7 ms·

Without any arguments or evidence that this would either (1) be attainable or (2) actually free up enough cash to fund all the good stuff he (claims to) support

by drugme 8y ago

Without any arguments or evidence that this would either (1) be attainable or (2) actually free up enough cash to fund all the good stuff he (claims to) support.

beaconstudios 8y ago
2) applies to progressive taxation as well. There's no reason to believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is just a free wellspring of enough money to fund huge, nation-wide social programs. There are myriad things that can go wrong: loss of investment pools harming the economy, disincentivising entrepreneurialism, the wealthy moving abroad, the actual collectable amount being less than you'd expect (because "wealth" is a very fuzzy concept in modern economies), the actual cost of these social programs being higher than you'd expect, etc etc. Not that I want to shit all over the idea, it could equally work really well (I have no idea what the outcome would be), but a lot of the time these ideas don't receive the clear-headed analysis they deserve because they're ideological rather than logical in nature (taxation from the left, government efficiency from the right). I'd love it if we could pool all the ideas for ways to raise the minimum living standard, experiment with them and compare the results in a scientific way rather than just having two sides shouting at each other that their way is better.
- drugme 8y ago
  There's no reason to believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is just a free wellspring of enough money to fund huge, nation-wide social programs. Actually there's a lot of historical evidence to the effect that, when taxes are more progressive -- income inequality is less severe, affordable housing gets built and infrastructure is better maintained. And not only that: because we're "all in this together", society tends to work more cohesively and deal better with external threats, like say, WW2 (compared to the nosedive into nativism and paranoia we're experience right now, in the face of comparatively lesser threats). Source: U.S. history since the beginning of the corporate era (1880s or so).
  - pcstl 8y ago
    That making taxes more progressive within certain limits has certain effects does not imply that these effects will progress linearly as tax progressiveness increases. After all, if you had a 100% income tax for some segment of population, they would all just move their money abroad.
    - drugme 8y ago
      Somewhere between 100% and the woefully inadequate levels we have now -- I'm sure there's a happy medium.
    - r00fus 8y ago
      We had a ~90% marginal rate in the 50s and 60s with a roaring economy. I think 70% marginal at a much higher income stepping level even going back to what historically worked.
      - zepto 8y ago
        In the 50’s and 60’s it was far harder to move one’s money abroad or operate as an ‘international citizen’ simply because we didn’t have the infrastructure. Not only that, the advantage of not having had world war 2 on the mainland meant that there were not a lot of attractive and functional alternative economies to move to, where now there are. The argument that it worked fine in the 50’s and 60s and so it would be fine now is based on the assumption that those decades were representative, when in fact they were a historical anomaly.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    My point is, if that's true then great - implement higher tax brackets. But you should understand the effects of a drastic change before implementing it. That would ideally involve researching the economic and societal effects that are attributable to tax increases, because simply noting that eras with higher taxes tended to be better isn't a strong case. That's to say nothing of the huge budget the US already has. I mean, there's no reason why you can't both increase taxes and streamline the existing government (e.g. defense for a start) in order to drum up funds for a healthcare system.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  ==disincentivising entrepreneurialism== New business creation has fallen along with the highest marginal tax rate.[1] ==because "wealth" is a very fuzzy concept in modern economies== But income really isn't and that is what we tax. ==I'd love it if we could pool all the ideas for ways to raise the minimum living standard, experiment with them and compare the results in a scientific way rather than just having two sides shouting at each other that their way is better.== We could always look at the 33 other OECD countries and see where they have found successes.[2] Spoiler alert: universal healthcare, early childhood education, improved infrastructure (specifically: transportation, water, high-speed internet) and parental leave are specific improvements that could directly improve quality of life. [1] https://www.bls.gov/bdm/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship.htm https://www.bls.gov/bdm/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship.ht... [2] https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-look-like-a-developed-country/ https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-look-like-a-developed-co...
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    my point wasn't to highlight definitive issues but to point out that it's not always as simple as "we'll just tax more". You're talking about a pretty big impact to the share of the population that generates the most (economic) value per-person - it's unlikely to have no negative effects beyond complaining. Your first response doesn't establish a causal relationship between new business creation and marginal tax rate so I'm not sure what it adds here. Consider this: I'm from the UK, and the US government seemingly spends more per capita than here ($22,726 federal + state [1] vs £12,757 total [2]) and we have a much more comprehensive welfare system. I don't think the problem in the US is a lack of budget - we have our own problems with wasteful spending but the US takes the cake there. I mean, the military industrial complex (aka defense budget) alone is a huge cash sink. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Per_capita_spending https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Per_capita... [2] I previously cited for this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18939418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18939418
    - moorhosj 8y ago
      And my point is that we already have examples of plenty of policies from similar countries. Maybe we should look at what those places have done and see where we could adopt policies. In a way, the experiments you want to run already exist. The problem is much more about bias and ideology rather than data and experiments. We are talking about the only advanced country in the world where the controlling party denies climate change (a field with plenty of experiments and data). You mentioned that a higher tax rate might lower entrepreneurship and I provided data that shows it has already trended down while we’ve been moving the top marginal tax rate lower. I never claimed it was causal. It shows that the thing you are worried about happening if we implement a specific policy already happened after we implemented the exact opposite policy. In that context, maybe we should review other assumptions or worries related to tax rates.

