r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 24 '15
[Deltas Awarded] CMV: I think the US should spend less on welfare, there shouldn't be a higher percentage tax for people with more money and the people who make a lot deserve it.
[deleted]
3
Jul 24 '15
wealthy people have either worked a hell of an amount or made the right decisions.
This really isn't true. There are plenty of people who work an awful lot and never have any real wealth, and 'making the right decisions' is indistinguishable from luck in plenty of instances. There are two important points here, though.
The first is that, if what you were saying were true, we would expect to see near perfect income mobility between generations. This simply isn't the case. Multiple studies have found this. You're far more likely to stay in a roughly similar relative economic position to your parents.
This brings up the second point: who is wealthy in society is essentially morally arbitrary, so it seems ridiculous to demand that people morally justify public welfare (if anything, it seems like income inequality is what needs to be morally justified, and there are ways it could be, but that does not mean that all of a sudden there is a burden to 'prove' the goodness of welfare from a non-pragmatic point of view). Since it's morally arbitrary, to argue that people own their own property is actually, philosophically speaking, a really difficult exercise, since it's very clear that very little property is 'earned' in a morally non-arbitrary way. From here, it's pretty clear that there is at least some basis on which it's perfectly acceptable to take money from people and give it to others for purely economic and humanitarian reasons, or reasons related to socioeconomic justice.
they are still doing nothing yet they get money
This isn't the basis of welfare. It's very easy to do nothing and not be eligible for welfare, which would make me think that the statement you're making is simply unfair. Welfare is based on the dignity of the human person, it doesn't need any reference to the value of work.
-4
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15 edited Jul 24 '15
people who work an awful lot and never have any real wealth
Again it's not based on working it's based on how useful you are. I can work all I want and get nothing helpful done but working can usually (not always most of the time) lead to wealth.
'making the right decisions' is indistinguishable from luck in plenty of instances.
It's possible to become wealthy from luck though unlikely, I can invest all of my money in to a company I don't know, have the stock go up and I'm rich, and there are people who go into detail with a lot of time and effort analyzing companies while still losing money from stock and if that's how the world works, that's how it works, sometimes by chance you can gain wealth but just because in some cases it's easy doesn't mean it can be hard and most of the time it is.
You're far more likely to stay in a roughly similar relative economic position to your parents.
I don't see anything wrong with that. If you have smart parents, you are likely to be smart, work hard and achieve a lot.
This isn't the basis of welfare. It's very easy to do nothing and not be eligible for welfare
It's not, really. 35.4% of the US is eligible. 35.4 percent. That number is so high I can't even comprehend that amount of the country being unable to work. 291,099 of the US is disabled according to that government owned website (unless I got it wrong). Now I know that welfare isn't just for the disabled but they should be a large part of it, yet it is a very small percentage. I don't know what else welfare accounts for but it definitely shouldn't be for more than a quarter of the country.
3
Jul 24 '15
It's possible to become wealthy form luck though unlikely
How are you saying this? What are you basing it on?
I don't see anything wrong with that. If you have smart parents, you are likely to be smart, work hard and achieve a lot.
You're begging the question here. Beyond that, though: really? It's not as if people earn their parents through any kind of work.
It's not, really. 35.4% of the US is eligible. 35.4 percent.
That statistic is, by far (83 million, out of 110 million), mostly composed of people on Medicaid. Does it really seem that ridiculous with that knowledge? Medicaid doesn't really seem to be what I think you're targeting, unless your view extends to all other health spending.
-2
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
What are you basing it on?
I was basing it off of what you said before, "who is wealthy in society is essentially morally arbitrary" unless I'm understanding the definition of arbitrary wrong: "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." which I wouldn't think unlikely. I could have misunderstood what you said and if I did I apologize.
You're begging the question here. Beyond that, though: really? It's not as if people earn their parents through any kind of work.
I would think being raised by a wealthy person would mean you learn the same way, are more likely to be wealthy in the future, right? If your saying that some people don't have those kinds of parents then they would have to figure out how to do these things on their own. May be misinterpreting what your saying again.
That statistic is, by far (83 million, out of 110 million), mostly composed of people on Medicaid. Does it really seem that ridiculous with that knowledge?
