10 ms·

> Should society be allowed to try to give the poor but genetically gifted children a boost in life? Nobody’s suggesting that parent’s shouldn’t use whatever re

> Should society be allowed to try to give the poor but genetically gifted children a boost in life? Nobody’s suggesting that parent’s shouldn’t use whatever resources they have. But to a certain extent it is zero-sum. The way you boost smart poor children is by taking money from non-poor parents. So you really are suggesting that non-poor parents "shouldn't use whatever resources they have." I don't think anyone fundamentally opposes this, but there is a legitimate philosophical question about how much redistribution is appropriate, and what criteria go into defining "appropriate."

cm2012 8y ago
Luckily, there are massively diminishing returns to money's effect on educational outcomes and overall happiness, so a dollar taxed from the rich is worth much less to them than to the poor it is given to.
- drb91 8y ago
  That’s probably more due to the fact that the value of an education is less necessary for the wealthy to succeed. Why bother trying when you can be president with a gentleman’s c?
- jacobolus 8y ago
  Not just educational outcomes. More money has massively diminishing returns to happiness, health, fitness, longevity, creative output, ... The biggest constraint is often individual people’s time/attention; additional money is only slightly (if at all) helpful for the already rich. But a little bit of money goes a long way to help people who are not eating well, don’t have a place to live, need to work 3 stressful part-time jobs to make ends meet, ... Massive inheritances (dropping someone tens of millions of dollars or more) are one of the greatest problems in our society. The top marginal tax rate for inheritances should be 90%+, and we should be cracking down hard on all the sneaky ways people hide gajillions of dollars for their descendants. Maybe with an exception for small family farms, since presenting farmer sob stories is one of the biggest ways billionaires have figured out to market their intergenerational hoarding.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Nah. Rich farmers deserve little sympathy. The traditional farm evokes by pictures on milk cartons and politicians has been dead since the 80s. Pick a number around the 80th percentile of 401k balance at age 70 and tax it at 50%, then go up to 95%. The kickback to this modern gilded age is going to be brutal.
  - jesssse 8y ago
    I do not see inheritance as a problem. My motivation for accumulating wealth is largely driven by a desire to provide for my future family members. Inheritance tax is theft.
    - jwatte 8y ago
      Not paying taxes is theft from the society that lets you accumulate and keep wealth.
      - taneq 8y ago
        And personal property is theft too, eh comrade?
      - mlazos 8y ago
        I don’t think anyone is saying avoid taxes entirely. I honestly don’t see why money should be taxed twice. Take income tax, fine, but if I decide to save money for my descendants then let me be. On its face it’s literally just a gift.
        TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        The "double taxation" argument is nonsense. There are many taxes that apply to the same money multiple times. I have to pay income tax on the money when I get it, sales tax when I use it to buy something with it and then property tax on the thing that I bought. (Also, gifts and inheritances are taxed identically).
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
- mcguire 8y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5479093/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5479093/ Table 3 is interesting. "Almost half (50.7%) of the children with low IQ [0–79] came from families with income <Rs. 50,000/month [$675/mo]. On the other hand, 65.6% of children with high IQ [above 120] came from families with more than Rs. 50,000/month (P = 0.001)"
- conanbatt 8y ago
  The famous utilitarian argument. Beware, it is also much better to seize your phone and computer to provide food to a starving african child.
dahart 8y ago
> But to a certain extent it is zero-sum. It is not zero-sum, there is not a fixed amount of wealth in either the US economy nor the global economy. If we educated everyone, and everyone with potential reached their potential and contributed to the economy, we can all have more wealth. It’s not a requirement that someone lose, and this is what I meant by a return of two dollars for every dollar spent. > The way you boost smart poor children is by taking money from non-poor parents. ... how much redistribution is appropriate... In practice, we could fund university education for all in the margins of what we willingly spend on the military or several other programs, people have been pointing this out for decades. It doesn’t have to be a change in taxation for anyone, nor does it need to come from “non-poor” disproportionately. But, larger picture, I find it ironic that you use the word redistribution with respect to the rich, but not with respect to the poor. Where does rich people’s money come from? And if you’re going to worry about rich people funding social programs, how about also tallying the benefits they get from national infrastructure that poor people also have to pay for?
- jesssse 8y ago
  College is already overpriced because of government subsidies. Your plan would make it worse.
  - jwatte 8y ago
    Not actually true, except under very skewed systems and assumptions.
  - dahart 8y ago
    > College is already overpriced because of government subsidies. That is an interesting narrative. Direct state funding per-student for college is down in almost all states over the last 10 years and the last 30 years. Tuition has risen for several reasons: 1- to compensate for lack of state funding, 2- because colleges and universities have larger higher paid administrations than ever before. Some of the subsidies we have are nothing more than consolation prizes for state funding cuts that are larger than the subsidies, so I simply don’t buy that public funding has caused tuition to rise, when public funding is declining overall. > Your plan would make it worse. I didn’t share a plan, so I’m not sure what you mean. But, I have to wonder, why does it matter if tuition goes up, if it’s a net positive to the economy? Why would it matter if tuition goes up, if it’s paid for? Why do you assume that tuition prices would look anything like they do now if all of education was publicly funded?

