3 ms·

The way this question is being asked, it's nothing but class warfare. It's one thing to say "we have some extraordinary needs, is it right that those with the

The way this question is being asked, it's nothing but class warfare. It's one thing to say "we have some extraordinary needs, is it right that those with the greatest means should contribute far more to satisfy those needs?" It's another thing altogether to simply ask "should we demand that those with lots of money give more of it up?" without accompanying that with any argument about the need. It seems as if the rich are to be punished simply for being rich. And the fact that I wish that I had more money gives me some moral right to extract some of that wish from those that have managed to achieve that wish on their own.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
I'm curious as to your reasoning here. You seem to be saying that the explanation of need somehow changes the answer someone would give. So if you robbed a bank because you needed the money, that would be different than if you robbed it because you hate bankers?
- CWuestefeld 18y ago
  No, sorry, that's not what I meant to suggest at all -- I'm far from a moral relativist! My point was that absent any further discussion, a "yes" answer to the question seems to imply that we should take more money from the rich simply because it's there. I imagine some Congresscritters saying "oh cool, we got another billionaire; let's see if we can find something else to spend this guy's money on". Contrast this with "we've got a war on our hands, and need to pay for our defenses somehow; if we absolutely must have that money, perhaps it should come from the rich". (note that I'm not supporting, or even referring to, any particular war here, this is a thought experiment) I personally do not believe that having a need makes it OK. But framing the question next to a need changes the nature of the question. As it was stated, it appears to be purely envy and class warfare; with a balancing need in the equation it changes to the philosophical question of moral relativism -- which I disagree with, but it is a defensible position.
lukifer 18y ago
A strong case could be made that many of the wealthy enjoy their opulence due to class warfare against the poor, cycling wealth upwards and taking far more than the actual market value of what they produce, simply by being able to leverage wealth and power into more wealth and power. It's not true across the board, but our economy is far from a pure meritocracy. I'm not in favor of "wealth redistribution" or taxing the rich a priori, but I think an evidence-based, non-punitive progressive tax is quite reasonable, particularly if the benefit goes to shared infrastructure that enables class mobility (public transportation, education, etc).
CWuestefeld 18y ago
Quote from the piece: "The main objective of raising marginal tax rates on the rich is not to raise additional tax revenue, but rather to keep top compensation under control and to curb the grabbing hand. In fact, the proposal that I am making--introducing a 80% marginal tax rate on all annual incomes in excess of €1m, leaving the rest of the tax system unchanged-would probably raise limited additional tax revenue...." That seems to be an admission that they're not trying to improve society overall, but just to keep the rich fettered. More commentary on the topic here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132843.html http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132843.html (sorry for replying to myself)

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

I'm curious as to your reasoning here. You seem to be saying that the explanation of need somehow changes the answer someone would give. So if you robbed a bank because you needed the money, that would be different than if you robbed it because you hate bankers?

CWuestefeld 18y ago
No, sorry, that's not what I meant to suggest at all -- I'm far from a moral relativist! My point was that absent any further discussion, a "yes" answer to the question seems to imply that we should take more money from the rich simply because it's there. I imagine some Congresscritters saying "oh cool, we got another billionaire; let's see if we can find something else to spend this guy's money on". Contrast this with "we've got a war on our hands, and need to pay for our defenses somehow; if we absolutely must have that money, perhaps it should come from the rich". (note that I'm not supporting, or even referring to, any particular war here, this is a thought experiment) I personally do not believe that having a need makes it OK. But framing the question next to a need changes the nature of the question. As it was stated, it appears to be purely envy and class warfare; with a balancing need in the equation it changes to the philosophical question of moral relativism -- which I disagree with, but it is a defensible position.

lukifer 18y ago

A strong case could be made that many of the wealthy enjoy their opulence due to class warfare against the poor, cycling wealth upwards and taking far more than the actual market value of what they produce, simply by being able to leverage wealth and power into more wealth and power. It's not true across the board, but our economy is far from a pure meritocracy. I'm not in favor of "wealth redistribution" or taxing the rich a priori, but I think an evidence-based, non-punitive progressive tax is quite reasonable, particularly if the benefit goes to shared infrastructure that enables class mobility (public transportation, education, etc).

CWuestefeld 18y ago

Quote from the piece: "The main objective of raising marginal tax rates on the rich is not to raise additional tax revenue, but rather to keep top compensation under control and to curb the grabbing hand. In fact, the proposal that I am making--introducing a 80% marginal tax rate on all annual incomes in excess of €1m, leaving the rest of the tax system unchanged-would probably raise limited additional tax revenue...." That seems to be an admission that they're not trying to improve society overall, but just to keep the rich fettered. More commentary on the topic here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132843.html http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132843.html (sorry for replying to myself)