6 ms·

since i dont see it here in the comments- my opinion is the marginal tax rate should be very high when you get to this point of income, and the money should be

since i dont see it here in the comments- my opinion is the marginal tax rate should be very high when you get to this point of income, and the money should be redistributed via services, credits and direct payments (maybe?) to poorer people, since its shown very clearly in the data to result in longer lifespans, better mental health, and an improvment in economic activity (though the last thing i dont care much about). curious what people who disagree with this general approach have to say about it.

paulpauper 5y ago
You can do those things without having to tax the rich more. The treasury printed trillions in covid aid yet income taxes will not have to go up to pay for it. Inflation just budged a little. Bond market still holing well. Same for the US dollar.
- tastyfreeze 5y ago
  Inflation takes years to fully emerge. And income taxes absolutely will have to go up to pay for it. It is not possible to print prosperity the same as it is not possible to tax our way to prosperity. Interestingly, printing money exacerbates wealth inequality. The people closest to the printer get to enjoy the fresh money before inflation hits the broader economy.
  - ajmadesc 5y ago
    >Inflation takes years to fully emerge Evidence? >printing money exacerbates wealth inequality No, the method of distribution exacerbates inequality Important distinction.
    - tastyfreeze 5y ago
      It is called response lag and is a well studied phenomenon. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/ecajt/inflation%20lags%20money%20supply.pdf https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/ecajt/inflation%20lags%20m... Yes, distribution matters. Us common folk got a taste, with stimulus checks, of what has been happening for nearly a century at the top.
      - ajmadesc 5y ago
        Thanks, I learned something today. Wouldn't introducing automatic stabilizers, like stimulus checks cut recognition and decision lag.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
tastyfreeze 5y ago
The biggest problem I have with that is that taxes for the rich have a history of becoming taxes for all. I want to see less wealth being consumed by government and more of it staying in the hands of the people that created it. I would like to see a flat tax rate with a negative income tax for people below a certain threshold to replace welfare. Flat tax to treat everyone equally and negative income tax to shorten the tail on the left of the curve. But, that is me. I don't have a problem with some people having vastly more wealth than me. They are still citizens that should be treated as equals under the law. I would really like to see the 16th Amendment repealed and government return to being funded by import/export tariffs. A flat tax with a negative tax on the low end is a compromise in my mind. I don't see the 16th Amendment ever being repealed but I do want to see tax code simplified, people keeping their income and less redistribution through welfare. That is not something that government should be doing. Sending more money to government is a bad investment.
- ajmadesc 5y ago
  Isn't a negative income tax that turns into a flat tax just a progressive tax scheme??? # Negative + flat ____ / -------/------- / #progressive _/ _/ _/______
pdonis 5y ago
> my opinion is the marginal tax rate should be very high when you get to this point of income, and the money should be redistributed via services, credits and direct payments (maybe?) to poorer people The problem with this is that the government simply can't do it effectively. We had marginal tax rates that high in the past and the revenue didn't get redistributed to the people who really needed it. It got squandered in pork just like it always does. Charity and helping those who need it is a fine thing, but it has to be done by people who will actually do it right. Whoever that is, it isn't the government.
- ajmadesc 5y ago
  "government can't do it" is dogma. Not being currently politically feasible doesn't mean it's against the laws of nature.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > "government can't do it" is dogma. No, it's an inference from a mountain of evidence of what governments are doing now and have done in the past.
- alasdair_ 5y ago
  We can give the money directly to the people, eliminating pork. This is one benefit of UBI.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > We can give the money directly to the people No, "we" can't. "We" can only do this through the government. > This is one benefit of UBI. If you think UBI will eliminate pork and all other forms of government waste, including the pork waste involved with redistributing wealth, I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska I'd like to sell you.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The problem with this is that the government simply can't do it effectively The evidence is that, compared to the status quo, it can. Perhaps it can’t meet some abstract ideal, but that’s making the perfect the enemy of the at-least-better-than-horrifically-bad. > We had marginal tax rates that high in the past and the revenue didn't get redistributed to the people who really needed it. They coincided with a long period of much more effective broad-based growth and less concentration of wealth at the top than we’ve had since they ended, so while the first-order nature of the individual policies may not seem like idealized redistribution, the evidence is that on balance the set of policies that included them was at least less bad at that then status quo set of policies that include lower top-tier taxes. But even if we hadn't done better before that wouldn't in and of itself be more than very weak evidence that we couldn't do better through government.
jokoon 5y ago
People will answer things like this: * There is no free meal (even though food is abundant) * Merit matters (while we know merit is a myth) * If people don't work the world collapses (not all work is necessary and has value) * Generally the idea stands that hierarchy matters, that the strong should dominate the weak, and that social darwinism is a worthy ideology. Since the end of the cold war, the world doesn't believe in equality. People still believe in alphas while its author retracted the paper. There are a lot of stereotypes that humans integrate, which allows them to rationalize a flawed system

paulpauper 5y ago

You can do those things without having to tax the rich more. The treasury printed trillions in covid aid yet income taxes will not have to go up to pay for it. Inflation just budged a little. Bond market still holing well. Same for the US dollar.

