Good question. Let me cite a comment I just pointed.
I'd define it the way people in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period did. They made a sharp distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, the latter being poor due to their own laziness and misbehavior, the former due to no fault of their own.
I can see how someone would be poor through their own laziness, but you can only be rich in spite of your own laziness ("through no fault of your own"). The two situations are different.
Voluntary charity to care for the involuntarily destitute is entirely different from the state taking money under threat of force to distribute as it sees fit.
I disagree, you can be rich through inheritance. Often some of the worst, laziest people in the world. Point taken though, I only talked about what the words mean for the poor as opposed to the rich as well.
The rich who are deserving, in my view, are those who provide actually useful goods and services. Even something like Tesla would count, but not Facebook. Just my own arbitrary judgments.
I understand that you don't oppose voluntary charity. I don't like to strawman people as "OMG YOU LOVE TO SEE PEOPLE STARVE". But just to give you an example, I just scrolled through Twitter and one of the conservatives I follow was raising money to end medical debt. Very good, and voluntary charity as you call it, but one of the few blessings of living in Europe is that we don't have such a thing.
There's a huge number of questions before an accurate answer can be given, and you horribly skewed the question, but the answer is generally "yes".
But some of the most basic questions:
You phrase it as $10, but we're realistically talking $3500 per year, because feeding the guy for just one day is useless. Are we also giving him housing? Medical care? Clothing? Where do we stop? Long's UBI plan, if it were inflation-adjusted, would mean giving him $46000 per year annually.
What makes the poor man "deserving", and what makes the billionaire's money undeserved? Or rather, who decides what "deserving" and "undeserving" is? Because if you gave most left politicians in the Western world control over it "deserved" would mean not-white-male and undeserving would mean white-male. But on a more practical level, what restrictions are there on what the poor man can spend money on before he is no longer deserving? And what is he allowed to do with his time before he no longer counts as deserving? Similarly, does the fact that Musk and Ellison made their money through providing useful goods and services make them more or less deserving of keeping it than someone like Buffet who made it playing the stock market or Zuckerberg, Paige and Brin who made it through selling ads?
You do know the money you think is there isn't, right, and you have no sense of economics or scale? Go ahead, liquidate all of the assets of the 10 richest people in the US, and redistribute it evenly to everyone in the country. Do you know how much money everyone gets? Assuming that:
a) you actually recover all the money (which you won't because most of it is tied up in investments which will crater in value once you start "redistributing" it) and
b) the government doesn't take their usual cut of the money (and they almost certainly will want their share, either when selling/seizing the assets or from the money going to the people - likely both) and
c) the online figures for the US population are accurate, then
everyone in the country gets a 1-time check for..... $4,423.51. Now, sure, I wouldn't say no to a 4k check, and it would probably (briefly) help a lot of people. But that is basically the average rent payment for one month in NYC. Congratulations on your massive accomplishment! You just cratered the entire US economy and reduced the retirement accounts of every single working person in the US to basically toilet paper to pay a couple months rent! And most of the people you gave the checks to (many of whom likely spent most of it on a shopping spree - look at what people did with their Covid stimulus money) are probably clamoring for you to give them another check now. So you need to liquidate more people, and more people, and more people, etc. Which leads to:
Given that virtually every single tax that has ever been proposed throughout the entirety of human history has been scaled "down" to take money from more and more people over time, the most relevant question is actually
How much are you personally willing to pay to someone you never met but who the government claims is more deserving of your money than you are? And at what point do you consider it theft? And who are you to tell other people when they should consider it theft?
There's a huge number of questions before an accurate answer can be given, and you horribly skewed the question, but the answer is generally "yes".
The question was horribly skewed, by design. I'm trying to probe if you think any attempt to help the deserving poor at the expense of the undeserving rich is by definition bad.
You phrase it as $10, but we're realistically talking $3500 per year, because feeding the guy for just one day is useless. Are we also giving him housing? Medical care? Clothing? Where do we stop? Long's UBI plan, if it were inflation-adjusted, would mean giving him $46000 per year annually.
It's just an example. Suppose feeding him for the day would enable him to go to work and actually support himself. I didn't ask as a policy proposal, just to figure out where you draw the line, if you do.
What makes the poor man "deserving", and what makes the billionaire's money undeserved? Or rather, who decides what "deserving" and "undeserving" is?
I'd define it the way people in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period did. They made a sharp distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, the latter being poor due to their own laziness and misbehavior, the former due to no fault of their own.
Similarly, does the fact that Musk and Ellison made their money through providing useful goods and services make them more or less deserving of keeping it than someone like Buffet who made it playing the stock market or Zuckerberg, Paige and Brin who made it through selling ads?
There is a reason I like to use Zuckerberg as an example. What he provided, if you leave behind narrow economic definitions of value, has no value or even negative value, to individuals and to society. But he has extracted vast amounts of wealth from that society.
