If Growing Inequality Is a “Serious Problem,” Please Explain Why

[costargh]

Why don't we have a flat income tax rate?
I don't think people on high wages should be punished for it. I think everyone should pay the same tax on their income because to me that seems the fairest.

Good idea though i would add an exemption for those on the low incomes, say an exemption up to 30k. I don't think those at the bottom should be taxed.

Yeh I agree that people on low incomes should not be taxed as it gives them an incentive to actually stay in the workforce . But prior to new income tax reforms (not sure about the highest level of income tax) I remember looking at the highest threshold and thinking (around) 50%! Thats ridiculous when other people are on between 25-35%. Even possibly a 2 tier tax bracket would be better than how it used to be (about 5 or so brackets?)

[Collin Li]

I doubt very much that there will be as many people who live in poverty as some of you believe. It is only the case now because they have been trapped in to the incentives of a welfare state. Once we start to dissolve these elements of government, the incentive traps will fall apart, and more people will begin to work again. The economy will become kick-started by liberalisation in the labour market. Although the increase in supply of labour may decrease wages, it will also decrease prices of goods. The Australian consumer benefits, and the ones who consume the most percentage of their income are the poor. All of this would come without sacrificing liberty at all.

[costargh]

I think certain welfare benefits should remain in place but I think their is a disincentive to go out into the workforce because our welfare system is too generous. If the inconvenience, stress and time restraints imposed on an individual outweigh the relatively small increase in income that they receive a week, then where is the incentive to work?

[Eriny]

I'm interested as to why you're asking all these questions of me. Is it some kind of tactic? Is it to just be annoying?

You made some claims, now you have to explain them. If you find thinking about your own posts annoying well then..

ability to go to school and be educated to get a better career.

How are you going to provide that? Where is it going to come from?

Or the ability to have healthcare so that you are better able to work.

How are you going to provide that? Where is it going to come from? Who is going to provide that?

The ability to have money to buy food and some kind of shelter so that you have stability and can build your life from there.

How are you going to provide that? Who is going to provide that?

Opportunities like these should not be inherrent to rich people and nonexistent to poor ones. Both need the same amounts of opportunity.

These "opportunities" seem more like goods and services.

Social power was more a reference to what I was saying earlier. It means that whether you're poor or you're rich, you can still lead your life without being a slave and you can live in a dignified way.

So you want to give every person an equal "chance for progress or advancement" to command the same level of "life without being a slave and you can live in a dignified way".

How exactly are you going to make these chances equal? What is living in "dignified way"? 50k a year? 60k a year? Lastly, and most importantly, what exactly does it mean to "live like a slave"?

By giving people money or capital...

Where is that money going to come from? There is money fairy. Who is to give it? How are you get this money? Who is going to provide that? Secondly, the typical definition of capital is "plant and equipment", why would you give someone plant and equipment? That seems quite silly, what definition of capital are you using?

This is all very well and good but we're getting caught in definitional debate. If I were to write a real essay then I would have much more clarity, but given that I can't be bothered and this is a forum, I'm not willing to go through every one of those questions. Does it weaken my argument? Probably, unless by answering your questions my argument sinks down in semantics which is really quite trivial to my original answer posed to the question of this thread. The truth is that the free market is not perfect. One of the ways in which it is not perfect is because it causes inequities, and some (Note: not total) redistribution of income is positive for the economy in terms of encouraging growth and is fair for all in acknowleging their contribution to the overall wealth of the nation, and indeed to the world. Further, it ensures that classist heirachies are less prevelant: children of the hard workers of last generation aren't completely riding off that previous success, children of the impoverished of last generation don't have to remain that way. Nobody has actually addressed my points, and have tended to detract from them in order to make the debate confusing and trivial. That's it. If you disagree, then you disagree. There's no need to continue pushing the libretarian utopian agenda because I'm not going to be moved by it. Just like my ideals, libretarian ideals are simply that, ideals, don't pretend that they are inherrently correct.

[Collin Li]

Of course the free market causes inequities, real life causes inequities! This is the natural order of life. Therefore, it is up to the redistributionist to provide a justification as to why inequality is bad, and how to overrules freedom. It is not about "pretending" that freedom is correct, but it is about asking: why should we disrupt this?

People can be more unlucky than others. Is it the government's role to take from the lucky and give to the unlucky? Why? What is the principle behind this, and what does it achieve?

I can list many examples that have always failed to help the poor. The minimum wage, foreign aid, social welfare... the list goes on. Now, I ask, what is the point is government intervention, if these policies do not even achieve their intended effect? In fact, if you want to help the poor the best thing is the leave the markets free:

Further, it ensures that classist heirachies are less prevelant: children of the hard workers of last generation aren't completely riding off that previous success, children of the impoverished of last generation don't have to remain that way.

People often analyse capitalism based on today's problems, but that is an incorrect analysis. Today, we do not live in capitalism, we live in a highly regulated market.

This is fuelled by the failures of government policy. This on-going cycle is magnified under redistributive policy because of incentive traps and laws that prevent their freedom to work (minimum wage)! If the government would leave them alone, they could find a job and work slowly to build a wealth. It is freedom that fosters dreams, not government intervention. Social welfare traps the poor, while minimum wages make sure the poor can never start. Many migrants from Communist countries moved to Western nations for their freedom. Back then, there was little or no minimum wage or social welfare benefits, but instead, migrants could begin to amass their wealth. The wealth that they build up is passed on to their children, who can then achieve a middle-class life and aspire for things that you and I do.

[costargh]

I'm not willing to go through every one of those questions. Does it weaken my argument? Probably

I don't think it weakens your argument at all. I know Brendan's ploy and I think that both of you have argued extremely well and brought out some valid points.

