Should rich people give their money to poor people ?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Then why is no one else agreeing with you...?

Mafiree

You're not just self-interested, although you clearly are. What you wrote in that other thread basically defines selfishness.

[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Is no one else you and Vuurk? OMG I am so wrong! :roll: I trust the dictionary more than you two.kuraimen

You're not just self-interested, although you clearly are. What you wrote in that other thread basically defines selfishness.

You're such a fvcking idiot you have no idea who you're even quoting anymore.

Seriously, get a fvcking grip on reality.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

If he benefitted more from donating the money than he did from keeping it, he would already have donated it. Therefore, under the law, he will donate (including taxes) at least as much as he did before the law was passed, while his utility gain will be non-positive.

airshocker

I don't see where utility comes into play in this instance. This has to do more with philosophy than microeconomics, I think.

But I'll bite regardless, even though you'll destroy me: We would first have to determine what his total utility gain would be corresponding with the amount of money he gives.

Utility comes into play as the idea of measuring an individual's 'happiness' or well-being. A selfish action, in terms of utility, would necessarily increase one's utility. Therefore, if an action does not increase one's utility, it cannot be selfish. I'm not entirely certain what you mean when you say this has more to do with philosophy than microeconomics, could you elaborate?

You don't have to determine anything about total utility gain. Let's assume that u(G) is a certain individual's utility function, dependent on both how much money he keeps (M) and how much money he gives (G). Assuming total income is fixed (to I), M+G=I, so utility can be expressed as a function of how much money he gives.

Now, without the law, he maximizes u(G), choosing the optimal quantity G* (for the sake of argument, assume that such a maximum exists (although it is not necessary to assume it is unique) - if the maximum does not exist, this optimization will not necessarily be well-defined anyway). He then contributes G*.

Now, with the law, he pays an amount G** in taxes, and then reoptimizes. For the sake of simplicity, let's that G* is the only local maximum (this condition is not necessary in terms of measuring the impact on his utility, but is convenient). Then, he either contributes exactly G** (if G** is greater than G*) or contributes exactly G* (if G** is less than or equal to G*), due to the same optimization as above. As G* is the unique local maximum, and is also the absolute maximum, u(G**) is less than or equal to u(G*). Thus, he has a non-positive gain in utility.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Mafiree"] Seeing your political ideals in motion would certainly increase utility.......

Why else would people vote and donate to campaigns?

Mafiree

Because politicians can enact policies that directly (and economically) benefit a person. Political donations are effectively a calculated risk.

Also, political donations aren't a good subject to bring up here since the tax dollars presumably wouldn't be going to fund election campaigns.

Utility comes into play as the idea of measuring an individual's 'happiness' or well-being. A selfish action, in terms of utility, would necessarily increase one's utility. Therefore, if an action does not increase one's utility, it cannot be selfish. I'm not entirely certain what you mean when you say this has more to do with philosophy than microeconomics, could you elaborate?

You don't have to determine anything about total utility gain. Let's assume that u(G) is a certain individual's utility function, dependent on both how much money he keeps (M) and how much money he gives (G). Assuming total income is fixed (to I), M+G=I, so utility can be expressed as a function of how much money he gives.

Now, without the law, he maximizes u(G), choosing the optimal quantity G* (for the sake of argument, assume that such a maximum exists (although it is not necessary to assume it is unique) - if the maximum does not exist, this optimization will not necessarily be well-defined anyway). He then contributes G*.

Now, with the law, he pays an amount G** in taxes, and then reoptimizes. For the sake of simplicity, let's that G* is the only local maximum (this condition is not necessary in terms of measuring the impact on his utility, but is convenient). Then, he either contributes exactly G** (if G** is greater than G*) or contributes exactly G* (if G** is less than or equal to G*), due to the same optimization as above. As G* is the unique local maximum, and is also the absolute maximum, u(G**) is less than or equal to u(G*). Thus, he has a non-positive gain in utility.

chessmaster1989

How are you even capable of typing this at such an hour?

Either way, their is no society (besides maybe small tribes) in the world today that does not run on self-interest. People are naturally self-interested.

