Question I want Answered
I'm looking for a moral argument for why the government should be allowed to take money from tax paying citizens (in a progressive tax system, the rich in particular) and give it to domestic "poor". Why or Why Not.

Irrelevant and Distracting Questions I Don't Want Answered
By poor I simply mean a group typically defined as "deserving" or "in need". I'm not looking for a semantical argument on what we mean by "poor". We would argue forever and never get to my question. If you want, then you can avoid the problem of trying to define poor and generalize my question. Should the government be allowed to take money from one group of Americans and give it to another.

The form of aid is also irrelevant for this question. That would be a secondary question. After we agree the government should help the poor (or group X), then we would like to know how best to do it. That might be educational assistance, cash payments, food stamps, whatever. My question is fundamental, should the government try to help the poor in the first place.

8/17/2005 5:48:54 PM

From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

(and no one here is going to write your fucking paper for you, slacker... )

[Edited on August 17, 2005 at 6:01 PM. Reason : j/k ]

8/17/2005 6:00:30 PM

Quote :

"I'm looking for a moral argument for why the government should be allowed to take money from tax paying citizens (in a progressive tax system, the rich in particular) and give it to domestic "poor". Why or Why Not."

Quote :

"After we agree the government should help the poor"

Objection! Begging the question.

8/17/2005 6:01:16 PM

“We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of public money.”
—Col. David Crockett, Congressman (1827-1835)

8/17/2005 6:05:24 PM

^ he also got killed by mexicans. MEXICANS! Either he was lucky enough to find the only Mexican not asleep or drunk, or he was the worst soldier of all time.

But seriously, WHY shouldn't we provide government aid to the poor?

8/17/2005 6:17:52 PM

Because doing so at the Federal level violates the constitution and is therefore illegal.
Because doing so at the State level encourages companies to seek tax havens.
Because doing so through charities makes liberals fear they are being cheated because some of us are not contributing.

As such, why don't you get us started so we can see where you leave off?

8/17/2005 6:22:22 PM

The only reason it would be permissible would be that it benefits the whole country and not just the individual, which I generally take to be true.

Poverty causes bad things that no one likes (aside from just being a bad thing that no one likes), namely crime. Reducing poverty is reducing crime.

Also, a country's success is to a large extent judged by the success of its citizens.

8/17/2005 6:24:59 PM

Given a similar situation, with albeit totally different circumstances, lets look at the implications

Socks and AxlBonBach are in the same History class.

During the second week of classes, AxlBonBach's grandfather dies, forcing him to miss school, and thus get behind on work, and late in turning in papers. Additionally, AxlBonBach had never taken a history course before, and thus was inexperienced to be able to get by off of prior knowledge of the subject. Furthermore, AxlBonBach likes to spend his free time doing whatever doesn't involve schoolwork: parties, women, drugs, and overall just general slacking.

On the opposite hand, Socks'' knew alot about History, as his Mother is a museum curator, and he spent his summers growing up learning the ins and outs of our forefathers. Also, Socks'' is a very dedicated student, foregoing much of his "funtime" and focusing on his studies, as he knows that the harder he works, the more he is guaranteed to be successful in that class. He never misses a day, and busts his butt to get assignments and papers in on time.

At the end of the semester, AxlBonBach receives a 70 for the course. Socks'' recieves a perfect 100. The Professor extends the offer to give each student an 85, B-, to help AxlBonBach out, taking 15 points from Socks'' grade and adding them to AxlBonBach's.

So as you see, this "Robin Hood" notion is as unfair to Socks'' as the raw deal that AxlBonBach's experiences.

In the end, it doesn't really solve much, it just fucks both parties, especially on as large a scale as economics.


hope that helps.

