4 ms·
We are talking about opinions here, tips of extremely vast icebergs, so I'll try to be careful. Disclaimer is that I disagree with Fred, agree with AOC. I can
by scrollbar 8y ago
We are talking about opinions here, tips of extremely vast icebergs, so I'll try to be careful. Disclaimer is that I disagree with Fred, agree with AOC.
I can agree with Fred that the bottom should have the basics covered, and that's the most important point here. That is, we want an economic system that allocates more resources to those at the bottom than we currently have.
Where do these resources come from? I think that the presence of billionaires is simply the other side of the mathematical equation here. Assume with me that wealth follows a power law distribution. Presumably we have the ability to adjust the shape of that distribution (as AOC advocates in some way). The outcome of shifting the power law from, for example, alpha=1.5 to alpha=3.5 is a dramatic evening out of the distribution. The curve is flatter and the top earners will have less relative to the average. So you would have fewer billionaires.
OK- instead of flattening out the overall curve, maybe you put a floor instead, as Fred argues for. What part of the distribution would you have to take from to add the extra tail weight? Most of the weight in the distribution is at the head, where the billionaires are... so I would assume it would come from there. Hence, no/fewer billionaires, no?
I think Fred's and others' broader point is that we should continue having incentives for success. I agree. Maybe a little less incentive, though.
I'm glad we have the opportunity to start discussing this topic on a national stage.
EDIT: grammar
- zanny 8y agoA good question to ask is how many orders of magnitude of what the average person makes do you need to make to be "incentivized" to be productive. Would the current billionaire stop participating in the economy if they suddenly could only make five orders of magnitude more than the average worker instead of six?
- antepodius 8y agoThey'd have their analysts re-evaluate expected profits, and, if they could increase returns by shifting some processes from their current country to somewhere else, they would.
- tomp 8y agoI'm not sure what are you trying to say. Do you agree with AOC or not?! A tax rate of 1000% won't result in "fewer billionaires" as 0 of the top 10 (and approximately 0 of the top 100 I guess) billionaires made their wealth through salary. It's almost always either entrepreneurship or inheritance or marriage or more multiple of these. Taxing income won't change that. AOC's suggestion is a cheap political play that encourages the low-vs-middle-class adversity and might win her some votes, but really most billionaires would applaud it, because, again, they'll escape unscathed. She can't suggest taxing profits/capital gains/inheritance/trust funds of course, because then she'd make enemies of actually powerful people.
- DFHippie 8y ago>She can't suggest taxing profits/capital gains/inheritance/trust funds of course, because then she'd make enemies of actually powerful people. Maybe you're right, but I very much doubt it. I'm at work, so I don't have more time to research it, but I'd be willing to bet AOC will or has suggested increasing taxation on at least capital gains and inheritance. These are commonplace suggestions from the center to the left.
- tomp 8y agoWell I sincerely wish they pull it off (not just cosmetically of course, but in a way that prevents all tax avoidance) but I also sincerely doubt they can.
- scrollbar 8y agoI agree it’s a political play. It’s not enough, we need to address tax loopholes, capital gains, offshore tax havens, etc. The spirit of her comment- that billionaires and poverty should not coexist in our current society- I believe is clear, and my comment holds in supporting it.