4 ms·

If unearned income is unfulfilling, we should raise the estate tax, why should the children of the poor be so blessed to need to work while the children of mill

If unearned income is unfulfilling, we should raise the estate tax, why should the children of the poor be so blessed to need to work while the children of millionaires and billionaires be saddled with the curse of ennui?

jkinudsjknds 6y ago
Most people believe they've earned what are basically economic rents.
barrkel 6y ago
You might think you're being facetious, but many wealthy people don't want their children's lives to be wasted on consumption, and so limit their inheritance: enough to do anything, but not enough to do nothing. The most meaning in life comes from doing things for other people - not necessarily for money, but for other people. I'd love if we could try and figure out a social, institutional, structural technology which doesn't require taxes (and thus politics and government) for this. Government slowly but surely gets captured by people with the biggest pockets, until populists take over and everything falls apart with simple wrong answers, or worse, kleptocracy.
- shuntress 6y ago
  >The most meaning in life comes from doing things for other people Exactly. So we should set up a system that provides everyone with enough to meet their basic needs. That way they can spend their time and effort to find the way they can most effectively do things for other people rather than finding the local maxima "job I can tolerate that keeps me alive"
  - barrkel 6y ago
    The most effective means we have today for determining what we should do for other people is prices. That means capitalism. The downsides are lack of agency in large efficient orgs and unearned profits from capital. I don't know the answer, but I don't think UBI + charity++ is it.
    - status_quo69 6y ago
      I don't personally buy this. If prices were the most efficient way of determining what we should do for other people, why does the government already subsidize certain medications? Or agriculture? Or public development/education? College education becoming increasingly expensive proves this false, I believe.
      - SkyBelow 6y ago
        The core problem is that at the end of the day no one has to play nice. So we have to have government to set rules about ownership (among other things). But then some entity has to be in charge of government, which means they are actually in charge of allocating ownership. At current our only options consist of some structure made of humans, and even the best among these are corruptible. As such people who have power to corrupt this process (which is to say own the resources necessary to corrupt the process) can do so in an attempt to increase their own ownership. One example is political advertising to push an agenda that is likely to be more profitable. Be this a brick maker getting an agreement to have the new town hall made using bricks, or be this colleges having their customers being given access to large amounts of financing so they can raise their prices. >College education becoming increasingly expensive proves this false, I believe. Or is college education becoming more expensive because government has allowed for loans that can't be discharged to be given to people who have been given a false sense of the value college provides. This in turn means there is more demand (including the ability to actually purchase the desired product) for a product that isn't always worth it, increasing price? One last consideration. Being the most efficient doesn't mean it is as efficient as one could theorize, only that it is more efficient than any alternative that can be put into practice.
    - kaybe 6y ago
      > The most effective means we have today for determining what we should do for other people is prices. That means markets, not capitalism.

jkinudsjknds 6y ago

Most people believe they've earned what are basically economic rents.

barrkel 6y ago

You might think you're being facetious, but many wealthy people don't want their children's lives to be wasted on consumption, and so limit their inheritance: enough to do anything, but not enough to do nothing. The most meaning in life comes from doing things for other people - not necessarily for money, but for other people. I'd love if we could try and figure out a social, institutional, structural technology which doesn't require taxes (and thus politics and government) for this. Government slowly but surely gets captured by people with the biggest pockets, until populists take over and everything falls apart with simple wrong answers, or worse, kleptocracy.

shuntress 6y ago
>The most meaning in life comes from doing things for other people Exactly. So we should set up a system that provides everyone with enough to meet their basic needs. That way they can spend their time and effort to find the way they can most effectively do things for other people rather than finding the local maxima "job I can tolerate that keeps me alive"
- barrkel 6y ago
  The most effective means we have today for determining what we should do for other people is prices. That means capitalism. The downsides are lack of agency in large efficient orgs and unearned profits from capital. I don't know the answer, but I don't think UBI + charity++ is it.
  - status_quo69 6y ago
    I don't personally buy this. If prices were the most efficient way of determining what we should do for other people, why does the government already subsidize certain medications? Or agriculture? Or public development/education? College education becoming increasingly expensive proves this false, I believe.
    - SkyBelow 6y ago
      The core problem is that at the end of the day no one has to play nice. So we have to have government to set rules about ownership (among other things). But then some entity has to be in charge of government, which means they are actually in charge of allocating ownership. At current our only options consist of some structure made of humans, and even the best among these are corruptible. As such people who have power to corrupt this process (which is to say own the resources necessary to corrupt the process) can do so in an attempt to increase their own ownership. One example is political advertising to push an agenda that is likely to be more profitable. Be this a brick maker getting an agreement to have the new town hall made using bricks, or be this colleges having their customers being given access to large amounts of financing so they can raise their prices. >College education becoming increasingly expensive proves this false, I believe. Or is college education becoming more expensive because government has allowed for loans that can't be discharged to be given to people who have been given a false sense of the value college provides. This in turn means there is more demand (including the ability to actually purchase the desired product) for a product that isn't always worth it, increasing price? One last consideration. Being the most efficient doesn't mean it is as efficient as one could theorize, only that it is more efficient than any alternative that can be put into practice.
  - kaybe 6y ago
    > The most effective means we have today for determining what we should do for other people is prices. That means markets, not capitalism.