Subsidy

[fast]

Wait, I'm thinking more in lines of government subsidies whereby money from group A is helping pay for the needs of group B because not splitting the cost amongst everybody fails to decrease the per person expense to members of group B.

The question is: Did Group B have the same opportunity to gain wealth as Group A?

Is there a level playing field?

If we look at a concrete example, in the US, and everywhere, it is far easier to use capital to gain wealth than to use labor. Returns from capital exceed returns from personal labor.

And a person can be a member of Group A from birth and through no effort of their own. As long as they have the luck to be born to the right parents.

In the face of social inequities unrelated to personal effort should the government let some suffer simply because they were unlucky?

I think this might be kinda divergent, but since you turned to this lane of traffic, let's role with it.

Why does opportunity matter? Let's say households of group B make on average $15,000 less a year than Group A because of an uneven playing field generations ago. Okay, so there's a repercussion such that group B would not be as disadvantaged had it not been from some earlier unlevel playing field. Do we have some moral obligation to adjust the playing field from wrongs of days gone by just because everyone didn't start at the same place?---let alone try to right wrongs by financially harming those that were lucky?

I don't begrudge success, earned or otherwise.

 

[untermensche]

The question is: Did Group B have the same opportunity to gain wealth as Group A?

Is there a level playing field?

If we look at a concrete example, in the US, and everywhere, it is far easier to use capital to gain wealth than to use labor. Returns from capital exceed returns from personal labor.

And a person can be a member of Group A from birth and through no effort of their own. As long as they have the luck to be born to the right parents.

In the face of social inequities unrelated to personal effort should the government let some suffer simply because they were unlucky?

I think this might be kinda divergent, but since you turned to this lane of traffic, let's roll with it.

Why does opportunity matter? Let's say households of group B make on average $15,000 less a year than Group A because of an uneven playing field generations ago. Okay, so there's a repercussion such that group B would not be as disadvantaged had it not been from some earlier unlevel playing field. Do we have some moral obligation to adjust the playing field from wrongs of days gone by just because everyone didn't start at the same place?---let alone try to right wrongs by financially harming those that were lucky?

I don't begrudge success, earned or otherwise.

It isn't success to be born to the right parents. It is pure luck.

And of course we have an obligation to make the playing field as level as possible.

 

[fast]

I think this might be kinda divergent, but since you turned to this lane of traffic, let's roll with it.

Why does opportunity matter? Let's say households of group B make on average $15,000 less a year than Group A because of an uneven playing field generations ago. Okay, so there's a repercussion such that group B would not be as disadvantaged had it not been from some earlier unlevel playing field. Do we have some moral obligation to adjust the playing field from wrongs of days gone by just because everyone didn't start at the same place?---let alone try to right wrongs by financially harming those that were lucky?

I don't begrudge success, earned or otherwise.

It isn't success to be born to the right parents. It is pure luck.

And of course we have an obligation to make the playing field as level as possible.

What I meant was that I'm not upset to see others more financially well-off than myself, even if they were born to a family of doctors making $250,000 a year a piece. I don't mind good hearted social policies that tilt us to equality. But, while we do that, we shouldn't just take from the upper middle class to relieve the financial burdens of the lower middle class.

 

[untermensche]

It isn't success to be born to the right parents. It is pure luck.

And of course we have an obligation to make the playing field as level as possible.

What I meant was that I'm not upset to see others more financially well-off than myself, even if they were born to a family of doctors making $250,000 a year a piece. I don't mind good hearted social policies that tilt us to equality. But, while we do that, we shouldn't just take from the upper middle class to relieve the financial burdens of the lower middle class.

Why not?

Do we have a society and a government so that some can get very rich while others suffer from things like a second rate education and a lack of health insurance and hunger?

Or do we have a society and a government to make sure people don't suffer from these things?

 

[fast]

What I meant was that I'm not upset to see others more financially well-off than myself, even if they were born to a family of doctors making $250,000 a year a piece. I don't mind good hearted social policies that tilt us to equality. But, while we do that, we shouldn't just take from the upper middle class to relieve the financial burdens of the lower middle class.

