4 ms·

States like the US can just spend in advance without taxing, there’s no necessary relation. We’re not on the gold standard anymore. The point of a tax isn’t to

by kpmcc 6y ago

States like the US can just spend in advance without taxing, there’s no necessary relation. We’re not on the gold standard anymore. The point of a tax isn’t to pay for things, it’s to attempt to control inflation and the money supply, and to combat inequality. The idea that a state (read nation, for US states things are different) would become reliant on such a tax to pay for things doesn’t hold water. It may become ‘reliant’ on it as a means to reduce inequality but that’s another matter. The avoidance issue is a big one and the mechanism of making sure people pay is at least as important as where one sets the floor. Cross border capital flows can be pernicious. Piketty gets into how different rates of capital accumulation create huge rifts between people who own appreciating assets like land and equities and people who don’t who primarily earn wages. The idea behind the wealth tax is to try and narrow the rift.

logicchains 6y ago
>The point of a tax isn’t to pay for things, it’s to attempt to control inflation and the money supply, and to combat inequality. A significant proportion of Americans would disagree with you that it's the government's business to "combat inequality". Most people agree with taxes to help the needy and fund infrastructure, but it's a harder sell that the government should punish people just for being too successful. >Piketty gets into how different rates of capital accumulation create huge rifts between people who own appreciating assets like land and equities and people who don’t who primarily earn wages. The idea behind the wealth tax is to try and narrow the rift. But he doesn't outline clearly what the problem with this rift is. To quote the criticisms section of the Wiki page on his book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...): "One strand of critique faults Piketty for placing inequality at the center of analysis without any reflection on why it matters. According to Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf, he merely assumes that inequality matters, but never explains why. He only demonstrates that it exists and how it worsens.[36] Or as his colleague Clive Crook put it: "Aside from its other flaws, Capital in the 21st Century invites readers to believe not just that inequality is important, but that nothing else matters. This book wants you to worry about low growth in the coming decades not because that would mean a slower rise in living standards, but because it might ... worsen inequality."[35] "
- stainforth 6y ago
  Yes, inequality is about morality. I'll push back on any current thought that requires abandoning morality.
  - kpmcc 6y ago
    Definitely morality, but also the stability of a society. The provision of the good life to the people, etc.
  - gpanders 6y ago
    I disagree -- I think unfairness is about morality, and in many of these conversations people often conflate inequality with unfairness. A perfectly equal society can also exhibit a great deal of unfairness, and a perfectly fair society would most likely be unequal. "Fairness" should be the metric under discussion, not inequality.
- eloff 6y ago
  Inequality by itself is not bad, in fact if you have an extreme society with no inequality you've essentially produced perfect socialism and a society where everyone is equally poor and there is no innovation, no difference in outcomes. Extreme inequality tends to destabilize society. At some point all the multitude of have nots get sick of their lot and rise up and take from the haves by force. So I would say inequality is good, in manageable doses. The question is are we headed to a managable place?

by kpmcc 6y ago

logicchains 6y ago

>The point of a tax isn’t to pay for things, it’s to attempt to control inflation and the money supply, and to combat inequality. A significant proportion of Americans would disagree with you that it's the government's business to "combat inequality". Most people agree with taxes to help the needy and fund infrastructure, but it's a harder sell that the government should punish people just for being too successful. >Piketty gets into how different rates of capital accumulation create huge rifts between people who own appreciating assets like land and equities and people who don’t who primarily earn wages. The idea behind the wealth tax is to try and narrow the rift. But he doesn't outline clearly what the problem with this rift is. To quote the criticisms section of the Wiki page on his book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...): "One strand of critique faults Piketty for placing inequality at the center of analysis without any reflection on why it matters. According to Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf, he merely assumes that inequality matters, but never explains why. He only demonstrates that it exists and how it worsens.[36] Or as his colleague Clive Crook put it: "Aside from its other flaws, Capital in the 21st Century invites readers to believe not just that inequality is important, but that nothing else matters. This book wants you to worry about low growth in the coming decades not because that would mean a slower rise in living standards, but because it might ... worsen inequality."[35] "

stainforth 6y ago
Yes, inequality is about morality. I'll push back on any current thought that requires abandoning morality.
- kpmcc 6y ago
  Definitely morality, but also the stability of a society. The provision of the good life to the people, etc.
- gpanders 6y ago
  I disagree -- I think unfairness is about morality, and in many of these conversations people often conflate inequality with unfairness. A perfectly equal society can also exhibit a great deal of unfairness, and a perfectly fair society would most likely be unequal. "Fairness" should be the metric under discussion, not inequality.
eloff 6y ago
Inequality by itself is not bad, in fact if you have an extreme society with no inequality you've essentially produced perfect socialism and a society where everyone is equally poor and there is no innovation, no difference in outcomes. Extreme inequality tends to destabilize society. At some point all the multitude of have nots get sick of their lot and rise up and take from the haves by force. So I would say inequality is good, in manageable doses. The question is are we headed to a managable place?