Welfare for the Rich: Republican Style

Most of the 3rd world has GDP per capita much less then $11,000, afaik. $11,000 is roughly Southeastern Europe level. GDP per capital of India is $3,100, for example. GDP per capita of DRC is roughly near $300.

Not that I advocate such a redistribution of wealth :crazyeye:.
 
$11,000 is just a bit about the US poverty line. If that's the result of redistribution of wealth across the world, then given how much conservatives rant about how well off the poor are in this country, why would anyone who cares about more than himself not want to see the rest of the world raised to those levels?
 
To my recollection this was indeed what Forbes plan was, and I certainly think the term 'flat tax' has some room for variation of that theme despite your personal opinion on the matter.

But they ignore the literal definition of a flat tax. There is not ifs, ands, or buts, those proposals are not flat tax proposals.
 
You think $11 000 for everyone in the world would only be a modest improvement for those living in poverty?
That's what I said, isn't it? It's kind of pedestrian to have to quote myself, but here it is:
BasketCase said:
Modest (and I mean very modest) improvement for people in Third World countries, and that's it.
See? There it is. Yes, I said modest, and I meant modest.

Most of the 3rd world has GDP per capita much less then $11,000, afaik. $11,000 is roughly Southeastern Europe level. GDP per capital of India is $3,100, for example. GDP per capita of DRC is roughly near $300.
Something for you, and Camikaze, and in fact everybody in here to think over: picture trying to live on $11,000 a year, and raising a child on $11,000 a year (remember, you and your kid each get $11,000 a year). When people live in Southeastern-Europe conditions, it's considered a crisis.
Not that I advocate such a redistribution of wealth :crazyeye:.
Yup. I did a poll on CFC a few years back, and almost everybody who replied gave the same answer you did. It was particularly surprising on a (moderately) left-leaning web site such as this one. The problem is that the people of the Earth are not content with "their fair share". They want to catch up to the U.S., and that's mathematically impossible.

Yeah, because people have suggested that in earnestness within this very thread. Oh wait, no they have not. The idea is to tax the earnings of the wealthy, not their worth.
The former would result in less money for the rest of the world than the latter, i.e. less improvement for the world at large. I demonstrated that the latter doesn't provide significant improvement, therefore your idea sure as hell won't. <generic comment about having to point out the obvious>


So, it leaves me wondering (especially since Karalysia didn't answer my previous post): do socialists and communists actually want to redistribute the world's wealth for the betterment of mankind, or do they just want to screw rich people for fun???
 
Something for you, and Camikaze, and in fact everybody in here to think over: picture trying to live on $11,000 a year, and raising a child on $11,000 a year (remember, you and your kid each get $11,000 a year). When people live in Southeastern-Europe conditions, it's considered a crisis.

The point is, that $11,000 may suck balls, most people on Earth live in such poor conditions, that it's anything but a modest improvement for them.
 
The point is, that $11,000 may suck balls
There. Got that taken care of.

LOLWUT??? $11,000 for people who are starving isn't good?
You sneaky bastard, I almost missed this one! Yes, $11,000 a year will save a starving person. So will $365 a year. Your solution was kind of like swatting a fly with a B-52 bomber. This thread isn't about solving world hunger, it's about the idea of redistribution of wealth. Which will simply never happen.
 
There. Got that taken care of.

And no one objects to that part of your posts. The word that caused hue and cry here is the word "modest".
 
Sorry about kinda repeating what you said in question form, BC, but your statement seemed kinda odd. I needed to be sure that you actually meant it. Surprisingly, you actually did. The World Bank defines 'high income economy' as one in which GNI per capita is roughly $12k, so $11k per person is startlingly close to the 'high income' range. And no of course it would suck for those relatively few people in the world to be living on $11k each per year, and it would represent a reduction in living standards for those people. But it would represent an absolutely gigantic increase in living standards for most of the world's population.
 
No. A modest one. I said "modest" because I meant "modest". Moving from Haiti to a New York slum isn't a big step.

I've got the solution to world poverty. We keep hoping for this pie-in-the-stratosphere idea of spreading the wealth around. It will never happen. The poor need to start producing their own stuff and stop relying on other people to provide a handout which, as I just said, will never happen.

In short: there's two ways the poor can do this. The hard way, or.......:dubious:

Uhhh.....oops. Sorry. ONE way.
 
To my recollection this was indeed what Forbes plan was, and I certainly think the term 'flat tax' has some room for variation of that theme despite your personal opinion on the matter.
Steve Forbes' plan was to tax wage serfs and excluded from taxation the type of income that someone like the son of Malcolm Forbes would have. It certainly flattened his tax burden, but thanks to the numerous exemptions and exclusions, there were two brackets - 0% and 17% and a lot of variation on how much of one's income was in each bracket. Not flat at all.
 
