5 ms·

We all agree that people in general act in their economic self interest. We also agree that people prefer to donate money to specific causes they support rather

We all agree that people in general act in their economic self interest. We also agree that people prefer to donate money to specific causes they support rather than pay extra in taxes - I think this is a fair statement. Redistribution as a concept has widespread support, but the mechanism to do so has wide disagreement, so each person tends to prefer selecting their own mechanism of redistribution through donations to non-profits rather than pay extra to the government. Therefore, any solution proposed through the (long, compromised, imperfect, special-interest ridden, full-of-holes) government legislative process will be relatively easy to bypass by motivated rich people with the means to pay professionals to structure their assets accordingly, as has been the case for centuries. And the rich won't necessarily do it with sinister intent - they may still give a huge amount of money to causes they support, but simply disagree with giving it to the government as a blank check. Or maybe the rich are just greedy and self-interested. But either way, the government will be unable to take this money. I don't think any redistribution mechanism implemented by the government can attack the rich long-term. They may get snagged initially, then quickly reorganize their assets to avoid such issues. The true people who get snagged are the middle class, who actually do pay taxes (while the poor often have negative-taxes and receive the redistribution), but do not have the means to restructure themselves to avoid the taxes. So we are left with 2 options - the first are broad, universal tax increases (which no one advocated for in the US election except Bernie Sanders) rather than (inevitably-failing) soak-the-rich taxes, and the second being to restructure society to provide the same or more services to people using less taxes. I prefer the latter - we should be adding efficiency to the state, while giving people more choice on how to help each other. I don't want to delve into the details in this comment. But my overall point is that taxes targeting the rich and super-rich will fail, as they always have and always will, so we need some other solution if we desire to reduce inequality.

adaisadais 6y ago
> I prefer the latter - we should be adding efficiency to the state, while giving people more choice on how to help each other. Agreed. The state has become much too inefficient. Sadly, much of that is the state’s own doing by continuously adding layers of bureaucracy and complexity. Many of the problems could be solved with technology at scale. We could use software to measure government like we measure every other business process. We can and must enforce checks and balances.
- z3rgl1ng 6y ago
  Citations for your claims? As I understand it most inefficiencies we see in government come from stripping resources out, not from wasteful allocation.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    No, both the inflation adjusted revenue (receipts) and spending (outlays) of the Federal government have been constantly increasing — the latter unfortunately more rapidly than the former: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-a... Another example, inflation adjusted per-pupil education expenditure has seen a constant increase over time: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.55.asp?current=yes https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.55.a...
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  > Agreed. The state has become much too inefficient. This is frequently stated as fact, but no evidence is provided. > We could use software to measure government like we measure every other business process. Perhaps we could get SoftBank to measure government efficiency. They seem to be trusted with vast sums of money so they must be particularly good at evaluating business efficiency.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    I mean, when a corporation is unable to collect enough money to continue operating, it goes out of business. When a government program is unable to collect enough money to continue operating, we increase its budget. SoftBank is a good example; as long as they continue to lose money, they lose the confidence of shareholders. If their track record continues, they risk going the way of other big banks (Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers). Ask yourself how many companies from the 20th century are now defunct vs government programs. Efficiency is a byproduct of change & evolution. Inefficiency is a byproduct of institutional sclerosis.
    - 6y ago
z3rgl1ng 6y ago
> But my overall point is that taxes targeting the rich and super-rich will fail, as they always have and always will... Is that true though? Not long ago taxes on the wealthy were much higher and income inequality was lower. Personally I have a kinder eye towards government; it’s A) not efficient by design, it’s meant to be comprehensive, and B) less wasteful then I think most people believe it to be.
- seibelj 6y ago
  During the supposed golden-age of high income taxes, rich people found many ways around it. For starters non-income compensation was astronomical (company car, company house, company domestic help, company lunches and dinners, company clubs, company-paid memberships, company outings / vacations) which were replaced with normal monetary compensation when the outrageously high taxes ended. I'm not sure everyone here understands exactly what I'm saying. If you can sometime, talk to a tax accountant / estate planner who specializes in tax minimization. If you are a W2 employee with some equity compensation, none of this applies to you. But if you were worth Nx millions of dollars there is a lot that can be done fairly easily.
  - z3rgl1ng 6y ago
    I understand what you're saying, I'm reading it as "Well, they're just going to weasel out of it anyhow so we might as well not try." I'm offering this as a counterpoint is all. I also think that even though it might be hard, I don't think it's impossible. How do other countries with high taxation and strong social programs enforce it?
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Can you show me on the following graph when did the era of high tax on the rich end? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
  - z3rgl1ng 6y ago
    I'm not familiar with the statistic - is that all tax revenue, including businesses?
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
> I prefer the latter - we should be adding efficiency to the state, while giving people more choice on how to help each other. I don't want to delve into the details in this comment. I may or may not agree with your details, but I love the goal.
koboll 6y ago
>We also agree that people prefer to donate money to specific causes they support rather than pay extra in taxes - I think this is a fair statement. I don't think this a fair statement at all. Imagine you polled Scandinavians and asked if they would prefer their government abolished socialized healthcare and returned the money to them, with the caveat that it must be given to charity. Do you really think they would support this idea, on average? I would much rather the US offer a public healthcare system, and I would gladly pay a disproportionate amount of money out of my own pocket to fund it. It's desperately needed but far beyond any charity's ability to provide.
- jlokier 6y ago
  In the US, that public healthcare system would almost certainly cost you less than you are currently already paying for private healthcare insurance, or the expectation cost of healthcare in the long run if you're not insured. It's not like it would be adding a new tax where you end up with less take home pay. One way or another, you'd end up with more take home pay. Even if you don't currently have private healthcare insurance. It's effectively free money.

