4 ms·

> we have to decide on one of two mutually exclusive goals > Your link discusses the Scandinavian countries. Those have a GINI (income score) about half that o

by bhupy 5y ago

> we have to decide on one of two mutually exclusive goals > Your link discusses the Scandinavian countries. Those have a GINI (income score) about half that of the US. Of course they have broad-based taxes. I want to address everything you just said, but these two points stand out. The GINI coefficient is not a particularly useful metric precisely because the US could halve its GINI simply by increasing the income of its poorest people. It tells us nothing about the degree to which a country goes to make its rich poorer. Which brings me to your second point; Scandinavian countries have the GINI scores that they do precisely because they have welfare that can only be feasibly funded by broad-based taxes (even Bernie Sanders admits this https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/06/28/sanders-middle-class-taxes-2020-democratic-primary-debate-nbc-miami-vpx.nbc https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/06/28/sanders-middl...). And the only way you get a society to adopt broad based taxes is if you decide the variable you want to optimize is making the poor richer, rather than the rich poorer. In America, especially among the center-left, there's a strong aversion to adopting taxes on the middle class — it's the only way one can fund the kinds of programs that reduce GINI — precisely because the rhetoric is less around making sure the poor are taken care of, but rather around making sure "the rich pay their fair share". So that's the reason why it's presented as mutually exclusive goals. Once society agrees upon an OKR, it will converge around any solution that satisfies that OKR. As long as our OKRs are defined around how rich the rich are, rather than how poor the poor are, the solutions we converge around will look less like the GINI-reducing Scandinavian countries (which have high middle class taxes and VATs), and more like the US, which happens to have the most progressive taxation in the developed world[1][2]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/05/ameri... [2] https://faculty.washington.edu/vmenaldo/Inequality%20Research/European%20Welfare%20State%20Taxes%20more%20regressive%20-%20WSJ%202019.pdf https://faculty.washington.edu/vmenaldo/Inequality%20Researc...

HWR_14 5y ago
> o precisely because they have welfare that can only be feasibly funded by broad-based taxes I'm confused by why you think you're disagreeing with me. My point is that efforts to make poor people richer can be totally separate from efforts to make rich people poorer. Of course broad-base taxation can raise poor people's standard of living. That's my point, it's totally orthogonal to whether we want to have additional taxes on the very rich to prevent wealth inequality.
- bhupy 5y ago
  And my point is that there's no reason "wealth inequality" is something you'd want to prevent unless your goal was to make the rich poorer. I completely appreciate that you may think it's a worthwhile cause (or not, who am I to ascribe your views), but I'm just pointing out that it's worth separating "making the poor richer" from "making the rich poorer"; as you rightly pointed out, they are different goals. Some people even want both! Among those that adopt zero-sum thinking, there has unfortunately been a conflation of the two aims by suggesting that the only way to make the poor richer is to make the rich poorer. What I am pointing out is that not everyone adopts this zero-sum thinking, and the best way to identify whether one does is by asking the question: "is the goal to make the poor richer, or the rich poorer?". Based on your argumentation, I concede that a more complete question is "is the goal to make the poor richer, the rich poorer, or both?". Many folks are in column A, many in B, and many in C. Until we acknowledge that, we're just shouting talking points past each other based on assumed moral premises.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Okay, I think we're on the same page. I misinterpreted your original post as denying C existed, and therefore trying to set up a dilemma for people in column C (both) where they had to pick either poor richer or rich poorer. I find that most people want the poor to become richer, but whether to make the rich poorer or not is a pretty debated point.

by bhupy 5y ago

HWR_14 5y ago

> o precisely because they have welfare that can only be feasibly funded by broad-based taxes I'm confused by why you think you're disagreeing with me. My point is that efforts to make poor people richer can be totally separate from efforts to make rich people poorer. Of course broad-base taxation can raise poor people's standard of living. That's my point, it's totally orthogonal to whether we want to have additional taxes on the very rich to prevent wealth inequality.

bhupy 5y ago
And my point is that there's no reason "wealth inequality" is something you'd want to prevent unless your goal was to make the rich poorer. I completely appreciate that you may think it's a worthwhile cause (or not, who am I to ascribe your views), but I'm just pointing out that it's worth separating "making the poor richer" from "making the rich poorer"; as you rightly pointed out, they are different goals. Some people even want both! Among those that adopt zero-sum thinking, there has unfortunately been a conflation of the two aims by suggesting that the only way to make the poor richer is to make the rich poorer. What I am pointing out is that not everyone adopts this zero-sum thinking, and the best way to identify whether one does is by asking the question: "is the goal to make the poor richer, or the rich poorer?". Based on your argumentation, I concede that a more complete question is "is the goal to make the poor richer, the rich poorer, or both?". Many folks are in column A, many in B, and many in C. Until we acknowledge that, we're just shouting talking points past each other based on assumed moral premises.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Okay, I think we're on the same page. I misinterpreted your original post as denying C existed, and therefore trying to set up a dilemma for people in column C (both) where they had to pick either poor richer or rich poorer. I find that most people want the poor to become richer, but whether to make the rich poorer or not is a pretty debated point.