8/17/2005 6:29:50 PM

^horrible

how much time did you spend on that?

for starters poor people wouldn't be the equivalent of a 70, they'd be a 20. and if Socks were a member of the Walton family (which it seems like you make him, born into the right family, afforded everything to help his command of capitalism, in your case, history) then Socks would make a perfect 100, right?

then the teacher says, hey, my dept. head is looking at this, so to help myself, im going to even it out a little.

of course he must even it out to some number he thinks is fair. you say 85, but that would be a CEO of a small company or doctor. lets be realistic and say 45. then he'd give you 20 of Socks' 100. Socks drops to a neurosurgen's wages, and you become middle class.

but in reality, YOUR HYPOTHETICAL FUCKING SUCKS BECAUSE IT IS TERRIBLY UNREALISTIC.

100,000 to a Walton (100 score) is nothing. to you (20 score) 100,000 can fix your entire life.

do you see how shitty yours is?

8/17/2005 6:38:47 PM

you're too detail oriented

i like your use of fuck though, very angry. let me guess, punk rock kid? almost emo, but not enough capitalization.

the point of the comparison was not for realism purposes, as far as the school situation would go. it's simply to show the unfairness of taking from one party to give to another, when one party is clearly more fortunate, and hardworking.

the point is, if a party wants to give to the less fortunate, fine. but should it be taken away? hell no.

now go take your ritalin, guy. you're a little off kilter.

8/17/2005 6:47:21 PM

back-pedal

ad-hominem

back-pedal

back-pedal

ad-hominem

8/17/2005 6:53:02 PM

hahaha

ok can i play?

^^^

misunderstands argument

misunderstands argument

ad-hominem

can't see forest from trees

ad hominem

8/17/2005 6:54:55 PM

LoneSnark, Not a single one of them is a MORAL argument, so I wont argue against any of them because they miss the entire point of the thread.

GrumpyGOP, hmm so you're saying that a government policy is moral so long as everyone benifits (either directly or indirectly)? That brings three questions to my mind.

1) Since when does benifiting everyone make an action moral? Sounds like crude Utilitarianism to me.

2) If the action does helps everyone, why does the government have to force people to be "charitable"? Either you're saying that most people are too stupid to do whats good for them or they are irrational and don't follow thier own self interest.

3) Crime isn't universally experienced. In fact, "blue collar" crimes (murder, drug dealing, theft) are ussually concentrated in impoverished regions of the country. This means that the people recieveing the aid will also be the ones benifiting the most from the reduction in crime (assuming the causality of poverty -> crime is so true). That means benifits wont be proportional and many people might not "get their moneys worth".

AxlBonBach, thanks for answering my question so directly But I think you might be confusing something. Government aid doesn't necc. entail that we seek to make everyone equal (everyone has a B-). That would fall under how we implement helping the poor once we decide that we should.

But you are right, any grade redistribution might seem "unfair" to me just as your hardships are "unfair" to you. That's the conflict of the issue and the reason for this thread. So we have to ask, is it really unfair to me if you take some points from me and give them to someone else? How do we know?

The usual responce is that I "deserve" my grade, but do I really? I had more opportunities and help than Axl, so do I really deserve it? And when we consider the fact that I might not have free will, do I (or anyone) "deserve" anything? This is a very hard question.

8/17/2005 6:58:20 PM

well, i mean, it's the right thing to do, and those who do give should be rewarded (charitys/tax credits)

but it's not the right thing to be "forced"

because then you get into the question of "how much is enough?" and "what do we do to those who don't share?"

as any moral question, it spawns 1000 other moral questions

8/17/2005 7:02:49 PM

BECAUSE DIVERSITY BETTERS SOCIETY; WE NEED THE POOR

8/17/2005 7:03:00 PM

do you even know what ad hominem is? it's when i'm attacking you, instead of your argument.

calling your argument horrible and shitty adn terribly unrealistic is not ad hominem, especially not when i prove myself.
the entire bulk was ripping your argument apart, so that's not ad hominem, either.
and i'll argue saying that not enough time was spent on the argument isn't ad hominem, either.

oh, i understood your point alright, that's not the issue. i am talking about the example of your point. i'm sorry if you don't like that you wasted all that time on an unrealistic and not applicable hypothetical, which had no real bearing on the thread because it trivialized the situation.

