4 ms·

It would work on killing any motivation I might have to make money.

kingkawn 7y ago
You would live in a city where everyone was doing well. Everything you make is as conditional on the world around you as it is yourself. If both thrive you might finally, actually, not just symbolically but truly thrive.
psychometry 7y ago
If that's the only thing that motivates you, I don't think it would be any great loss to society that you stop doing whatever it is you do.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kolbe 7y ago
  That's a pretty strong insult to someone for whom you have no idea what he does.
- jquery 7y ago
  You certainly don’t know that, what an arrogant thing to say. Do you think garbage truck drivers work for personal edification?
  - danaris 7y ago
    I don't think garbage truck workers would throw in the towel and stop working because income taxes or wealth taxes went up. They're working because they need to eat. If ohaideredevs is in such a place that he's able to stop working and not have to worry about being able to pay for housing, food, clothes, insurance, and all the other necessities of daily life, then that's great for him, but I guarantee you absolutely that the vast majority of the people in America would neither stop trying to make money, nor stop trying to make more money, just because some taxes went up. More money—even if a higher percentage of it would go to the government—just makes too much of a difference in the day-to-day life of most people for those kinds of concerns to be anywhere near strong enough to make it look unappealing. So if someone who already has so much money that they don't need to work another day in their life stops trying to make money...or even if it's someone who makes so much that making more wouldn't reduce their stress in daily life no longer trying to increase their income...I don't think that's a net loss to us in any meaningful way.
    - kolbe 7y ago
      You act like everyone is capable of doing everything. If ohaideredevs is a world class computer scientist, it would be devastating. The economic contribution of someone who can enrich our knowledge of data science or algorithms is thousands of times higher than blue collar labor. And you cannot just ask a worker in sanitation to start developing new deep learning techniques after you lose someone who can.
- throwmeback 7y ago
  ...why?
naravara 7y ago
Once you get into top 1% territory, any scheme you have to make more money is likely to just be fleecing any workers or consumer public that you have under your thumb. This is a feature rather than a bug.
jayd16 7y ago
You'll still make more than the next guy and honestly that's all people care about.
roywiggins 7y ago
The top marginal tax rate in the US only kicks in if you make more than $500,000/yr. Unless you're already making that much, how does a higher marginal tax rate on income over $500k affect you at all?
- assblaster 7y ago
  I would work less. A lot less. I'm at 7 days a week working, I would cut back to 5 days or fewer. Why would I continue to push hard for money that will just go to the government?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jayd16 7y ago
    Somehow I think we'll find others to blast assess.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    That sounds like a good thing.
    - assblaster 7y ago
      Doing less productive things with my time because I am essentially forced to through the tax code should be considered heavy handed government interference in my life.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    If you make more than $500k, you're already sending 37% back to the Feds. If you're in a high-tax state you're probably sending significantly more. Increasing the top tax rate is just a difference in degree.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > I would work less. A lot less. I'm at 7 days a week working, I would cut back to 5 days or fewer. Okay. So what?
bksenior 7y ago
Almost every piece of acadamekc and practical research shows that this is not true (Ariely has 3 great papers on this). People love things, power, sex and connection. Most of the things that lead to those things are exchanged directly or indirectly for money. You’ll almost certainly always find a personal narrative as to why you want money.
bryanlarsen 7y ago
17% of a large number is still a fairly large number.
dahart 7y ago
Why’s that? I’d happily take 17% of a billion over the ~50% of what I make now, average tech salary. I feel like tax rates are irrelevant to my ambitions. In the past a lot of people have claimed they’d be demotivated about raising taxes, but it’s never stopped someone from being richer. More is still more, even if the government takes a greater share.
colechristensen 7y ago
So you're saying it would get rid of people in powerful positions that were only in it for the money? That you could finally relax and spend time doing things of value to you instead of acquiring wealth? Sounds good to me.
nugget 7y ago
It would incentivize the purchase of pre-tax goods and services. Once you hit the top rate, anything your personal LLC could purchase (on your behalf) would be effectively subsidized. For example, the hiring of full-time personal assistants would become much more economically attractive.
exelius 7y ago
You're really telling me that because you can't become a bazillionaire, you'll have no motivation to make money? You can structure a progressive tax such that the 83% rate only kicks in for income above $10M. Maybe you pay 60% from $1M-$10M. I think that's fair; it leaves plenty of money in your pocket to live a comfortable life well above the means of most people. Furthermore, your ability to make millions is only possible because of the services provided by government (education, infrastructure, security, financial regulation). Plenty of people are motivated by much smaller numbers. The average take-home of the top 1% is between $400k and $700k. We're talking about a bigger tax on the 0.1% (>$1M/yr), and a huge tax on the 0.01% (>8M/yr). Again, those brackets are only able to achieve outsized returns because they have educated workers and a stable legal/regulatory system. Because they achieve outsized benefit, they should pay a proportionally higher share. If those amounts are enough to incentivize 99.99% of the country, and you're still making more than they are, I'm sure you'll survive. If not, someone else will take your place.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> It would work on killing any motivation I might have to make money. That's probably not true of most of the people dedicated enough to making money that they'd be subject to it in the first place, but to the extent it is, that's probably not a social problem; the rich maximizing their own income isn't always socially optimal.
Bartweiss 7y ago
In a certain sense that's the goal: > Our research on eighteen OECD countries shows that, between 1975 and 2008, there was indeed a strong correlation between reductions in top tax rates and increases in top 1 percent pre-tax income shares... higher top tax rates may discourage work effort... the incentives for [executive] rent-seeking are much stronger when top tax rates are low > there has been no correlation between cuts in top tax rates and average annual real GDP-per-capita growth Piketty wants to reduce inequality without damaging the economy, not specifically boost tax revenue from the rich. His claim is that raising top tax rates does discourage people from obtaining extremely high pre-tax incomes, but doesn't shrink the economy. There are several possible reasons for that, but the basic question Piketty cares about is whether you would stop being productive. Someone who trades off salary for a shorter commute, or spends less time angling for a raise, or even hides their money from taxes more effectively, is not necessarily producing less value. If you lost your motivation to seek more than $500,000/year (remember, this is about the top bracket), but continued to do equally GDP-boosting work elsewhere, that counts as success for this system.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

