The push broom is leveraging her labor. Labor is more than an factor of production. Labor is not like energy for example, where if you buy an energy efficient machine, you should reap the benefits of all the energy savings. No developed economy can stay that way with your mentality.
I don’t want to derail this thread but equitable allocation of income is about more than who provided the push brooms. And if a modern society is to flourish, you need to focus on the welfare of people not capital.
Like Euphonious Polemic said the line is drawn at basic needs: food, water, shelter, sanitation, education.
If it’s a cost like school supplies or tuition make it a tax credit. If it’s a tv they can learn to build their own LCD out of wood and bits of twine.
If you want a tv, basic cable, fancier food, you need to work for it. That’s the reward for working, otherwise why bother?
Because it’s his. He worked for it, he earned it. It is his reward for doing a good job. And I’m not suggesting that he not pay tax, or more tax, or even a hugely disproportionate amount. What I’m saying is stop looking at his wealth as yours.
That’s a shitty recipe, just ask Zimbabwe. So the 150,000 guys crab his money, blow all the cash, now what? You’ve killed your only source of tax revenue. Chances are at least a few of the 150,000
But removing the outlier from the equation.
If he’s the only one that can do that job, you’d better be nicer to him. Otherwise your scenario is irrelevant.
Why should they deserve luxuries? Maybe rethink that part. We already have a system in place that rotates people through the low end jobs and allows them to move up. It’s not a caste system, there is mobility. If you start out at the bottom and don’t fuck up (perhaps we’ll call this luck) you get a promotion and someone else does the grunt work.
Nope, I always burn my tong on the first slice and eat it too fast to even taste it. The second one I enjoy way more, and the third for me is the best slice. After that I get pretty full pretty fast.
That’s right, the marginal utility curve isn’t the same for everyone. A billionaire might be miserable until the day he can earn enough to buy a ride on a Russian space shuttle. Who are you to tell him he doesn’t enjoy his second million as much (or if not more) than his first? You are ascribing a behavior and then drawing a conclusion to match.
There’s an underlying fairness to a progressive taxation based on marginal value theory, too. There’s also an underlying fairness to a taxation system that recognizes the amount of money the average person needs for necessities and doesn’t tax that.
Under marginal value theory, there is an argument for equalizing the pain of taxation rather than the monetary value. In other words, while 99% is clearly hyperbole, it’s equally clear that it paying 20% of my income in taxes removes a significantly higher amount of utility from me (at 72k/yr) than it does from a guy making 1mil a year. 20% of my income is $14,400. 20% of his income is $200,000. However, for me it’s the difference between having a new car or TV or not this year, and for him it’s the difference between having or not having a second vacation home or a fourth or fifth car–in other words, he’s not feeling the pain nearly as much, because most of his purchases are going to be by the nature of things either redundant or deliberate high luxuries. So it might be more fair, in terms of the total amount of lost enjoyment of the fruits of money, to tax him $300,000 instead.
In my own career path, entering the job market in the tech slump in the early 2000s, I started my first real job at $35,000, and paid an effective tax rate of 14% before deductions–and let me tell you, I felt that 14% a LOT harder than I feel the effective 20% I’m paying now.
I’m well aware of marginal utility theory. I just think it, and the progressive taxation it argues for, are trumped by the fairness I’ve described. But I do acknowledge the reality of basics needing to be met by a salary, which is why it makes sense to me that we not tax the first X dollars. That addresses the very real concern you have while allowing an underlying fairness to rule the day. After the basics can be met, you want more money at your disposal, find a way to make more money. anything else is both detrimental to the individual and society.
The fundamental difference between our theories shakes out here and in the next reply:
Personally? I respect the fact that a guy at the bare bottom might not be there through his own fault, and the fact that the economy values his labor at just above subsistence level is no excuse for the government to tax him right back down to it just because he’s on the bottom.
I mean, ultimately these people ARE all working for it. The fact that the job market sucks doesn’t take away one jot or tittle from the plain fact that they are working.
Those people ARE working for it. They might be working just as hard as the one rich guy, or harder.
I’m not looking at it as mine at all–if I were doing that, I’d point out that the per-capita- GDP of Euphonistan is $2000, so open your pockets all the way, rich guy.
I’m saying, there’s no point to even TRYING to have a progressive tax system if you’re going to punish the people who are either temporarily or permanently on the bottom–and when a guy makes $1100, and it costs him $1000 for basics, taxing him $100 is just as likely to be punishing him for his bad luck as it is to be punishing him being lazy.
What if he’s not? What if ANYONE can do that job, or more realistically, 10% of the population can, but there’s only enough work for the one guy?
