Forum Post: Effects of capital gains tax on income inequality (Infographic made by an OWSer)
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 10, 2011, 10:13 a.m. EST by BrianRogel
(30)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The connection is very easy to see: http://www.brianrogel.com/capital-gains-tax-rate-income-inequality
It would appear stability at about 25%... so capital gains should be at 25%
Yeah, there are a few factors to consider but 24-27% seems to be a good range to target
Id like to run an econ analysis so does anyone have the data in .xml or excel? Or another statistical program?
The capital gains tax should be increased on short term traders, any equity/asset held for less than a certain time period should have to pay high capital gains taxes, and any equity or asset held for longer than 2 years should have low capital gains tax. Markets function better when there are more players looking out on a longer term horizon, not treating the stock market as if its a casino.
how so? Whats the economic logic behind that?
Lets take a look at the simple EMH (efficient market hypothesis).
In a strong form efficient market, prices are fully reflected of all public and private information instantaneously.
So if we want the most efficient market, that is, a market that reflects the true intrinsic value, why would we drive a wedge (tax) between information and people acting on that information?
The law of unintended consequences....
this chart is hard to read. i'm not sure if the trend line metric chosen is valuable or how strongly the capital gains rate is even the problem anyway, it is not as if anything else in the world remained static along this timeline. i think the overall problem has a lot less to do with taxes and a lot more to do with crony capitalism. ie. military industrial complex, ie. agriculture subsidies, ie. scammy student loan system, etc.
BR, this is a good graph. That being said, I'm not a fan of our debt-bias tax system at all: there's a tax for earning a living and earning interest, but there's incentive to hold mortgage debt? Who's idea is that?! Oh, right, we're noticing bank corruption.
There are definitely a lot of things that don't make sense. Many banks offer high interest rate accounts that require large minimum balances. At the same time they will charge a fee to people who's normal account balances aren't high enough (Ever receive a $35 charge for over-drafting $1.25?).
Essentially, people who have a lot of money are rewarded with more money while people who have very little amount of money get penalized by having money taken away. This type of scenario can be seen in many different areas of the economy. It's one of the reasons why policies like top marginal capitals gains tax need to maintain a high enough level to insure our economy doesn't become so imbalanced that it collapses.
I've been in Prime Brokerage for 10 years and here's the reason for this pitiful 'fee the poor' tactic: banks steal; the public complains; legislators hand down costly regulation - banks pass the compliance costs on to the end user: the 99%. The very wealthy pay way more in fees, dollar-wise (futures contracts have a 12% rip) but those sorts of investments are not available in regular retail-investment channels. If OVERSIGHT was effective, the base costs for doing business would be lower. The US is a difficult to do business with because of the legislative rigamarole. That's what so attractive about the hedge fund business - light regulation, high risk/reward. Regulation is expensive and a significant drag on the under 100k a year crowd. Light regulation plus proactive oversight equals more money in your pocket.
I have had this open in my browser window for days, and share the link often:
http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
Thanks, I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. Educating people with the facts and creating workable solutions is going to be the best way to succeed with the movement.
Thanks for adding this, didn't realize I could embed the actual picture onto the thread
Capital gains tax is immoral- to hell with it
This chart shows capital gains tax increases and decreases both before, during, and after both increases and decreases in income disparity.
Also I don't know why income disparity is considered some sort of moral evil itself - nobody has ever been to describe why they feel it is.
You have to look at the percentages and not just the increases and decreases. When the capital gains tax rate hits a low point the income inequality spikes.
A stock market crash happens around the peak of each spike which has a historical tendency of being followed by a recession.
This isn't a moral argument, it's an economic argument. Very low capital gains tax rates lead stock market crashes and recessions.
The moral argument would be the implied "and a high income disparity is bad".
True, there's a moral side to it but I try to keep my arguments based on facts and economics. I find it easier to prove points when using statistics rather than my personal moral stance.
CAP sales profit , is both economic and moral
Well as far as "moral" goes, it depends on which system of morals one is drawing from. But in general, there is a theory that people should help each other out if they are more privileged than others. Increased income disparity is taken to mean that people with a lot of money are not using their monetary gains to help others. So it violates the "help each other out" code that supposedly exists between the well-to-do and those who struggle.
But should "help each other out" be codified in law or should be a societal and cultural pressure? Also to what degree? If I make 40k a year and donate 4k, and then I make 100K and donate 8k am I less good or more good - even though I am doing more good with it?
