What would the income distribution look like with no redistribution?

[Arwon]

Then, answer the thread question: how important are those programs in alleviating poverty? The answer is, these programs are worthless for that. None of these programs are capable of digging the unfortunate out of their dire circumstances.

None of these government programs can change the class strata, because most people who get money don't know how to hold onto it. People who get rich and stay rich, stay rich because they have the proper discipline in handling and spending money. You can't make the poor rich until they possess that discipline. People need to understand some very basic rules about how to handle money--if they refuse to learn or practice those rules, tough noogies.

What does any of that have to do with keeping old age pensioners, the unemployed and disabled folks able to afford food and a place to live? The bar for the success of income transfers to vulnerable groups is not and has never been "can retirees, veterans, the disabled, and the unemployed become rich through government income transfers because bootstraps". That's just silly, and again, that's your strawman, don't ask others to defend it.

If you want to obsess over the specific term "poverty relief", then actually you've managed to wrongly interpret even the term you've decided to be all pedantic about. These things are pretty clearly successful poverty relief because those groups would be in a much worse situation otherwise.

And mate, if you DO want to play the pedantry game, check out the meaning of the term "alleviate". It does not mean "eliminate", it means "make less severe".

 

[BasketCase]

What does any of that have to do with keeping old age pensioners, the unemployed and disabled folks able to afford food and a place to live?

Nothing. You went off-topic when you brought that stuff up.

The bar for the success of income transfers to vulnerable groups is not and has never been "can retirees, veterans, the disabled, and the unemployed become rich through government income transfers because bootstraps".

You just moved the goalposts. I was never talking about retirees, veterans, the disabled, or the unemployed. I was talking about poor people, many of whom aren't on your list. Poverty is a problem. How do you solve it? By making the poor not poor. How do you do that? Taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people has never worked. Self-sufficiency is the only answer.

These things are pretty clearly successful poverty relief because those groups would be in a much worse situation otherwise.

That also falls under "moving the goalposts".

It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an argument. For example, a person who takes Vitamin C might claim that it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not for the Vitamin C.

And mate, if you DO want to play the pedantry game, check out the meaning of the term "alleviate". It does not mean "eliminate", it means "make less severe".

And how do you make poverty less severe? By making people less poor. Handouts don't solve the problem, they merely reduce the symptoms, one day at a time, and only for as long as the handouts keep coming. My solution, on the other hand, is permanent.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

This is not a case of moving the goalposts. This is a case of one guy calling foul because he somehow overlooked the goalposts.


Reread the opening post. You will find that it contains 5 distinct questions:
1 - What would the income distribution look like without [Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, UI, and other expenditures that directly transfer income from one individual to another]?
2- How important is government redistribution in alleviating poverty?
3 - Is the current level of redistribution just?
4 - Would more redistribution be just?
5 - If so, is there a limit?

Most of us have been aiming for all five of these goalposts, while Basketcase has continued to insist that only #2 exists.

 

[Arwon]

And misinterpret the meaning of #2

Nothing. You went off-topic when you brought that stuff up.


You just moved the goalposts. I was never talking about retirees, veterans, the disabled, or the unemployed. I was talking about poor people, many of whom aren't on your list. Poverty is a problem. How do you solve it? By making the poor not poor. How do you do that? Taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people has never worked. Self-sufficiency is the only answer.


That also falls under "moving the goalposts".




And how do you make poverty less severe? By making people less poor. Handouts don't solve the problem, they merely reduce the symptoms, one day at a time, and only for as long as the handouts keep coming. My solution, on the other hand, is permanent.

OK I seriously do not understand what it is you think you're talking about. What do you think income redistribution is? Do you think there is some all purpose payment called "welfare" which all the "poor people" get?

Aged pensions, disability support, veterans benefits, parental support, unemployment payments are what actual income transfers actually are. Between them those things cover pretty much all direct income transfers. If you're not talking about those, then what ARE you talking about? Poverty means people with incomes below a certain level. That's mostly these groups.

The only other significant group, I suppose, is the "working poor" you Americans have, but that's a problem with inadequate minimum wage and bad industrial relations policy, not an income transfer issue.

