Surely if we tax the rich more, they'll have an incentive to work harder to make up the shortfall?
Similarly, if we reduce taxes on the poor, they'll be motivated to work more as they'll be keeping more of what they earn (especially when we consider the much greater marginal value that extra dollars have to them).
http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/taxes-and-cliffs...
Replacing welfare with work would increase this, since incomes would go down without work. In contrast, taxing anyone (rich or poor) would decrease dUtility/dWork. Unconditional wealth transfers also decrease dUtility/dWork due to diminishing marginal gains.
I think we argued about this before. Why do you hate people who choose to spend time as they wish instead of being coerced into unwanted employment? The only thing massive unwanted public infrastructure projects are good for is ruining the environment. Public works policy in Japan is a great example of top quality bridges to nowhere and concrete ditches that no one cares about that also happen to do nothing "for the economy": http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/business/international/a-b...
Why not invest the money into things that actually produce results: education and fundamental research? Let's figure out how to get robots to meet our material needs so we can spend more time not working.
Why should money be taken from my paycheck to support idle people who could be working? In general it's none of my business how people choose to spend their time, but if they expect me to pay their expenses it becomes my business and I have to ask why they can't go to work like I do.
You mean like retired people drawing a pension?
The government take 8% or so of my paycheck every pay cycle, and when I retire I'll collect a pension because I paid for it.
That's a whole different world than paying someone because they don't want to work.
You are actually paying for the pensions of current retirees. The expectation for almost all pension schemes is that future taxes will fund your retirement. That's the issue behind the Social Security shortfall and the dramatic cuts in retirement benefits as part of austerity measures post-Great Recession in EU member countries.
> That's a whole different world than paying someone because they don't want to work.
By definition retirees are people who could still be working but choose not to. How about the disabled and the infirm? Those between jobs?
The real issue you seem to have is the "I paid for it" part. Where in the economic cycle is this money extracted? Would you feel better if it came from taxes on corporate revenue? Out of sales tax on luxury yachts?
The issue has been framed by trickle down ideologues as "this money comes from your paycheck!" What is the logic behind getting rid of anything that looks like income guarantees when it comes to you as a worker as opposed to an owner of a business?
Step 1: Eliminate minimum wage/welfare/unemployment/whatever
Step 2: ...
Step 3: Your salary goes up!
Yes, everyone understands that. But it incurs a debt I will expect to be repaid.
>By definition retirees are people who could still be working but choose not to.
Absolutely. If they paid into the pension system they should be getting a pension. If not they need to rely on their savings.
>How about the disabled and the infirm? Those between jobs?
You're changing the question a bit here. We were talking about people who can work but don't.
>The real issue you seem to have is the "I paid for it" part.
I don't see why you think this is an issue. The money comes out of my paycheck. It's money that I could certainly have saved or used for some other purpose.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to provide for themselves and their families. And I don't mind helping people who can't do so for reasons beyond their control. But I have no interest in supporting people who don't want to work. I don't want to work either, but I drag my ass out of bed every morning, and I don't appreciate other people helping themselves to the fruits of my labor.
Step 1: Eliminate disincentives to work.
Step 2: More people produce things of value.
Step 3: We have more things of value that can be distributed.
Clearly we'd all increase our standard of living if folks created more. Its just an equation involving what people are willing to do vs what folks with money will pay. Labor-intensive things have pretty much been priced out of a market. And our service economy means everything involves labor.
Imagine McD's and friends automate the whole store. What do those millions working there for minimum wage do then? Gardening, daycare etc don't pay even that well.
It's basically a free lunch.
Had the funds been INVESTED and not STOLEN by our beloved congressweasels, soc security would be superstylin.
Is what we're discussing, floating the jobless/low earner-producer, 'investment' at all?
I'd personally like to understand the doublethink and mental laziness that led sedachv to make that passive-aggressive rhetorical crack about yummyfajitas hating all the poor souls who choose not to work.
The hard questions regarding govt spending for me are:
* Is it healthy (societally, fiscally, spiritually) long term to consider government to be the charity that can only grow - the ultimate backstop for all bad things that can happen to its people? A charity with unquestionable power to implement its shifting, sometimes controversial/immoral/amoral, agenda?
* Is it okay for the government to prioritize everything and therefore have no priorities at all? Should infrastructure be prioritized over military? What's the proper role of federal involvement in local schools? Should we cap or continue the folly of "non-discretionary" funding of entitlements that dwarf and crowd out all other federal spending? Ultimately, our allowing perpetual deficit spending is what makes this priorities-free dream that we are all living in possible.
* how much of a service delivery role should government have given its track record? The perennial VA healthcare debacles spring to mind. And the raided soc security trust fund that should have been invested and grown, but has been busted since Johnson. Student loans and the skyrocketing college tuitions. Unintended consequences! At least [my favorite congresscritter] meant well.
It fascinates me how smart people whose arguments in favor of government as 'the answer' to X can instantly shift their argument for X from a learned basis like statistical evidence/quoting an expert to a faith-driven, eye-squinting, chasm-leaping abstraction, or worse, emotional outbursts (frequently rude) - and sometimes ALL IN THE SAME BREATH.
I find such people, like sedachv, troublesome and no fun at parties. We might be doomed.
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around logic that assumes people who don't work by choice are entitled to the results of my efforts and yet have the gall to paint me as selfish for protesting.
If you believe that there is no productive labor that the government can perform, that's fine - I guess you oppose all new spending?
You promote investment by the government later in your post. Yet is it the case that all possible private investments will have low rates of return, and only government investment can possibly have a high rate of return? If so, why?
(Note that I have no particular objection whatsoever to having the government end welfare/unemployment/etc, and simply provide low wage employment for anyone who wants it building public works of various sorts. But my reasons for supporting this are simply because I favor creating disincentives for idleness, not because I think only the government can engage in productive investment.)