All very interesting questions. Most of codified law came from "common law" which was simply the way in which societies practiced everyday interaction with each other. Personally, I don't have any answers. Though I believe it is "moral" to help out others to the greatest extent possible, I know that often I myself fall short. How can I hold other people accountable if I haven't given as much as I possible could? Thats where I am now....
I also feel it is moral and that I owe a spiritual obligation to those less fortunate. I also understand that is immoral for me to force others to live as I choose to live or force them to act how I wish to act by the moral code I've chosen for myself.
Good discussion. Thank you.
Since this is based on the capital gains tax rate it's much more focused on finding an equilibrium point than about wealth redistribution. There's a balance when it comes to the capital gains tax rate. If it gets way too high it can stifle economic growth, but when it gets too low (roughly under 22%) it causes investment bubbles followed by stock market crashes and then an ensuing recession.
I find the idea of a capital gains tax itself to be horrifying - aside from the double taxation (capital gains and then income) we have the issue of taxing something that is already subject to risk. This dramatically decreases the reward side of the risk versus reward balance.
What causes investment bubbles is the artificial pressure that forces people into moving savings into investment which pushes risk and the manipulation of the interest rate which confuses signals as to future resources preferences and availability. Also - daytraders.
Relying on charity has failed, throughout history. Feudalism and the Gilded Age are ample proof. Those with the ability to help the vulnerable have, instead, on balance, exploited and abused them. Government has a moral mandate to promote the general welfare. That is key to the social contract. A government that ignores that mandate is illegitimate.
Government's only just function is the protection of every individual's rights. Charity in the modern world can hardly be compared to charity in Feudalism under entirely different economic, philosophical, and governing systems. Charity during the Gilded Age actually thrived. I invite you to look at the museum's, theaters, good works organizations, parks and many other things that carry the names of leading industrialists of the time and these are only the ones that have survived to this time.
The social contract is hardly a contract since a contract requires consent. Social Contract Theory is just a name given to a particular form of philosophy in order to make its adherents feel better about enforcing their morality on others through the barrel of a gun.
Sigh. This is why we get nowhere.
Radical antisocial ideology and nostalgia for the fucking Gilded Age.
And your emotional rant does nothing to show how the social contract is an actual contract. Its a phrase, a notion, a saying - that is all. It may be what you believe but forcing others to confirm to your morality by using force is no different that religious conversion at the point of a sword.
Also your attempt at character assassination is laughable. You have no idea who I am or how much or to whom I willingly donate my money and time.
You talk about morality in one breath, and then emotionless logical arguments in the next. The two are not compatible. Morality is not a function of reason alone. Emotion and intuition are important components to questions of morality.
When people see or experience injustice, they feel it in their bones. That is the reaction of a moral agent in the face of great inequality. A two-tiered system with an aristocratic elite lording over the peasant masses is immoral, and also a recipe for disaster. Moderate equality is a good and worthy goal, for moral and practical reasons. I'm sorry you don't see that.
I would provide all sorts of links about the negative societal impacts of inequality that affect rich and poor alike, but I know I can't reach you.
The two are compatible. One must start with a moral a priori and then pursue it logically. To not do so is to fundamentally not have a moral position.
You again assume that I find anyone Lording over another to be moral - I do not. Can you please drop the assumptions you're pushing such as "I'm sorry you don't see that." and "I know I can't reach you"?
You want a more moral world. So do I. You seem to believe you can get a more moral world through the use of force - as in forced redistribution of wealth. I don't find that the use of force plays any role in getting to a more moral world. Because I disagree with your desire to use force you project immorality on me. I believe you might just have a few moral contradictions of your own.
Wow Kant; duty and the categorical imperative, from an apparent objectivist. Really? You know Rand hated him, right? Sure, I make assumptions. Who doesn't? I don't really care to know you, anyway.
So yes the synthetic a priori probably related to the (emotional, intuitive, sense-experience, and unconscious reasoning) basis of values, but that was Kant going to a great deal of trouble to rational-ize the non-rational. It's square pegs and round holes. Hardly the point though.
I call it the social contract, you call it force. Locke and Rousseau did offer a way out of the social contract, and it remains: leave.
Without "force" we end up in the Gilded Age (cicular conversation). History is all the evidence I need that a laissez faire society is an unjust one.
