Nerv14

I have always been interested about some people's instistance that any form of wealth distribution from upper-income individuals to the lower income levels is inherently wrong.

I am not even talking about people who just want cuts to all forms of welfare programs. (local as well as federal) I am wondering how people could believe that any seizure of wealth, no matter for how good a cause for the poor, must be immedietly dismissed.

I am against large welfare programs that purely punnish the rich and allow the poor to not work, but I recognize that a safety net for the poor and programs to give the poor tools to compete with the rich is a nessesity. A small tax to provide education and some unemplyoment benefits is not even close to a communist dictatorship, so I don't see the problem.

My question also isn't about how welfare programs harm the economy by harming those who can generate large amounts of money, but when people are just inherently against welfare programs because they feel that it unfairly steals someone's hard earned money. I am curious about the almost moral injustice some people see when any amount of wealth is redistributed because alot of the times those "socialist" policies are thrown away before the economics of them is even looked into.

"Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe."

-Theodore Roosevelt


Defensor's analysis of Barack Obama, Democratic nominee for president of the United States:

Advertising

freckles

Why work? What's the incentive?
It's one thing when you are physically or mentally incapable of it. But if you are capable, why would you work if someone is willing to do the work for you?

In the wild, there is no healthcare. In the wild healthcare is 'Ow, I hurt my leg. I can't run. A lion eats me, and I'm dead.' Well, I'm not dead. I'm the lion. You're dead.

Oftencold

I don't need to go to a moral argument. The fact that wealth redistribution schemes fail by causing more trouble than they eliminate is all I need address.

Nerv14

You are talking about charactoristics of welfare states, but that is not always what wealth redistribution means. It could mean unemployment payments to a family for when someone has no job for a week or free education for a poor family that wouldn't be able to afford good education otherwise.

There are mild forms of wealth redistribution and the problems you bring up are true, but they are not in all types of social programs.

That is one argument against social programs, but some people would just be inherently against them even if they were completely economically sound, because of the movement of wealth.

You could also argue that good public education allows a higher percentage of the work force to be skilled, which is an economic benefit.

"Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe."

-Theodore Roosevelt


Defensor's analysis of Barack Obama, Democratic nominee for president of the United States:

freckles

But if you want a free education, with a wealth distribution system, what is the best way to go about it? Plus, if all were granted a higher post secondary education, the minimum requirement for a good job would go from a college degree to a grad degree. The higher paying jobs are the ones with the lowest number of qualified and willing applicants.

In the wild, there is no healthcare. In the wild healthcare is 'Ow, I hurt my leg. I can't run. A lion eats me, and I'm dead.' Well, I'm not dead. I'm the lion. You're dead.

Nerv14

I would support free education up to a grad degree. However, there would still be educational requirements so even if everyone would be allowed to financially go to graduate school, it may not be possible if they are a poor student and worker.

I am just going for the lowest denomination of wealth distribution and just saying that it does not make sense to be immedietly inherently against it.

"Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe."

-Theodore Roosevelt


Defensor's analysis of Barack Obama, Democratic nominee for president of the United States:

freckles

The one's with the money will still win because they will all get grad degrees. All free college does is up the ante on competition. Eventually it will be everyone gets free grad degrees so they can compete because college will become what high school is today. That also means a min of 4 additional years before becoming a valuable member of the workforce. With the mass retirements of the baby boom and less workers coming in than out, can we afford a stagnation of 4 additional years of education? Can SS?

It would be nice to give everyone college free, but college has more expenses than a k-12. Who is going to pay those? The alumni who is already being forced to fork out the money for the students coming in? All we are doing is bumping rearranging the triangle of hierarchy when there is no shortage of people available for employment in jobs that require degrees therefore making it more competitive. But, it's still a triangle so people have to be squeezed out somewhere.

In the wild, there is no healthcare. In the wild healthcare is 'Ow, I hurt my leg. I can't run. A lion eats me, and I'm dead.' Well, I'm not dead. I'm the lion. You're dead.

Stinger

How do you get the teachers to work for free?

Nerv14

I am just trying to remove the economic question and just get the best people into education. Tf I truely tried to finish an education plan it would be possible that it is only practical to have enough schools up to high school, and the poor students would be unable to get into college.

I don't believe a lack of a workforce is a problem in countries where good education is free, so that may only be a short term problem, but I am unsure.

I have envisioned the government giving vouchers per student and grants while also outlawing added costs for schools pre-k to grad. That way school would be free but the cost of schooling wouldn't go up as well because of the substidy of grants. I made a thread about that plan in the education section.

"Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe."

-Theodore Roosevelt


Defensor's analysis of Barack Obama, Democratic nominee for president of the United States:

freckles

All students are technically poor unless they have inheritance. Just because some parent's help pay for their children's education doesn't mean they are independently wealthy. Many students do not receive assistance from family to go to college and still finish. They take out loans or they work or they apply for scholarships. A child who has a parent making $500,000 who receives no monetary support from their family and a child with a parent making $10,000 a year are on equal footing when it comes to paying for their education. Both have the means and opportunity already if they opt to take it.

In the wild, there is no healthcare. In the wild healthcare is 'Ow, I hurt my leg. I can't run. A lion eats me, and I'm dead.' Well, I'm not dead. I'm the lion. You're dead.