Fall US Elections

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Here is the problem as I see it. Penn Jillette's children will have advantages that poor children do not. Whether one is born advantaged or disadvantaged is the greatest predictor of success. If Jillette moved his children into a modest home and did not provide any advantages to them that wealth provides then I would find that he is consistent in his ethics as it relates to this point. Jillette is paternalistic when it comes to his children (as he should be). Why can't, in the very least, the govt can be somewhat paternalistic when it comes to the children of poor people?

I have a few points to make:

(1) I am not against the government providing a social safety net, and I think most conservatives/libertarians are not. In practice, the argument is about how high and wide the net should be, as well as how fine the mesh should be.

(2) Making the net too high or too wide can create perverse incentives which have the effect of perpetuating bad behavior and poverty.

(3) Transferring resources to poor people so as to even out opportunity is not on the same moral plane as transferring resources from rich people to even out opportunity. The latter strikes me as Harrison Bergeron-esque and is morally repugnant in my view. If fairly moderate people (such as myself) consider a solution to be immoral, then a likely consequence of that is that it will prove impractical. Laws which the people see as immoral generally don't work.

(4) Although there is a strong positive correlation between the success of a child and the wealth of his parents, I believe the causal relationship is less clear. I am inclined to believe that it has less to do with the parents' wealth and more to do with the parents' education, culture, and character. Is it unfair that some children are born to good parents and some are born to crappy parents? I guess so, but what are you going to do about it? What would you have the government do about it?

In light of points (3) and (4), the estate tax makes no sense. The money raised is de minimis, and I think that if one took into account all of the ancillary effects (particularly the time and resources wasted in avoiding and enforcing the tax, as well as the distortion of incentives to spend and invest), one would find a net negative contribution to government tax receipts, and, more importantly, to the economy. The only way the estate tax makes sense is as a punitive measure, and I don't see the point of that.

 

[maxpower1227]

I have a few points to make:

(1) I am not against the government providing a social safety net, and I think most conservatives/libertarians are not. In practice, the argument is about how high and wide the net should be, as well as how fine the mesh should be.

*snort*

I guess you're not counting the ones who compare social welfare programs to feeding stray animals, or who suggest sterilizing poor women.

Give me a break. Many conservatives are soulless Ayn Rand-worshipping plutocrats who despise the poor and blame them for their own misfortunes as a justification for opposing social welfare.

In light of points (3) and (4), the estate tax makes no sense. The money raised is de minimis

Earlier you described the estate tax as "ridiculously high". How can that be? Is this more of the same conservative math that says that teachers live lives of luxury on $45k a year, but $250k a year is close to poverty?

 

[jimbob]

Well, this isn't really the right thread, but ... I think the Constitution is silent on laws restricting privacy, sodomy, or single sex marriage, so I think the conservative wing had it right. Which is not to say that I don't favor an expansive right to privacy, sodomy and single sex marriage. I do actually, but as a matter of principle it should be done through legislation. I don't think that it's the responsibility of 9 unelected, bureaucrats-for-life to catch the laws up to modern moral standards. It gives them too much power, and it short-circuits the process of shaping public opinion.

If that is the situation, then how do you feel about amending the constitution to grant that?

 

[sunmaster14]

I... see...

Are you suggesting that James Zagroda died as a result of crushing and injecting pills, rather than from anything he was exposed to at Ground Zero, and that therefore the entire premise of providing health care to Ground Zero responders is suspect?

I thank Brainster for the link. I had never known the story before. It certainly appears conclusive that Zagroda died directly from drug abuse (as did his wife before him) and not directly due to the effect of breathing bad air at the 9/11 site. It's certainly possible that the psychological toll of 9/11 led him down the self-destructive path he took, but that's a separate issue.

Although the Zagroda story doesn't change the scientific analysis of the health effects of being near the 9/11 site in the immediate aftermath, it does show how science can be trumped by politics. And of course, if you create a multi-billion dollar pot of money for disbursement to people who get sick, it's not a surprise to me that the number of reported illnesses will skyrocket.

Overall, I suspect that the 9/11 dust plume and smoke was damaging to the health of those who were exposed (how could it not have been?), but the effect is very small and bears little logical relationship to the amount of money allocated for compensation.

 

[sunmaster14]

If that is the situation, then how do you feel about amending the constitution to grant that?

I would absolutely support that. I might even get off my duff and join the effort.

 

[sunmaster14]

*snort*

I guess you're not counting the ones who compare social welfare programs to feeding stray animals, or who suggest sterilizing poor women.