Why not?

Do we have a society and a government so that some can get very rich while others suffer from things like a second rate education and a lack of health insurance and hunger?

Or do we have a society and a government to make sure people don't suffer from these things?

It's not a matter of what we do so much as it's a matter how we do it. There's going to be some taking from others and giving to others for practical reasons from time to time, but it shouldn't be a matter of principal. Help the less advantaged by helping them help themselves. Taking, taking, taking from the haves and giving it to the have nots isn't just somehow the right thing to do.

I know people who quit their jobs when they've made just enough to maximize their tax refunds. They prey on the benefits of the decisions supposedly designed to help people. And who pays? Those that make more. The solution doesn't have to be to take more from those who don't sell food stamps for drugs.

 

[untermensche]

Why not?

Do we have a society and a government so that some can get very rich while others suffer from things like a second rate education and a lack of health insurance and hunger?

Or do we have a society and a government to make sure people don't suffer from these things?

It's not a matter of what we do so much as it's a matter how we do it. There's going to be some taking from others and giving to others for practical reasons from time to time, but it shouldn't be a matter of principal. Help the less advantaged by helping them help themselves. Taking, taking, taking from the haves and giving it to the have nots isn't just somehow the right thing to do.

I know people who quit their jobs when they've made just enough to maximize their tax refunds. They prey on the benefits of the decisions supposedly designed to help people. And who pays? Those that make more. The solution doesn't have to be to take more from those who don't sell food stamps for drugs.

Your agenda is a little clearer.

Thank you.

 

[bilby]

Why not?

Do we have a society and a government so that some can get very rich while others suffer from things like a second rate education and a lack of health insurance and hunger?

Or do we have a society and a government to make sure people don't suffer from these things?

It's not a matter of what we do so much as it's a matter how we do it. There's going to be some taking from others and giving to others for practical reasons from time to time, but it shouldn't be a matter of principal. Help the less advantaged by helping them help themselves. Taking, taking, taking from the haves and giving it to the have nots isn't just somehow the right thing to do.

I know people who quit their jobs when they've made just enough to maximize their tax refunds. They prey on the benefits of the decisions supposedly designed to help people. And who pays? Those that make more. The solution doesn't have to be to take more from those who don't sell food stamps for drugs.

It is well understood that one of the side effects of the market economy is a tendency for wealth to flow from the poor to the rich. This is a general trend that holds true for the majority, not just an anecdote about 'some people I know'.

As the regulated market economy we enjoy is very good at making us all better off, this side effect is not sufficient grounds to scrap it altogether; but given that we can mitigate the tendency of wealth to concentrate by taking from the haves and giving to the have nots, this is absolutely 'somehow the right thing to do'.

Either extreme - no redistribution at all, or massive redistribution - ultimately ends badly. History shows this very clearly.

Taxing income is a good way to balance the benefits of a market economy with the mitigation of some of its undesirable side effects.

Small numbers of people scamming the system are not an indication that the whole enterprise is flawed. It is better to tolerate a few scammers than to deny assistance from those who need it.

And if people are able to scam the system, then that can and should be prevented by closing loopholes - not by throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Togo]

Ok, so this is getting a little clearer.

Can anyone point to a moral difference between these two:

1) Running a system whereby group A has their needs partly paid for by group B
2) Running a system whereby group B receives more income than group A

I suspect you do see some kind of difference, based on ideas of individiual merit somehow providing a moral justification for different income. The moral question can't really be answered to your satisfaction without considering the moral values you're attempting to lean on here.

 

[fast]

It's not a matter of what we do so much as it's a matter how we do it. There's going to be some taking from others and giving to others for practical reasons from time to time, but it shouldn't be a matter of principal. Help the less advantaged by helping them help themselves. Taking, taking, taking from the haves and giving it to the have nots isn't just somehow the right thing to do.

