenues to provide basic benefits of health care, food, housing, and education. This attacks the inequalities directly.
When it comes to inequalities that result from differences in ability, there isn’t much one can do to interfere with the causes short of abolishing the competitive economy. So long as there is competition to hire people for jobs, competition between people to get jobs, and competition between firms for customers, some people are going to make more money than others. The only alternative would be a centrally directed economy in which everyone was paid roughly the same and people were assigned to their jobs by some kind of centralised authority. Though it has been tried, this system has heavy costs in both freedom and efficiency – far too heavy, in my opinion, to be acceptable, though others would disagree.
If one wants to reduce the inequalities resulting from different abilities without getting rid of the competitive economy, it will be necessary to attack the inequalities themselves. This can be done through higher taxation of higher incomes, and some free provision of public services to everyone, or to people with lower incomes. It could include cash payments to those whose earning power is lowest, in the form of so-called ‘negative income tax’. None of these programs would get rid of undeserved inequalities completely, and any system of taxation will have other effects on the economy, including effects on employment and the poor, which may be hard to predict; so the issue of a remedy is always complicated.
But to concentrate on the philosophical point: the measures needed to reduce undeserved inequalities arising from differences in class background and natural talent will involve interfering with peoples economic activities, mainly through taxation: the government takes money from some people and uses it to help others. This is not the only use of taxation, or even the main use: many taxes are spent on things which benefit the well-off more than the poor. But *redistributive* taxation, as it is called, is the type relevant to our problem. It does involve the use of government power to interfere with what people do, not because what they do is wrong in itself, like theft or discrimination, but because it contributes to an effect which seems unfair.
There are those who don’t think redistributive taxation is right, because the government shouldn’t interfere with people unless they are doing something wrong, and the economic transactions that produce all those inequalities aren’t wrong, but perfectly innocent. They may also hold that there’s nothing wrong with the resulting inequalities themselves: that even though they’re *undeserved* and not the fault of the victims, society is not obliged to fix them. That’s just life, they will say: some people are more fortunate than others. The only time we have to *do* anything about it is when the misfortune is the result of someone’s doing a wrong to someone else.
This is a controversial political issue, and there are many different opinions about it. Some people object more to the inequalities that come from the socioeconomic class a person is born into, than to the inequalities resulting from differences in talent or ability. They don’t like the effects of one person being born rich and another in a slum, but feel that a person deserves what he can earn with his own efforts – so that there’s nothing unfair about one person earning a lot and another very little because the first has a marketable talent or capacity for learning sophisticated skills while the second can only do unskilled labour.
I myself think that inequalities resulting from either of these causes are unfair, and that it is clearly unjust when a socioeconomic system results in some people living under significant material and social disadvantages through no fault of their own, if this could be prevented through a system of redistributive taxation and social welfare programs. But to make up your own mind about the issue, you have to consider both what causes of inequality you find unfair, and what remedies you find legitimate.
We’ve been talking mainly about the problem of social justice within one society. The problem is much more difficult on a world scale, both because the inequalities are so great and because it’s not clear what remedies are possible in the absence of a world government that could levy world taxes and see that they are used effectively. There is no prospect of a world government, which is just as well, since it would probably be a horrible government in many ways. However there is still a problem of global justice, though it’s hard to know what to do about it in the system of separate sovereign states we have now’.
In case people think it important – yes, he is American: http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/thomasnagel
And on that note I'd like to rephrase (after a lot of thought and a little help) to...
I prefer redistributive taxation because I believe it would go some of the way towards alleviating some of the injustices that people are born to (through no fault of their own). And in virtue of that... I consider it to be a fairer system.
But...
What do other people think?
Posted by Damos on November 14, 2005, at 15:51:21
In reply to justice, posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 14:01:10
Let me say firstly that it's nice to see you back at your thought provoking best. As for what I think, well, I'll need to think about it some. These are extraordinarily difficult questions and strike at the heart of soo many things. Just in Australia the questions about Aboriginal health, education and welfare come to mind - countless billions of dollars spent over many decades for what would appear to be almost no tangible improvement for the vast majority of Aboriginals. WHY?????? How can we continue to let this happen? Are they lacking in 'natural talent'? Not by a long shot. So why do we allow this to go on so long. I don't know, I need to think, it upsets me greatly, and dissappoints me more.
Thank you
Posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 16:44:16
In reply to Re: justice » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on November 14, 2005, at 15:51:21
Hey.