Right, I don't count those. First, you're still talking about only a handful of people out of tens of millions. Second, it's not even clear that they believe what they're saying or they're just getting carried away with their rhetoric. It's clear that they believe the current system is too generous and only encourages dependency. It's not clear what they would think of a reformed system. Certainly, many hard-core conservatives got behind Clinton's welfare reforms, which certainly didn't end welfare.

Give me a break. Many conservatives are soulless Ayn Rand-worshipping plutocrats who despise the poor and blame them for their own misfortunes as a justification for opposing social welfare.

Perhaps, but there are far more who want to help the poor but believe the government's solutions are hurting rather than helping. I actually know a couple of hard-core religious conservatives who spend oodles of time working for charities which help the homeless. They're directly working with the homeless, not just writing checks out of their JP Morgan bank accounts.

Earlier you described the estate tax as "ridiculously high". How can that be? Is this more of the same conservative math that says that teachers live lives of luxury on $45k a year, but $250k a year is close to poverty?

The tax rate is ridiculously high. If it were 5% or 10%, people would probably just pay it. They would bitch about it, but they wouldn't upend their lives to avoid it. A rate of 40% (and it used to be 55% and would be still if the Democrats had their way) is qualitatively different.

 

[Brainster]

*snort*Give me a break. Many conservatives are soulless Ayn Rand-worshipping plutocrats who despise the poor and blame them for their own misfortunes as a justification for opposing social welfare.

Soulless? Are you saying you have a soul? On a skeptic forum?

 

[maxpower1227]

I thank Brainster for the link. I had never known the story before. It certainly appears conclusive that Zagroda died directly from drug abuse (as did his wife before him) and not directly due to the effect of breathing bad air at the 9/11 site. It's certainly possible that the psychological toll of 9/11 led him down the self-destructive path he took, but that's a separate issue.

Although the Zagroda story doesn't change the scientific analysis of the health effects of being near the 9/11 site in the immediate aftermath, it does show how science can be trumped by politics. And of course, if you create a multi-billion dollar pot of money for disbursement to people who get sick, it's not a surprise to me that the number of reported illnesses will skyrocket.

Overall, I suspect that the 9/11 dust plume and smoke was damaging to the health of those who were exposed (how could it not have been?), but the effect is very small and bears little logical relationship to the amount of money allocated for compensation.

Conclusive? He was examined by three medical examiners, and one concluded that he died due to drug overdose. The other two concluded his death was related to the 9/11 attacks. "Arguable" maybe (I think it still seems highly likely that the health effects he began suffering as early as 2002 resulted from his work at the site, regardless of whether the tremendous psychological trauma he suffered also eventually led to drug use), but conclusive? That hardly seems like a justifiable claim.

 

[maxpower1227]

Soulless? Are you saying you have a soul? On a skeptic forum?

Yes. Also, the fact that I referred to the 11th as Thursday means that I believe in Thor.

 

[Brainster]

Overall, I suspect that the 9/11 dust plume and smoke was damaging to the health of those who were exposed (how could it not have been?), but the effect is very small and bears little logical relationship to the amount of money allocated for compensation.

There are a lot of issues involved here. I note that the Wiki entry apes the common criticism of 9-11 Truthers that EPA honcho Christie Todd Whitman stated the air was safe to breathe for NYC residents. However, that did not apply to workers on the pile, who were required to wear respirators by OSHA. That ran afoul for several reasons:

1. Cigarette smokers.
2. Discomfort of wearing the respirators.
3. Generally macho attitude of many of those working on the pile.

 

[Brainster]

Conclusive? He was examined by three medical examiners, and one concluded that he died due to drug overdose. The other two concluded his death was related to the 9/11 attacks. "Arguable" maybe (I think it still seems highly likely that the health effects he began suffering as early as 2002 resulted from his work at the site, regardless of whether the tremendous psychological trauma he suffered also eventually led to drug use), but conclusive? That hardly seems like a justifiable claim.

His wife predeceased him at age 28, and she did not work on the pile. Read the final section of the New Yorker (not exactly a pro-GOP mag) article and you should be disabused of the notion that his death was directly related to physical health effects of working on the pile. I do concur that this does not rule out mental health effects.

 

[RandFan]

I have a few points to make:

(1) I am not against the government providing a social safety net, and I think most conservatives/libertarians are not. ¹ In practice, the argument is about how high and wide the net should be, as well as how fine the mesh should be.