You would live in a city where everyone was doing well. Everything you make is as conditional on the world around you as it is yourself. If both thrive you might finally, actually, not just symbolically but truly thrive.

psychometry 7y ago

If that's the only thing that motivates you, I don't think it would be any great loss to society that you stop doing whatever it is you do.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kolbe 7y ago
That's a pretty strong insult to someone for whom you have no idea what he does.
jquery 7y ago
You certainly don’t know that, what an arrogant thing to say. Do you think garbage truck drivers work for personal edification?
- danaris 7y ago
  I don't think garbage truck workers would throw in the towel and stop working because income taxes or wealth taxes went up. They're working because they need to eat. If ohaideredevs is in such a place that he's able to stop working and not have to worry about being able to pay for housing, food, clothes, insurance, and all the other necessities of daily life, then that's great for him, but I guarantee you absolutely that the vast majority of the people in America would neither stop trying to make money, nor stop trying to make more money, just because some taxes went up. More money—even if a higher percentage of it would go to the government—just makes too much of a difference in the day-to-day life of most people for those kinds of concerns to be anywhere near strong enough to make it look unappealing. So if someone who already has so much money that they don't need to work another day in their life stops trying to make money...or even if it's someone who makes so much that making more wouldn't reduce their stress in daily life no longer trying to increase their income...I don't think that's a net loss to us in any meaningful way.
  - kolbe 7y ago
    You act like everyone is capable of doing everything. If ohaideredevs is a world class computer scientist, it would be devastating. The economic contribution of someone who can enrich our knowledge of data science or algorithms is thousands of times higher than blue collar labor. And you cannot just ask a worker in sanitation to start developing new deep learning techniques after you lose someone who can.
throwmeback 7y ago
...why?

naravara 7y ago

Once you get into top 1% territory, any scheme you have to make more money is likely to just be fleecing any workers or consumer public that you have under your thumb. This is a feature rather than a bug.

jayd16 7y ago

You'll still make more than the next guy and honestly that's all people care about.

