How We Agreed to Take Money From the Poor and Give to the Rich

[metalhead]

If someone loves their job, they will probably do it for less money. Or even for free, in the case of hobbies. Again, supply and demand explains all of this, I don't see how it's arbitrary.

I see what you're saying with subsidizing kids on a societal level. That may be useful in countries where the birth rate is really low. I don't think we need that in America though, especially not before we fix the other problems that you mentioned.

As Tim points out, we already do subsidize having children, in the form of tax exemptions. The problem is that the exemption is far too low to mean much.

I realize that supply and demand is the reason for the pay disparities, but what I'm saying is that based on what parents are willing to pay other people to watch their kids, the subsidies we currently have are hugely inadequate, and the social cost of that is worth the money it would cost to dramatically increase subsidies for lower income people.

Also, the birth rate here is falling much like it is in other Western countries. We may not be at the crisis point yet like they are in Japan, but that's why you do forward-thinking policy, to make sure it doesn't get to that point.

 

[civver_764]

As Tim points out, we already do subsidize having children, in the form of tax exemptions. The problem is that the exemption is far too low to mean much.

I realize that supply and demand is the reason for the pay disparities, but what I'm saying is that based on what parents are willing to pay other people to watch their kids, the subsidies we currently have are hugely inadequate, and the social cost of that is worth the money it would cost to dramatically increase subsidies for lower income people.

Also, the birth rate here is falling much like it is in other Western countries. We may not be at the crisis point yet like they are in Japan, but that's why you do forward-thinking policy, to make sure it doesn't get to that point.

What do you say to the argument that subsidizing low-income families will just incentivize them to have too many kids? I think currently we offer subsidies to low-income single moms specifically, don't we? What do you think about this? Many would argue it just encourages the moms to replace the father of their children with the state.

 

[metalhead]

I think we need to stop acting like poor people are all living just to get maximum benefits from the state. I can tell you quite emphatically that this isn't a widespread phenomenon. That attitude is based purely on prejudice, so if you want an argument against higher subsidies, you're going to need another one.

What you need to understand, and what this thread is ultimately about is that it's insane to be focused on a few goldbrickers trying to game the system for a few dollars while the wealthy have designed a system which benefits them to the tune of trillions of dollars a year that could otherwise be in the pockets of hardworking Americans, and making millions of Americans who want to be working employed again.

 

[Hygro]

Spoiler for massive image :

The truth is, nobody really knows how much ownership is in derivatives. As a former wall st trader recently told me "it's a black box". But to be clear, when we're talking about the distribution of wealth and ownership, there's a small few individuals, firms, and oil states with sovereign wealth funds who have probably more legal claim than there is stuff.

How the dissolution of that system disproportionately hurts the poor I don't know. By numbers, oh yes, more poor than rich will be harmed. And It's bad for there to be any harm. But by proportion? It doesn't take a rich person to tell the power plant guy to power, the trucker to truck, the farmer to farm, the plumber to plumb, the doctor to doctor. Especially if the bulk of a reordering were to take place over a few weeks. But would anyone credibly come to collect on the physical assets backing financial wealth during that time? Skeptical.


Moderator Action: Please spoiler massive images in future. ~ Arakhor