5 ms·

> freed of its shackles and allowed to appreciate again. Some of this would be immediate, as thousands of dollars in taxes shift away from land and back onto la

> freed of its shackles and allowed to appreciate again. Some of this would be immediate, as thousands of dollars in taxes shift away from land and back onto labour, enterprise, and commerce Oh not again with the trickle-down story. It doesn't work, it never worked. The only way that money trickles is in the pockets of the landowners, from there it will be used to lobby politicians or stored in some fiscal haven. On the other hand, as long as that money is taxed it can be used by the state for the people. Build infrastructure, improve education, healthcare, etc. That's how you get money to "trickle down". That is, of course, if the state isn't to o busy making arms manufacturers rich.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> That's how you get money to "trickle down". That is, of course, if the state isn't to o busy making arms manufacturers rich. If you won't trust in the state parentally taking from some and giving to others, nor trust in people making transactions between each other on what they find valuable, what do you want? Is there a third option?
- ossobuco 2y ago
  I don't see any other option. We should remember that we are the state, in theory. It's the whole point of a state. If that isn't the case anymore, we should fix it. The main problem is that nowadays states operate on the basis of the same false trickle-down fable. They don't build stuff, they pay corporations to do it for them and expect that money to somehow flow down to the people. We can clearly see that doesn't happen as inequality keeps growing.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    We aren't the state, though. The state is the governing body and its surrounding entities, funded through taxes, that controls the justice system and the military. I don't think it's a good idea to conflate "the state" and "the country" or "society". The state is the most powerful entity in the country, but it's not the only one. And I've probably said this elsewhere, but inequality is not important. We keep hearing about it every day, so it sounds important, but it's not. Unless it's being done deliberately to keep people down, e.g. in a feudal or 20th century socialism country, but even then the fundamental problem is authoritarianism, not inequality. Inequality is a symptom, and not always of something bad. I don't care that Tesla owners in the early 2010s had Roadsters and I didn't. Roadsters paved the way for Model Ss, which paved the way for Model 3s, which - if the Cybertruck hadn't got in the way - paved the way for Model 2s. I don't care that at some point in history only rich people had (terrible) glasses. Basically everyone (outside of impoverished countries whose government officials absorb the cash from overseas to help) now has access to high quality lenses - far better than those the rich people of the past could access. Temporary inequality leads to - over time - an uplift of the fundamental things for everyone. That's the only thing that matters - the baseline now vs what it used to be. Not the difference between baseline and the rich. The rich will spend on a thousand trivial things that won't matter, but also on things that will eventually be accessible to everyone.
    - ossobuco 2y ago
      > We aren't the state "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That's literally in the constitution and not just that of the USA. > I don't care that Rich people do care, they want the best healthcare the world can provide, the best education for their children, and want it now, not in 50 years when the "rising tide lifts all boats". Do you consider yourself inferior to them? Then why wouldn't you care? > Temporary inequality leads to - over time - an uplift of the fundamental things for everyone "A rising tide lifts all boats", "Trickle down" these are all aphorisms invented by rich people in order to justify their hoarding while there are people who can't afford a roof over their heads. To keep the outcasts calm, waiting for their turn to enjoy a small fraction of what others enjoy entirely now.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        > > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." > That's literally in the constitution and not just that of the USA. I don't see how this is relevant to whether the state is synonymous with the population of a country. > Do you consider yourself inferior to them? Then why wouldn't you care? I don't consider "inferior" to be "I don't have a Porsche and they do". Or even "I can't force taxpayers to pay for a $10m operation and followup treatment and someone else can afford it out of the value they've created", which I think is what you're thinking I should say. Is that what you're saying? Happy to discuss, but you seem to be talking in emotive language rather than speaking plainly, and I'm just trying to get at the a plain description of what you mean.
        IX-103 2y ago
        In a functional democracy, the state is working in the best interest of the people. And your assertion that GP is arguing that the state is "synonymous with the population" is a straw man, as they didn't say that. Let's look at the phrase "value they've created" that you used. That's a bit of an idealistic way of thinking. After all those with money and power in society have historically used that money and power to get more money and power. Does a king sitting on a throne produce more "value" than the farmers that feed his cities? Does the hedge fund manager choosing stocks to buy and companies to liquidate produce more value than doctors who save people's lives?
