4 ms·

Rich people pay more taxes if you have a flat tax rate too. How do you know how much progressiveness you need to counteract the vague phenomenon you describe?

• noonespecial 17y ago
  The unfortunate answer is trial and error. If we agree that money does have an economy of scale but that its very difficult to measure, ignoring it because we can't measure it isn't much of a solution. The idea is that money has a decreasing marginal utility as well as a "money makes money" economy of scale. A subtle and well tuned progressive tax would keep the tax (although small) from overwhelming the poor who are right on the edge and also ask more from those who can afford it the most while still not overly dampening their incentives to achieve. Like Terry Pratchet so succinctly said "its the difference between using a feather and using a chicken".
  • pg 17y ago
    Tax rates are determined by something like trial and error now, but the test is not whether they produce equality, but simply how much you can extract from each group without causing social disasters. You can take away about half the money rich people make before you start to break your economy, but if you took half the money poor people made, they wouldn't have enough left to live. Hence you get progressive taxation.
• lutorm 17y ago
  Look at the wealth accumulation with time of people with different incomes. I bet you that someone who makes $80k/yr will accumulate a whole lot more wealth with time than someone who makes $40k/yr (~ median income in US), and compare to those that make $14k/yr (what you make in a year of full-time work at minimum wage). That should tell you what the ROI of money made at various income levels is.
  • byrneseyeview 17y ago
    It tells you that if that's your hypothesis. If you think rich people are smarter, it tells you that not only do they make more money, but they're more responsible about saving it, too. So even though Mr. $80K has to buy a nice car and a couple suits, and Mr. $40K doesn't, Mr. $80K still spends less on liquor and lotto tickets.
    • lutorm 17y ago
      It tells me what if what's my hypothesis? I really dislike when people use the word "smart" or "intelligent" in these situations, because it makes it sound like "intelligence" is innate, like a genetic trait. Even people's IQ scores are not genetically determined, and an even more amorphous trait like "ability to amass monetary wealth" probably has a lot more to do with skills you acquire during your upbringing than with genetics. So if you want to say that rich people are better at gathering wealth, sure. That does not imply that the poor people, if they had been swapped at birth, could have acquired the same skills from the same situation.
      • pg 17y ago
        Don't get distracted with the intelligence thing. His point is simply that you can't tell how much of the growth in people's fortunes is due to money rolling uphill, because it's probably not the only factor.
  • KWD 17y ago
    Cost-of-living varies greatly, and in some areas 80K/year may really not be different than 40k/year elsewhere. Unfortunately, what I have come to realize is that it is getting harder and harder to be under a certain threshold, and in a large part that is driven by the outrageous health care/insurance costs in the U.S..