3 ms·

There is an equality in possibilities, not in results. You can't blame anyone because you are bad in investments or can't do business. If you tax people who rea

by nap 12y ago

There is an equality in possibilities, not in results. You can't blame anyone because you are bad in investments or can't do business. If you tax people who reach success, why not tax those who was failed? Let's redistribute bankruptcy, depression and suicides.

cgearhart 12y ago
That's the problem though -- there is not equality is possibilities. Analysis [1] of a study from the Pew Research Center on economic mobility [2] found that you are 10x more likely to be in the top 20% if you're born there than if you're born in the bottom 20%. Someone born in the top 20% who doesn't go to college is still 2.5x more likely to have an income in the top 20% as an adult than someone from the bottom 20% who does go to college. Moreover, it's worsened because life is more expensive in subtle ways as you move down the income bracket. [3] Even municipal fines -- as emphasized by John Oliver recently -- contribute to the problem. [1] http://mattbruenig.com/2013/06/13/whats-more-important-a-college-degree-or-being-born-rich/ http://mattbruenig.com/2013/06/13/whats-more-important-a-col... [2] http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/moving-on-up http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/00... [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/12/linda_tirado_on_the_realities_of_living_in_bootstrap_america_daily_annoyances.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/12/linda_tira... [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto
- walod 12y ago
  Doesn't anybody else find the "equality of opportunity" and other phrases way too abstract for analysis? There are many facets to how an economy functions and how individuals navigate it, and I think a proper analysis of the action on the ground is needed. For example how individuals learn skills and what prerequisites are needed in terms of access to information, ability to focus and think abstractly, and how one trains those abilities. This affects competition in the market, who gets rich, who gets an opportunity and so forth, and yet all the articles I see talk in these distant abstract terms, like they're appealing to someone in the government to fix it or something. Another aspect is consumer responsibility and the way we tend to buy what we want but not think of the large scale consequences. People use gmail and facebook out of habit. They buy groceries in a big store out of habit. We use products dependent on petroleum yet expect someone else to fix global warming. Being interconnected and living in a rather fragile world where systems affect each other is not a responsibility us as individuals are ready for, and I haven't even touched on civic responsibility and the need for everyone to almost be lawyers and critical thinkers for law to function. There are so many complex interconnected parts and we always fall victim to the movements of the herd
- nap 12y ago
  This is analysis of results not possibilities. Having possibility doesn't means you have to use it. Having possibility to walk doesn't means you will walk same route and distance as an other person who has this possibility too.
  - cgearhart 12y ago
    Something is "possible" if we have an expectation that it might come to pass. How should we analyze possibilities except by looking at what actually happens? The premise of my counterpoint is that there is a probability distribution attached to what's possible, and that the distribution is not the same for everyone.
metaphorm 12y ago
let me make pragmatic and ethical argument (about the ability of people to afford to pay taxes) that might help add some perspective that seems to be sorely lacking here. we are morally justified in taxing success BECAUSE it is success. its not because we desire to punish or disincentivize success (and indeed we must take care not to tax it too harshly for this reason), but simply put, success generates surplus and we can tax surplus without causing outsize additional suffering. we are justified in taking from those who have extra because they have extra and can afford it. on the flipside we are not morally justified in taxing failure BECAUSE it is failure. its not because we desire to reward or incentivize failure (and indeed we must take care not to make it too inconsequential to fail for this reason), but simply put, failure generates hardship and we cannot tax a person experiencing hardship without causing outsize additional suffering. we are justified in not taking from those who have nothing left bcause they have nothing left and cannot afford to have anything more taken from them. do you understand the ethical dimensions of the argument now? what is most fair from a purely financial or economic point of view is not at all what is most fair from a humanitarian or ethical point of view. pragmatically speaking, we have need to generate revenue for the government and it makes the best sense to seek revenue from where money is plentiful, just because that's where the money actually is. its the same reason why consumer brands try to market to wealthier customers (because they have extra money that they can spend).
- nap 12y ago
  Taxing is not morally justified BECAUSE it is a robbery. There is not failure taxing just because there is nothing to get from people who failed.
  - metaphorm 12y ago
    you're probably not going to convince a lot of people that taxing is robbery. that's an incredibly extreme point of view that is completely at odds with living in a developed industrial nation.
    - nap 12y ago
      Is property rights completely at odds with living in a developed industrial nation? When you're threatening to force people to give up their property - it's a robbery.