(2) ²Making the net too high or too wide can create perverse incentives which have the effect of perpetuating bad behavior and poverty.

(3) ³Transferring resources to poor people so as to even out opportunity is not on the same moral plane as transferring resources from rich people to even out opportunity. The latter strikes me as Harrison Bergeron-esque and is morally repugnant in my view. ⁴ If fairly moderate people (such as myself) consider a solution to be immoral, then a likely consequence of that is that it will prove impractical. Laws which the people see as immoral generally don't work.

(4) ⁵Although there is a strong positive correlation between the success of a child and the wealth of his parents, I believe the causal relationship is less clear. I am inclined to believe that it has less to do with the parents' wealth and more to do with the parents' education, culture, and character. Is it unfair that some children are born to good parents and some are born to crappy parents? ⁶I guess so, but what are you going to do about it? What would you have the government do about it?

In light of points (3) and (4), the estate tax makes no sense. The money raised is de minimis, and I think that if one took into account all of the ancillary effects (particularly the time and resources wasted in avoiding and enforcing the tax, as well as the distortion of incentives to spend and invest), one would find a net negative contribution to government tax receipts, and, more importantly, to the economy. The only way the estate tax makes sense is as a punitive measure, and I don't see the point of that.

Thank you for the response.

1. Which is all well and good except that no one seems to argue what the limits should be. From a meta-perspective it seems that the left want more and the right want less. Further, there is no amount such that people will not be able to game the system or for some to not have a disincentive to not work. What do you propose the limits should be?
2. I agree in principle. What bothers me is the lack of any scientific model or data to show what that level should be. If there were a scientific model supported by data that attempted to falsify the limit at which point the system begins to become inefficient then I would find that compelling. Otherwise the argument is an appeal to consequences only.
3. Given the context of the paragraph I assume you meant that the latter being transferring money to equal outcomes. I'm against that for the reasons I've stated.
4. Your hypothetical is valid but A.) there is an unstated premise that has not been substantiated. Do the people see such a transfer as immoral? B.) You've not established that laws that people see as immoral don't work. However, it is moot since I accept the central thesis that an attempt to even outcomes is a bad idea.
5. I will concede the point about culture, character and education. Bear in mind that humans are not genetically different based on class. So, even if we grant you the premise, then affluence perpetuates affluence and poverty perpetuates poverty.
6. Given that poor people are genetically no different than rich people statistically. Given my argument that it's in everyone's best interest to improve the lives of poor people in general and poor children in particular. Then the answer is provide the resources that make better parents. A.) Poverty is a major cause of stress. Stress can and often does lead to maladaptive behavior (less productive parents, less productive students). Poverty leads to lack of well-being and in turn that leads to increased substance abuse.

So, let me return to my central thesis in order to tie my argument into the subject at hand. Providing generous social safety nets is moral (we are endowed with empathy and compassion) and it is effective (there is a negative correlation between providing generous social safety nets and high functioning societies).

Citizens are more invested in a society where they perceive fairness and they perceive that they have a real shot at making something of their lives. Citizens are social and they can see that they are treated differently than others in society. They can see the disparity of resources provided to the rich and they can see that wealth perpetuates wealth. We all know about the Walton family and we all know about rich kids who live on trust funds or whose parents take great pains to see to it that their children receive all of the advantages to succeed in life.

I agree with Sen. Bernie Sanders who advocates a progressive estate tax and closing estate tax loopholes. I think it would go a long way to change the perception that America is a nation of the rich by the rich and for the rich.

If you look at the nations at the top of all of the indexes I provided you will see that most if not all take some significant measure to reduce inequality. This has not reduced their rating for Economic Freedom, Human Development or nominal per capita GDP.

 

[Brainster]

They can see the disparity of resources provided to the rich and they can see that wealth perpetuates wealth.

And yet the Kennedys, who were considered fabulously wealthy in my lifetime have no members in the Forbes 400 (other than James, who has no relation to the Massachusetts clan). What happened? Children were born who had no need to make a bunch of dough. The Rockefellers will be in a similar place once David passes away.

We all know about the Walton family and we all know about rich kids who live on trust funds or whose parents take great pains to see to it that their children receive all of the advantages to succeed in life.

As compared to normal parents who don't take great pains to see to it, etc? The Waltons will end up just like the Kennedys and the Rockefellers. The idea that we must hasten them along that path strikes me as nothing less than envy.

