" I'm sure Will Smith worked much harder than any of us to earn his 42 million dollar house. After all, he was like in 7 movies. Getting up at noon and welcoming aliens to erf is hard. How dare you tax him more. Everyone knows you can't live comfortably in a 41 million dollar house! "
People think acting is easy. It's actually very tiring, so your sarcasm is unwarranted. Also, I'm not considered rich, but I also don't think the rich should be taxed just for being so. They have worked hard and probably gotten some lucky breaks. I would hope those rich people would want to help out of the goodness of their own hearts. That may be naive but whatever.
this is retarded. Is this a philosophical question or economic? The question makes it look like we are actually going to talk about economics, but the poll choices are all philosophical.
From an economic perspective, no, we should not tax the rich more because it is not an economic resolve.
@lilburtonboy7489: Hello you must be genius, i am retarded. The answers are as follows yes, no, i don't know, the rest are there for entertainment purposes. I did not think that needed clarification. It does not sound like you know much about economics to just blatantly say no, so okay.
" @lilburtonboy7489: Hello you must be genius, i am retarded. The answers are as follows yes, no, i don't know, the rest are there for entertainment purposes. I did not think that needed clarification. It does not sound like you know much about economics to just blatantly say no, so okay. "
It's for entertainment purposes? Well then you failed hard, because almost this entire forum has been based around that. There has been pretty much no economic discussion, it's all been based on what your poll answers say. So yes, this is retarded.
As far as the economics argument goes, there is literally one reason that people advocate increasing the taxes on the rich. Economists believe that the marginal propensity to consume is higher for the lower class than the upper class. So by taxing the rich, aggregate demand will rise because the government spending multiplier is 1 while all other MPCs are less than 1. So by transfering money from the rich who have a low MPC, it goes to the government to who has the perfect MPC of 1, which means all money is spent and not saved so that it immediately goes into the flow of spending. Economists would rather do this instead of getting the government revenue from the poor, because they have a much higher MPC than the rich (it's closer to .92 while the rich have an MPC closer to .75). In essence, they want to tax those who spend less of their income so that the government can spend it for them. It all boils down to the size of particular spending multipliers.
That's the economic argument FOR increasing taxes on the rich. Of course, the whole logic for increasing ANY taxes in such terrible times is to avoid portfolio crowding out. PCO essentially means that increasing the deficit has to be funded by issuing more bonds. When demand has not increased for bonds but more need to be sold, the government needs to increase the price of bonds, or raise the interest rate. But they want to avoid this because increasing the interest rate will decrease investment in the economy.
What people are missing is that PCO is completely irrelevant right now and we don't need to worry about it. The Fed Funds rate is less than 1%, and to offset any potential increase in the interest rate from PCO, we could always just pump more liquidity into the banking system to keep rates low. So PCO is not a real concern.
Also, as far as multipliers are concern, what economists miss is that the opposite of the MPC is the MPS (marginal propensity to save). It's true that the rich spend less than the poor. However, they do save more than the poor as well. The rich are the only people offer a tiny sustainability to the artificial interest rates the FED has set. The savings that they have are what can sustain economic booms. So taking away more money from the rich via taxation means taking away even more savings which are economy is in dire need of. Decreasing the savings will further destabilize our economy.
There's your economic argument. Btw, why did you say that "It does not sound like you know much about economics"? Did you literally just make that up?
I understand this is a long thread, but maybe you should read it if you want to make such a statement.
As i said, this is a temporary recessive measure, its a very small price to pay to decrease the effect of booms in order to fix the debt brought about by recessions. You realize just letting the rich buy bonds instead of taking their money from taxes is significantly more crippling to what kind of projects the government can undertake since they have to be paying it back and with interest.
History(where the rich used to be taxed 70 per cent) does not seem to back up your point that they need to have lots of money saved up for us to sustain economic booms. Besides if this is taken as a temporary measure, the rich will probably be getting most of that money back once the boom is underway. The cycle will just work better and recessions won't take so long to fix.
Some people even think we should apply this measure permanently since real wages have stopped increasing because of the rich not getting taxed enough/not spending enough/ do not share company profits with ranking(even when their output is increasing) members.
I am no philosopher, but something is failing when 40 per cent of the money is in one per cent of hands, especially when they don't spend it(the mpc is actually even lower than the figure you gave us).
" I understand this is a long thread, but maybe you should read it if you want to make such a statement. "
I did, and almost all of it has been ethics discussion based on your poll answers which you provided as "entertainment".
" As i said, this is a temporary recessive measure, its a very small price to pay to decrease the effect of booms in order to fix the debt brought about by recessions."
What? Which economic school of thought advocates increases taxes during a recession (portfolio crowding out aside, which doesn't apply when nominal rates are at near 0%)? And did you seriously just say that this debt was brought about by recessions? Where did you learn economics? (you better get your money back)
" You realize just letting the rich buy bonds instead of taking their money from taxes is significantly more crippling to what kind of projects the government can undertake since they have to be paying it back and with interest. "
Do you realize that the interest they are paying is going directly do individuals who then use it much more productively than the government does? Even the most Keynesian economists believe that the market allocates resources better than the government. And besides, you are making a completely insane assumption that the rich put all of their money in bonds. That's a tiny part of their portfolio.
" History(where the rich used to be taxed 70 per cent) does not seem to back up your point that they need to have lots of money saved up for us to sustain economic booms. "
I did not say that they sustain economic booms. I said they are the only ones that contribute to sustaining the boom. There is no such thing as sustaining a boom indefinitely. The crash will come, but the more gentle the landing the better. And the rich are the only ones that have any savings anymore. But here's my question for you: What exactly DO we need to sustain economic booms?
"Besides if this is taken as a temporary measure, the rich will probably be getting most of that money back once the boom is underway. The cycle will just work better and recessions won't take so long to fix."
What? The cycle will work better? They will get most of their money back? Do you care to explain yourself at all? How will taxing the rich fix a recession faster? Do you even have any idea what causes the boom and bust cycle in the first place? Let me guess: Animal spirits, greed, and deregulation? That's usually what people say who get their economics degree from the internet or the media.
" Some people even think we should apply this measure permanently since real wages have stopped increasing because of the rich not getting taxed enough/not spending enough/ do not share company profits with ranking(even when their output is increasing) members."
Really? Wages have stopped increasing because of the rich saving too much, and being able to keep more of their income? Brilliant thesis.
" especially when they don't spend it(the mpc is actually even lower than the figure you gave us). "
Oh, so what EXACTLY is the MPC for the rich? Also, what happens to the money the rich do not spend? Do they put it under a mattress? Even the craziest economists are ditching the concept of multipliers. After you add leakage, PCO, add the credit and commodities market to the ISLM model, and add the open economy parameter to the models, multipliers are essentially not existent. Even if the government's mpc is 1, adding $1 of government spending does not give us $10 of real wealth. No one believes this anymore. Spending is not homogeneous. Spending is not intrinsically good (and saving is not intrinsically evil). Monetary and fiscal policy cannot sustain booms infinitely. If anyone has ever even looked at Japan, it becomes pretty clear that all of these things are true.
