5 ms·

Probably. Or at least that turned out to not matter so much. The alternative, keeping both control of resources and direct power in the state, seems to keep cau

Probably. Or at least that turned out to not matter so much. The alternative, keeping both control of resources and direct power in the state, seems to keep causing millions of deaths. Separating them into markets for resources and power for a more limited state seems to work much better. This idea also ignores innovation. New rich people come along and some rich people get poor. That might indicate that money isn't a great proxy for power.

danans 3y ago
> New rich people come along and some rich people get poor. Absent massive redistribution that is usually a result of major political change (i.e. the New Deal), rich people tend to stay rich during their lifetimes and frequently their families remain so for generations after. > That might indicate that money isn't a great proxy for power. Due to the diminishing marginal utility of wealth for day to day existence, it's only value to an extremely wealthy person after endowing their heirs is power.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Absent massive redistribution that is usually a result of major political change (i.e. the New Deal), rich people tend to stay rich during their lifetimes and frequently their families remain so for generations after. The rule of thumb is it lasts up to three generations, and only for very very few people. They are also, for everything they buy, and everyone they employ, paying tax. Redistribution isn't the goal; having funded services with extra to help people who can't is the goal. It's not a moral crusade. > Due to the diminishing marginal utility of wealth for day to day existence, it's only value to an extremely wealthy person after endowing their heirs is power. I think this is a non sequitur.
  - depr 3y ago
    What is your rule of thumb based on? In, for example, the Netherlands the richest people pay less tax [0]. Do you think this is not the case in many other countries? > They are also, for [..] they employ, paying tax Is that a benefit of having rich people? If companies were employee-owned that tax would still be paid. [0]: https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-expat-news/wealthiest-people-netherlands-arent-ones-paying-most-tax https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-expat-news/wealthie...
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > What is your rule of thumb based on? E.g. [0] > In, for example, the Netherlands the richest people pay less tax [0]. Do you think this is not the case in many other countries? That's a non sequitur from the previous point. However, on the "who pays taxes?" point, that article is careful to only talk about income tax in absolute terms, and indirect taxes in relative terms. It doesn't appear to be trying to make an objective analysis. > Is that a benefit of having rich people? I don't share the assumption that people should only exist if they're a benefit. > If companies were employee-owned that tax would still be paid. Some companies are employee-owned, but you have to think how that works for every type of business. Assuming that it's easy to make a business, and the hard bit is the ownership structure is a mistake. [0] https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/08/01/why-so-many-wealthy-families-lose-it-all-in-3-generations-and-how-to-stop-it https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/08/01/why-so-many-wealthy-...
      - depr 3y ago
        >I don't share the assumption that people should only exist if they're a benefit. Well it's not a matter of the people existing, it's whether they are rich or not. They can exist without the money. Anyway, if you don't think it matters if they are of benefit, then why did you bring up the fact that they pay taxes?
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Well it's not a matter of the people existing, it's whether they are rich or not. They can exist without the money. I meant people with a certain amount of money. I don't think we should be assessing pros or cons of economic systems based on whether people get to keep their money. > Anyway, if you don't think it matters if they are of benefit I don't know what this means. > then why did you bring up the fact that they pay taxes? I bring it up because saying they pay less in income taxes doesn't matter if they're spending money on stuff that employs people (which creates lots of tax) and gets VAT added to it. Everything is constantly taxed, at many levels, all the time. Pretending we don't live in a society where not much tax is paid seems ludicrous. Lots of tax is paid. If it's paid as VAT instead of income tax - who cares?
  - danans 3y ago
    >> Due to the diminishing marginal utility of wealth for day to day existence, it's only value to an extremely wealthy person after endowing their heirs is power. > I think this is a non sequitur. I mean after someone can afford all the needs, wants, and luxuries of life, the utility of any money they spend is primarily power.
aylmao 3y ago
> New rich people come along and some rich people get poor This is an overly simplistic look, and disregards a lot of history where, unsurprisingly, the reason there was wealth redistribution wasn't "innovation" but government policy
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > This is an overly simplistic look, and disregards a lot of history where, unsurprisingly, the reason there was wealth redistribution wasn't "innovation" but government policy The point is that wealth and power aren't interchangeable. You're right that government bureaucrats have actual power, including that to take people's stuff. But you've not realised that that actual power means the rich people don't have power. There were rich people in the USSR that were killed. They had no power; the killers had the power in that situation.
  - whelp_24 3y ago
    Wealth is control of resources, which is power. The way to change power is through force that's why you need swords to remove kings and to remove stacks of gold, see assinations, war, the U.S..
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      You need swords to remove kings because they combined power and economy. All potential tyrannies do so: monarchy, socialism, fascism, etc. That's why separating power into the state and economy into the market gets good results.
      - whelp_24 3y ago
        The separation is impossible, if you don't control the resources, you don't control the country. >separating power into the state and economy into the market gets good results. How do you think this would be done? How do you remove power from money? Money is literally the ability to convert numbers into labor, land, food,