Why do I care if Rand hated someone? I'm not an objectivist and even if I were an objectivist would seek their own happiness not care about having Rand's permission to like or dislike someone or some idea.
All moral positions (statements that indicate a correct course of outcome) are derived from some moral a priori statement known or unknown to the conscience mind. One cannot state a correct course of action without a goal relative to it to pursue.
How do you find it moral to impose your moral values on others through the use of violence (if you don't like the word force)? How do you support imposing your moral values on others through violence yet oppose others doing the same to you?
Leaving my property isn't an option, even if I try I would be subject to violence for doing so.
You support the use of violence to impose your beliefs on others. I do not.
You claim your system to be just but its based on nothing but intimidation, coercion, and the truncheon. All you have succeeded in doing is lying to yourself about how moral you are.
I don't agree that the social contract is violence or coercion. You consent by living in our society. Every time you leave your property (or, even expect that your right to property be enforced) you accept the protection of the state. When you use the commons, including roads, bridges, etc, you are consenting to the social contract. You consent every time you vote, or use a dollar bill. You consent when you purchase goods and services that are produced within our system of commerce, and with costs that are externalized to society and offset by government spending.
It would be coercion if it were not a democratic system that reflects the will of the majority. That the will of the majority is reflected less is the problem, and is why we're here. The law of then land is that the state rules at the consent of the governed, and that is the majority. There is nothing immoral about it. Immoral is the expectation that you should be free to ignore the suffering of others, and that society should be constrained by your self-serving ethics from addressing those concerns collectively. Charity doesn't cut it, as the past has shown us, and wealth does not trickle down. Ethical positions that produce immoral outcomes are worthless.
Minority rights are to be protected but nothing is absolute. Not property rights, nor liberty. That is the cost of living in a society. You may not turn your swimming pool into a toxic sludge pond, nor yell "fire" in a theater, nor expect to combine labor with our common resources for profit, without contributing to the shared prosperity.
So it is decided. You think it is unfair, because you didn't decide to be born in a society, to own land that is not fully sovereign. Life is not fair. It is more so here where your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are protected - just not to the extremes you expect.
You need to think about context when you consider the founders. Monarchy was to be replaced with democracy. returning to that should be our goal, not ceding further to a new oligarchy, the aristocracy of wealth and property.
How is it not violence or coercion? If I have never agreed to something I never enter into a contract. I've never heard it said that others can enter you into a contract by out numbering a person. I consent by living here - so I consent as happenstance of my birth? I don't think so - contracts require consent.
I consent when I use a dollar even though legal tender laws force me to use dollars or be arrested and fined? Here we encounter coercion so there can be no consent. I consent when I purchase goods? No I consent to trade only with the entity I am trading with - not anyone else let alone everyone else. Simply because others have chosen to spend for such costs I am bound by their choices? So if anyone spends for the benefit of anyone else - those others are bound to the terms set by the person spending? - Remind me to mail you a fruitcake this year so I can set terms of your existence.
Surely you see how absolutely mad your position becomes when actually examined?
The will of the majority? Again remind me how others can give consent on my behalf. How many people would it take to agree that you give consent for something because I'd like to sign you up for military service? The will of the majority said it was acceptable to have slaves for a while and to jail those of Japanese decent - I suppose those actions were just and it was acceptable because the consent was given by the will of the majority at the time? So how does one judge morality if it is determined by the majority - does that mean that slavery was indeed moral and just when it occurred?
I'll be glad to review what evidence you can provide to show that "charity doesn't cut it" but first your going to have to define an acceptable standard (the it that charity cuts) so we can compare all methods and find the one that best matches your standard.
How are minority rights protected in a system that only cares about the will of the majority? Nothing is absolute - so a return to slavery of the minority would be sadly acceptable if the majority agreed to it? Do you understand why we were a nation founded on a respect for rights and not the decisions of the majority. Have you ever heard the term "tyranny of the majority" before?
The point of a moral society is to always move towards "more fair". Once you've shrugged off something unfair and give advice to "deal with it" you've become a supporter of the status quo and have decided it is more important to you to live as things are, not shake things up, than it is to try to become more fair. As we are discussion moral philosophy this is also a cop out of debate - the purpose of philosophy is to determine right action - not compare it with what currently exists.