I think there would be more yes votes if the op had said that Obama only wanted to raise the taxes of the very richest people three percent. You could raise my taxes three percent and I would barely notice a difference, I'm sure they wouldn't be able to notice a difference.
the economic situation that we are currently experiencing differs from each nation and their partners. our oil reserves are low on quanity and i believe that the old saying `quality over quanity`takes effect. here. not only does it perfectly suit our current tax drought and ecomonic situation, but we are also enjoying the tax refund referred to `the big payback` as reffered to as by senetor john irvings in 1962. this, along with other situations i believe will stimulate our tax ecomony by an astonishing 60% based on Wall Street calculations and various sources which cannot be named at this time.
now, if the ``lee stanley` effect is taken into consideration, there could possibly be a backlash of tax refunds. not that this is a problem for our ecomonic development, but this is also issued by section 533 as the diagonsis sector.
with that said, i see no reason why our economic proprtions cannot be undated. recent reports from China state that their ecomonic situation is not as good as reports say. there are many biased news stations and labour camps and the large amounts of money sunk into this by their governments might be the cause of ecomonic drought in China.
as shown in the graph above, ecomonic proportions have not been stable as of 1976. OUR GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH TO STOP THIS KIND OF ECOMONIC DROUGHT.
I did, and almost all of it has been ethics discussion based on your poll answers which you provided as "entertainment".
Almost is a very deceiving word, do you expect me to put a qualification for answering a thread? Its for everyone, general opinion.
What? Which economic school of thought advocates increases taxes during a recession (portfolio crowding out aside, which doesn't apply when nominal rates are at near 0%)? And did you seriously just say that this debt was brought about by recessions? Where did you learn economics? (you better get your money back)
Did you watch the video? i am obviously making(mainly) reference to taxing the portfolios, i did not say debt was brought about by recessions, i said recessions worsen debt, and we are not counteracting it fast enough. Theres no point in attacking my qualification, but i will say that i have attended a few lateral economical thinking courses hosted by some very impressive economists.
Do you realize that the interest they are paying is going directly do individuals who then use it much more productively than the government does? Even the most Keynesian economists believe that the market allocates resources better than the government. And besides, you are making a completely insane assumption that the rich put all of their money in bonds. That's a tiny part of their portfolio.
Yes... because i thought the rich were putting all their money in bonds, when the yield is ridiculously low. Productively, increased output? maybe but because not all of the inputer s are getting sufficient compensation, then the increased productivity does not actually yield benefits for everyone, but mostly for more. As an investor myself, one of the basic rules of investing is, during a recession, bond or bank 90 per cent of it. I have no statistic to back me up, but if i had to guess, they are either buying bonds or saving and neither is helping the rest. I mean just agree with me that its ridiculous that the government injects money into banks so that they can borrow from them...
I did not say that they sustain economic booms. I said they are the only ones that contribute to sustaining the boom. There is no such thing as sustaining a boom indefinitely. The crash will come, but the more gentle the landing the better. And the rich are the only ones that have any savings anymore. But here's my question for you: What exactly DO we need to sustain economic booms?
I don't see where your going with this, during booms people(not just rich) can borrow from banks and have profiteering projects. I never said anything about permanent way to sustain them, but i do agree with Richard D Wolff in that if not only the shareholders had a say but also the stakeholders, their might be much more permanent booms.
What? The cycle will work better? They will get most of their money back? Do you care to explain yourself at all? How will taxing the rich fix a recession faster? Do you even have any idea what causes the boom and bust cycle in the first place? Let me guess: Animal spirits, greed, and deregulation? That's usually what people say who get their economics degree from the internet or the media.
... Thanks for that. Let me explain that part, if this is a temporary measure, and we manage to crawl out of the recession, then their investments/companies or w/e will be boosted again and make them money again. Taxing the rich will help cancel out debt... obviously alone it won't fix it, but it makes every things more manageable, and increases the effects of policy's. Recessions are caused by a few things, but no the ones you mentioned aren't some of them, but then again those words are very broad, off the top of my head i'd say increases in public or private spending, and monetary policy... as for this recession, theres a few things, and i'm not quite sure which one to pinpoint.
Really? Wages have stopped increasing because of the rich saving too much, and being able to keep more of their income? Brilliant thesis.
I carefully did not use the word income, i admit i was unclear on this. Real Wages stopped increasing not because of lack of taxing, but because corporate governance did not raise incomes/rewards in accordance to how much the output was increasing. As soon as this was detected, the government should have taxed these business men to ensure that money was given back to the people(not trying to sound like a communist, i am not).
Oh, so what EXACTLY is the MPC for the rich? Also, what happens to the money the rich do not spend? Do they put it under a mattress? Even the craziest economists are ditching the concept of multipliers. After you add leakage, PCO, add the credit and commodities market to the ISLM model, and add the open economy parameter to the models, multipliers are essentially not existent. Even if the government's mpc is 1, adding $1 of government spending does not give us $10 of real wealth. No one believes this anymore. Spending is not homogeneous. Spending is not intrinsically good (and saving is not intrinsically evil). Monetary and fiscal policy cannot sustain booms infinitely. If anyone has ever even looked at Japan, it becomes pretty clear that all of these things are true.
Again i don't have a statistic, its kind of hard to look up MPC for rich people. But i do have some logic to throw your way, i think me and you both know that MPC has decreased since the recession started, yet the low income families still had to spend as much if not more to survive now that less people are working or simply because their income is decreasing. So we can assume that the vast majority of MPC decrease comes from those who are in fact still employed and can afford to save, maybe not rich, but well off. Spending might not be intrinsically good or bad but the its fluctuations are, these demand changes are cause for things like this recession. I like ur application of the ISLM model(though i don't like the model itself because it ignores keynesian econ). Anyways lowering in California has caused 10k employees to be fired, however instead of looking off to Japan how bout your own(i'm presuming your American for being so high and mighty), Oregon has chosen to increase taxes on the wealthy(over 250 thousand/year/families) and on business, and has not fired any employees and has not reduced its public spending, do you want to know how beneficiary that was? or do i not need to capitalize. Listen no offence but chances are your part of the system that did not encourage the raising of taxes in your(mine neither, but i did my own research) education, this idea always gets hate among Americans.
ps. this is fun :P, probably why i started the thread, to get me some arguments.
@M_33 said:
"
the economic situation that we are currently experiencing differs from each nation and their partners. our oil reserves are low on quanity and i believe that the old saying `quality over quanity`takes effect. here. not only does it perfectly suit our current tax drought and ecomonic situation, but we are also enjoying the tax refund referred to `the big payback` as reffered to as by senetor john irvings in 1962. this, along with other situations i believe will stimulate our tax ecomony by an astonishing 60% based on Wall Street calculations and various sources which cannot be named at this time.
now, if the ``lee stanley` effect is taken into consideration, there could possibly be a backlash of tax refunds. not that this is a problem for our ecomonic development, but this is also issued by section 533 as the diagonsis sector.
with that said, i see no reason why our economic proprtions cannot be undated. recent reports from China state that their ecomonic situation is not as good as reports say. there are many biased news stations and labour camps and the large amounts of money sunk into this by their governments might be the cause of ecomonic drought in China.
as shown in the graph above, ecomonic proportions have not been stable as of 1976. OUR GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH TO STOP THIS KIND OF ECOMONIC DROUGHT.