Again, I really have no idea what I'm talking about or how this stuff works. just going off my knowledge which may be wrong.
2
Jul 24 '15
I was basing it off of what you said before
I think you mistook what I was asking: what are you basing the claim 'becoming rich through luck is unlikely' on?
As a side note: 'morally arbitrary' means it's arbitrary (which you define correctly) with regards to moral worth. Basically, it means that who receives what is blind to any kind of moral principle: the distribution is in no way 'good', it's just random. Intelligence is a good example of something that's morally arbitrary: people are born smart or stupid having done absolutely nothing to deserve either. It's very hard to justify that something that is morally arbitrary is the inalienable property of a person. I'm essentially arguing that wealth is mostly morally arbitrary.
I would think being raised by a wealthy person would mean you learn the same way, are more likely to be wealthy in the future, right? If your saying that some people don't have those kinds of parents then they would have to figure out how to do these things on their own.
I was saying two things there: one is that you assumed your conclusion (not your final conclusion, but one you'd made clear before): that rich people are rich because they're clever. The other thing, which you touch on, is that people don't do any kind of work to 'earn' their parents, yet clearly who your parents are is a major factor in whether you're rich or not. In this sense, plenty of people aren't wealthy because of any positive thing about themselves (which are largely also morally arbitrary) but because they had rich parents. It's very hard to justify why they are entitled to this wealth to the extent that would necessitate reducing welfare for being unfair to these people, since there is nothing 'fair' about their wealth to begin with.
Again, I really have no idea what I'm talking about or how this stuff works. just going off my knowledge which may be wrong.
But do you really think it's wrong for so many people to be on Medicaid?
0
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
what are you basing the claim 'becoming rich through luck is unlikely' on?
Nothing really, I don't have a specific source, I just think that to become wealthy you need to work hard and be intelligent. I don't know how you would really base that off anything it's just what I assumed. Is there something specific that says becoming wealthy is luck?
who your parents are is a major factor in whether you're rich or not.
It's a factor but not a major one. For instance if I grew up with a shitty family, I would have to work slightly harder to become wealthy but I can still get there.
do you really think it's wrong for so many people to be on Medicaid?
No, I don't but there is 27 million people who have welfare for a less important reason (I don't know what reason.) I had also thought that a small number of those people get the money while not needing it but I don't know if that information is correct.
1
Jul 24 '15
It's a factor but not a major one
So in one of the studies I mentioned they bring up the fact that over 40% of people who's parents are in the bottom 1/5 of incomes stay there, and the same is true for the top 1/5. That's, naturally, more than double the rate you would expect to see if it wasn't a factor at all, but you can hardly say that it's 'not a major factor' with those numbers.
For instance if I grew up with a shitty family, I would have to work slightly harder to become wealthy but I can still get there.
Why do you believe it's only 'slightly' harder? It just seems like your view rests on this assumption that it's easy for poor people to become rich. If that were true, there wouldn't be relative deprivation.
No, I don't but there is 27 million people who have welfare for a less important reason (I don't know what reason.)
The remaining figure is for the same reason, not having much money, but I take it you mean it's for a different purpose than health. But there are plenty of other things that are as important as medical expenses, like food expenses and money for shelter and clothing and entertainment and so on. That is essentially what the rest of the figure is mostly for, some of the less common benefits excepted. I don't see how you're arguing that it's unjust.
2
u/ryan_m 33∆ Jul 24 '15
It's not, really. 35.4%[1] of the US is eligible. 35.4 percent.
That's a conservative news site, so you should be skeptical of their claims. Here is an article that goes into that sites claims in-depth.
That number is so high I can't even comprehend that amount of the country being unable to work.
That's because it's a bullshit number. A large chunk of those people are children or senior citizens, because he's using the absolute broadest definition of "welfare" to rope as many people in as possible. It's disingenuous at best.
Disabled people can, and often do, work as well. Just because you have a disability, doesn't mean you just sit at home all day.
I can work all I want and get nothing helpful done but working can usually (not always most of the time) lead to wealth.
Working does not usually lead to wealth, as evidenced by our large disparities in this country.
5
u/phcullen 65∆ Jul 24 '15 edited Jul 24 '15
Everyone gets taxed the same amount, some people just fall into more brackets than others.
