Social wellfare for the sick and disabled.

[Carrikature]

I don't agree. Well over half is spent on boondoggle social programs. I recently did some math and found that if you took all the U.S. government spending on programs (that are necessary supposedly to reduce poverty) and divided it by the number of people in the U.S. below the official poverty line, it would pay for an income near $100,000/year to every individual (e.g. $400,000 to a family of 4) under the poverty line. That the U.S. still has poverty reveals the set of social programs to be a boondoggle.

I would love to see your math, but it's hardly as if that's the only area tax income is used.

[Jedidiah]

. . . but it's hardly as if that's the only area tax income is used.

Exactly! That is only one example of government inefficiency. I believe the same economic profile fits ever, or virtually every, program managed by the government.

[Joel]

I know plenty of people who have the funds who don't use them to even try make a dent. If you lowered taxes it still wouldn't translate into people making a dent. (and I do know others who regardless of how much money they have are doing their best with whatever resources they have to make a dent)

The question was regarding lack of means to make a dent. Whether there exist non-charitable people is beside the point.

Nor does an obligation to pay taxes imply that the government ought to take 1/3 of our incomes.

But the government is your lawful "rulers" (for want of a better word) they have a right to imposes taxes.

No, actually an obligation to pay taxes levied does not imply that the entity levying the taxes has the moral right to levy them. Just as a moral obligation to 'turn the other cheek' does not imply that your attacker is not committing an injustice. Likewise a slave having a moral obligation to obey a master does not mean being a slave master is not unjust. So, no, an obligation to pay taxes does not imply that they should levy taxes or even that they morally may levy taxes.

And the idea that a particular existing entity is anyone's "lawful 'rulers'" is an additional premise you are bringing in; it is not derivable from the scripture you quoted.

Secondly, how do you tell which things are Caesar's?

All my coins have the Queen's profile on them and the notes all have the Governor of the reserve bank's signature on it.

So if you ceased to accept or possess the government's money (e.g. traded in some foreign currency, or gold and silver bullion, or bitcoin) then it would not be Caesar's?


As a side comment, historically a "note" is a liability/IOU owed by the issuing institution. It's shorthand for "promissory note". The bank's signature (whether private or government bank) is the signing of the contract that the bank promises to pay the obligation to you, the bearer of the note. Quite contrary to the signature being a claim of ownership/asset, it is (if it is anything) a declaration of the government's liability/obligation to you. That government banks have ceased to fulfill these obligations just goes to show how morally bankrupt they are. It is a sign of a bandit gang rather than a lawful "ruler".

[Carrikature]

No, actually an obligation to pay taxes levied does not imply that the entity levying the taxes has the moral right to levy them. Just as a moral obligation to 'turn the other cheek' does not imply that your attacker is not committing an injustice. Likewise a slave having a moral obligation to obey a master does not mean being a slave master is not unjust. So, no, an obligation to pay taxes does not imply that they should levy taxes or even that they morally may levy taxes.

None of these things are moral questions. Taxes are amoral. Slave ownership is immoral, but there is no moral obligation of obedience. If anything, obedience should be predicated on the slave's moral comprehension regardless of the master's desires. One has not acted immorally for failing to turn the other cheek. To include these things under the umbrella of morality is to stretch the concept so far as to render it meaningless.

[Carrikature]

Exactly! That is only one example of government inefficiency. I believe the same economic profile fits ever, or virtually every, program managed by the government.

Correcting inefficiencies doesn't necessarily imply a lower rate of taxation. It simply means current funding has greater output.

[Joel]

I would love to see your math, but it's hardly as if that's the only area tax income is used.

Government spending (federal+state+local) on social programs in FY 2015 is $4,245.2 billions.
A google search tells me there are 45 million people below the poverty line in the U.S.
So that's $94,337 per person, per year.

It's not the only area of spending, but it's the most relevant one and it is nearly 2/3 of government spending in the U.S.
If you add in military spending and interest on the debt (can we agree those are also way bigger than they should be?) the total comes to about 80% of spending. The supposedly core things like police, fire, and courts are only about 4% of spending. And even most of that is probably spent on the war on drugs boondoggle. So it still seems to be not the case that the government takes 1/3 of our incomes for a "good reason".