8/17/2005 7:04:25 PM

first, i didnt waste my time on it, not so much as to take the time to type it out. i made some points, i got people talking. mission: accomplished.

second, "horrible" "how shitty yours is" and "your hypothetical fucking sucks" aren't direct attacks, no. they fit closer in with "snide indirect comments that aren't needed nor warranted." had you left those out, you're right, no ad hominem. but this as many things are in the eye of the interpreter. if i misunderstood, my bad. no harm, no foul.

however, to deduce something into more simple terms in other situations isn't trivializing it, IMO.

8/17/2005 7:09:14 PM

Quote :

"one party is clearly more fortunate, and hardworking."

but it isn't

if it were truly like your analogy, that is...

if anyone could be guaranteed to become rich just by working hard, and if all poor people were poor because they have slacked off their entire lives, then I wouldn't think giving money from one group to another be worthwhile

but it isn't

8/17/2005 7:11:36 PM

yes, but should that money be transferred, by force (taxation) from person to government to person?

or by choice (charity) from person to charity to person?

8/17/2005 7:13:05 PM

Quote :

""snide indirect comments that aren't needed nor warranted." "

i agree.

its frustrating to see someone comparing such an important issue as poverty to someone's grade, because i think that is trivializing the issue at hand.

but okay. we're cool.

8/17/2005 7:14:07 PM

if men could govern themselves, we wouldn't need government

8/17/2005 7:14:17 PM

I think people's right to an excess of luxury doesn't override other's people's right to a certain level of subsistence

8/17/2005 7:26:21 PM

Quote :

"I think people's right to an excess of luxury doesn't override other's people's right to a certain level of subsistence"

and yet, in general, if you work hard enough, you will be guaranteed that certain level of subsistence... you might not be rich, but you won't be destitute...

8/17/2005 7:35:26 PM

I would like to throw in this bit of insight. Ignore it if you'd like. My boyfriend used to work security in the middle of the night at Harris Teeter Cameron Village and Harris Teeter Plaza West. At Plaza West, there were a lot of people who came in who were on EBT, the new debit-card form of food stamps. Many of these people who were using EBT were also yapping away on expensive cell phones, had fancy rims on their cars, and/or were using EBT cards that had been reported stolen.

And lets not forget Ol' Dirty Bastard, who "took two of his thirteen children by limousine to a New York State welfare office to pick up his welfare check while his latest album was still in the top ten of the US charts." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ol'_Dirty_Bastard)

For these reasons, I do not support taking money from tax paying citizens and giving it to domestic "poor" in practice. Sorry if there isn't any moral reasoning there, I don't really know what a moral argument for this topic would be. I assume that it would deal with the theoretical, ideal application of social welfare, but I see too much corruption in the actual programs to be able to decide if it would be worth it in theory.

My two cents.

8/17/2005 7:36:05 PM

what's excess?

8/17/2005 7:39:29 PM

as much as I hate the corruption inherent in the system, that is a horrible reason to try and say that the gov't shouldn't help the poor. There is only one scenario where it would be valid logic to say so: that you could prove that said corruption was inevitable and unavoidable. The simple fact is that, on the whole, the problems you have seen are not 100% there across the board. You just simply notice those people because they piss you off, while the other umpteen people on EBTs just pass on by without you even batting an eyelash.

Yes, its maddening that my tax dollars effectively pay for some ghetto kid's reeboks. At the same time, it is possible that said reeboks give that kid some meaning to his life, and while its pathetic that the kid derives meaning from a pair of shoes, I don't think its the gov'ts job to tell that kid otherwise. Yes, if we can ascertain that giving aid via the gov't to the poor is acceptable, then the argument would then turn to how to regulate it to prevent corruption and abuse.

8/17/2005 7:43:51 PM

Quote :

"as much as I hate the corruption inherent in the system, that is a horrible reason to try and say that the gov't shouldn't help the poor. There is only one scenario where it would be valid logic to say so: that you could prove that said corruption was inevitable and unavoidable."

