The Wealthy as Job Creators?

[cabiness42]

And when Im in a group where I have a lot more money, I pay for it. I pay for their tickets, I pay for the cab, I pay for whatever. Because they are my friends and my money is worthless if I dont have people to share it with.

 

And my other friend who makes considerably more than me, he almost always pays the entire bill, because he can, because he knows that its not fair/right to have people go to fancy dinners/shows/etc that they cant afford.

 

I want to be friends with both of you.

[StrangeSox]

And that is really where sin tax needs to go if you want it to be successful. Allow rich people to pay to break the law. Id pay for that. Id actually want to make more money if my money could be spent doing what I want to do.

 

When you say "break the law" do you mean 'sin' taxes for certain goods or allowing people who are wealthy enough to legally and legitimately buy their way around the law?

[Soxbadger]

When you say "break the law" do you mean 'sin' taxes for certain goods or allowing people who are wealthy enough to legally and legitimately buy their way around the law?

 

If you really want to make money, it would have to be allowing them to buy their way around the law. Obviously murder/intentional torts would be off the table. Im talking about fun things.

 

IE

 

Its illegal to buy MDMA. But if you spend $10k you can get an exemption from that law.

 

Its illegal to hire prostitutes. But if you spend X you can get an exemption.

 

The difference wtih a sin tax is that those actions are "legal" just deemed "undesirable". In my situation they would still remain illegal, youd just be buying an exemption.

[StrangeSox]

That would completely undermine the legitimacy of the legal system. Why should I have any respect for a system that openly allows the wealthy to buy indulgences? Where is the sense of justice when I'm punished for a crime and you're not simply because I'm poor?*

 

*not that this doesn't apply to our current system, but it's at least de jure equal.

[Soxbadger]

That would completely undermine the legitimacy of the legal system. Why should I have any respect for a system that openly allows the wealthy to buy indulgences? Where is the sense of justice when I'm punished for a crime and you're not simply because I'm poor?*

 

*not that this doesn't apply to our current system, but it's at least de jure equal.

 

The new system is equal. Anyone can buy an exemption. If you want to indulge, make more money. If you dont buy an exemption, you are punished (rich or poor) equally.

 

The reason you are being punished is you broke the law without an exemption. The same would apply to a rich person.

 

But unlike our current system, you cant buy the exemption after you break the law. So in reality its more fair.

 

[StrangeSox]

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.""

 

Add "buy literal get-of-jail cards" to that list. There's nothing fair about a legal system where the wealthy can openly and legally buy themselves exemptions from the law.

[Soxbadger]

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.""

 

Add "buy literal get-of-jail cards" to that list. There's nothing fair about a legal system where the wealthy can openly and legally buy themselves exemptions from the law.

 

Its fair, everyone can buy the exception.

 

It may be easier for some, but its still fair.

 

Unfair would be if only people who make X can buy it.

 

But in reality nothing is ever "fair". The world isnt fair, life isnt fair, nothing ever is. The best we can do is give everyone equal opportunities. And everyone has the opportunity to buy an exemption, so it is ultimately fair.

[StrangeSox]

That is a very peculiar definition of fairness.

[Soxbadger]

That is a very peculiar definition of fairness.

 

Not really, the first definition:

 

in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.

 

 

The rules would be: pay X, get exemption from crime Y.

 

Thus fair.

 

The current rules are unfair. Commit Y crime, get Z sentence. Unless you know the right people, then cut a deal where you pay X which is far more than the law allows but drop the charge to something negligible.

 

As you can see the first is fair, because the rules are clearly articulated and everyone can play the game. The second is not fair, because only a few people even know the option exists, and even fewer people actually have access/wealth to make that option happen.

 

But lets just be honest. Nothing is ever fair. Even games are not fair, because participants in games have different skills and abilities.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

SB's argument is akin to saying that not having gay marriage is fair because a gay man can still marry a woman. He likes men? Tough s***, life's not fair.

