4 ms·

It is also utterly destructive for any industrial country to have a population which devalues being successful. "Unreasonably wealthy" means able to buy a hous

It is also utterly destructive for any industrial country to have a population which devalues being successful. "Unreasonably wealthy" means able to buy a house, by the way.

b112 3y ago
It's just backdoor socialism. More and more people are constantly praddling on about how "the wealthy" are the problem, but that's utter nonsense, and IMO has no place in a democratic society. As with anything else, the answer is to "raise everyone up", not "pull those down who have obtained something". And for the record, I am OK with taxing those with higher incomes at a higher rate. What I'm not OK with is the quite literally insane concept of "take all that money in one tax year", or "make sure no one can ever stay wealthy". The absurd notion of "if you have more than $x, we'll take it ALL!" is pure socialism, lacks any idea of how monetary systems work, how taxation works, and how much value doing that brings. For example, if you took every billionaire's liquid cash in the US, you'd barely notice it at the federal level, and then next year? There's be nothing to take. This is primarily because to 'take that billionaire's net worth!!', you'd have to take ownership of a massive amount of stocks, commodities, and so on. Let's say billionaire G owns 70% of Big Corp H, and that ownership is worth $2B. Great. So you 'tax' it. So how does that work? Does the billionaire have to sell if off, and give cash? How does that happen? Remember, all other wealthy people are having their fortunes stripped, so who do you even sell it to? And if you just hand over the shares to the government, what are they going to do with it? Sell it? To whom? No one has large amounts of disposable cash now, it's all been taken! None of these weirdo comments about "fuck people with $10 in their pocket!" make sense.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  To me it is always politics of envy. Of course nobody has some inherent qualities that make him "deserve" enormous amounts of money, but that isn't "fixable", it also is not particularly relevant if you cared about people having decent safety nets. As an aside, I very much dislike progressive tax rates. It essentially punishes productivity, as each additional hour worked reduces your money earned. Most of the working population should have the same tax rate. >And if you just hand over the shares to the government, what are they going to do with it? In Europe many states are large shareholders into companies. In the US you have e.g. pension funds who own very large amounts of capital. In Europe you have many companies where regional governments own a lot of shares.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    > Of course nobody has some inherent qualities that make him "deserve" enormous amounts of money, but that isn't "fixable", It is trivially fixable, with taxes. It is less trivially fixable via cultural changes such that in-organization compensation multiples are held below a relatively low number (I'm would lean in the range of 5-10x, but the precise value isn't as important). > As an aside, I very much dislike progressive tax rates. Progressive tax rates reflect the basic economic concept of the "marginal utility of money". If you earn $10k/yr, and extra $1k is a big deal, and can have profound impacts on your life. If you earn $100k/yr, an extra $1k is much less of a big deal. If you earn $1M/yr, an extra $1k is just noise. So it is with taxes, but in reverse: the impact of taking $1k in taxes from the $10k/yr person is very large, but extremely small for the $1M/yr. It would be preferable if we used a continuous function for this, rather than income brackets, but the concept is not hard to grasp: the impact of taxes, not the actual amount, should be the same for every $ earned. That requires progressive rates, because the impact of a 20% tax rate on the first (and only) $10k is huge, whereas the impact of a 20% tax rate on the final $10k of $1M is extremely small.
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      >It is trivially fixable, with taxes. No, it is clearly not, not ever has it functioned. It is also destructive to do. >Progressive tax rates reflect the basic economic concept of the "marginal utility of money". I know, but so what? The exact same goes for constant rates. >If you earn $10k/yr, and extra $1k is a big deal, and can have profound impacts on your life. If you earn $100k/yr, an extra $1k is much less of a big deal. If you earn $1M/yr, an extra $1k is just noise. Why are you arguing against some fantasy? Nobody pretends to want taxes as a fixed amount. That is some absurd thing you just made up. Why even reply if you make this bad faith arguments? You even completely ignored my argument about progressive taxes devaluing work. As your hourly rate sinks with amount worked. >It would be preferable if we used a continuous function Indeed. Namely a constant function.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        > No, it is clearly not, not ever has it functioned. It is also destructive to do. Most people would agree that the USA from about 1950-1975 functioned very well, if you can temporarily ignore the racism and sexism that made its success unevenly distributed. That was accompanied by (and partly explained by) high marginal tax rates. You seem to either be using "progressive tax rates" to mean something different than it conventionally does, or to not understand how they work. > As your hourly rate sinks with amount worked. This is simply not true of progressive tax rates as conventionally defined. > You even completely ignored my argument about progressive taxes devaluing work. As your hourly rate sinks with amount worked. Progressive tax rates do not devalue work, they devalue excessive rates of compensation. > Nobody pretends to want taxes as a fixed amount. That is some absurd thing you just made up Actually, several US Republican presidential candidates over the past couple of decades have specifically proposed a flat rate of income tax.
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
Your equation of "successful" with "wealthy" is very much of a particular culture. It's not hard to imagine hypothetical societies (based in part on some real ones across human history) where there's no particular link between these things. You just have to define "success" in a different way (for example, based on esteem rather than income). (*) A culture that devalues its own metrics for "success" is going through a significant transition. presumably towards different metrics. That's not "utterly destructive", though change is often accompanied by some destruction. (*) for example, many tenured research scientists today earn more in real dollars and have more material wealth and comfort than almost any of the mid-20th century superstars. But who is the more successful scientist, Richard Feynman or someone you've never heard of with a great job at a big research university, lots of grant money flowing and a headstart from their upper-middle class parents?
- constantcrying 3y ago
  Yes, success is a term different to all humans and varying among culture. So what? >A culture that devalues its own metrics for "success" is going through a significant transition. presumably towards different metrics. That's not "utterly destructive", though change is often accompanied by some destruction. Any modern western nation which sees a collpase of its industry will see its population quickly drift into poverty. It is an essential threat to disregard economic output.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    Changing the definition of success in no way implies the "collapse of its industry".