by nap 12y ago

cgearhart 12y ago

That's the problem though -- there is not equality is possibilities. Analysis [1] of a study from the Pew Research Center on economic mobility [2] found that you are 10x more likely to be in the top 20% if you're born there than if you're born in the bottom 20%. Someone born in the top 20% who doesn't go to college is still 2.5x more likely to have an income in the top 20% as an adult than someone from the bottom 20% who does go to college. Moreover, it's worsened because life is more expensive in subtle ways as you move down the income bracket. [3] Even municipal fines -- as emphasized by John Oliver recently -- contribute to the problem. [1] http://mattbruenig.com/2013/06/13/whats-more-important-a-college-degree-or-being-born-rich/ http://mattbruenig.com/2013/06/13/whats-more-important-a-col... [2] http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/moving-on-up http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/00... [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/12/linda_tirado_on_the_realities_of_living_in_bootstrap_america_daily_annoyances.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/12/linda_tira... [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto

walod 12y ago
Doesn't anybody else find the "equality of opportunity" and other phrases way too abstract for analysis? There are many facets to how an economy functions and how individuals navigate it, and I think a proper analysis of the action on the ground is needed. For example how individuals learn skills and what prerequisites are needed in terms of access to information, ability to focus and think abstractly, and how one trains those abilities. This affects competition in the market, who gets rich, who gets an opportunity and so forth, and yet all the articles I see talk in these distant abstract terms, like they're appealing to someone in the government to fix it or something. Another aspect is consumer responsibility and the way we tend to buy what we want but not think of the large scale consequences. People use gmail and facebook out of habit. They buy groceries in a big store out of habit. We use products dependent on petroleum yet expect someone else to fix global warming. Being interconnected and living in a rather fragile world where systems affect each other is not a responsibility us as individuals are ready for, and I haven't even touched on civic responsibility and the need for everyone to almost be lawyers and critical thinkers for law to function. There are so many complex interconnected parts and we always fall victim to the movements of the herd
nap 12y ago
This is analysis of results not possibilities. Having possibility doesn't means you have to use it. Having possibility to walk doesn't means you will walk same route and distance as an other person who has this possibility too.
- cgearhart 12y ago
  Something is "possible" if we have an expectation that it might come to pass. How should we analyze possibilities except by looking at what actually happens? The premise of my counterpoint is that there is a probability distribution attached to what's possible, and that the distribution is not the same for everyone.

metaphorm 12y ago

let me make pragmatic and ethical argument (about the ability of people to afford to pay taxes) that might help add some perspective that seems to be sorely lacking here. we are morally justified in taxing success BECAUSE it is success. its not because we desire to punish or disincentivize success (and indeed we must take care not to tax it too harshly for this reason), but simply put, success generates surplus and we can tax surplus without causing outsize additional suffering. we are justified in taking from those who have extra because they have extra and can afford it. on the flipside we are not morally justified in taxing failure BECAUSE it is failure. its not because we desire to reward or incentivize failure (and indeed we must take care not to make it too inconsequential to fail for this reason), but simply put, failure generates hardship and we cannot tax a person experiencing hardship without causing outsize additional suffering. we are justified in not taking from those who have nothing left bcause they have nothing left and cannot afford to have anything more taken from them. do you understand the ethical dimensions of the argument now? what is most fair from a purely financial or economic point of view is not at all what is most fair from a humanitarian or ethical point of view. pragmatically speaking, we have need to generate revenue for the government and it makes the best sense to seek revenue from where money is plentiful, just because that's where the money actually is. its the same reason why consumer brands try to market to wealthier customers (because they have extra money that they can spend).

nap 12y ago
Taxing is not morally justified BECAUSE it is a robbery. There is not failure taxing just because there is nothing to get from people who failed.
- metaphorm 12y ago
  you're probably not going to convince a lot of people that taxing is robbery. that's an incredibly extreme point of view that is completely at odds with living in a developed industrial nation.
  - nap 12y ago
    Is property rights completely at odds with living in a developed industrial nation? When you're threatening to force people to give up their property - it's a robbery.