shrugs If your PPP is greater then you aren’t poorer, you’re wealthier even if someone else is a whole lot wealthier by comparison.
If you want to limit the medical profession to those who do it 100% because it is a calling, then there will be a severe shortage of medical care. Likewise for pretty much every profession, except maybe producing maple syrup and teaching skiing.
and that’s fair, right?
That’s why the progressive tax schedule doesn’t employ a 100% income tax for the over-$250,000 bracket. And a lot of people don’t use a strict “am I getting some economic benefit right this moment” analysis when performing their jobs. Some salaried workers for instance, particularly some government workers, don’t simply walk away from their desk when their hours end and there is no overtime. Instead, because they feel that the job itself or the work they are doing matters, they work a few extra hours per week or per month so that it gets done.
While the wealthy might stick their money in places like the Cayman Islands or a Swiss bank (before the UBI deal), I can’t see droves of them moving there. It would take a Zimbabwe-level economic meltdown/witch-hunt to get to that point.
These political philosophies have nothing to do with ethics. And how exactly can working class people “believe in and live small government”? The U.S. federal budget for fiscal year 2008 was around $2.9 trillion, (not including the bills for Iraq and Afghanistan) with less than 40% of it being discretionary. If someone is looking for a small, very limited federal government, they need to go back in time to before the civil war. It’s not coming back.
What’s fair got to do with it?
99% estate (and gift) tax, comin right up!
Injustice in the name of fairness I like it.
Lets make the state the primary landholder and make sure that people simply cannot inherit and will be evicted from their family homes en masse as soon as their parents die. Lets ensure that people simply cannot give gifts at all because they cannot afford the tax.
and if you’re living at your parents’ house when they keel over and die, well then you’ve got worse problems with your life.
well, we’ll exempt 200k of lifetime gifts.
it’s more injustice in the name of unfairness. since fairness has nothing to do with society, oh no.
What an idiotic statement. I don’t even want to speculate what your assumptions on that are but you are clearly making a lot of them.
I see.
Fairness has nothing to do with trade. If the world were fair we wouldn’t need money.
the function of currency isn’t to make things fair - it’s to provide a store of value that doesn’t rot, die, or take up alot of space to store.
but you’re right - i don’t care so much about fairness in a trade (so long as laws haven’t been implemented to skew the terms of a trade in favor of those in an economically superior position)
but i care alot about fairness in society.
oh, and the assumptions i’m making are this: the vast majority of decedent’s estates bequeath assets to majority-age people who don’t live with their parents. which they do.
Yes, but most estates pass in an illiquid form, estate taxes often put a tax burden on the inheritor where they cannot afford to keep their inheritance. Estate taxes favor those who leave their kids cash and penalize those who leave their kids actual property.
So kiss the family home goodbye, you can’t afford the taxes on it. Sell it before the fiscal year is out, maybe for even less than it’s real value just so you can move it before the taxes are due. Then don’t forget to pay the taxes on the INCOME you made in the sale of the home in addition to the estate tax which taxes you on the appraised value of the home which might actually be more than you got.
well if you can’t stand the heat, escheat!
totally unfair. i love it.
I have a simple model of how most people – but by no means all – process political issues. Oftentimes the real force behind a political ideology is the subconsciously held desire that a certain group of people should not be allowed to rise in relative status.
Take the so-called “right wing.” I believe that some people on the right do not want those that they perceive as “whiners” to rise in relative status. That means they must argue against the whining and also they must argue against the presuppositions behind the whining.
Leftists, contrariwise, feel it is unfair that money so determines access in capitalist society and they do not want the monied class to rise in relative status, certainly not above the status of the smart people. It is important to fight for the principle that the desires of this monied class have a relatively low priority in the social ranking. Egalitarianism is the rhetoric of the day, and readjusting the status of other Americans to the status of this monied class often receives more attention than elevating the very poorest in the world to a higher absolute level.
Now there are several data points in favor of this view and against the simplistic rich/poor divide. People in professions where prestige or security is more important than financial compensation (academia, arts, government service, law, journalism) tend to favor higher marginal tax rates because prestige and security aren’t taxed. Higher marginal tax rates would lower the relative status of high earners, while raising the relative status of academics, etc. Similarly, people who are not now rich but are on a path where earnings are the primary indication of status, will argue in favor of less progressive taxation, because a fall in status of their final state will reflect poorly on them. (You may complain that this effect is because ivory tower professors are commies to begin with, but I think that that reverses the order of causation; beliefs precede party identification.)
