5 ms·

Pay your employees more, or be taxed near 100% on the excess gains?

poncho_romero 3y ago
Exactly. Tax the profits, thereby encouraging the company to invest internally in higher salaries, R&D, new equipment, etc.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  How does that encourage more R&D and higher salaries? Or rather can you show an example of a country with high corporate taxes and higher relative wages and R&D spending? I’m not aware of one.
ch4s3 3y ago
But why? If someone is creating millions of dollars worth of goods or services what moral justification is there for it to be confiscated, particularly at your arbitrary level?
- naasking 3y ago
  > If someone is creating millions of dollars worth of goods or services what moral justification is there for it to be confiscated, particularly at your arbitrary level? I think there are good "system stability" arguments to set limits. Roughly, states are dynamic multivariate systems whose objective function should ideally track citizen well being and state security, and taxes are one of the feedback loops that prevent individual actors from dominating or otherwise destabilizing the system. The mistake is thinking that the fictions we created to establish this system are fundamental moral imperatives in and of themselves.
- ydlr 3y ago
  The goal wouldn't be confiscation. It would be to incentivize behavior to avoid confiscation. Charge less rent to mine minerals. Spread equity in business more broadly.
  - ahepp 3y ago
    Setting aside whether wealth should be capped, wouldn’t doing it in this manner cause massive price mis-signalling?
- AgentOrange1234 3y ago
  Hrmn. I might ask the same question in reverse. What moral justification is there for them to hoard absurd sums of money, particularly when we have folks without homes and kids in poverty?
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Explain how to reconcile these two things: “ if some minerals are discovered on your heretofore low value land” And “ creating millions of dollars worth of goods or services” Where was the act of creation that led to the increase of the value? How did the land to acquire become yours? Most likely you didn’t discover the land, or do anything to find the materials (hiring people to do labor) so there’s no reason to think you should receive anything
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    It incentivizes people to find minerals that are valuable to the public. You can construct a hypothetical where someone gets lucky, and you can construct one where someone has reason to suspect the minerals are there and invests in the land.
    - mathgeek 3y ago
      > You can construct a hypothetical where someone gets lucky, and you can construct one where someone has reason to suspect the minerals are there and invests in the land. You don't even need to construct the scenario where someone with enough capital just buys up as much as possible, knowing they will get lucky with some subset of their property. That's both a modern problem and the plot of Blazing Saddles (yes, I'm choosing that example to focus on how widespread of an issue this has been for centuries).
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      That doesn’t answer any of my questions though on how the assignment of creation happens
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Fair enough: > Where was the act of creation that led to the increase of the value? I'm not sure what you mean. Finding and extracting the asset adds a valuable, productive good to the economy (ignoring the enormous downside). Are you debating the word choice, "creating"? I guess I don't see that discussion as valuable. Are you using the word choice to make a point? Make it! > How did the land to acquire become yours? You know how; again, please make your point? > Most likely you didn’t discover the land, or do anything to find the materials (hiring people to do labor) so there’s no reason to think you should receive anything Is all of this an argument for communism - the only ones who do anything valuable are the workers? I think that's as self-serving and narrow-minded as the ultra-capitalists who think only they matter. Providing and allocating capital is essential and a valuable skill; if it's easy for you, I'm sure you have plenty of it by now.
- mynjin 3y ago
  Because, someone doesn't just create millions of dollars of value, teams of people do. And in the current system someone does get to choose where to cut the "sandwich" and they get to choose which side they take. And with negligible repercussion, they choose the largest portion. It's basically incentive to steal. It's basically taking credit for someone else's work. But it's taking their share of wealth.

Exactly. Tax the profits, thereby encouraging the company to invest internally in higher salaries, R&D, new equipment, etc.

ch4s3 3y ago
How does that encourage more R&D and higher salaries? Or rather can you show an example of a country with high corporate taxes and higher relative wages and R&D spending? I’m not aware of one.

ch4s3 3y ago

But why? If someone is creating millions of dollars worth of goods or services what moral justification is there for it to be confiscated, particularly at your arbitrary level?

naasking 3y ago
> If someone is creating millions of dollars worth of goods or services what moral justification is there for it to be confiscated, particularly at your arbitrary level? I think there are good "system stability" arguments to set limits. Roughly, states are dynamic multivariate systems whose objective function should ideally track citizen well being and state security, and taxes are one of the feedback loops that prevent individual actors from dominating or otherwise destabilizing the system. The mistake is thinking that the fictions we created to establish this system are fundamental moral imperatives in and of themselves.
ydlr 3y ago
The goal wouldn't be confiscation. It would be to incentivize behavior to avoid confiscation. Charge less rent to mine minerals. Spread equity in business more broadly.
- ahepp 3y ago
  Setting aside whether wealth should be capped, wouldn’t doing it in this manner cause massive price mis-signalling?
AgentOrange1234 3y ago
Hrmn. I might ask the same question in reverse. What moral justification is there for them to hoard absurd sums of money, particularly when we have folks without homes and kids in poverty?
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Explain how to reconcile these two things: “ if some minerals are discovered on your heretofore low value land” And “ creating millions of dollars worth of goods or services” Where was the act of creation that led to the increase of the value? How did the land to acquire become yours? Most likely you didn’t discover the land, or do anything to find the materials (hiring people to do labor) so there’s no reason to think you should receive anything
- wolverine876 3y ago
  It incentivizes people to find minerals that are valuable to the public. You can construct a hypothetical where someone gets lucky, and you can construct one where someone has reason to suspect the minerals are there and invests in the land.
  - mathgeek 3y ago
    > You can construct a hypothetical where someone gets lucky, and you can construct one where someone has reason to suspect the minerals are there and invests in the land. You don't even need to construct the scenario where someone with enough capital just buys up as much as possible, knowing they will get lucky with some subset of their property. That's both a modern problem and the plot of Blazing Saddles (yes, I'm choosing that example to focus on how widespread of an issue this has been for centuries).
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    That doesn’t answer any of my questions though on how the assignment of creation happens
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Fair enough: > Where was the act of creation that led to the increase of the value? I'm not sure what you mean. Finding and extracting the asset adds a valuable, productive good to the economy (ignoring the enormous downside). Are you debating the word choice, "creating"? I guess I don't see that discussion as valuable. Are you using the word choice to make a point? Make it! > How did the land to acquire become yours? You know how; again, please make your point? > Most likely you didn’t discover the land, or do anything to find the materials (hiring people to do labor) so there’s no reason to think you should receive anything Is all of this an argument for communism - the only ones who do anything valuable are the workers? I think that's as self-serving and narrow-minded as the ultra-capitalists who think only they matter. Providing and allocating capital is essential and a valuable skill; if it's easy for you, I'm sure you have plenty of it by now.
mynjin 3y ago
Because, someone doesn't just create millions of dollars of value, teams of people do. And in the current system someone does get to choose where to cut the "sandwich" and they get to choose which side they take. And with negligible repercussion, they choose the largest portion. It's basically incentive to steal. It's basically taking credit for someone else's work. But it's taking their share of wealth.