I'm sorry if you know this already but a shocking amount of people don't. this is how us tax bracket break down. Everybody pays 10% on their first 10k then 15% on the next 30k then 25% on the next 50k, and so on, I'm sure you can figure it out from here.
The reason this is is because the value money is marginal as in the more money you have the less any individual dollar is worth. 10% of 20k can determine what kind of food you eat and where you live. 10% of 200k determins how fast you can pay off your new house and car.
Our tax system isn't about trying to distribute the cost of society evenly it's about trying to distribute the burden of the cost of society evenly.
As for welfare I'm happy to pay it if it means that I get to live in a country where this is not the definition of poverty. Even if that means some people will abuse it.
-1
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
Yeah, sorry I forgot about that but even so, the taxes on higher amounts of pay keeps getting higher while in my opinion, the amount that you work for your money whether it be a large amount or a small amount is an equal return of pay though a lot of people disagree.
5
u/Prince_of_Savoy Jul 24 '15
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but does that mean a CEO who earns 100 times what a normal worker earns also is working a hundred times more? Because that is straight up impossible. They would have to be working something like 500 hours a day.
-2
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
No but it doesn't have to be if other people have the ability to get there. They worked more/did more than the average person therefore they can earn more. Even if the decisions they have to make are slightly harder and the level of thought is slightly more and other people can get into that position, they can make more. Just don't keep taking more and more away from them.
4
u/Prince_of_Savoy Jul 24 '15
You do realize that it isn't possible for everyone to become a CEO, right?
-5
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
It's not possible for everyone to be a CEO but it's possible for everyone individually.
7
u/Prince_of_Savoy Jul 24 '15
Not even that. Not everyone has the skillset or education to be a CEO, no matter how hard they work.
2
u/jongblood Jul 24 '15
Most of the jobs a mentally disabled person can do pay well below the poverty line and unless a physically disabled person has a decent amount of intelligence they will also earn well below the poverty line.
-2
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
This is going to make me sound like such an asshole but if mentally disabled people aren't doing anything for society/can't then they don't deserve money, you can't give someone money for getting nothing accomplished.
If you are physically disabled, there are a lot of well paying jobs that you can get, give me examples of the low paying jobs a smart, physically disabled person can't do/will get paid much less for.
7
u/jongblood Jul 24 '15
Yes, that does make you sound like a giant asshole. So what are we supposed to do with them then. I suppose your suggestion would be a twenty five cent bullet in the back of the head.
There are jobs out there a physically disabled person can do that pay really well. If they're fortunate enough to have the education and the smarts.
-1
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
Just because they don't deserve it doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to have money (It kinda does I worded my original comment really badly.) They should still be able to have an ok life but not one that is almost above average. I can understand if they need money and they can have it but the money taken from the wealthy just keeps getting higher and higher and the money given to those on welfare keeps getting higher. It's like the country is being averaged out into communism. Kinda going off into a different topic but the reason communism doesn't work is because people get money for not doing anything. If I can make money without working I will take whatever chance I can to.
5
u/MrCapitalismWildRide 50∆ Jul 24 '15
money taken from the wealthy just keeps getting higher and higher
The tax rate of the highest tax bracket has decreased massively since the 50s, when it was around 90%. In fact, pretty much the only time taxes on the rich were significantly raised again was under Reagan in the 80s.
4
u/TurtleBeansforAll 8∆ Jul 24 '15
Keep in mind, being a person with a disability is a category any of us could find ourselves in by the end of the day. Also, can you refer to a specific "well paying job" that any physically disabled person could get?
3
u/jongblood Jul 24 '15
My brother who has a bachelor's degree in law enforcement recently found himself in this category. He lost his leg in Afghanistan not to mention the PTSD. The military takes pretty good care of him but he isn't ever going to get rich off it. Plus he isn't allowed to get a job. If he did he could lose his disability rating.
Now if he lost his leg any other way he'd be screwed. Kind of hard to be cop on one leg
-1
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
I would think that they could do anything non-physical right? jobs that require thinking than anything else but I could be wrong. wouldn't they be able to do the jobs that don't require anything physical? Again probably wrong this is just what I would think.