Getting back to the main topic of the thread. The thing that has done most in history to raise people out of poverty is freed markets, leading to economic prosperity. Even for people disabled, the increased prosperity enabled advances in technology that has enabled many people to be productive who would have been incapacitated in the past. And now with advances in bionics, bionic suits for quadriplegics seems to be on the horizon. And hopefully the set of incapacitating illnesses (physical and mental) continues to decrease. Enabling people is even more awesome than sustaining them.

[Adam]

I can't quite consent to the 4.245 trillion without the detailed make-up, but consider just social security for a start. Social security tax @ 15.3 % on typical worker income of $50,000 comes to $6,500 per person. Most of those are not below poverty, so these funds don't benefit the poor in the main, but by Joel's math would count as about $30,000-50,000 right there, there being lots more workers than there are in poverty. But we don't think of social security as a social program that is designed to benefit the poor. Similarly there are other social programs Joel is counting that don't benefit the poor in the main--veteran's, Obamacare, unemployment insurance, lots of other examples with big money.
On the other side of it, there may be social programs Joel fails to count, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit I have mentioned in TWeb. That's not unlikely to be as high as $9,400 (Including the Additional Child Tax Credit) for a family of taxpayer plus 3 kids, a $2350 windfall per person to people who would be in real poverty if not receiving this money. For a single taxpayer with 1 qualified child it would be $2200 per person.

[Carrikature]

Government spending (federal+state+local) on social programs in FY 2015 is $4,245.2 billions.
A google search tells me there are 45 million people below the poverty line in the U.S.
So that's $94,337 per person, per year.

Do you mean millions, perhaps? 4,245.2 billions is more than the total (federal) outlays for FY2015.

It's not the only area of spending, but it's the most relevant one and it is nearly 2/3 of government spending in the U.S.
If you add in military spending and interest on the debt (can we agree those are also way bigger than they should be?) the total comes to about 80% of spending. The supposedly core things like police, fire, and courts are only about 4% of spending. And even most of that is probably spent on the war on drugs boondoggle. So it still seems to be not the case that the government takes 1/3 of our incomes for a "good reason".

There's a reason I asked for more explanation of the math, and you're not there yet. Afaict, you're having to define 'social programs' to encompass the entirety of certain departments to get anywhere close to your 2/3 claim. You need to do a lot better than back of the envelope numbers here.

Getting back to the main topic of the thread. The thing that has done most in history to raise people out of poverty is freed markets, leading to economic prosperity. Even for people disabled, the increased prosperity enabled advances in technology that has enabled many people to be productive who would have been incapacitated in the past. And now with advances in bionics, bionic suits for quadriplegics seems to be on the horizon. And hopefully the set of incapacitating illnesses (physical and mental) continues to decrease. Enabling people is even more awesome than sustaining them.

I always like how 'in history' is necessarily limited to the last ~150 years (or less). Certainly, we are seeing advancements where productivity for everyone is continuing to increase. At the same time, we're seeing advancements where the need for individuals to perform a huge variety of tasks is ever diminishing.

[Joel]

I can't quite consent to the 4.245 trillion without the detailed make-up, but consider just social security for a start. Social security tax @ 15.3 % on typical worker income of $50,000 comes to $6,500 per person. Most of those are not below poverty, so these funds don't benefit the poor in the main, but by Joel's math would count as about $30,000-50,000 right there, there being lots more workers than there are in poverty. But we don't think of social security as a social program that is designed to benefit the poor. Similarly there are other social programs Joel is counting that don't benefit the poor in the main--veteran's, Obamacare, unemployment insurance, lots of other examples with big money.
On the other side of it, there may be social programs Joel fails to count, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit I have mentioned in TWeb. That's not unlikely to be as high as $9,400 (Including the Additional Child Tax Credit) for a family of taxpayer plus 3 kids, a $2350 windfall per person to people who would be in real poverty if not receiving this money. For a single taxpayer with 1 qualified child it would be $2200 per person.

