5 ms·

The source is the incentives theory of motivation and the work of behavioral psychologist such as Pavlov and BF Skinner. Also the "magic" of compounding gains

The source is the incentives theory of motivation and the work of behavioral psychologist such as Pavlov and BF Skinner. Also the "magic" of compounding gains that wealthy people understand (at least intuitively).

learc83 6y ago
So your source for any wealth tax whatsoever having catastrophic consequences is Pavlov and BF Skinner? You think that a 1% wealth tax on wealth over $1 billion would completely destroy any incentive for an ambitious poor person to immigrate to the US? People are still immigrating to Switzerland, Belgium, and France.
- andrewtbham 6y ago
  I don't think in absolutes. It won't "destroy any incentive" But yes, it is a powerful disincentive due to the compounding nature of wealth taxes. Rich people are already leaving such as Eduardo Saverin. It's a growing trend and one that, as I mentioned, the US is desperate to stop by imposing an exit tax for renouncing US citizenship. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/renouncing-us-citizenship-new-trend https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/renouncing-us-citize...
  - dlp211 6y ago
    An example of a guy who left nearly a decade ago to avoid paying taxes on wealth he did virtually nothing to earn is not data of an impending mass exodus of the ultra wealthy. Yes, there are handful number of people who have done such things, their existence is proof of nothing but absolute human greed and disloyalty to this great nation.
    - andrewtbham 6y ago
      I like America. I don't plan to leave but yes... many wealthy people already have secondary citizenship. Jim Rogers says you should think of it like insurance. Hopefully you don't need it but for a variety of reasons it's a good idea to have a backup plan.
      - dlp211 6y ago
        Secondary citizenship is not the same thing as denouncing your citizenship and fleeing taxes. US citizens are taxed worldwide, irrespective of location or other citizenship status. Your point is taken, it's just not relevant.
  - learc83 6y ago
    >I don't think in absolutes. But you speak in absolutes. >If you impose a wealth tax at the national level, rich people will leave America (edit: renounce citizenship) and ambitious people will never come here to begin with. America will no longer be the land of opportunity. >But yes, it is a powerful disincentive due to the compounding nature of wealth taxes. This compounding nature of wealth taxes is nonsense. It's a negative feedback loop not a positive one. Compound interest is powerful because it compounds on itself--it's a positive feedback loop. Comparing compound interest to a wealth tax is just flat out wrong.
    - andrewtbham 6y ago
      The whole point of the pg essay is that wealth tax losses compound. > The reason wealth taxes have such dramatic effects is that they're applied over and over to the same money. Income tax happens every year, but only to that year's income. Whereas if you live for 60 years after acquiring some asset, a wealth tax will tax that same asset 60 times. A wealth tax compounds. Compounding is not exclusive to positive feedback cycles. It applies to negative feedback cycles as well. Have you heard the phrase "my problems are compounding?"
      - learc83 6y ago
        Compound has several definitions. The one that we are talking about here is in relation to compound interest: to pay (interest) on the accrued interest as well as the principal. I'm going to take the fact that you keep talking about the power of compound interest to mean that this is the definition you're talking about. >Compounding is not exclusive to positive feedback cycles. Compound interest isn't powerful because it happens every year, it's powerful because you accrue interest on the principal and the additional interest. It's only powerful explicitly because it is a positive feedback cycle. A negative feedback cycle is self limiting. The rate of change gets slower each year. >It applies to negative feedback cycles as well. Have you heard the phrase "my problems are compounding?" I'm positive that you don't understand what negative feedback means based on this comment.
        6y ago
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
komali2 6y ago
This is a classic mistake made all the time in economics, assuming all people are rational actors operating on a "money go up" algorithm. It ignores emotions, it ignores our vast swath of cognitive biases and shortcomings, and it ignores a hugely complex capitalist system. Off the top of my head, reasons a millionaire might not move out despite the existence of a wealth tax 1. They're too lazy to figure out how to move, including moving all their assets etc and sorting a new citizenship, finding a new job 2. They're too scared, for reasons above 3. They're a perfectly rational actor and the cost of a move doesn't outweigh the tax 4. They love their city 5. They have a huge family spread throughout the area 6. They're a fervent patriot 7. They don't want to leave their local church 8. They're the coach for the local little league team 9. Usa law is more reflective of their own value system (say, they like guns) 10. The rockies are too beautiful to leave behind
- VRay 6y ago
  That's a great point Right now you can save tremendous amounts of tax money by spending 50% of the year in Puerto Rico, but most rich people still don't bother
  - relaxing 6y ago
    I actually know someone who does this. Real weirdo, but then what other kind of person is there who’s so afraid of not having enough millions they feel the need to uproot their life every 6 months.
take_a_breath 6y ago
So...that's a "no" on sources?
- pc86 6y ago
  It's obviously impossible to provide a source for what people will do in the future based on some hypothetical policy change, on either side of the argument. Stop it.
  - take_a_breath 6y ago
    I don't buy this argument at all. This is exactly the type of thing experts write policy papers and perform economic research to answer. If your claim were true, we could never debate policy proposals because they all rely on what people will do in the future based on a policy change. Medicare-for-All is a hypothetical policy change that has lots of research (data and sources) on how things would play out if implemented [1] [2] [3]. [1] https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-an... [2] https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-pa... [3] https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/costs-national-single-payer-healthcare-system https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/co...

