Rich people and taxes

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

If you look at the big picture it's clear that there is no free lunch. When people of means avoid paying taxes they wind up spending even more on private schools, burglar alarms, private security protection, homes in gated communities, higher health insurance premiums, etc. The irony is - if they do not contribute their fair share to the communal pot and instead just look out for themselves, they perpetuate an escalating situation in which they must spend ever more exhorbitant amounts of money to protect themselves from a world they helped create. One way or another they're gonna pay, the question is: How wisely are they spending their money? Not very, if you ask me. BTW, I consider myself to be a "person of means".

[Inquartata]

No. The relevant question is: Can government spend money and do things more efficiently than can private individuals and organizations? The body of evidence is overwhelming: No. In which case, giving the money to politicians and bureaucrats to allocate is considerably worse than letting those who produce the revenue in the first place do it. Even if your contention--which I'm not sure I accept---about less spending by government forcing more spending by the private sector---is true, if the latter is more efficient than the former there may still be a net loss from letting government do it.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No. The relevant question is: Can government spend money and do things more efficiently than can private individuals and organizations? The body of evidence is overwhelming: No. In which case, giving the money to politicians and bureaucrats to allocate is considerably worse than letting those who produce the revenue in the first place do it. Even if your contention--which I'm not sure I accept---about less spending by government forcing more spending by the private sector---is true, if the latter is more efficient than the former there may still be a net loss from letting government do it.

What body of evidence? Are you suggesting that private enterprise is going to stop seeking maximum profit just so they can make the world a better place to live? Do you see a lineup of private companies competing against each other for the opportunity to educate the kids in inner city public schools? Are the people in the gated communities going to send their private security guys out to supplement overwhelmed police departments in order to protect the vulnerable poor from criminals?

I live in the Los Angeles area. I know first hand what happens when society ignores it's obligation to help disadvantaged people. They don't just roll over and whimper, they rise up and take what they need and burn the place down out of anger, and the first guy they target is the guy who has what they don't. Show me the private individuals and organizations that are capable of dealing with that.

[TrainingDummy]

Dr., please quit with the well-thought out responses. Or someone else give him some rep because I can't.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by TrainingDummy

Dr., please quit with the well-thought out responses. Or someone else give him some rep because I can't.

I can do a good mad-dog rant, but I have to get worked up for it.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

What body of evidence? Are you suggesting that private enterprise is going to stop seeking maximum profit just so they can make the world a better place to live? Do you see a lineup of private companies competing against each other for the opportunity to educate the kids in inner city public schools? Are the people in the gated communities going to send their private security guys out to supplement overwhelmed police departments in order to protect the vulnerable poor from criminals?

This exchange seems to have gone off the rails somewhere, and in extraordinarily short order. I don't know how you get from my assertion that government is less efficient in allocating resources that are private, profit-maximizing ones to what you seem to think I am "suggesting"...

I live in the Los Angeles area. I know first hand what happens when society ignores it's obligation to help disadvantaged people. They don't just roll over and whimper, they rise up and take what they need and burn the place down out of anger, and the first guy they target is the guy who has what they don't. Show me the private individuals and organizations that are capable of dealing with that.

Try researching the early history of the labor movement, such as the mineworker "uprisings". Until government intervened on the side of workers, private industry was suppressing these quite readily.

Or look up the Peasant's Revolt. ( "Government" at the time was little more than the aggregation of the nation's wealthy landowners. )

And you are making an argument based on a premise which has not been proven to be true, ie that "society has an obligation to help the disadvantaged". Yes, it's more convenient if you can just have your basic assumptions granted and then proceed to argue from them, but most educated people aren't going to let that tactic pass unchallenged...

By the way, I seem to have missed the burning of Los Angeles at the hands of outraged crowds of poor oppressed workers and homeless folk. Is the liberal media suppressing the story?

[TrainingDummy]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

I can do a good mad-dog rant, but I have to get worked up for it.

Nah, RL already posts enough.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

This exchange seems to have gone off the rails somewhere, and in extraordinarily short order. I don't know how you get from my assertion that government is less efficient in allocating resources that are private, profit-maximizing ones to what you seem to think I am "suggesting"...



Try researching the early history of the labor movement, such as the mineworker "uprisings". Until government intervened on the side of workers, private industry was suppressing these quite readily.

Or look up the Peasant's Revolt. ( "Government" at the time was little more than the aggregation of the nation's wealthy landowners. )

And you are making an argument based on a premise which has not been proven to be true, ie that "society has an obligation to help the disadvantaged". Yes, it's more convenient if you can just have your basic assumptions granted and then proceed to argue from them, but most educated people aren't going to let that tactic pass unchallenged...

By the way, I seem to have missed the burning of Los Angeles at the hands of outraged crowds of poor oppressed workers and homeless folk. Is the liberal media suppressing the story?

I'm not sure if we inhabit different planets or you are just being obtuse.

[Inquartata]

Ah, what a crushing argument! All logic is overthrown by a single supremely clever witticism from our latest bleeding heart!