"
Thx for the graph i've probably said this enough times without having a graph to back me up. @FiestaUnicorn said:
" I think there would be more yes votes if the op had said that Obama only wanted to raise the taxes of the very richest people three percent. You could raise my taxes three percent and I would barely notice a difference, I'm sure they wouldn't be able to notice a difference. "
I think if 100 per cent of votes were yes, we would not be in a recession ;p.
the economic situation that we are currently experiencing differs from each nation and their partners. our oil reserves are low on quanity and i believe that the old saying `quality over quanity`takes effect. here. not only does it perfectly suit our current tax drought and ecomonic situation, but we are also enjoying the tax refund referred to `the big payback` as reffered to as by senetor john irvings in 1962. this, along with other situations i believe will stimulate our tax ecomony by an astonishing 60% based on Wall Street calculations and various sources which cannot be named at this time.
now, if the ``lee stanley` effect is taken into consideration, there could possibly be a backlash of tax refunds. not that this is a problem for our ecomonic development, but this is also issued by section 533 as the diagonsis sector.
with that said, i see no reason why our economic proprtions cannot be undated. recent reports from China state that their ecomonic situation is not as good as reports say. there are many biased news stations and labour camps and the large amounts of money sunk into this by their governments might be the cause of ecomonic drought in China.
as shown in the graph above, ecomonic proportions have not been stable as of 1976. OUR GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH TO STOP THIS KIND OF ECOMONIC DROUGHT.
"
lawl, you literally did not say anything with meaning.
But I always do love prescriptions without understanding the sickness. The importance of tax policy itself is largely irrelevant to the current crisis in the first place. The only reason I am even talking about it is due to the fact that this specific topic is about tax policy. Any discussion of this crisis without focusing on monetary policy can't be taken seriously. And we all do know that the internet is serious business, so let's shift the discussion to monetary policy.
The benefit of being rich also comes with the benefit of mobility. If you start taxing the rich, they'll just get up and leave. Ethics aside, it's bad business, bad governing, to stereotype an entire group, lump them together and put the pressure on them for your own benefit. Nature follows the path of least resistance, and if the least resistance is in Europe or elsewhere, that's where they'll go.
Besides, saying "they're too rich" is fucking ridiculous.
@gamefreak9 said:
" @jukezypoo said:
" Reductionism ahoy! I voted A, but "taxing the rich" is an amorphous concept that lacks any of the accuracy required of economic policy. "
lol, we are not here for accuracy, we are here for opinions, accuracy would probably be understood by sociologists, political scientists, and economists. Anw i think the video gives a pretty direction of what should be done. "
What's the point of dealing with "opinions" and vague theories when the "accuracy" part shows them to be heavily flawed?
@CH3BURASHKA: This is the only solution that works, and if mass produced in EU and US you take away their options for leaving. If your suggesting that leaving things as they are and it will work out, think again. Why is saying they are too rich ridiculous? think Laterally, i'm not saying too rich in that they have more than me, its that they are so rich that others can no longer have money. I don't understand how your saying for MY benefit, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, its that simple.
Its not heavily flawed, it works, look at Oregon, they tried to stop it but as the system over there is more democratic, they failed, and guess what, they didn't leave, these laws have been applied in numerous places in EU and no such unprofitably(due to off-shoring) has been recorded. Why? because in the EU the rising wages, did not halt, why? because tax on the rich was higher anyway. Besides American's are too proud of their country to leave.
" The benefit of being rich also comes with the benefit of mobility. If you start taxing the rich, they'll just get up and leave. Ethics aside, it's bad business, bad governing, to stereotype an entire group, lump them together and put the pressure on them for your own benefit. Nature follows the path of least resistance, and if the least resistance is in Europe or elsewhere, that's where they'll go.
Besides, saying "they're too rich" is fucking ridiculous.
@gamefreak9 said:
" @jukezypoo said:
" Reductionism ahoy! I voted A, but "taxing the rich" is an amorphous concept that lacks any of the accuracy required of economic policy. "
lol, we are not here for accuracy, we are here for opinions, accuracy would probably be understood by sociologists, political scientists, and economists. Anw i think the video gives a pretty direction of what should be done. "
What's the point of dealing with "opinions" and vague theories when the "accuracy" part shows them to be heavily flawed? "
So what you're saying is that if the rich are taxed too much in this country they will go...where? You understand that they already tax the upper brackets of wealth more in Europe. The Glen Beck argument you're using is usually used to argue against a State taxing businesses more. I do agree wealth brings mobility but it's not the kind you're arguing about it's mobility of their money i.e. they can just have a bank account any place they want OR they could just do what a normal rich person does higher an expensive lawyer to find loopholes to pay the bare minim anyway!
" I like ur application of the ISLM model(though i don't like the model itself because it ignores keynesian econ)."
The ISLM model is literally the ultimate Keynesian model. It is the graphical representation of Keynes' General Theory developed by his closest follower John Hicks....It does not ignore Keynesianism, it IS the manifestation of Keynesianism.
And I have seen you indirectly advocate increasing wages multiple times in your posting. Do you realize that this is the exact opposite of what needs to happen? Pretty much every economist agrees with that, irrelevant of their school of thought. The only person that would want to keep wages propped up during a bust would be someone who greatly desires mass unemployment.
As for you saying that taxation should be the policy choice in a recession to decrease debt, that's crazy. Keynes himself would be strongly opposed to that. In recessions we should fall deeper into debt until we are out of the recession, and then we should work on decreasing debt. And increasing taxes on the rich may have the opposite effect. Ever hear of the Laffer curve? Even if it did help decrease the debt, it would be by such a tiny fraction that it wouldn't even cover the interest we are paying on the debt. There is no logic behind increasing taxes on a small group of people during a recession.
And if you are going to name-drop economists, make sure it's one that people actually take seriously. No one has taken a Marxian economist serious since Paul Sweezy, and that was ONLY because of the school he taught at. The most ardent supporters of government intervention still believe that markets are the best way to allocate resources. Wolff does not believe in that. He is a terrible economist.
But you really should not correct me for giving the wrong MPC when you do not know what the right value is.
I'm glad that you go to economic thinking courses, that's better than most people do. But it's not a substitute for undertaking an economics program.Talking about concepts like we are talking about is fun and controversial, but it is almost totally irrelevant when discussing the business cycle. That requires a solid understanding in monetary policy and all of the different models associated with it.
" The benefit of being rich also comes with the benefit of mobility. If you start taxing the rich, they'll just get up and leave. Ethics aside, it's bad business, bad governing, to stereotype an entire group, lump them together and put the pressure on them for your own benefit. Nature follows the path of least resistance, and if the least resistance is in Europe or elsewhere, that's where they'll go.
Besides, saying "they're too rich" is fucking ridiculous.
