View Single Post
Old 05-14-2019, 07:02 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,977
@ Bizerta — You have an unexplained aversion for what you call "socialism." I'll guess this is largely in response to the well-known bad incentives of Marxism.

However, my scheme increases the incentive, at least at the bottom, to work and earn, since the first $2000 of tax isn't paid. (Yes, the rebate increases through another mechanism if you have a child.)

Over the past 40 years or so, the real incomes of average workers have increased very little relative to the huge income increases for the wealthiest 0.1%. Before we can proceed, , we need to understand your feelings about this huge increase in income and wealth inequality. Please pick one:
A. The inequality is bad, for whatever reason(s), and policy makers should look for solutions, e.g. in tax policies, or education funding etc. However the scheme in OP is bad because ___________.
B. It is natural for superior persons to get superior income. Deliver much of the excess to the low earners, and the money will soon be back in the hands of the high earners anyway.
C. Que será, será. Whatever income or wealth distribution is achieved through freedom, through the inexorable workings of an unregulated free market, is ipso facto optimal. Government meddling generally gives inferior results.

Last edited by septimus; 05-14-2019 at 07:05 PM.