And I don't think that we COULD do it without corruption. So, fundamentally, I am in your only scenario for not helping the poor. Also, this is _my_ reason for not currently supporting welfare, whether you think it's horrible or not.

Quote :

"The simple fact is that, on the whole, the problems you have seen are not 100% there across the board. You just simply notice those people because they piss you off, while the other umpteen people on EBTs just pass on by without you even batting an eyelash."

I am well aware of the people who use it who are not abusing the system and are well within the government's definition of 'needy,' but I don't necessarily agree with their poverty level, thus giving rise to further concerns regarding whether the welfare systems in place are reasonable. However, the question was specifically not about our definition of poverty, so I was going to leave all that out in the first post. But since you had to go and accuse me of only seeing the bad, there is your response.

Quote :

"Yes, its maddening that my tax dollars effectively pay for some ghetto kid's reeboks. At the same time, it is possible that said reeboks give that kid some meaning to his life, and while its pathetic that the kid derives meaning from a pair of shoes, I don't think its the gov'ts job to tell that kid otherwise."

Tax dollars in the form of welfare are not meant to give meaning to anyone's life. Welfare should, in theory, simply maintain the recepient's life.

8/17/2005 8:02:58 PM

Quote :

"1) Since when does benifiting everyone make an action moral? Sounds like crude Utilitarianism to me. 2) If the action does helps everyone, why does the government have to force people to be "charitable"? Either you're saying that most people are too stupid to do whats good for them or they are irrational and don't follow thier own self interest. 3) Crime isn't universally experienced. In fact, "blue collar" crimes (murder, drug dealing, theft) are ussually concentrated in impoverished regions of the country. This means that the people recieveing the aid will also be the ones benifiting the most from the reduction in crime (assuming the causality of poverty -> crime is so true). That means benifits wont be proportional and many people might not "get their moneys worth"."

1) Morality is usually my secondary concern when talking about government actions, with my first concern being whether or not it fits in with what I perceive the purpose of government to be. (I can't wait for someone to scream, "OMFabortion!!!1") In a way I guess those are the same -- if the government is doing what it is supposed to do, it's falling into the "good" category.

That said, calling it names doesn't make it wrong; many moralities seem to have aspects of "crude utilitarianism." Still, the term doesn't really describe my argument, which was roughly:

a) Prosperity of people more or less = prosperity of the country
b) One of government's purposes = safeguarding and promoting prosperity of the country (for a variety of reasons)
c) Reduction of poverty = reduction of crime (ie, protecting the innocent)
d) "Protecting the innocent" = good under pretty much any moral system I've run into

2) Which dilemma is this? I never can keep them straight. People are rational, which is precisely why they realize that if everyone else is charitable and they aren't, then they come out ahead -- they get all the benefits of being charitable with none of the costs. They had to contribute nothing. Meaning that each individual's motivation is to not be particularly charitable. On the flipside, if nobody is charitable, why should any one person be? Then they get all the costs and none of the benefits. That's dumb.

3) The upper classes may be victims of less in terms of crime, but they pay more in terms of fighting it under the current circumstances. Crime goes down, need for police funding goes down, taxes go down -- more for the rich than for the poor. I never claimed that everyone would benefit equally, either, just like I never cared whether or not they would.

[Edited on August 17, 2005 at 8:19 PM. Reason : None of this is to say that I support or reject any part of the current system, by the way]

8/17/2005 8:17:44 PM

I totally agree, we should trust people to be charitable enough to eliminate the need for welfare.

Also, we should trust people to be nice enough to eliminate the need for the police.

8/17/2005 8:29:32 PM

Quote :

"Tax dollars in the form of welfare are not meant to give meaning to anyone's life. Welfare should, in theory, simply maintain the recepient's life."

we could put them all in death camps! did i say death camps? i meant happy camps!

8/17/2005 8:32:05 PM

Hi, I believe that abortions are wrong but I disagree with giving money to feed poor children.

8/17/2005 8:35:07 PM

“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
—James Bovard (1994).

