Sinaijon, that’s a very amusing (& silly) analysis of the budget.
One-time transfers, generally, are economically neutral. Taxes, generally, are not economically neutral.
One-time transfers and taxes, generally, are not morally neutral.
“Fairness” is not a term I am able to understand in any consistent way, so I am going to say, it’s quite possible that an unequal wealth distribution is unfair. It’s also possible that taxes are unfair. It’s also possible that wealth redistribution is unfair. The interesting question, to me, is where any particular person draws the line, and why they draw it there.
So far, I’ve not read much on this point.
I don’t agree with those people. I think we should have a reasonably progressive tax structure.
I’ve a question for those who are against “redistribution.” What should we do with the poor? Let them starve? Hope that private charity has 100% coverage? Let private charity help the photogenic cases, but let the 400lb fast food junkie starve (albeit slowly, I guess)? What about Joe the Janitor who makes so little that he still qualifies for food stamps? Will his salary go up because Hank Hilton doesn’t get the hidden subsidy of food stamps to his employees, or will the fear of starvation force Joe to accept any salary offered? Janitors will always be needed, so suggestions that Joe should get some job skills just mean that Bill the janitor will be the one in Joe’s current position.
Not sure how you got this number. When I add up the categories “Unemployment/Welfare/Other Mandatory Spending”, “Medicaid and SCHIP”, and “HHS”, I get just under 21%. What else were you including to arrive at 30%?
No. They paid 70% of the federal income taxes. That does not mean 70% of the budget. A lot of the budget is supported by social security and medicare taxes (and, in fact, because these programs currently run a surplus, they support more than just the S.S. and medicare spending parts of the budget). There are also some other taxes that come into play (estate taxes, various user fees, etc.). And, of course, part of the budget is supported by borrowing…i.e., selling treasury notes.
Even neglecting the errors noted above, this division is kind of arbitrary. I suppose what you could say (if you had not made the other errors) is that the money from the top 10% is sufficient to support everything else in the budget besides the 30% you identified as welfare and such.
That’s a good point, but I just find it odd that people are calling progressive taxes “redistribution”. Welfare and medicaid, sure maybe. But just tax cuts?
No, it was more like a lot of people said “Wow, that is awesome! Here, let me give you some money for one of those.”
No. I expect that if the rich really were dirty and heartless leeches as you say, people would refuse to give them money in the first place. That is not to say that white-collar crime and fraud don’t happen. But bitch about crime and fraud and I’ll support you. Bitch about the rich simply because they’re rich and all you are is jealous.
Again, I’m saying that Wal-Mart never should have gotten as rich and successful as they are if they haven’t been providing valuable goods and services all along. Wal-Mart competed with other retailers all along and prevailed. They didn’t get that way by screwing over their customers and treating their employees like slaves, or else nobody would work for them or buy from them. They became successful because they provided enormous amounts of value to society.
People fuck over other people every day and get away with it. Fine. Certainly, there are currently ways that people can lie, cheat and steal their way to the top.
So why don’t you bitch about the lying, the cheating and the stealing, instead of just bitching that they’re at the top?
A ‘fair’ government should ensure that nobody builds their wealth through dishonesty and coercion. Not that nobody builds any wealth at all.
- That’s not what I read from that poster’s comments. 2) I don’t know why you would expect that conclusion. I have no idea what the management of IBM is like, nevermind upper management, the board, or the CEO. How could their personality possibly affect my decision in the way you’re suggesting?
Um, yeah. There are indications that worker productivity rose from 2000 to 2007, but middle class real income fell. If productivity increases, either wages should increase, or the price of goods should decrease. But–perhaps mysteriously to you–neither happened (if either happened, real income would rise even if nominal salaries did not).
There’s a difference between saying they shouldn’t be rich at all and saying they maybe shouldn’t be as rich as they are without having anything to do with being jealous of billionaires.
I apologize if I mischaracterized foolsguinea’s stance. However, the “rich people are heartless robber barons who don’t deserve what they have” stance seems to be prevalent in this thread.
Do you give IBM money? Presumably, if you do, you are getting something in return, agreed upon in advance. It isn’t a one-way transaction with you as the victim of some capitalistic leech sucking you dry. You voluntarily gave IBM money. You wouldn’t have done so if there wasn’t something in it for you.