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Ah, what a crushing argument! All logic is overthrown by a single supremely clever witticism from our latest bleeding heart!

You presented no logic to be overthrown.

[Inquartata]

It doesn't take logic to overthrow emotional keenings about how we simply MUST help the "disadvantaged" or they'll burn Los Angeles ( still haven't heard any explanation of THAT bizarre allegation, by the way ) and how the rich are immoral blackguards all.

Really, Doc, read some of your own posts. Try to be objective when you do so. You make no real cases for your opinions in them, so you've no great standing to demand factual countercases from others. Rants may make you feel better, but they are only going to bring rants in return. ( Or in my case acerbic jokes. )

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It doesn't take logic to overthrow emotional keenings about how we simply MUST help the "disadvantaged" or they'll burn Los Angeles ( still haven't heard any explanation of THAT bizarre allegation, by the way ) and how the rich are immoral blackguards all.

1965 - Watts riot: 34 dead, over 1,000 injured, nearly 4,000 arested, hundreds of buildings destroyed.

1992 - Los Angeles riot: 55 dead, more than 2,300 injured, over 10,000 arrests. Approximately 3,600 fires were set, destroying 1,100 buildings, with fire calls coming once a minute at some points. Property damage estimated to be in the neighborhood of $1 billion.

I do not consider the rich to be immoral blackguards. I am, in fact, quite well off myself, as are many of my friends and acquaintances. I and many other well off people believe that those who profit the most from the benefits of our society have an obligation to help those who profit the least, for both humanitarian and self-serving reasons. Does this establish that obligation as a proven truth? No, but I'm not fixated on the technical minutia of formal rhetoric. I prefer to focus on actual issues that have an impact on my life. Just my personal point of view.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

What body of evidence? Are you suggesting that private enterprise is going to stop seeking maximum profit just so they can make the world a better place to live? Do you see a lineup of private companies competing against each other for the opportunity to educate the kids in inner city public schools? Are the people in the gated communities going to send their private security guys out to supplement overwhelmed police departments in order to protect the vulnerable poor from criminals?

I live in the Los Angeles area. I know first hand what happens when society ignores it's obligation to help disadvantaged people. They don't just roll over and whimper, they rise up and take what they need and burn the place down out of anger, and the first guy they target is the guy who has what they don't. Show me the private individuals and organizations that are capable of dealing with that.

No. You know first hand what happens when a system is overloaded by illegal immigrants.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Slim

No. You know first hand what happens when a system is overloaded by illegal immigrants.

You're in the wrong forum.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

You're in the wrong forum.

Nice dodge.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Slim

Nice dodge.

Thank you

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

1965 - Watts riot: 34 dead, over 1,000 injured, nearly 4,000 arested, hundreds of buildings destroyed.

1992 - Los Angeles riot: 55 dead, more than 2,300 injured, over 10,000 arrests. Approximately 3,600 fires were set, destroying 1,100 buildings, with fire calls coming once a minute at some points. Property damage estimated to be in the neighborhood of $1 billion.

Yes, I'm familiar with those. But the point is, the rioting, the looting and so forth took place almost entirely within the poor communities in which the offenders themselves lived. They were not instances of poor people rising up against the privileged classes and attacking them, a la the French Revolution, as I took you to be intimating were likely consequences of what wew have been talking about. There were no burnings in Brentwood, Beverly Hills or Malibu.

And the latter at least was not set off by any sense of economic oppression, as far as I am aware. Its genesis was rather in issues of police brutality, was it not?

I do not consider the rich to be immoral blackguards.

OK. It's just that that's the usual sequel to talk of how the disadvantaged are badly treated in a society. Sorry if I jumped to a conclusion. ( There really ought to be a Latin name for that. )

I and many other well off people believe that those who profit the most from the benefits of our society have an obligation to help those who profit the least, for both humanitarian and self-serving reasons.

As a personal credo, unassailable. As an argument or a proposition meant to convince, or a position offered for wider acceptance, though, it would have to be supported by more than personal belief.

You may not yet be familiar with my propensity to argue with anyone about anything. It's one of my favorite activities ( ask anyone ). Don't take it as an affront, even if the language gets heated. It's not personal, or Jeff and I would probably have killed each other by now.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yes, I'm familiar with those. But the point is, the rioting, the looting and so forth took place almost entirely within the poor communities in which the offenders themselves lived. They were not instances of poor people rising up against the privileged classes and attacking them, a la the French Revolution, as I took you to be intimating were likely consequences of what wew have been talking about. There were no burnings in Brentwood, Beverly Hills or Malibu.

And the latter at least was not set off by any sense of economic oppression, as far as I am aware. Its genesis was rather in issues of police brutality, was it not?



OK. It's just that that's the usual sequel to talk of how the disadvantaged are badly treated in a society. Sorry if I jumped to a conclusion. ( There really ought to be a Latin name for that. )





As a personal credo, unassailable. As an argument or a proposition meant to convince, or a position offered for wider acceptance, though, it would have to be supported by more than personal belief.