It is also utterly destructive for any industrial country to have a population which devalues being successful. "Unreasonably wealthy" means able to buy a house, by the way.

b112 3y ago

It's just backdoor socialism. More and more people are constantly praddling on about how "the wealthy" are the problem, but that's utter nonsense, and IMO has no place in a democratic society. As with anything else, the answer is to "raise everyone up", not "pull those down who have obtained something". And for the record, I am OK with taxing those with higher incomes at a higher rate. What I'm not OK with is the quite literally insane concept of "take all that money in one tax year", or "make sure no one can ever stay wealthy". The absurd notion of "if you have more than $x, we'll take it ALL!" is pure socialism, lacks any idea of how monetary systems work, how taxation works, and how much value doing that brings. For example, if you took every billionaire's liquid cash in the US, you'd barely notice it at the federal level, and then next year? There's be nothing to take. This is primarily because to 'take that billionaire's net worth!!', you'd have to take ownership of a massive amount of stocks, commodities, and so on. Let's say billionaire G owns 70% of Big Corp H, and that ownership is worth $2B. Great. So you 'tax' it. So how does that work? Does the billionaire have to sell if off, and give cash? How does that happen? Remember, all other wealthy people are having their fortunes stripped, so who do you even sell it to? And if you just hand over the shares to the government, what are they going to do with it? Sell it? To whom? No one has large amounts of disposable cash now, it's all been taken! None of these weirdo comments about "fuck people with $10 in their pocket!" make sense.

