4 ms·
> Piketty's suggested policy response is simple: high taxes on aggregated wealth. You need to go one step further and outline where and how the federal governm
by roymurdock 11y ago
> Piketty's suggested policy response is simple: high taxes on aggregated wealth.
You need to go one step further and outline where and how the federal government should put this new tax revenue to work.
How much should we raise taxes? Which brackets? What form of wealth do we tax? Why taxation rather than issuing bonds?
What percent of gov revenue should we allocate to the DoD? How much to Social Security and Medicare? How much to public schools? Do we continue to subsidize higher education? Will this leave us weak to the threat of foreign attack? Will we have enough left to pay for the increasing number of elderly and obese?
A bad government with no plan, no cohesion, and no foresight will destroy value as the increased tax pool is simply drained out by cronyism, bureaucracy, lobbying, and dead-end projects. The money might be better left to a benevolent dictator, or to the private sector in the hopes of it "trickling down".
It's easy to say "raise taxes". It's hard to say where the new revenue should be invested, by whom, and how.
- ubernostrum 11y agoIt's easy to say "raise taxes". It's hard to say where the new revenue should be invested, by whom, and how. It's also easy, when someone proposes solving one problem, to say "well, you're not allowed to solve that one until you've solved every other problem in the world first". It's hard to say "OK, you seem to be prioritizing this problem, let's both make our arguments and because we live in a democracy whoever sways the most people to their side will win".
- roymurdock 11y agoI'm not saying OP should not be allowed to think about or solve this problem - rather, I am pushing him to think harder and deeper about his solution and its possible consequences. It's easy to provide a possible step 1 of the solution to a complex problem. Brilliance and wisdom lies in explaining why your proposed step 1 is the best way to get to steps 2,3, and 4.
- ryandamm 11y agoDon't push _me_. Read Piketty; the explicit goal (and solutions) are aimed at leveling wealth inequality. Yes, good governance is better than bad governance. But problems of inequality -- and reduced social mobility, and the role of human labor vs capital -- are real, and require real solutions. That said, Piketty's proposed solutions aren't currently practical. Did you see the recent estimate that 8% of global wealth is parked in tax havens? http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/01/14/parking-the-big-money/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/01/14/parking-the-big-m... Yes, the problem is large, and does involve good governance. I was only sharing one proposed solution. The sad fact is, the best solution looks intractable. I'm open to suggestions.
- rhizome 11y agoThe fallacy of relative privation: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as
- leaveyou 11y agoyes, we should do all the thinking, impact analysis and projections for the government because they are too busy not wanting to change the status quo. ridiculous.
- roymurdock 11y agoNo, not all the thinking, impact analysis, and projections. I asked for an outline, a sketch of a thesis for his plan beyond "raise taxes". Please do not be hyperbolic and sarcastic.
- Estragon 11y ago> You need to go one step further and outline where and how > the federal government should put this new tax revenue to > work. Bernie Sanders's fine proposals probably make a good baseline.
- CuriousSkeptic 11y agoSince it is inequality were talking about, the simplest thing to do would be pure redistribution. Put the money in the hands of everyone equally as a dividend.