With Charles Murray's new book out now

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0844742236/104-9908101-0454319?v=glance&n=283155

which poses the idea of getting rid of welfare state programs in favor of a $10,000 grant to everyone, I figured I would see what people thought of the idea of redistributing income without the beurocratic trappings of programs like social security, medicare, HUD, etc.

I havent read it yet but it doesnt seem that much different from other ideas like the negative income tax.

This type of income redistribution would consist of just taxing the rich and giving it to the poor with maybe only a few restrictions on how they could spend a part of the money.

As a moderate libertarian Im growing more and more inclined towards these types of ideas because it can keep the market relatively free and unregulated while providing help to the lower classes.

4/17/2006 12:47:27 AM

Why do rich people need a $10,000 grant?

4/17/2006 1:04:27 AM

10k one time or every year?

4/17/2006 1:05:37 AM

isn't this that guy who wrote that book claiming blacks were genetically inferior to whites? name sounds familiar

4/17/2006 1:07:43 AM

Quote :

"Why do rich people need a $10,000 grant?"

Apparently it would be taxed or something for them.

His idea is interesting but I think it would be pointless to give people paying the taxes any of the money.

Quote :

"10k one time or every year?"

every year

Quote :

"isn't this that guy who wrote that book claiming blacks were genetically inferior to whites? name sounds familiar"

yeah he cowrote the bell curve.

...

I saw stuff about this book posted on andrewsullivan and marginalrevolution and thought I would use it to start a discussion in here. Im thinking from the first couple of posts I should have made the thread without mentioning the book,

Mainly the $10,000 per year per person just gives some idea of how much money there is already to go around.

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 1:40 AM. Reason : ]

4/17/2006 1:40:14 AM

andrew sullivan is a self hating homosexual.

4/17/2006 1:45:18 AM

this idea is both fair and democratic.

and i want no part in it.

4/17/2006 8:24:42 AM

how is it fair to take from one to give to another at all? That's undemocratic.

4/17/2006 8:44:32 AM

imma social free-agent

i hope i get drafted by the upper middle class

i think i could do a lot for their team

4/17/2006 9:04:28 AM

because it is believed that the person who has "some" would not have as much without the previous investments made by the gov't

for example the google guys wouldn't have made billions off the internet if the gov't hadn't spent millions on DARPAnet




i mean, i dunno
i'm just saying

4/17/2006 9:17:44 AM

That's a rather indirect link. When a government takes directly from individuals (via tax) and gives money to people (via checks) then that is completely undemocratic.

4/17/2006 9:19:01 AM

then when most americans get a $500 check back from the govt for their taxes, the first thing they do is spend it. sounds like a great idea to give everyone $10,000.

4/17/2006 9:27:52 AM

and everything else this country does is democratic?

4/17/2006 9:28:26 AM

^ didn't say that. Because some things arent' democratic doesn't mean we have to go down the slippery slope of nothing being democratic. That has to be one of the worst retorts ever.

^^ If the gov. gives everyone a check for 10,000 and they spend it, why can't we spend our own money without creating a bureucracy to handle this distribution (or further strengthening an existing bureaucracy)? I'm all about the transition of power FROM the government to the people. You are just giving the government more power and more control over people's lives and it further creates the "entitlement state" where people feel that they are owed something when in fact, you are owed nothing. You owe it only to yourself to make your own living.

4/17/2006 9:32:45 AM

wasnt trying to go down that slope, chill

im just saying, sometimes something might not fit into that category, but it doesnt mean we should automatically ignore it. that might not be practical.

not saying that this idea is, either.