8/17/2005 8:47:17 PM

Quote :

"I'm not looking for a semantical argument on what we mean by "poor". We would argue forever and never get to my question."

8/17/2005 8:57:57 PM

My problem with "welfare" as people generally understand it (just giving money to poor people) is that it doesn't generate any benefit to the country or the majority of its citizens. With few exceptions, the people benefitting under such a system are not going to ever escape poverty or any of its trappings, and they aren't going to starve to death without it, either.

You maintain shelters for those who don't have homes and you make those shelters a notch above deplorable so that nobody would want to stay there. You make low-quality (but sufficient) food available to those who need it. You make a bare-bones education available to everybody and a higher level to those who have demonstrated a capacity to really benefit from it.

I've referred several times to "eradicating poverty," but that doesn't mean I think we're gonna do it. I feel that we'll get rid of more of it, albeit gradually, using the means I described in the above paragraph, than we would be outright giving money to people for any substantial period of time.

8/18/2005 1:37:17 AM

Quote :

"Many of these people who were using EBT were also yapping away on expensive cell phones, had fancy rims on their cars, and/or were using EBT cards that had been reported stolen."

By this line of reasoning, all priests should be shunned from society because some of them molest children.

The fact that a few people abuse the system doesn't mean the intent should be abandoned.

What I'd like to personally see is an emphasis on job training and education. Make training available to learn job skills. Make higher education free to all of those who demonstrate the ability, much like the Hope Scholarship program.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 1:50 AM. Reason : ]

8/18/2005 1:49:40 AM

A lot of successful people dont consider the possibility that they themselves could end up being one of "the needy".

I see welfare as livelihood insurance - in the highly unlikely event that somehow lose my ability to financially sustain myself (e.g. I lose my "barely make ends meet" job), welfare is there to help me out while I regain financial responsibility.

8/18/2005 2:30:43 AM

Quote :

"well, i mean, it's the right thing to do, and those who do give should be rewarded (charitys/tax credits) but it's not the right thing to be "forced" because then you get into the question of "how much is enough?" and "what do we do to those who don't share?""

now see, when i make this argument about taxes, I get raped over it.

just thought i'd point that out.

why is it that we shouldn't be forced to help the poor, but should be forced to pay for the military? If I had my choice, I'd give the military nothing and give all my donations/taxes/whatever to environmental and social causes.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 7:06 AM. Reason : .]

8/18/2005 7:06:04 AM

The over-wealming majority of Americans go their entire lives without once being on welfare. To these Americans, the safety net consisted solely of unemployment insurance, something even Donald Trump has partaken in.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 7:38 AM. Reason : .]

8/18/2005 7:37:29 AM

I WONT PUNISH YOU B/C YOU'RE RICH!

DONT PUNISH ME B/C IM POOR!

8/18/2005 8:21:30 AM

giving taxpayers' money to the poor is wrong, because there are more categories than "rich" and "poor"

if you only taxed those making 7 figures a year for the purposes of aiding the less fortunate, yeah, they probably wouldnt miss it.

but the fact is, those taxes come from your average blue collar worker more than anyone else.

its easy to say someone making 50k a year is doing alright and can afford it. but what about 30k? or less?

i mean, average joe working for the city making 25k a year i promise you is gonna need every penny he can keep. and who's to say some guy who doesnt feel like working, but receives a total of about 20k(made that up, correct me if im wrong) a year from combinations of welfare, EBT, housing, etc. benefits is more deserving than the guy who busts his ass all day every day?

and do you think average joe has spinners on his geo prism? how do you think he feels about lazy nonworker having an escalade on his dime?

8/18/2005 10:24:07 AM

the country would become socially/economically polarized without some sort of negative feedback loop.

so, yes, in concept. the details are where it gets tricky. and just because our current welfare system is crap doesnt mean the whole concept is crap

8/18/2005 10:38:04 AM

GrumpyGOP

To avoid a quote bombing contest i'm just going to respond to your first point (since it's the only one relevant to this thread). But I would recomend checking out Gary Becker's paper "Crime and Punishment" to further your understanding of the causes of crime (it isn't as simple as you think, and Becker hardly has the last word either).

