3 ms·

damn, if only it were possible to pass laws that make rewarding individuals increasingly unattractive as the individual rewards increased. some sort of progress

by Kapura 1y ago

damn, if only it were possible to pass laws that make rewarding individuals increasingly unattractive as the individual rewards increased. some sort of progressive taxation scheme, perhaps. if only such a thing could exist!

m00x 1y ago
You can't reap the rewards from a highly free market country while also interfering with the free market. There are countries where that gap is lower where you can move to if you really care about this. Most of Europe is a lot more equal, but you'll take a significant pay cut.
- hollywood_court 1y ago
  We do plenty of interfering with the free market. We just don't do it in ways that benefit the workers.
- greedo 1y ago
  There's no such thing as a free market.
- standardUser 1y ago
  Binary thinking like that is a rhetorical trick, and a lazy one, that ignores both the diversity of existing market-oriented nations and the reality that these systems are not static. Not to mention that the American system is one of constant, frequent, and oftentimes contradictory forms of market interference, even if the manner of interference differs a bit from Western norms.
- tartoran 1y ago
  > You can't reap the rewards from a highly free market country while also interfering with the free market. Look deeper into who's reaping all the benefits and who's interefering with the market.
- mattmanser 1y ago
  Those rewards are failing, so yes you can. Your argument is just trickle down economics dressed up. But worse, we know that doesn't work. Not, we think. WE KNOW IT DOESN'T WORK. In fact, once you realize it's just the same tired trickle down economics argument, then when you start asking why is growth stalling, why are living standards falling? You can easily answer it. Because trickle down economics don't work. Because too much value is being captured by a tiny minority, who use that capital poorly.
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  Have you studied free markets? They ONLY work long term when you have a strong hand 'interfering' in them. By design, from their very first proponents, having a strong hand step in was expected/understood to be required to keep them working long term.
commandlinefan 1y ago
How would that even change anything? The CEO would still "make" 100x more than the individual employees, but the government would take as much as the individual CEO couldn't figure out tax loopholes to offshore and use it to study the mating habits of macaque monkeys. The most brutal tax regime you can imagine wouldn't change the substance of the article.
SideQuark 1y ago
US tax system is the most progressive in the OECD [1] US top tiny amount of incomes pay vastly more, even per dollar earned, than in any other first world country, where middle and lower class pay a much larger share. Around the bottom 50% of US taxpayers pay zero federal income tax, and after post tax transfers (aid, etc...) the lowest decent sized chunk get money back, i.e., negative federal income tax. Then, after already covering the vast majority of US tax burden, the really wealthy end up paying another large chunk in estate taxes (and no, there isn't magic sauce where they all hide all assets in foreign lands - you can simply go over public IRS data, or CBO data and see). Here's historical effective rates by quintile. Bottom two were 9.3% and 15.0%, top 27.1% in 1979, in 2019 they were 0.6%, 8.9%, 19.3% top 1% remains over 30%. https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-fe... How much more progressive is enough? https://www.cbpp.org/research/what-do-oecd-data-really-show-about-us-taxes-and-reducing-inequality https://www.cbpp.org/research/what-do-oecd-data-really-show-...
- thefz 1y ago
  > US tax system is the most progressive in the OECD [1] Except that being paid in shares is not really calculated as a pay and top levels borrow money from banks with shares as a collateral so basically they pay zero taxes on their income. Even kids know that.
  - SideQuark 1y ago
    I guess kids don't know how to read or the Internet then. Simply google "do ceos pay taxes on shares" and you'll see plenty of places making it clear they do. Part of my income at several places has been in shares, and they're always taxed. Borrowing against assets isn't taxed for anyone, as it's not income, whether it's a common homeowner getting a mortgage, a person spending on a credit card, or any other loan. Zero of this affects the facts I linked. And your claims are demonstrably wrong. Even kids know that.
robocat 1y ago
If you take away the incentive to work for an extra dollar, you break marginal incentives for high value workers. Too much progressive taxation is as unbalanced as CEO pay is. I am lucky enough to live in New Zealand and be taxed at 39% plus 15% sales tax. At some point I feel like the government is getting its pound of flesh. I just don't feel motivated to work hours to earn extra. The incentive of the government should be to encourage me to earn more since it would get its cut. Every other citizen misses out on 39 cents when I feel it is not worth trading my time for less than 61 cents on the dollar. Incentive systems matter. It isn't only about money - it is also about what feels fair. Everybody complains about the people earning more than them. If you're in the US you are excessively rich compared with most of the rest of the world. How about we tax everybody in the US at 50% and spread some of that wealth down to the workers in Vietnam or Bhopal? Strange how so many people whine about fairness but those same people don't wish to share their wealth fairly.

