Stop patronising poor Americans

[w1z4rd]

Water is not sentient so it cannot act so it cannot have intent. See, I'm happy to pander to your question-dodging. Who's wasting time now?

So taxation is sentient? Wooooah.

Dude, sorry, I dont take the Austrian school of economics very seriously (Im with the moderates on this). I mean lets be honest, you live by your system (I assume) but cant afford to watch a youtube video. Then you wanna give someone who can afford to watch a youtube video economic advice.

I know I suck balls with economics, but I do understand clearly how societies become dysfunctional and how the erosion of the middle class destroys a country. I have a very clear picture on how important the middle class is to a society.

 

[Greylor]

Uneducated people can make bad decisions because they are don't think issues through. See "ANC Voter."

Educated people can make bad decisions because they are able to convincingly argue rubbish. Ever heard of the saying, "You have to have gone to university to come up with something that stupid?"


Education is merely one of the plethora of factors that adds up to inform the decisions and opinions that each individual makes.

 

[Hard Rain]

So taxation is sentient? Wooooah.

Taxation is an action. It's carried out by people, unlike "water". So, can you justify the action of extracting taxes as not criminal or coercive?

Dude, sorry, I dont take your school of economics very seriously. I mean lets be honest, you live by your system (I assume) but cant afford to watch a youtube video. Then you wanna give someone who can afford to watch a youtube video economic advice.

The ethics of taxation has nothing to do with the Austrian School of economics. I can afford to watch YouTube, but I have Cell-C internet so it's not in my best interests to chew up the bulk of my cap with a video over an hour long, which I would like to watch.

I know I suck balls with economics, but I do understand clearly how societies become dysfunctional and how the erosion of the middle class destroys a country. I have a very clear picture on how important the middle class is to a society.

This was never in dispute. I can tacitly agree with your sentiments, in any case.

 

[w1z4rd]

This was never in dispute. I can tacitly agree with your sentiments, in any case.

Okay, so lets start with this.

You have a country like SA. Where a massive population is poor, a small population is middle class and a tiny population is rich. How do you make a bigger middle class? How do you stop the poverty from growing? How do you enable the poor to one day become productive members and enter the middle class?

Lets start with two basic ideals to get people out of poverty. Education and health. Explain how, without taxation, do you address these fundamental issues in society?

 

[Hard Rain]

Okay, so lets start with this.

You have a country like SA. Where a massive population is poor, a small population is middle class and a tiny population is rich. How do you make a bigger middle class? How do you stop the poverty from growing? How do you enable the poor to one day become productive members and enter the middle class?

You've answered this in your question, interestingly enough. It's all about productivity. People are "poor" because they lack a source of income. Who is going to provide the income? Businesses who can exchange wages, a source of income, for the labour of the people. But we know people who are poor are probably less educated and less productive than others so the price of their labour has to start lower than others. What does government do right now? It imposes extraneous costs on businesses in the forms of regulations and taxes that disincentivizes hiring more people. The government also imposes regulations and taxes on the labourers, such as the minimum wage, which artificially increases the price of labour making those with lower productivity than the minimum wage unemployable.

Ideally it would be left to employers and employees to negotiate and agree to the terms and rate of employment. There's room here for unions to be of a big help in assisting those in need, but it cannot be based upon the present situation where unions have greater rights than employers and can utilize coercive means to get their way.

You need only look at the development of pre-industrial capitalist countries (like the United States and Great Britain in the 19th century) to see how, even with mostly poor and unskilled populations, an explosion of growth, productivity and wealth can occur when government is not so interventionist or tax-hungry as it today. The West didn't become rich and industrialized by having powerful central governments intervening in the market and imposing burdensome taxes and regulations. China and India were like that 10 years ago; they've been making progress since breaking away from that mould.

 

[w1z4rd]

You've answered this in your question, interestingly enough. It's all about productivity. People are "poor" because they lack a source of income. Who is going to provide the income? Businesses who can exchange wages, a source of income, for the labour of the people. But we know people who are poor are probably less educated and less productive than others so the price of their labour has to start lower than others. What does government do right now? It imposes extraneous costs on businesses in the forms of regulations and taxes that disincentivizes hiring more people. The government also imposes regulations and taxes on the labourers, such as the minimum wage, which artificially increases the price of labour making those with lower productivity than the minimum wage unemployable.

