3 ms·

>> taxes are subject to basic economics Economics is a social science. It's stories we tell each other rather than a fundamental unassailable truth like gravit

>> taxes are subject to basic economics Economics is a social science. It's stories we tell each other rather than a fundamental unassailable truth like gravity. That means that no matter how good the economic idea - it's also immeasurably a bit wrong. We can say behaviours and outcomes are extremely likely without ignoring they don't always hold true. But what does that mean for your suggestion that the framing is wrong here? You've based an opinion based on something potentially untrue. To make it more concrete, you cite the laffer curve. Where do communists exist on the laffer curve? Right where the curve suggests 0% income they're getting 100% income. What's exactly wrong or off by the full 100% - the laffer curve or that communists exist? To give another concrete example, you said: >> People adjust behavior based on the tax level Irrational actors do exist. They can be irrational (in the economic sense) for more reasons than just a lack of information too. I've become really concerned by the certainty i see expressed in some economic views, some of them are really persuasive, if you ignore that they're built on a metaphorical foundation of sand.

bko 6y ago
By economics I don't mean the handwaving macro economics. I'm talking about the core tenant that people respond to incentives, which is a fact that can be both observed and derived through logic. It's not story telling. What's the alternative? People don't react to tax rates or prices more generally? Do they act rationally? Maybe not but the general principal holds that make something more expensive people consume less of it. Make taxes higher people will look to shift their income or assets around to avoid them as the cost of not doing so is much higher. IMO one of the most important lessons of economics is the idea that prices convey collective information not accessible to any one individual. That's why prices exist and lead to prosperity and communist regimes fail. No committee can pin down exactly a number that encompasses all information. Check out the article I, pencil to appreciate all the complexity and information conveyed through market activity. No person can produce a pencil without a market. Something so trivial for a market to produce that they're essentially given out freely. So it's not correct to suggest that economics is just stories and we should ignore incentives and prices or anything argued using economic principals https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/I,_Pencil https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/I,_Pencil
- CraigJPerry 6y ago
  >> So it's not correct to suggest that economics is just stories and we should ignore incentives and prices or anything argued using economic principals Straw man argument. It's not correct to suggest that incentives, prices & economic principles capture sufficient information to give us rational cause to bestow absolute faith in them. >> the general principal holds that make something more expensive people consume less of it Again it's not an absolute, there comes a point where it no longer holds. E.g. if you price water, consumption surely drops until the point where there's only essential usage. Increase price all you want then because instead society will break, as in people will circumvent laws or agreed methods of exchange. >> What's the alternative? That we're more cautious about calling out the parts we're uncertain about.
  - bko 6y ago
    You made the straw man argument by waving off all of economics with a hand wave > if you ignore that they're built on a metaphorical foundation of sand. And you're making another strawman by saying we need water regardless of the price. As though water is some substance belonging to one person and a fixed supply (no collection, desalination, etc) What part are you uncertain about in regards to focusing on my original argument that we should focus on revenue as opposed to idelogical arguments like such and such pays a rate of X and i don't like it
    - CraigJPerry 6y ago
      >> You made the straw man argument by waving off all of economics with a hand wave Not the case at all. "it's also immeasurably a bit wrong" is not the same as "we should ignore [incentives and prices or anything argued using economic principals]". >> we need water regardless of the price That seems uncontraversial to me, you can't elect to stop consuming water for your crops, livestock or your personal use for example. >> water is some substance belonging to one person and a fixed supply Not fixed supply but restricted supply in some locations at some times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict >> What part are you uncertain about This bit - "What you really want to look at is total revenue." You'd prefer we ignore the source of the revenue and focus on only the revenue. It's a convenient view for some idealogies but it's most likely to be a bad approach. Especially compared to one alternative which would be to do both - to continue to look at the source of the revenue AND optimise.

bko 6y ago

By economics I don't mean the handwaving macro economics. I'm talking about the core tenant that people respond to incentives, which is a fact that can be both observed and derived through logic. It's not story telling. What's the alternative? People don't react to tax rates or prices more generally? Do they act rationally? Maybe not but the general principal holds that make something more expensive people consume less of it. Make taxes higher people will look to shift their income or assets around to avoid them as the cost of not doing so is much higher. IMO one of the most important lessons of economics is the idea that prices convey collective information not accessible to any one individual. That's why prices exist and lead to prosperity and communist regimes fail. No committee can pin down exactly a number that encompasses all information. Check out the article I, pencil to appreciate all the complexity and information conveyed through market activity. No person can produce a pencil without a market. Something so trivial for a market to produce that they're essentially given out freely. So it's not correct to suggest that economics is just stories and we should ignore incentives and prices or anything argued using economic principals https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/I,_Pencil https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/I,_Pencil

CraigJPerry 6y ago
>> So it's not correct to suggest that economics is just stories and we should ignore incentives and prices or anything argued using economic principals Straw man argument. It's not correct to suggest that incentives, prices & economic principles capture sufficient information to give us rational cause to bestow absolute faith in them. >> the general principal holds that make something more expensive people consume less of it Again it's not an absolute, there comes a point where it no longer holds. E.g. if you price water, consumption surely drops until the point where there's only essential usage. Increase price all you want then because instead society will break, as in people will circumvent laws or agreed methods of exchange. >> What's the alternative? That we're more cautious about calling out the parts we're uncertain about.
- bko 6y ago
  You made the straw man argument by waving off all of economics with a hand wave > if you ignore that they're built on a metaphorical foundation of sand. And you're making another strawman by saying we need water regardless of the price. As though water is some substance belonging to one person and a fixed supply (no collection, desalination, etc) What part are you uncertain about in regards to focusing on my original argument that we should focus on revenue as opposed to idelogical arguments like such and such pays a rate of X and i don't like it
  - CraigJPerry 6y ago
    >> You made the straw man argument by waving off all of economics with a hand wave Not the case at all. "it's also immeasurably a bit wrong" is not the same as "we should ignore [incentives and prices or anything argued using economic principals]". >> we need water regardless of the price That seems uncontraversial to me, you can't elect to stop consuming water for your crops, livestock or your personal use for example. >> water is some substance belonging to one person and a fixed supply Not fixed supply but restricted supply in some locations at some times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict >> What part are you uncertain about This bit - "What you really want to look at is total revenue." You'd prefer we ignore the source of the revenue and focus on only the revenue. It's a convenient view for some idealogies but it's most likely to be a bad approach. Especially compared to one alternative which would be to do both - to continue to look at the source of the revenue AND optimise.