Monarchy was not being replaced with Democracy - read the Founder's they didn't want Democracy because it did not protect rights. The liberal movement was the idea that all humans have unalienable rights - it wasn't pro-democracy.
Really hadn't planned on keeping this up but you're a button pushing ideologue, Febs.
"The choices offered made people migrate "
Refugees.
"The middle class wouldn't have existed without the factory"
I'm not arguing against the factory, I'm arguing against the mindset that we need to go back to a time when the factory owner had absolute liberty to exploit workers and the system. Balance.
"Who cares how X's life seems to Y?"
Inequality is a cause for a sick society. It is objectively bad and morally wrong. A bifurcated society, which is where your policies take us (and have taken us, then and now), is unstable and unjust. If you haven't, please watch this lecture at this year's TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Balance.
"So your last paragraph argues against logic - and you think that is going to help your position?"
Yes, in the extreme, logic is bad. Logic alone is the path to absolute thinking. Absolute thinking is the way of the extremist. Balance.
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” - Albert Einstein
Re-read that last sentence. It was sarcastic and I've re-worded it.
you would have me. a man high on knowledge, moderate in temperament and low on money. but if you need some i still have two hundred dollars from a job i ended in june. i wouldn't suggest it; it don't pay that much. no?
You're a good soul Jesse, that I know. I am not sure what you're saying tho. :o)
if my soul is so good, why an't i rich?
Ok most people could migrate. We weren't a big refugee nation when we accepted all immigrants free of disease.
There was never a time when the owner had absolute liberty to exploit workers. It is a falsehood. First all that isn't how liberty works but to exploit anyone one needs two factors: 1. the use of force 2. an unwillingness of the law to stop the use of force. Since these require the consent of the state (to not protect the right of those being forced) giving more power to the state is not likely to correct this scenario. Balance is derived from the market and the yin yang balance of supply and demand - absent of force.
Inequality is not objectively bad - I will demonstrate by disagreeing with you therefore removing it from being objective. We are all born with in-equal strengths and weaknesses I am bad at art, I have bad knees, I have a keen intellect and good social skills. All of us are different and we do not need to be forced to be equal in order for us or our existence to be moral.
Also no the rise of the middle class was due to the creation of a large number of jobs with steady income which allowed the building of savings and investment. Deny steady income and you remove the ability to plan in the long term.
Logic is the process of going from truth to truth - nothing else. If you have a moral goal logic will help you become more moral.
Extremism isn't bad itself by the way. If a person wants to murder you (extreme) and you don't want to be murdered (the other extreme) the best decision is not to allow them to beat you into a coma ( a moderate compromise).
It's not force to perpetuate, or even stand by and accept, a system that offers people (including children) little choice but to work 100 hours a week just to survive in squalor. It's also not right.
Your argument basically comes down to "inequality is fine and good, it's the natural order of things, extremism in defense of this natural hierarchy is no vice."
This pretty well refutes everything you are saying about the middle class and savings, etc: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent It was government policy (and collective bargaining, but many would argue that's not a right - government had to make it one - or at least protect it from end-runs by the factory owners) that allowed for the rise of a middle class. Again, the gilded age: jobs and steady income did not create a middle class, it perpetuated and actually worsened the conditions for the working poor.
"Logic is the process of going from truth to truth"
There are unquantifiable truths.
"I will demonstrate by disagreeing with you therefore removing it from being objective"
Objective as in quantifiable. Hard data supports my position. That Wilkinson lecture is an example. I can only defend the objective part of my argument against inequality in this fashion. The moral part is intuitive, and you're missing something there I cannot give you, no matter how much logic I employ.
That was odd. I had to click eight times in order to reply here instead of the top of the thread...
How can it be "not right" when it is the best choice available at the time? You're talking as if the options we have today existed back then. They did not and we would not have them if we didn't have those options back then. Children throughout history were working and living in what we would now consider squalor. The factories allowed children to work in a more safe environment than farming (which is still one of the most dangerous occupations and in which young children are specifically exempted from many labor laws). It was a better situation for the parents and a better situation for the children. How could offering someone something that was better and that they could refuse possibly be morally wrong?
Collective bargaining is certainly a right as it is undertaken via the right of association and contract. I don't see anything in there disputing anything I've said. It had data yes but tries to force it into a moral premise I don't have. Which renders its impact meaningless to me. In order to be morally persuasive one must first agree on a common moral precept. Unions had their place within the market and the use of force by any agent is outside market interactions. It is the just job of every government to protect the rights of its people from force.