Its good to be back :-)> These are extraordinarily difficult questions and strike at the heart of soo many things.
Yeah, they do.
And I think there are two main issues:
(I'll just say that I think that there is an injustice or unfairness in the radical difference in conditions that different people are born to. I really don't think this is controversial..)
1) Given that there is injustice (the above injustice) should the government do something to try and help alleviate the situation?
2) What should the government do?
So... Some people think nothing should be done. Other people think, yeah, something should be done. They may favour a taxation system that is designed to take more from the wealthy so the government has the resources to try and do something. There are other options as well...
But then the problem remains: what is the best thing to do with that money that will have the greatest impact on remidying the injustices?
So I guess I think that the US policy is pretty much 'nope we shouldn't do anything' (with respect to the first point).
In New Zealand... The problems I have with the current government are issues around the second problem: how that money is best spent.
> Just in Australia the questions about Aboriginal health, education and welfare come to mind - countless billions of dollars spent over many decades for what would appear to be almost no tangible improvement for the vast majority of Aboriginals.
Okay. So thats the second problem of how to best spend those resources...
>WHY?????? How can we continue to let this happen? Are they lacking in 'natural talent'? Not by a long shot. So why do we allow this to go on so long. I don't know, I need to think, it upsets me greatly, and dissappoints me more.
Yeah. Upsets me greatly too.
So... How did Australia spend that money???
Housing comes to mind.
The slums on the edges of Sydney (for example).
Cars... I think it was cars.
What are the aborigine (excuse my spelling) going to do with cars????? What did they do with their cars? I think... Most of them didn't know what to do with them. They couldn't afford gas for them (assuming they knew about the virtues of gas). So... They thought they were houses and lived in them.Hmm.
Not the wisest use of money perhaps...
With respect to housing...
Cheap housing in a slum area on the edges of a big city is probably not going to work out so well... I would have thought that a little forethought...
How about trying to get aborigine communities to the point of being self-sufficient. Self-sufficient with respect to the production of food etc.
?
But of course that would require giving them some land that they would be able to work.
Teaching them how to work and maintain it.
My point... Is that often when we consider the giving of aid we kind of go 'what would I like if I was in their shoes'. What we really need to do is think 'what would be best for me IF I WAS THEM?' And that requires us to... Get in amongst the people in the community in order to assess their needs. And it involves us being able to get outside the limitations that our own culture imposes on us to try and figure out what is worthwhile to them. I mean... Our mark of sucess might be a car and a flash house. But they may well value different things.
Trouble we are having...
IMO...
Land claims are turning rather sour.
According to Maori culture nobody OWNS or POSSESSES the land. Rather, we have gardianship, or custodianship over it. Basically... They don't consider we have RIGHTS to the land, they consider we have DUTIES OF CARE to the land. I suppose they can be considered two sides to the same thing, but I guess western culture emphasises our rights, and maori culture emphasises our duty of care.
The land was supposed to be a common resource.
That was what was so objectionable about the europeans coming and building fences around their property or whatever.And the land was taken from the Maori. So... There are land claims where Maori people (tribes typically) put foward a claim to the government and show how the land was illegitimately taken from them. And in some instances... They win, and they get the land back. And in other instances... They are given money in reperation.
Thats well and good... But my issue is that... The people submitting the land claims are typically urbanised maori. They are maori who have moved to industrial centres and have become fairly much culturally assimilated and studied law and marketing and management and so on and so forth. They might win a claim for Tainui. They might get back a chunk of land.
Then what do they do? They subdivide the land into sections and sell it to wealthy europeans in lifestyle blocks or prosperous residential developments.
IMO... Thats shouldn't be allowed to happen. According to traditional maori culture these people should not be allowed to sell what is not theirs. the land does not belong to them to sell. They merely have duty of care over the land to look after it and develop it in useful ways for the benefit of future generations.
I appreciate that cultures evolve over time and a culture that is not evolving is dying but what it seems to me we have happening here is corruption by people who have become assimilated and have forsaken their cultural values for the dollars they can make use of in their lifetime.
So... I think the government should put a restriction on land that is given back so that it is unable to be sold on.
Thats a fairly particular gripe that I have...
Becuase the fact is... That the average maori gets nothing out of the land settlements. The marae (maori community meeting house / maori community) gets nothing from those land settlements. So... That is a waste of land / money resources to give it to people without checks in place to ensure that that land / resources are actually assisting the average maori improve their quality of life.