You need only look at the development of pre-industrial capitalist countries (like the United States and Great Britain in the 19th century) to see how, even with mostly poor and unskilled populations, an explosion of growth, productivity and wealth can occur when government is not so interventionist or tax-hungry as it today. The West didn't become rich and industrialized by having powerful central governments intervening in the market and imposing burdensome taxes and regulations. China and India were like that 10 years ago; they've been making progress since breaking away from that mould.

You havent answered one of my questions.

Absolutely nothing tangible. Not a single solution.

 

[Hard Rain]

Okay, let me make it really simple.

How do you stop the poverty from growing?

Get people earning an income by working.

How do you enable the poor to one day become productive members and enter the middle class

Get them working as soon as possible. It's not likely older people will ever be able to return to formal education, they are going to have to learn and expand their skillset on the job. With hard work and capital accumulation it eventually becomes possible for their children to spend a lot of time getting formalized education rather than working also.

 

[w1z4rd]

Okay, let me make it really simple.



Get people earning an income by working.

Yeah, but until theyre working? Where do all these poor people live? How do they survive? Do they only appear when you have a job for them?

 

[Hard Rain]

Yeah, but until theyre working? Where do all these poor people live? How do they survive? Do they only appear when you have a job for them?

Where are they living now? What are they doing now? They're struggling by, hoping for the opportunity for things to become better. We can help them without requiring the state to rob and coerce us. Charity exists for a reason. Even better than charity, as I've pointed out, is the opportunity to work. Yet the government is content to keep up the barriers and restrictions to this.

 

[w1z4rd]

Where are they living now? What are they doing now? They're struggling by, hoping for the opportunity for things to become better. We can help them without requiring the state to rob and coerce us. Charity exists for a reason. Even better than charity, as I've pointed out, is the opportunity to work. Yet the government is content to keep up the barriers and restrictions to this.

Some are living in RDP houses and have grants, those not taken care of are mostly in squatter camps and adding to our crime problem. If we didnt have those RDP houses and welfare, things would be worse.

 

[Hard Rain]

Some are living in RDP houses and have grants, those not taken care of are mostly in squatter camps and adding to our crime problem. If we didnt have those RDP houses and welfare, things would be worse.

If we didn't have taxes and burdensome regulations we'd all be richer, people would be employed and things would be better.

Would you prefer it if we just all gave up most of our income and kept tens of millions on grants and in houses?

 

[w1z4rd]

If we didn't have taxes and burdensome regulations we'd all be richer, people would be employed and things would be better.

No, some of us would be richer. The poor with nothing will still have nothing. Since there will be no safety net, the society will become unstable.

Would you prefer it if we just all gave up most of our income and kept tens of millions on grants and in houses?

Nope, neither extremes you have offered are a viable solution. A smart sensible moderate approach is in order.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-7-2010/supercuts
Supercuts
John Oliver explains how wealth from the Bush tax cuts will trickle down like a golden stream of oddly hot champagne.

 

[Hard Rain]

No, some of us would be richer. The poor with nothing will still have nothing. Since there will be no safety net, the society will become unstable.

Poverty is relative. The condition of "absolute" poverty (meaning having literally nothing) is far rarer in this day and age than a mere fifty years ago, even in South Africa. Care to explain how the world went from over 80% of the people in the 1800s being in the condition of absolute poverty to a fraction of that number today with society being so "unstable" as you claim? Government intervention is destabilizing; it interferes with the market process which drives productivity and employment.

Look, the problem with being poor is you don't have a lot of money. Usually you have less money than you need for the basic necessities like food, shelter etc. So how can you disagree with abolishing taxes like VAT, property tax, fuel tax etc? The effect of this would dramatically decrease the prices of all goods and services across the economy. This would mostly benefit... the poor! But no, it's somehow simpler to live under the delusion that government can put up so many barriers to employment and productivity and then make up the deficiencies its created by taxing goods and services, making them more expensive for everyone?