adaisadais 6y ago

> I prefer the latter - we should be adding efficiency to the state, while giving people more choice on how to help each other. Agreed. The state has become much too inefficient. Sadly, much of that is the state’s own doing by continuously adding layers of bureaucracy and complexity. Many of the problems could be solved with technology at scale. We could use software to measure government like we measure every other business process. We can and must enforce checks and balances.

z3rgl1ng 6y ago
Citations for your claims? As I understand it most inefficiencies we see in government come from stripping resources out, not from wasteful allocation.
- bhupy 6y ago
  No, both the inflation adjusted revenue (receipts) and spending (outlays) of the Federal government have been constantly increasing — the latter unfortunately more rapidly than the former: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-a... Another example, inflation adjusted per-pupil education expenditure has seen a constant increase over time: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.55.asp?current=yes https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.55.a...
AlexandrB 6y ago
> Agreed. The state has become much too inefficient. This is frequently stated as fact, but no evidence is provided. > We could use software to measure government like we measure every other business process. Perhaps we could get SoftBank to measure government efficiency. They seem to be trusted with vast sums of money so they must be particularly good at evaluating business efficiency.
- bhupy 6y ago
  I mean, when a corporation is unable to collect enough money to continue operating, it goes out of business. When a government program is unable to collect enough money to continue operating, we increase its budget. SoftBank is a good example; as long as they continue to lose money, they lose the confidence of shareholders. If their track record continues, they risk going the way of other big banks (Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers). Ask yourself how many companies from the 20th century are now defunct vs government programs. Efficiency is a byproduct of change & evolution. Inefficiency is a byproduct of institutional sclerosis.
  - 6y ago

z3rgl1ng 6y ago

> But my overall point is that taxes targeting the rich and super-rich will fail, as they always have and always will... Is that true though? Not long ago taxes on the wealthy were much higher and income inequality was lower. Personally I have a kinder eye towards government; it’s A) not efficient by design, it’s meant to be comprehensive, and B) less wasteful then I think most people believe it to be.

seibelj 6y ago
During the supposed golden-age of high income taxes, rich people found many ways around it. For starters non-income compensation was astronomical (company car, company house, company domestic help, company lunches and dinners, company clubs, company-paid memberships, company outings / vacations) which were replaced with normal monetary compensation when the outrageously high taxes ended. I'm not sure everyone here understands exactly what I'm saying. If you can sometime, talk to a tax accountant / estate planner who specializes in tax minimization. If you are a W2 employee with some equity compensation, none of this applies to you. But if you were worth Nx millions of dollars there is a lot that can be done fairly easily.
- z3rgl1ng 6y ago
  I understand what you're saying, I'm reading it as "Well, they're just going to weasel out of it anyhow so we might as well not try." I'm offering this as a counterpoint is all. I also think that even though it might be hard, I don't think it's impossible. How do other countries with high taxation and strong social programs enforce it?
xyzzyz 6y ago
Can you show me on the following graph when did the era of high tax on the rich end? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
- z3rgl1ng 6y ago
  I'm not familiar with the statistic - is that all tax revenue, including businesses?

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

> I prefer the latter - we should be adding efficiency to the state, while giving people more choice on how to help each other. I don't want to delve into the details in this comment. I may or may not agree with your details, but I love the goal.

koboll 6y ago

>We also agree that people prefer to donate money to specific causes they support rather than pay extra in taxes - I think this is a fair statement. I don't think this a fair statement at all. Imagine you polled Scandinavians and asked if they would prefer their government abolished socialized healthcare and returned the money to them, with the caveat that it must be given to charity. Do you really think they would support this idea, on average? I would much rather the US offer a public healthcare system, and I would gladly pay a disproportionate amount of money out of my own pocket to fund it. It's desperately needed but far beyond any charity's ability to provide.

jlokier 6y ago
In the US, that public healthcare system would almost certainly cost you less than you are currently already paying for private healthcare insurance, or the expectation cost of healthcare in the long run if you're not insured. It's not like it would be adding a new tax where you end up with less take home pay. One way or another, you'd end up with more take home pay. Even if you don't currently have private healthcare insurance. It's effectively free money.