learc83 6y ago

So your source for any wealth tax whatsoever having catastrophic consequences is Pavlov and BF Skinner? You think that a 1% wealth tax on wealth over $1 billion would completely destroy any incentive for an ambitious poor person to immigrate to the US? People are still immigrating to Switzerland, Belgium, and France.

andrewtbham 6y ago
I don't think in absolutes. It won't "destroy any incentive" But yes, it is a powerful disincentive due to the compounding nature of wealth taxes. Rich people are already leaving such as Eduardo Saverin. It's a growing trend and one that, as I mentioned, the US is desperate to stop by imposing an exit tax for renouncing US citizenship. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/renouncing-us-citizenship-new-trend https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/renouncing-us-citize...
- dlp211 6y ago
  An example of a guy who left nearly a decade ago to avoid paying taxes on wealth he did virtually nothing to earn is not data of an impending mass exodus of the ultra wealthy. Yes, there are handful number of people who have done such things, their existence is proof of nothing but absolute human greed and disloyalty to this great nation.
  - andrewtbham 6y ago
    I like America. I don't plan to leave but yes... many wealthy people already have secondary citizenship. Jim Rogers says you should think of it like insurance. Hopefully you don't need it but for a variety of reasons it's a good idea to have a backup plan.
    - dlp211 6y ago
      Secondary citizenship is not the same thing as denouncing your citizenship and fleeing taxes. US citizens are taxed worldwide, irrespective of location or other citizenship status. Your point is taken, it's just not relevant.
- learc83 6y ago
  >I don't think in absolutes. But you speak in absolutes. >If you impose a wealth tax at the national level, rich people will leave America (edit: renounce citizenship) and ambitious people will never come here to begin with. America will no longer be the land of opportunity. >But yes, it is a powerful disincentive due to the compounding nature of wealth taxes. This compounding nature of wealth taxes is nonsense. It's a negative feedback loop not a positive one. Compound interest is powerful because it compounds on itself--it's a positive feedback loop. Comparing compound interest to a wealth tax is just flat out wrong.
  - andrewtbham 6y ago
    The whole point of the pg essay is that wealth tax losses compound. > The reason wealth taxes have such dramatic effects is that they're applied over and over to the same money. Income tax happens every year, but only to that year's income. Whereas if you live for 60 years after acquiring some asset, a wealth tax will tax that same asset 60 times. A wealth tax compounds. Compounding is not exclusive to positive feedback cycles. It applies to negative feedback cycles as well. Have you heard the phrase "my problems are compounding?"
    - learc83 6y ago
      Compound has several definitions. The one that we are talking about here is in relation to compound interest: to pay (interest) on the accrued interest as well as the principal. I'm going to take the fact that you keep talking about the power of compound interest to mean that this is the definition you're talking about. >Compounding is not exclusive to positive feedback cycles. Compound interest isn't powerful because it happens every year, it's powerful because you accrue interest on the principal and the additional interest. It's only powerful explicitly because it is a positive feedback cycle. A negative feedback cycle is self limiting. The rate of change gets slower each year. >It applies to negative feedback cycles as well. Have you heard the phrase "my problems are compounding?" I'm positive that you don't understand what negative feedback means based on this comment.
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

komali2 6y ago

This is a classic mistake made all the time in economics, assuming all people are rational actors operating on a "money go up" algorithm. It ignores emotions, it ignores our vast swath of cognitive biases and shortcomings, and it ignores a hugely complex capitalist system. Off the top of my head, reasons a millionaire might not move out despite the existence of a wealth tax 1. They're too lazy to figure out how to move, including moving all their assets etc and sorting a new citizenship, finding a new job 2. They're too scared, for reasons above 3. They're a perfectly rational actor and the cost of a move doesn't outweigh the tax 4. They love their city 5. They have a huge family spread throughout the area 6. They're a fervent patriot 7. They don't want to leave their local church 8. They're the coach for the local little league team 9. Usa law is more reflective of their own value system (say, they like guns) 10. The rockies are too beautiful to leave behind

VRay 6y ago
That's a great point Right now you can save tremendous amounts of tax money by spending 50% of the year in Puerto Rico, but most rich people still don't bother
- relaxing 6y ago
  I actually know someone who does this. Real weirdo, but then what other kind of person is there who’s so afraid of not having enough millions they feel the need to uproot their life every 6 months.

take_a_breath 6y ago

So...that's a "no" on sources?

pc86 6y ago
It's obviously impossible to provide a source for what people will do in the future based on some hypothetical policy change, on either side of the argument. Stop it.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  I don't buy this argument at all. This is exactly the type of thing experts write policy papers and perform economic research to answer. If your claim were true, we could never debate policy proposals because they all rely on what people will do in the future based on a policy change. Medicare-for-All is a hypothetical policy change that has lots of research (data and sources) on how things would play out if implemented [1] [2] [3]. [1] https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-an... [2] https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-pa... [3] https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/costs-national-single-payer-healthcare-system https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/co...