@gamefreak9 said:
" @jukezypoo said:
" Reductionism ahoy! I voted A, but "taxing the rich" is an amorphous concept that lacks any of the accuracy required of economic policy. "
lol, we are not here for accuracy, we are here for opinions, accuracy would probably be understood by sociologists, political scientists, and economists. Anw i think the video gives a pretty direction of what should be done. "
What's the point of dealing with "opinions" and vague theories when the "accuracy" part shows them to be heavily flawed? "
So what you're saying is that if the rich are taxed too much in this country they will go...where? You understand that they already tax the upper brackets of wealth more in Europe. The Glen Beck argument you're using is usually used to argue against a State taxing businesses more. I do agree wealth brings mobility but it's not the kind you're arguing about it's mobility of their money i.e. they can just have a bank account any place they want OR they could just do what a normal rich person does higher an expensive lawyer to find loopholes to pay the bare minim anyway! "
Since we're talking about money, financial mobility is the important one here. I did emphasize physical mobility, but you're right, financial mobility is the "loophole" that the wealthy will look for and utilize. The point is, put the pressure on them, and they will be motivated to relieved of said pressure. The wealthy aren't our ticket out of the mess created. I won't pretend to know what is, though, unlike gamefreak9 here:
@gamefreak9 said:
" @CH3BURASHKA: This is the only solution that works
" I like ur application of the ISLM model(though i don't like the model itself because it ignores keynesian econ)."
The ISLM model is literally the ultimate Keynesian model. It is the graphical representation of Keynes' General Theory developed by his closest follower John Hicks....It does not ignore Keynesianism, it IS the manifestation of Keynesianism. And I have seen you indirectly advocate increasing wages multiple times in your posting. Do you realize that this is the exact opposite of what needs to happen? Pretty much every economist agrees with that, irrelevant of their school of thought. The only person that would want to keep wages propped up during a bust would be someone who greatly desires mass unemployment. As for you saying that taxation should be the policy choice in a recession to decrease debt, that's crazy. Keynes himself would be strongly opposed to that. In recessions we should fall deeper into debt until we are out of the recession, and then we should work on decreasing debt. And increasing taxes on the rich may have the opposite effect. Ever hear of the Laffer curve? Even if it did help decrease the debt, it would be by such a tiny fraction that it wouldn't even cover the interest we are paying on the debt. There is no logic behind increasing taxes on a small group of people during a recession. And if you are going to name-drop economists, make sure it's one that people actually take seriously. No one has taken a Marxian economist serious since Paul Sweezy, and that was ONLY because of the school he taught at. The most ardent supporters of government intervention still believe that markets are the best way to allocate resources. Wolff does not believe in that. He is a terrible economist. But you really should not correct me for giving the wrong MPC when you do not know what the right value is. I'm glad that you go to economic thinking courses, that's better than most people do. But it's not a substitute for undertaking an economics program.Talking about concepts like we are talking about is fun and controversial, but it is almost totally irrelevant when discussing the business cycle. That requires a solid understanding in monetary policy and all of the different models associated with it. "
My bad for messing up on the model, i forgot who criticized it and who made it i just remembered the monetary and real sectors being separate not being okay with me. Meh you would be surprised how much you learn about the cycle in non-economic courses. Models and all are nice, but it seems this is working, its easy to criticize it(its actually kind of fun being at two sides of the argument) but really i think people like Wolff are taken more seriously after Oregon, even EU is raising these wealthy taxes.
I am not saying that we would want to see rising wages right now, but soon would be good, we can hit two birds with one stone, debt (although controversial and strange), or the money could just be used to keep public spending at the same levels as before, and spreading of wealth.
@RJMacReady: Sorry it seems i skipped this argument when i'm trying to stay on top of everybody in my thread, nothing personal, and i do like your arguments, though the do lean towards a more philosophical discussion(not to undermine its relevance because it is).
We are not, "in it together" people are predatory toward other people and at this scale of society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
sacrifice to others is not a viable means of maintain future cooperation because of cognitive and perceptual limits of the human brain to address accounting imbalances and free-riding. I agree some poor people, if given more resources, woudl benefit from them and distribute potential economics benefits to society as a result. I also understand the externality argument; it's good not to have a hobo explosion in your commercial districts. This doesnt' rationalize the question of "who is capable" and who is unwilling; who would use that wealth to better themselves and who would use it to extend the consumption of leisure at others expense
Dunbars theory is nice and all and i can only speak for myself but i am a globalist, i don't even want to have his number of social relationships, i hate people, but i am a globalist i do believe people should have an equal chance, society is like a separate being to help make up for our basic human instincts such as this selfishness. I am not arguing to say that the one who is capable should earn as much as the one who is unwilling, i do think however that he who is capable and financially backed(perhaps because of reasons which extend to more than his capability) and he who is just plain capable are not granted with equal opportunities(obviously).
And wealth hoarding is very easy in a system where the government guarantees the value of your money and maintains this monopoly of exchange value.
In addition Rawlsian notions of "Democratic price fixing" don't allow prices to adjust in the market and eliminate the signals to emerge that are necessary to allocate economic resources, in this case when everybody gets together(in this case the labor input), before their fate is chosen, and decides garbage men should make as much as dr.s you have disrupted the signaling mechanism of markets and you cannot rationalize what labor is needed because you've caused labor prices to become sclerotic.
To be honest, I've never heard of Rawlsian notions of democratic price fixing, which probably cripples my ability to respond. Nobody is arguing that professions should not reward in conjunction with the expertise they require, merely that the reward should exponentially decreasing after a certain level, i think after 250 thousand a year sounds very reasonable.
This also doesn't address the rational ignorance problem when democratic decisions tending to lead to very poor outcomes because the incentives of democracy destroy the incentive to make informed selections. Knowledge is not equally distributed so equal distribution of political capital will result in poor institutional performance when relegated to an egalitarian decision network. Democracy must be scalar and dynamic.
Although i do agree that the democratic system has its faults in its general practicality, i believe that the general goal of democracy has been and will always be the fundamental respect of giving every human being, from birth an equal chance to succeed as an other. Democracy must be considerate and caring, although i do think a special valuation system should be implemented in voting, perhaps a multiplier based on education(ie *2 for high school education, or *5 for phd). If anything i think democracy should be implemented further into the system, maybe even into the core of businesses, so that all stakeholders have a say, even consumers and suppliers.
Further more... why not bifurcate need into an urgency that results in a requirment for survival or some state, and need that is the product of economic incentives in the sense that the urgency arrives because certain skills or autonomy where not developed becasue the costs of not doing so where not experienced to the same degree under a non-redistributive regime. Need itself can be an economic output. "
Yes, if making the rich less rich helps make the poor a little less poor then theres no question. EGALITARIANISM!!
Fuck no, they worked hard to get their money and should not be forced to pay.
I don't know, number are a reductionist method of evaluation and and there is insufficient information
See here's the thing with your question and your choices. The rich already pay more in taxes (even just percentage wise) than people who make less. As my income goes up, my tax bracket goes up, and as my tax bracket goes up, I pay a higher percentage in taxes than I did in the previous tax bracket. Whereas when I first started working, and I knew I only needed to expect like 10% to come out of my checks for taxes, now that I'm making a lot more than I was then I'm paying like 25% in taxes. So the initial question is misleading.
As for your responses - how does making the rich less rich make the poor a little less poor? The only assistance the poor get are social welfare programs that seem to do nothing but encourage the poor to continue living on these social welfare programs rather than improve their lot in life. Many of these programs aren't even cash-based, so you're not making the poor any less poor. They're still poor, only the government has taken care of their food, rent, power bill, and medical needs. Some of the rich don't "work hard" for their money perhaps, as some of the people argued here, but this particular choice also makes it sound like there are only two choices - tax the fuck out of the rich, or don't tax them at all. Finally, your third choice sounds like just a smart way to say "I don't know."