Hard data does not support your position.
I'm mad? You realize that over the course of 200+ years, your view is the extreme outlier, right? We don't have the minarchy you want, and we never did. It has indeed had times of being more laissez faire, and those were dark times. Workers fought long and hard over the last century for a better system, and you're all too happy to toss it away for some abstract ideal that is simplistic and rigid in the extreme.
We were given elected representation to 2 of the 3 branches of government. That is democracy. A republic where representation is determined by voting is a democracy. Rule by the many. We were given the ability to determine the laws and even change the constitution. This is majority rule, with constraints to slow the process and provide protection for the minority. It is as it was intended.
The social contract is not one person making you do anything. It is all of us making all of us contribute to the common good, because that is the most true expression of our natural right to self-determination.
Natural rights and the social contract: The social contract is undertaken with the understanding that in a society ruled by the consent of the governed, you will have a fuller expression of your natural rights than you would in a state of nature, making the small sacrifice in property and liberty that is required worthwhile, for the protection of the greater share of your liberties which the state (we) provides.
If you really hate what your fellow Americans believe and have projected into the public sphere, with regards what should be done with our common property and prosperity, you should perhaps reflect on your own thinking. I feel it likely you have antisocial tendencies, which seems to be a common thread amongst extreme libertarians. I am not saying this is the case. This is not an ad hom, but my honest opinion of what might be.
The biggest problems we've faced have had to do with too much liberty for wealth, too much deference to property. This government has been hijacked and you should share that concern with me. Insofar as it is not the collective will of the people "stealing" from you, but rather an oligarchic elite that has usurped democracy; we have real problems.
Moral society. Fair is only one aspect of morality. You're taking a rigid non-consequentialist ethical stance. There are many ways to look at morality. I happen to combine consequentialist/utilitarian thinking with Kantian and virtue ethics to find my happy balance. I find outcome to be very important. If 100% "fair" treatment leads to unfair, unjust outcomes - again like the Gilded Age, or the present travesty of inequality and what amounts to theft by the elite - then it is not a moral society even if it meets your criterion of "fair." There is far more to it than that. Let your emotional/intuitive right brain in on your philosophy man. You know better than to think a system that treats robber barons' and corporations' rights as sacrosanct while the middle class evaporates is not moral.
I'm not going to get into links about charity with you. Think about the charity of feudal masters or, again, robber barons, and how welll that panned out for people. Charity did not create the world's first majority middle class. Government policy on taxation, labor, fiscal issues, and the safety net, did.
An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy for a reason - you understand 1,000 years ago your argument would be "The world is round - well over the course of history your view is the extreme outlier". Popularity does not decide fact.
Please don't make assumptions about what I am "tossing aside" - lets discuss the issue on the merits not beliefs one ascribes to another. I don't see as "dark times" the greatest increase in the standard of living of humanity in the shortest period of time. I see it as a golden age. Coal and steel allowed trains to deliver goods faster so more food was available at lower cost at higher quality and higher choice with much less spoilage. Oil allowed the average person to gain a huge amount of personal mobility and increased opportunity. Factories allowed the production of materials at extremely low cost and high availability for all people the work allowed people to leave the most dangerous occupation (farming) where income fluctuated with weather and disease and get a steady income which allowed for financial planning - which allowed for higher education for their children. All of this is a sign of "dark times" to you?
Not entirely accurate. The popular vote does not elect the President and as originally designed only half of Congress is elected by the people (Senators were appointed by the States originally in order to have both the people and the States agree to surrender power to the Federal Government). I suggest you read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers as well as the many personal letters of the Founder's in order to understand that "rule by the many" was indeed explicitly not what the we were to be. To have the consent of the people yes - but not the mob rule of democracy, in fact no where near it.
It doesn't matter if it is one person using force or threatening another with it or if it is a mob. The use of aggressive force is immoral in and of itself. If I am mugged on the street by one person it is unjust, if it is a group of four it is unjust, if it is a group of 18 where one person takes a vote and 17 decide to mug me it doesn't make it just - it doesn't make it just if it is 200 2,000, or 2,000,000 people who agree with the mugging.
When one contracts with others to form a government the government can only undertake the powers and freedoms surrendered by each person. One cannot be forced to consent to an agreement of others. Social contract theory perverts the very idea of a contract. Consent is a requirement, not a nicety.
