3 ms·

Oh, you are correct I did miss the point thank you. It would be great to have correct data on how much taxes are actually paid in practise during this period. (

by joe__f 3y ago

Oh, you are correct I did miss the point thank you. It would be great to have correct data on how much taxes are actually paid in practise during this period. (And, to increase funding for regulatory bodies to close tax loopholes)

robertlagrant 3y ago
If your own point is that it's good to have historical evidence before we annihilate the motivation of anyone trying anything particularly risky in the name of creating a better product or service, then is closing those loopholes and raising tax to 90% the best idea? It's child's play to think of what would happen if we spent more money on cleaning buses, for example, but what won't be invented or improved if we do this? What's the downside?
- jojojaf 3y ago
  I'm not advocating any specific high-end wealth tax rate, but I think at the moment they are very low. I think it would be interesting and relevant to future policy making to have historical data about which such tax rates have worked in the past. Wealth inequality is currently a huge problem in the world, and as far as I can see any kind of arguments against tackling it such as 'we'll miss out on innovation' are capitalist propaganda. This is why it would be good to have accurate historical data to respond to these kind of arguments. I've reread my post that you responded to and when OP says 'tax rates are meaningless signaling to low income voters because no one pays these rates', my response is 'taxes should be better enforced so that people do indeed pay the stated rates'.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Wealth inequality is currently a huge problem in the world This is a problematic statement. Wealth inequality is not a huge problem. If we removed all the billionaires, people who are currently starving or unable to get clean water would still be in the same situation. Getting the base level of human condition up is the important thing, and it generally occurs much more in systems that are not trying to crush people who create vast amounts of value. > as far as I can see any kind of arguments against tackling it such as 'we'll miss out on innovation' are capitalist propaganda. This is why it would be good to have accurate historical data to respond to these kind of arguments. I don't see why this is the case. If you let people take more risks and try more things, with commensurate value exchange to the value they provide, then more things will appear. That's just normal. You can see it in the small even - if teams are allowed to fail and succeed by taking risks, then they will take some risks. If they are never rewarded for succeeding, or even punished for succeeding, then they will never try.
    - jojojaf 3y ago
      The capitalist promise is something like, 'you don't need to enforce social responsibility on us because when we get rich enough there'll be enough wealth and we will just share it anyway of our own accord'. Maybe in the 1800s or earlier then it could have been reasonable to believe this, but in the current world climate it hasn't happened. Wealth inequality is at the highest it has ever been. The purpose of the existence of government historically was to combat this problem. If you don't see why wealth inequality is a problem then look at biodiversity for example. It's generally accepted that wider biodiversity is better for everyone, and efforts to conserve a wider range of diverse species rather than a smaller number of better adapted species are encouraged. Now apply this reasoning to businesses. If wealth were redistributed better that would mean more chances for people of the lower end of the spectrum to innovate and produce small businesses which would lead to wider diversity and resilience in the economy. Which ties in with your small team example. As for 'capitalist propaganda'; for example, considering higher wealth tax rates for the top end as 'crushing those who generate wealth' is pretty clearly capitalist doctrine to me. It's the kind of narrative that wealthy people in positions of power sell so that they don't have to redistribute that wealth. I agree with you that people at the high end should have incentives to innovate and I am not advocating communism. However as far as I can see, with properly globally enforced taxes at a higher rate for top end wealth there would still be plenty of incentive for these people to innovate.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > The capitalist promise is something like, 'you don't need to enforce social responsibility on us because when we get rich enough there'll be enough wealth and we will just share it anyway of our own accord'. No it's not. It's "people should make free agreements with each other as much as possible, as this will motivate far better resource allocation than a centralised monarchy or bureacracy ever could." > The purpose of the existence of government historically was to combat this problem. Blimey, no. The purpose of government was to do what the monarch said, collect taxes, etc, and later, for a few countries, to do what the elected leader said. Governments predate capitalism. > If wealth were redistributed better that would mean more chances for people of the lower end of the spectrum to innovate and produce small businesses This doesn't have to be true. There are lots of chances already to create small businesses. The main blockers are bureacratic processes that make it hard to establish and compete, not billionares. Redistribution itself is a slippery concept, but let's say that Elon Musk gave a load of his wealth (not money, wealth) in the form of Tesla shares to people so they can start small businesses. What would that actually mean? Who would buy those shares if a bureacrat can choose to steal - I mean ,redistribute, them at any point? > with properly globally enforced taxes at a higher rate for top end wealth there would still be plenty of incentive for these people to innovate This is a very leaky statement in practice. Bureacrats are not good at designing overbearing tax systems that retain innovation. We're more likely to stop needing good resource allocation (e.g. somehow we crack cold fusion) before bureacrats get good at not starving their populations to death from bad central policies.