How about instead of taxing them.. we stop paying them so god damn much money in the first place. CEOs for major companies make way more money than any one man should EVER need and it has to stop...
The CEO of Blizzard-Activision made something like $15 million in 2007... seriously, no one NEEDS that much money. I mean, yes there are a ton of things one could do to help with that money, but that's not a good way to set things up, as we know first hand the money and power that comes with it gets to the heads of many greedy individuals out there.
I think we need to take steps as a country to shut down these major corporations that are taking over our lives (and already have to a large degree) and I think the best way to do that for starters would be to reduce the pay the president receives to that of a school teacher and throwing out the party system and most of politics all together. Get rid of news companies like CNN, Fox and what not that spew endless amounts of bullshit on a daily basis (good way to start that is to not watch them at all, ever). THEN we need to elect a new team to lead our people, and elect them not because of how much money they are able to get for a "presidential campaign" but because of the things they have achieved in their lifetime, the people they represent, and the values they often display. If we were take steps along these lines, I think eventually the rest of the country would start to stabilize and then eventually the rest of the world that the US and its business partners control.
Taxing people is not a solution to any of our problems. Standing up to the ruling class and taking even the smallest of actions against them like closing out your bank account with companies like Bank of America or Chase and opening an account with a reputable local bank will slowly start to shut them down. We, as a people, need to prove to the rest of the world that we aren't the greedy bastards who rule over us, we know better than that.. and we can stop them dead in their tracks IF we take action.
the government should reduce the deficit by cutting wasteful spending and eliminating welfare to society's shiftless layabouts. to that end, disband the military immediately pls. problem solved.
@actionTACO: I second that notion to disband the military, we don't need it and haven't needed it for a while. Should the situation ever arise that the United States would have to defend itself from an oppressor, we as a people could band together and form our own defense force. And if you think that idea is silly, just take a few minutes to examine who we have fighting over in the middle eastern countries for us already...
" the government should reduce the deficit by cutting wasteful spending and eliminating welfare to society's shiftless layabouts. to that end, disband the military immediately pls. problem solved. "
Are you implying that military personnel are society's shiftless layabouts?
" @l4wd0g: Those arguments for flat tax all fall short when you think that real wages stopped increasing. Sure flat tax might motivate the rich to keep working but who cares, its not from them we are looking for output its from the remaining 99 per cent. Ever since we have come closer and closer to flat tax, from 70 per cent taxation on the rich, to 35 as it is now, the gap between poor and rich has increased, a big deal. No death tax? remove the death tax and in 20 years 90 per cent of cash will flow in 2-3 per cent of hands, thats ridiculous. By only taxing income your basically ONLY targeting the poor, as the rich might have high salaries but most of their cash comes from dividends. Anyways fundamentally we will have less jobs by enabling flat tax because there will be less money to spread around. "
According to the Economist, those that are affected by the Death Tax (inheritance tax) are the honest, and the middle class. I've post the article below for you to read. My apologies it has taken so long to reply. I know the article is using British Pounds, but if you take their number and double it, it'll be close to the USD.
"Inheritance tax: It just won't die" - http://www.economist.com/node/3135923/print
INHERITANCE tax is supposed to clobber the super-wealthy. But it does nothing of the kind. Rising house prices and good tax accountants have made it a largely voluntary tax on the honest, careless or unlucky middle classes. One former chancellor of the exchequer, Roy Jenkins, said it was paid only by those who distrusted their relatives more than they disliked the taxman.
The really rich hardly pay it at all. They use clever mixtures of gifts, trusts, offshore companies and dodges such as “die-to-win” life insurance to keep the money in the family. Though only 3.9% of all estates paid the tax in the 2001-02 tax year, well over half of those were worth less than £500,000. Those who are really caught are middle-class property-owners in London or the south-east. They aren't used to tax-dodging and their houses have shot up in value in recent years.
Orthodox taxation principles would suggest that the rate be cut and the base broadened to raise legitimacy and compliance. But a Labourite think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, has suggested something different. Instead of the present 40% levy on estates worth more than £263,000, it proposes a graduated rate, starting with 22% for the first £25,000 over the tax-free allowance and going up to 50% for the part over £763,000. That, supposedly, would mean 87% of all estates paying less tax and bring in an extra £147m pounds in revenues, shaved exclusively off the rich.
That might happen. But higher rates also stimulate avoidance. In any case, reaction was frosty and the government has not endorsed the plan.
It is a tempting route, though, given the huge and unearned increase in house prices enjoyed by the middle class. Taxing dead people rather than the living sounds fair (though heirs, who pay the tax, disagree). But inheritance tax has big disadvantages. Although not very costly to administer (see chart: that prize goes to capital gains tax), it distorts spending patterns, encouraging consumption over savings, and stimulating investment into exempt assets like farms and family businesses. And it fuels the tax-avoidance industry, which uses brains better employed elsewhere.
**edit typed in effected when I meant affected. **
Depends on how rich we're talking. In my country we get taxed pretty hard, and even though we are not commies or socialists, the hard working big earners are brought down a lot closer to everyday folk than they probably should be. If someone is sitting on a ludicrous amount of money then they should be taxed heavily, or given the option to donate to a charity that they are not affiliated with, and is chosen form them.
The problem is: Everyone should be equal. But a lot of people are lazy. Why should the lazy people deserve the same as the people that work really hard? Also, shouldn't there be an incentive to become doctors and business men that is larger than just pure ego. If people were not awarded anything for their hard work, then 80% of people would collectively become under-achievers.
Legalize, regulate and tax pot just like alcohol and ciggeretts? No questions, problem solved. California could have done it but Prop. 19 was very poorly written. 2012: Year of the Plants.
Also, lets talk income taxes. Correct me if Im wrong, but I understood that Income taxes were started in order to help pay for the Civil War. But after the war was over the goverment figured "Hey, this is a pretty good thing we have going here, lets not do anything with it and just keep collecting the cash." So tell me why the American people are still paying for the Civil War?? A War which ended 146 years ago? It seems like one of the American Goverments better scams/rackets.
" The history of tax rates http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html The rich are not paying anything near what they have had to in the past. If taxing them more helps the country, then yes of course. It won't happen, not as much as it needs to anyway, because the far right will throw out those buzz words like "socialism" and "redistribution of wealth". OMG! SO SCARY! LOL, Like either of those things would be bad for the people that have to choose between paying their mortgage or buying their medication or choosing between having running water or electricity from month to month. You, reading this, shaking your head, preparing a post about how higher taxes for the richest people, living in the richest nation in the world, would be so horrible and blah blah blah...You are not a billionaire. This would help you. It would help your family and neighbors and helping people is always a good thing. "
Yes, because higher taxes on the upper class do not affect us at all. Ugh.
This is still going? Really? America has reached a point where 2% of the populations holds 50% of all the wealth and people are still trying to defend the poor, poor rich (Who are getting richer even if the country gets poorer) ?
I knew americans have no sense of wealth distribution or actual social class but this is hilarious.