You do know the money you think is there isn't, right, and you have no sense of economics or scale? Go ahead, liquidate all of the assets of the 10 richest people in the US, and redistribute it evenly to everyone in the country. Do you know how much money everyone gets? Assuming that:
I am well aware of that. It wouldn't accomplish anything, and for those who actually provide useful stuff... would put an end to that. I'm not proposing to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
a) you actually recover all the money (which you won't because most of it is tied up in investments which will crater in value once you start "redistributing" it) and
I accept this, but I'll point out a technical point: a firesale leads to lower prices, but not to lower value. The value, and normally the price, of these instruments is based on estimates of long-term dividend yields and stock price increases.
everyone in the country gets a 1-time check for..... $4,423.51.
The economic damage done isn't even comparable to the "benefit".
How much are you personally willing to pay to someone you never met but who the government claims is more deserving of your money than you are? And at what point do you consider it theft? And who are you to tell other people when they should consider it theft?
It might be theft, but I find that a facile argument. We do need roads, we need security. This is not a motte and bailey fallacy. This actually brings me to my original point. If it is theft, it is not justified even for worthy goals.
We in Europe have far bigger problems. They take our money and send it to Ukraine and on immigrants. That is theft, because it's not spent on their own corrupt interests rather than that of the people.
There is a large difference between an individual stealing to feed themselves (less of a fraction of theft than women getting abortions because of rape and not as birth control).
And the state taking the power to unilaterally sieze property from private citizens. Destroying property rights and making all men slaves. All government policy is backed by force - armed robbery by the state to give to whoever sociopathic bureaucrats deem "deserving" is not charity.
People that support using the state to rob people, to force others to "be charitable" rather than doing it themselves, do not actually have such altruistic motives. If you want to help people, foster a strong community. Trying to use government to force everyone ELSE to give money not only fails due to corruption, it actively destroys real charity - because why would private citizens spend what they have left on charity when the government is already taking from them for it?
I know you're a eurofag so you don't understand american taxation - there are enough holes in the system that the middle class pays more taxes than the rich, and the same goblins that constantly cry that the rich aren't paying their fair share are the ones who made that possible. Using government to control economics has never worked, and never will. It will always be corrupt, so the solution has always been keeping government as minimal as reasonably possible.
There is a large difference between an individual stealing to feed themselves (less of a fraction of theft than women getting abortions because of rape and not as birth control).
I'm aware. I'm just using that as an example. If it's 'theft' to take part of the money of a billionaire, does it became less wrong if that theft is done to feed people who would otherwise starve?
armed robbery by the state to give to whoever sociopathic bureaucrats deem "deserving" is not charity.
It's not charity, it's distributing goodies to their own supporters.
People that support using the state to rob people, to force others to "be charitable" rather than doing it themselves, do not actually have such altruistic motives
Of course not.
I know you're a eurofag so you don't understand american taxation - there are enough holes in the system that the middle class pays more taxes than the rich,
Sounds very much like the system here. There are few European countries where the marginal tax rate for the middle class isn't about 50% in income taxes alone.
Using government to control economics has never worked, and never will. It will always be corrupt, so the solution has always been keeping government as minimal as reasonably possible.
You say corruption like it's a bad thing. It's a good thing for the people who benefit from it. The fact that it doesn't work for you and me is immaterial to them.
Is taking $10 from the undeserved wealth of a scurrilous multi-billionaire so that a deserving poor man doesn't starve 'theft'?
I'd like to see how you define "undeserved"/"deserving" there.
Good question. Let me cite a comment I just pointed.
I'd define it the way people in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period did. They made a sharp distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, the latter being poor due to their own laziness and misbehavior, the former due to no fault of their own.
I can see how someone would be poor through their own laziness, but you can only be rich in spite of your own laziness ("through no fault of your own"). The two situations are different.
Voluntary charity to care for the involuntarily destitute is entirely different from the state taking money under threat of force to distribute as it sees fit.
I disagree, you can be rich through inheritance. Often some of the worst, laziest people in the world. Point taken though, I only talked about what the words mean for the poor as opposed to the rich as well.
The rich who are deserving, in my view, are those who provide actually useful goods and services. Even something like Tesla would count, but not Facebook. Just my own arbitrary judgments.
I understand that you don't oppose voluntary charity. I don't like to strawman people as "OMG YOU LOVE TO SEE PEOPLE STARVE". But just to give you an example, I just scrolled through Twitter and one of the conservatives I follow was raising money to end medical debt. Very good, and voluntary charity as you call it, but one of the few blessings of living in Europe is that we don't have such a thing.
There's a huge number of questions before an accurate answer can be given, and you horribly skewed the question, but the answer is generally "yes".
