4 ms·

That tagline made me cringe. Redistribution of wealth is not just about enjoying the fruits of someones labor. It's about giving a larger group of people the c

That tagline made me cringe. Redistribution of wealth is not just about enjoying the fruits of someones labor. It's about giving a larger group of people the chance to use those resources and that safety net to contribute back to society and maybe even become one of those super rich whom the article is talking about. I agree with the author that the people on the top aren't different than everybody else. They just managed to get to the top. Those skills and that drive can be found in people of all social layers. So it's not about getting to the top. It's about getting there by contributing back to society. Most of the article seems to try and justify taxes. I'm sorry the climate is so bad that taxes need to be justified. Where I'm from in Europe we see a lot of young entrepreneurs and musicians mostly because we have a strong safety net. You can drop out of school and focus on your music without living homeless, and without having rich parents/sponsors. Then you can change your mind and go back to school without falling into massive debt. This gives more people the chance at making something of themselves and thereby contributing back to society at some point. Instead of harshly casting them out of society with crippling debt or just living hand to mouth for the rest of their lives.

lixtra 8y ago
I don’t see that Europe produces more/better entrepreneurs/musicians than say the US. Maybe they have a less stressful life and feel better.
- Eridrus 8y ago
  There's a bunch of statistics that show the US is not particularly entrepreneurial. The US does have very high levels of VC investment, a large single market with (often) consistent regulation and language, and this helps startups survive more than they do in Europe. I sometimes think of starting a startup back in Australia, but it always seems like a bad idea because of the lack of VC and lack of customers. But I think the US should see this as an opportunity, if the US had better policies, we could get better outcomes than even now, because we have a lot of non-policy benefits already!
  - nv-vn 8y ago
    To be fair though, a lot of the more advanced European countries have much lower corporate tax rates than the US does (or at least did). E.g. Sweden's is 22% and there's no state corporate income tax rate on top of that. In fact, the US was one of only a few highly developed countries with an above-average corporate income tax rate until the recent tax cuts, with higher tax rates than all of Europe, China, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc. [1]. There are a lot of data indicating that low corporate tax rates do just as much if not more than low income tax rates to spur innovation/entrepreneurship. [1] https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170113143228/World-Combined-Statutory-Rates-01.png https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170113143228/World-Combine...
    - Eridrus 8y ago
      I don't think high corporate taxes make sense, but I'm not convinced they would have much effect on entrepreneurship. By definition they are taxes on profits, and corporations can deduct a lot more from their taxes than people can. As someone who has considered starting a startup, corporate tax rates have never really concerned me since the biggest hurdle is just getting back a comparable salary for myself, and anything else, e.g. smoothing income over multiple years, is just gravy. I don't think this logic would be very different for more traditional small businesses either. And even before the recent changes, effective US tax rates were not significantly different from effective EU tax rates: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/actual-us-corporate-tax-rates-are-in-line-with-comparable-countries https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/actual-us-corporat... Also, colour-coded maps are a terrible way to make actual comparisons.
Viliam1234 8y ago
> It's about giving a larger group of people the chance to use those resources and that safety net to contribute back to society Safety net is great, but if someone already showed an ability to turn resources into more resources, it makes sense to leave a large part of the resources to them, so they can do it again.
ci5er 8y ago
Great. Musicians. I'm sure they will come up with the new iPhone. John D. Rockefeller started out dirt poor, and with no handouts, he saved the whales. You think taxing the rich and subsidizing the future Beatles wannabees might to the same? I can not think of, off the top of my head, a single entrepreneurial success that came from subsidising lack of ambition. Can you?

lixtra 8y ago

I don’t see that Europe produces more/better entrepreneurs/musicians than say the US. Maybe they have a less stressful life and feel better.

Eridrus 8y ago
There's a bunch of statistics that show the US is not particularly entrepreneurial. The US does have very high levels of VC investment, a large single market with (often) consistent regulation and language, and this helps startups survive more than they do in Europe. I sometimes think of starting a startup back in Australia, but it always seems like a bad idea because of the lack of VC and lack of customers. But I think the US should see this as an opportunity, if the US had better policies, we could get better outcomes than even now, because we have a lot of non-policy benefits already!
- nv-vn 8y ago
  To be fair though, a lot of the more advanced European countries have much lower corporate tax rates than the US does (or at least did). E.g. Sweden's is 22% and there's no state corporate income tax rate on top of that. In fact, the US was one of only a few highly developed countries with an above-average corporate income tax rate until the recent tax cuts, with higher tax rates than all of Europe, China, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc. [1]. There are a lot of data indicating that low corporate tax rates do just as much if not more than low income tax rates to spur innovation/entrepreneurship. [1] https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170113143228/World-Combined-Statutory-Rates-01.png https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170113143228/World-Combine...
  - Eridrus 8y ago
    I don't think high corporate taxes make sense, but I'm not convinced they would have much effect on entrepreneurship. By definition they are taxes on profits, and corporations can deduct a lot more from their taxes than people can. As someone who has considered starting a startup, corporate tax rates have never really concerned me since the biggest hurdle is just getting back a comparable salary for myself, and anything else, e.g. smoothing income over multiple years, is just gravy. I don't think this logic would be very different for more traditional small businesses either. And even before the recent changes, effective US tax rates were not significantly different from effective EU tax rates: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/actual-us-corporate-tax-rates-are-in-line-with-comparable-countries https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/actual-us-corporat... Also, colour-coded maps are a terrible way to make actual comparisons.

Viliam1234 8y ago

> It's about giving a larger group of people the chance to use those resources and that safety net to contribute back to society Safety net is great, but if someone already showed an ability to turn resources into more resources, it makes sense to leave a large part of the resources to them, so they can do it again.

ci5er 8y ago

Great. Musicians. I'm sure they will come up with the new iPhone. John D. Rockefeller started out dirt poor, and with no handouts, he saved the whales. You think taxing the rich and subsidizing the future Beatles wannabees might to the same? I can not think of, off the top of my head, a single entrepreneurial success that came from subsidising lack of ambition. Can you?