4 ms·

I would also note (generally I'm a fan of PG's writing, but as an economist this one was pretty juvenile), while PG implemented a basic cost calculation on weal

I would also note (generally I'm a fan of PG's writing, but as an economist this one was pretty juvenile), while PG implemented a basic cost calculation on wealth with an assumption of no growth, aside from not including growth/returns on his wealth, nowhere did he model the benefits received, either to himself or others, from the revenue apportioned from the taxation. That's why its called cost/BENEFIT analysis...

dantheman 6y ago
I pay far more in taxes than the benefits in receive; clearly that is the case for most that are paying; if you factor in the debt and inflation it's even worse.
- momokoko 6y ago
  Yes and no. Alone you could never afford the defense of the US military. You could never afford even a single nuclear warhead or a single aircraft carrier. So while you can exceed your specific benefits in local government, the reality is that the pooling of resources does in fact provide you with much more than you could afford alone.
- danans 6y ago
  As net contributors, part of the function of taxes we pay as, whether we'd like to acknowledge it or not, is to reduce the general level of suffering/struggling in the broader population, if not out of our humanity then at least because an angry, hungry, hopeless population at our doorsteps is a dangerous thing for us. If we are clear-eyed, we have to incorporate that into any risk-adjusted evaluation of "benefits" that we enjoy in exchange for our taxes. That is the price of freedom, and unless we wish to slide back to the serfdom/slavery the feudal past (and all the horrors that entails), we'd be wise not to ignore that our shared sense of security rests on the contributions we make to society.
  - dantheman 6y ago
    What level of spending is required for that? I to a large extent agree with your intent, but I think the argument is invalid. What if I said, I thought we could achieve the same results at 10% of the cost? What if I think many of the policies actually do great harm? What if I'm in jail for a nonviolent drug offense?
    - danans 6y ago
      > What if I said, I thought we could achieve the same results at 10% of the cost? I'd say it's irrelevant what you or I think. What's relevant is what a politically viable legislation can achieve. That does not include UBI in the US today (unless you are an Alaska resident receiving money from their oil fund), but there is plenty that is achievable short of a UBI today that will put a floor under people, like a federal jobs guarantee, and universal healthcare and pre-K education. We do, however, have plenty of actual evidence that shows the historical correlation between higher top marginal income tax rates, the building of infrastructure, and the growth of middle class prosperity in the US - at least for a particular subset of the population. > What if I think many of the policies actually do great harm? > What if I'm in jail for a nonviolent drug offense? I would agree that non violent drug offenders shouldn't be in jail - and that drugs should be treated as an economic and health problem, not a criminal issue. We can lower incarceration costs in the process. But we must also put a floor under people so they are less likely to turn to drug dealing or illicit behavior so readily.
- tomrod 6y ago
  If in the US: Roads Available utilities due to regulatory planning with normally private companies Your food supply is generally trustworthy Social security. Social safety net hospitals. Generally clean and monitored environment to avoid carcinogens (less more recently). Well defended. I wonder if taxes are so high that anyone's income taxes, capital gains taxes, and consumption taxes are higher than the mulitipicative benefits from the above.
  - cromwellian 6y ago
    Don't forget universal education so you have a literate population who feeds into your startup workforce. The problem with most libertarian arguments is that they love to point out all of the negative externalities of taxes, but none of the positive externalities of a well educated, healthy, fed, sheltered, happy society and a clean environment. People and the environment are treated as cost free infinite sinks and sources. Markets may be the most efficient mechanism for allocating goods and services using price signals, but that assumes your price signals aren't garbage. Garbage in/Garbage out, and if you have uncounted for costs your externalizing from your inputs or outputs, then you're effectively freeloading off of everyone else who will pay those costs down the line. Thus when someone makes billions of dollars and starts to whine about paying a chunk of it, what I hear is an ungrateful douchebag who participated in a game whose rules were set up before his birth, won big, and wants to loot the corpse and run off without paying it forward. (I'm looking at you Eduardo Saverin)
    - tomrod 6y ago
      To be fair, I'm a classical liberal (minarchist), but really that means I want frugality to be a design goal while achieving the services we as a society decide to achieve. Markets can be efficient, when externalities and asymmetric information, among other market failures, don't overwhelm the market value.
  - dantheman 6y ago
    Sure great, you've described a tiny percent of the US taxes. There are some assumptions built it to this - that if the US government didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. But some areas: 1. Extremely high housing costs due to zoning restrictions and government subsidized mortgages. 2. Extremely high medical costs due to regulation and central planning 3. Extremely high educational costs due to subsidized student loans. 4. Over 1 million people in jail 5. Involved in military actions and destabilizing actions around the world. 6. The war on drugs But even with that, based on the things above - is there any point at which taxes are too high? Why not make them 100% and then the government can provide food, shelter, and spending money?
- quantified 6y ago
  The benefit side needs a LOT more attention, but all we do on that is vote once in a while, doesn’t do us much good.
neosat 6y ago
>> nowhere did he model the benefits received, either to himself or others Fair point about others, however with regards to themselves, I believe you missed the point of PGs article. Without the extra wealth tax they would have almost certainty been better off because they can choose how to benefit from that money. Regarding others, I believe the onus should lie on the government before implementing the tax to show that everyone - including people paying the tax - will be better off because of the benefits from the wealth tax to others. Given how (in) efficient government can be in spending tax money, it's not an unfair expectation to have.

