4 ms·

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", i

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.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Flat tax rate, not a flat fixed-amount head tax. Those are way too different things, I don't think any politician who values their livelihood would propose a head tax.
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      >Most people would agree that the USA from about 1950-1975 functioned very well It did nothing to stop extremely rich people existing. It was an utter failure by your goal. >You seem to either be using "progressive tax rates" to mean something different than it conventionally does, or to not understand how they work. It means the tax rate increases with income. Quite unambigous. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax >This is simply not true of progressive tax rates as conventionally defined. Yes it is. It is very basic mathematics. Do you not understand how taxes work? >Progressive tax rates do not devalue work, they devalue excessive rates of compensation. With progressive taxes working for 30 hours instead of 40 with same hourly wage before taxes means that after taxes your hourly rate for 30 hours is higher than for 40 hours (assuming the taxes don't just align to be flat in that region). This is not debatable, it is an explicit property of progressive tax rates. >Actually, several US Republican presidential candidates over the past couple of decades have specifically proposed a flat rate of income tax. Are you serious? I don't want to attack you personally, but that is fourth grade math or civics you just failed.
- nec4b 3y ago
  >> 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. This an economic fallacy. It only makes sense if you believe the only utility of money is is to buy basic necessities and you can't imagine doing things that require larger amounts of capital to start.

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.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Flat tax rate, not a flat fixed-amount head tax. Those are way too different things, I don't think any politician who values their livelihood would propose a head tax.
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    >Most people would agree that the USA from about 1950-1975 functioned very well It did nothing to stop extremely rich people existing. It was an utter failure by your goal. >You seem to either be using "progressive tax rates" to mean something different than it conventionally does, or to not understand how they work. It means the tax rate increases with income. Quite unambigous. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax >This is simply not true of progressive tax rates as conventionally defined. Yes it is. It is very basic mathematics. Do you not understand how taxes work? >Progressive tax rates do not devalue work, they devalue excessive rates of compensation. With progressive taxes working for 30 hours instead of 40 with same hourly wage before taxes means that after taxes your hourly rate for 30 hours is higher than for 40 hours (assuming the taxes don't just align to be flat in that region). This is not debatable, it is an explicit property of progressive tax rates. >Actually, several US Republican presidential candidates over the past couple of decades have specifically proposed a flat rate of income tax. Are you serious? I don't want to attack you personally, but that is fourth grade math or civics you just failed.
nec4b 3y ago
>> 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. This an economic fallacy. It only makes sense if you believe the only utility of money is is to buy basic necessities and you can't imagine doing things that require larger amounts of capital to start.