" @actionTACO: I second that notion to disband the military, we don't need it and haven't needed it for a while. Should the situation ever arise that the United States would have to defend itself from an oppressor, we as a people could band together and form our own defense force. And if you think that idea is silly, just take a few minutes to examine who we have fighting over in the middle eastern countries for us already... "
While I hate war more than most, your argument is ridiculous. Saying the citizens out there in the Middle East could continue to fight that battle without any supplies or new recruits brought in by the government is absolutely nuts. America is too fucked up right now to give up on the ONE thing that many Americans agree on, even though it is still a very controversial war. The only time the US would disband the army is if everyone else in the world did first.
Its kind of a "teach a man to fish" situation. Taxing the rich an additional 4% doesn't solve the fact that we've been spending money we don't have and we've been spending it poorly. A lot of people on the left treated that tax bill like a magic bullet because the "us vs them" mentality is so culturally ingrained at this point but the fact is if any of those people gave a shit about the deficit before it became a pundit talking point, they would have had a problem with the TARP bailouts. They suddenly cared about the deficit because their pundits did.
This all makes me glad I have at least a basic idea of what's right in terms of distribution of wealth in a society. And about the disbanding of the army that everyone's going on about, America's probably the world's premier superpower, at least in terms of military expenditure if not anything else. Considering the ridiculous amount of debt they're in already, I seriously doubt they'll stop now of all times.
The thing about the idea of taxing the rich is that it is a little redundant. To ask for a referendum on taxing the rich is to ask politicians to consider a vote on taxing themselves. If they agree to it it is simply because they know they wont lose anything. I have my own opinions on what the English government are trying to do, which is clearly widen the gap between rich and poor, not just financially but in education and general quality of life. Why ? Well that leads on to conspiracy theories and new world orders. I could complain about being hard done by, but i'm typing this on a £1600 MacBook.
I'll wait on the Lord and accept what he has for me.
" @actionTACO: I second that notion to disband the military, we don't need it and haven't needed it for a while. Should the situation ever arise that the United States would have to defend itself from an oppressor, we as a people could band together and form our own defense force. And if you think that idea is silly, just take a few minutes to examine who we have fighting over in the middle eastern countries for us already... "
While I hate war more than most, your argument is ridiculous. Saying the citizens out there in the Middle East could continue to fight that battle without any supplies or new recruits brought in by the government is absolutely nuts. America is too fucked up right now to give up on the ONE thing that many Americans agree on, even though it is still a very controversial war. The only time the US would disband the army is if everyone else in the world did first. "
Even if you weren't to scrap it, you could cut the size of the armed services in half and still have more pew pew than most of the planet :)
Sorry this took so long :( . I probably won't be able to respond as quickly here on out as my semester has begun.
@Geno: You are correct in saying that at the scale of a society, value of individuals cannot be quantified, but I further offer my point that such quantification is unnecessary for the purposes that we are discussing. We are talking about money that probably would not have been spent anyway, or spent on something that would barely improve even one individual's quality of life (e.g. a third sports car), put towards people that need it for survival and temporary financial relief. You seem worried that if $200 is used for the welfare of another and that money is not reciprocated in whole in one way or another, then that welfare is invalid. I have to disagree. It is certainly a possibility that the $200 disappears into vapor, but it is also a possibility that any child going through the education system can end up a murderer, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment from the federal and state government be wasted. That however is not a proper argument against public education that could be made. Similarly, I don't think it's a proper argument against welfare simply because the return can't be quantified or there may be a risk of no return at all.
Actually Dunbar was brought up specifically to combat this idea that we are “in it together”, my intent wasn’t to use Dunbar to address hoarding. It is not convincing that somebody obtaining welfare benefits or a rich person obtaining subsidies will necessarily be better off if those forced payments where revoked. Kim Il Sung might not be better off If his power was lost, he would lose the tremendous benefits of a nation of servants. I’m against a system that is elitist to it’s core and masquerades as egalitarian.
Furthermore I brought this up to illustrate the absurdity of believing such a method will be pro-social and instigate more cooperation “in it together” or create a better society. I believe the progressive/egalitarian vision is corrupting and corrosive to the social order. In a small social order individuals would feel pressure, if they received aid, to eventually balance accounts as they would be constantly monitored, in an extended economic order with a welfare state this is not possible. Individual brains would have a harder time detecting free riders. The system that is promoted doesn’t allow this detection to occur so it fosters predation of man on man within the society. If you are to maintain the atavism of altruism while eliminating the structural aspects that permitted enforcement of free riders do you really believe you will maintain cooperation and mutualism and not parasitism and exploitation?
Our societal structures have extended beyond the dunbar unit, we must offload individual assessment on some sort of institution that promotes cooperation and stabilization of society. The welfare state does the opposite of this.
Also I would address this notion of the rich hoarding their money by limiting positive freedom of the rich, which requires a reduction in the amount of public institutions they have control over. That ultimately requires decentralization of power, which is also anti-elitist I believe. Taking from one group and giving to another is not a solution, just a payment to continue the activity you are doing. If a group of people wished to infantilize a group of poor people and keep them in infancy forever it wouldn’t bother me because they are enduring the costs or even the benefits of believing they are doing good in this strange sadomasochistic ritual. That the political class obtains benefits and also benefits of power at somebody elses costs is just downright perverse elitism and unsustainable.
@Geno: That people seek jobs when their unemployment benefits cease is a rather obvious conclusion (is there another alternative?). There isn't really a null hypothesis in that one so I can't say that the result is very meaningful. Additionally, many unemployment benefits in fact require you to continually be seeking jobs during your unemployment period anyway. Also, there are more ways than one to help the needy other than directly doling out money, including job creation, community restoration and education.
I’m not sure I made myself clear here. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2938349. Basically it says when you give away free shit to people who are unemployed they stay unemployed(your paying people to generate unemployment as if it was some sort of economic good or output, It’s probably best to look at it as a service). When the safety-net is about to expire miraculously people begin to obtain jobs. It’s simple economics “people respond to incetives”
If you give away free shit at somebody elses expense to those that don’t’ work they won’t work. Why dunbar is again relevant is that free-riders would be under constant observation and threat of revocation of future cooperation if the individual refused to be a productive member of society and only accrue benefits from society. In addition small homogenous groups have genetic reinforcement in the form of kin altruism that would make anti-social activity deleterious to fitness as sacrifice to kin can promote the survival of genes.
The societies today have very low population viscosity, that means that people can move from one hemisphere to the other in a few hours, and individuals that have very little genetic relatedness are placed in situations that would be confining and require cooperation to survive in simpler times. To say we are all in it together ignores the genetic component that not only destabilizes the will of individual to cooperate with non-kin, but those potential recipients are not pressured which manifests as xenophobia. We cannot ignore that society today is just not configured to function via altruistic or familial dynamics and that, scale, genetic heterogenic, cognitive limits all contribute to advance an agenda of predation unless there is some reasonable accounting standard of value and consumption. The progressive agenda does not acknowledge this to my understand and puts us in a position of forming a massive cleptocracy where exchange is now the rich stealing from middle/poor, the poor stealing from the rich, and just generally one big theft based cluster-fuck where human relations are no longer based on mutual cooperation but on theft.