- fisf 2y ago
  Especially since there is no new value generated that could trickle down. Such "rent seeking" is only redistribution towards lend owners.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  > If you won't trust in the state parentally taking from some and giving to others That's not how it works. The state is tasked with keeping the public good - such as basic infrastructure. "Parentally (...) giving to others" imply that the government taxes your money to do welfare only (and you implied it in a derogatory manner for that matter, which shows your inclinations). Welfare is important, but not the only function of a government. > nor trust in people making transactions between each other on what they find valuable Those should absolutely be regulated and taxed. "people making transactions between each other on what they find valuable" are looking only for their private benefit, society be damned.
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    >>"people making transactions between each other on what they find valuable" are looking only for their private benefit, society be damned. We absolutely should not be restricting any mutually voluntary interaction, regardless of the motivations of those party to that interaction. Note that "mutually voluntary" means no other party having their rights violated by that interaction, which would preclude actions like polluting
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > Note that "mutually voluntary" means no other party having their rights violated by that interaction, which would preclude actions like polluting I don't think this is a rights issue, because it's too difficult to understand. Even simple transactions require contracts, and imagine all the (changing) regulations on what is or isn't deemed acceptable, and how that could be misused. Does noise pollution count? How much CO2 can I breath out before I'm violating your rights? Rights have to be simple; the stuff that will change needs to be laws.
      - ETH_start 2y ago
        In principle, noise and CO2 emission could be restricted, but of course the justifiability of the specific noise/CO2 emission restriction depends on the details. In principle, interactions that any reasonable person agrees are mutually voluntary, should absolutely not be restricted. This is a human rights issue. The devastating COVID lockdowns show what happens when we accept the notion that human rights can be infringed for the "greater good". That justification is what the PRC in China uses for all of its heavy handed intrusions in personal liberties, from limits on free speech to religious and ideological control. The only morally consistent argument against the authoritarianism, that is more substantive than "what that state does is wrong, because we don't do it", is one based on the principle that mutually voluntary interactions shouldn't be restricted.
- CuriouslyC 2y ago
  It's not about taking versus not taking. The rules of the game that we've put in place favor the haves. The end state of that is a return to fiefs and serfs, if we don't see a revolution first. We need to create new rules to the game that give the advantage to the small. That lets us keep a "free market" without the homogenization and consolidation. For example, consider progressive taxes based on business size/revenue/etc. If there was a 90% top level corporate tax rate based on company size/revenue, we'd reverse the trend towards mergers and consolidations literally overnight. If most government regulations were relaxed for small businesses (say <= 20 employees) it would provide a massive boost to entrepreneurship. Instead we have rules that favor the big guys.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    It would boost entrepreneurship, but would mean any business that requires 1000 people to function at all may never be built. I don't think it's worth only listing the pros of a change.
    - CuriouslyC 2y ago
      Can you provide an example of something that couldn't be built by a cooperative formed by a number of smaller companies, each trying to solve a part of the problem in an economically viable way?
      - IX-103 2y ago
        I don't think there is anything that can't be built. It's me a matter of the increased expense and inefficiency making things too expensive to be practical.
        ossobuco 2y ago
        Lots of products society would benefit from are cut already with the current status quo as they wouldn't bring enough profits or VC style growth.
      - 2y ago
Snild 2y ago
I read that part not as "trickle-down", but as "the tax would have to be collected from other sources".
CuriouslyC 2y ago
The end state for trickle down economics is serfs and fiefdoms. We're seeing it now.
kaashif 2y ago
I think you must have misread the comment. The comment is very clearly anti-landowner and saying if an LVT were repealed, labour and enterprise would be taxed instead, which is bad. Nothing to do with trickle down.
- red_admiral 2y ago
  Indeed, tax is the single most effective measure so far we've found to trickle money out of the rich, and sometimes to the benefit of the poor.