That’s simply not how the real world works. In the real world, luck plays a factor. I have the job I do because I can do it, but also because I happened to have a friend who got my resume to the top of the pile–I know four guys who have my same skill set who have worse or no job than me simply because of sheer dumb luck to have networked with the wrong people. So why are they punished for that? Sure it’s a temporary situation, and there’s mobility–but what happens if they stay unlucky? “Tough shit, buddy, should have struck up a conversation with the OTHER guy during freshman orientation.”
I’ll take my econ classes over your mythical billionaire, thanks.
This is just an abjectly stupid argument. The article goes on to say that at the height of the boom years in 2000, fewer than half of Americans had jobs.
Can we please stick to U3, the ILO definition, or U4?
Government is not labor intensive. The cost of government is largely transfer payments and interest on the national debt. All of government outside of transfer payments (including medicare/medicaid), defense/security and interest on the national debt is about 500 billion dollars.
Because there are othetr taxes besides income taxes and more importantly, person B will be much more impacted by losing a weeks income than person A would be by losing a months income. Like I said before, even people like Ron Paul agree with teh progressivity of our income tax system. There is not a single contemplated tax system bouncing around wachington DC today taht would extracta penny of income tax from those below the poverty line. Not one.
He might not be there through his own fault, but what if he is?
Then don’t tax him down to the bottom. Which is what I said. If he’s making barely above substance, he can choose to spend that extra on bettering his situation, or on luxuries.
If he chooses luxuries I have no problem taxing him. If he chooses betterment, I have no problem offering tax credits. And what you’ll notice is that’s the system we have.
No, what it means is that society (you included) doesn’t value the work he does. He provides little to no value to you, so you don’t pay him any more than you can get away with. No one is stopping him from providing more value. And until he does, he doesn’t get luxuries. Working really really hard to make buggy whips doesn’t entitle someone to a new tv.
So don’t tax him $100. No one is suggesting you should. Tax him 10% on everything over $1000, then tax luxury goods, and credit positive purchases.
Then your society is fucked and altering your tax system isn’t going to fix it. There are only so many ways to dress up a pig. Eventually you need to come to terms with the fact that it’s still a pig.
And like I said, income tax is not the only way to generate government revenue. If 99% of your society only earns $1100 either accept that your GDP isn’t high enough to have the things you want, or look for other things to tax (ie natural resources and tourism).
Oddly enough, what you’ll notice is that a government is a lot like an individual. There are “basic needs” that it has to provide, and after that everything is luxury. If you don’t have enough tax revenue for an airport expansion you go without, or you find another way to generate the revenue (like airport improvement fees).
Hell, if the rich guy is the only one flying you might as well go with that as your solution and fuck income tax all together.
Bullshit, what you describe is not luck. You had the social skills to make friends, you had the gumption to have them help you, and you demonstrated enough integrity that they would vouch for you. The other 5 guys could have done the same thing. Networking is not luck, it is a skill.
You’ll notice another thing about your example is that you were all equally qualified, you didn’t the job only by connection. And you’ll notice access to your “friend” wasn’t restricted. You don’t have to be a member of the Saudi Royal Family.
That’s right, there is mobility, and as long as we have mobility we should reward and it allow for it.
If the guy has perpetually bad luck as some point you’ve got to stop blaming luck.
That’s right, econ class, where they used the pizza example to demostate marginal utility. The first slice is the best thing ever, the second slice is good but not as good, third slice is fine, after the forth you get sicker and sicker. A nice smooth curve. Life doesn’t have nice smooth curves, most of the time there are dimples, lumps, and sag.
Who are you to tell me what slice of pizza I enjoy the most? I was happiest earning $1000 a month as a grad student. I was considerably less happy earning $50k, and now quite a bit happier earning $80k.
You don’t know me, you don’t know my sleep number. You only think you know what the marginal utility of my next dollar is, and you are basing it off a very limited theory that wasn’t meant to be applied to taxes but simply illustrate a point. You are assuming diminishing marginal utility, but that’s not always the case.
For anyone that remember Voltron, there was a time when all kinds of toys formed into a larger robot. Transformers had a bunch of them and Go-bots if anyone remembers that. Point is, toys 1-4 had a flat marginal utility curve. Getting another was great, but it was’t until you got the fifth that you could make the giant robot and be infinitely happier.
To an econ professor, each toy received should have produced marginally less utils. The fifth toy in theory should have made me less happy since we should have been pasts the peak on into diminishing returns. I remember my parents at the time say, “We’ve given you four toys already, you have enough.” To them a fifth toy makes me spoiled and causes me to stop appreciating what I have.
The US currently sits at #73 among world countries on the GINI index, measuring the inequality of distribution of wealth. This puts it amongst esteemed countries such as Turkmenistan, Ghana, Senegal and Cambodia.
It’s my understanding that this inequality has been increasing since the 1970’s and the US is one of the very few developed countries where this figure has increased since 1980.
If this trend continues, there will be no middle left.