As Milton Friedman put it: "What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy, it's only the other fellow who is greedy. The world runs on individuals pursing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein did not construct his theories under order from a bureocrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile indusry that way. The only cases in recorded history in which the masses have escaped from grinding poverty are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, it's exactly in the societies that depart from that." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Vuurk

Both Einstein and Ford did all they did thanks to the knowledge a society provided them. There's no such thing as isolated geniuses, everyone works on the shoulders of others. Even Darwin insisted that we came to be what we are because we are very successful collaborators not self-interested individuals.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="Mafiree"] Self-Interest and Selfish are not the same thing.........airshocker

You're not just self-interested, although you clearly are. What you wrote in that other thread basically defines selfishness.

You're such a fvcking idiot you have no idea who you're even quoting anymore.

Seriously, get a fvcking grip on reality.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Utility comes into play as the idea of measuring an individual's 'happiness' or well-being. A selfish action, in terms of utility, would necessarily increase one's utility. Therefore, if an action does not increase one's utility, it cannot be selfish. I'm not entirely certain what you mean when you say this has more to do with philosophy than microeconomics, could you elaborate?

You don't have to determine anything about total utility gain. Let's assume that u(G) is a certain individual's utility function, dependent on both how much money he keeps (M) and how much money he gives (G). Assuming total income is fixed (to I), M+G=I, so utility can be expressed as a function of how much money he gives.

Now, without the law, he maximizes u(G), choosing the optimal quantity G* (for the sake of argument, assume that such a maximum exists (although it is not necessary to assume it is unique) - if the maximum does not exist, this optimization will not necessarily be well-defined anyway). He then contributes G*.

Now, with the law, he pays an amount G** in taxes, and then reoptimizes. For the sake of simplicity, let's that G* is the only local maximum (this condition is not necessary in terms of measuring the impact on his utility, but is convenient). Then, he either contributes exactly G** (if G** is greater than G*) or contributes exactly G* (if G** is less than or equal to G*), due to the same optimization as above. As G* is the unique local maximum, and is also the absolute maximum, u(G**) is less than or equal to u(G*). Thus, he has a non-positive gain in utility.

airshocker

How are you even capable of typing this at such an hour?

I've spent the past four years studying math and math-intesive economics. I know a lot more about the math and derivations of economic models than I do about their viability and applications in the real world. :P

Also, 12am is early.

Yeah well that was talking about you...kuraimen

Doesn't change the fact that you're an idiot.

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]There aren't enough jobs to go around derp.

coolbeans90

Please tell me that you are not this ignorant of economic reality. The number of available job positions is vastly smaller than the number of job positions. It's not as if suddenly a few years ago it became a fad to collect unemployment insurance.

I'm feeling ignored.

I've spent the past four years studying math and math-intesive economics. I know a lot more about the math and derivations of economic models than I do about their viability and applications in the real world. :P

Also, 12am is early.

chessmaster1989

I can't meaningfully respond to that post. I haven't studied economics for four years, unfortunately. :P

But it strikes me as odd that it's considered less selfish to ask other people to contribute to a cause than it is to not want to pay for that cause to begin with.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Yeah well that was talking about you...airshocker

Doesn't change the fact that you're an idiot.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] There are plenty of jobs to go around. It's just a matter of people not wanting to work at a minimum wage job. They would rather not work and collect unemployment insurance. Or what happens in many cases, is they work for cash and do not report their income yet they still collect unemployment insurance. There are ALWAYS jobs available in our economy. coolbeans90

Please tell me that you are not this ignorant of economic reality. The number of available job positions is vastly smaller than the number of job positions. It's not as if suddenly a few years ago it became a fad to collect unemployment insurance.

I'm feeling ignored.

I mean, empirically it's almost undeniable that unemployment insurance reduces work incentives. Now clearly what Vuurk is saying (/the extent of his implication) is not correct, but the underlying premise that unemployment insurance discourages returning to work is true.

Well at least I'm not a selfish idiot.kuraimen

Again, you have yet to prove that I'm selfish.

