Quote:
|
I'm not looking for full equality, but to narrow down the gap between the wealthy and the poor. The top 1% of the US people makes more than the bottom 40%.
|
It's sad that so many 'enlightened' and 'caring' people not only feel so self-important that the world should conform to what They want it to be, but that most of them are so narrow-minded that they cannot conceive of a mechanism to achieve their 'lofty' goals beyond one that's been around for millenia - theft.
Improving the lot of the poor is not a matter of undercutting their incentive to improve their lot via welfare or by keeping the most needy out of the labor pool via the minimum wage. And 'levelling the playing field' by punishing and/or stealing from the rich is hardly fair and equitable.
1) There will always be rich and poor. I won't belabor this point since 'ending poverty' hasn't been a stated goal here as it is in many such discussions, but it's a point that many naive social engineer wannabes are surprisingly ignorant of, and thus worth at least mention in passing.
2) Provide the poor with incentives to improve. Our government-charity programs need a massive overhaul, ideally culminating in their complete abolition. If re-privatizing the charity industry is for whatever reason not an option, it at least needs to change from 'handouts for life' to 'handouts for a limited, presumeably pre-defined time'.
3) Provide the poor with opportunities. The most obvious of these is education, but it needs to be addressed in a goal-oriented manner rather than a process-oriented one. Education does not mean warehousing children until they're 18, especially if that entails ham-stringing those who want an education with those who only want to be disruptive. Improve gifted programs, especially in the worst areas, rather than throwing bad money after worse trying to educate those who are resource drains, especially those who are drains by choice. Improve GED and other options for those who decide late that maybe an education isn't such a bad idea after all.
4) Provide the poor with opportunities. For those who don't learn well in the classroom or who haven't finished yet, allow them to work at market wages. In some cases, it will instill a work ethic and give them a jump start towards becoming productive, (more) self-sufficient citizens. In some cases, it will provide an incentive to go back and get a better education. And in some cases, it will still be a failure, but having some positive outcomes is better than having no positive outcomes.
5) Provide the poor with resources. Too often, the poor are unable to take advantage of educational opportunities or to find, keep, and/or advance job opportunities because they are pre-occupied with child-care issues. (The same applies to the whole socio-economic spectrum, but the impacts are more significant at the low end.) Charity, especially governmental charity, should include requirements for birth control, allowing the poor to allocate resources towards improving themselves or that of the children they do have.
6) Provide the poor with resources. For better or worse, there are limits to the available funds and such available to help the poor. Charity, especially governmental charity, should include requirements for birth control, allowing what resources Are available to provide better assistance to a smaller pool of people.
7) Provide the poor with opportunities. For better or worse, poor are often poor for a reason - neglected education, poor work ethic, limited availability, etc. limit their employability and their income. One common but counter-productive option is to price the less-employable out of the market altogether with minimum wage laws. A better option has already been addressed here, improving their employability. Another is to improve wages by reducing the labor pool at the lower end of the spectrum. The most equitable and socially acceptable way to do this is for charities, especially governmental charities, to include requirements for birth control, resulting in a smaller number of people chasing the lower-tier jobs and thus raising the market wage for those jobs.
If one accepts the assertion that wealth disparity is a bad thing, one also needs to address the opposite end of the spectrum. Again, rather than promote socially destructive behaviors like theft and the resultant economically unproductive reaction of wealth manipulation to avoid such theft, we should look at 'outside the box' options similar to those in the 'help the poor' list. Under our current tax structure, there are significant incentives for the poor to have additional children and dilute their resources, and no incentives for the rich to do so. This should be reversed. Rather than allowing for a set-dollar-amount income deduction for additional dependents that itself phases out at higher income levels, there should be a tax-rate deduction. Reducing one's tax rate from 35% to 34% on a million-dollar income provides Buffy and Fluffy Moneybags a $10K/yr incentive to eventually split their inheritance two (or more) ways rather than concentrate their family wealth with one heir. It also reduces the amount of 'undue influence' they can bring to bear in support of any given child. If Mr Moneybags decides to throw all his weight behind Jr's senate campaign, Jr stands a good chance of winning. If he calls in all his chips to keep Jr out of jail for some misdeed, Jr is quite likely to walk. If Mr Moneybag's social and financial resources are divided among multiple children, this creates a more equitable 'battleground' for the children of less-well-heeled parents.