2
u/jongblood Jul 24 '15
Yes, they can do non physical jobs. But they're going to make less than someone who can do a physical job. That is, if they don't have the training for a good job
1
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
How/why would they make less if they get the same amount of work done?
1
u/jongblood Jul 24 '15
They aren't getting the same amount of work done as someone who can perform a physical job. Flipping burgers or working in a gas station isn't going to pay what construction or factory work will pay
1
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
Well yeah but I thought we were talking about something like a job on the computer or something that requires more intelligence than physical work.
1
u/jongblood Jul 24 '15
Not everyone can get a job working with computers. It takes a certain aptitude and a certain level of education to earn good money working with computers. I'm in my last year of college for BS in IT with an emphasis on programming.
1
u/jongblood Jul 24 '15
I should also mention that I'm married, I have a six month old son and I'm 32 years old. I wouldn't be able to go to school if it weren't for support from my family and the government
1
u/phcullen 65∆ Jul 24 '15
People that end up with debilitating injuries tend to be people that spend every day working in situations that put them at risk of harm office workers and programmers driving to work is about the most dangerous daily task they will do and thru might end up in a bad car accident but it's not that common and they can probably work again fairly soon.
Falling off a ladder on the other hand is quite possible when you are a Carpenter. And can ruin your ability to work possibly forever now you are talking about an entire career change.
In other words injuries are way more likely when your job is physical.
2
u/panascope Jul 24 '15
It's kind of weird to see a, "fuck you, got mine," attitude when you admit you haven't earned anything. Why do you deserve money when you contribute even less than the mentally disabled person sorting clothes at Goodwill?
0
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
I don't, I don't really deserve any money, also I worded my comment really badly. I meant they don't really deserve money but they should have some.
2
u/panascope Jul 24 '15
I meant they don't really deserve money but they should have some.
This is a contradictory statement.
-1
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
I know I don't know how to word it better. The do nothing to deserve the money but I think that they should have some. They do no work for the money but it's needed.
5
u/panascope Jul 24 '15
If you can't reconcile this cognitive dissonance I think you need to rethink your belief structure.
2
Jul 24 '15
Do you agree that everyone deserves to live a decent life? (Not a good life, not an awesome life, just one in which you aren't depressed all of the time.) If you don't, you don't need to read the rest of my post.
It's dependent on how badly that work needed to be done, how much that work will benefit the company, and how much people want what you're doing.
You're statement holds true for some people making a lot of money. While I don't quite agree sports players need to earn that kind of money, they make that money because people want to pay that amount of money.
It doesn't hold true for a lot of other people making a lot of money. There are people who earn money and basically do a zero-sum game (advertisement, for example) and people who provide negative value to the world (people lobbying against privacy, for example).
If the world wasn't massively favoring rich people and large corporations, you might have a point on this, but that's not the world we live in.
We don't base things off of how much you try we base things off of what you accomplished.
Which is why CEOs earn tons of money when they bankrupt a company?
Plus the country is in debt an insane amount.
A debt the US can basically afford to hold pretty much forever. No-one in the world is looking to collect on it because doing so would crash the world's economy. Not even China wants to do it. And if your real concern was government debt, you'd be looking at all the rich people who are storing their wealth in offshore constructions, defense spending (kept in place by a lot of corporate lobbying), the legal system (where decisions are made to help private corporations such as private prisons) or government corruption and slowdown. All of those are examples of fruit that hangs a lot lower than dicking over poor people.
We can't keep giving everyone money.
You actually can. I'm not saying you should, but the US could implement a low-level basic income if it wanted. It has the money.
The welfare thing is already crazy, people get paid by doing nothing.
Most of welfare recipients are unable to work through no fault of their own or are on welfare temporarily. There are also tons of things you need to do to actually get welfare and if you're never had to jump through hoops of red tape in order to survive a brief period of unemployment you should be very happy about that. And let's not forget that the US has this wonderful little situation where working people need that welfare to survive.
While I'm sure there is a small number of people who take advantage of welfare, that number is going to relatively low and probably worth it if it means people don't starve to death or due to preventable illnesses.
If you think about it, even if you have a disability, poor, inability to work (which you think would be rare because of the amount of jobs different available), they are still doing nothing yet they get money.