People value things differently across time. Even if productivity goes up, the value of that productivity might go down due to variations in supply and demand. It has nothing to do with whether or not people who did get paid more deserved it.
It sure is jealousy. You’re saying that you’re not jealous of all rich people, just the really rich ones. Where is the line? If you make a million dollars you’re cool, but if you make a million and one, you didn’t deserve it? Why don’t we let the person who gave the rich guy money in the first place determine whether the goods and services he got in exchange are worth it? Then the solution is automatic: if he doesn’t deserve the money, he won’t get it at all. All the government has to do is make sure the law prevents foul play in the transaction.
DrCube, it seems clear to me that you somehow have never had to buy from someone who had a lock on the market, or had to borrow from someone you found personally repugnant. Why don’t you go & talk to some small businessmen about anything & everything for a couple of years & come back?
So you would be in favor of private roads, private bridges, private military forces, private police forces, private justice systems, private jails, etc.?
Who would determine where national, state, county/parish, city, and personal property lines were?
Maybe anyone who posts about fairness should define what he or she means by it. A person thinking all should be taxed an equal amount won’t agree with someone who thinks we should be taxed an equal percentage won’t agree with someone who thinks we should be taxed to an equal level of pain.
This is it right here. Wealthy people need more government services than poor people.
Wealthy people need roads, rails, etc. to ship the goods that they manufacture, police to protect their assets, a monetary system to be able to trade with others, and a whole host of other things that the government provides them with. And they need these services to a degree that a poor person does not.
Why shouldn’t they pay a higher percentage for them, since they use a higher percentage of the services that government offers?
How very patronizing. I am salaried, so I do not measure my value in terms of hours worked nor manual labor. I was hired for a specific, specialized skill set and certain talents that are not easily found in any Joe Six Pack you yank off the street. My value to the company is measured by A) projects completed on time, B) projects completed under budget, and C) accuracy of my work. If I turn out poor-quality crap, and am unable to solve problems that crop up as a result of the constraints built into the workflow, my client does not value my performance.
If my client is happy with my performance, there’s a good chance that they will extend or renew our contract, which keeps me employed. Because the company’s product is contract-driven, the only way I could create 400 jobs for my company would be to be in a sales position where I’m responsible for bringing in a contract that requires 400 more jobs. That’s not what I do. I move commas around. I don’t work in the corporate office: I’m contracted to work in the client’s office, for the client, on the client’s projects. I have no exposure to any other clients besides the one I’m working with. I have no exposure to any other departments in my company, nor my direct supervisor because I work six states away from the company that pays me. Company loses the contract = I’m unemployed.
I repeat: I am fine with this. What I had a problem with was having bonuses cancelled and being sent a jar of barbecue sauce as a consolation prize. :mad: Meanwhile, the tricky accountants cooked the books to make the company look more profitable than it was, which created an opportunity for another larger company to gobble us up. After the sale went through, suddenly the company had enough profit to pay bonuses and give raises. During the barbecue sauce year, the executives at the top still took home 5-figure bonuses. I am rewarded and valued by the company only when it’s convenient for them, not because my contribution is valuable to them. Why should they be rewarded for their corruption in selling me out?
Putting it in quotes doesn’t help ascribe it to anyone.
Of course. But that doesn’t mean that, after all, there isn’t a capitalistic leech behind the reins. Not everyone is equally price sensitive. The free-market price of a good OS may be vastly lower than what Microsoft is charging for the OS, in which case, people can be getting sucked dry by capitalist leeches and get something of value.
It doesn’t have nothing to do with it, it just means there is a plausible explanation why it wouldn’t be the case, which I freely admit. Can you admit the alternative?
I am jealous of really rich people, but that is different from saying they may be too rich. I know for a fact that we do not live in a free market; this means it is quite possible for wealth to be allocated inefficiently; this means it is quite possible for someone to be “too rich,” including someone who only gets $10,000 a year from government handouts, but also including someone like the CEO of Disney. I recognize that it is possible. Once we agree it is possible, we can discuss who is too rich, what signs we might have of it, and what we can do about it. If you disagree with government handouts, you agree someone can be “too rich,” only your criteria are not quite clear enough, and it is not clear whether there are different kinds of “too rich” that we’re willing to live with.
