But to what extent are inequities wrong. For example, if there are two men, one who’s standard of living increased by 50% each and one who’s standard of living increased 5% each year.
I don’t believe that welfare is efficient care for the poor. It is efficent care for political power. I don’t believe Jesus is calling us to ensure that politicans can pose as saviors at election time while creating a culture of dependency, or worse.
It has been reinvented from time to time but it’s interesting that Rome’s bread and circuses was based on booty from foreign conquest, the spoils of war. Modern welfareism is the spoils of class warfare.
It’s great to see such a vibrant discussion. I hope that Pope Francis will clarify himself at some point.
Seeing that it took over an hour to figure out that the Pope resigned, we’ve recreated the Tower of Babel indeed.
Sure, in the case of Kaldor-Hicks optimality it would be hard to claim that either party to complain much from an efficiency standpoint.
Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean that it is a problem. Why do you believe that “Ensuring that resources are distributed equally is an important economic and moral goal.”
I think you’re misreading my comments. Obtaining perfect equality is not the goal: ensuring that inequality lies within a manageable, socially acceptable range is.
Totally unworkable. abolish banks and interest? and how do you “distribute” the property already owed by large corporations and individuals. Although it claims to protect private property it envisions vast co-ops where everybody “pools” their property and works together for the common good. Of course as you note you can never get a straight answer as to what is is-but , like most of my college terms papers, it sounds great!
Read Pope Benedict’s encyclical “Deus Caritas Est” specifically paras 21-35.
If we rely on the State do redistribute, all we end up with is bitterness and resentment on the part of those from whom wealth is taken, and where the poor feel no gratitude, for it is perceived as an entitlement. Do we not see this today? Is there not bitterness on the part of those from whom wealth is taken, and how much gratitude is shown on the part of the recipients towards the sources of the wealth?
What is “socially acceptable” is a matter of fashion and taste, not moral imperative. We know from history that inequality was particularly unacceptable in the Soviet Union, for example. The more envy is socially accepted the less social acceptance of inequality.
You’re still missing the main thrust of my point: that we should care about the efficient distribution of wealth as a moral / social issue, and that eliminating inequality is not the goal. Finding a morally responsible distribution of resources in a society is.
My point is that the entire enterprise of pursuing a “morally responsible distribution of resources in a society” is a red herring and leads to immorality.
And how do you recommend this distribution be carried out?
It’s not an “either/or” situation.
The purpose of charity is not the redistribution of wealth, it is not intended to dent the Gini coeficient.
In fact, you can.
Very good Brendan:thumbsup:
I think a national VAT tax would be a good start. We should separate revenue generation from wealth redistribution. By capturing taxes more efficiently, we can simultaneously lower them. Tax code reform to make it simpler to understand. Creating an exception to the capital gains tax for executive compensation so that corporate bonuses that are vested are treated as income.
It is absurd that we waste tax payer dollars splitting up good-natured families over immigration because of some “exact” principle and this ridiculous “war on drugs”.
