4 ms·

In this context, "what do I get in return?" is a question that is only (seriously) asked by two kinds of people: those who can't stand the thought of having les

In this context, "what do I get in return?" is a question that is only (seriously) asked by two kinds of people: those who can't stand the thought of having less than the absolute maximum they could get, and those who parrot the words of the former group without thinking. In my opinion, it's pointless to reason with the former, but if I had to try, my answer would be "You still get to be rich, you know, nobody's saying we'll take everything you have." It's the latter group that is a lot more important to convince, though.

eigen-vector 8y ago
I think the uber rich—top one percent of the top one percent—have realized that staying rich requires less than 99% of their net worth. This resulted in the 99% pledge aka the giving pledge and similar movements. It's those that are wealthy but not wealthy enough to be a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates that seem to feel like the welfare seekers are coming for them. In my opinion, what would actually convince them are studies and experiments that show that wealth sharing improves the collective health of the society rather than just bringing up the downtrodden. The UBI experiments and higher taxes are small but non-trivial steps towards that.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  I pay plenty of taxes. The amount of willingness I have to pay more represented as an integer is a very large negative one until capital gains, corporate profits, etc. are taxed at a rate similar to the money I make. This all assumes that pumping money into the problem will solve it. In my estimation there will be more ~100k middle management positions and boondoggle infrastructure projects in government (which are really just middle class welfare programs depending on how you think about it) and poor people will be just as poor.
  - eigen-vector 8y ago
    >The amount of willingness I have to pay more represented as an integer is a very large negative one until capital gains, corporate profits, etc. are taxed at a rate similar to the money I make. I agree. There needs to be reform in multiple dimensions. You also bring up the point about governments being inefficient. That needs fixing. I think it calls into question how much our elected representatives are choosing to look away from the problem. Adding to your point about how inefficient jobs are just welfare programs, the welfare programs themselves are more inefficient than what it seems. It takes way lesser money to push the people at the bottom 10th percent onto the next tier, say, the 20th or even the 30th percent in terms of income than what it takes to push the middle class to upper middle class. The leap is also more significant for someone who cannot afford 3 meals a day to become someone who'd able to afford that, compared to say a family of 4 that makes median income to be able to afford a vacation. To significantly improve the condition of the middle class, it requires way more resources than compared to those that are required to improve the conditions of the poor. If you channel the latter toward the former, almost all the resources go to waste. The problem seems to be that the middle class is a very broad spectrum. Anyone who isn't going through abject poverty or doesn't consider themselves rich is going to consider themselves middle class. This leads to the government pandering to this broad spectrum as part of their vote bank politics. The result is wasted resources and an illusion of efforts spent to bring up the middle class.

eigen-vector 8y ago

I think the uber rich—top one percent of the top one percent—have realized that staying rich requires less than 99% of their net worth. This resulted in the 99% pledge aka the giving pledge and similar movements. It's those that are wealthy but not wealthy enough to be a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates that seem to feel like the welfare seekers are coming for them. In my opinion, what would actually convince them are studies and experiments that show that wealth sharing improves the collective health of the society rather than just bringing up the downtrodden. The UBI experiments and higher taxes are small but non-trivial steps towards that.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
I pay plenty of taxes. The amount of willingness I have to pay more represented as an integer is a very large negative one until capital gains, corporate profits, etc. are taxed at a rate similar to the money I make. This all assumes that pumping money into the problem will solve it. In my estimation there will be more ~100k middle management positions and boondoggle infrastructure projects in government (which are really just middle class welfare programs depending on how you think about it) and poor people will be just as poor.
- eigen-vector 8y ago
  >The amount of willingness I have to pay more represented as an integer is a very large negative one until capital gains, corporate profits, etc. are taxed at a rate similar to the money I make. I agree. There needs to be reform in multiple dimensions. You also bring up the point about governments being inefficient. That needs fixing. I think it calls into question how much our elected representatives are choosing to look away from the problem. Adding to your point about how inefficient jobs are just welfare programs, the welfare programs themselves are more inefficient than what it seems. It takes way lesser money to push the people at the bottom 10th percent onto the next tier, say, the 20th or even the 30th percent in terms of income than what it takes to push the middle class to upper middle class. The leap is also more significant for someone who cannot afford 3 meals a day to become someone who'd able to afford that, compared to say a family of 4 that makes median income to be able to afford a vacation. To significantly improve the condition of the middle class, it requires way more resources than compared to those that are required to improve the conditions of the poor. If you channel the latter toward the former, almost all the resources go to waste. The problem seems to be that the middle class is a very broad spectrum. Anyone who isn't going through abject poverty or doesn't consider themselves rich is going to consider themselves middle class. This leads to the government pandering to this broad spectrum as part of their vote bank politics. The result is wasted resources and an illusion of efforts spent to bring up the middle class.