3 ms·

> Today, America's poor have a better quality of life than medieval kings. And today's rich are doing even better than that, so there's no harm in taxing their

> Today, America's poor have a better quality of life than medieval kings. And today's rich are doing even better than that, so there's no harm in taxing their wealth, right?

chrisco255 5y ago
Yes, because the government is generally bad at using capital and the ROI on higher tax rates reaches negative at some point, nevermind that it can print as much as it wants.
- hkt 5y ago
  Most crashes are caused by misallocated capital in the markets, and state intervention on a massive scale is usually the answer. The state isn't an amazing tool, but it is the best one we have. It can bring about universal healthcare and education, mass housebuilding programmes, regulation and optimisation of dysfunctional markets.. and even put human beings on the moon. Meanwhile, "investors" pile money into.. um, dogecoin? The "government is bad" narrative is too simplistic to be helpful. I'd suggest broadening your outlook.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >Meanwhile, "investors" pile money into.. um, dogecoin? And why are they doing this? The trail leads right back to... government. "Side effects include investors to dumping money into sketchy stuff because nothing else returns worth a crap" is one of the big gripes people have with 2008+ fed policy.
    - hkt 5y ago
      True, bonds should be a safer investmemt. But the fact is, investors are doing stupid things and the markets just aren't rational. They never were.
- nemothekid 5y ago
  >government is generally bad at using capital This is hardly true, and is only "common" wisdom due to an incredibly effective PR campaign by Ronald Reagan. In the 60s, when we were sending people to the moon, people didn't generally hold such contempt for government. Any large government is no more dysfunctional than a large private corporation - the inside of Google isn't all sunshine and roses. >that it can print as much as it wants Just because you don't see it come out of your paycheck doesn't mean it's not a tax. It's an undemocratic, flat tax that is paid with inflation.
  - nec4b 5y ago
    Reagan was the government. Also in your opinion he represent a bad government and none the less you want more government?
    - nemothekid 5y ago
      >Also in your opinion he represent a bad government and none the less you want more government? Reagan was bad, to me, because he massively cut social programs. So yes, Reagan was bad because he made "less government". If Reagan did "more government", then I would be happy. Do you not see the obvious contradiction in your comment? If you need me to spell it out for you: 1. I am for more social spending, even if it has a "bad" ROI, because the ROI for social spending is hard to measure. 2. Regan was incredibly effective as painting government programs as woefully inefficient. 3. If Regan did more social spending, I would want more of that, but that is not who Regan was, so I do not like that.
WalterBright 5y ago
History shows that confiscating the wealth of the wealthy has a negative effect on the poor.
- altvali 5y ago
  Can you elaborate? I'm interested to learn more.
  - Koshkin 5y ago
    An example: the communist revolution in Russia in 1917. (The “negative effect” included millions of people getting murdered, killed by the famine, or imprisoned.)
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      All the communist revolutions reduced the standard of living of the poor. Venezuela is the latest example.
  - stevenwoo 5y ago
    Piketty covers this extensively in Capital and Ideology and comes to the opposite conclusion with charts of data of wealth taxation versus income inequality in every country for which there is reliable data. There has only been progressive wealth taxation for a short time period in the USA and the UK off the top of my head.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  How about they all distribute their wealth directly? Or even better, don’t amass that much wealth but pay their workers better. They can still keep more than enough to live better than medieval kings.

> Today, America's poor have a better quality of life than medieval kings. And today's rich are doing even better than that, so there's no harm in taxing their wealth, right?

chrisco255 5y ago

Yes, because the government is generally bad at using capital and the ROI on higher tax rates reaches negative at some point, nevermind that it can print as much as it wants.

hkt 5y ago
Most crashes are caused by misallocated capital in the markets, and state intervention on a massive scale is usually the answer. The state isn't an amazing tool, but it is the best one we have. It can bring about universal healthcare and education, mass housebuilding programmes, regulation and optimisation of dysfunctional markets.. and even put human beings on the moon. Meanwhile, "investors" pile money into.. um, dogecoin? The "government is bad" narrative is too simplistic to be helpful. I'd suggest broadening your outlook.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >Meanwhile, "investors" pile money into.. um, dogecoin? And why are they doing this? The trail leads right back to... government. "Side effects include investors to dumping money into sketchy stuff because nothing else returns worth a crap" is one of the big gripes people have with 2008+ fed policy.
  - hkt 5y ago
    True, bonds should be a safer investmemt. But the fact is, investors are doing stupid things and the markets just aren't rational. They never were.
nemothekid 5y ago
>government is generally bad at using capital This is hardly true, and is only "common" wisdom due to an incredibly effective PR campaign by Ronald Reagan. In the 60s, when we were sending people to the moon, people didn't generally hold such contempt for government. Any large government is no more dysfunctional than a large private corporation - the inside of Google isn't all sunshine and roses. >that it can print as much as it wants Just because you don't see it come out of your paycheck doesn't mean it's not a tax. It's an undemocratic, flat tax that is paid with inflation.
- nec4b 5y ago
  Reagan was the government. Also in your opinion he represent a bad government and none the less you want more government?
  - nemothekid 5y ago
    >Also in your opinion he represent a bad government and none the less you want more government? Reagan was bad, to me, because he massively cut social programs. So yes, Reagan was bad because he made "less government". If Reagan did "more government", then I would be happy. Do you not see the obvious contradiction in your comment? If you need me to spell it out for you: 1. I am for more social spending, even if it has a "bad" ROI, because the ROI for social spending is hard to measure. 2. Regan was incredibly effective as painting government programs as woefully inefficient. 3. If Regan did more social spending, I would want more of that, but that is not who Regan was, so I do not like that.

WalterBright 5y ago

History shows that confiscating the wealth of the wealthy has a negative effect on the poor.

altvali 5y ago
Can you elaborate? I'm interested to learn more.
- Koshkin 5y ago
  An example: the communist revolution in Russia in 1917. (The “negative effect” included millions of people getting murdered, killed by the famine, or imprisoned.)
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    All the communist revolutions reduced the standard of living of the poor. Venezuela is the latest example.
- stevenwoo 5y ago
  Piketty covers this extensively in Capital and Ideology and comes to the opposite conclusion with charts of data of wealth taxation versus income inequality in every country for which there is reliable data. There has only been progressive wealth taxation for a short time period in the USA and the UK off the top of my head.
spaetzleesser 5y ago
How about they all distribute their wealth directly? Or even better, don’t amass that much wealth but pay their workers better. They can still keep more than enough to live better than medieval kings.