I know people who quit their jobs when they've made just enough to maximize their tax refunds. They prey on the benefits of the decisions supposedly designed to help people. And who pays? Those that make more. The solution doesn't have to be to take more from those who don't sell food stamps for drugs.

Your agenda is a little clearer.

Thank you.

Why would you say I have an agenda? I never meant for any of this when I created the thread. Bad you!

 

[fast]

If (through a subsidy) an individual is financially harmed for the sake of a purported collective good, does a cost benefit analysis in favor of the collective good justify the harm to the individual?

Well, fast, clearly not, but it's socially permissive. Kind of reminds me of team work--and other things that happen when people can't stand on their own two feet.

 

[untermensche]

Your agenda is a little clearer.

Thank you.

Why would you say I have an agenda? I never meant for any of this when I created the thread. Bad you!

Then you shouldn't resort to tired stereotypes in your posts that reflect an agenda like:

The solution doesn't have to be to take more from those who don't sell food stamps for drugs.

 

[fast]

Why would you say I have an agenda? I never meant for any of this when I created the thread. Bad you!

Then you shouldn't resort to tired stereotypes in your posts that reflect an agenda like:

The solution doesn't have to be to take more from those who don't sell food stamps for drugs.

I don't understand, but never mind that.

People with the power to effect change often find ways to cover the costs of their endeavors, and there seems to be something not quite right when they impose costs across the board. Suppose everyone in my neighborhood made the same amount of money, just to do away with this inequality issue you seem to be driving at. It's still the case that the benefit (which may be welcome by many) is going to have it's cost spread amongst those that don't want the benefit because of the costs, and even if we justify the imposition of the cost with the benefit of making a better community, there's still those that can't benefit, making the justification questionable. The per person cost would be too high for those that benefit (whether they wanted the benefit or not), and what I'm saying is that in this case especially, the person getting no benefit is being financially harmed since he is paying a portion of the costs--seemingly unjustly. A method of issuing grievances is not important to my way of thinking, for the people with the power to impose costs aren't looking to do what's right by everyone in the first place.

 

[untermensche]

Then you shouldn't resort to tired stereotypes in your posts that reflect an agenda like:

The solution doesn't have to be to take more from those who don't sell food stamps for drugs.

I don't understand, but never mind that.

Are you serious?

You stereotype the poor as people who sell their food stamps for drugs.

It clearly shows a bias.

 

[Bronzeage]

Yeah, I thought it would come to that, sooner or later.

I think there is a grammar problem here. Group B receives the money. They are not paying, so it is not an expense to them. The per/person expense is simply arithmetic and not related to from where the money was collected.

But, I ask again, what does Group A gain by not helping Group B. What is their incentive to refuse to participate?

There's some kind of problem here. Maybe I don't know the inner workings of a subsidy. I suppose there might be subsidies where one group pays nothing, but I figure often times, there are subsidies where both groups pay.

What does group A gain? They get to retain (!)--their money. Take my well-water example. I would get to keep my $75 if I didn't have to support the neighborhoods the whole damn thing was truly started over. I don't get your next question. It doesn't make sense to pay for stuff you don't want, so things are done in such a way to make you benefit so they can justify you paying, and when that doesn't work, they have to come up with something, and if it helps the community in which you live, then there's a way to articulate it so that it sounds good. Either way, you're stuck with some unwanted benefit that was never truly designed with you in mind, and you're stuck sharing the cost; otherwise, the true beneficiaries would have to annieup more per person.

Keeping what you have, is not gaining anything. "Gain" means increase or profit. If you don't share your water, you don't have more water than was in the well, in the first place.

A subsidy is a payment of wealth from one person(or group of people) to another person(or persons) for the purpose of making a particular economic translation more attractive. It's a technical matter, but it works like this: A country can buy grain from a neighboring country for $1 a bushel. Native farmers could make more money if they built housing developments on their land. The government knows that it is a risk to buy too much food from a foreign country, because in times of war, the food supply could be threatened. To keep farmers in production, the government pays a subsidy to the farmer for every bushel of grain he produces. This subsidy makes it more profitable to grow wheat than to sel the land for houses.