robertlagrant 2y ago

> That's how you get money to "trickle down". That is, of course, if the state isn't to o busy making arms manufacturers rich. If you won't trust in the state parentally taking from some and giving to others, nor trust in people making transactions between each other on what they find valuable, what do you want? Is there a third option?

ossobuco 2y ago
I don't see any other option. We should remember that we are the state, in theory. It's the whole point of a state. If that isn't the case anymore, we should fix it. The main problem is that nowadays states operate on the basis of the same false trickle-down fable. They don't build stuff, they pay corporations to do it for them and expect that money to somehow flow down to the people. We can clearly see that doesn't happen as inequality keeps growing.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  We aren't the state, though. The state is the governing body and its surrounding entities, funded through taxes, that controls the justice system and the military. I don't think it's a good idea to conflate "the state" and "the country" or "society". The state is the most powerful entity in the country, but it's not the only one. And I've probably said this elsewhere, but inequality is not important. We keep hearing about it every day, so it sounds important, but it's not. Unless it's being done deliberately to keep people down, e.g. in a feudal or 20th century socialism country, but even then the fundamental problem is authoritarianism, not inequality. Inequality is a symptom, and not always of something bad. I don't care that Tesla owners in the early 2010s had Roadsters and I didn't. Roadsters paved the way for Model Ss, which paved the way for Model 3s, which - if the Cybertruck hadn't got in the way - paved the way for Model 2s. I don't care that at some point in history only rich people had (terrible) glasses. Basically everyone (outside of impoverished countries whose government officials absorb the cash from overseas to help) now has access to high quality lenses - far better than those the rich people of the past could access. Temporary inequality leads to - over time - an uplift of the fundamental things for everyone. That's the only thing that matters - the baseline now vs what it used to be. Not the difference between baseline and the rich. The rich will spend on a thousand trivial things that won't matter, but also on things that will eventually be accessible to everyone.
  - ossobuco 2y ago
    > We aren't the state "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That's literally in the constitution and not just that of the USA. > I don't care that Rich people do care, they want the best healthcare the world can provide, the best education for their children, and want it now, not in 50 years when the "rising tide lifts all boats". Do you consider yourself inferior to them? Then why wouldn't you care? > Temporary inequality leads to - over time - an uplift of the fundamental things for everyone "A rising tide lifts all boats", "Trickle down" these are all aphorisms invented by rich people in order to justify their hoarding while there are people who can't afford a roof over their heads. To keep the outcasts calm, waiting for their turn to enjoy a small fraction of what others enjoy entirely now.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." > That's literally in the constitution and not just that of the USA. I don't see how this is relevant to whether the state is synonymous with the population of a country. > Do you consider yourself inferior to them? Then why wouldn't you care? I don't consider "inferior" to be "I don't have a Porsche and they do". Or even "I can't force taxpayers to pay for a $10m operation and followup treatment and someone else can afford it out of the value they've created", which I think is what you're thinking I should say. Is that what you're saying? Happy to discuss, but you seem to be talking in emotive language rather than speaking plainly, and I'm just trying to get at the a plain description of what you mean.
      - IX-103 2y ago
        In a functional democracy, the state is working in the best interest of the people. And your assertion that GP is arguing that the state is "synonymous with the population" is a straw man, as they didn't say that. Let's look at the phrase "value they've created" that you used. That's a bit of an idealistic way of thinking. After all those with money and power in society have historically used that money and power to get more money and power. Does a king sitting on a throne produce more "value" than the farmers that feed his cities? Does the hedge fund manager choosing stocks to buy and companies to liquidate produce more value than doctors who save people's lives?
fisf 2y ago
Especially since there is no new value generated that could trickle down. Such "rent seeking" is only redistribution towards lend owners.
surgical_fire 2y ago