by drugme 8y ago

Without any arguments or evidence that this would either (1) be attainable or (2) actually free up enough cash to fund all the good stuff he (claims to) support.

beaconstudios 8y ago

2) applies to progressive taxation as well. There's no reason to believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is just a free wellspring of enough money to fund huge, nation-wide social programs. There are myriad things that can go wrong: loss of investment pools harming the economy, disincentivising entrepreneurialism, the wealthy moving abroad, the actual collectable amount being less than you'd expect (because "wealth" is a very fuzzy concept in modern economies), the actual cost of these social programs being higher than you'd expect, etc etc. Not that I want to shit all over the idea, it could equally work really well (I have no idea what the outcome would be), but a lot of the time these ideas don't receive the clear-headed analysis they deserve because they're ideological rather than logical in nature (taxation from the left, government efficiency from the right). I'd love it if we could pool all the ideas for ways to raise the minimum living standard, experiment with them and compare the results in a scientific way rather than just having two sides shouting at each other that their way is better.

drugme 8y ago
There's no reason to believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is just a free wellspring of enough money to fund huge, nation-wide social programs. Actually there's a lot of historical evidence to the effect that, when taxes are more progressive -- income inequality is less severe, affordable housing gets built and infrastructure is better maintained. And not only that: because we're "all in this together", society tends to work more cohesively and deal better with external threats, like say, WW2 (compared to the nosedive into nativism and paranoia we're experience right now, in the face of comparatively lesser threats). Source: U.S. history since the beginning of the corporate era (1880s or so).
- pcstl 8y ago
  That making taxes more progressive within certain limits has certain effects does not imply that these effects will progress linearly as tax progressiveness increases. After all, if you had a 100% income tax for some segment of population, they would all just move their money abroad.
  - drugme 8y ago
    Somewhere between 100% and the woefully inadequate levels we have now -- I'm sure there's a happy medium.
  - r00fus 8y ago
    We had a ~90% marginal rate in the 50s and 60s with a roaring economy. I think 70% marginal at a much higher income stepping level even going back to what historically worked.
    - zepto 8y ago
      In the 50’s and 60’s it was far harder to move one’s money abroad or operate as an ‘international citizen’ simply because we didn’t have the infrastructure. Not only that, the advantage of not having had world war 2 on the mainland meant that there were not a lot of attractive and functional alternative economies to move to, where now there are. The argument that it worked fine in the 50’s and 60s and so it would be fine now is based on the assumption that those decades were representative, when in fact they were a historical anomaly.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  My point is, if that's true then great - implement higher tax brackets. But you should understand the effects of a drastic change before implementing it. That would ideally involve researching the economic and societal effects that are attributable to tax increases, because simply noting that eras with higher taxes tended to be better isn't a strong case. That's to say nothing of the huge budget the US already has. I mean, there's no reason why you can't both increase taxes and streamline the existing government (e.g. defense for a start) in order to drum up funds for a healthcare system.
moorhosj 8y ago
==disincentivising entrepreneurialism== New business creation has fallen along with the highest marginal tax rate.[1] ==because "wealth" is a very fuzzy concept in modern economies== But income really isn't and that is what we tax. ==I'd love it if we could pool all the ideas for ways to raise the minimum living standard, experiment with them and compare the results in a scientific way rather than just having two sides shouting at each other that their way is better.== We could always look at the 33 other OECD countries and see where they have found successes.[2] Spoiler alert: universal healthcare, early childhood education, improved infrastructure (specifically: transportation, water, high-speed internet) and parental leave are specific improvements that could directly improve quality of life. [1] https://www.bls.gov/bdm/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship.htm https://www.bls.gov/bdm/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship.ht... [2] https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-look-like-a-developed-country/ https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-look-like-a-developed-co...
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  my point wasn't to highlight definitive issues but to point out that it's not always as simple as "we'll just tax more". You're talking about a pretty big impact to the share of the population that generates the most (economic) value per-person - it's unlikely to have no negative effects beyond complaining. Your first response doesn't establish a causal relationship between new business creation and marginal tax rate so I'm not sure what it adds here. Consider this: I'm from the UK, and the US government seemingly spends more per capita than here ($22,726 federal + state [1] vs £12,757 total [2]) and we have a much more comprehensive welfare system. I don't think the problem in the US is a lack of budget - we have our own problems with wasteful spending but the US takes the cake there. I mean, the military industrial complex (aka defense budget) alone is a huge cash sink. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Per_capita_spending https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Per_capita... [2] I previously cited for this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18939418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18939418
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    And my point is that we already have examples of plenty of policies from similar countries. Maybe we should look at what those places have done and see where we could adopt policies. In a way, the experiments you want to run already exist. The problem is much more about bias and ideology rather than data and experiments. We are talking about the only advanced country in the world where the controlling party denies climate change (a field with plenty of experiments and data). You mentioned that a higher tax rate might lower entrepreneurship and I provided data that shows it has already trended down while we’ve been moving the top marginal tax rate lower. I never claimed it was causal. It shows that the thing you are worried about happening if we implement a specific policy already happened after we implemented the exact opposite policy. In that context, maybe we should review other assumptions or worries related to tax rates.