 

Something tells me you wouldn't agree with that position.

[bmags]

This comes across as a rather manic rant.

[Soxbadger]

SB's argument is akin to saying that not having gay marriage is fair because a gay man can still marry a woman. He likes men? Tough s***, life's not fair.

 

Something tells me you wouldn't agree with that position.

 

That was the exact argument I was parroting.

 

But youre missing the conclusion. Throwing the word "fair" around is meaningless. You can argue something is fair/unfair right/wrong at the same time.

 

Which is why when I argue for gay marriage, it isnt based on whether its fair or not fair to marry someone. I base it on the fact that its unfair for the govt to give benefits to people who are married and not give them to people who are unmarried. And thus if they want to strip away all marital rights, it would be completely fair to not allow X person to marry Y for any reason.

 

But if you are going to give X/Y a benefit because they said stupid words and promised to be together, then you have to give X/X the same benefit if they say the same stupid words and make the same stupid promise.

 

In my situation the govt is giving no inherent benefit to rich or poor people. If a poor person wants to spend all their money on an exemption, that is their right. The govt cant stop them.

 

Compare that to a gay person who wants to get married and the govt saying no...

 

Or even a better comparison. If you cant afford a marriage license fee, you cant get married. If that is fair, then its fair to charge for an exemption. Its the same idea.

 

(Edit)

 

Manic rant?

 

My personal opinion is to have higher graduated tax rates. I just was offering other ideas because people seem so beholden "not to raise taxes on the ultra rich."

 

If we arent going to do that, then we need to come up with exotic ways to make money. Thats just reality. You arent going to fix trillions of dollars of debt by nickel and dime taxes on cigarettes.

 

 

Edited October 23, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Jake]

There's no fairness in that unless distribution of money is fair. The original distribution of currency was so unfair that the current distribution, even if more fair than it once was (not to say that is fairer than it ever has been, because that is not the case) is still unfair. Judging our desires by our willingness to pay only makes sense if we all have had equal opportunities to earn money. That isn't the case. Associating money with freedom means our freedom is measured by how much money we have. It is an injustice that it is already the case, why make that more true? You're not "free" to buy things if you're not as "free" to earn money as everyone else. Given the long history of asymmetrical distributions of wealth, it is clear that not everyone is free to pursue money and thus not free to buy things. If the things you buy can now include freedom, you just take freedom away from people with less money.

 

 

Edited October 23, 2013 by Jake

[Soxbadger]

There's no fairness in that unless distribution of money is fair. The original distribution of currency was so unfair that the current distribution, even if more fair than it once was (not to say that is fairer than it ever has been, because that is not the case) is still unfair. Judging our desires by our willingness to pay only makes sense if we all have had equal opportunities to earn money. That isn't the case. Associating money with freedom means our freedom is measured by how much money we have. It is an injustice that it is already the case, why make that more true? You're not "free" to buy things if you're not as "free" to earn money as everyone else. Given the long history of asymmetrical distributions of wealth, it is clear that not everyone is free to pursue money and thus not free to buy things. If the things you buy can now include freedom, you just take freedom away from people with less money.

 

Everyone still has the ability to vote to change the law right?

 

So if all of these people want to do these things, why not just vote to change the law?

 

Youre entire paragraph can be summed up into a simply into: Life isnt fair.

 

But the question we have to ask is, so what? We have to acknowledge life isnt fair and then we have to try and create a baseline of "fairness".

 

To me its more important that people get access to free public education, free public healthcare, roads and other stuff.

 

What isnt so important is whether or not everyone can pay to break the law. Because if that means regular people get all the other stuff (education, healthcare) so what.

 

Sometimes the ends justifies the means.

 

[StrangeSox]

duh, the answer is anarchistic communism

[caulfield12]

Everyone still has the ability to vote to change the law right?

 

So if all of these people want to do these things, why not just vote to change the law?