I'll try to keep this up later but I have to go to the dentist.
You could also be describing Dickens' England. Not dark? Are you kidding me? These were hopeless times for most. Only the captains of industry shared your view of it being a golden age. It was the age of breakaway uber-rich leaving squalid humanity behind.
You think it was a golden age for a factory worker or a sharecropper? Where was the middle class? Twain coined "Gilded Age" and it was a play on "golden age" meaning it was a shallow patina on what was definitely not golden. Check out:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/06/the-dark-side-of-the-gilded-age/6012/
and
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/gildedage.html
Excerpt:
'While the rich wore diamonds, many wore rags. In 1890, 11 million of the nation's 12 million families earned less than $1200 per year; of this group, the average annual income was $380, well below the poverty line. Rural Americans and new immigrants crowded into urban areas. Tenements spread across city landscapes, teeming with crime and filth. Americans had sewing machines, phonographs, skyscrapers, and even electric lights, yet most people labored in the shadow of poverty.
To those who worked in Carnegie's mills and in the nation's factories and sweatshops, the lives of the millionaires seemed immodest indeed. An economist in 1879 noted "a widespread feeling of unrest and brooding revolution." Violent strikes and riots wracked the nation through the turn of the century. The middle class whispered fearfully of "carnivals of revenge."'
A true golden age was the post-WWII years. Prosperity, shared by all.
The rest is more extremism, and more cold logic in place of human warmth. You want to be able to do whatever you want, without any societal constraints. You think anything else is violence of the mob. You and Ayn Rand... I'm done.
Most of human history has been "hopeless for most". We need to compare what existed then with the options they had - not with the options that exist now. The choices offered made people migrate to the best available at the time and those resulted in the growth which allows for what we have now.
The middle class wouldn't have existed without the factory and without sharecropping what next worst job would the sharecroppers have if any?
Yes the rich war diamonds - the rich in any society adorn themselves with signs of their wealth. The only difference is that there were more rich as wealth was being created. That isn't a bad thing. If the average income was 380 that can't be below the poverty line. Poverty is subjective so that would be average wealth not poor.
Who cares how X's life seems to Y? What matters is that the job one has provides a better position than what was previously offered and like it or not factory jobs were superior to old world farming jobs. The conditions don't have to be good they just have to be better than the alternative.
Yes there were strikes and good for them - that is part of the market system demand for labor against supply. The problem was and always is if one side decides to use force against another.
So your last paragraph argues against logic - and you think that is going to help your position? Its human warmth to want the best for people in the long run but you cannot let yourself be blinded by such short term focus and being temporally myopic.
Your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Violence of the mob is when the many decide for the few - its also the antithesis of Rand's writings which leads me to believe you're simply spouting catchphrases at things that you've been told are bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw
If we believe things like Education, and Public Health are rights, then it's pretty clear to see that income inequality is a major problem.
Oh maybe that is your problem then. Neither of those are rights for the require the input of another moral actor. To say that anything that requires such is a right is to make a slave out of one person to another.
Rights are inherent elements of human character. One cannot have an inherent element that requires another person. I have a right to healthcare - so you Dr. must serve me. No no. I have a right to an education so you teacher must server me, you book publisher must provide to me..no.
You have the right to religion - it requires no one else take actions on your behalf. You have the right to speech - it requires no one else take actions on your behalf. You have the right to privacy - it requires no one else take actions on your behalf. You have the right to life - it requires no one else take actions on your behalf. You have the right to liberty - it requires no one else take actions on your behalf. You have the right to property - it requires no one else take actions on your behalf. You have the right to defend your other rights - it requires no one else take actions on your behalf.
You see how rights work. The word you're thinking of are privileges in that they are granted by others. Now its find if you believe people should have such privileges and that those privileges should be granted by government (I disagree), but it is very important to use the right words.
I think I see our problem. I wish to have a Society that is informed and healthy, and you don't.
So your entire reply is to insult my character?
Do you believe that reflects well on your argumentative abilities?
I wish to have a free and successful society and one of the main pillars of obtaining that goal is a well informed and interested body public. Towards that goal I engage in political and philosophical conversations.
So you can either choose to gain knowledge regarding both philosophy and English and have a discussion or you can react in a sophomoric way - ignore critiques and inquiry and spew a verbal tantrum by calling someone names in a round-a-bout fashion.