constantcrying 3y ago
To me it is always politics of envy. Of course nobody has some inherent qualities that make him "deserve" enormous amounts of money, but that isn't "fixable", it also is not particularly relevant if you cared about people having decent safety nets. As an aside, I very much dislike progressive tax rates. It essentially punishes productivity, as each additional hour worked reduces your money earned. Most of the working population should have the same tax rate. >And if you just hand over the shares to the government, what are they going to do with it? In Europe many states are large shareholders into companies. In the US you have e.g. pension funds who own very large amounts of capital. In Europe you have many companies where regional governments own a lot of shares.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > Of course nobody has some inherent qualities that make him "deserve" enormous amounts of money, but that isn't "fixable", It is trivially fixable, with taxes. It is less trivially fixable via cultural changes such that in-organization compensation multiples are held below a relatively low number (I'm would lean in the range of 5-10x, but the precise value isn't as important). > As an aside, I very much dislike progressive tax rates. Progressive tax rates reflect the basic economic concept of the "marginal utility of money". If you earn $10k/yr, and extra $1k is a big deal, and can have profound impacts on your life. If you earn $100k/yr, an extra $1k is much less of a big deal. If you earn $1M/yr, an extra $1k is just noise. So it is with taxes, but in reverse: the impact of taking $1k in taxes from the $10k/yr person is very large, but extremely small for the $1M/yr. It would be preferable if we used a continuous function for this, rather than income brackets, but the concept is not hard to grasp: the impact of taxes, not the actual amount, should be the same for every $ earned. That requires progressive rates, because the impact of a 20% tax rate on the first (and only) $10k is huge, whereas the impact of a 20% tax rate on the final $10k of $1M is extremely small.
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    >It is trivially fixable, with taxes. No, it is clearly not, not ever has it functioned. It is also destructive to do. >Progressive tax rates reflect the basic economic concept of the "marginal utility of money". I know, but so what? The exact same goes for constant rates. >If you earn $10k/yr, and extra $1k is a big deal, and can have profound impacts on your life. If you earn $100k/yr, an extra $1k is much less of a big deal. If you earn $1M/yr, an extra $1k is just noise. Why are you arguing against some fantasy? Nobody pretends to want taxes as a fixed amount. That is some absurd thing you just made up. Why even reply if you make this bad faith arguments? You even completely ignored my argument about progressive taxes devaluing work. As your hourly rate sinks with amount worked. >It would be preferable if we used a continuous function Indeed. Namely a constant function.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      > No, it is clearly not, not ever has it functioned. It is also destructive to do. Most people would agree that the USA from about 1950-1975 functioned very well, if you can temporarily ignore the racism and sexism that made its success unevenly distributed. That was accompanied by (and partly explained by) high marginal tax rates. You seem to either be using "progressive tax rates" to mean something different than it conventionally does, or to not understand how they work. > As your hourly rate sinks with amount worked. This is simply not true of progressive tax rates as conventionally defined. > You even completely ignored my argument about progressive taxes devaluing work. As your hourly rate sinks with amount worked. Progressive tax rates do not devalue work, they devalue excessive rates of compensation. > Nobody pretends to want taxes as a fixed amount. That is some absurd thing you just made up Actually, several US Republican presidential candidates over the past couple of decades have specifically proposed a flat rate of income tax.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

Your equation of "successful" with "wealthy" is very much of a particular culture. It's not hard to imagine hypothetical societies (based in part on some real ones across human history) where there's no particular link between these things. You just have to define "success" in a different way (for example, based on esteem rather than income). (*) A culture that devalues its own metrics for "success" is going through a significant transition. presumably towards different metrics. That's not "utterly destructive", though change is often accompanied by some destruction. (*) for example, many tenured research scientists today earn more in real dollars and have more material wealth and comfort than almost any of the mid-20th century superstars. But who is the more successful scientist, Richard Feynman or someone you've never heard of with a great job at a big research university, lots of grant money flowing and a headstart from their upper-middle class parents?

constantcrying 3y ago
Yes, success is a term different to all humans and varying among culture. So what? >A culture that devalues its own metrics for "success" is going through a significant transition. presumably towards different metrics. That's not "utterly destructive", though change is often accompanied by some destruction. Any modern western nation which sees a collpase of its industry will see its population quickly drift into poverty. It is an essential threat to disregard economic output.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  Changing the definition of success in no way implies the "collapse of its industry".