Does Santorum have a chance?

[odis]

Well, yes. Even if such a completely over-simplistic scenario were true, the question would still be essential to the well-being of the nation, which you have sworn fidelity to.

—Sam

i must admit you are correct on both accounts, but there are other places i can help grow. and those other places would be more appreciative of my business.

[Ansgar Seraph]

i must admit you are correct on both accounts, but there are other places i can help grow. and those other places would be more appreciative of my business.

Sure, which is why I asked the question that I asked. If accumulating more personal wealth is more important than enriching the society around you while still remaining relatively wealthy, there is no particular reason that will keep you from moving your assets elsewhere. But do you need to feel appreciated in order to do good? This is the society that allowed you the freedom to become wealthy and to live a good life. If you are interested not only in the continued accumulation of your own personal wealth but also the general welfare of the less fortunate around you, your fellow citizens, I think you have your answer. You'll invest in your local and national society because you love your neighbors and your country; because you have worked hard to achieve more of the dream than most people can hope to achieve and you want to invest part of yourself back into society so that all those around you may live a little better and, hopefully, climb a little higher on the social and economic ladders themselves.

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

Such as? Seems to me that the latter too is made more difficult with heavy taxation.

The question was not one of comparative policy, however. Odis wanted to know why he should invest in a country that would tax him more (more than before or more than other countries, I don't know); whether or not higher taxes are good policy, then, isn't relevant to the question.

—Sam

[odis]

But do you need to feel appreciated in order to do good?

i would certainly prefer to feel appreciated than have people angry with me. i would much rather help those who understand what i am doing and enjoy it. it doesnt feel good to help someone and have them snicker at you on their way out the door.

This is the society that allowed you the freedom to become wealthy and to live a good life. If you are interested not only in the continued accumulation of your own personal wealth but also the general welfare of the less fortunate around you, your fellow citizens, I think you have your answer. You'll invest in your local and national society because you love your neighbors and your country; because you have worked hard to achieve more of the dream than most people can hope to achieve and you want to invest part of yourself back into society so that all those around you may live a little better and, hopefully, climb a little higher on the social and economic ladders themselves.

—Sam

i wouldnt mind this at all, but not at the cost of myself. it is becoming harder and harder to achieve this. and while i may be currently spiteful of obama's policies, the list of recent presidents who have been hurting the process includes both republicans and democrats. i had hoped Santorum would have been the answer but it seems that i now must pray that Romney can put an end to the problem (or some of it?).

[Ansgar Seraph]

i would certainly prefer to feel appreciated than have people angry with me. i would much rather help those who understand what i am doing and enjoy it. it doesnt feel good to help someone and have them snicker at you on their way out the door.

Well, of course. But that's what success does. It's what it always has done and always will do, no matter where you locate. Success (and particularly wealth) has the incredible power of changing people — and not just those who covet it. The question is how you let that power affect you.

i wouldnt mind this at all, but not at the cost of myself. it is becoming harder and harder to achieve this. and while i may be currently spiteful of obama's policies, the list of recent presidents who have been hurting the process includes both republicans and democrats. i had hoped Santorum would have been the answer but it seems that i now must pray that Romney can put an end to the problem (or some of it?).

Not to assume too much but it appears that you still wield enough economic power to significantly affect large groups of people. It is completely fair to feel frustrated and hurt by policies damaging to oneself but it's also important to remember the other side of the coin. People did not wake up one day angry at the state of wealth distribution in America. Income inequity has been growing for decades and is reaching unprecedented levels. We often hear that the top 1% of earners pay 70% of federal income taxes . . . but the other side of that particular coin is that the top 1% of earners collectively take a higher percentage of national income than the bottom 40% combined. That's a pretty shocking statistic for a hard-working family struggling to scrape by every month; it's enough to make someone who lost his home and his retirement portfolio in the recession apoplectic.

