[wisconsin_cur]

But aren't rising prices (which keeps us from flying across the globe) going to effect the donor "surplus" as well? In the past people were accustomed to giving out of their relative poverty. As we begin to think of ourselves as "poor," because we can no longer fly to cancun, won't we circle the wagons?

I have seen plenty of articles recently about food shelfs turning people away and suffering abnormal shortages.

[MrBill]

Having lived in communist and former communist countries I can empathize with shoppers going into a grocery store, looking around for something they can afford, and leaving again empty handed. I can also empathize with men in suits digging through my trash looking for something they can salvage and/or sell.

Wealth creation in my mind is not an abstract concept. All social spending or wealth transfers from the relatively rich to the relatively poor occur only if wealth is created in the first place. Income taxes are a tax on current wealth or income. Whereas deficit spending is a claim on future wealth creation.

Although I would hestitate to distinguish between good or bad wealth creation, as the line is blurry, I would say that accumulated wealth can be deployed in a socially responsible way or blown on conspicuous personal consumption.

For sixty cents per patient Rotary Club International is helping to eliminate polio forever thanks in part to the help of Bill Gates! Much more important than a diamond studded tennis bracelet!! ; - )

[Duende]

LoneSnark wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ho here believes they are worthy to dictate what others spend their money on? Are we to conclude your preferences are the only valid preferences in society?

[venky]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hereas deficit spending is a claim on future wealth creation.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hereas deficit spending is a claim on future wealth creation.

[LoneSnark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut aren't rising prices (which keeps us from flying across the globe) going to effect the donor "surplus" as well? In the past people were accustomed to giving out of their relative poverty. As we begin to think of ourselves as "poor," because we can no longer fly to cancun, won't we circle the wagons?

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut aren't rising prices (which keeps us from flying across the globe) going to effect the donor "surplus" as well? In the past people were accustomed to giving out of their relative poverty. As we begin to think of ourselves as "poor," because we can no longer fly to cancun, won't we circle the wagons?

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'L')ike I said, and you should know from reading history, 100 years ago no American ever died for lack of charity, yet we as a society were substantially poorer. As such, even if we become as poor as we were 100 years ago, our cultural tendency for charitable behavior will remain.

[Kingcoal]

The government has criteria for good and bad wealth creation:

Very Good: Businesses that are allowed tax credits and other government benefits. The government wants to promote such activity.

Good: Any legal business activity.

Medium: Any legal vice such as tobacco and alcohol businesses. Also included are businesses that pollute the environment. These businesses make up for their evilness with additional taxes and regulation.

Bad: Any illegal business such as narcotics production and distribution, prostitution, child pornography, etc. Most illegal businesses are based on the exploitation of baser human desires otherwise called vice. Some vices are so evil, the government can confiscate the wealth that is created by it; such as cash and asset seizures from drug dealers.

If it's legal, it's good even if it's bad. If it's bad and still legal, then it is taxed and regulated heavily to compensate. If it's completely illegal, it's completely bad. That’s the law, anyway.

The way in which bad wealth creation is dealt with is open to much debate. For example, many people believe that certain illegal drugs should be legalized and then taxed heavily. The lesson is that even if something is bad (illegal), that doesn't make it go away, it just goes underground. Some people believe that many industries, such as the fast food sector, should be moved into the Medium category and taxed/regulated additionally. Others believe that more should be added to the Bad category. In all this is the argument between personal freedom of choice and what is good overall for society. Like everything else in life, it's a big compromise.

[MrBill]

Prostitution is legal in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. Sex workers pay taxes, work in a controlled environment for their safety and are controlled by public health workers for the safety of their customers.

Basically, what is legal or illegal is pretty much arbitrary, and has very little to do with what is or is not good for society.

In Germany one can drive 160, 180, 200 kmh. In Canada one could go to jail for driving faster than 160 kmh (100 mph). And yet the German automobile may be better for the environment because it emits lower CO2, gets better mileage and it may be safer than an equivalent Noram car.

In Canada there are very few if any outdoor beer gardens. In Germany you cannot walk 5km without coming across one. Especially in the mountains, forests, outskirts of town, along the riverbank, etc. As a result a lot of Europeans will walk, hike or bike and then stop for a beer afterwards. Whereas outside a hardcore of outdoor enthusiasts most North Americans would either not bother to get outdoors for some exeercise or they may use a motorbike, quad or snowmobile. And there would be no beer garden naturally. German beer is pure. No preservatives. It is totally healthy - in moderation of course! ; - )

So I would not base good or bad wealth creation on what one country or another chooses to regulate as either legal, illegal or immoral. There may be reasons why they decide to do so, but most likely those are not universal values.

Therefore, my feeling is that 'Sin Taxes' are usually wrapped and sold for the consumption by consumers as being 'good for them' when really they are just a tax grab to support big government. Are those tobacco revenues going to fight lung cancer and to support hospitals or are they going into the public coffers to be spent as general operating revenue?


Then again I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, so I bristle at government spending money they do not have or telling me what I can or cannot do in my private life.

[LoneSnark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') person on welfare today in an industrialized nation is probably the financial equivalent of a "middle class" person back in the good olde days.

[Kingcoal]

I think you missed my point Mr. Bill. All those things you mention in Germany are taxed and regulated. Germany deals with the good and bad economic activity differently. Instead of prohibition, they choise to keep it aboveboard and tax it. Hell, if it's going to go on anyway, you might as well make some money on it.

Calling something good and bad is a moral judgement and differs from person to person. Governments have to quantify things however and the way they deal with these things differs from government to government.

[MrBill]

Agreed Kingcoal, but public policy should be very clear about urgent problems that need to be solved, and therefore scarce resources committed to solving those pressing problems, rather than being distracted as it is now by trying to solve every problem big or small at the same time and spreading those scarce public resources too thin. Those hard choices should be made using cost-benefit analysis.

Many social problems are symptoms of deeper problems. As such we may want to throw some resources at those symptoms, but we will want to commit more resources to treating the underlying problems.

I just like to compare and contrast different cultural values to underline the point that there are very few moral absolutes, but a great deal of time and effort can be wasted fighting those political battles while ignoring the real problems! ; - )

[BigTex]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') just like to compare and contrast different cultural values to underline the point that there are very few moral absolutes.

[MD]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') just like to compare and contrast different cultural values to underline the point that there are very few moral absolutes.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') just like to compare and contrast different cultural values to underline the point that there are very few moral absolutes.

[bodigami]

I disagree with the criteria, for "good" it should be:
everything that does not harm the environment even if the usefulness is subjective...

...although I measure happyness in different units than "wealth", and therefore don't care for wealth (just for survival).