Make sense?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 17:05:38
In reply to Re: justice » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 16:44:16
we are different from australia.
the treaty...
the treaty...
people go on about how our indigenous realtions are different because we have a treaty...the treaty says... (roughly)... that maori retain their soverignty. suffice it to say that many millions of dollars have been spent on attempts to cash out the precise meaning of 'soverignty' and what that may or may not imply for indigenous relations.
there were different versions of the treaty. different tribes signed different versions so that complicates things a little. but... the soverignty bit is common to all versions. another issue... is that the english version doesn't match up so well with the maori version. most of the maori who signed signed on the basis of having the maori version read to them. so where there are differences between the english and maori versions there are further problems... some of the 'mis-translations' were probably fairly intentional. other 'mis-translation' trouhles are fairly much the inevitable result of translation. but it makes things tough...
basically... we have cashed out 'soverignty' as something along the lines of... maori retaining self-determination. with respect to their culture. where their culture is heading in modern times. there are also developments (which i think are fairly brilliant) in areas such as 'community psychology'. where the idea is basically... psychologists who go and live on the marae and work there from within to help the people fairly generally. play with the kids... etc etc. to be 'role models'. teach them stuff. just be a good 'role model'. teach them about drugs and alchohol and sexual health. etc etc. i think... that is a fairly worthwhile thing to be doing with respect to intervention. community centre type stuff. teaching them boxing or something. the self-control that goes along with that.
but i'm going off on a tangent...
aborigine are different... because they were wanderers. they wandered... they ranged over the land. they wandered around in small groups. and over time... the major cities just grew and grew. in the most fertile areas (well, the ones with water) which is fairly understandable. but the tribe goes wandering to find their water hole. and oh, hello, welcome to the edges of sydney. hmm.
so what to do with a wandering tribe?
if they want to wander then let them wander i say...
if they want to settle down then they need somewhere habitable. somewhere they can have a healthy community.
if they want to wander... then they need access to water etc. so they are self-sufficient when they do that.
i don't imagine... they are terribly happy hanging around the edges of the cities... drinking themselves into a stupor.
i was fairly impressed to be yelled at when i was in Canberra. was at old parliament house and someone yelled 'do you realise you are on aboriginal land???????' out the window.
should have seen their face when i gave them the thumbs up.
we forget... ownership is such a western notion... ownership to the exclusion of others. its mine so get off of it.
another name for that... is theft. theft of a common resource.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 18:30:49
In reply to Re: justice, posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 17:05:38
> another name for that... is theft. theft of a common resource.
hmm. so i really don't know very much at all about Marx... but Marx said that I think... Maybe... I should read Marx after all.
I have been thinking a lot in this past week about wealth distribution...
And the point that in the US there is that tiny little percentage of the population who have is it.... 17 million dollars in assets (or similar). A tiny little percengage... 10 percent. Or something like that... Hmm.
Nagel had something to say in another book of his that I got to reading...
He said that without the institution of government there wouldn't be any money.
He said that without the institution of government there wouldn't be any ownership of resources (because the government enforces the laws that make it meaningful to claim you 'own' something).And I got to reading a little bit about the tax laws in the US. And... Its all about the economy, isn't it. The economy. The number one thing that the government is trying to do is to get that economy rolling along. and what is best for that economy... is those wealthy few. because they will invest that. they will save that. and that is needed for the economy to roll along in the best possible way.
my issue is........ yeah. the economy is important. yup. if a country is broke then it is hard to get teh basic needs met for the majority of the citizens (as the US knows full well when it comes to trade 'negotiations' or more properly cancellations of free trade agreements).
but what about the idea that maybe the role of government is to work to DEMOCRATICALLY promote the welfare of its citizens in the sense that every citizens welfare counts for one. in which case if you wanted to know how well a country was faring... you would look to see how well off the poorest citizens were. in much the same way as when you assess how well someone looks after their pets you don't just consider the health of their favourite pet given pride of place in the family room, you want to know about the ones hidden away in back out of sight as well.
The middle class... Sees themself as working jolly hard for what they have. And they do. The majority of them really really do.
But they seem to look down upon the poor...
As 'couch potatoes'.And they seem to look up to, they seem to condone, to support even, those in that tiny top percent. People watch Paris Hilton's tv show. Mostly to bitch, that is true. But people watch it. And watching it gives her ratings. And what... She needs more money????? And people buy the (typically) womans magazines full of all these people with so much money... so much... and these people are looked up to.