 

Youre entire paragraph can be summed up into a simply into: Life isnt fair.

 

But the question we have to ask is, so what? We have to acknowledge life isnt fair and then we have to try and create a baseline of "fairness".

 

To me its more important that people get access to free public education, free public healthcare, roads and other stuff.

 

What isnt so important is whether or not everyone can pay to break the law. Because if that means regular people get all the other stuff (education, healthcare) so what.

 

Sometimes the ends justifies the means.

 

 

Because it would be considered unconstitutional.

 

It's another side of the Obamacare debate. Forcing people, in the minds of many, to pay fees or subscribe to a service, even if those services might save or prolong their lives, is UNFAIR. Even if they end up saving money, etc.

Edited October 24, 2013 by caulfield12

[Jake]

Everyone still has the ability to vote to change the law right?

 

So if all of these people want to do these things, why not just vote to change the law?

 

Youre entire paragraph can be summed up into a simply into: Life isnt fair.

 

But the question we have to ask is, so what? We have to acknowledge life isnt fair and then we have to try and create a baseline of "fairness".

 

To me its more important that people get access to free public education, free public healthcare, roads and other stuff.

 

What isnt so important is whether or not everyone can pay to break the law. Because if that means regular people get all the other stuff (education, healthcare) so what.

 

Sometimes the ends justifies the means.

 

Governments exist to inject fairness into chaos. The reaction to unfairness under government rule shouldn't be, "forget about fairness. We tried fairness and it didn't work."

 

We don't need to undermine the rule of law to give people free education, healthcare, roads, and other stuff. Most industrialized countries offer all of these things. You simply tax people.

 

To sell off the rule of law is to violate the basics of the social contract. One of the basic truths that makes us accept our role in society is the knowledge that there are certain things that apply to everybody. The more special privileges you allow the upper class to have, the more class division will exist. While there are issues of tax unfairness and many lifestyle benefits that go along with wealth, our social order is invested in the attempt to hold all people under the same set of expectations. Right now, if a rich person gets off unfairly because of their celebrity or wealth, that pisses us off. We try to fix the system to prevent further abuses. We shame that person. If the system suddenly tried to allow the wealthy to buy their way out of legal trouble, it brings into question the reasons for existence in the first place.

 

Why have laws? If you can buy your way out of law, then the law doesn't seem proper in the first place. Even when we disagree on laws, the spirit of a law's intent makes us respect it. A law whose apparent reason for existence is government profit offends us; think about our reaction to supposed "quotas" for traffic stops. We could make a law, for instance, that you can only have one child...unless you buy the right to more (China). Unfortunately, this redistributes one of the most important human experience into the upper class.

 

Getting "free education, healthcare, roads, and other stuff" in exchange for undermining the entire purpose of governance doesn't make sense. You see this as everyone benefiting from the rich getting what they want. The question is, why would people accept this? They wouldn't, unless they thought it was the only way to get these services from the government: this is patently untrue, as we see all over the world and in our own history. This proposal amounts to coercion, the illusion of freedom.

 

You give the public a choice of "no public goods, everyone follows the same rules" or "public goods, you can buy your way out of select violations of law," but these are not the choices. The choices are, "the wealthy pay a fair share of their earnings to the public goods that make their wealth possible and follow the same rules as everyone else" or "the wealthy buy their way out of laws, violate the basics of the social contracts, and there is little evidence that they get more or better benefits from the government." There are many other choices in between and outside these as well, and most of them don't involve a fundamental loss of liberty allowed by bribery.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Jake

[Soxbadger]

No one has ever said there are not other choices.

 

My preferred choice is just raising taxes on the highest income levels.

 

The point was to create "other" ways to increase revenue.

 

You wrote a lot of words, but they dont really make sense. There is no "fundamental loss of liberty". The fundamental loss of liberty occurred when people voted to take away other peoples rights to do those things in the first place. Why should you get to tell me I cant kill myself? The answer is, you shouldnt. I should have the right to do what I want with my life/body provided that I dont hurt others in the process.

