5 ms·

A tax is recuring no? So effectively it would continue to fuel itself from YoY riches being made. You have to grow the pie AND make sure people get a more prop

A tax is recuring no? So effectively it would continue to fuel itself from YoY riches being made. You have to grow the pie AND make sure people get a more proportionally fair share of it. I think both these things are possible together. Though I recon the argument that it could be the appeal to have a giant slice of it that maybe motivates some to take the risks needed to double the size of the pie in the first place. I think maybe we've just gotten a bit out of hand with the range between min and max slice sizes of the pie. When some workers get a share of the pie too small to feed their hunger, and they're getting skinnier by the day, maybe something isn't working right. Especially when you also have some getting a slice so big that they can't even eat it all. So in theory, you tax the pie itself, and then everyone takes their proportional share of what's left, but if that leaves some with barely any, you have a problem. And the quickest fix is to have those taking bigger slices take slightly smaller ones to compensate. The alternative is to make an even bigger pie, but that takes a lot longer, and it doesn't mean people will be owed a bigger slice from it either.

maerF0x0 6y ago
> When some workers get a share of the pie too small to feed their hunger, and they're getting skinnier by the day, Fully agree. But thinking such a way is shortermism on the behalf of capitalists. I think we need to do more to encourage longtermism across the whole populace. Things like capital gains tax favorability is one example of such a help.
anm89 6y ago
I truly wish you could get to live in your utopia and reap the benefits or consequences whichever way it may fall. Would you actually sign on the dotted line?
- didibus 6y ago
  I don't know why you call it a utopia, it's literally how most of the western countries currently operate and have been for a long time now, why do you think they have a graduated income tax. It's been around since 1862 in the US, and I think at this point it's fair to say it's been well battle tested. That you need to make some tweaks and small course corrections to it overtime is normal. That people who take more risk and produce more value deserve a bigger share, well while morally you can be against that idea or disagree with the risk or effort they've put in, incentives for people to try things to get richer also has proven itself a necessity to grow the economy overall, which is growing the pie in my analogy. But it is also in the interest of everyone for the system which enabled those same people to grow the pie in the first place, and gave them the opportunity to take risks and be competitive in the markets which got them a bigger slice in return to make sure that this whole system is sustainable and doesn't come crashing down. That's why minimum standards of living must be met, education must be available to all, and why graduated taxes were put in place 150+ years ago. There's ton of studies and research on these economic models, and most alternatives are theoritical, while this one has been going on for 150+ years like I said, and has a pretty good track record. Doesn't mean it can't be improved on further and also doesn't mean it must be static throughout, course correcting some of its variables as the environment changes seems reasonable to me, and most likely a necessity.
  - anm89 6y ago
    A 100% corporate tax rate has not been tried anywhere ever unless you want to consider communism being that. If that's not what you are supporting than I'd roll it back, but that seems to be what the parent was referencing.
    - didibus 6y ago
      It felt to me the parent comment was trying to discredit graduated tax or the idea of redistributing wealth to some level by giving an extreme hyperbolic example, which is a logical fallacy known as the appeal to extremes. I just wanted to point out the idea of taxing more for bigger sum isn't a bad one (or at least this silly extreme example isn't a good reason to justify it being bad). It makes sense for rich people to still be the richest even after the tax if we assume they're more proportionally responsible for the size of the pie itself, but everyone who contributed to the pie even if only as a delivery driver, or waitress, needs a slice of the pie as well, and so it similarly makes sense to want to make sure the distribution of it are proportionally fair to all and meets some minimum standards. And doing those two things aren't mutually exclusive, and it's pretty much what the US has been doing for centuries. I feel saying a 100% tax on the 1% would only pay for a few months of society is just misrepresenting things. First off because that's not anyone's actual proposal, every proposal to tax the 1% would still leave them as the 1% even after the tax, it would simply reduce the gap between max and min. And secondly it's not like the 1% income will just stop, they receive income year over year, which is how taxation sustain itself and how the whole system sustain itself, each year tax applies again and again to everyone, with proportions adjusted to sustain the system while keeping the richest person as the richest and the poorest as the poorest, but limiting the gap and raising up the min.
      - anm89 6y ago
        Fair enough. I'm not against progressive taxation although I do personally believe that high corporate tax rates are somewhat of a losing game over the long term by the logic of Hauser's law : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law

maerF0x0 6y ago

> When some workers get a share of the pie too small to feed their hunger, and they're getting skinnier by the day, Fully agree. But thinking such a way is shortermism on the behalf of capitalists. I think we need to do more to encourage longtermism across the whole populace. Things like capital gains tax favorability is one example of such a help.

anm89 6y ago

I truly wish you could get to live in your utopia and reap the benefits or consequences whichever way it may fall. Would you actually sign on the dotted line?

didibus 6y ago
I don't know why you call it a utopia, it's literally how most of the western countries currently operate and have been for a long time now, why do you think they have a graduated income tax. It's been around since 1862 in the US, and I think at this point it's fair to say it's been well battle tested. That you need to make some tweaks and small course corrections to it overtime is normal. That people who take more risk and produce more value deserve a bigger share, well while morally you can be against that idea or disagree with the risk or effort they've put in, incentives for people to try things to get richer also has proven itself a necessity to grow the economy overall, which is growing the pie in my analogy. But it is also in the interest of everyone for the system which enabled those same people to grow the pie in the first place, and gave them the opportunity to take risks and be competitive in the markets which got them a bigger slice in return to make sure that this whole system is sustainable and doesn't come crashing down. That's why minimum standards of living must be met, education must be available to all, and why graduated taxes were put in place 150+ years ago. There's ton of studies and research on these economic models, and most alternatives are theoritical, while this one has been going on for 150+ years like I said, and has a pretty good track record. Doesn't mean it can't be improved on further and also doesn't mean it must be static throughout, course correcting some of its variables as the environment changes seems reasonable to me, and most likely a necessity.
- anm89 6y ago
  A 100% corporate tax rate has not been tried anywhere ever unless you want to consider communism being that. If that's not what you are supporting than I'd roll it back, but that seems to be what the parent was referencing.
  - didibus 6y ago
    It felt to me the parent comment was trying to discredit graduated tax or the idea of redistributing wealth to some level by giving an extreme hyperbolic example, which is a logical fallacy known as the appeal to extremes. I just wanted to point out the idea of taxing more for bigger sum isn't a bad one (or at least this silly extreme example isn't a good reason to justify it being bad). It makes sense for rich people to still be the richest even after the tax if we assume they're more proportionally responsible for the size of the pie itself, but everyone who contributed to the pie even if only as a delivery driver, or waitress, needs a slice of the pie as well, and so it similarly makes sense to want to make sure the distribution of it are proportionally fair to all and meets some minimum standards. And doing those two things aren't mutually exclusive, and it's pretty much what the US has been doing for centuries. I feel saying a 100% tax on the 1% would only pay for a few months of society is just misrepresenting things. First off because that's not anyone's actual proposal, every proposal to tax the 1% would still leave them as the 1% even after the tax, it would simply reduce the gap between max and min. And secondly it's not like the 1% income will just stop, they receive income year over year, which is how taxation sustain itself and how the whole system sustain itself, each year tax applies again and again to everyone, with proportions adjusted to sustain the system while keeping the richest person as the richest and the poorest as the poorest, but limiting the gap and raising up the min.
    - anm89 6y ago
      Fair enough. I'm not against progressive taxation although I do personally believe that high corporate tax rates are somewhat of a losing game over the long term by the logic of Hauser's law : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law