Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth

[untermensche]

Taxing the wealthy in itself doesn't mean a thing. Especially if all it means are more wars.

Taxing the wealthy and using the money productively is one way to reduce the harmful effects of capitalism.

The author of the OP would agree.

But right now that is difficult.

Even if we could somehow convince the Congress to raise taxes on those most able to pay them and least harmed by them, how could we get the Congress to spend the money productively?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Taxing the wealthy in itself doesn't mean a thing. Especially if all it means are more wars.

Taxing the wealthy and using the money productively is one way to reduce the harmful effects of capitalism.

Wages are falling. Job stability is a memory. And the benefits of increased productivity go to the very few.

Redistribution is an obvious answer.

 

[Trausti]

Taxing the wealthy in itself doesn't mean a thing. Especially if all it means are more wars.

Taxing the wealthy and using the money productively is one way to reduce the harmful effects of capitalism.

Wages are falling. Job stability is a memory. And the benefits of increased productivity go to the very few.

Redistribution is an obvious answer.

Wealth isn't like water in a drought. It can't be "redistributed."

 

[Tigers!]

I am happy to support death duties as long as it cuts in just below the level of inheritance that any proposer will get.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Wages are falling. Job stability is a memory. And the benefits of increased productivity go to the very few.

Redistribution is an obvious answer.

Wealth isn't like water in a drought. It can't be "redistributed."

Ah, but the revenue from taxed wealth can be.

 

[ksen]

Wages are falling. Job stability is a memory. And the benefits of increased productivity go to the very few.

Redistribution is an obvious answer.

Wealth isn't like water in a drought. It can't be "redistributed."

sure it can. In fact it's being redistributed right now...redistributed upwards, but redistributed all the same.

 

[bilby]

Wages are falling. Job stability is a memory. And the benefits of increased productivity go to the very few.

Redistribution is an obvious answer.

Wealth isn't like water in a drought. It can't be "redistributed."

Of course it can. That's largely how people who are currently very wealthy became very wealthy - wealth was redistributed from other people.

The tendency in market economies as they are currently configured is for wealth to concentrate. If the distribution of wealth becomes too unequal, this constrains growth.

One solution to this is to take money from the rich, and give it to the poor. If taken to extremes, this too constrains growth.

The management of an economy therefore consists in large part in balancing the flow of wealth such that those who innovate, or who provide value, can be rewarded for doing so; while at the same time ensuring that these rewards are not so large as to cause harmful concentrations of wealth.

The Marxists stupidly imagine that you can redistribute wealth to the point where all citizens are equal; but history shows that this leads to stagnation and shortages.

The Randroids stupidly imagine that you can allow the wealthy to become arbitrarily rich, and that taxation is inherently bad; but history shows that this leads to stagnation and shortages too.

If shortages become sufficiently severe, the ultimate result is riots and violent revolutionary overthrow of the system.

The solution is balance. Personal wealth is ideologically abhorrent to some moronic ideologues; and taxes are ideologically abhorrent to other moronic ideologues. Both extremes are wrong - if we take the view that maximising opportunity and the benefits of economic growth for all is our objective (and it must be if we don't want to live in fear of our lives).

Right now, the US, and to a lesser extent the UK and some other OECD nations, are in a pattern of excessive concentration of wealth, which needs to be tempered. This can be done by requiring higher wages for the lowest paid workers; or through progressive taxation either to fund infrastructure projects, or to fund benefits for the working and non-working poor, or a combination of these things.

Taxes are the fees you pay for living in a society and taking advantage of its infrastructure. If you view property as theft, or you view taxation as theft, then your philosophy needs revision - preferably without reference to the failed and idiotic extremes espoused by Rand or Marx.

 

[Duke Leto]

Taxes are the fees you pay for living in a society and taking advantage of its infrastructure. If you view property as theft, or you view taxation as theft, then your philosophy needs revision - preferably without reference to the failed and idiotic extremes espoused by Rand or Marx.

Hear! Hear! Damn my inability to give you more reputation!