I am giving you a second chance.
I made the statement that Education and Health are rights. You disagreed. Don't be angry because I pointed out your own hate.
If you want to have a debate with me, that's fine, but know that there are certain assumptions I run under. We're Human before we're Americans. All Humans have a right to Food, Water, Shelter, Entertainment, Spirituality, Education, and Health. No organizational structure should ever, under any circumstances, stand between a Human gaining these things.
These are concrete beliefs that I hold because they are the only Just beliefs to hold. If you wish to create a system that denies anyone these things, then you are creating a system of hate that needs to be abolished.
I'm not advocating forcing anyone to do anything. I'm not saying "Doctors work for free" but what I am saying is that we need to begin addressing the far more fundamental questions. "Why do people become Doctors?" Is it for the money or respect, as the current system demands it must be? Or is it because people wish to get into positions where they can do the most good. They want to help people.
Honestly, I wouldn't even want to have a doctor who was only working because of the paycheck. That's a good way to ensure poor care.
Again you're emotional. You need to assume my motivation is hate. What do you suppose is the root of your psychological need to assign motivation to me? From my perspective it seems to be because then it makes it easier to dismiss me and thus not engage in discussion in which values on which your ego relies for self-esteem are threatened. Its ok though - human defense mechanisms are things we all have. The goal should be to move past them when they work against your own enlightenment.
We are all human yes, all humans have unalienable rights...and that is where our agreement ends. Humans don't have a right to any of that - they have the right to pursue those things.
They are not only not the "only just beliefs" to hold - they are in fact impossible beliefs to hold. How can someone have an unalienable right to food when food itself not only can be separated from the individual but is always separate from them in nature? Entertainment - my gods. A right can be demanded which means any person can demand entertainment from any other person - thus forcing that other person to perform regardless of their desires or rights.
I don't blame you for being confused - philosophy is not a popular subject and the term "rights" has been abused and co-opted all over the place by ad campaigns and politics. You have to understand it has a specific meaning and using it outside that meaning will cause people to not only not understand you but believe that you mean and support ideals that you do not necessarily do.
They way you are using the word you are saying that you do desire slavery of others. I am sorry but that is what you're doing - I don't believe it is what you mean to state but there is no question you are stating it. For example if you believe doctors should be paid but people have a right to the doctor's work then you're making slaves out of the ones that have to pay the doctor. This is just moving the slavery down the line instead of at point of service. Even if the doctor is paid this doesn't mean the doctor wishes to perform the service when demanded (which she must do if healthcare is indeed a right).
Why is it immoral for a Dr. to want to be a Dr. because of pay? I would only want a Dr. who did it because of pay. It is extra motivation - if they don't do well they can be sued which will reduce their wealth. If they do a good job they get paid and get highly recommended which increases their demand which increases their pay.
You will find that desire to do something rarely motivates people like being rewarded for doing good and being punished for doing bad.
Should you ever implement the system you think will work you will find that the consequences of removing high pay from a highly skilled field will be that many less people choose to become Dr's. So your good intentions will result in scarcity of services. And aren't the consequences of the action much more important than the intentions behind it? Which would you rather have a world in which there are plenty of Dr's but many are in the field just for the cash or a world where there are few Dr's but all of them just want to help?
I stand by my statement that denying someone Health Care is hate. That's hardly an emotional statement.
I think I see the problem. You are attaching the phrase "From another person" to all of my statements. This is leading you down a pretty nasty rabbit hole that is fundamentally not what I am saying. People have a right to everything I have said. I use the FDA as an example of a government body that denies people those rights.
Insofar as talking about rewarding people for services. I think we need to start asking ourselves what it is people want from becoming certain things. Doctor, for one. What do people want when they become a Doctor? Do they want a nice home, to be well taken care of, to ensure their own future? What if we could give them that without them becoming a Doctor at all? What happens then.
Eventually, in our Society, there will come a point where it is simply going to be easier to not become a Doctor. School is prohibitively expensive, pinning people who might have been fine Doctors to the ground with debt, or excluding vast majorities of people from even starting.
You say that if there isn't a Greed motivation less people will become Doctors, I say that if you remove the Greed motivation, more people will have the chance to become Doctors.