danans 3y ago

> New rich people come along and some rich people get poor. Absent massive redistribution that is usually a result of major political change (i.e. the New Deal), rich people tend to stay rich during their lifetimes and frequently their families remain so for generations after. > That might indicate that money isn't a great proxy for power. Due to the diminishing marginal utility of wealth for day to day existence, it's only value to an extremely wealthy person after endowing their heirs is power.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> Absent massive redistribution that is usually a result of major political change (i.e. the New Deal), rich people tend to stay rich during their lifetimes and frequently their families remain so for generations after. The rule of thumb is it lasts up to three generations, and only for very very few people. They are also, for everything they buy, and everyone they employ, paying tax. Redistribution isn't the goal; having funded services with extra to help people who can't is the goal. It's not a moral crusade. > Due to the diminishing marginal utility of wealth for day to day existence, it's only value to an extremely wealthy person after endowing their heirs is power. I think this is a non sequitur.
- depr 3y ago
  What is your rule of thumb based on? In, for example, the Netherlands the richest people pay less tax [0]. Do you think this is not the case in many other countries? > They are also, for [..] they employ, paying tax Is that a benefit of having rich people? If companies were employee-owned that tax would still be paid. [0]: https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-expat-news/wealthiest-people-netherlands-arent-ones-paying-most-tax https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-expat-news/wealthie...
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > What is your rule of thumb based on? E.g. [0] > In, for example, the Netherlands the richest people pay less tax [0]. Do you think this is not the case in many other countries? That's a non sequitur from the previous point. However, on the "who pays taxes?" point, that article is careful to only talk about income tax in absolute terms, and indirect taxes in relative terms. It doesn't appear to be trying to make an objective analysis. > Is that a benefit of having rich people? I don't share the assumption that people should only exist if they're a benefit. > If companies were employee-owned that tax would still be paid. Some companies are employee-owned, but you have to think how that works for every type of business. Assuming that it's easy to make a business, and the hard bit is the ownership structure is a mistake. [0] https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/08/01/why-so-many-wealthy-families-lose-it-all-in-3-generations-and-how-to-stop-it https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/08/01/why-so-many-wealthy-...
    - depr 3y ago
      >I don't share the assumption that people should only exist if they're a benefit. Well it's not a matter of the people existing, it's whether they are rich or not. They can exist without the money. Anyway, if you don't think it matters if they are of benefit, then why did you bring up the fact that they pay taxes?
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Well it's not a matter of the people existing, it's whether they are rich or not. They can exist without the money. I meant people with a certain amount of money. I don't think we should be assessing pros or cons of economic systems based on whether people get to keep their money. > Anyway, if you don't think it matters if they are of benefit I don't know what this means. > then why did you bring up the fact that they pay taxes? I bring it up because saying they pay less in income taxes doesn't matter if they're spending money on stuff that employs people (which creates lots of tax) and gets VAT added to it. Everything is constantly taxed, at many levels, all the time. Pretending we don't live in a society where not much tax is paid seems ludicrous. Lots of tax is paid. If it's paid as VAT instead of income tax - who cares?
- danans 3y ago
  >> Due to the diminishing marginal utility of wealth for day to day existence, it's only value to an extremely wealthy person after endowing their heirs is power. > I think this is a non sequitur. I mean after someone can afford all the needs, wants, and luxuries of life, the utility of any money they spend is primarily power.

aylmao 3y ago

> New rich people come along and some rich people get poor This is an overly simplistic look, and disregards a lot of history where, unsurprisingly, the reason there was wealth redistribution wasn't "innovation" but government policy

robertlagrant 3y ago
> This is an overly simplistic look, and disregards a lot of history where, unsurprisingly, the reason there was wealth redistribution wasn't "innovation" but government policy The point is that wealth and power aren't interchangeable. You're right that government bureaucrats have actual power, including that to take people's stuff. But you've not realised that that actual power means the rich people don't have power. There were rich people in the USSR that were killed. They had no power; the killers had the power in that situation.
- whelp_24 3y ago
  Wealth is control of resources, which is power. The way to change power is through force that's why you need swords to remove kings and to remove stacks of gold, see assinations, war, the U.S..
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    You need swords to remove kings because they combined power and economy. All potential tyrannies do so: monarchy, socialism, fascism, etc. That's why separating power into the state and economy into the market gets good results.
    - whelp_24 3y ago
      The separation is impossible, if you don't control the resources, you don't control the country. >separating power into the state and economy into the market gets good results. How do you think this would be done? How do you remove power from money? Money is literally the ability to convert numbers into labor, land, food,