Also you should point out the idea of Adam Smith. (figurehead of modern day economics) He presented the idea that a society in which everyone acts out of their own self interest will also increase the overall welfare of the entire society without necessarily meaning to. I wish more people understood this idea.. =[Vuurk

He also advocated for progressive taxation, i.e. the de facto redistribution of wealth from the top down.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] So you are concerned about the well being of all 6 billion peoples' lives on Earth? You care whether or not someone dies in a car crash that you have never met nor even heard of? Vuurk

I'm concerned and of course care about a stable society that provides opportunities to everyone. Not a society that gives the opportunity to a few people to accumulate as much money as they can while millions are starving or lacking opportunities. I can't control a car crash but I would if I could. If I can help change society to be more fair then I will, I think a fairer society ultimately also helps me and my family too.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]

Either way, their is no society (besides maybe small tribes) in the world today that does not run on self-interest. People are naturally self-interested.

As Milton Friedman put it: "What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy, it's only the other fellow who is greedy. The world runs on individuals pursing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein did not construct his theories under order from a bureocrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile indusry that way. The only cases in recorded history in which the masses have escaped from grinding poverty are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, it's exactly in the societies that depart from that." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Vuurk

Both Einstein and Ford did all they did thanks to the knowledge a society provided them. There's no such thing as isolated geniuses, everyone works on the shoulders of others. Even Darwin insisted that we came to be what we are because we are very successful collaborators not self-interested individuals.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

If he benefitted more from donating the money than he did from keeping it, he would already have donated it. Therefore, under the law, he will donate (including taxes) at least as much as he did before the law was passed, while his utility gain will be non-positive.

chessmaster1989

I don't see where utility comes into play in this instance. This has to do more with philosophy than microeconomics, I think.

But I'll bite regardless, even though you'll destroy me: We would first have to determine what his total utility gain would be corresponding with the amount of money he gives.

Utility comes into play as the idea of measuring an individual's 'happiness' or well-being. A selfish action, in terms of utility, would necessarily increase one's utility. Therefore, if an action does not increase one's utility, it cannot be selfish. I'm not entirely certain what you mean when you say this has more to do with philosophy than microeconomics, could you elaborate?

You don't have to determine anything about total utility gain. Let's assume that u(G) is a certain individual's utility function, dependent on both how much money he keeps (M) and how much money he gives (G). Assuming total income is fixed (to I), M+G=I, so utility can be expressed as a function of how much money he gives.

Now, without the law, he maximizes u(G), choosing the optimal quantity G* (for the sake of argument, assume that such a maximum exists (although it is not necessary to assume it is unique) - if the maximum does not exist, this optimization will not necessarily be well-defined anyway). He then contributes G*.

Now, with the law, he pays an amount G** in taxes, and then reoptimizes. For the sake of simplicity, let's that G* is the only local maximum (this condition is not necessary in terms of measuring the impact on his utility, but is convenient). Then, he either contributes exactly G** (if G** is greater than G*) or contributes exactly G* (if G** is less than or equal to G*), due to the same optimization as above. As G* is the unique local maximum, and is also the absolute maximum, u(G**) is less than or equal to u(G*). Thus, he has a non-positive gain in utility.

I think math/econ would be a fun duo.

People are not starving in America. Americans have it MUCH better off than 95% of the rest of the population of the world. I'm so sick of people complaining about income inequality. Our "poor" people in this country are drastically better off than most people in the world. It's so ironic that people in this thread complaining about income inequality are posting on the f^cking internet from their computer. If you want to help people out that is fantastic, but do not try to force others to help people. That is incredibly immoral to think that you have the right to force one individual to give their money to another. Vuurk

Well, to be honest, I do agree that forcing people to behave ethically is not only immoral, but also deeply irrational. There are far better ways to enforce ethical behavior; coercion isn't one of them. However, that doesn't mean that wealthy people aren't obligated to help the poor.

And your argument about poverty reeks of naive relativism. Just because we're better off than other nations, doesn't mean that our situation is totally okay. Just because one situation is not as bad as another, does not mean that the former situation is just fine. And your point about people complaining about issues such as this on the internet is a mere ad hominem that reflects a naive way of thinking. Poverty is a reality in America - if it weren't, then you and I would never see homeless people here.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I've spent the past four years studying math and math-intesive economics. I know a lot more about the math and derivations of economic models than I do about their viability and applications in the real world. :P

Also, 12am is early.

airshocker

I can't meaningfully respond to that post. I haven't studied economics for four years, unfortunately. :P

But it strikes me as odd that it's considered less selfish to ask other people to contribute to a cause than it is to not want to pay for that cause to begin with.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Please tell me that you are not this ignorant of economic reality. The number of available job positions is vastly smaller than the number of job positions. It's not as if suddenly a few years ago it became a fad to collect unemployment insurance.