There are people who don't need government interference in their personal lives, who can exist relatively well on their own. There are also people who would starve or wait for hours in breadlines without the government's vast safety net. There has to be a truce between the parties, a compromise between the extremes. Taxes have to be simpler, more equitable — the wealthy have to carry a heavier burden than they do now, simply because the present scenario is unsustainable. But, in the lack of compromise, lines are drawn and enemies listed. The rich are demonized for nothing else than being rich, the plight of the poor is ignored because they are kept out of mind. In an ideal world, the well-meaning people on both sides would come together to overcome the cynics and extremists. Failing that, you're left with the question: why should you invest in your neighbors?

—Sam

[joel]

The question was not one of comparative policy, however. Odis wanted to know why he should invest in a country that would tax him more (more than before or more than other countries, I don't know); whether or not higher taxes are good policy, then, isn't relevant to the question.

It is relevant. Supposing that he does have the goal you suggest--to also enrich those around him--then I'd say he still should prefer switching to the lower-taxing country. Because there he would have a greater ability to achieve that goal.

The question isn't whether to benefit his neighbors. The question would be whether to try to benefit his neighbors here, or move elsewhere where he will be able to benefit those neighbors even more.

[...]because you have worked hard to achieve more of the dream than most people can hope to achieve and you want to invest part of yourself back into society so that all those around you may live a little better and, hopefully, climb a little higher on the social and economic ladders themselves.

I don't think "investing back" is the correct understanding of it.
Not in a free market.

If I produce a good and then sell it to someone (call her Alice), the revenue (and hopefully profit) I receive in exchange is due to Alice paying me ("back") for my production of the good. I do not have an obligation to then to invest "back" out of that revenue. Rather, my making the profit was Alice (or "society" if you will) paying me back for my productivity. The voluntary exchange settled the accounts. It did not create a debt on either party. It also enriched both parties. It is not a one-sided picture like the one you are painting.

In a free market, it is my profiting (by serving the consumers: producing for their consumption) that is the means by which I may best enrich those around me. And profit/loss is the best signal there is to let me know how well I am succeeding or failing at serving my fellow man.

Income inequity has been growing for decades and is reaching unprecedented levels.

Due to the many decades of the growth of government intervention (e.g., subsidies and the modern regulatory state (especially the government-cartelized banking system).

There are people who don't need government interference in their personal lives, who can exist relatively well on their own. There are also people who would starve or wait for hours in breadlines without the government's vast safety net.

I disagree. It is likely that the welfare state is creating more poverty and making the poor worse off than would be otherwise. The blind assumption that the welfare state is making things better, rather than worse, than otherwise is unjustified.

There has to be a truce between the parties, a compromise between the extremes.

No, if high taxation and/or the welfare state (for example) makes everyone in general, including the poor, worse off than otherwise, then no compromise is needed. Abolish it.

Taxes have to be simpler, more equitable

I think it more important that they be lower. (And if there were much less taxation, then any inequitable differences in taxation, or problems caused by its complexity, would also be smaller.)

— the wealthy have to carry a heavier burden than they do now, simply because the present scenario is unsustainable.

No, it's unsustainable, period. The heavier taxation would be a negative feedback, worsening the underlying problem, thus "necessitating" yet heavier taxation. In a feedback loop until taxation is tapped out, and the system collapses.

[odis]

Well, of course. But that's what success does. It's what it always has done and always will do, no matter where you locate. Success (and particularly wealth) has the incredible power of changing people — and not just those who covet it. The question is how you let that power affect you.

It doesnt. The only thing i covet is the only thing money cannot buy.

Not to assume too much but it appears that you still wield enough economic power to significantly affect large groups of people.

Not nearly as much as you believe. I run a small business. I see a lot of money exchanging hands but i keep little. That being said i used to be able to liquidate my assets and have money to spend but as time goes on the money within my grasp has dwindled.

