4 ms·

Kamerschen really likes to oversimplify things here. The violent mass of poorer guys beating up their richer drinking buddy who used to pay half the drinking bi

by cies 16y ago

Kamerschen really likes to oversimplify things here. The violent mass of poorer guys beating up their richer drinking buddy who used to pay half the drinking bill. I had to laugh, though i dont think it's realistic. The only real point he makes is that taxing the rich too much will drive them abroad. As far as i know there is no proof for this. I feel another problem is more important than scaring out the rich by higher taxation: when tax money is largely used for public services like schools and health care that the rich dont use as they prefer the better private alternatives. In Kamerschen's words this will give the rich the feeling they pay more for the beer, that they dont even drink! Coming from the netherlands, i value that public schools and hospitals are being used regardless of pay grade. This justifies paying tax for everyone, and gives a sense of fair chances in society regardless your social-economic background.

notahacker 16y ago
The rich might not use public schools and hospitals, but they benefit vastly more than the poor from other services that governments provide, such as economic stability, protection of property rights, infrastructure giving them better access to markets etc.
- mhd 16y ago
  There are lots of countries where public schools are basically the only way, and don't imply a second rate education. And if the company that made you rich employs a high rate of white collar workers, you benefit from their high level of training. (Depending on your country, this also applies to highly trained blue color workers) But yes, with all these benefits, I'm really amazed when I hear people talk as if the whole tax system is basically fraud (as opposed to taxes just being too high). Unless they're very idealistic libertarians, of course. Or live in New Jersey.
  - cies 16y ago
    > There are lots of countries where public schools are basically the only way, and don't imply a second rate education. Yups, the Netherlands is luckily still one of those. :)
- cies 16y ago
  What you say is hard to measure. I think the benefit of "fairness" that results from having everyone go though the same schools and hospitals is far greater then any of the benefits you mention.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
piguy314 16y ago
The EU had this problem but that's only because their tax regimes are regionally differentiated. Affluence flight is probably only a problem when one region of a country has significantly higher taxes than another, which would seem to imply that raising the federal income tax rate in America wouldn't cause the rich to leave because they have no where to go really. It may not be pleasant for the rich but wealth transfers are necessary for a stable, modern society; after all who will buy their products if everyone but them is poor?
yummyfajitas 16y ago
The only real point he makes is that taxing the rich too much will drive them abroad. As far as i know there is no proof for this. Proof that this occurs: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/08/20/100/ http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/08/20/100/ Another far more dangerous effect is that the rich might produce less. If they produce goods abroad, the only deadweight loss is the cost of shipping. For every good/service not produced, we lose the entire consumer surplus. One famous (albeit historical) example of this is that actor Ronald Reagan only made one movie a year - due to high taxes, making two movies/year earned him virtually no additional income. The only remaining question is the degree to which these effects occur.

by cies 16y ago

notahacker 16y ago

The rich might not use public schools and hospitals, but they benefit vastly more than the poor from other services that governments provide, such as economic stability, protection of property rights, infrastructure giving them better access to markets etc.

mhd 16y ago
There are lots of countries where public schools are basically the only way, and don't imply a second rate education. And if the company that made you rich employs a high rate of white collar workers, you benefit from their high level of training. (Depending on your country, this also applies to highly trained blue color workers) But yes, with all these benefits, I'm really amazed when I hear people talk as if the whole tax system is basically fraud (as opposed to taxes just being too high). Unless they're very idealistic libertarians, of course. Or live in New Jersey.
- cies 16y ago
  > There are lots of countries where public schools are basically the only way, and don't imply a second rate education. Yups, the Netherlands is luckily still one of those. :)
cies 16y ago
What you say is hard to measure. I think the benefit of "fairness" that results from having everyone go though the same schools and hospitals is far greater then any of the benefits you mention.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

piguy314 16y ago

The EU had this problem but that's only because their tax regimes are regionally differentiated. Affluence flight is probably only a problem when one region of a country has significantly higher taxes than another, which would seem to imply that raising the federal income tax rate in America wouldn't cause the rich to leave because they have no where to go really. It may not be pleasant for the rich but wealth transfers are necessary for a stable, modern society; after all who will buy their products if everyone but them is poor?

yummyfajitas 16y ago

The only real point he makes is that taxing the rich too much will drive them abroad. As far as i know there is no proof for this. Proof that this occurs: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/08/20/100/ http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/08/20/100/ Another far more dangerous effect is that the rich might produce less. If they produce goods abroad, the only deadweight loss is the cost of shipping. For every good/service not produced, we lose the entire consumer surplus. One famous (albeit historical) example of this is that actor Ronald Reagan only made one movie a year - due to high taxes, making two movies/year earned him virtually no additional income. The only remaining question is the degree to which these effects occur.