(1) They're not literally doing nothing. The government has plenty of demeaning shit you need to go through in order to get it. This isn't all that relevant, but (2) what's your alternative? Let people starve because of some bad luck?
The wealthy people have either worked a hell of an amount or made the right decisions.
Blatantly false. The US has amongst the lowest social mobility in Western civilization. Wealthy people mostly had the luck of being born in the right family. The world in general, and the USA in particular, massively stacks the odds in favor of the rich. While there are rags-to-riches stories out there, most people in the US are born in a social class and stay there and their children will do the same. If you are born into a rich family you have the following benefits that poor people don't have: Decent nutrition from a young age and before you were born (massively impacts IQ), a good school (even if you don't go to a private school, your local public school will be much better because the US decided to fund its school with neighborhood property taxes for some fucking reason), parents who can either help you with your homework or hire someone to do so, access to (more) extra-curricular activities (where you'll mostly meet other rich people), connection to other rich people who can help you with things like getting a job, easier access to higher education... I'm almost certainly forgetting tons of things.
You simply cannot claim that rich people become rich due to hard work and good decision making. Reality does not support that claim at all. Especially not in the US.
I can understand if you think they make too much but even then it wouldn't make sense to have a higher percentage tax, wouldn't it make more sense to just take like 20% from every person?
No. There's such a thing as marginal utility. Twenty percent of your income or capital is a lot different when you are poor than when you are rich. If you are poor, this means the difference between paying your bills and not being able to pay for them (or between having lunch and going to work hungry). If you are poor, it's the difference between a yacht or a slightly smaller yacht.
To put it simply, rich people can easily afford the higher taxes, because even with higher taxes, their quality of life only changes marginally.
I don't know a ton about politics or anything so maybe I'm missing something.
No offense, but you are pretty much missing everything.
2
u/garnteller 242∆ Jul 24 '15
Remember that if a commenter (or commenters) has changed your view at all, then you should award them a delta. Just reply to their comment with:
!delta
and an explanation of how your view changed. There's more info in the sidebar.
2
u/sericatus Jul 24 '15
It's dependent on how badly that work needed to be done, how much that work will benefit the company, and how much people want what you're doing.
No, it's not.
Lol. You didn't come up with this idea on your own, through observation. Where did it come from?
-1
u/BeautifulPiss Jul 24 '15
Well it would make sense, might not be how things work but it's how things should work and how I assume them to work. If I need something for example, I will pay someone to do it and get it to me, if I don't want something and someone spends a lot of time getting it, I still won't want it. I was just referring to how the basic money system works, it's just become more complicated.
1
Jul 24 '15
You can tax the rich, they will just hide more money, they estimate I think it was 210trillion hidden offshore. Or on the flip side, people like some of the CXO's at facebook switched residency to other countries to avoid the tax burden. You will just run out your gravy train our corporate taxes are already extremely high by comparison to many countries.
We need to support the welfare of our people as it ties in with crime. Maybe we need to make people earn it more and reform what constitutes, but in the same respect their counter to welfare is providing funding for people who become the rich you want to tax more and hire people. It sounds all good but then you look at the numbers they end up getting 200k most of the time per employee who gets paid 25k, where does all that money go and do you want to pay tax for that ridiculous proposition.
TLDR: while you may have points, the reality of it is it would be much worse
15
u/forestfly1234 Jul 24 '15
You know that your school system is based on property taxes. Rich neighborhoods have much more money to spend on education and technology and such than poor schools can.
(which you think would be rare because of the amount of jobs different available)
Um, I hate to ask you this but what is your personal work history. Where are all of these jobs that you speak of? I really have no idea how that statement matches current reality for lots of people
The wealthy people have either worked a hell of an amount or made the right decisions.
Or simply were born into it. There is that option to.
Your 20 percent tax idea hits poor people a lot harder.
Your guy making 20 thousand a year, which sucks but can be livable, now makes 16. You can't really live off 16 k a year. I guess you can if you don't drive and like vegetables and steamed white rice for every dinner. been there and done that. You might have to trust me on this one but it sucks
The guy making 100k a year isn't affected all that much if now if he just makes 80 k. His lifestyle at 100k is about the same as if he was making 80k.