4/17/2006 9:54:43 AM

Here's a quickie summary of the plan from Jonathan Last, Daily Standard:

Quote :

"In his new book, In Our Hands, Murray offers what he calls "the Plan": Halt all government entitlement programs and redistribute tax money directly to citizens. The Plan is elegantly simple. When you turn 21, you begin receiving monthly income from the federal government--deposited directly into your bank account--that totals $10,000 a year. This grant keeps coming, month after month, until the day you die. Not everyone gets to keep the full $10,000. Once your salaried income hits $25,000, the size of your grant diminishes gradually until those making above $50,000 get only $5,000 a year. The only condition is that you not be in jail--once you're out of the pokey, you get the money. Murray's main objective is to provide better retirement benefits for less money. On this count, his Plan is attractive. Consider a low-wage worker making $20,000 a year. By investing $2,000 of her grant every year in a conservative index fund, and assuming a 4 percent return on her investment (the lowest rate of return ever recorded over a 45-year period is 4.3 percent; the average is about 7 percent), our worker would have a $253,000 nest egg when she retires. The income from that investment, plus the continuing $10,000 grant, would give our worker a post-retirement, yearly income of at least $30,500. Under the current regime, a similar worker would get about $11,000 a year in Social Security benefits. Another goal of Murray's Plan is to expand medical insurance while controlling costs. To do this, he proposes some radical reforms of the health-care system, with the result that people pay for their own health insurance, which becomes, like auto insurance, mandatory. Murray's conservative assumptions peg insurance costs for an individual at $3,000 per year, which could be automatically deducted from people's bank accounts. The Plan is simple, but not without complications. Implementation would require a constitutional amendment and what would amount to a national ID card. Altering the health-care system might be easy compared with the logistical difficulties of disassembling the welfare state--all those government workers would have to get jobs elsewhere. And then there's the matter of unintended consequences. Who knows what ripples might result? For instance, if government student-loan programs are done away with, college costs should fall as the price structure loses elasticity. That's a good thing. Even better is that the Plan could encourage family formation, particularly at lower socioeconomic levels, where it is desperately needed. However, the Plan also gives two-income families incentives to keep both parents in the workforce--which some of us find disconcerting. And it might well discourage having children. As Murray notes, "Under the Plan, having a baby is pure economic loss." American fertility rates are already dangerously low. But the math is seductive. If we were to implement Murray's Plan tomorrow, it would be slightly more expensive than the current entitlement system--$355 billion more expensive. But the beauty of the Plan is that it is essentially a steady-state model. By 2011, our current entitlement system will cost just as much as Murray's Plan. By 2020, it will cost $549 billion more"

4/17/2006 11:00:28 AM

Quote :

" Consider a low-wage worker making $20,000 a year. By investing $2,000 of her grant every year in a conservative index fund, and assuming a 4 percent return on her investment (the lowest rate of return ever recorded over a 45-year period is 4.3 percent; the average is about 7 percent), our worker would have a $253,000 nest egg when she retires. "

How many low wage workers have the requisite education to know how to invest their grants? Murray's plan completely fails to address this information gap.

4/17/2006 11:15:36 AM

^well under his plan they would only be receving a little less than they already get from social security so Im not sure it would matter if they know how to invest it, if they just put it in a savings account then they would end up with more than their current SS payouts.

And Im sure it could be reworked a little to make sure the lowest earners receive more from the grant than what they would ever get from social security.

4/17/2006 11:33:21 AM

WE'RE GONNA GIVE EVERYONE A CHECK

FOR $300!

HOT DANG, IM GETTIN ME A HAMMOCK!

4/17/2006 11:38:45 AM

How's this for income redistribution...

Seize all oil company's profits in excess of 1 billion, cut every man, woman, and child a fat yearly check for 10K.

4/17/2006 11:47:07 AM

Don't you mean a check for $4.00? There are 280,000,000+ people in the U.S.

4/17/2006 12:00:12 PM

I'm sorry, but the only people this would help is the owners of rim shops, shoe stores, car customization places. yes, i said it, a lot of the poor people in the US would get this check and immediately go spend it on some rims for their car, or some timbaland boots, etc. Giving someone who doesn't know how to wisely spent the money they earn to begin with a check for 10k is just begging for trouble.

4/17/2006 12:14:46 PM

^^I said they could keep their first billion in profits, everything above and beyond that would get divided up.

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 12:20 PM. Reason : not serious BTW]

4/17/2006 12:20:38 PM

I misread. I thought you were saying their profits were a little in excess of $1 billion.