But why are they looked up to instead of being looked down on - the way the middle calss (tends to) look down on the poor?????
If you could take the access from those top few... Those top few...
I'm fairly sure you could have basic needs met across the board. You could have intervention for the poor.
If the poor and the working class got together...
But somehow or other those wealthy few have got people thinking the other way around...
And the working class align themselves with the wealthy few...
So... What is it? Feeling productive helps you feel like it is okay that you exist? Seeing the excess gives you what... Something to aspire to?
First thesis...
Then Marx...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 18:31:46
In reply to Re: justice, posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 18:30:49
the 'you' is general.
nobody in particular.i think i might...
have gone and done it again???i don't know anymore.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 18:42:06
In reply to Re: justice, posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 18:31:46
Posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 0:37:20
In reply to Re: justice, posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 18:31:46
okay so i know verrrrrrrrrry little indeed about politics. and history. declan, are you reading????? i bet you are busting to say something right now. to set my facts straight on australian history and / or new zealand history or something...
i went and had a chat to my friend...
the one doing her thesis on an authentic democracy. she has been told to lose the 'authentic' bit. because... shes talking about what democracy is supposed to be. she doesn't need to rub it into peoples faces that we aren't there yet. hmm.the difference between the ideal and the practice of the ideal to date. sometimes... that can lead to us ruling out an ideal completely without comprehending that there were practices in the implementation that are really what needs to be improved upon for next time.
so...
dictionary definitions.
fairly interesting to contemplate different definitions merely at the level of a dictionary definition.democracy
capitalism
socialism
communismyeah. you know communism isn't so bad at the level of the ideal... so why are americans known to be particularly phobic about communism?????
china
russiacommunism doesn't have to be practiced as the minimum standard of living for the most citizens...
it could be practiced as the maximum standard of living for the most citizens...
but that...
would be pre-supposing that the welfare of the citizens (where each citizen counts for one) would have to take priority over...
the economy
the persuit of material happiness...but then...
how much does the latter buy you anyway?if we give a few the chance of material happiness...
then the consequence is that there are more citizens who lack the basic building blocks of life (primary needs such as food shelter healthcare education) that enable one to feel content.contentment.
harder to find when your basic needs aren't being met.
hard enough to find for those with material excess...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 0:53:32
In reply to Re: justice, posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 17:05:38
what frightens me is that new zealanders are typically considered to be the world leaders with respect to indigenous relations.
that frightens me because i see how far we have got to go...
and i feel ashamed when i think thats the best that people have been able to do with that to date.
people say that where we are... is in virtue of the treaty.
because... the indigenous people to new zealand were not considered to be animals. they were considered to be 'noble savages'. that meant they were considered to be human beings with their own goals and dreams and desires and wants.
and their retaining soverignty... was something that was granted to them in virtue of that.
and some people...
lots of people in new zealand say...
that they just need to get over things and move on. people come. people fight. people win. you lose. thats life. get with the program. make the most of the 'opportunities' that are offered. assimilate or be a 'couch potato' etc etc.but its just not that simple
(as people seem to understand with respect to their own lives over on the psychology board)
its just not that simple.i think...
indigenous groups should all be allowed to retain their soverignty.
more than that. i think indigenous groups should be assisted to achieve soverignty.
i think that all cultural groups should be assisted to achieve soverignty.so instead of thinking 'get over it and move along'. instead of hoarding resources because we are afraid other people will come along and do unto us as we did unto them...
we might just consider that its not so nice to come and take and pronounce 'mine and get off'. and assimilate or perish. and move on or become a 'couch potato'.
and maybe...
if we respect other cultures...
then other cultures will show comperable respect when they come to 'visit' us...perhaps...
Posted by AuntieMel on November 15, 2005, at 14:01:44
In reply to Re: justice » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 16:44:16
You seem to have some incorrect impressions of the US.
We *do* have progressive taxation. Granted the tax code is complicated and there are tax shelters and loopholes, but for the most part even the rich pay their share.
The rates this year are roughly between 20% and 35% for single people and between 20% and 35% for married couples.
The first 10,000 to 15,000 (roughly) of income is not taxed. The rates apply to money above that.
Low income people with kids get a credit, so they can end up with "negative tax"
We also have programs for the poor, what your article calls "welfare"
But - like I've said we also have, at least in the part of the country where I live, an expectation that people will help themselves.
