3 ms·

>Rising minimum wage and reducing hours does the exact opposite. Decreasing a tax burden is a good idea - but decreasing the tax burden on everyone. This is th

>Rising minimum wage and reducing hours does the exact opposite. Decreasing a tax burden is a good idea - but decreasing the tax burden on everyone. This is the exact same story we've been told for 30 years: if you want more jobs and more productivity just lower taxes. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now. It just enables the ultra-wealthy to siphon off wealth from the rest of society. Ultimately that hurts productivity. >The UK dabbled in extremely high investment taxes at 98%. I think this would fall under your 'tax the rich' proscription. The unfortunate side effect was that investment was virtually stopped overnight and the country stopped growing GDP for two whole years, IIRC this was actually due to the oil crisis. The US, on the other hand, dabbled in ~90% tax rates in the 50s when it experienced high growth levels never before seen since.

brc 11y ago
Can you tell me how 'the ultra rich siphon off wealth from the rest of society?' I see this type of saying thrown around a lot, but I've never understood how those who believe it think the mechanism works, how you sequester wealth away so nobody else can benefit. Have you read the linked essay? Do you disagree with the central premise, that a society with no income inequality is a society that is not innovating and getting better?
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >Can you tell me how 'the ultra rich siphon off wealth from the rest of society?' I see this type of saying thrown around a lot, but I've never understood how those who believe it think the mechanism works, how you sequester wealth away so nobody else can benefit. One mechanism is the things that go by the name 'unearned income': interest payments, dividends on shares you own, streams of rental income. Another is simply fraud: http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/bill-black-our-system-so-flawed-fraud-mathematically-guaranteed/74785 http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/bill-black-our-system-so-... Their money buys condos (which they leave empty) in large cities suffering from a shortage of housing. That's one example of wealth sequestration that hurts everybody else. >Have you read the linked essay? I have. >Do you disagree with the central premise, that a society with no income inequality is a society that is not innovating and getting better? I disagree with this part: >Doing what people want is not the only way to get money, of course. You could also rob banks, or solicit bribes, or establish a monopoly. Such tricks account for some variation in wealth, and indeed for some of the biggest individual fortunes, but they are not the root cause of variation in income With a hand wave Paul Graham dismisses all evidence of fraud which has accelerated income inequality in the last ~10 years and the mere existence of the principal/agent problem and nepotism (which explains how bad CEOs get paid so much). His argument boils down to "in theory you can be 50 times as productive as someone else" => "nearly all people who are paid 50 times as much as their workers must be 50 times as productive". Just world fallacy. >When we say that one kind of work is overpaid and another underpaid, what are we really saying? In a free market, prices are determined by what buyers want. Also this. Unfortunately no such thing as a free market exists anywhere.

brc 11y ago

Can you tell me how 'the ultra rich siphon off wealth from the rest of society?' I see this type of saying thrown around a lot, but I've never understood how those who believe it think the mechanism works, how you sequester wealth away so nobody else can benefit. Have you read the linked essay? Do you disagree with the central premise, that a society with no income inequality is a society that is not innovating and getting better?

crdoconnor 11y ago
>Can you tell me how 'the ultra rich siphon off wealth from the rest of society?' I see this type of saying thrown around a lot, but I've never understood how those who believe it think the mechanism works, how you sequester wealth away so nobody else can benefit. One mechanism is the things that go by the name 'unearned income': interest payments, dividends on shares you own, streams of rental income. Another is simply fraud: http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/bill-black-our-system-so-flawed-fraud-mathematically-guaranteed/74785 http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/bill-black-our-system-so-... Their money buys condos (which they leave empty) in large cities suffering from a shortage of housing. That's one example of wealth sequestration that hurts everybody else. >Have you read the linked essay? I have. >Do you disagree with the central premise, that a society with no income inequality is a society that is not innovating and getting better? I disagree with this part: >Doing what people want is not the only way to get money, of course. You could also rob banks, or solicit bribes, or establish a monopoly. Such tricks account for some variation in wealth, and indeed for some of the biggest individual fortunes, but they are not the root cause of variation in income With a hand wave Paul Graham dismisses all evidence of fraud which has accelerated income inequality in the last ~10 years and the mere existence of the principal/agent problem and nepotism (which explains how bad CEOs get paid so much). His argument boils down to "in theory you can be 50 times as productive as someone else" => "nearly all people who are paid 50 times as much as their workers must be 50 times as productive". Just world fallacy. >When we say that one kind of work is overpaid and another underpaid, what are we really saying? In a free market, prices are determined by what buyers want. Also this. Unfortunately no such thing as a free market exists anywhere.