4/17/2006 3:06:23 PM

Quote :

"Seize all oil company's profits in excess of 1 billion, cut every man, woman, and child a fat yearly check for 10K."

aha, this is the kinda stuff i want to suggest sometimes, but this will never fly.

4/17/2006 3:12:26 PM

why should it? Since when is it the government's place to seize anyone's property for anything? Minus imminant domain, I cannot see how anyone could advocate this. It's ridiculous at how much power you just want to give the government. That's the same shit the founders fought to escape and you just want to hand it all back over.

Can't you control your own life? Why do you need someone else to manage it for you?

One of the most dangerous things that we're going to run into is an increasing percentage of the population on the government payroll (I think it's either near or at 50%). I think that's just dangerous and the trend continues. Once government grows, without a revolution, it will NEVER shrink.

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2006 3:16:48 PM

Quote :

"Since when is it the government's place to seize anyone's property for anything?"

Good point. But another part of me says that oil companies shouldn't have complete ownership of whatever they pump. It's not like they created the oil.

4/17/2006 3:56:43 PM

No but they own the land/drilling mechanisms required to get it. Simply put, if it wasn't for them, we'd have no oil.

Sure, let the government take control of oil production/refining. It's not like other government projects have never failed. Look at Amtrak. Look at the public education system.

You're still getting gas. Yes, it's expensive, but once again, if you removed government and all the tax that is in gas, you'd have it at a pretty decent damned price.

4/17/2006 4:05:08 PM

Quote :

"No but they own the land/drilling mechanisms required to get it."

Yes, but how did they obtain that land? Why can't the government own the land and oil, and pay the companies for their services?

Quote :

"Sure, let the government take control of oil production/refining."

Never said that.

4/17/2006 4:30:57 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but how did they obtain that land? Why can't the government own the land and oil, and pay the companies for their services?"

How about if the government own your land? IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY! That's what the nation was founded on and so many people are so ready to whore it out to the government. I just don't understand...

4/17/2006 4:36:42 PM

IF WE DO THIS, THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON

hey, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. times change.

And equating oil nationalization w/ seizure of your private land is a slippery slope.

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2006 4:58:41 PM

Then don't bitch abotu the patriot act. Don't btich about the government taxing the shit out of you. Don't bitch abotu the gov. listening to your conversations. don't bitch about the gov. holding people without charging them. Because times change.

What a shitty excuse.

You should NEVER give up your essential rights.

4/17/2006 4:59:39 PM

Quote :

"And equating oil nationalization w/ seizure of your private land is a slippery slope."

HOW THE FUCK IS THAT A SLIPPERY SLOPE! THAT'S A GODDAM DEFINITION OF NATIONALIZATION!

IT's the confiscation of private property for use and ownership by the government dipshit. In other words TAKING YOUR FUCKING PRIVATE LAND!

4/17/2006 5:01:27 PM

i dont feel like reading all of this, but property is not an essential right. it doesnt say anywhere in the constitution that you have a right to property, much as libertarians want it to. it does, however, say that the government has a right to tax you.

4/17/2006 5:06:07 PM

first off, calm the fuck down

second off, we're talking about just parts of one industry here. one industry. not all of them, not your house, not your life.

some of us dont define our stances based on one ideology. i draw from all over the place to create my beliefs. i see doing this with one industry totally differently b/c its just one industry. one industry. is there a rule that says i cant support oil nationalization and support people retaining their private land?

once again, calm the fuck down. i can just imagine you going into a frenzy at the computer right now, slobbering all over the keyboard and screaming at the screen. dont be that guy.

hell, this wasnt even my idea.

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 5:07 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2006 5:06:20 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but how did they obtain that land? Why can't the government own the land and oil, and pay the companies for their services?"

Because an economy operated by "the lowest bidder" pushes not for efficiency but for cost minimization.