No. A modest one. I said "modest" because I meant "modest". Moving from Haiti to a New York slum isn't a big step.

Everything is relative. To Mr. Richy there isn't much difference between a slum in Bombay and a large grey panel house somewhere far from the center of a Russian city, yet there's a significant difference to the inhabitants of these places themselves.
 
Everything is relative. To Mr. Richy there isn't much difference between a slum in Bombay and a large grey panel house somewhere far from the center of a Russian city, yet there's a significant difference to the inhabitants of these places themselves.
I remember watching Comic Relief a few years ago, and one of the pieces they showed as an elderly African man getting a concrete floor in his shack. It was the first real floor he'd ever had in his life, and he was overjoyed to get it.

Like you say, it is entirely relative.
 
$11,000 is just a bit about the US poverty line. If that's the result of redistribution of wealth across the world, then given how much conservatives rant about how well off the poor are in this country, why would anyone who cares about more than himself not want to see the rest of the world raised to those levels?
It would probably not come as a surprise to you that no "conservative" have addressed this yet.
And speaking of the American poor, are they really so well off as Heritage Foundation claims? I find that difficult to believe.

Sorry about kinda repeating what you said in question form, BC, but your statement seemed kinda odd. I needed to be sure that you actually meant it. Surprisingly, you actually did. The World Bank defines 'high income economy' as one in which GNI per capita is roughly $12k, so $11k per person is startlingly close to the 'high income' range. And no of course it would suck for those relatively few people in the world to be living on $11k each per year, and it would represent a reduction in living standards for those people. But it would represent an absolutely gigantic increase in living standards for most of the world's population.
You make him to big an honour to discuss this nonsense seriously.
The first course of action that should always be considered is "ignore". Sometimes that is the right option as well.
 
It would probably not come as a surprise to you that no "conservative" have addressed this yet.
And speaking of the American poor, are they really so well off as Heritage Foundation claims? I find that difficult to believe. - Richard Cribbs

Where do you live? Why do you find it hard believe? It all comes from census data.

I'm rather conservative, so I'll pitch in. I don't want to see the rest of the world given a bunch of wealth. I want to see mechanisms put in place that allow them to achieve and succeed on their own. And if the rest of the west is to help the developing world then it should be done through philanthropy as much as possible. I can tell you from first hand experience that NGOs do a much better job at helping the situation in dirt poor third world nations than USAID does.

If you give people money who have no skills and no education, that wealth will be squandered (like with Americas poor). We must develop positive engines for productive growth, destroy elements of ignorance within third world societies, and encourage education of their people. That's the only way to move forward in any meaningful way.
 
$11,000 is just a bit about the US poverty line. If that's the result of redistribution of wealth across the world, then given how much conservatives rant about how well off the poor are in this country, why would anyone who cares about more than himself not want to see the rest of the world raised to those levels?
Contrary to what Richard said, I already did address this. And the answer is, none of you are willing to be the one who foots the bill. Why don't YOU sell that useless computer and donate the proceeds to provide up-to-code housing for Haitians?? Selfish bastard. I know you won't do it. You'll be on that computer tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, always replying to my posts and talking a bunch of talk but not actually doing anything. During which time you'll be producing 20 milligrams of greenhouse gases per second while you read my posts and type stuff back at me.

Every day you keep using that computer--every time I see another post written by you--is another admission that I'm right. Your computer doesn't feed the hungry, it doesn't provide housing for the poor. It produces nothing. It allows you to play Call of Duty, and Supreme Commander, and Tetris.
 
Contrary to what Richard said, I already did address this. And the answer is, none of you are willing to be the one who foots the bill. Why don't YOU sell that useless computer and donate the proceeds to provide up-to-code housing for Haitians?? Selfish bastard. I know you won't do it. You'll be on that computer tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, always replying to my posts and talking a bunch of talk but not actually doing anything. During which time you'll be producing 20 milligrams of greenhouse gases per second while you read my posts and type stuff back at me.

Every day you keep using that computer--every time I see another post written by you--is another admission that I'm right. Your computer doesn't feed the hungry, it doesn't provide housing for the poor. It produces nothing. It allows you to play Call of Duty, and Supreme Commander, and Tetris.

You fundamentally fail to understand what socialism is, BK. We are not calling for vastly increased private charity, we are calling for a change in the structure of society so charity is redundant.
 
You fundamentally fail to understand what socialism is, BK. We are not calling for vastly increased private charity, we are calling for a change in the structure of society so charity is redundant.

So charity is totalitarian and by force? Compulsory charity? The slaves were just performing charity for their masters back in the day.
 
err... what???

You said you wanted to change the structure of society so that charity was redundant. So like...what's that? So it's totalitarian? So it's compulsory? Force people to be charitable with the threat of a fine or jail cell?
 
Top Bottom