Vuurk

I'm feeling ignored.

Empirically substantiate the claim that there are enough minimum wage jobs to fill the current lack of employment or accept that you are merely stating things without any real backing.

No, I don't think rich people should give their money to poor people. I think their assets should be seized and equally distributed among society, not in direct payment, but via the creation of new jobs and improvement of the public welfare system. I understand that some people (keyword: some) worked hard to amass their disproportionate wealth, that doesn't change the fact that it is indeed disproportionate.

Or, if you're not as radical as I am, make the % of taxes someone pays directly proportionate to their wealth and income. Someone that makes M.W. pays x% of their salary as tax, someone that makes 10x M.W. pays y*x% of their salary, removing the ceiling.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Please tell me that you are not this ignorant of economic reality. The number of available job positions is vastly smaller than the number of job positions. It's not as if suddenly a few years ago it became a fad to collect unemployment insurance.

chessmaster1989

I'm feeling ignored.

I mean, empirically it's almost undeniable that unemployment insurance reduces work incentives. Now clearly what Vuurk is saying (/the extent of his implication) is not correct, but the underlying premise that unemployment insurance discourages returning to work is true.

I'm not in disagreement with the sentiment that unemployment insurance discourages employment ceteris paribus, but when job applications at McDonalds can get 40 per position, it makes the implications of vuurk's post (that there is a sufficient amount of employment positions vacant) seem patently false.

[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Because politicians can enact policies that directly (and economically) benefit a person. Political donations are effectively a calculated risk.

Also, political donations aren't a good subject to bring up here since the tax dollars presumably wouldn't be going to fund election campaigns.

chessmaster1989

Are you pursuing a PhD in economics? Vuurk

At the moment I'm finish up a BA in Mathematics and a BA in Economics. My undergraduate research focus has been on auction theory and I'm going to work as a full-time research assistant starting this summer working for a group of professors who do work related to behavioral economics (and much of their research does have policy implications). I'm hoping to start a PhD program in about two years, where I'm hoping to specialize in public sector economics.

Although I may do a PhD in computational mathematics instead.

At the moment I'm finish up a BA in Mathematics and a BA in Economics. My undergraduate research focus has been on auction theory and I'm going to work as a full-time research assistant starting this summer working for a group of professors who do work related to behavioral economics (and much of their research does have policy implications). I'm hoping to start a PhD program in about two years, where I'm hoping to specialize in public sector economics.

Although I may do a PhD in computational mathematics instead.

chessmaster1989

Chessmaster is going to create the first cylon. Calling it.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Mafiree"] Getting a fat check from uncle Sam would certainly make me want to keep the powers that be that are sending me said check in office......Mafiree

Oh I'm not disagreeing that wealth redistribution is generally suboptimal, just that I don't think advocates of wealth redistribution are necessarily selfish. Indeed, I am generally opposed to welfare programs.

Sorry my posts may have been misleading as to my own views.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Utility comes into play as the idea of measuring an individual's 'happiness' or well-being. A selfish action, in terms of utility, would necessarily increase one's utility. Therefore, if an action does not increase one's utility, it cannot be selfish. I'm not entirely certain what you mean when you say this has more to do with philosophy than microeconomics, could you elaborate?

You don't have to determine anything about total utility gain. Let's assume that u(G) is a certain individual's utility function, dependent on both how much money he keeps (M) and how much money he gives (G). Assuming total income is fixed (to I), M+G=I, so utility can be expressed as a function of how much money he gives.

Now, without the law, he maximizes u(G), choosing the optimal quantity G* (for the sake of argument, assume that such a maximum exists (although it is not necessary to assume it is unique) - if the maximum does not exist, this optimization will not necessarily be well-defined anyway). He then contributes G*.

Now, with the law, he pays an amount G** in taxes, and then reoptimizes. For the sake of simplicity, let's that G* is the only local maximum (this condition is not necessary in terms of measuring the impact on his utility, but is convenient). Then, he either contributes exactly G** (if G** is greater than G*) or contributes exactly G* (if G** is less than or equal to G*), due to the same optimization as above. As G* is the unique local maximum, and is also the absolute maximum, u(G**) is less than or equal to u(G*). Thus, he has a non-positive gain in utility.

chessmaster1989

How are you even capable of typing this at such an hour?