The state I live in instituted a program several years ago that was designed to recognize that all education is not created equal. The top 10% of graduates of all schools (even the poorest with the most disadvantages) are guaranteed a slot in a state university. You can't be bumped out by the rich kid across town because the rich kid has tutors and all the help he needs.
And there are programs to help pay for this.
And as an acknowledgement of school inequality the universities have "remedial" programs to get the kids who need it up to standard.
And *that* is what *I* call fair.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 14:39:27
In reply to Re: justice » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on November 15, 2005, at 14:01:44
((((Auntiemel))))
:-)
:-)Hello.
> You seem to have some incorrect impressions of the US.
:-)
Okay.
> We *do* have progressive taxation.Okay.
>Granted the tax code is complicated and there are tax shelters and loopholes...
Yeah. We have those too... Apparantly, thats what 'personal finance management' is all about... Knowing relevant taxation laws. You don't want to 'avoid' your tax by breaking a law (that would be illegal), but you are allowed to 'evade' your tax by exploiting a gap that a law hasn't been made to plug at that present point in time. And I guess... Personal finance managers pay their own way... Hmm... Hmm... And there are things you can do... 'Charity' is tax deductible etc etc.
>but for the most part even the rich pay their share.
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'pay their share'. I would say... (Just as an example). Yeah, Bill Gates worked hard. And yeah Bill Gates had a good idea or two or three. But did he work millions and millions and millions and millions of times harder than you or most of the people you know??? I think the answer to that is no, he did not. So how come he gets to keep (invest) all the wealth? I think he could stand to be paying a little more in taxation... I think most of the people living in billion dollar mansions... The 'hardworking' movie stars and models etc etc could stand to be paying a little more in taxation... And paying a little more in taxation wouldn't impact on their practical lives very much at all... Yet that could be made to have an enormous impact on the lives of the people who are really struggling (if well spent, admittedly).
> The rates this year are roughly between 20% and 35% for single people and between 20% and 35% for married couples.For which tax bracket? Sounds high for the working class (I bet some people really struggle there). Sounds... low for the top few... But I guess it really does depend on the available loopholes. How much people who are investing can get around taxation laws. Easy to make money once you have money and know how to invest it wisely...
> The first 10,000 to 15,000 (roughly) of income is not taxed. The rates apply to money above that.Okay.
> Low income people with kids get a credit, so they can end up with "negative tax"
Welfare? We have the 'domestic purposes benefit'. That means... If you have children younger than school age... You have enough to stay home and look after them (which is terrific for all those single parents out there). Is it that kind of thing??? How long can you get that for? Just wondering because I heard the unemployment benefit was capped to a maximum of 6 months in a persons lifetime.
> We also have programs for the poor, what your article calls "welfare"?
What sort of programs?> But - like I've said we also have, at least in the part of the country where I live, an expectation that people will help themselves.
Help themselves how?
> The state I live in instituted a program several years ago that was designed to recognize that all education is not created equal. The top 10% of graduates of all schools (even the poorest with the most disadvantages) are guaranteed a slot in a state university.Okay. And the top 10% is governed by... standardised tests... Still... Hard to know how else to do that I suppose... I guess we have similar with university entrance tests... Dare I say... Not all state universities are created equal... Does it really work like that???? So if you live in New York and you manage to get in the top 10% of your school... You are guaranteed a place at the State University of New York??? How are you supposed to pay for your 'guaranteed place'?
>You can't be bumped out by the rich kid across town because the rich kid has tutors and all the help he needs.
:-)
Though... Think how much more likely you are to get to be in that top 10% with tutors and help and encouragement from your parents etc etc.> And there are programs to help pay for this.
:-)
> And as an acknowledgement of school inequality the universities have "remedial" programs to get the kids who need it up to standard.I have to say...
I favour that over 'affirmative action'. Oh yes I do indeed :-)
> And *that* is what *I* call fair.Okay.
Though...
What about the inequalities of native ability.
One kid has the native ability which combined with a little hard work could get them in that top 10%...
Another kid doesn't have that native ability but with a little hard work they can do unskilled labour...
The first kids earning capacity (after completion is ____)
The second kids earning capacity (after completion is ____)I appreciate...
Things are much more complicated than I'm aware of. Because each state has its own laws and way of doing things as well as the federal stuff.