Humans seek Respect and Dignity, and most people pursue Degrees and Vocations for those things. Imagine if we had an entire Generation that could become Doctors without the burden of Financial Oppression. With the advances we currently have access to, we could create a Golden Age of Medicine.
First we'd have to get rid of the FDA, of course. Those assholes have been holding back a cure for cancer for decades. http://documentary.net/burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business/#more-1889
You hold the belief that Greed is the only thing holding our Society together. I strongly disagree. It's the only thing holding us back.
Yes its an emotional statement. You are ascribing a position to someone based only on your belief. Pure emotion.
We agree that the FDA in its attempt to do good causes massive harm.
If we give them all that then they have no motivation to become a Doctor or anything else that requires high specialization.
It isn't greed I am talking about - greed is taking something not earning it. Is it greed to want a better life for your family? I don't think so - I think its the moral position of every parent.
Respect and Dignity is pretty far up their on Maslow's hierarchy. People who haven't met lower needs will not really worry about that until their more important needs are met.
I don't think greed is holding our society together - a society is not simply its economic system. I also don't think striving for improvement in life or position is greed.
If stating that Healthcare is a Right is Emotional, then so is stating that Freedom is a Right, or Murder is Wrong, or War is a Crime.
If that means I'm "Emotional" then I guess I am. I'd rather be Emotional and live in a world of peace, then be "Rational" and live in a world of hate.
I tend to believe that saying Health Care is a Right is quite the Rational statement. People have a right not to be poisoned by massive corporate interests. People have a right to having a broken bone taken care of. We've put a price on these things and made a system that refuses to cure people because it's profitable.
If you think this system is benefiting Doctors, then I'm laughing.
Call it a privilege just don't call it a right - it would function the same way it would just be respectful to the philosophy and not further muddle specific terminology. Many things are called "rights" which are not simply because it causes an emotional positive reaction to what is being a called a right. It is a purely manipulative use of language.
Most people make career decisions for multiple reasons. I doubt very few people became Dr's just to help people I also doubt many became Dr's just for a wage. People value different factors differently and they should be free to pursue what they best believe will deliver their future happiness for whatever reasons and factors they choose. Once they have all of that stuff you've given them for being a Dr - would the have much motivation to continue working as hard? I don't think so. Also if they do their job well - which is in high demand because of the skills - they should earn a good wage in order to buy what they want (doo dads, or boats, or a summer house, or a nice car, or adopt a lot of kids or whatever). The market rewards those with rare and demanded skills.
What I would do is remove all that stands in the way of a person becoming a Dr., offering their services, and getting paid for it. Unfortunately there is a lot of regulation and red tape in the way of all of these - and a serious amount of litigation that needs to be controlled.
It can never be a right - its just the meaning of the word. A right is unalienable and inherent. You can't be born with inherent healthcare - (well maybe you could if you had health Nanites passed on by your mother...but that is sci fi for now).
People and Doctors are already abused by our system. But we need to thoroughly examine the system to find the root cause(s) of the problem before we can attempt to fix it. ( I do this kind of analysis for my job) To suggest a correction to the problem without an investigation is simply begging to create a whole web of new problems.
How does someone have a right to have a broken bone being taken care of? How is that an unalienable aspect of humanity when it requires demanding the input of the labor of others. You're saying everyone has the right to the labor of others which is impossible because there would be neither private property or liberty or free association.
Why do you assume I support the current system? I am simply critiquing the idea that anything that requires the input of another's labor as a "right".
Ok ok... So we're seeing each other now.
I believe Heath Care is a right. Your concern is that Right will come at the cost of Enslaving Doctors. (Forcing someone to do a task they don't want to do.)
I guess my first question would be "Then why'd you become a Doctor?" I mean, if someone is injured, a Doctor should help them. Is the only concern the Doctor's compensation? What if every Doctor had an awesome house, food taken care of, all the recent technological doo-dads and gadgets, a nice car, ect. ect. ect. What if we took care of our Doctors, instead of what we do now which is burden them with debt they'll never pay off, and thrust them into an unsupporting system that could care less about them.
What then? If everything they could ever want is 100% taken care of and they have the freedom to do their job as they choose... is Health Care a right then?
It strikes me that your concern is "Doctors will be abused." And my concern is "People are already being abused." There is a way that both sides can be taken care of. We, The People, pay for Doctors so they will be beholden to us. As opposed to Doctors being beholden to Corporations.