 

Furthermore, the origin of the social contract is generally considered Leviathan. Leviathan was about how the govt is supposed to protect the people from evildoers. But in Leviathan the way that was accomplished was by ceding your individual rights for the betterment of society (I give up my right to steal from you, if you give up your right to steal from me.) My suggestion would fall perfectly into that social contract and actually fits into Locke, Rousseau. Maybe it would fail under John Rawls, but I never was a huge fan of his.

 

The problem is that you keep suggesting that my idea will undermine the rule of law. In my opinion it is the exact opposite. Right now what I proposed exists. If you have enough money, you can basically pay your way out of most non-violent crimes. The problem is, most people dont know this, because they dont have access to the right people to make it happen. That is more unfair than telling people "if you pay X, you can violate this law", it is upfront and honest. You talk about shaming and being abhorred, but how are you upset when you dont know? Do you know every rich person who has been charged with a felony and pleaded down to a citation because they paid a huge fine (a fine that was larger than the law allowed), of course not. Even better, you likely have no way of finding it out, because you can get the court records sealed in most states if you know what you are doing.

 

Now you make think "well its unfair poor people cant afford it". But our society isnt built on "fairness" it is built on "fair opportunity." And in my scenario, everyone would have "fair opportunity."

 

And to answer your question "Why have laws?"

 

The answer is, we should have as few laws as possible. The only laws we should have should be based on utilitarian principles that you cant do X, because it would interfere with my right to do Y. So any law that I would allow people to buy their way out of, I would never have considered a legitimate law in the first place.

 

I believe that we all have the right to kill ourselves with our own vices. If you really want to talk about a fair society, why is it fair that alcohol is legal and marijuana isnt? Why is it fair that I can smoke a cigarette but I cant snort cocaine?

 

I dont even know how you get to coercion. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Once again this idea is only because we are starting with "X people refuse to agree to taxes on the wealthy" with the variable X being large enough to stop any legislation from passing.

 

Perhaps I should ask you, what do you think is a fairer solution? Given a world where we cant raise taxes on the people who are most capable of paying them, how would you raise more revenue to ensure that all Americans get equal access to healthcare, education and govt services?

 

 

[Texsox]

Because it would be considered unconstitutional.

 

It's another side of the Obamacare debate. Forcing people, in the minds of many, to pay fees or subscribe to a service, even if those services might save or prolong their lives, is UNFAIR. Even if they end up saving money, etc.

 

The conflict I see is there are also laws that basically require hospitals to offer care. Imagine requiring a business to give away food, clothing, or shelter.

[southsider2k5]

The conflict I see is there are also laws that basically require hospitals to offer care. Imagine requiring a business to give away food, clothing, or shelter.

 

I see forcing someone to buy something as exactly that.

[Jake]

There is not support for allowing hospitals to deny care - this is because we feel like we shouldn't have the ability to heal sick people and withhold it.

 

Given that, we need to have a better system for distributing care than "poor people show up in emergency room"

 

poor being used loosely here, since many healthcare is too expensive for many people that I would never consider poor

[Texsox]

I see forcing someone to buy something as exactly that.

 

If you are forced to buy something you will have it and receive the benefits from it. If you are required to give something away, you no longer have the benefit. I'm not seeing that as exactly the same.

 

If I am forced to give you my clothing, you then have it and I don't. If you are forced to buy your own clothing, I have mine and you have yours. But we aren't talking about a $5 t-shirt. We are talking about giving away services that run into the thousands of dollars.

[southsider2k5]

If you are forced to buy something you will have it and receive the benefits from it. If you are required to give something away, you no longer have the benefit. I'm not seeing that as exactly the same.

 

If I am forced to give you my clothing, you then have it and I don't. If you are forced to buy your own clothing, I have mine and you have yours. But we aren't talking about a $5 t-shirt. We are talking about giving away services that run into the thousands of dollars.