by Kapura 1y ago

m00x 1y ago

You can't reap the rewards from a highly free market country while also interfering with the free market. There are countries where that gap is lower where you can move to if you really care about this. Most of Europe is a lot more equal, but you'll take a significant pay cut.

hollywood_court 1y ago
We do plenty of interfering with the free market. We just don't do it in ways that benefit the workers.
greedo 1y ago
There's no such thing as a free market.
standardUser 1y ago
Binary thinking like that is a rhetorical trick, and a lazy one, that ignores both the diversity of existing market-oriented nations and the reality that these systems are not static. Not to mention that the American system is one of constant, frequent, and oftentimes contradictory forms of market interference, even if the manner of interference differs a bit from Western norms.
tartoran 1y ago
> You can't reap the rewards from a highly free market country while also interfering with the free market. Look deeper into who's reaping all the benefits and who's interefering with the market.
mattmanser 1y ago
Those rewards are failing, so yes you can. Your argument is just trickle down economics dressed up. But worse, we know that doesn't work. Not, we think. WE KNOW IT DOESN'T WORK. In fact, once you realize it's just the same tired trickle down economics argument, then when you start asking why is growth stalling, why are living standards falling? You can easily answer it. Because trickle down economics don't work. Because too much value is being captured by a tiny minority, who use that capital poorly.
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
Have you studied free markets? They ONLY work long term when you have a strong hand 'interfering' in them. By design, from their very first proponents, having a strong hand step in was expected/understood to be required to keep them working long term.

commandlinefan 1y ago

How would that even change anything? The CEO would still "make" 100x more than the individual employees, but the government would take as much as the individual CEO couldn't figure out tax loopholes to offshore and use it to study the mating habits of macaque monkeys. The most brutal tax regime you can imagine wouldn't change the substance of the article.

SideQuark 1y ago

US tax system is the most progressive in the OECD [1] US top tiny amount of incomes pay vastly more, even per dollar earned, than in any other first world country, where middle and lower class pay a much larger share. Around the bottom 50% of US taxpayers pay zero federal income tax, and after post tax transfers (aid, etc...) the lowest decent sized chunk get money back, i.e., negative federal income tax. Then, after already covering the vast majority of US tax burden, the really wealthy end up paying another large chunk in estate taxes (and no, there isn't magic sauce where they all hide all assets in foreign lands - you can simply go over public IRS data, or CBO data and see). Here's historical effective rates by quintile. Bottom two were 9.3% and 15.0%, top 27.1% in 1979, in 2019 they were 0.6%, 8.9%, 19.3% top 1% remains over 30%. https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-fe... How much more progressive is enough? https://www.cbpp.org/research/what-do-oecd-data-really-show-about-us-taxes-and-reducing-inequality https://www.cbpp.org/research/what-do-oecd-data-really-show-...

thefz 1y ago
> US tax system is the most progressive in the OECD [1] Except that being paid in shares is not really calculated as a pay and top levels borrow money from banks with shares as a collateral so basically they pay zero taxes on their income. Even kids know that.
- SideQuark 1y ago
  I guess kids don't know how to read or the Internet then. Simply google "do ceos pay taxes on shares" and you'll see plenty of places making it clear they do. Part of my income at several places has been in shares, and they're always taxed. Borrowing against assets isn't taxed for anyone, as it's not income, whether it's a common homeowner getting a mortgage, a person spending on a credit card, or any other loan. Zero of this affects the facts I linked. And your claims are demonstrably wrong. Even kids know that.

robocat 1y ago

If you take away the incentive to work for an extra dollar, you break marginal incentives for high value workers. Too much progressive taxation is as unbalanced as CEO pay is. I am lucky enough to live in New Zealand and be taxed at 39% plus 15% sales tax. At some point I feel like the government is getting its pound of flesh. I just don't feel motivated to work hours to earn extra. The incentive of the government should be to encourage me to earn more since it would get its cut. Every other citizen misses out on 39 cents when I feel it is not worth trading my time for less than 61 cents on the dollar. Incentive systems matter. It isn't only about money - it is also about what feels fair. Everybody complains about the people earning more than them. If you're in the US you are excessively rich compared with most of the rest of the world. How about we tax everybody in the US at 50% and spread some of that wealth down to the workers in Vietnam or Bhopal? Strange how so many people whine about fairness but those same people don't wish to share their wealth fairly.