<p>The barely working-class gentleman that works three jobs to support his family surely got himself there through his lack of work ethic. He should have worked harder to be born middle-class or better.</p>
<p>It's not a story people, it's a joke. I've read it on a Conservative forum and my AP Euro teacher said the same joke last year. You guys are taking this way too seriously lol.</p>
<p>Maybe its time we stop looking at the Constitution as irrelevent?</p>
<p>As for Alchemy's point, that's true. That's my father's situation. That having been said, that's life. His sacrifices have made mine and my brother's educations possible.</p>
<p>This sounds more like communist ideal to me rather than democrat. But you did state 'liberal democrat" so I'll ignore it but... I don't know. Everybody financiall equal thing never works out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not a story people, it's a joke. I've read it on a Conservative forum and my AP Euro teacher said the same joke last year. You guys are taking this way too seriously lol.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Conservatives aren't that stupid/lame. This story gets a thumbs down.</p>
<p>^ I'm dead serious. It's a joke. I can refer you to the link where I found the joke.</p>
<p>Extremely dated joke/story/whatever you want to call it.</p>
<p>It's a joke, but it has a point, too.</p>
<p>I think we all realize that this is just a joke; its quite obvious.
We're just trying to look a little deeper into the situation.</p>
<p>
The ultimate aim isn't to bridge the gap between rich and poor, but to give the poor opportunities to participate in our capitalist country. It is not merely "income redistribution" in which they are written a check for nothing. Also, this money should not all come from the rich; yes, it should come partially from the poor, and it should also come from all of the money the government is pouring into Iraq...hah (but that's another issue). Surprisingly, in my state, the most money goes to the poorest school districts, but the money is completely squandered and the schools still left in ruins. Obviously there are other issues besides "lack of funds" that create inequality, which is why merely throwing money at poor people and poverty-ridden neighborhoods in the form of welfare and pre-paid benefits is the wrong way to manage a problem. Of course that is a liberal's favorite way of doing things.
</p>
<p>I would like to make clear the fact that I don't think of income redistribution as the rich man writing the poor man a check for nothing; I already said that in my previous post. By income redistribution, I mean the bridging of the gap between the rich and the poor.</p>
<p>I asked you what end you had in mind when you said that we should start entrepreneurship programs and improve education, was it bridging the rich/poor gap?
You said no, the aim is to let the poor be a part of the capitalist country. Ok, now once again I am asking you the same question. Why should we encourage the poor to partake capitalistic ventures? Isn't the ultimate answer to uplift the financial situation of the poor, hence bridging the rich/poor gap?</p>
<p>And one point I would like to raise is regarding where the money for this would come from. Money for this would come from the taxes. Taxes come from the rich people to a large extent; and the amount of tax one pays decreases as his income decreases. If you say that the Iraq money should have been used for development, I agree with you 100%, but didn't the Iraq money also come from the same place?</p>
<p>To recap: I agree that we should be educating people, instituting entrepreneurship programs for the poor, etc.
Where I disagree:
1. The purpose of these programs; I think that it is ultimately to bridge the rich/poor gap.
2. The funding for these programs; This comes from taxes, mostly paid by rich people.</p>
<p>This story would apply to the real world if the poor chose to be poor, but that's not the case.</p>
<p>It definitely has a point. I also like Professor Kamerschen's story. It rings true from what I have seen.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't the ultimate answer to uplift the financial situation of the poor, hence bridging the rich/poor gap?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, no. I would say it is to give the poor person the opportunity to improve his financial situation, that is, to some extent start everyone at the same line in the race. Ultimately there will be very rich and very poor, but in an ideal world the very poor would be there because they deserve to be there. That will of course never happen...but lengths should still be taken in pursuit of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Taxes come from the rich people to a large extent; and the amount of tax one pays decreases as his income decreases
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe in tax cuts for the rich, because I don't believe rich people should pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes than poor people. I believe even with a flat income tax, rich people will still pay a disproportionately large sum of their money towards taxes, when you factor in such things as taxes on property.</p>
<p>You've also got to consider that fiscal policy is not the only thing that separates Democrats and Republicans. That story made a weak attempt at justifying Republicans' distaste for the redistribution of wealth but it did little to rationalize their social agenda which for many is hugely important.</p>
<p>^Bah, word about Republican's crap social agenda. </p>
<p>Isn't libertarian fiscally conservative, socially liberal? I guess I'm a libertarian.</p>
<p>
Again, no. I would say it is to give the poor person the opportunity to improve his financial situation, that is, to some extent start everyone at the same line in the race. Ultimately there will be very rich and very poor, but in an ideal world the very poor would be there because they deserve to be there. That will of course never happen...but lengths should still be taken in pursuit of it.
</p>
<p>I'm sorry, I'm still not able to understand this particular point you're trying to make. You say that you want to give all people the opportunity to improve their financial status, start everyone at the same line (in a race). </p>
<p>But don't we make sure everyone starts at the same point to make sure that potentially everyone has the opportunity to finish quickly (barring intrinsic qualities such as strong legs, etc.). In this case, so that everyone can potentially be well off (financially), except for those who don't deserve to be.
So when this potentiality has been attained, we have achieved income redistribution have we not?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But don't we make sure everyone starts at the same point to make sure that potentially everyone has the opportunity to finish quickly (barring intrinsic qualities such as strong legs, etc.). In this case, so that everyone can potentially be well off (financially), except for those who don't deserve to be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah. The issue I had with your earlier statement was you kept saying "bridge the [financial] gap between rich and poor" as if the whole point was that there was supposed to be less poor people. There's still going to be a lot of very poor people and a lot of very rich people, and that's how it should be. This new statement you make is very different from your earlier ones in the wording.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So when this potentiality has been attained, we have achieved income redistribution have we not?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not the typical definition of income redistribution, which is: "The basic premise of the redistribution of wealth is that money should be distributed so it benefits all members of society, and that the rich should be obliged to assist the poor. Thus, money should be redistributed from the rich to the poor, creating a more financially egalitarian society." Therefore income redistribution is "Robin Hood style".</p>
<p>I think we agree in principle on a lot of points. You're just not abiding by classic definitions (lol - a.k.a wikipedia in this case ;)).</p>
<p>Read "Atlas Shrugged"</p>
<p>The false analogy is that work in college = good GPA. Work IRL doesnt necessarily = good $$. The hardest working are often the poorest. Better public education and dropping inner city "values" (crime, drugs, sex..) would make the playing field much more equal. AA would become unneccessary...
Education and intellegence seems generally frowned upon in the inner cities and rural areas. Its not "cool" to be smart.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe in tax cuts for the rich, because I don't believe rich people should pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes than poor people. I believe even with a flat income tax, rich people will still pay a disproportionately large sum of their money towards taxes, when you factor in such things as taxes on property.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A flat tax rate nears more eqaul propertions paid. (Assuming ones property is a fixed % of their income)</p>
<p>Haha... I'll agree with some of the others in that this is a trite analogy, but still a fun read regardless.</p>