The taxpayers pay the subsidy through taxes and they gain a stable food supply. If they keep their tax money, they do have the money, but now have a greater risk, which could possibly cost them much more. In your case, the government might decide that privately owned well were a good idea, and give all private well owners a subsidy(in form of a tax break or refund) for well owners who sell water to neighbors.

 

[fast]

There's some kind of problem here. Maybe I don't know the inner workings of a subsidy. I suppose there might be subsidies where one group pays nothing, but I figure often times, there are subsidies where both groups pay.

What does group A gain? They get to retain (!)--their money. Take my well-water example. I would get to keep my $75 if I didn't have to support the neighborhoods the whole damn thing was truly started over. I don't get your next question. It doesn't make sense to pay for stuff you don't want, so things are done in such a way to make you benefit so they can justify you paying, and when that doesn't work, they have to come up with something, and if it helps the community in which you live, then there's a way to articulate it so that it sounds good. Either way, you're stuck with some unwanted benefit that was never truly designed with you in mind, and you're stuck sharing the cost; otherwise, the true beneficiaries would have to annieup more per person.

Keeping what you have, is not gaining anything. "Gain" means increase or profit. If you don't share your water, you don't have more water than was in the well, in the first place.

A subsidy is a payment of wealth from one person(or group of people) to another person(or persons) for the purpose of making a particular economic translation more attractive. It's a technical matter, but it works like this: A country can buy grain from a neighboring country for $1 a bushel. Native farmers could make more money if they built housing developments on their land. The government knows that it is a risk to buy too much food from a foreign country, because in times of war, the food supply could be threatened. To keep farmers in production, the government pays a subsidy to the farmer for every bushel of grain he produces. This subsidy makes it more profitable to grow wheat than to sel the land for houses.

The taxpayers pay the subsidy through taxes and they gain a stable food supply. If they keep their tax money, they do have the money, but now have a greater risk, which could possibly cost them much more. In your case, the government might decide that privately owned well were a good idea, and give all private well owners a subsidy(in form of a tax break or refund) for well owners who sell water to neighbors.

I said, "retain," and I was talking about money. I would retain my money if not imposed with a tax. The cost of having water supplied to residents and businesses of the county is spread across all the taxpayers who pay property taxes. There isn't even an added benefit for me by having businesses connected to the water supply, and even if there were, it's would be unwelcome. I, myself, cannot connect to it, yet that is not taken into consideration. Why divide the costs across everyone? The answer, I'm told, is because the per person cost would be too high for those that utilize the services.

There are many people that don't benefit yet have to pay. If only those that benefited had to pay, it would be too expensive for those that benefit. Yes, we can use our imagination and say that everyone collectively benefits since it's assumed every benefit; for instance, if we visit a restaurant, or have to go to the hospital, or patron a local business, we're somehow in some imaginative way benefiting...which is assumptive at best. But none of rationale really addresses the point. Yes, I've been willing to concede, there might be a cost benefit analysis such that initiating the endeavor might be justified; more people will benefit, but I find it difficult to see how individual harm can be denied. There's no way that many individuals are getting their monies worth. Doesn't it make sense that some are getting less than what they're putting in?

Is there a fundamental overarching dilemma here, or am I reading too much into things?

 

[fast]

That grain example is convoluted and susceptible to being an instrument of abuse.

 

[Bronzeage]

Keeping what you have, is not gaining anything. "Gain" means increase or profit. If you don't share your water, you don't have more water than was in the well, in the first place.

A subsidy is a payment of wealth from one person(or group of people) to another person(or persons) for the purpose of making a particular economic translation more attractive. It's a technical matter, but it works like this: A country can buy grain from a neighboring country for $1 a bushel. Native farmers could make more money if they built housing developments on their land. The government knows that it is a risk to buy too much food from a foreign country, because in times of war, the food supply could be threatened. To keep farmers in production, the government pays a subsidy to the farmer for every bushel of grain he produces. This subsidy makes it more profitable to grow wheat than to sel the land for houses.

