Quote from oldtime:
the money goes to Washington, that's why a poor Arkansas governor can blow 2 milllion on his daughter's wedding.
It aint the rich against the poor, it's the people against the government.
If I as and investment professional put together something like Social Security or Medicare, they would throw me in jail for robbing from the people. Yeah, you get a big benefit at first, until the ponzi scheme finally comes home to roost.
There's no way you can take even all the money from the rich and give it to the poor, and then take all the money from the poor and give it to the rich for very long without eventually the government (the transfer agent) going broke due to lack of funds.
Otherwise, we would all go into the transfer business.
But the government seems to always have just enough money to keep it going somehow.
I'm all for taxing the rich, so let's start with the US Federal government, since they have trillions and most of us just have millions.
I think you hit on a slightly different issue here, which is where does the value that gets transferred from high-income taxpayers go? Does it go to low-income beneficiaries of those transfers or is it primarily skimmed off the top by the transferring functionaries.
That would require a more detailed analysis, but, when you consider that, controlling for education and experience, it does appear that Federal employees are overpaid relative to their private sector counterparts, it probably is the case that the actual primary beneficiary in these income transfer transactions is the Federal employee base.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...16-percent-more-than-private-sector-cbo-finds
The market for government workers is just a subset of the overall labor market, subject to the exact same rules and incentives. Basically, as more analysis of that market comes out, it turns out they are not the "best and the brightest", they are basically mediocre, but the protective barrier that being in an industry without any natural competitors and the distance between them and those paying the bills has enabled them to run a nice little scam on taxpayers. That all worked until the economy went into the crapper.
So, when a middle-class beneficiary of government programs gets $20K in benefits from those programs, those same programs probably would only cost $15-18K if delivered by the private sector equivalent. If there is no private sector equivalent and the program represents a public good, that's at least somewhat justifiable, in theory, because that's what government's most legitimate role is, the provision of public goods.
If there is, or could be, a private sector equivalent, then society as a whole would be better off eliminating the government's role in providing that program. That would free up from $2-5K for investment or consumption elsewhere. As it is now, whatever that cost discrepancy is is what's known as a "dead weight loss".
As for Clinton, he made most of his money after he left office or from book sales while he was in office, which, at least, is a reflection of his free market value. Why anyone would want to read a book penned by the guy is a different story. I'd rather re-read Caesar's book on the Gallic Wars again than read Clinton's blatherings.