Supercuts
John Oliver explains how wealth from the Bush tax cuts will trickle down like a golden stream of oddly hot champagne.

I think I saw that clip a while ago, but as I've pointed out I'm rationing my bandwidth. Notice how I'm in favour of cutting all taxes, not merely corporate and higher-bracket income taxes? Stop trying to conflate my position with your own cognitive biases.

 

[Hard Rain]

I'd add that Dr. Tom Woods deals with the effects of America's welfare programs, among other topics such as the military industry, informally in this speech: http://mises.org/media/5390/Our-Wise-Overlords-Are-Just-Here-to-Serve-Us

More formally here: http://mises.org/media/989/Great-Society-and-the-Republican-Welfare-State

And here: http://mises.org/media/1998/Welfare-Programs-and-the-Great-Society

 

[WilD_CaT]

I think its more to do with moving goal posts than a clear idea of ethics and economics.

Should X policy be done and will its consequences be as intended.

Without a moral framework you cannot answer X, and without economic understanding you won't know if the policy implemented will have consequences as intended.

 

[joy_Energiser]

That's exactly the patronizing attitude right there. The poor are criminals. IF they don't have a bureaucrat middle man to do it for them, they'll steal it themselves.

Poverty breeds crime.

The truth hurts, and trumps trying to be "Politically Correct" in the logical world.

 

[Palimino]

Uneducated people can make bad decisions because they are don't think issues through. See "ANC Voter."

Educated people can make bad decisions because they are able to convincingly argue rubbish. Ever heard of the saying, "You have to have gone to university to come up with something that stupid?"

It’s the ratios. An overwhelming majority who are mindnumbingly dumb, ignorant and superstitious. Who are used to authority (feudal mindset), have no idea of the options available under democracy and are easily manipulated by scumbuckets.

Educated people (as well as being far fewer) are the opposite. They are fully informed and make bad decisions because of errors in judgement, usually because they have been persuaded (not ordered) thus by an articulate and coherent argument.

 

[Hard Rain]

They are fully informed

Nobody has peferct information. The "informed" voter is a myth.

 

[Palimino]

Care to explain how the world went from over 80% of the people in the 1800s being in the condition of absolute poverty to a fraction of that number today with society being so "unstable" as you claim? Government intervention is destabilizing; it interferes with the market process which drives productivity and employment.

By that logic; I hardly think that government intervention in the 1800’s was so pervasive that poverty affected 80%. That’s what you are claiming. I can accept the figures, but to hold government responsible is ridiculous.

“It’s that dratted 1800 nanny government which is causing instability and 80% poverty.”

 

[Alan]

Poverty breeds crime.

So how do you explain countries with high poverty levels and low crime?

Or even here....

Johannesburg - High levels of violent crime were not linked to poverty levels in municipalities across the country, a SA Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) study has found.

In a statement on Monday, the SAIRR said Eastern Cape municipalities had the highest murder rate, 54 murders per 100 000 people, and a poverty rate of 62%.

Limpopo municipalities, however, recorded the lowest murder rate but also had a poverty rate of 62%.

The findings form part of a local government study which assessed 80 indicators from each of the 52 metropolitan and district municipalities.

The indicators included demographics, education, employment, housing, access to basic services, transport, social security, health and crime.

Western Cape municipalities also recorded a high murder rate with a low poverty rate of 27.5%.

Poverty rates varied across municipalities, nationally and within provinces.

The Alfred Nzo District Municipality in the Eastern Cape recorded the highest poverty rate with 76%, while the lowest was in the West Coast Municipality and the Cape Winelands Municipality in the Western Cape.

The study also noted that the municipalities with the highest access to basic services were in Gauteng. The City of Johannesburg recorded only four percent of households without access to water, eight percent with no access to electricity and five percent with no access to sanitation.

In the Alfred Nzo District Municipality 54% of the residents had no access to water, 58% had no access to electricity and 63% had no access to sanitation.
- SAPA