Right, the fact that a huge amount of the money in these programs does not go to the poor shows them to be boondoggles. You say "we don't think of social security as a social program that is designed to benefit the poor." Yet when one asks why we have to have the program at all (or at least why can't it be completely voluntary whether to buy this insurance), the answer is invariably that then it wouldn't fulfill its purpose of existing, which is to reduce poverty among the elderly and disabled. Similarly for the other programs.

I was not including veteran's benefits.

My breakdown is:
$1293.7 billions on social insurance
$1486.6 on health care
$1008.5 on education
$456.4 on other welfare (e.g. SNAP, tax credits, unemployment, housing assistance)
------------------------
Total: $4245.2 billions

(Correction: earlier I said FY 2015, but my numbers are actually FY 2016.)


I anticipate that education is the part most likely to be objected to. But again, if we we ask why we can't end government funding of education, the response is invariably that it's because some people would be too poor to afford education. (or to reduce kids being poor when they grow to uneducated adults) Its reason for existing is as a welfare program.
But if we left education out of the sum, it would divide out to $71,926 per person (below poverty line) per year--still more than sufficient to eliminate poverty.

[Joel]

Do you mean millions, perhaps? 4,245.2 billions is more than the total (federal) outlays for FY2015.

There's a reason I asked for more explanation of the math, and you're not there yet. Afaict, you're having to define 'social programs' to encompass the entirety of certain departments to get anywhere close to your 2/3 claim. You need to do a lot better than back of the envelope numbers here.

It's billions. (and includes federal+state+local, as I said, which is why it's more than federal outlays). I have provided a breakdown in a later post as you will see. Let me know if you want it broken down further.

I always like how 'in history' is necessarily limited to the last ~150 years (or less).

No, I meant over recorded history. For thousands of years, most of mankind lived in severe poverty. The movement towards laissez-faire (from feudalism and mercantilism) finally changed that.

[Raphael]

Do you mean millions, perhaps? 4,245.2 billions is more than the total (federal) outlays for FY2015.

If he meant millions that would be only 4.2 billion, so I don't think that would be remotely correct.

It is less than we (NZ) spent on Welfare and Social Security in 2015 (we spend NZ$28.2 billion in the 2014/2015 financial year and our total population is around 4.6 million people, we spent another NZ$14.7 billion on health and NZ $13.5 billion on education - source)

[Adam]

No, I meant over recorded history. For thousands of years, most of mankind lived in severe poverty. The movement towards laissez-faire (from feudalism and mercantilism) finally changed that.

No, it was the Industrial Revolution that changed that, from a world in which Malthusian pessimism reigned as "necessariiy" true. And that Progress has brought environmental nightmares that may soon sink us into even greater poverty than ever before when the population must "adjust" downwards by billions.

[Leonhard]

I'm proposing that after 50+ years of muddling around with a perpetually broken system that we should seriously consider what we are trying to do with the public's money; how to best do it; what the actual goals are and how to get people from a situation they can't manage to one where they can not only manage but begin to prosper. Tossing money at it hasn't ever worked if the goal is to let people get back on their feet. It's a hideously broken system and no, a few internet one-liners aren't gonna do the job. If we are serious about making it BETTER then both sides have to let go of their sacred cows and actually concede that neither is satan and both have valid points - then sort out the good from the bad and come up with a system that actually works.

If you ask me, the Body of Christ is better situated for this task - but as long as humans are involved it's going to be difficult for whatever entity we charge with the task.

I respect your answer, though its so vague that I could agree with it and still propose that a welfare system is the only way to do things.

[Teallaura]

I respect your answer, though its so vague that I could agree with it and still propose that a welfare system is the only way to do things.

I'm of the opinion that only an idiot thinks they can answer the entirety of the problem.

A welfare system isn't off the table - the current versions don't seem to be actually doing what they are supposed to. They are mostly political cash cows - or vote cows, more precisely. It's to the point that the only truly destitute in the Western world are those incapable mentally of using the system. We aren't fighting 'poverty' - we're fighting 'not having as much as the Jones'"

It's time to re-think the whole thing so that we know what the heck we're actually trying to do - and do it.