dantheman 6y ago

I pay far more in taxes than the benefits in receive; clearly that is the case for most that are paying; if you factor in the debt and inflation it's even worse.

momokoko 6y ago
Yes and no. Alone you could never afford the defense of the US military. You could never afford even a single nuclear warhead or a single aircraft carrier. So while you can exceed your specific benefits in local government, the reality is that the pooling of resources does in fact provide you with much more than you could afford alone.
danans 6y ago
As net contributors, part of the function of taxes we pay as, whether we'd like to acknowledge it or not, is to reduce the general level of suffering/struggling in the broader population, if not out of our humanity then at least because an angry, hungry, hopeless population at our doorsteps is a dangerous thing for us. If we are clear-eyed, we have to incorporate that into any risk-adjusted evaluation of "benefits" that we enjoy in exchange for our taxes. That is the price of freedom, and unless we wish to slide back to the serfdom/slavery the feudal past (and all the horrors that entails), we'd be wise not to ignore that our shared sense of security rests on the contributions we make to society.
- dantheman 6y ago
  What level of spending is required for that? I to a large extent agree with your intent, but I think the argument is invalid. What if I said, I thought we could achieve the same results at 10% of the cost? What if I think many of the policies actually do great harm? What if I'm in jail for a nonviolent drug offense?
  - danans 6y ago
    > What if I said, I thought we could achieve the same results at 10% of the cost? I'd say it's irrelevant what you or I think. What's relevant is what a politically viable legislation can achieve. That does not include UBI in the US today (unless you are an Alaska resident receiving money from their oil fund), but there is plenty that is achievable short of a UBI today that will put a floor under people, like a federal jobs guarantee, and universal healthcare and pre-K education. We do, however, have plenty of actual evidence that shows the historical correlation between higher top marginal income tax rates, the building of infrastructure, and the growth of middle class prosperity in the US - at least for a particular subset of the population. > What if I think many of the policies actually do great harm? > What if I'm in jail for a nonviolent drug offense? I would agree that non violent drug offenders shouldn't be in jail - and that drugs should be treated as an economic and health problem, not a criminal issue. We can lower incarceration costs in the process. But we must also put a floor under people so they are less likely to turn to drug dealing or illicit behavior so readily.
tomrod 6y ago
If in the US: Roads Available utilities due to regulatory planning with normally private companies Your food supply is generally trustworthy Social security. Social safety net hospitals. Generally clean and monitored environment to avoid carcinogens (less more recently). Well defended. I wonder if taxes are so high that anyone's income taxes, capital gains taxes, and consumption taxes are higher than the mulitipicative benefits from the above.
- cromwellian 6y ago
  Don't forget universal education so you have a literate population who feeds into your startup workforce. The problem with most libertarian arguments is that they love to point out all of the negative externalities of taxes, but none of the positive externalities of a well educated, healthy, fed, sheltered, happy society and a clean environment. People and the environment are treated as cost free infinite sinks and sources. Markets may be the most efficient mechanism for allocating goods and services using price signals, but that assumes your price signals aren't garbage. Garbage in/Garbage out, and if you have uncounted for costs your externalizing from your inputs or outputs, then you're effectively freeloading off of everyone else who will pay those costs down the line. Thus when someone makes billions of dollars and starts to whine about paying a chunk of it, what I hear is an ungrateful douchebag who participated in a game whose rules were set up before his birth, won big, and wants to loot the corpse and run off without paying it forward. (I'm looking at you Eduardo Saverin)
  - tomrod 6y ago
    To be fair, I'm a classical liberal (minarchist), but really that means I want frugality to be a design goal while achieving the services we as a society decide to achieve. Markets can be efficient, when externalities and asymmetric information, among other market failures, don't overwhelm the market value.
- dantheman 6y ago
  Sure great, you've described a tiny percent of the US taxes. There are some assumptions built it to this - that if the US government didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. But some areas: 1. Extremely high housing costs due to zoning restrictions and government subsidized mortgages. 2. Extremely high medical costs due to regulation and central planning 3. Extremely high educational costs due to subsidized student loans. 4. Over 1 million people in jail 5. Involved in military actions and destabilizing actions around the world. 6. The war on drugs But even with that, based on the things above - is there any point at which taxes are too high? Why not make them 100% and then the government can provide food, shelter, and spending money?
quantified 6y ago
The benefit side needs a LOT more attention, but all we do on that is vote once in a while, doesn’t do us much good.

neosat 6y ago

>> nowhere did he model the benefits received, either to himself or others Fair point about others, however with regards to themselves, I believe you missed the point of PGs article. Without the extra wealth tax they would have almost certainty been better off because they can choose how to benefit from that money. Regarding others, I believe the onus should lie on the government before implementing the tax to show that everyone - including people paying the tax - will be better off because of the benefits from the wealth tax to others. Given how (in) efficient government can be in spending tax money, it's not an unfair expectation to have.