And... Charity work is something that I think people are bigger on in the US than they are over here. Especially... When most scholarships have loads of space for you to list your charity work. Seems to be... Very nearly a pre-requisite for scholarships as a matter of fact. Seems to be something that most people... Do in fact do. So in a way... I think that maybe in the US people are more generous with individuals doing that kind of thing. Whereas over here... People aren't typically so generous with volounteering their own time. Maybe because... We think it is part of the role of government. And... We have already done our bit as individuals because the government took our bit already in tax.Hmm.
And that is my one post for today.
No more.I'll allow myself another tomorrow :-)
Posted by verne on November 15, 2005, at 21:31:04
In reply to Re: justice » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 14:39:27
Alexandra,
What is being rewarded in a case like Bill Gates is not more "work" units but creativity and risk taking.
In fact, what drives this runaway train (I need at least one train or horse in my post) is risk. This is why trains are such delicious targets - risk. And this is why the pony express was such a short-lived hit.
I, myself, don't like huge gaps between the rich and poor, I'm hopelessly liberal but I recognize the value, and even need, (i hope not for another comma) to reward risk taking and ingenuity. The creative risk takers actually create more prosperity for the rest of us.
Verne
Posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 21:50:23
In reply to Re: justice » alexandra_k, posted by verne on November 15, 2005, at 21:31:04
> What is being rewarded in a case like Bill Gates is not more "work" units but creativity and risk taking.
Hmm.
But other people who are creative and take risks manage to lose most everything they have...I mean... thats kind of what a risk is... matter of luck.
I'm not saying that he shouldn't be rewarded...
My understanding is he worked very hard indeed... But i don't think we have to choose between him being rewarded the way he is presently or him not being rewarded at all.> The creative risk takers actually create more prosperity for the rest of us.
because... of the economy?
because... people like to think they could similarly 'strike it lucky'?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 22:45:48
In reply to Re: justice » verne, posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 21:50:23
...on the politics board.
i hereby declare that i shall not post to the politics board until my thesis is done.
bang!
thump!so...
who wants the last word???
;-)
Posted by verne on November 16, 2005, at 1:41:10
In reply to Re: okay... time for me to call it a day..., posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 22:45:48
How much is the last word going for these days? I'd give it up if the compensation is right. (hee,hee).
I don't know how to make smiley faces or emoticons so I resort to "hee,hee" which is really sort of sad in comparison. I'm emoticon impaired.
Can I rent out time shares for the last word?
Verne
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2005, at 10:09:40
In reply to Re: justice » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 14:39:27
There are is also sorts of data available on how much taxes each group of people pays. I'm pretty sure that the x% richest people pay y% of taxes, with y being far larger than x. How much larger it should be might be a matter for debate, but that the richest Americans pay most of the total tax intake is a matter of record.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2005, at 10:49:25
In reply to Re: justice » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2005, at 10:09:40
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf
Posted by alexandra_k on November 16, 2005, at 14:29:32
In reply to Re: justice, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2005, at 10:49:25
Uh... I wonder what it means when it says in the footnote: 'Estimates of taxes paid ignore any behavioural responses to the tax cuts'???
Okay. So there *is* progressive taxation.
But then how come...
The distribution of wealth is still so imbalanced???See for example:
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
I thought this looked fairly interesting
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/indexinq.htm
So I suppose that what I'm thinking...
Is it fair that there is such a radical imbalance in the distribution of wealth?
If you think it is unfair then...
What (if anything) should be done about it??
Posted by alexandra_k on November 16, 2005, at 17:34:26
In reply to Re: just one more..., posted by alexandra_k on November 16, 2005, at 14:29:32
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/hunger/2003/0808blame.htm
Posted by AuntieMel on November 17, 2005, at 13:44:55
In reply to Re: just one more..., posted by alexandra_k on November 16, 2005, at 14:29:32
"Okay. So there *is* progressive taxation.
But then how come...
The distribution of wealth is still so imbalanced???"Now we are back to the book I recommended a while back, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"
A lot of the problem is that those with money know how to handle it, amass it, make it work for them. And they pass this economic knowledge down.
Those with much less money never had that training.
Accumulating wealth has more to do with living habits than earning potential. Read also "The Millionaire Next Door" - most millionaires don't *look* like millionaires - they shop at discount stores, buy used cars and generally just live below their means.
I can't see (except for the most destitute homeless) why anyone who makes ends meet couldn't do it on 5% to 10% less and save and invest the rest. It really doesn't take cutting much - a CD here, a movie there, a meatless night, whatever fits.