[QUOTE=emacknight]
No one should be made to suffer. If it costs $1000 a year to live in the bare minimum, no one should be below that, ever. And that bare minimum should NOT be squalor. I have no desire to allow children to grow up in shanty towns without sewage facilities (aka Khayelitsha, South Africa). That also includes education and health care.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, pretty much everyone agrees with you. The trouble is, recent rhetoric like “taxes are too high, all government does is waste money, taxes should be lowered, (especially for the wealthy) poor people are poor because they are lazy/stupid” will most likely lead to the conditions you describe. Even though nobody “wants” those conditions to exist. They simply don’t see that the result of cutting taxes for the wealthy will lead there. Many still cling to “trickle down” theories or think that the wealthy will voluntarily fund soup kitchens.
[QUOTE=emacknight]
If your country has 99.99% of wage earners bringing in $1100 a year, you don’t get to have a $30million budget. I’m sorry, but that’s how it works, you’re going to have sell some of your aircraft carriers, gold plated helicopters, and hold off on building a multilane underground expressway.
[/QUOTE]
This is absolutely important as well - thank you for pointing it out.
The trouble is, the “cut my taxes” crowd never seems to address this part of the equation. If you do not have the income (as Damuri Ajashi has pointed out in this thread, taxes are already at a low point historically), then you’re going to have to spend less. And that does not mean cutting 330 million/year from Planned Parenthood. It means cutting back on major things like defense and agricultural subsidies. If your countries tax income is low enough due to cuts in personal taxes, you will have to cut deeply into every program. That’s the way math works.
Okay, I suggest you go to one or all of those places. Stand at a busy intersection, and wonder to yourself, “Is there more to life than the GINI index?”
Did you know Australia has a GINI of 30.5, sounds pretty good, until you realize that Ethiopia beats it at 30! OMG Ethiopia is better than Australia! Canada and France suck, they’re at 32 and 32.1.
Income inequality is an issue when there are barriers to mobility. If you have to be part of the royal family to start a business, or part of the Brahmin class to own a house you’ll have problems. It’s not enough to say, “you have to have capital” unless there is a systemic hindrance to getting capital. The US does not have such a hindrance.
Well, you’re half right: it’s bullshit rhetoric that causes problems. Statements like those above as well as things like, “If this trend continues, there will be no middle left.”
Bullshit rhetoric is bullshit. Whether it comes from the right or the left.
And the funny thing is, when the BS alarm goes off, the source is always thoroughly convinced about the veracity of whatever particular bullshit information they’re peddling.
When the top 400 richies have more money than the bottom 125 million citizens, it is not irrelevant. Money confers political power. So it is not just money going to the top but the ability to make laws and elect the politicians they want. They can remove themselves from regulators or scrutiny. If is anathema to the so called American democracy.
Do you want to start at the top and work our way down, or do it more by geographical consideration. Work from East to West perhaps? I’ll go sharpen by pitchfork while you map out a plan.
Looking through the list maybe start with the Waltons, 5 birds with one stone. Damn those bastards for bringing us low priced crap from China. Although, if you really want to stick it to them, we could all stop shopping at Walmart. Na, that’s not crazy enough, let’s use pitchforks!
It’s not bullshit, its a simple matter of mathematics and extrapolation. If the trend in the US of increasing inequity of wealth continues as it has… then eventually more and more of the wealth will be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
You can argue that this would be not a problem, or inconsequential if you would like. You can argue that the trend will not continue. But it’s not BS to point out that if it keeps going along this path, there will be no “middle” left.
Are you trying to argue here that the GINI index is of no value at all when looking at quality of life in a country, or merely of little value? Of course it is not the ONLY measure of how good a country is to live in. But take a look at the top 10 and the bottom 10 countries on the list, and tell me which group you’d rather aspire to be like?
People who earn a lot of money do not necessarily take their incomes with them. If Fabrice Tourre decided to move back to France, he would not take his income with him.
Wealth is portable, incomes are much less so (can the successful plastic surgeon just pick up and move to india and maintain his income?).
And we continue to tax capital gains for a decade after you leave the country.
He may carry more weight than any single person or more than a thousand other people but he will not carry more weight than the rest of the country put together. Our form of government makes this almost impossible.
Yeah but the SLOPE of the marginal utility curve is almost always negative. You almost always derive less pleasure from each marginal unit of consumption. For example having two tickets to a concert might be more than twice as valuable as one ticket because you can take a date, but it is very situational and does is not the sort of thing you can or should base policy on.
I think what you are trying to say is that it is better to be unequally rich than equally poor.
And that’s fine. I just want to tax that wealth on a progressive basis and stack the deck so that societal utility is maximised rather than gross income and that sometimes means that $100 distributed more evenly is better than $110 disctributed lopsidedly.