 

The vast majority of people lose massive amounts of money on health care. They pay in way more than they take out. That is the entire idea. Most of us give away money.

[Jake]

The vast majority of people lose massive amounts of money on health care. They pay in way more than they take out. That is the entire idea. Most of us give away money.

 

This is why many of us see healthcare as a service the government should provide. In a free market system, the government is the only entity that can/would logically make what would under other circumstances seem to be a bad investment. Nobody else has an interest in providing essential services like this unless the provider benefits more than the beneficiary. This is not the case with the government.

 

Another case is research - research will be limited in the free market to the kinds of research that may ultimately make somebody money. The researcher needs to get a patent or something out of it, or the investor (who, in rare circumstances, is also the researcher) has to believe there can be tangible, financial benefits. I met with prominent European conservative Roger Scruton, and one of his ideas for how the government ought to be involved in "saving the planet" is in research. He reasons that the research needed to truly revolutionize our energy consumption will be lengthy and will be financially irresponsible for any private entity. Further, a planet-saving discovery ought not be privately owned since cheap and wide distribution will be absolutely necessary. Therefore, he says, governments should be granting massive amounts of money to universities to get these things done.

 

To a large extent, that is the entire reasoning behind the public school. The government provides the school because it must be universally available and it is difficult to profit from if it must be universally available. Beyond that, schools (and universities in particular) will move away from their missions of education and enrichment of humanity if they must also turn a profit. There is practically no government support of public universities (and progressively less to primary and secondary schools), causing them to reprioritize budget over quality, but this is the general idea behind public education and why it thrived once upon a time.

 

Services that enrich humanity, must be universally available, and are dubious propositions for profit need government involvement. The single payer system that so many of us advocate even theoretically allow for the best parts of free markets to remain: drug companies still exist and must try to innovate new drugs, most health providers remain private and must compete on their merits and prices (though I am dubious as to whether this is a public good), and consumers still have to act like consumers, yet without extreme burdens for serious illnesses and unnecessary burdens for preventative and maintenance care.

[southsider2k5]

This is why many of us see healthcare as a service the government should provide. In a free market system, the government is the only entity that can/would logically make what would under other circumstances seem to be a bad investment. Nobody else has an interest in providing essential services like this unless the provider benefits more than the beneficiary. This is not the case with the government.

 

Another case is research - research will be limited in the free market to the kinds of research that may ultimately make somebody money. The researcher needs to get a patent or something out of it, or the investor (who, in rare circumstances, is also the researcher) has to believe there can be tangible, financial benefits. I met with prominent European conservative Roger Scruton, and one of his ideas for how the government ought to be involved in "saving the planet" is in research. He reasons that the research needed to truly revolutionize our energy consumption will be lengthy and will be financially irresponsible for any private entity. Further, a planet-saving discovery ought not be privately owned since cheap and wide distribution will be absolutely necessary. Therefore, he says, governments should be granting massive amounts of money to universities to get these things done.

 

To a large extent, that is the entire reasoning behind the public school. The government provides the school because it must be universally available and it is difficult to profit from if it must be universally available. Beyond that, schools (and universities in particular) will move away from their missions of education and enrichment of humanity if they must also turn a profit. There is practically no government support of public universities (and progressively less to primary and secondary schools), causing them to reprioritize budget over quality, but this is the general idea behind public education and why it thrived once upon a time.

 

Services that enrich humanity, must be universally available, and are dubious propositions for profit need government involvement. The single payer system that so many of us advocate even theoretically allow for the best parts of free markets to remain: drug companies still exist and must try to innovate new drugs, most health providers remain private and must compete on their merits and prices (though I am dubious as to whether this is a public good), and consumers still have to act like consumers, yet without extreme burdens for serious illnesses and unnecessary burdens for preventative and maintenance care.

 

This post is full of irony.