5 ms·

> Caring about income inequality is quite different than caring about GDP. And it is precisely caring about income inequality that become a visible point of dif

> Caring about income inequality is quite different than caring about GDP. And it is precisely caring about income inequality that become a visible point of difference between the left and right, particularly since Piketty's book. Right: my thesis is that unless you are simply envy-stricken, income inequality is a red herring distracting us from interesting metrics like "How well-off is the median person? 10th percentile earner? 1st percentile earner?" and that GDP is a flawed proxy for this.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
It's not red herring at all if you have a certain moral take on the world. There are long-lived, well justified moral positions that would say that it makes no difference if 99% of the population is entirely comfortable, the fact that 1% makes (say) 10x what the other 99% make is just indefensible. You appear not to share this view.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  Taxes should exist to fund the needs of the government, not to punish people. Confiscating incomes and gains as described in this thread (punitively) would destroy working capital and investment capital which would would lead to lower incomes for everyone, higher unemployment, and in essence make everyone poorer.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > Confiscating incomes and gains as described in this thread ... It's not punitive confiscation. It's taxes to fund the decided needs of society, where the needs are established using the mechanisms of government (as flawed or otherwise as they might be). > ... (punitively) would destroy working capital and investment capital which would would lead to lower incomes for everyone This seems like the reciprocal of the now completely debunked claim "reducing taxes would increas working capital and investment capital which will lead to higher incomes for everyone". There are so many bundled assumptions in your claim here, most notably that higher incomes require private investment. There's no particular evidence that this is true (although there is a lot of hand-waving "common sense" pronouncements from certain parts of the political landscape designed to us think that it is obvious).
- settrans 5y ago
  That's completely fair, for a certain assignment of moral values it becomes a burning concern that dwarfs my utilitarian plea. In my defense, I had assumed I was taking a neutral position when focusing on the question "What is the marginal impact on societal welfare of taxing less progressively?" And my argument is that this paper does nothing to further our understanding towards that inquiry (despite ostensibly purporting to). I am deliberately attempting to avoid discussing topics such as "the morality of wealth redistribution" or "the proper role of government in society" in the framing of my objection. I find that letting one's values show on internet message boards is treacherous for one's karma.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

It's not red herring at all if you have a certain moral take on the world. There are long-lived, well justified moral positions that would say that it makes no difference if 99% of the population is entirely comfortable, the fact that 1% makes (say) 10x what the other 99% make is just indefensible. You appear not to share this view.

nemo44x 5y ago
Taxes should exist to fund the needs of the government, not to punish people. Confiscating incomes and gains as described in this thread (punitively) would destroy working capital and investment capital which would would lead to lower incomes for everyone, higher unemployment, and in essence make everyone poorer.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > Confiscating incomes and gains as described in this thread ... It's not punitive confiscation. It's taxes to fund the decided needs of society, where the needs are established using the mechanisms of government (as flawed or otherwise as they might be). > ... (punitively) would destroy working capital and investment capital which would would lead to lower incomes for everyone This seems like the reciprocal of the now completely debunked claim "reducing taxes would increas working capital and investment capital which will lead to higher incomes for everyone". There are so many bundled assumptions in your claim here, most notably that higher incomes require private investment. There's no particular evidence that this is true (although there is a lot of hand-waving "common sense" pronouncements from certain parts of the political landscape designed to us think that it is obvious).
settrans 5y ago
That's completely fair, for a certain assignment of moral values it becomes a burning concern that dwarfs my utilitarian plea. In my defense, I had assumed I was taking a neutral position when focusing on the question "What is the marginal impact on societal welfare of taxing less progressively?" And my argument is that this paper does nothing to further our understanding towards that inquiry (despite ostensibly purporting to). I am deliberately attempting to avoid discussing topics such as "the morality of wealth redistribution" or "the proper role of government in society" in the framing of my objection. I find that letting one's values show on internet message boards is treacherous for one's karma.