3 ms·

> Wasn't there a writeup recently that wealth distribution isn't materially distinguishable from luck? Some researchers in Italy created a computer model of hu

> Wasn't there a writeup recently that wealth distribution isn't materially distinguishable from luck? Some researchers in Italy created a computer model of human talent and ran a simulation. Not sure you can model talent, but more importantly that argument means no one is really successful, just lucky. Steve Jobs: no talent. Jeff Bezos: no talent. Barack Obama: no talent. All just luck. > If someone is too poor to get their horrifyingly contagious disease treated until its too late and it spreads to you, you're still sick, and you may still die, cover or no cover Again, I'm not wealthy, so these taxes would not affect me. But I'm not sure you're correctly modeling transmission vectors for communicable diseases. > If you believe in the value of a college education, then you believe it will increase the productivity of that individual...This in turn benefits the wealthy who likely hold equities You're saying rich people should pay really high taxes because poor people getting an education will cause the stock market to go up? Uh...not sure that's how it works. I believe everyone who wants one should have access to a college education. But just declaring it 'free' and raising taxes on one group doesn't seem like a sustainable strategy.

arcticbull 8y ago
> Steve Jobs: no talent. Bezos: no talent. Obama: no talent. I'm definitely not saying that. What I am saying is that their talent had to be coupled with an immense amount of luck, being in the right place at the right time, and things falling in line just right for them. > Again, I'm not wealthy, so these taxes would not affect me. But I'm not sure you're correctly modeling transmission vectors for communicable diseases. They would absolutely affect you -- you'd get medical care. It's also not fair to say you don't pay taxes even if your marginal tax rate is 0% as your employer pays ~15% of your salary on top in payroll taxes, and your employer could also be taxed to provide healthcare as some countries do. Even San Francisco follows such a model with Healthy SF. > You're saying rich people should pay really high taxes because poor people getting an education will cause the stock market to go up? Uh...not sure that's how it works. A quick google search yielded all sorts of great reading material on how that could work [1], [2] and [3]. Of course correlation is not causation and if you reject that data, the reality is you participate in a society -- would you rather your peers be uneducated or educated? Healthy or sick? Terrible roads or good roads? Drinkable water? On fire? Ultimately those of the highest means have the highest responsibility to that society to give back. [1] https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/08/12/education-can-boost-gdp-even-more-than-we-thought https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/08/12/edu... [2] http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079934475/Edu_Quality_Economic_Growth.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/27820... [3] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp
- ordinaryperson 8y ago
  Obviously, I'd like everyone to be healthy and with an affordable education. But our universe is finite and someone has to pay for these services. Just blindly assuming we can tax all wealthy people into total equality seems like a pipe dream to me. Hence, I'm arguing that instead of just blind wealth transfers from one group to the collective we should focus a lot more energy on bringing the cost of care down. Just like we should be focusing a lot more energy on bringing the cost of college down.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    I don't think we should tax the wealthy into equality, I believe in income and wealth inequality -- its the incentive and reward structure an economy should have. However, it's only moral and right when coupled with a meaningful quality of life for the lowest end, and only when coupled with social mobility. Socialized medicine and the safety net allows for risk taking, allows the poor to build businesses without the fear of death in the event of failure. Cost of care goes down when you stop wasting money on advertisement, CEO bonuses, and people whose job it is to deny claims. Cost of care goes down when you provide preventative care that's necessary and affordable. When you dont have people without insurance wandering into the ER at the last possible second who could have been treated for pennies on the dollar earlier on. All the data we have on Medicare backs this up, even though its an awful example for reasons I cited above. Further if you claim that we can't afford to cover everyone, you're going to need to back up your claims because every other country in the OECD would disagree with you. tl;dr: Income/wealth inequality is a good incentive, when the poor don't die, starve and can live well, and have the opportunity to move up. Socialized medicine enables this.

arcticbull 8y ago

> Steve Jobs: no talent. Bezos: no talent. Obama: no talent. I'm definitely not saying that. What I am saying is that their talent had to be coupled with an immense amount of luck, being in the right place at the right time, and things falling in line just right for them. > Again, I'm not wealthy, so these taxes would not affect me. But I'm not sure you're correctly modeling transmission vectors for communicable diseases. They would absolutely affect you -- you'd get medical care. It's also not fair to say you don't pay taxes even if your marginal tax rate is 0% as your employer pays ~15% of your salary on top in payroll taxes, and your employer could also be taxed to provide healthcare as some countries do. Even San Francisco follows such a model with Healthy SF. > You're saying rich people should pay really high taxes because poor people getting an education will cause the stock market to go up? Uh...not sure that's how it works. A quick google search yielded all sorts of great reading material on how that could work [1], [2] and [3]. Of course correlation is not causation and if you reject that data, the reality is you participate in a society -- would you rather your peers be uneducated or educated? Healthy or sick? Terrible roads or good roads? Drinkable water? On fire? Ultimately those of the highest means have the highest responsibility to that society to give back. [1] https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/08/12/education-can-boost-gdp-even-more-than-we-thought https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/08/12/edu... [2] http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079934475/Edu_Quality_Economic_Growth.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/27820... [3] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp

ordinaryperson 8y ago
Obviously, I'd like everyone to be healthy and with an affordable education. But our universe is finite and someone has to pay for these services. Just blindly assuming we can tax all wealthy people into total equality seems like a pipe dream to me. Hence, I'm arguing that instead of just blind wealth transfers from one group to the collective we should focus a lot more energy on bringing the cost of care down. Just like we should be focusing a lot more energy on bringing the cost of college down.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  I don't think we should tax the wealthy into equality, I believe in income and wealth inequality -- its the incentive and reward structure an economy should have. However, it's only moral and right when coupled with a meaningful quality of life for the lowest end, and only when coupled with social mobility. Socialized medicine and the safety net allows for risk taking, allows the poor to build businesses without the fear of death in the event of failure. Cost of care goes down when you stop wasting money on advertisement, CEO bonuses, and people whose job it is to deny claims. Cost of care goes down when you provide preventative care that's necessary and affordable. When you dont have people without insurance wandering into the ER at the last possible second who could have been treated for pennies on the dollar earlier on. All the data we have on Medicare backs this up, even though its an awful example for reasons I cited above. Further if you claim that we can't afford to cover everyone, you're going to need to back up your claims because every other country in the OECD would disagree with you. tl;dr: Income/wealth inequality is a good incentive, when the poor don't die, starve and can live well, and have the opportunity to move up. Socialized medicine enables this.