- #1
ThomasT
- 529
- 0
In a recent thread, "Are pell grants 'welfare'?", I agreed that Pell grants are welfare, and stated:
Also, aid to the poor comes from tax revenues ... paid by tens of millions of people. I'm not sure what you're advocating. Single private benefactors for each aid recipient?
I find your argument against governmental aid/welfare to the poor to be less than compelling.
To which jambaugh replied:ThomasT said:And that's mostly a good thing, because welfare to the poor benefits the general economy and therefore the country.
With which I disagreed, and below I address the rest of his reply.jambaugh said:I dispute this statement. I agree that assisting the poor does benefit the general economy and thus country but only if carried out through voluntary donations within the private sector.
I don't understand what you mean by "coerced redistribution of wealth". Who is coercing, who is being coerced, and what's the method of coercion?jambaugh said:Enforced charity fails on three fronts.
Firstly as coerced redistribution of wealth it is not subject to the judgment of the individual donating the wealth and thus the recipient develops no sense of gratitude to the person who via his knowledge and character is able to produce that wealth. He does not seek to emulate the producer but rather is grateful instead to the politician who use the power of the state to transfer the wealth.
Also, aid to the poor comes from tax revenues ... paid by tens of millions of people. I'm not sure what you're advocating. Single private benefactors for each aid recipient?
I don't think that being relatively wealthy endows one with any special insights regarding who needs what. So, I don't think that this is an effective argument against disbursing aid to the poor via government programs.jambaugh said:Secondly since the distributor of that wealth is not the one who had to produce it, he does not best understand the value of that wealth, what is required to produce it, and thus how best to distribute it in terms of who is most deserving.
Yes, objective means (and other) testing is done to determine qualification, and a small percentage of people will find ways to game the system(s). Not a significant problem, especially in light of the fact that the money is going to be spent in, and therefore will benefit, the general economy whether the recipient 'deserved' it or not. Again, not a good argument against the status quo, imo.jambaugh said:To prevent favoritism he must abide by an objective policy of distribution which in turn is subject to manipulation and corruption by the potential recipients.
Some will, some won't. How to estimate percentages wrt either? Not a valid argument against the status quo.jambaugh said:They will behave in a way to better qualify for the largess instead of behaving in a way to free themselves from the need for that largess.
Not sure what your point is here. Is it that the woman is induced to not find alternative ways of earning a living because in her jobless state she qualifies for some meager government handouts? I don't think that's a reasonable/arguable position.jambaugh said:I recall a woman on PRN complaining about her inability to find a job with her "Masters of Women's Studies Degree". A find degree I am sure but not one conducive of producing the wealth she desires to keep her supplied with food clothing and shelter if she does not already have the means.
I don't think that those who pay taxes are less ambitious because they have no say in how their tax money is spent by the governments that tax them. I agree that this might have some effect on their charitable behavior were it not for the ability to deduct charitable donations from their gross incomes.jambaugh said:Thirdly since the producer of that wealth does not have any choice in its redistribution he looses some incentive to produce it and more importantly looses more incentive to "pay it back" through private sector organizations.
The "producers of wealth", as you put it, are the taxpayers. My guess is that if no taxes were levied, then none would be paid. Then we would be dependent on "producers of wealth" to behave in accordance with the common good, and I think that history has taught us, and our common sense knowledge of human nature tells us, that that isn't going to happen. Left to our own devices, without regulation, the relatively wealthy would be in an even more advantageous position to coerce the relatively poor. And we would most assuredly do lots of coercing, as well as manipulation of systems for our benefit but to the detriment of reasonable notions of the common good.jambaugh said:I'm surprised that those same people who argue that charity is necessary because it benefits all cannot also carry that logic through to recognized that the producers of wealth also recognize that fact (if true) and thus do not need to be coerced into doing what is in their best interest...that by coercing them you belie your belief in the truth of your words.
I find your argument against governmental aid/welfare to the poor to be less than compelling.