I'm not "going off topic", I'm moving beyond platitudinal declarations about bootstraps and learning to fish and talking about what real world income transfers actually are, what they do, and why they exist. They go to these groups I name in order to prevent and alleviate the problems they would otherwise have with lack of income (ie poverty). You honestly appear to be talking about some imaginary world where something entirely different happens.

 

[BasketCase]

1 - What would the income distribution look like without [Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, UI, and other expenditures that directly transfer income from one individual to another]?

I already answered that--IN MY FIRST POST.

2- How important is government redistribution in alleviating poverty?

Also answered in my first post.

3 - Is the current level of redistribution just?

Irrelevant. That's up to the Voters.

4 - Would more redistribution be just?

Also irrelevant, for the same reason.

5 - If so, is there a limit?

Pointless to ask. Current redistribution efforts are a wasted effort; more redistribution = more wasted effort.

I already answered #1 and #2 very clearly, in previous posts. And the other three questions are pointless.

OK I seriously do not understand what it is you think you're talking about. What do you think income redistribution is?

Go read post #80 again.

 

[Arwon]

Pointless to ask. Current redistribution efforts are a wasted effort; more redistribution = more wasted effort.

So, to be clear, you would abolish income transfers to retirees, the disabled, veterans, the unemployed, and low income parents? These things are wasteful and don't keep people from being in greater poverty?

 

[Leoreth]

Irrelevant. That's up to the Voters.

What a stupid argument. Discussions like this one are there to figure out what the right decision for voters ought to be.

 

[Arwon]

Incidentally, here's roughly how the US' income redistribution works:

Old aged pensions - 800 bn
Food assistance to familes - 113bn
Unemployment - 109 bn
Housing assistance - 60bn
Veterans - 57bn
Income security to social exclusion not elsewhere classified - 161bn (most of this is tax credits plus 47bn to something called "Supplemental Security Income Program" and 16bn to "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families")

If you want to see Australia's, this website lets you enter your taxable income and see how much you personally are contributing (hint: it's mostly old and disabled people).

 

[Farm Boy]

... post #80 ...

Sorry you feel attacked. I do appreciate being called clever.

I pretty clearly broadened the definition of income redistribution in my first post. My assertion would be that my examples address the alleviation of poverty through governmental action. Disease, economic isolation due to lack of infrastructure, and hunger are both results and causes of poverty.

If my examples were outside the scope of what you are interested in, you merely could have indicated that or not addressed them.

Either way, agricultural subsidies sure seem like they fit the narrow definition of "income redistribution" as you are structuring it, direct payments and all. The impact of said subsidies on the poor is broader than to the payee and payor though, limiting the scope of that particular issue to farming only would be flawed.

 

[BasketCase]

What a stupid argument. Discussions like this one are there to figure out what the right decision for voters ought to be.

You couldn't possibly be any more wrong than this. What is "the right decision for voters"?? That's up to the voters, and it's none of your business.

So, to be clear, you would abolish income transfers to retirees, the disabled, veterans, the unemployed, and low income parents? These things are wasteful and don't keep people from being in greater poverty?

I would prefer to spend the money on education instead. My goal being to make these people un-poor, and independent of government handouts, permanently.

Problem is, that runs counter to President Obama's wishes; the above lower classes are a pretty reliable voting block (or is it "voting bloc"??? ), and actually getting them out of poverty would turn a large percentage of them into Republicans.......

The politicians don't have any actual interest in solving the problem of poverty.

If my examples were outside the scope of what you are interested in, you merely could have indicated that or not addressed them.

I have no problem with you starting up a parallel discussion. My beef with you is, you've been breaking debate rules. Never assume smart people will always reach the same conclusions. Never use the phrase "open your eyes" in a debate. And never use the word "intelligence" in a debate.

 

[Akka]

You couldn't possibly be any more wrong than this. What is "the right decision for voters"?? That's up to the voters, and it's none of your business.

/facepalm

And no, there is nothing more constructive to add. Intelligent reasoning was killed by the quoted part.

I would prefer to spend the money on education instead. My goal being to make these people un-poor, and independent of government handouts, permanently.

He talks about retired and disabled people, wounded veterans, and you answer all that with "let's educate them so they can make money" ?
Seriously, are you actually reading, just copy-pasting without thinking, or something even sadder ? Because your propension to completely miss the point is really becoming legendary.