Also instructive is the idea of the height tax. For both men and women, an additional inch of height is associated with a one to two percent increase in earnings. Utilitarian and equity-based thought would say yes, since this is inherently unfair to short people and this bias means that the productivity of tall people is probably overstated. Yet support for this tax is low, both among the left and the right. Why? Nobody particularly wants to lower the social status of tall people, they’re interested in bashing the high earners or the welfare recipients instead. The same thing applies to the premium for good looks.
Finally, we tax things not just based on their externalities, as efficient economics would suggests, but based on how much we dislike them. Thus we tax alcohol and cigarettes, (and corporations, on the left) but are less enthusiastic about road pricing. Why? Well, unless you’re a biker or pedestrian (in which case you have your own self-interest anyway), driving does not strike us as an activity that should be lowered in status. The exceptions prove the rule - those who live in urban areas, including those who own cars are more likely to support taxes on cars, gasoline, and driving, because it would lower the social status of those who do not live in urban areas and raise their own by consequence. This, despite the fact that they would be footing the bill to a very similar extent, due to the cost of shipping things over ground.
So, I suggest that tax policy is not about revenue, it’s about status - namely who should be allowed to rise and fall in relative status. Given this difference in rhetoric, the right wing will be identified with the monied class, even when the left often has more money. And the left wing will be identified as the whiners, even though the right at times whines as much or more. Furthermore, you can predict a great deal about someone’s policy preferences if you know what groups they want to rise or fall in status.
Heh, well as long as you are ok with your scheme disproportionately screwing the middle-class while just driving the wealth of the the super rich overseas, then cool.
the US government taxes world-wide wealth and income on its citizens.
if you want to cough up your passport, be my guest. no disneyworld for you! but, of course, where would you go with as many wealth-fellating laws as we have here without having to worry about a stable government, economic prospect, and running water?
Who is going to teach it? Gee, I just graduated with my Wharton MBA and was thinking about going to work at Goldman Sachs. But maybe I’ll take that job teaching investment strategy at East Jerkwater High for $45000 a year.
I would agree that maybe instead of teaching kids how to make lamps in shop class or bake cakes in home ec, maybe they should be teaching basics about balancing a check book, interest, mortgages and credit card debt.
You just described a world where you not only got rid of the wealth fellating laws but swung hard in the opposite direction like Josef Stalin hard.
Oh, I don’t mind the bling-bling, the gee-gaws and the loud shiny crap. They can have that, not a big hairy ass deal. If they can actually fill The Hole with trinkets and gumballs, more power to them.
But I refuse to even contemplate the notion that wealth enobles, that the wealthy man has more right to life, more right to health than the poor, that his children have more right to education, or that he has a right to a louder, more effective voice in our civic affairs.
As of now, as a practical fact, this is the case. I want that changed. Because it ain’t right.
After that is accomplished, we can discuss trivialites, and I will surely negotiate in a more generous mood.
This seems to be a pretty common stance among conservatives. It makes me wonder, though, about the motivation of giving (or recycling…that’s a good example).
If the government mandated recycling, it’s pretty likely that the amount of material being recycled would increase. So, what would people who recycle already without being forced to lose in that situation? I wonder if they see it as some sort of test…by recycling without being forced too, they show themselves to be more environmentally friendly and maybe get some brownie points with neighbors, friends, or higher powers.
I think it’s likely the same thing holds for charity. I imagine that some people are opposed to government programs that help the poor because it takes away their opportunity to be charitable.
If that’s the case, though, that for some social or spiritual reason, it’s necessary to give freely to the poor, then eradicating poverty no longer becomes a goal. If poverty was eradicated, how would one consider showing how charitable they are? That kind of thinking doesn’t seem to be too concerned with results, and sees the poor (or the growing landfill) as more of a test for the wealthier individuals to pass than a society wide problem that needs solving.
What’s more important to a poor person…that a few people gave them a couple of bucks out of their own free will, or that a government provided them with the food, shelter, education and opportunity needed to lift them out of poverty? What’s better for the environment, that a few people recycle because it makes them feel good, or that the government forces everyone to recycle?
Is the warm fuzzy feeling you get from charitable giving or recycling really better than living in a society where poverty is eradicated and care for the environment is a requirement for all citizens?
i agree; the righteous overtones that pervade the “well individual people are the best arbiters of helping other people out, rather than the government” is most annoying and disturbing.
charity implies a condition of deserving, even if to a minimal degree. bureaucratic welfare requires no such thing.
charity is an unacceptable substitute for social welfare.