Continually seeking jobs is not the same as wanting to get a job anymore then claiming injury is not actual anatomical damage, that is then used to obtain benefits from insurance. The only foolproof policy that acknowledges that humans will use every advantage to take more then they give is exit or defection. Taxation or democratic regimes force the consumption of policies that are wrong headed down the throats of unwilling members despite the moral erosion and predation they promote.
They seek employment upon immanent termination of their benefits, waiting until the last minute. And really why shouldn’t they ? their failure to obtain employment is somebody elses costs. The welfare state rationalizes human on human predation.
@Geno:
Unless you are a millionaire or above, you yourself don't really need to consider your own personal interest in whether or not to trust other individuals, because we're talking about policy that would, at most, tax the top 2%, not a policy that would take from the top 50% and give to the bottom 50%. The top 2% hold the vast majority of wealth in the country, and also enjoy a standard of living such that a bit of extra taxation wouldn't noticeably affect it. From these individuals it is estimated about $100 billion a year could be derived from this taxation; their net worth is something on the order of $40 trillion and growing at a much higher rate. They have nothing to be worried about, and neither do you.
I’m not a millionaire but I oppose a society that turns it’s poor into an everlasting flow of political capital and positive feedback system where the political class take from one segment of society, give to another, create moral hazard generating, not discovering, a larger pool of political capital to extract from and continue to take. That insanity will eventually injure me either via new tax policy at a future date or the destruction of the autonomy of its’ citizens.
I will re-iterate, my intent is to hold in check the balance of power between the public and elites. By paying people to generate unemployment a segment of society is unwillingly transferring their wealth to another segment which invariably benefits the political class ultimately white expanding the machinery that generates political capital to begin with.
Job creation that is not sustainable is one theory of the business cycle that suggests that dis-coordination of assets cause the system to purge those assets at a future date which just prolongs the problem, and also facilitates another way politicians generate political capital, market heroin.
@Geno:
I agree with you that there are two types of need, and that some will use benefits wisely while others won't. However I'm simply not seeing any practical method to differentiate the two, and a general system will still work better than none.
A practical method would be to have a charity model reconfigured locally to more easily monitor free riders and also permit those that are willing to give. It’s impossible to believe the welfare state emerges out of elite preference, there appears to be DEMAND for giving otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Furthermore it would make it harder for individuals to cheat the system, the residual claimant, in this case the recipient would be more easy to monitor locally and would reducing those components of the system, the needy that are the incentivized to remain needy which obfuscate the magnitude of the problem.
Applying peltzman here if we consider benefits to single mothers and the deterioration of families in general single woman no longer need men because the state stands in loco-parentus of the family now reducing the need for woman to have stable relationships with men because their revenue stream is now the state. If I had to chose between institutions of family vs state it will always be the family. The state has caused a deterioration of that institution for the sake of generating political capital for an elite few.
Either society wants to help the poor or it doesn’t. I don’t’ find it convincing that there is an abundance of compassion in a second group of people called politicians, or in this case liberal democrat politicians that stand above their lower-counter parts who would normally ignore those less well off. Removing proactive impositions would restrict the creation of need to begin with reducing the amount of charity necessary and showing where true aid really must go.
@Geno: I know that I didn't make it clear earlier so I'll say it now: Rawlsian theory is of no concern to me and I can't even honestly say that I'm adequately familiar with it. I simply used the veil of ignorance because it is an elegant thought experiment designed for people to consider the implications of public policy when it comes to the welfare of the least fortunate. It by itself doesn't suggest any overt price fixing, simply that
My understanding of the rawlsian VOI emerged from his response to the public choice school and institutional economics and the proposal that wages are set before individuals obtain those positions. Therefor they are unaware of what they will be so have to consider what wages should be if they happen to get the short end of the stick laborwise. The obvious problem there is that your adjusting prices by mandate and not allowing economic coordination to happen. If it’s not important for this discussion good, I can’t stand Rawls for obvious political reasons.
@Geno: people should take a step back when they make decisions based off the notion that the rich justly earn their money while the poor land in their position out of laziness or incompetence. In other words, I'm simply against the poor becoming poorer and the rich becoming richer, which I think is a sentiment you will understand.
I never made the case that the rich justly earn their money, far from it, infact I would say I’m a support markets and reject centrality specifically because I believe central decision making networks that have very limited exit capability favor elites or those with wealth, but I recognize Weber and not Marx here that not all power is necessarily based on economic standing. Nor would I universalize the concept that the poor are lazy. I challenge the notion that the poor, on the virtue of their poorness, deserve money and the rich on the virtue of their richness deserve to be punished equally, it’s to simple of an equation to be of any use, and it’s wrong.
@Geno: The current and growing income inequality probably sprouts from a combination of intervention and lack of liability, but I don't see how a policy that would directly take from the rich and give to the poor could do anything else but alleviate some of the income inequality. Perhaps it would, as you say "erode the incentives" of some people, but in my mind there would be a net benefit. I very highly doubt it would do any harm. This is speculation of course, but I believe reasonable. And you are right about the core problem with the market; that the wealth is only accessible to a handful of individuals, that is definitely a long term problem that needs addressing.
Yes isn’t it ironic that a corporation is fundamentally a socialist enterprise in the sense that it transfers costs to unwilling 3 parties and in that sense can be viewed as welfare for the rich. Why this theft generates moral hazard and isn't conducive to cooperation. With a publically owned corp. if it poisons water or pollutes air or uses a date-rape drug as a component of plastic in children’s toys, I may own shares of this company( I accrue benefits from its’ profits, or it’s perpetuity(dividends)) but, I don’t eat the costs except in my principle investment capital(I’m not liable for the damage that company does). Does this mean I should vigorously police that corporations actions and withhold additional investments or remove what I’ve invested if I see them doing bad shit, not at all , I should in fact keep it in their until after the malfeasance or neglect. Apply this to the poor now. The poor obtain benefits from institutional theft, yet they do not incur the costs of it, the risk of obtaining the cash via home intrusion, or mugging. Should they adjust their behavior to do what’s best for society? No because future payments don’t require any risk on their part, future failures on their part don’t result in liability for them. That liability is some unwilling 3 parties problem as pollution or poisons in toys are consumers problems and not the shareholders problem.
I see a double standard here, we are able to recognize liability problems with the current institutional model but we only recognize them for the rich, the poor either get a pass, or we just shrug our shoulders and say it’s no big deal. Perhaps some poor will do this but most are good? Why are most poor good, I’m not sure you’ll make that argument but will the poor do what’s right? Is it the case that being poor makes you good or socially aware? If that is the case then whatever makes people poor is good.
I agree with you on the failings of democracy here (not to mention, corruption in Congress etc.), but I think the breadth of the argument is simply too large to apply to this specific issue of taxation on the rich. Yes, decisions from a democratic process may indeed by inane or ineffectual, but the same argument then could be made for any current issue. While your points are valid, I don't think they are worth discussing in this context.
Bcs we are discussing instituting theft the the guise of charity. We can engage in charity two ways, voluntarily(which is not theft) or we can use democracy to install policies. This discussion has become what should we do with the rich’s wealth via tax policy. That implies the use of democracy which I’m arguing cannot answer that question. Implicit in the question is the assumption that democracy is the system which will derive the policy or some form of it. Where are the voluntary solutions here?