I'd JUST toss in that Marx might not have been as anti-wealth as you think, and "Property is Theft" is actually Proudhon, a view that he immediately followed up by saying "Property is Freedom"

I'm also much in favor of a couple ideas I've been kicking around:

1) Negative nominal interest rates through the abolition of physical currency. This will only happen in times of depression or deflation (which are often the same time).
2) Negative bottom tier graduated income tax rates for all earners. (The first $5,000 of your income is taxed at a negative rate, and this is true even if you make several 100,000 dollars.)
3) A "Piketty Tax": A rather complicated inheritance tax scheme where your bequest is taxed on the inverse of the compound interest formula, knocking the bequest down to what the principal would be if the bequest was the result of it having been invested for the number of years of age difference between the testator and the beneficiary at a constant interest rate of k, where k is 2% for bequests between 1 and 10 million, 3% between 10 and 100 million, 4% between 100 million and a 1 billion and so on. (The percents are subject to negotiation and the brackets should fluctuate with inflation.) The object is to kill the advantage of r vs. g for the biggest fortunes.

So if I have a $900 million dollars when I die and three children who are 35, 39 and 41 years younger than me, and I don't predecease my spouse (this would ideally require separation of funds between married couples to savage the inheritances of trophy wives), the oldest child would lose 75% of $300 million leaving $76 million, the middle would lose 79% of $300 million leaving $65 million, and the youngest would lose 80% leaving $60 million. If my beneficiary is a spouse who is 4 years younger than me, she'd lose 15.5% and keep $769 million. Then when she dies, the formula hitting the three children will be reduced slightly: Oldest is taxed at 70%, Middle at 75%, youngest at 77%. Should I instead of the above scenario have only one grandchild 65 years my junior to inherit my $900 million, then they get hit for 92% and keeps $72 million. Note that this is still insane money for a twentysomething, and if the kid is a good investor, in 65 years he'll have made it all back. (The percents are, of course, dramatically lower for smaller base numbers. The 1-10 million 2%ers would see rates of 50% for the oldest child, 54% for the middle, 56% for the youngest, 7% for the spouse, and 72% for the grandchild. (Maybe 1%,2%,3% is a better standard...))

Anyway, the first two ideas are basically plagiarized from Milton Friedman, the third would have made the bastard have conniptions.

 

[fast]

The management of an economy therefore consists in large part in balancing the flow of wealth such that those who innovate, or who provide value, can be rewarded for doing so; while at the same time ensuring that these rewards are not so large as to cause harmful concentrations of wealth.

"Harmful concentrations of wealth"
Can we quantify this?

 

[bilby]

The management of an economy therefore consists in large part in balancing the flow of wealth such that those who innovate, or who provide value, can be rewarded for doing so; while at the same time ensuring that these rewards are not so large as to cause harmful concentrations of wealth.

"Harmful concentrations of wealth"
Can we quantify this?

Not easily. It's like body mass - a continuum with a large central zone which is pretty harmless; as you move towards the extremes, the potential for harm increases, but the line between healthy and obese (or between healthy and malnourished) is necessarily fairly arbitrary, and exactly where normal transitions to harmful is dependent on a lot of other factors.

Nonetheless, someone who is 350lbs and 5'6" tall is clearly not in good shape.

 

[NobleSavage]

I put someone on my ignore list for the very first time. What a nice feature.

 

[arkirk]

I put someone on my ignore list for the very first time. What a nice feature.

I have been aware of this feature for a long time and have never used it. It is my understanding that when you put someone on your ignore list, you no longer see their posts. In terms of feeling good, it might feel good, but it also could lead to a reduced awareness of what is going on in the forum. If the person you are ignoring continues to see your posts and criticizes them, you will have no way of knowing, unless some non ignored poster happens to mention it. Just saying, I have been tempted a few times but decided it is perhaps better to face the conflicts that exist here head on. Maybe I don't understand the ignore feature, but I think I have it right.

 

[arkirk]

"Harmful concentrations of wealth"
Can we quantify this?