It is completely fair to feel frustrated and hurt by policies damaging to oneself but it's also important to remember the other side of the coin. People did not wake up one day angry at the state of wealth distribution in America. Income inequity has been growing for decades and is reaching unprecedented levels. We often hear that the top 1% of earners pay 70% of federal income taxes . . . but the other side of that particular coin is that the top 1% of earners collectively take a higher percentage of national income than the bottom 40% combined. That's a pretty shocking statistic for a hard-working family struggling to scrape by every month; it's enough to make someone who lost his home and his retirement portfolio in the recession apoplectic.

and the democrats have done little to ease the problem: in fact they exasperate it.

There are also people who would starve or wait for hours in breadlines without the government's vast safety net.

then we should teach them to fish, and those who dont even care to learn just arent hungry enough yet. those who try and fail, should be kept full.

There has to be a truce between the parties, a compromise between the extremes. Taxes have to be simpler, more equitable — the wealthy have to carry a heavier burden than they do now, simply because the present scenario is unsustainable.

as the burden gets heavier, there are less who are willing/able to carry that burden which was the specific point i am getting at.

But, in the lack of compromise, lines are drawn and enemies listed. The rich are demonized for nothing else than being rich, the plight of the poor is ignored because they are kept out of mind.

its difficult to keep them out of mind when so much of my money goes to helping them.

In an ideal world, the well-meaning people on both sides would come together to overcome the cynics and extremists. Failing that, you're left with the question: why should you invest in your neighbors?

—Sam

That answer is at the bottom of my glass.

[odis]

I disagree. It is likely that the welfare state is creating more poverty and making the poor worse off than would be otherwise. The blind assumption that the welfare state is making things better, rather than worse, than otherwise is unjustified.

everyone assumes its helping because there are less homeless. yes there maybe less homeless but your not teaching people to be 'not homeless' like you might be able to teach a person to be 'not lazy'. while i strongly disagree with the handouts our government is giving, i am a centralist and feel that too much in the opposing direction is wrong unless you could get the communities to look after themselves again. the only thing i feel we should give unconditionally to those who cant afford it is food.

No, it's unsustainable, period. The heavier taxation would be a negative feedback, worsening the underlying problem, thus "necessitating" yet heavier taxation. In a feedback loop until taxation is tapped out, and the system collapses.

i still cant figure out a way to explain how that works. i see it daily and have no way to explain it.

[joel]

everyone assumes its helping because there are less homeless.

Less than what? What matters is "than otherwise", not "than before".

i am a centralist and feel that too much in the opposing direction is wrong unless you could get the communities to look after themselves again.

But if doing X makes things worse than otherwise, then refraining from doing X is better.

Also, I think communities and individuals don't do as much as they would, because of state intervention. Instead of thinking "If I don't do it nobody will," they think, "Why should I do anything? The government will take care of it. I'm already paying a bunch in taxes." Also I think there would be less need without the state intervention.

So it's futile to first wait for communities to take over, and then get rid of the state intervention. It has to be the other way around.

No, it's unsustainable, period. The heavier taxation would be a negative feedback, worsening the underlying problem, thus "necessitating" yet heavier taxation. In a feedback loop until taxation is tapped out, and the system collapses.

i still cant figure out a way to explain how that works. i see it daily and have no way to explain it.

Explain what? why there's negative feedback?

There are various causes. Here are a few examples: The moral hazard for those receiving handouts. Expectation of support can also cause people to have more children than they can afford, who then also are poor. The state intervention makes people less charitable (and leaves them with less means to give). Also it tends to result in capital consumption, which results in lower availability of goods, meaning higher prices, and meaning lower wages. This means the poor are going to be poorer than otherwise. It also means that more people who would not have needed assistance are going to be made needy. Thus it shifts more people from being tax-payers to being tax-consumers. So you have reduced tax revenue and increased "need" of it.

Thus you "need" heavier taxation, which yet further increases the burden, etc.