3 ms·

> In an ideal world "employment taxes" wouldn't exist at all (after all, don't taxes discourage the thing being taxed?) In an ideal world employment wouldn't e

> In an ideal world "employment taxes" wouldn't exist at all (after all, don't taxes discourage the thing being taxed?) In an ideal world employment wouldn't exist, so employment taxes are moot anyway. In this less than ideal world, though, discouragement is the point. Generally speaking, the energy would be better utilized elsewhere. Employment is not the ideal state. The tax works[1] to see that energy only be redirected to employment where the usage of it is so compelling that it is still worth doing over and above the tax burden. [1] Or at least tries to. In our less than ideal world implementations often fail.

gottorf 2y ago
> Generally speaking, the energy would be better utilized elsewhere. Employment is not the ideal state. The tax works[1] to see that energy only be redirected to employment where the usage of it is so compelling that it is still worth doing over and above the tax burden. I agree with your analysis of the situation here, but I'm curious why you think that the energy would be better utilized elsewhere. I get that in the "fully automated luxury gay space communism" scenario nobody would have to work (as you alluded to), but in the meantime, is it not a social good to encourage people to produce value for others and be compensated in exchange? Whether that takes the form of traditional employment or something else, it seems that a world in which value and wealth are created through labor and therefore human lives improved is the better one. In other words, what is the "elsewhere" that you envision?
- randomdata 2y ago
  Preferably in our less than ideal world the energy would be poured into capital creation. Capital is what makes life better for all. A hypothetical society that prioritizes working to produce value to exchange with others would still be toiling in the fields to produce value (food) to trade with each other. A society that instead prioritizes capital creation will be incentivized to invent the tractor that can lift most people from that labour, allowing the people to go on to do bigger and better things. The latter is generally considered to be much more ideal. Of course, that's not exactly realistic. Maybe some day in the distant future we'll unlock a world where everyone can focus on capital creation, but in this less than ideal world in its current less than ideal state labour is still a practical necessity. But it is not preferable. We'd rather have the people creating capital. So, there is a balance to strike. While we obviously can't ban labour, we can attempt to limit its existence to only where it is most beneficial. It behooves us to try and disincentivize having workers doing "useless" work. If workers are going to toil in the fields, so to speak, it had better be worth it. I will point out that minimum wage is another prong that tries to attack the same problem. It does outright ban employment if a certain amount of benefit to society is not being met, forcing workers to either find more beneficial work that can overcome the imposed restrictions or to go back to creating capital. Now, I already hear you thinking: "But sometimes employees are directly involved in capital creation!" Right you are. In fact, I expect that describes most of the employed people here. We could chalk that up to unintended consequences. A law intended for "burger flippers" ended up being applied to engineers by virtue of us not doing a very good job of seeing different types of employment as being different with respect to labour rules and taxes. But I posit that there is something else to consider: A society that sees the capital creators have ownership over the capital they create is more ideal than a society that only compensates them for their work contribution. Much like before, it behooves us to disincentivize hiring workers when the people could be accepted as partners in the capital creation.

gottorf 2y ago

> Generally speaking, the energy would be better utilized elsewhere. Employment is not the ideal state. The tax works[1] to see that energy only be redirected to employment where the usage of it is so compelling that it is still worth doing over and above the tax burden. I agree with your analysis of the situation here, but I'm curious why you think that the energy would be better utilized elsewhere. I get that in the "fully automated luxury gay space communism" scenario nobody would have to work (as you alluded to), but in the meantime, is it not a social good to encourage people to produce value for others and be compensated in exchange? Whether that takes the form of traditional employment or something else, it seems that a world in which value and wealth are created through labor and therefore human lives improved is the better one. In other words, what is the "elsewhere" that you envision?

randomdata 2y ago
Preferably in our less than ideal world the energy would be poured into capital creation. Capital is what makes life better for all. A hypothetical society that prioritizes working to produce value to exchange with others would still be toiling in the fields to produce value (food) to trade with each other. A society that instead prioritizes capital creation will be incentivized to invent the tractor that can lift most people from that labour, allowing the people to go on to do bigger and better things. The latter is generally considered to be much more ideal. Of course, that's not exactly realistic. Maybe some day in the distant future we'll unlock a world where everyone can focus on capital creation, but in this less than ideal world in its current less than ideal state labour is still a practical necessity. But it is not preferable. We'd rather have the people creating capital. So, there is a balance to strike. While we obviously can't ban labour, we can attempt to limit its existence to only where it is most beneficial. It behooves us to try and disincentivize having workers doing "useless" work. If workers are going to toil in the fields, so to speak, it had better be worth it. I will point out that minimum wage is another prong that tries to attack the same problem. It does outright ban employment if a certain amount of benefit to society is not being met, forcing workers to either find more beneficial work that can overcome the imposed restrictions or to go back to creating capital. Now, I already hear you thinking: "But sometimes employees are directly involved in capital creation!" Right you are. In fact, I expect that describes most of the employed people here. We could chalk that up to unintended consequences. A law intended for "burger flippers" ended up being applied to engineers by virtue of us not doing a very good job of seeing different types of employment as being different with respect to labour rules and taxes. But I posit that there is something else to consider: A society that sees the capital creators have ownership over the capital they create is more ideal than a society that only compensates them for their work contribution. Much like before, it behooves us to disincentivize hiring workers when the people could be accepted as partners in the capital creation.