NJ Governor

[Gustaf]

Yes, we live in a free society, however, I feel that a person's worth is not determined by their income or the amount of money that they have. Earning money does have a lot to do with hard work, but also a lot of it is luck, being in the right place at the right time, and many people inherit wealth from their parents without having to do any hard work at all. That is why those who have been successful and gotten the breaks should give some back to society, for the betterment of all of us. I'm not talking about communism here, confiscating all of it or anything. I'm just saying give enough to help others, while still leaving them filthy rich, just not quite as filthy rich. I don't think that's too much to ask of people in order to make the world a better place for everyone else.

Yes, I realize that some of the wealth does trickle down in trickle down economics, but I think that a very high percentage of it doesn't, as opposed to giving the money to the people at the bottom of the economic ladder who are much more likely to use it in a way that is productive to the economy. Demand creates supply, not the other way around, which is why supply side economics is not the most optimal way to grow the economy. The consumers are the ones who really drive the economic vehicle of this country and are the ones upon whom the economy is most dependent moreso than the producers. Obviously there needs to be both supply and demand, but in capitalism supply will follow demand since it is profitable to do so, but demand will not necessarily follow supply since it is not in the consumers' best interest. In the long run, tax cuts for the wealthy do more harm than good to the economy, as they create a larger debt which will ultimately cause a reduction in government services which disproportionately benefit the less well-off.

Yes, tax cuts for the middle class and poor do benefit them, but if they are accompanied by tax cuts for the rich as well then overall the poor and middle class are losing more than they are gaining in the long run. They may see some short term benefit, but in the long run there will be much more bad than good for their personal economic fortunes.

I also don't agree that government is as wasteful or inefficient as you. Yes, bureaucracy does cause some waste, but there is bureaucracy in every organization, businesses included. Ultimately, the fact that businesses make a profit while government doesn't is the biggest reason why government is more efficient when it comes to providing good services to the masses at reasonable cost. Government doesn't generate huge amounts of wealth for those at the top like business does. It provides much more benefit, disproportionately, to those at the bottom economically. Thus, for the great majority of people, they will get more bang for their buck from government than from private business, in my opinion.

Ultimately, as I've said before, it comes down to which of the 2 moral principles involved is more important: that people be allowed to keep their money, or the societal obligation of those with more to give some of it back to those with less. Although almost everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, agrees with both moral principles, they disagree as to which is more important and should receive more emphasis in public policy, and to what degree one should win out over the other.

I agree with the final point. I am a strong supporter of individual rights. However, taxes and social welafare programs save lives, and that is the key point for me. The restrictions on personal freedom is a price I am willing to pay. It shouldn't be allowed to reach the point where people stop taking responsibility for their own lives, and so on, but a safety net for the unfortunate is fully acceptable in a civilised society. Charity has never worked, I would like it if it did, but it doesn't, unfortunately.

The model used for voucher schools, public financing but run as a private enterprise is the one I support. That is a good compromise, removing a lot of bureaucracy, but at the same time not leaving the poor out to dry. In Sweden it is being tested for hospitals and homes for the elderly, as well as with schools, and the results, I believe, are encouraging.

[Gustaf]

I agree with the final point. I am a strong supporter of individual rights. However, taxes and social welafare programs save lives, and that is the key point for me. The restrictions on personal freedom is a price I am willing to pay. It shouldn't be allowed to reach the point where people stop taking responsibility for their own lives, and so on, but a safety net for the unfortunate is fully acceptable in a civilised society. Charity has never worked, I would like it if it did, but it doesn't, unfortunately.

Excellently put! The trouble with trickledown economics is that as a model it's ideologically driven, but is unpragmatic in reality. Like you said, taxation is a necessary evil to ensure an acceptable standard of living for everyone (which surely should be a right, not a privilege, in this day and age; of course those who work should have a higher standard of living than those who don't, that goes without saying; I'm talking of the very poor in society enjoying the same privileges such as education and healthcare, as the very rich). And as Gustaf said, social welfare funded via taxation saves lives. That alone makes it necessary.

Thanks for your support!