tastyfreeze 5y ago
Inflation takes years to fully emerge. And income taxes absolutely will have to go up to pay for it. It is not possible to print prosperity the same as it is not possible to tax our way to prosperity. Interestingly, printing money exacerbates wealth inequality. The people closest to the printer get to enjoy the fresh money before inflation hits the broader economy.
- ajmadesc 5y ago
  >Inflation takes years to fully emerge Evidence? >printing money exacerbates wealth inequality No, the method of distribution exacerbates inequality Important distinction.
  - tastyfreeze 5y ago
    It is called response lag and is a well studied phenomenon. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/ecajt/inflation%20lags%20money%20supply.pdf https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/ecajt/inflation%20lags%20m... Yes, distribution matters. Us common folk got a taste, with stimulus checks, of what has been happening for nearly a century at the top.
    - ajmadesc 5y ago
      Thanks, I learned something today. Wouldn't introducing automatic stabilizers, like stimulus checks cut recognition and decision lag.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

tastyfreeze 5y ago

The biggest problem I have with that is that taxes for the rich have a history of becoming taxes for all. I want to see less wealth being consumed by government and more of it staying in the hands of the people that created it. I would like to see a flat tax rate with a negative income tax for people below a certain threshold to replace welfare. Flat tax to treat everyone equally and negative income tax to shorten the tail on the left of the curve. But, that is me. I don't have a problem with some people having vastly more wealth than me. They are still citizens that should be treated as equals under the law. I would really like to see the 16th Amendment repealed and government return to being funded by import/export tariffs. A flat tax with a negative tax on the low end is a compromise in my mind. I don't see the 16th Amendment ever being repealed but I do want to see tax code simplified, people keeping their income and less redistribution through welfare. That is not something that government should be doing. Sending more money to government is a bad investment.

ajmadesc 5y ago
Isn't a negative income tax that turns into a flat tax just a progressive tax scheme??? # Negative + flat ____ / -------/------- / #progressive _/ _/ _/______

pdonis 5y ago

> my opinion is the marginal tax rate should be very high when you get to this point of income, and the money should be redistributed via services, credits and direct payments (maybe?) to poorer people The problem with this is that the government simply can't do it effectively. We had marginal tax rates that high in the past and the revenue didn't get redistributed to the people who really needed it. It got squandered in pork just like it always does. Charity and helping those who need it is a fine thing, but it has to be done by people who will actually do it right. Whoever that is, it isn't the government.

ajmadesc 5y ago
"government can't do it" is dogma. Not being currently politically feasible doesn't mean it's against the laws of nature.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > "government can't do it" is dogma. No, it's an inference from a mountain of evidence of what governments are doing now and have done in the past.
alasdair_ 5y ago
We can give the money directly to the people, eliminating pork. This is one benefit of UBI.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > We can give the money directly to the people No, "we" can't. "We" can only do this through the government. > This is one benefit of UBI. If you think UBI will eliminate pork and all other forms of government waste, including the pork waste involved with redistributing wealth, I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska I'd like to sell you.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The problem with this is that the government simply can't do it effectively The evidence is that, compared to the status quo, it can. Perhaps it can’t meet some abstract ideal, but that’s making the perfect the enemy of the at-least-better-than-horrifically-bad. > We had marginal tax rates that high in the past and the revenue didn't get redistributed to the people who really needed it. They coincided with a long period of much more effective broad-based growth and less concentration of wealth at the top than we’ve had since they ended, so while the first-order nature of the individual policies may not seem like idealized redistribution, the evidence is that on balance the set of policies that included them was at least less bad at that then status quo set of policies that include lower top-tier taxes. But even if we hadn't done better before that wouldn't in and of itself be more than very weak evidence that we couldn't do better through government.

jokoon 5y ago

People will answer things like this: * There is no free meal (even though food is abundant) * Merit matters (while we know merit is a myth) * If people don't work the world collapses (not all work is necessary and has value) * Generally the idea stands that hierarchy matters, that the strong should dominate the weak, and that social darwinism is a worthy ideology. Since the end of the cold war, the world doesn't believe in equality. People still believe in alphas while its author retracted the paper. There are a lot of stereotypes that humans integrate, which allows them to rationalize a flawed system