Not easily. It's like body mass - a continuum with a large central zone which is pretty harmless; as you move towards the extremes, the potential for harm increases, but the line between healthy and obese (or between healthy and malnourished) is necessarily fairly arbitrary, and exactly where normal transitions to harmful is dependent on a lot of other factors.

Nonetheless, someone who is 350lbs and 5'6" tall is clearly not in good shape.

A healthy economic system is one in which money circulates freely and facilitates the distribution of needed goods throughout society. Apart from the obvious moral issue of greed, there is a practical side to limiting massive concentrations of wealth. When these concentrations become very large, there are too few eyes and investment managers to maintain the necessary production and flow of goods and those who would provide demand have no access to the money necessary to constitute a demand...but they still might need bread and shelter and education and medical care. The managers of these huge accumulations of wealth become too few and their diversification of investment falls behind where it must be to meet the production of actual needed goods. Many minds controlling many funds is superior to only a few oligarchs making the decisions for nearly all of society. They simply cannot make enough correct decision fast enough with the limited scope of their particular field of knowledge. Even if you believe religiously in capitalism, you have to agree that smaller failures of smaller schemes of investment would affect society far less than say, the failure of the Bank of America or Chase.

Additionaly, Wall Street management concerns itself only with making money and more and more of its alleged profits are simply the spoils of speculation only in terms of money.

 

[Duke Leto]

I put someone on my ignore list for the very first time. What a nice feature.

I have been aware of this feature for a long time and have never used it. It is my understanding that when you put someone on your ignore list, you no longer see their posts. In terms of feeling good, it might feel good, but it also could lead to a reduced awareness of what is going on in the forum. If the person you are ignoring continues to see your posts and criticizes them, you will have no way of knowing, unless some non ignored poster happens to mention it. Just saying, I have been tempted a few times but decided it is perhaps better to face the conflicts that exist here head on. Maybe I don't understand the ignore feature, but I think I have it right.

I've come to the conclusion that arguing with the conservative and stupid is utterly pointless because the "epistemic closure" is total. Nothing I can say will change their minds, and the morons will continue to make the same counterarguments no matter how many times they are taken apart.

So fuck the shits for brains.

I've got most of the tribe on permanent block and I'm much happier for it.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I have been aware of this feature for a long time and have never used it. It is my understanding that when you put someone on your ignore list, you no longer see their posts. In terms of feeling good, it might feel good, but it also could lead to a reduced awareness of what is going on in the forum. If the person you are ignoring continues to see your posts and criticizes them, you will have no way of knowing, unless some non ignored poster happens to mention it. Just saying, I have been tempted a few times but decided it is perhaps better to face the conflicts that exist here head on. Maybe I don't understand the ignore feature, but I think I have it right.

I've come to the conclusion that arguing with the conservative and stupid is utterly pointless because the "epistemic closure" is total. Nothing I can say will change their minds, and the morons will continue to make the same counterarguments no matter how many times they are taken apart.

So fuck the shits for brains.

I've got most of the tribe on permanent block and I'm much happier for it.

Your conclusion is erroneous.

Ceding the narrative is a strategy for disaster. For example, polls today suggest most young people don't believe SS will be there for them. Why? Because of a relentless barrage from the right that SS is "broke".

What you have to consider is not who you are debating, but who is reading. Conservatives understand this very well. They know they are a minority view and consequently attempt to "own" issues such as education or economics. If you really care, you'll fight the good fight not in the hope of converting those beyond the pale, but for the sake of the bystanders who've not made up their minds.

My 2 cents....

 

[Duke Leto]

I've come to the conclusion that arguing with the conservative and stupid is utterly pointless because the "epistemic closure" is total. Nothing I can say will change their minds, and the morons will continue to make the same counterarguments no matter how many times they are taken apart.

So fuck the shits for brains.

I've got most of the tribe on permanent block and I'm much happier for it.

Your conclusion is erroneous.