I believe that there may be a difference between the value of “the next dollar earned,” depending on who we are talking about. Do you believe this, as well?
I’m not interested in the person that paid for it. I’m interested in the person that almost paid for it. That’s the person that was most affected. Incidentally, it is also why taxes are bad: not because people pay them, but because by not engaging in economic activity, they can avoid them.
Can you imagine a case where a person doesn’t deserve all the money but should certainly have some of it or even most of it? I can.
And then what happens, everyone who has money deserves it through their effort? That is not the case in inheritance. Everyone who has their money was willingly given to them by someone else? That’s true, but that doesn’t indicate they deserve it. If you recognize politicans can manipulate the environment to extract money from people, why do you not recognize that businesses can do the same? What magic power does the government have that businesses don’t, after you’ve removed all restrictions on economic activity?
Ok, now I have a better idea what you’re getting at.
But here’s the thing. Social security, medicare, medicaid and to some extent veteran’s benefits are huge transfer programs – taking from taxpayers and giving to someone else.
And “Charging” is a little misleading, since some workers and shareholders benefit from federal spending more than others (and hire lobbyists for this reason). Redistribution, for better or worse, is intrinsic to government, be it 20th century, 19th century or ancient Rome.
That’s not a bad summary, but it leaves out the breakdown of due diligence among mortgage providers (who were not banks and therefore outside of much of the regulatory structure), the failure of the rating agencies, the preposterously complicated, opaque, ill-conceived and misunderstood derivatives (CDOs) based upon those underlying assets, etc. etc.
It was a massive failure of risk management, a true paradigm shifter for policy analysts.
Understanding fairness in a consistent way is no problem – just read Rawls or Nozick. But consistent and persuasive? That’s another matter.
I’ve despaired of finding a strong philosophical grounding for any set of tax rates.
Here’s my line: there’s a soft upper bound on the top tax bracket where incentives start to go wobbly. So keep the rate below that – and leave scope for temporary tax increases in case of war and the like. Then again, I haven’t read any empirical support for where that bound may lie, though 70% sounds ok to me. In practice this means returning to the 50% top rate of the 1970s and aggressively limiting tax deductions. Politics will be the art of the possible of course.
Hey, at least the sky is not the limit.
From second-hand accounts, I like Rawls. Haven’t yet gotten around to first-hand accounts, but I’ve bought the book and its in the queue. Nozik, from whom I have gotten a first-hand account, I’m not so sure about.
I like the negative income tax (in the handout + flat rate form). I have preached it here to little fanfare, but it feels very good to me. It’s progressive in its effects, but even-handed in its incentives. Unfortunately it leaves the problem of “what is income and how do we find it” totally unsolved and my knowledge is too meager to even propose a solution to this problem.
I like this negative income tax idea. It reminds me of a friend’s suggestion for a redistribution tax (though it’s not exactly the same). He suggested taxing everyone at a flat rate, say 10%, then taking those proceeds & dividing them evenly among the whole populace. That would show just how far the median is below the mean; half of America would think they’d been overpaid.
You’re worried about sounding confrontational? Okay, buddy, who are you, and what have you done with Shodan? 
Seriously, yes of course you can, and sorry I missed this query earlier.
I’m not quite sure where you’re getting the specifics of your comparison from—why should we require that the two investors have the same amount of money? why should we compare only their willingness to risk their entire investment? why should we require that one of them be a single individual rather than a private investment firm?
But I think my general assessment that pension funds and mutual funds are likely to be, on average, less aggressively risk-tolerant than private investors with lots of “play money” is basically sound.
For example, this article notes that banks and hedge funds were much more active in the high-risk, low-transparency credit default swaps market than pension funds and mutual funds:
Yes, pension funds and mutual funds certainly can make reckless investment decisions too. But my point is that they’re significantly less likely to aggressively seek out high risk for the sake of high returns. AFAICT, they’re not the ones who were chiefly fueling the growth of the highly speculative derivatives markets.
I don’t have a responsibility towards anyone but myself.