You may not yet be familiar with my propensity to argue with anyone about anything. It's one of my favorite activities ( ask anyone ). Don't take it as an affront, even if the language gets heated. It's not personal, or Jeff and I would probably have killed each other by now.

Yes, the rioting was isolated to within the poorer communities for the most part, but the only thing that kept them out of my neighborhood was the fact that the National Guard encircled us. (It is enlightening to note which areas were protected and which were left to burn.) The targets were the businesses that were owned and operated by people from outside their communities. Also, the rioters may have been poor, but they weren't stupid. They knew that to venture into Beverly Hills or Brentwood would have been a fatal mistake. They understood how the "system" works.

I agree that the nominal reason the riots began was police brutality, but that was not necessarily what fueled the looting. There obviously was an economic impetus as well. I don't buy that it was an insurrection as some people have claimed, because it was too stupid and self destructive and had no goals other than expressing rage and stocking up on consumer goods. However, people don't generally burn down their own communities unless they feel they have nothing to lose.

Finally, I won't take these discussions personally, however heated they may become, however it would probably be more constructive if we all avoided resorting to sarcasm (including myself). Okay, enough with the sweet talk. Now let's fence.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Slim

No. You know first hand what happens when a system is overloaded by illegal immigrants.

While at first I thought this comment to be off topic, on further thought I see a connection here that is relevant if one looks at the bigger picture.

I haven't seen any statistics to back this up, but my impression was that the rioters were made up primarily by blacks, not hispanics. Let's assume this to be the case. Let's also assume that the looting was fueled at least partially by the inability of the looters to afford consumer goods. Could the Illegal immigrants still be partially responsible for the looting, even though they did not participate for the most part? I think so.

If you factor in inflation , the working class jobs that used to be taken by poor blacks have over the years seen a declining pay rate. This has occured because employers have artificially influenced the market forces affecting wage scales by replacing working class blacks with illegal workers who are so desperate that they will work for whatever is offered. The American public has grown accustomed to the lower prices that have resulted, but are unwilling to contribute enough tax revenue to give relief to the displaced workers.

The tax revenue is needed to fund remedial action:

1) Improve the inner city schools to train workers for higher paying jobs.
2) Subsidize child care for single mothers so that they can go to work.
3) Hire and train more police to maintain order in the blighted areas so that businesses can operate efficiently and students can concentrate on their education.
4) Subsidize health care for the working poor to the point where they no longer have to go on welfare or use emergency rooms in order to recieve treatment.
5) Offer sufficient incentives for businesses to relocate to blighted areas and provide local jobs and services.
6) Hire and train more personel to enforce our immigration laws by deporting illegals and imposing sanctions on the businesses that hire them.

Passage of a "Living Wage Law" would also be a remedial action that could be considered a virtual tax for which there has been little support. It would positively affect the incomes of legal workers and remove the incentive to hire illegals, providing the law was actually enforced.

As a result of our refusal to pony up the tax revenue needed to remedy the situation, discontent amongst the unemployed and working poor increases to the point where police brutality during a routine traffic stop becomes the spark that sets off the conflagration and looting.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

...snip...
If you factor in inflation , the working class jobs that used to be taken by poor blacks have over the years seen a declining pay rate. This has occured because employers have artificially influenced the market forces affecting wage scales by replacing working class blacks with illegal workers who are so desperate that they will work for whatever is offered. The American public has grown accustomed to the lower prices that have resulted, but are unwilling to contribute enough tax revenue to give relief to the displaced workers.

The tax revenue is needed to fund remedial action:

1) Improve the inner city schools to train workers for higher paying jobs.
2) Subsidize child care for single mothers so that they can go to work.
3) Hire and train more police to maintain order in the blighted areas so that businesses can operate efficiently and students can concentrate on their education.
4) Subsidize health care for the working poor to the point where they no longer have to go on welfare or use emergency rooms in order to recieve treatment.
5) Offer sufficient incentives for businesses to relocate to blighted areas and provide local jobs and services.
6) Hire and train more personel to enforce our immigration laws by deporting illegals and imposing sanctions on the businesses that hire them.

Seems to me to be a plan for autocratic socialism except for possibly #5

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

Passage of a "Living Wage Law" would also be a remedial action that could be considered a virtual tax for which there has been little support. It would positively affect the incomes of legal workers and remove the incentive to hire illegals, providing the law was actually enforced.

The incentives that minmum wage laws create are what has led to the current illegal immigration imbroglio. Your assertation made in the beginning paragraphs seems to be at odds with your suggestion of a "Living Wage Law". Minimum wage laws are tools that are very popular with politicians looking for more votes but they do not make economic sense. Business will always look for ways to cut expenses and labor is the biggest expense.

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

As a result of our refusal to pony up the tax revenue needed to remedy the situation, discontent amongst the unemployed and working poor increases to the point where police brutality during a routine traffic stop becomes the spark that sets off the conflagration and looting.

So we pay protection money to the poor to keep them from burning the town down?