[Collin Li]

I don't think it weakens your argument at all. I know Brendan's ploy and I think that both of you have argued extremely well and brought out some valid points.

Uhm, sorry? Brendan's "ploy"? That is bullshit. What about Eriny's "ploy"?

This is all very well and good but we're getting caught in definitional debate. If I were to write a real essay then I would have much more clarity, but given that I can't be bothered and this is a forum, I'm not willing to go through every one of those questions. Does it weaken my argument? Probably, unless by answering your questions my argument sinks down in semantics which is really quite trivial to my original answer posed to the question of this thread.

This can be considered a cop-out.

There's no need to continue pushing the libretarian utopian agenda because I'm not going to be moved by it. Just like my ideals, libretarian ideals are simply that, ideals, don't pretend that they are inherrently correct.

This is labelling, and I have provided a defence of accused "pretending" in my above post. The utopian idea is not libertarianism, it is the idea that we should take from the rich and give to the poor and believe that things will work out nicely afterwards.

Brendan is asking relevant questions to get to the core of Eriny's beliefs. He is doing what Milton Friedman would do in a debate.

[Collin Li]

Yes, they should continue to be asked, because there is more to it than what others have plainly said.

It is not "annoying." If you refuse to clarify your viewpoint, that is your own problem. Please continue with the actual debate.

[costargh]

I never said that its annoying. Eriny said that or something along those lines.

[Collin Li]

Then what is wrong with questions? I could simply list all of the sentences you have made that end in a full-stop. Stop making redundant posts.

[costargh]

You were the one that questioned my post in the first place and I should have a right of reply. I Pm'd you about it and you decided to post it here anyway.

[Collin Li]

I am asking you: what is wrong with these questions?

Here are the PMs:

His ploy is to play 21 questions to piss Eriny off so she ends up bantering and looking weak.
You know it.

Sorry, you are wrong. I have responded.

If he doesn't ask those questions, Eriny appears stronger than she actually is. That is not a "ploy" but it is exposing the truth. Government interventions don't actually deliver the miracles it promises, there is always a cost and in many ways, it can hurt who the intended beneficiary was.

Theres a difference between exposing the truth and harassing someones argument by asking them to define every word they use. 

I don't think Eriny's got it right but I don't think she should be picked on like she is being.

Asking for definitions is important. It is too easy to hide behind the cloak of "social justice" and "fairness" when the meaning is very ambiguous. Then there were questions that didn't ask about definitions. These ones are also important, as they reveal the hidden costs of government intervention (which are always lurking due to scarcity of resources).

[jamesdrv]

Voluntary charity is more realistic than re-distribution, because redistribution reduces the size of the economic pie, which means there is less to share around (the more you tax, the more you compress the economy).

Government spending on welfare is about $96 billion per year. You're logical enough to realize this could not be matched or bettered through voluntary charity. I think you do know this, but you seem to have made a commitment to apply pure libertarian ideals to every issue you come across, regardless of whether the resulting argument makes sense or not. I've said what I wanted to say and see no point in answering every question Brendan has proposed.

[costargh]

If you find thinking about your own posts annoying well then..

From here on is what I found a ploy.

Whats your point? about my PM's?

Kk saw your edit now.
Still is asking the same question 2-3 times necessary?

[Collin Li]

Voluntary charity is more realistic than re-distribution, because redistribution reduces the size of the economic pie, which means there is less to share around (the more you tax, the more you compress the economy).

Government spending on welfare is about $96 billion per year. You're logical enough to realize this could not be matched or bettered through voluntary charity. I think you do know this, but you seem to have made a commitment to apply pure libertarian ideals to every issue you come across, regardless of whether the resulting argument makes sense or not. I've said what I wanted to say and see no point in answering every question Brendan has proposed.

You wouldn't need to have $96 billion of charity to feed a free market. Because the entire economic pie is increased in size, there will be less people who will have less than what they absolutely need to survive. These people will be able to survive: there are so many churches and private charity institutions that do the feeding much better than social security does.

I find it annoying that you say my arguments don't make sense when you completely ignore posts like:

Of course the free market causes inequities, real life causes inequities! This is the natural order of life. Therefore, it is up to the redistributionist to provide a justification as to why inequality is bad, and how to overrules freedom. It is not about "pretending" that freedom is correct, but it is about asking: why should we disrupt this?

People can be more unlucky than others. Is it the government's role to take from the lucky and give to the unlucky? Why? What is the principle behind this, and what does it achieve?

I can list many examples that have always failed to help the poor. The minimum wage, foreign aid, social welfare... the list goes on. Now, I ask, what is the point is government intervention, if these policies do not even achieve their intended effect? In fact, if you want to help the poor the best thing is the leave the markets free:

Further, it ensures that classist heirachies are less prevelant: children of the hard workers of last generation aren't completely riding off that previous success, children of the impoverished of last generation don't have to remain that way.

People often analyse capitalism based on today's problems, but that is an incorrect analysis. Today, we do not live in capitalism, we live in a highly regulated market.

This is fuelled by the failures of government policy. This on-going cycle is magnified under redistributive policy because of incentive traps and laws that prevent their freedom to work (minimum wage)! If the government would leave them alone, they could find a job and work slowly to build a wealth. It is freedom that fosters dreams, not government intervention. Social welfare traps the poor, while minimum wages make sure the poor can never start. Many migrants from Communist countries moved to Western nations for their freedom. Back then, there was little or no minimum wage or social welfare benefits, but instead, migrants could begin to amass their wealth. The wealth that they build up is passed on to their children, who can then achieve a middle-class life and aspire for things that you and I do.