It is all about incentives. If the companies don't get the profit from the oil, then they have no interest in producing more of it faster. If they don't own the field, then they have no interest in keeping it valuable. An oil field can be wrecked by pumping the oil out too quickly. By making the oil companies buy the land up-front and retain ownership it makes sure only the most efficient companies can even attempt extraction (if the land cost $8 million, no point buying it and wrecking it to make a quick $6 million).

By placing ownership of the land in the hands of a third party, the government, the company has no interest in maximizing production or keeping the land useful. They are going to cut all the corners they can get away with. For example, lease the land, drill the oil as cheaply as possible, wreck the field, take the quick $6 million profit then declare bankruptcy, leaving the government with worthless land and higher gas prices (instead of producing 6 million barrels we only produced 4 million).

You must remember the old adage "no one has ever washed a rented automobile"

Quote :

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

RevoltNow: as a libertarian, I have no problem with private property takings as long as just compensation is provided. If the government wants to confiscate all my oil fields and refineries they are welcome to them, they just have to pay me just compensation. As I am a publically traded company, we already know what the fair market price for my company is: just take the current stock price and multiply it by the number of shares issued. For example, buying out Exxon would only cost the Federal Government $402 billion or 1/3rd of all federal tax revenues.

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 5:20 PM. Reason : ^^ ^]

4/17/2006 5:12:42 PM

Quote :

"One of the most dangerous things that we're going to run into is an increasing percentage of the population on the government payroll (I think it's either near or at 50%). I think that's just dangerous and the trend continues. Once government grows, without a revolution, it will NEVER shrink. "

says the public univeristy alumnus

4/17/2006 5:23:25 PM

Quote :

"second off, we're talking about just parts of one industry here. one industry. not all of them, not your house, not your life. "

Just one. Does that make it right? "just" one? It starts with just one. The government never shrinks. It will always take and never give back. That's been the history of governments period.

Quote :

"second off, we're talking about just parts of one industry here. one industry. not all of them, not your house, not your life. "

But they are taking people's houses and people's lives. What do you call the connecticut (I think... maybe be vermont) case where the people's houses were taken to build a strip mall? This is essentially un-American.

Quote :

"but property is not an essential right"

Amendment V:

Quote :

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 6:04 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2006 6:03:46 PM

without due process of law and without compensation are key phrases there. given the vague definition of many of our laws, one could probably find a way to justify a communist government within america that would not violate those phrases. in my opinion the fact that you can be deprived of something within the law means that it is not a right in any ultimate sense, but rather a right in legal terms. and laws can be changed rather easily.

the point i was trying to make was that taxes fufill both requirements (and any others you could come up with) because tax law is subject to the same public (hahahaha) scrutiny (hahahahah) as any other law, and because taxes dont just sit in some kings vault, but are used for the public good. i know that the latter part is something that a lot of people use to argue for only making people be taxed for what they use, but thats a much different argument.

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 6:18 PM. Reason : thanks for the amendments though, i had forgotten about those phrases.]

4/17/2006 6:17:42 PM

Quote :

"in my opinion the fact that you can be deprived of something within the law means that it is not a right in any ultimate sense, but rather a right in legal terms. and laws can be changed rather easily. "

If this were true, what rights would people have? There are no rights that cant be taken away by law, because the only way that rights are recognized is through law. And when someone derrogates a right do you just yell "hey I have a right" and they so "Oh, my bad!?" No, you have to have a legal remedy to either stop someone from abridging a right, or to be compensated for the deprivation of that right

4/17/2006 6:31:30 PM

i thought that was why we revolted.
because we thought some rights existed above the rule of law.

4/17/2006 6:43:04 PM

those rights in the Dec. of Independance are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in the text of the 5th amendment(infra.) it is clearly stated that those may be deprived as long as there is due process.

4/17/2006 6:45:25 PM

Quote :

"How about if the government own your land? IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY!"

Some things should be private property and some things shouldn't. Quit twisting what I say to the extreme.

4/17/2006 7:19:29 PM

Quote :

"Yet in the text of the 5th amendment(infra.) it is clearly stated that those may be deprived as long as there is due process."

Because without that, we could not have prisons or the death penalty. Nor would the local/state/federal govs be able to confiscate land to be able to construct roads. It's a very important amendment.