The taxpayers pay the subsidy through taxes and they gain a stable food supply. If they keep their tax money, they do have the money, but now have a greater risk, which could possibly cost them much more. In your case, the government might decide that privately owned well were a good idea, and give all private well owners a subsidy(in form of a tax break or refund) for well owners who sell water to neighbors.

I said, "retain," and I was talking about money. I would retain my money if not imposed with a tax. The cost of having water supplied to residents and businesses of the county is spread across all the taxpayers who pay property taxes. There isn't even an added benefit for me by having businesses connected to the water supply, and even if there were, it's would be unwelcome. I, myself, cannot connect to it, yet that is not taken into consideration. Why divide the costs across everyone? The answer, I'm told, is because the per person cost would be too high for those that utilize the services.

There are many people that don't benefit yet have to pay. If only those that benefited had to pay, it would be too expensive for those that benefit. Yes, we can use our imagination and say that everyone collectively benefits since it's assumed every benefit; for instance, if we visit a restaurant, or have to go to the hospital, or patron a local business, we're somehow in some imaginative way benefiting...which is assumptive at best. But none of rationale really addresses the point. Yes, I've been willing to concede, there might be a cost benefit analysis such that initiating the endeavor might be justified; more people will benefit, but I find it difficult to see how individual harm can be denied. There's no way that many individuals are getting their monies worth. Doesn't it make sense that some are getting less than what they're putting in?

Is there a fundamental overarching dilemma here, or am I reading too much into things?

Convoluted is the applicable word for most of your arguments.

There is a bridge not far from where I live, that crosses the Mississippi River. It is part of a road which runs from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. Even though my tax dollars paid to build the bridge and maintain it, I may never drive across that bridge in my entire life. Using your understanding of subsidy, do I benefit from a bridge I will never actually use?

 

[fast]

I said, "retain," and I was talking about money. I would retain my money if not imposed with a tax. The cost of having water supplied to residents and businesses of the county is spread across all the taxpayers who pay property taxes. There isn't even an added benefit for me by having businesses connected to the water supply, and even if there were, it's would be unwelcome. I, myself, cannot connect to it, yet that is not taken into consideration. Why divide the costs across everyone? The answer, I'm told, is because the per person cost would be too high for those that utilize the services.

There are many people that don't benefit yet have to pay. If only those that benefited had to pay, it would be too expensive for those that benefit. Yes, we can use our imagination and say that everyone collectively benefits since it's assumed every benefit; for instance, if we visit a restaurant, or have to go to the hospital, or patron a local business, we're somehow in some imaginative way benefiting...which is assumptive at best. But none of rationale really addresses the point. Yes, I've been willing to concede, there might be a cost benefit analysis such that initiating the endeavor might be justified; more people will benefit, but I find it difficult to see how individual harm can be denied. There's no way that many individuals are getting their monies worth. Doesn't it make sense that some are getting less than what they're putting in?

Is there a fundamental overarching dilemma here, or am I reading too much into things?

Convoluted is the applicable word for most of your arguments.

There is a bridge not far from where I live, that crosses the Mississippi River. It is part of a road which runs from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. Even though my tax dollars paid to build the bridge and maintain it, I may never drive across that bridge in my entire life. Using your understanding of subsidy, do I benefit from a bridge I will never actually use?

Indirectly

 

[Bronzeage]

Convoluted is the applicable word for most of your arguments.

There is a bridge not far from where I live, that crosses the Mississippi River. It is part of a road which runs from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. Even though my tax dollars paid to build the bridge and maintain it, I may never drive across that bridge in my entire life. Using your understanding of subsidy, do I benefit from a bridge I will never actually use?

Indirectly

Why can't I claim no benefit from a bridge I do not use?

 

[fast]

Convoluted is arguing that breaking into someone's house and taking a Pepsi out their fridge yet paying their light bill before leaving somehow justifies my actions because they benefitted.

- - - Updated - - -

Indirectly

Why can't I claim no benefit from a bridge I do not use?

Because trucks bring goods across the bridge you buy.