by joe__f 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

If your own point is that it's good to have historical evidence before we annihilate the motivation of anyone trying anything particularly risky in the name of creating a better product or service, then is closing those loopholes and raising tax to 90% the best idea? It's child's play to think of what would happen if we spent more money on cleaning buses, for example, but what won't be invented or improved if we do this? What's the downside?

jojojaf 3y ago
I'm not advocating any specific high-end wealth tax rate, but I think at the moment they are very low. I think it would be interesting and relevant to future policy making to have historical data about which such tax rates have worked in the past. Wealth inequality is currently a huge problem in the world, and as far as I can see any kind of arguments against tackling it such as 'we'll miss out on innovation' are capitalist propaganda. This is why it would be good to have accurate historical data to respond to these kind of arguments. I've reread my post that you responded to and when OP says 'tax rates are meaningless signaling to low income voters because no one pays these rates', my response is 'taxes should be better enforced so that people do indeed pay the stated rates'.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Wealth inequality is currently a huge problem in the world This is a problematic statement. Wealth inequality is not a huge problem. If we removed all the billionaires, people who are currently starving or unable to get clean water would still be in the same situation. Getting the base level of human condition up is the important thing, and it generally occurs much more in systems that are not trying to crush people who create vast amounts of value. > as far as I can see any kind of arguments against tackling it such as 'we'll miss out on innovation' are capitalist propaganda. This is why it would be good to have accurate historical data to respond to these kind of arguments. I don't see why this is the case. If you let people take more risks and try more things, with commensurate value exchange to the value they provide, then more things will appear. That's just normal. You can see it in the small even - if teams are allowed to fail and succeed by taking risks, then they will take some risks. If they are never rewarded for succeeding, or even punished for succeeding, then they will never try.
  - jojojaf 3y ago
    The capitalist promise is something like, 'you don't need to enforce social responsibility on us because when we get rich enough there'll be enough wealth and we will just share it anyway of our own accord'. Maybe in the 1800s or earlier then it could have been reasonable to believe this, but in the current world climate it hasn't happened. Wealth inequality is at the highest it has ever been. The purpose of the existence of government historically was to combat this problem. If you don't see why wealth inequality is a problem then look at biodiversity for example. It's generally accepted that wider biodiversity is better for everyone, and efforts to conserve a wider range of diverse species rather than a smaller number of better adapted species are encouraged. Now apply this reasoning to businesses. If wealth were redistributed better that would mean more chances for people of the lower end of the spectrum to innovate and produce small businesses which would lead to wider diversity and resilience in the economy. Which ties in with your small team example. As for 'capitalist propaganda'; for example, considering higher wealth tax rates for the top end as 'crushing those who generate wealth' is pretty clearly capitalist doctrine to me. It's the kind of narrative that wealthy people in positions of power sell so that they don't have to redistribute that wealth. I agree with you that people at the high end should have incentives to innovate and I am not advocating communism. However as far as I can see, with properly globally enforced taxes at a higher rate for top end wealth there would still be plenty of incentive for these people to innovate.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > The capitalist promise is something like, 'you don't need to enforce social responsibility on us because when we get rich enough there'll be enough wealth and we will just share it anyway of our own accord'. No it's not. It's "people should make free agreements with each other as much as possible, as this will motivate far better resource allocation than a centralised monarchy or bureacracy ever could." > The purpose of the existence of government historically was to combat this problem. Blimey, no. The purpose of government was to do what the monarch said, collect taxes, etc, and later, for a few countries, to do what the elected leader said. Governments predate capitalism. > If wealth were redistributed better that would mean more chances for people of the lower end of the spectrum to innovate and produce small businesses This doesn't have to be true. There are lots of chances already to create small businesses. The main blockers are bureacratic processes that make it hard to establish and compete, not billionares. Redistribution itself is a slippery concept, but let's say that Elon Musk gave a load of his wealth (not money, wealth) in the form of Tesla shares to people so they can start small businesses. What would that actually mean? Who would buy those shares if a bureacrat can choose to steal - I mean ,redistribute, them at any point? > with properly globally enforced taxes at a higher rate for top end wealth there would still be plenty of incentive for these people to innovate This is a very leaky statement in practice. Bureacrats are not good at designing overbearing tax systems that retain innovation. We're more likely to stop needing good resource allocation (e.g. somehow we crack cold fusion) before bureacrats get good at not starving their populations to death from bad central policies.