 

[RandFan]

And yet the Kennedys, who were considered fabulously wealthy in my lifetime have no members in the Forbes 400 (other than James, who has no relation to the Massachusetts clan). What happened? Children were born who had no need to make a bunch of dough. The Rockefellers will be in a similar place once David passes away.

Are they all now poor? Are you honestly saying that there is no affluence among the Kennedy's? I don't claim that the ratio of wealth for each family is always identical. That's a straw man. I claim that people who are affluent will tend to remain affluent and people who are poor will tend to remain poor.

As compared to normal parents who don't take great pains to see to it, etc?

What are "normal" parents? My argument, the more resources a parent has the more likely the parents will have the time and psychosocial health to help their children.

The Waltons will end up just like the Kennedys and the Rockefellers. The idea that we must hasten them along that path strikes me as nothing less than envy.

This is just straw man. People do not need to be billionaires to be wealthy and wealthy families are not likely to become poverty stricken.

Could you address my argument and not the one you have fabricated?

 

[casebro]

I note that in terms of the Inequality-Adjusted HDI, the US went from #16 in 2013 to #28 in 2014. Thanks, Obama!

If these indexes are like the ones I have looked at previously, #28 is about 97th percentile of the worlds population.

USA is the highest listed country LARGE COUNTRY. Last time I looked. Japan was one step up from us with a population of 60M, the whole rest above us added up to ummm, 30M?

 

[maxpower1227]

So here is what the electoral map looks like at the moment. It looks like the GOP is letting Brownbackistan slip through their grasp as a result of its governor's horribly failed policies - if we are lucky that Senate seat will go blue.

 

[lobosrul]

If these indexes are like the ones I have looked at previously, #28 is about 97th percentile of the worlds population.

USA is the highest listed country LARGE COUNTRY. Last time I looked. Japan was one step up from us with a population of 60M, the whole rest above us added up to ummm, 30M?

Maybe I'm confused on just what your talking about, but given this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#Inequality-adjusted_HDI

1) Japan has a population of 127M, not 60M
2) The UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy are all above us. And they total easily 250M.
3) We are the largest country in the "1st world". Do you really want to compare the USA to the likes of China, India, and Indonesia??

 

[lobosrul]

If these indexes are like the ones I have looked at previously, #28 is about 97th percentile of the worlds population.

USA is the highest listed country LARGE COUNTRY. Last time I looked. Japan was one step up from us with a population of 60M, the whole rest above us added up to ummm, 30M?

Maybe I'm confused on just what your talking about, but given this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

1) Japan has a population of 127M, not 60M
2) The UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Canada are all above us. And they easily total 300M together.
3) We are the largest country in the "1st world". Do you really want to compare the USA to the likes of China, India, and Indonesia??

 

[RandFan]

If these indexes are like the ones I have looked at previously, #28 is about 97th percentile of the worlds population.

USA is the highest listed country LARGE COUNTRY. Last time I looked. Japan was one step up from us with a population of 60M, the whole rest above us added up to ummm, 30M?

Okay, work with me here. Granting your premise for sake of advancing the discussion:

1. Why should your point not be dismissed as just special pleading or ad hoc rationalization?
2. What is the mechanism by which the science that explains and predicts the figures and is not falsified by negative correlations breaks down at X number of citizens?
3. Do you have a scientific model that explains and predicts the data and shows that at a given number "X" that the effects will reverse?
4. Did you know that America provides generous social services to citizens and that it fits the model that I provided?
5. Given #4 then what is your point?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... Whether one is born advantaged or disadvantaged is the greatest predictor of success. ... Why can't, in the very least, the govt can be somewhat paternalistic when it comes to the children of poor people?

Why can't material objects levitate? After all, each molecule vibrates and if all the molecules in the salt shaker on your dinner table vibrated the same direction, the salt shaker could fly around the room. Consider the VA, where employees fabricated treatment statistics to generate bonuses. Consider urban schools which spend $15,000 + per student-year to generate angry illiterate dropouts. Consider the perennial reports of systematic test fraud by teachers and administrators.
The government cannot serve as the agent of the goals you proclaim.
Government employees differ systematically from the rest of us only in their access to the tools of organized violence.

As an aside, I read a report years ago that there is a stronger correlation between early school success and later family income than between early school success and current family income. That is, school success depends on the parent attributes that create high family income AND school success. The parents who make wise educational decisions ALSO make wise financial decisions. Both pay off later. The contribution that material resources devoted to children makes to their career success pales in comparison to the contributions that genetics, parent attention, and student motivation make to a child's life trajectory.