Posted by cricket on November 17, 2005, at 15:37:53
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on November 17, 2005, at 13:44:55
> A lot of the problem is that those with money know how to handle it, amass it, make it work for them. And they pass this economic knowledge down.
>
> Those with much less money never had that training.
>
> Accumulating wealth has more to do with living habits than earning potential. Read also "The Millionaire Next Door" - most millionaires don't *look* like millionaires - they shop at discount stores, buy used cars and generally just live below their means.
>
> I can't see (except for the most destitute homeless) why anyone who makes ends meet couldn't do it on 5% to 10% less and save and invest the rest. It really doesn't take cutting much - a CD here, a movie there, a meatless night, whatever fits.Hi AuntieMel. I absolutely agree with you that it's not about earning, it's about saving.
However, the problem is so much deeper than that.
And right now I am speaking from my own personal experience and not from any statistics or sociological study or anything like that.
When you live in a neighborhood where it's almost impossible to get decent food (fresh produce or bread) and everything is fast food or chemical ridden sugar laden indefinite shelf life cr*p...When you work at a mind numbing job for 10 hours a day ...
Then ride public transportation (standing, jammed in like a sardine) for another two hours ...
When you come home to a cramped apartment with a bunch of other people and you have nowhere to go to be alone and think for a moment...
When everything is noise and dirt and bad smells ...
When your only form of more mind numbing entertainment is a television that parades images of glamor and glitz and incredible wealth before your very weary eyes ...When you lie in bed at night and listen to the gun shots...
Then someone could give me all the lessons in money saving in the world but you know what I still want those jeans that are way too expensive and that fancy coffee latte junk and even that Ipod because you know what for one moment that makes me feel okay, that I'm like other people.
I know many would say I'd be better off saving that $100 or $1,000. But $1,000 is not going to get me out of here, not even $10,000 will do that. $100,000 - maybe? But where in the world would that come from?
And that's why so many people live for the lottery. What else is there to hope for?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 17, 2005, at 17:14:27
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on November 17, 2005, at 13:44:55
> But then how come...
> The distribution of wealth is still so imbalanced???"
> A lot of the problem is that those with money know how to handle it, amass it, make it work for them. And they pass this economic knowledge down.
But that amounts to whose *with* money handling their money well. I'm most concerned... About those *without* enough money to meet their basic needs in the first place.
> Accumulating wealth has more to do with living habits than earning potential.Well... For those who earn an excess to what they need, sure.
> I can't see (except for the most destitute homeless) why anyone who makes ends meet couldn't do it on 5% to 10% less and save and invest the rest.
Maybe... It comes of people *just* being able to meet their basic needs. Not being able to do that on 5% or 10% less.
And maybe... It comes of those little 'luxuries' in life being what... Enables one to persist in living. To manage to get up out of bed and work long hours in a mind numbing job etc (as Cricket noted). Because... The minimum wage is pretty low... Pretty low indeed.
I found this article... I don't know how dodgey it is... But it said that a low ranking military guy would get $1,000 per month to live in New York City. That... There were food banks set up for military personel because... Sometimes they needed that. Even with their wives earning two jobs... And for those with kids... So there... You have hard working people... Still unable to meet their basic needs. I'm not sure that they could do with 5-10% less.
Thats to say nothing of all the unskilled laborers out there. Factory workers. Etc.
If you are talking about the middle class... Those who have an excess to their basic needs in the first place... Then savings helps. Sure.
I'm a little concerned that this idea...
That *most* people could be a millionaire if only they saved harder. If only they worked harder to save harder. I'm a bit concerned that this idea... Is what 'resigns people' to accept the status quo. If they are not a millionaire then it is somehow their own fault because they didn't work harder or save harder.But...
Is it fair that some people are born millionaires already while others are not?
Is it fair that some people *can* work harder and save harder and become millionaires, while others could not?
Is it fair that a large portion of the worlds population doesn't have their basic needs met...
While other people... Could possibly be millionaires?And if it is not fair...
Then what (if anything) should be done about it?
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 18, 2005, at 18:04:55
In reply to Re: just one more... » AuntieMel, posted by cricket on November 17, 2005, at 15:37:53
> However, the problem is so much deeper than that.
>
> And right now I am speaking from my own personal experience and not from any statistics or sociological study or anything like that.