cm2012 8y ago

Luckily, there are massively diminishing returns to money's effect on educational outcomes and overall happiness, so a dollar taxed from the rich is worth much less to them than to the poor it is given to.

drb91 8y ago
That’s probably more due to the fact that the value of an education is less necessary for the wealthy to succeed. Why bother trying when you can be president with a gentleman’s c?
jacobolus 8y ago
Not just educational outcomes. More money has massively diminishing returns to happiness, health, fitness, longevity, creative output, ... The biggest constraint is often individual people’s time/attention; additional money is only slightly (if at all) helpful for the already rich. But a little bit of money goes a long way to help people who are not eating well, don’t have a place to live, need to work 3 stressful part-time jobs to make ends meet, ... Massive inheritances (dropping someone tens of millions of dollars or more) are one of the greatest problems in our society. The top marginal tax rate for inheritances should be 90%+, and we should be cracking down hard on all the sneaky ways people hide gajillions of dollars for their descendants. Maybe with an exception for small family farms, since presenting farmer sob stories is one of the biggest ways billionaires have figured out to market their intergenerational hoarding.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Nah. Rich farmers deserve little sympathy. The traditional farm evokes by pictures on milk cartons and politicians has been dead since the 80s. Pick a number around the 80th percentile of 401k balance at age 70 and tax it at 50%, then go up to 95%. The kickback to this modern gilded age is going to be brutal.
- jesssse 8y ago
  I do not see inheritance as a problem. My motivation for accumulating wealth is largely driven by a desire to provide for my future family members. Inheritance tax is theft.
  - jwatte 8y ago
    Not paying taxes is theft from the society that lets you accumulate and keep wealth.
    - taneq 8y ago
      And personal property is theft too, eh comrade?
    - mlazos 8y ago
      I don’t think anyone is saying avoid taxes entirely. I honestly don’t see why money should be taxed twice. Take income tax, fine, but if I decide to save money for my descendants then let me be. On its face it’s literally just a gift.
      - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        The "double taxation" argument is nonsense. There are many taxes that apply to the same money multiple times. I have to pay income tax on the money when I get it, sales tax when I use it to buy something with it and then property tax on the thing that I bought. (Also, gifts and inheritances are taxed identically).
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
mcguire 8y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5479093/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5479093/ Table 3 is interesting. "Almost half (50.7%) of the children with low IQ [0–79] came from families with income <Rs. 50,000/month [$675/mo]. On the other hand, 65.6% of children with high IQ [above 120] came from families with more than Rs. 50,000/month (P = 0.001)"
conanbatt 8y ago
The famous utilitarian argument. Beware, it is also much better to seize your phone and computer to provide food to a starving african child.

dahart 8y ago

> But to a certain extent it is zero-sum. It is not zero-sum, there is not a fixed amount of wealth in either the US economy nor the global economy. If we educated everyone, and everyone with potential reached their potential and contributed to the economy, we can all have more wealth. It’s not a requirement that someone lose, and this is what I meant by a return of two dollars for every dollar spent. > The way you boost smart poor children is by taking money from non-poor parents. ... how much redistribution is appropriate... In practice, we could fund university education for all in the margins of what we willingly spend on the military or several other programs, people have been pointing this out for decades. It doesn’t have to be a change in taxation for anyone, nor does it need to come from “non-poor” disproportionately. But, larger picture, I find it ironic that you use the word redistribution with respect to the rich, but not with respect to the poor. Where does rich people’s money come from? And if you’re going to worry about rich people funding social programs, how about also tallying the benefits they get from national infrastructure that poor people also have to pay for?

jesssse 8y ago
College is already overpriced because of government subsidies. Your plan would make it worse.
- jwatte 8y ago
  Not actually true, except under very skewed systems and assumptions.
- dahart 8y ago
  > College is already overpriced because of government subsidies. That is an interesting narrative. Direct state funding per-student for college is down in almost all states over the last 10 years and the last 30 years. Tuition has risen for several reasons: 1- to compensate for lack of state funding, 2- because colleges and universities have larger higher paid administrations than ever before. Some of the subsidies we have are nothing more than consolation prizes for state funding cuts that are larger than the subsidies, so I simply don’t buy that public funding has caused tuition to rise, when public funding is declining overall. > Your plan would make it worse. I didn’t share a plan, so I’m not sure what you mean. But, I have to wonder, why does it matter if tuition goes up, if it’s a net positive to the economy? Why would it matter if tuition goes up, if it’s paid for? Why do you assume that tuition prices would look anything like they do now if all of education was publicly funded?