People did not consider ancillary methodologies like boycotts or pressure groups or advertising campaign, just tax policy. It’s a lazy and imprecise solution that doesn’t address the who fo the rich and the who of the poor.
@Geno:
I agree with most of what you say here. For instance, in a perfect system the inheritors of the Wal-Mart fortune certainly deserve to be taxed more than a self-made millionaire if it came down to it. On the other side, those that are more likely to improve themselves from benefits and other advocacies should be the ones that receive more. It's just the practicality that concerns me; even the notion of a general tax increase (or rather, removal of tax cut) for the rich has a hard time passing through the Senate, a more complex and, as you say "surgical" proposal may be impossible to pass or to implement.
On wallmart it’s my understanding the poor rely on that particular outlet more than the rich so a tax on Wallmart could indirectly be a tax on the poor, this demonstrates the irony, as I see it, in left wing policies operating under the putative notion that they are egalitarian when actually they amplify wealth un-merited stratification problems.
Well I’m not confident that political solutions are a sufficient measure to end poverty especially as they try to micromanage human action with paternalistic one size fits all generalized policies.
Finally I don’t believe this is something that we can even honestly discuss. Humans evolved to cooperate via altruism long before the existence of capital markets and robust property regimes so it makes sense that individuals will default to primitive exchange paradigm or potentially support one. Humans vocalize quite a bit to communicate their intentions to others but a high degree of animal communication is meant to deceive which it could be argued self-deception evolved specifically to combat the ability of targets of the vocalizations to be able to detect. This is to say individuals are not aware that their intentions are in accord with how they will act in the future, they self-deceive which enhances their own interests. I believe advocacy of the impoverish can potentially be a form of this as an advocate’s beneficent signaling to other members can result in individual benefits to themselves by tricking others, as well as themselves, in their proximity that they are more altruistic then they themselves are in fact. Because of this people will tend to advocate for those less fortunate, and also support really bad, socially destructive policies. At least moderates can agree that we feel good when we do good therefore altruism itself may be selfish. If that is indeed the case then there is no guarantee that the offeree of altruism will necessarily benefit in the long run because selfish behavior does not always lead to optimal outcomes for all as demonstrated by game theory. Without the institutions in place to force human action to make the correct choices selfishness can lead to bad outcomes and it appears over-eagerness to support aid based systems can be destructive.
The advocate is in a position to obtain at least a minimal degree of consideration or social currency if you will, however the costs of the advocacy are zero and in this sense advocacy itself is a form of free-riding of society. I’m not suggesting limiting speech here, only recognition that advocacy itself is something that should be looked at as potentially a bad thing, or at least something to be ignored.
But when I see certain polls indicating how we should distribute wealth I don’t recognize them as valid in the sense that some of them are meant to stroke the ego of the individual participating in the poll sating their need to feel like they’ve helped others.
@gamefreak9Also clarify how did Bush manage to accelerate home ownership?
American Dream Downpayment Act -- a bill that would require the U. S. taxpayers to provide $200 million per year to fund cash grants of as much as $10,000 to individuals and families wanting to buy a house, but without subjecting themselves to the burden of having to save for the downpayment.
@gamefreak9 I am all for you arguing against me or agreeing to some extent or w/e. What i meant about clarity is this, why do you use "exacerbate" instead of worsen or something more simple, in the room we do not have all economists,
Exacerbate is not a word exclusive to economics, in fact I used it well before I even started studying economics. I hear it associated more with medicine to be honest.
People should atleast have a rudimentary understanding of econ if they wish to have their arguments with regards to policy formation taken seriously.
@gamefreak9. Also i don't understand how your going to flush out "rich who obtain benefits from an unfair system to pay", chances are you can't
I addressed that with my argument against centralized regulatory policy, or what leads to corruption.
@gamefreak9but nonetheless the rich deserve a better lifestyle(for the most part), but they do not deserve the gap they have now, especially seeing as even if you taxed the 70 per cent of their portfolios or income, chances are their living would not change, they would still have millions to sustain them.
True but that isn’t my interest nor is it targeting rich or supporting them because their rich.
" And what exactly motivates the rich to work hard if you tax the shit out of them? "
Greed, duh.
World War 2 - 1980 saw a top tax rate between 70-80% and *gasp* the uber rich still went to their jobs. Your Atlas Shrugged arguments won't work here son.
If you need to take money from someone, are you going to take it from the people with very little of those that have more than enough? Robert Reich's documentary "Inequality for All" gives the example of the wealthy guy with so much money he doesn't know what to do with it. Why not give some of it back to the people in the form of taxes?
Remember when getting 'rich' was a goal for people? For most people, getting 'rich' is a result of hard work. We, at times, like to focus on those who come in to money but, most of the time, millionaires and billionaires worked for that money. Bill Gates is a smart man who developed a concept and cultivated a company without coming from a rich family (though they were upper middle class he wasn't born with a silver spoon). So, when I look at rich people I see people who deserve all of the money they have. Not that 'poor' people don't deserve money either. Before going to graduate school, I worked in retail while I was going through my undergraduate program. I met a lot of great, hard working people who will never reach that 'rich' status. I would argue that they work just as hard as a person like Bill Gates. But Bill Gates, and most rich people, ultimately do deserve whatever they make.
So why should we punish these people? Why is the average person deserving of the money a rich person has earned? As a student, I'm not rich. I'm below poor. I don't make money at all. But, I don't feel that I'm deserving of the money that someone else has made. Likewise, I don't believe that our government is deserving of the money that a rich person has earned. The government is like a family, they have a set income and specific monetary responsibilities. Like a family, government shouldn't spend their income until the monetary responsibilities are met. The budget deficit means that they didn't do this. So why should those monetary responsibility now fall on the 'rich'?
I think that if a person succeeds in life, they shouldn't be punished because others haven't succeeded to that level. Most of us work hard and earn every cent that we make. However, life is such a way that there will always be some people who make more money then other people. That's just the way life is. The people who are satisfied in their lives are the ones who look at success and happiness beyond income. I know that's an easy statement to make when I don't have a family and make 20K a year. But, there truly is more to life then what is in your bank account. I think that the average person should look to improve their own lives rather then counting the money of those they are jealous of.
Oh God what is this? Just out of curiosity, do you still think this way?
I don't like the idea of someone determining that a person has earned to much or to little for what they have done or not done. Granted I'm not an economist but that doesn't mean my opinion isn't valid. It just all sounds like the average person counting other people's money. It feels inappropriate and classless. I guess I'm of the mindset that if a person doesn't like they money they make they should do something about it and not complain when other people are successful. As for the government's sake, I think there are other options we can utilize. Spend less, spend wiser, utilize the revenue from the taxes we do get in smarter ways. I don't think Robin Hood economics is a the correct way to go about fixing our financial problems. What happens after we've stolen all this money and have to stand on our own again? Do we just spend outrageously again and then steal, err I mean tax, more money from successful people? Can't our government be self-sufficient and just use the taxes they've always received? But, then again, I'm not an economist.
This assumes that everyone is more or less on an even playing field. This is not even close to being true.
Log in to comment