>
>
> When you live in a neighborhood where it's almost impossible to get decent food (fresh produce or bread) and everything is fast food or chemical ridden sugar laden indefinite shelf life cr*p...
>
> When you work at a mind numbing job for 10 hours a day ...
>
> Then ride public transportation (standing, jammed in like a sardine) for another two hours ...
>
> When you come home to a cramped apartment with a bunch of other people and you have nowhere to go to be alone and think for a moment...
>
> When everything is noise and dirt and bad smells ...
>
>
> When your only form of more mind numbing entertainment is a television that parades images of glamor and glitz and incredible wealth before your very weary eyes ...
>
> When you lie in bed at night and listen to the gun shots...
>
> Then someone could give me all the lessons in money saving in the world but you know what I still want those jeans that are way too expensive and that fancy coffee latte junk and even that Ipod because you know what for one moment that makes me feel okay, that I'm like other people.
>
> I know many would say I'd be better off saving that $100 or $1,000. But $1,000 is not going to get me out of here, not even $10,000 will do that. $100,000 - maybe? But where in the world would that come from?
>
You spoke for me too there Cricket.
(Though I don't deal with gunshots, I'm so sorry you have to)
Things are getting much better for me, Still there are *many* times I cannot not afford laundry, or tampons, or aspirin or even polysporin and bandaids when I have an infection..things other people just have on hand.
I was *so* harrassed about my very occasional coffee out, (maybe once every two months)
And I remember thinking, they have no idea, for that half an hour out, in that coffee shop with the lovely atmosphere, I feel like part of the world, I feel human, and it keeps me alive.I realize you are not on assistance, I am.
And I have to say that those "mysterious" people out there who prefer assistance to working (having others tax dollars foot the bill for them while they are a couch potato) must be selling drugs, or have another form of illicit income, because with all the time you have, there is nothing you can do with it. What, go shopping?Go out with friends for drinks? HA! You don't even look forward to meals because you can only afford crap. And you can't afford cable to watch t.v while you're being the so called "couch potato" If you are doing something with it, something worthwhile, like volunteering well where's the problem?
Besides, welfare recipients as far as I'm concerned are more than those on what's considered public assistance. It's not uncommon for a politician, after 2 years in office (or less in some cases) to retire with with a yearly salary in the triple digits, even when they've been forced out because of impropriety. That to me, is nothing more than welfare.
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 18, 2005, at 18:29:19
In reply to Re: just one more... » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on November 17, 2005, at 13:44:55
> I can't see (except for the most destitute homeless) why anyone who makes ends meet couldn't do it on 5% to 10% less and save and invest the rest. It really doesn't take cutting much - a CD here, a movie there, a meatless night, whatever fits.
I'm speaking from a Canadian perspective here I don't know what the U.S public assistance rates are.
Here there are people who choose to be homeless because if they can find someone who will sign a fake rent receipt they can collect money from Welfare for rent, and then actually have enough to live on, and no I'm not criticizing that.A single person on welfare receives 500.00 month. 325.00 of that is designated for rent, which means if you share an apartment and get cheaper rent, say 250.00, then 250.00 is all you'll get from welfare.
A study I read about just yesterday (which I really didn't need to know) showed that a single person on welfare, on average lives on 20.00 a month. That's for everything but rent, because they have to take usually at least 75.00 out of the alloted support money, to make up for the cost of a place to live. Even a rooming house is 425.00
Twenty dollars a week (slightly less) is what I lived on until I recieved disability benefits.
Sure there's a food bank here, I can't afford bus fare to get to it though.I think that's why it's not just the homeless who can't save 10% of their income.
Posted by Jakeman on November 22, 2005, at 20:01:00
In reply to Re: just one more... » AuntieMel, posted by Gabbix2 on November 18, 2005, at 18:29:19
The big picture is who is better off. There has beeen a massive shift of wealth to the upper income classes in the US over the past 20 years. This phenomenon does not sustain capitalism in the long run, because middle and low income people need money in their pockets to buy stuff and keep the whole machine running. I'm speculating, but that may be a reason that billionaire George Soros supported Kerry in the last election. A quick search came across this article:
"Meanwhile, income inequality has grown. In 2001, the top 20 percent of households for the first time raked in more than half of all income, while the share earned by those in the middle was the lowest in nearly 50 years."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34235-2004Sep19_2.html
I need to research this more, but it's possible that the the reason the rich are paying the most tax is because their incomes have increased.
warm regards,
~Jake
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.