roywiggins 7y ago

The top marginal tax rate in the US only kicks in if you make more than $500,000/yr. Unless you're already making that much, how does a higher marginal tax rate on income over $500k affect you at all?

assblaster 7y ago
I would work less. A lot less. I'm at 7 days a week working, I would cut back to 5 days or fewer. Why would I continue to push hard for money that will just go to the government?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jayd16 7y ago
  Somehow I think we'll find others to blast assess.
- belltaco 7y ago
  That sounds like a good thing.
  - assblaster 7y ago
    Doing less productive things with my time because I am essentially forced to through the tax code should be considered heavy handed government interference in my life.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  If you make more than $500k, you're already sending 37% back to the Feds. If you're in a high-tax state you're probably sending significantly more. Increasing the top tax rate is just a difference in degree.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I would work less. A lot less. I'm at 7 days a week working, I would cut back to 5 days or fewer. Okay. So what?

bksenior 7y ago

Almost every piece of acadamekc and practical research shows that this is not true (Ariely has 3 great papers on this). People love things, power, sex and connection. Most of the things that lead to those things are exchanged directly or indirectly for money. You’ll almost certainly always find a personal narrative as to why you want money.

bryanlarsen 7y ago

17% of a large number is still a fairly large number.

dahart 7y ago

Why’s that? I’d happily take 17% of a billion over the ~50% of what I make now, average tech salary. I feel like tax rates are irrelevant to my ambitions. In the past a lot of people have claimed they’d be demotivated about raising taxes, but it’s never stopped someone from being richer. More is still more, even if the government takes a greater share.

colechristensen 7y ago

So you're saying it would get rid of people in powerful positions that were only in it for the money? That you could finally relax and spend time doing things of value to you instead of acquiring wealth? Sounds good to me.

nugget 7y ago

It would incentivize the purchase of pre-tax goods and services. Once you hit the top rate, anything your personal LLC could purchase (on your behalf) would be effectively subsidized. For example, the hiring of full-time personal assistants would become much more economically attractive.

exelius 7y ago

You're really telling me that because you can't become a bazillionaire, you'll have no motivation to make money? You can structure a progressive tax such that the 83% rate only kicks in for income above $10M. Maybe you pay 60% from $1M-$10M. I think that's fair; it leaves plenty of money in your pocket to live a comfortable life well above the means of most people. Furthermore, your ability to make millions is only possible because of the services provided by government (education, infrastructure, security, financial regulation). Plenty of people are motivated by much smaller numbers. The average take-home of the top 1% is between $400k and $700k. We're talking about a bigger tax on the 0.1% (>$1M/yr), and a huge tax on the 0.01% (>8M/yr). Again, those brackets are only able to achieve outsized returns because they have educated workers and a stable legal/regulatory system. Because they achieve outsized benefit, they should pay a proportionally higher share. If those amounts are enough to incentivize 99.99% of the country, and you're still making more than they are, I'm sure you'll survive. If not, someone else will take your place.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> It would work on killing any motivation I might have to make money. That's probably not true of most of the people dedicated enough to making money that they'd be subject to it in the first place, but to the extent it is, that's probably not a social problem; the rich maximizing their own income isn't always socially optimal.

Bartweiss 7y ago

In a certain sense that's the goal: > Our research on eighteen OECD countries shows that, between 1975 and 2008, there was indeed a strong correlation between reductions in top tax rates and increases in top 1 percent pre-tax income shares... higher top tax rates may discourage work effort... the incentives for [executive] rent-seeking are much stronger when top tax rates are low > there has been no correlation between cuts in top tax rates and average annual real GDP-per-capita growth Piketty wants to reduce inequality without damaging the economy, not specifically boost tax revenue from the rich. His claim is that raising top tax rates does discourage people from obtaining extremely high pre-tax incomes, but doesn't shrink the economy. There are several possible reasons for that, but the basic question Piketty cares about is whether you would stop being productive. Someone who trades off salary for a shorter commute, or spends less time angling for a raise, or even hides their money from taxes more effectively, is not necessarily producing less value. If you lost your motivation to seek more than $500,000/year (remember, this is about the top bracket), but continued to do equally GDP-boosting work elsewhere, that counts as success for this system.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]