Ceding the narrative is a strategy for disaster. For example, polls today suggest most young people don't believe SS will be there for them. Why? Because of a relentless barrage from the right that SS is "broke".

What you have to consider is not who you are debating, but who is reading. Conservatives understand this very well. They know they are a minority view and consequently attempt to "own" issues such as education or economics. If you really care, you'll fight the good fight not in the hope of converting those beyond the pale, but for the sake of the bystanders who've not made up their minds.

My 2 cents....

Yeah but, why me in particular fighting this battle in THIS forum?

It's inconsequential as far as the media as a whole is concerned.

It might be that I genuinely do have better things I can do elsewhere.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Your conclusion is erroneous.

Ceding the narrative is a strategy for disaster. For example, polls today suggest most young people don't believe SS will be there for them. Why? Because of a relentless barrage from the right that SS is "broke".

What you have to consider is not who you are debating, but who is reading. Conservatives understand this very well. They know they are a minority view and consequently attempt to "own" issues such as education or economics. If you really care, you'll fight the good fight not in the hope of converting those beyond the pale, but for the sake of the bystanders who've not made up their minds.

My 2 cents....

Yeah but, why me in particular fighting this battle in THIS forum?

It's inconsequential as far as the media as a whole is concerned.

It might be that I genuinely do have better things I can do elsewhere.

Why not you? You're here, you posted, (brilliantly btw) you're in it.

That the media has us outgunned is all the more reason.

And who doesn't have better things to do? I'm talking about a post here and there, not entering a monastery.

Besides, you're inconsistent. The implication is that if you could budge one of our resident troglodytes, it would be worth your time. Well, I'm telling you that well reasoned posts do have an effect - just not necessarily on your posting adversaries.

 

[Duke Leto]

Yeah but, why me in particular fighting this battle in THIS forum?

It's inconsequential as far as the media as a whole is concerned.

It might be that I genuinely do have better things I can do elsewhere.

Why not you? You're here, you posted, (brilliantly btw) you're in it.

That the media has us outgunned is all the more reason.

And who doesn't have better things to do? I'm talking about a post here and there, not entering a monastery.

Besides, you're inconsistent. The implication is that if you could budge one of our resident troglodytes, it would be worth your time. Well, I'm telling you that well reasoned posts do have an effect - just not necessarily on your posting adversaries.

This is why I still do post on occasion. My implication was NOT that it would be worth my time converting the trogolodytes, I just want to avoid getting the infractions that prolonged exposure to them causes me to accumulate. I had been spending too much time on the board getting into fights. The people I loathe are off my radar now, so my personal quality of life has improved.

 

[Wiploc]

Before we discuss new taxes on this or that scapegoat, shouldn't we be assured that the money government already takes in is used efficiently?

I believe there are four reasons to have taxes. Let's see if I can remember ...

1. To create demand for currency: If you have to have greenbacks to pay taxes, then greenbacks become valuable, so they become money.

2. To largely offset the inflationary effects of government spending.

That's all I remember. But I have to think that redistribution should be one of them. If the super-rich are openly buying elections, then it's time to raise taxes on the super-rich. So let's call that number three.

I don't remember number four.

I remember number one because it was so surprising to me.

None of the first three reasons require efficient use of government funds as justification. Even if government spending is not efficient, we don't prefer currency collapse or hyperinflation or loss of democratic freedom to taxation. Therefore, the answer to your question is no.

 

[lpetrich]

Before we discuss new taxes on this or that scapegoat,

Someone is not a scapegoat if he/she is guilty of misbehavior that caused the trouble.

shouldn't we be assured that the money government already takes in is used efficiently? This motivation to hand over money to the bottomless pit of government is bewildering.

Like the military and the police. Contrary to a misconception that many right-wingers often act like they have, soldiers and cops are not vigilantes but government employees. Yes, government employees.

Oh, wait, you mean take other people's money. Everyone's in favor of a tax that someone else has to pay.

So your heroes have a right to exempt themselves from taxes and to suck subsidies like crazy (negative taxation)?