> If you won't trust in the state parentally taking from some and giving to others That's not how it works. The state is tasked with keeping the public good - such as basic infrastructure. "Parentally (...) giving to others" imply that the government taxes your money to do welfare only (and you implied it in a derogatory manner for that matter, which shows your inclinations). Welfare is important, but not the only function of a government. > nor trust in people making transactions between each other on what they find valuable Those should absolutely be regulated and taxed. "people making transactions between each other on what they find valuable" are looking only for their private benefit, society be damned.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  >>"people making transactions between each other on what they find valuable" are looking only for their private benefit, society be damned. We absolutely should not be restricting any mutually voluntary interaction, regardless of the motivations of those party to that interaction. Note that "mutually voluntary" means no other party having their rights violated by that interaction, which would preclude actions like polluting
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > Note that "mutually voluntary" means no other party having their rights violated by that interaction, which would preclude actions like polluting I don't think this is a rights issue, because it's too difficult to understand. Even simple transactions require contracts, and imagine all the (changing) regulations on what is or isn't deemed acceptable, and how that could be misused. Does noise pollution count? How much CO2 can I breath out before I'm violating your rights? Rights have to be simple; the stuff that will change needs to be laws.
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      In principle, noise and CO2 emission could be restricted, but of course the justifiability of the specific noise/CO2 emission restriction depends on the details. In principle, interactions that any reasonable person agrees are mutually voluntary, should absolutely not be restricted. This is a human rights issue. The devastating COVID lockdowns show what happens when we accept the notion that human rights can be infringed for the "greater good". That justification is what the PRC in China uses for all of its heavy handed intrusions in personal liberties, from limits on free speech to religious and ideological control. The only morally consistent argument against the authoritarianism, that is more substantive than "what that state does is wrong, because we don't do it", is one based on the principle that mutually voluntary interactions shouldn't be restricted.
CuriouslyC 2y ago
It's not about taking versus not taking. The rules of the game that we've put in place favor the haves. The end state of that is a return to fiefs and serfs, if we don't see a revolution first. We need to create new rules to the game that give the advantage to the small. That lets us keep a "free market" without the homogenization and consolidation. For example, consider progressive taxes based on business size/revenue/etc. If there was a 90% top level corporate tax rate based on company size/revenue, we'd reverse the trend towards mergers and consolidations literally overnight. If most government regulations were relaxed for small businesses (say <= 20 employees) it would provide a massive boost to entrepreneurship. Instead we have rules that favor the big guys.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  It would boost entrepreneurship, but would mean any business that requires 1000 people to function at all may never be built. I don't think it's worth only listing the pros of a change.
  - CuriouslyC 2y ago
    Can you provide an example of something that couldn't be built by a cooperative formed by a number of smaller companies, each trying to solve a part of the problem in an economically viable way?
    - IX-103 2y ago
      I don't think there is anything that can't be built. It's me a matter of the increased expense and inefficiency making things too expensive to be practical.
      - ossobuco 2y ago
        Lots of products society would benefit from are cut already with the current status quo as they wouldn't bring enough profits or VC style growth.
    - 2y ago

Snild 2y ago

I read that part not as "trickle-down", but as "the tax would have to be collected from other sources".

CuriouslyC 2y ago

The end state for trickle down economics is serfs and fiefdoms. We're seeing it now.

kaashif 2y ago

I think you must have misread the comment. The comment is very clearly anti-landowner and saying if an LVT were repealed, labour and enterprise would be taxed instead, which is bad. Nothing to do with trickle down.

red_admiral 2y ago
Indeed, tax is the single most effective measure so far we've found to trickle money out of the rich, and sometimes to the benefit of the poor.