I've spent the past four years studying math and math-intesive economics. I know a lot more about the math and derivations of economic models than I do about their viability and applications in the real world. :P

Also, 12am is early.

[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] But now you've strayed from my original premise.

chessmaster1989

Oh I'm not disagreeing that wealth redistribution is generally suboptimal, just that I don't think advocates of wealth redistribution are necessarily selfish. Indeed, I am generally opposed to welfare programs.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

How are you even capable of typing this at such an hour?

Mafiree

I've spent the past four years studying math and math-intesive economics. I know a lot more about the math and derivations of economic models than I do about their viability and applications in the real world. :P

Also, 12am is early.

Who cares? So I've been taking a class on ODEs, which has been highly theoretical and also (as near as I can tell) very useless. And yes, it's an ODEs class that's useless, I know that's bizarre. We do sh*t like =http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9-Bendixson_theorem and this (the version of the Stable Manifold Theorem we learned was slightly less advanced). But it's really fun. :D

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] Cut that sh*t out man. People are not starving in America. Americans have it MUCH better off than 95% of the rest of the population of the world. I'm so sick of people complaining about income inequality. Our "poor" people in this country are drastically better off than most people in the world. It's so ironic that people in this thread complaining about income inequality are posting on the f^cking internet from their computer. If you want to help people out that is fantastic, but do not try to force others to help people. That is incredibly immoral to think that you have the right to force one individual to give their money to another. Vuurk

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

No, I don't think rich people should give their money to poor people. I think their assets should be seized and equally distributed among society, not in direct payment, but via the creation of new jobs and improvement of the public welfare system. I understand that some people (keyword: some) worked hard to amass their disproportionate wealth, that doesn't change the fact that it is indeed disproportionate.

Or, if you're not as radical as I am, make the % of taxes someone pays directly proportionate to their wealth and income. Someone that makes M.W. pays x% of their salary as tax, someone that makes 10x M.W. pays y*x% of their salary, removing the ceiling.

Vuurk

I am generally opposed to welfare programs.

Sorry my posts may have been misleading as to my own views.

chessmaster1989

^^

[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I've spent the past four years studying math and math-intesive economics. I know a lot more about the math and derivations of economic models than I do about their viability and applications in the real world. :P

Also, 12am is early.

chessmaster1989

Who cares? So I've been taking a class on ODEs, which has been highly theoretical and also (as near as I can tell) very useless. And yes, it's an ODEs class that's useless, I know that's bizarre. We do sh*t like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9-Bendixson_theorem and this (the version of the Stable Manifold Theorem we learned was slightly less advanced). But it's really fun. :D

I see homeless people all of the time in the city I live in. They are almost always the same demographic. Middle aged men. Nearly all of them are able bodied. They walk around the streets with signs begging for money and they dig through dumpsters for cans. The reason many of them are poor is most likely due to previous decisions made in their life. Alcohol, drugs, not putting any effort, etc.

I've also spoken with a homeless guy in Chicago who was begging for money. First he tells me how he has two young daughters that he is trying to feed and he is raising them as a single father. The next second he is telling me how he went to this strip club and got all of these lap dances. People usually do not become homeless for no reason. I think that it is important that people learn to deal with the consequences of their life choices.

I believe that people should be able to live however you want as long as you do not harm others, but if you end up in a sh*tty situation due to bad decisions, then it is your responsibility to deal with the consequences.

Vuurk

Also, just because they're able-bodied, doesn't mean that they can get jobs easily. Our system doesn't have as much mobility as we blindly believe.

Anyway, I'm done here.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Didn't respond because I disagree. As I said there might not be an adequate number of skilled positions available, but their is always enough minimum wage jobs. People do not want to go from making 40k plus a year to working minimum wage so instead they sit at home and collect unemployment for awhile until they can get another job. Vuurk

Empirically substantiate the claim that there are enough minimum wage jobs to fill the current lack of employment or accept that you are merely stating things without any real backing.

Number of unemployed (keep in mind that this excludes those not currently on unemployment rolls): 12.8 million

Number of job openings: 3.5 million