But some of the most basic questions:
You phrase it as $10, but we're realistically talking $3500 per year, because feeding the guy for just one day is useless. Are we also giving him housing? Medical care? Clothing? Where do we stop? Long's UBI plan, if it were inflation-adjusted, would mean giving him $46000 per year annually.
What makes the poor man "deserving", and what makes the billionaire's money undeserved? Or rather, who decides what "deserving" and "undeserving" is? Because if you gave most left politicians in the Western world control over it "deserved" would mean not-white-male and undeserving would mean white-male. But on a more practical level, what restrictions are there on what the poor man can spend money on before he is no longer deserving? And what is he allowed to do with his time before he no longer counts as deserving? Similarly, does the fact that Musk and Ellison made their money through providing useful goods and services make them more or less deserving of keeping it than someone like Buffet who made it playing the stock market or Zuckerberg, Paige and Brin who made it through selling ads?
You do know the money you think is there isn't, right, and you have no sense of economics or scale? Go ahead, liquidate all of the assets of the 10 richest people in the US, and redistribute it evenly to everyone in the country. Do you know how much money everyone gets? Assuming that:
a) you actually recover all the money (which you won't because most of it is tied up in investments which will crater in value once you start "redistributing" it) and
b) the government doesn't take their usual cut of the money (and they almost certainly will want their share, either when selling/seizing the assets or from the money going to the people - likely both) and
c) the online figures for the US population are accurate, then
everyone in the country gets a 1-time check for..... $4,423.51. Now, sure, I wouldn't say no to a 4k check, and it would probably (briefly) help a lot of people. But that is basically the average rent payment for one month in NYC. Congratulations on your massive accomplishment! You just cratered the entire US economy and reduced the retirement accounts of every single working person in the US to basically toilet paper to pay a couple months rent! And most of the people you gave the checks to (many of whom likely spent most of it on a shopping spree - look at what people did with their Covid stimulus money) are probably clamoring for you to give them another check now. So you need to liquidate more people, and more people, and more people, etc. Which leads to:
How much are you personally willing to pay to someone you never met but who the government claims is more deserving of your money than you are? And at what point do you consider it theft? And who are you to tell other people when they should consider it theft?
The question was horribly skewed, by design. I'm trying to probe if you think any attempt to help the deserving poor at the expense of the undeserving rich is by definition bad.
It's just an example. Suppose feeding him for the day would enable him to go to work and actually support himself. I didn't ask as a policy proposal, just to figure out where you draw the line, if you do.
I'd define it the way people in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period did. They made a sharp distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, the latter being poor due to their own laziness and misbehavior, the former due to no fault of their own.
There is a reason I like to use Zuckerberg as an example. What he provided, if you leave behind narrow economic definitions of value, has no value or even negative value, to individuals and to society. But he has extracted vast amounts of wealth from that society.
I am well aware of that. It wouldn't accomplish anything, and for those who actually provide useful stuff... would put an end to that. I'm not proposing to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I accept this, but I'll point out a technical point: a firesale leads to lower prices, but not to lower value. The value, and normally the price, of these instruments is based on estimates of long-term dividend yields and stock price increases.
The economic damage done isn't even comparable to the "benefit".
It might be theft, but I find that a facile argument. We do need roads, we need security. This is not a motte and bailey fallacy. This actually brings me to my original point. If it is theft, it is not justified even for worthy goals.
We in Europe have far bigger problems. They take our money and send it to Ukraine and on immigrants. That is theft, because it's not spent on their own corrupt interests rather than that of the people.
There is a large difference between an individual stealing to feed themselves (less of a fraction of theft than women getting abortions because of rape and not as birth control).
And the state taking the power to unilaterally sieze property from private citizens. Destroying property rights and making all men slaves. All government policy is backed by force - armed robbery by the state to give to whoever sociopathic bureaucrats deem "deserving" is not charity.
People that support using the state to rob people, to force others to "be charitable" rather than doing it themselves, do not actually have such altruistic motives. If you want to help people, foster a strong community. Trying to use government to force everyone ELSE to give money not only fails due to corruption, it actively destroys real charity - because why would private citizens spend what they have left on charity when the government is already taking from them for it?
I know you're a eurofag so you don't understand american taxation - there are enough holes in the system that the middle class pays more taxes than the rich, and the same goblins that constantly cry that the rich aren't paying their fair share are the ones who made that possible. Using government to control economics has never worked, and never will. It will always be corrupt, so the solution has always been keeping government as minimal as reasonably possible.
I'm aware. I'm just using that as an example. If it's 'theft' to take part of the money of a billionaire, does it became less wrong if that theft is done to feed people who would otherwise starve?
It's not charity, it's distributing goodies to their own supporters.
Of course not.
Sounds very much like the system here. There are few European countries where the marginal tax rate for the middle class isn't about 50% in income taxes alone.
You say corruption like it's a bad thing. It's a good thing for the people who benefit from it. The fact that it doesn't work for you and me is immaterial to them.