Quote :

"1) Morality is usually my secondary concern when talking about government actions, with my first concern being whether or not it fits in with what I perceive the purpose of government to be. (I can't wait for someone to scream, "OMFabortion!!!1") In a way I guess those are the same -- if the government is doing what it is supposed to do, it's falling into the "good" category. That said, calling it names doesn't make it wrong; many moralities seem to have aspects of "crude utilitarianism." Still, the term doesn't really describe my argument, which was roughly: a) Prosperity of people more or less = prosperity of the country b) One of government's purposes = safeguarding and promoting prosperity of the country (for a variety of reasons) c) Reduction of poverty = reduction of crime (ie, protecting the innocent) d) "Protecting the innocent" = good under pretty much any moral system I've run into "

Utilitarianism isn't a bad word, it's just a school of philosophy that your post seems to fit in.

"my first concern being whether or not it fits in with what I perceive the purpose of government to be"

This requires ethical evaluations for what the government should do. So far, your opinion of what the government should do seems to be policies that maximizes the "welfare" or "happiness" or "well being" of a nation's citizens. Does that sound right?

8/18/2005 12:05:12 PM

"It is precisely because the force of circumstances tends always to destroy equality that the power of legislation must always tend to maintaing equality . . .It is therefore one of the main functions of government to prevent an extreme inequality of wealth, not by taking fortunes away from their owners, but by depriving everyone of the means for accumulating fortunes; not by building hospitals for the poor, but by assuring that the citizens will not become poor."

--Jean-Jacques Rousseau

it takes more than just throwing money at the problem, esp. in this country. like aaronburro said, anyone who's willing to work in the u.s. can more or less make a living. for a long-term solution applicable to people all over the world, we'll have to take a long, hard look at and revise our political/economic philosophy.

8/18/2005 4:09:31 PM

Because Jesus told us to.

But seriously...I can think of a practical argument. Give money to the poor so they won't have to steal but only enough to keep them happy while they're cleaning our toilets.

Moral argument for government charity? Hmmmmm... Morally, it is wrong to let your fellow man suffer when a solution is possible.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 4:16 PM. Reason : sss]

8/18/2005 4:15:57 PM

no

unless i'm without a job

... then yes

8/18/2005 4:17:14 PM

Perhaps: instead of being directly involved in "welfare", the g0vt should only give "aid" to private organizations (private schools, churches, private hospitals, other private charities, etc.) that, in turn, give "aid" to the "poor". Make private entities the "middle-man" rather than corrupt and unaccountable g0vt bureaucracies.

Moral reasons, however, are tricky because morality is relative (to most).

When socialists say, "If someone/something is capable of helping the poor, then they are morally obligated to do so." to justify g0vt welfare, they're missing something. The only reason the g0vt is able to "help the poor" is because they "steal" individuals' hard-earned money. Even if we're saying that this Robin Hood-ism is morally permissible, or even a moral obligation, that still doesn't explain why the g0vt should be directly involved in welfare programs when it could simply assist already existing private organizations that perform the same job, and probably with more efficiency and accountability, too.

8/18/2005 4:39:11 PM

Quote :

"why is it that we shouldn't be forced to help the poor, but should be forced to pay for the military? "

because the poor aren't able to save our asses when the commies invade.

8/18/2005 4:47:21 PM

much of our military is the poor.

8/18/2005 4:49:28 PM

The Peasant Revolt, the Bolshevik Revolution, the storming of the Bastille...I think the poor and hungry can kick some ass when the time comes.

8/18/2005 4:52:14 PM

nutty, don't you mean much of our military is the ex-poor?

Because in fayetteville you can always recognize the new privates because of the spinners on their brand new SUVs and sports cars. They were purchased entirely on credit, but these are no longer poor people.

8/18/2005 5:01:07 PM