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 7:31 PM. Reason : s]

4/17/2006 7:31:20 PM

Speaking of eminent domain, the West Virginia gov't is striking back at BB&T for its stance on private property rights...

Quote :

"West Virginia agency threatens to pull business from BB&T over eminent domain Triangle Business Journal - April 14, 2006 BB&T Corp. might lose some business with a Charleston, W. Va., economic development agency because of the bank's stance on eminent domain. The Charleston Daily Mail reported Thursday that the Charleston Urban Renewal Authority will likely pull $2.3 million out of BB&T accounts because of the bank's position that it wouldn't lend money to commercial developers building private projects on land taken from private citizens through eminent domain. John Allison, the chairman and CEO of Winston-Salem-based BB&T, announced the policy in January. Bob Denham, a spokesman for BB&T (NYSE: BBT), told the Charleston newspaper that the Charleston agency would be the first entity to pull money from the bank because of the new policy. "

The Supreme Court has perverted the concept of eminent domain to now mean "public benefit" instead of "public use". This allows local gov't agencies to steal anyone's land for a song and give it to another person with the hope of getting more taxes.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That pursuit of happiness means you are entitled to enjoy the fruits of your labors...your property.

4/17/2006 7:50:15 PM

Quote :

" How about if the government own your land? IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY! That's what the nation was founded on and so many people are so ready to whore it out to the government. I just don't understand..."

actually, oil companies own very little land. They sign absurd leases with the federal government and pay a pittance of money and harvest the oil and such that belongs to the United States without paying a dime for that oil, other than the small rent on the surface land.

4/17/2006 7:59:10 PM

Quote :

"That pursuit of happiness means you are entitled to enjoy the fruits of your labors...your property. "

I see what you did there! you criticized the government taking public use to mean public benefit and then you morphed pursuit of happiness into property.

Also there is no mention of the pursuit of happiness in the Constitution

4/17/2006 8:04:03 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but how did they obtain that land? Why can't the government own the land and oil, and pay the companies for their services?"

Because an economy operated by "the lowest bidder" pushes not for efficiency but for cost minimization. Such a system would make a very few politically connected fabulously wealthy and the rest of us poorer.

It is all about incentives. If the companies don't get the profit from the oil, then they have no interest in producing more of it faster. If they don't own the field, then they have no interest in keeping it valuable. An oil field can be wrecked by pumping the oil out too quickly. By making the oil companies buy the land up-front and retain ownership it makes sure only the most efficient companies can even attempt extraction (if the land cost $8 million, no point buying it and wrecking it to make a quick $6 million).

By placing ownership of the land in the hands of a third party, the government, the company has no interest in maximizing production or keeping the land useful. They are going to cut all the corners they can get away with. For example, lease the land, drill the oil as cheaply as possible, wreck the field, take the quick $6 million profit then declare bankruptcy, leaving the government with worthless land and higher gas prices (instead of producing 6 million barrels we only produced 4 million).

You must remember the old adage "no one has ever washed a rented automobile"

Quote :

"5th Amendment: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

RevoltNow: as a libertarian, I have no problem with private property takings as long as just compensation is provided. If the government wants to confiscate all my oil fields and refineries they are welcome to them, they just have to pay me just compensation. As I am a publically traded company, we already know what the fair market price for my company is: just take the current stock price and multiply it by the number of shares issued. For example, buying out Exxon would only cost the Federal Government $402 billion or 1/3rd of all federal tax revenues.

4/17/2006 8:42:54 PM

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT

THE GOVERNMENT DOES OWN THE LAND

THE COMPANIES JUST LEASE THE SURFACE LAND FOR MINISCUL AMOUNTS OF MONEY

AND RAPE THE RESOURCES WITHOUT PAYING THE OWNERS (US)

4/17/2006 8:47:04 PM

^ Which is exactly what I said would happen if the land was government owned.

When oil is found underground the government should auction the land off. Retaining ownership just enriches the corporation and impoverishes both the land and the government.

4/17/2006 8:49:40 PM