The Alternative

[head of joaquin]

So everyone should be taxed, except for you. I understand.

I suspect this is the essence of conservative thinking on tax policy.

 

[head of joaquin]

In other words: When liberals talk about sharing the wealth they never mean their own.

No, when progressives talk about tax policy it's about tax POLICY, not whether you or I individually are better off (and you have no idea what my income is so any speculation on your part is silly). When conservatives talk about tax policy, they really aren't talking about tax policy, but instead they're trying to detract by talking about how you or I am affected. You don't make tax policy that way.

If you can't talk about tax POLICY just say so. But be advised that individual taxes aren't the issue in that debate, regardless of whether you or I are better off or not.

By the way, if you want to pay a flat tax and eschew all deductions, be my guest. Don't take any deductions voluntarily. But leave my deductions alone.

See how easy it is to make silly personalizations of tax POLICY>

 

[Master PO]

How Successful Cooperative Economic Models Can Work Wonderfully

The cooperative.

It takes away the problems that come with for profit (i'm using the word profit to mean the wealth extracted by the capitalist from the worker), it takes care of many negative externality problems, it keeps wealth within the community, it raises wages, wages raise WITH productivity, it democratises the economy, gets rid of the class conflict, it also avoids problems with nationalization.

This is the model we should be working towards.

tell that to the pilgrims.

 

[Xerographica]

In other words: When liberals talk about sharing the wealth they never mean their own.

So what? If you're a millionaire...and I steal a loaf of bread from you and give it to a starving child...then clearly your loss is significantly smaller than the gain of a life. Therefore, the total well-being of society would be improved.

The point is, from the purely economic perspective, if we assume that liberals do "better" things with the stolen wealth, then it's beneficial for society as a whole if they share other people's wealth.

Of course, you can simply take the easy/lazy/stupid route and argue that it's morally wrong to steal...no matter how beneficial the consequences are. This is a deontological argument. Clearly though, liberals could care less about your morality because they falsely perceive that the consequences of their actions are beneficial to society as a whole.

So given that their arguments are entirely "consequential" in nature...if you want to get through to them (and others on the sidelines)...then your arguments need to be consequential as well. You have to show that sharing other people's wealth might have initial beneficial consequences...but the subsequent consequences are far more harmful.

For example, let's say that liberals gave away all of Mr. Baker's bread. The initial consequences would be beneficial...they would prevent 100s and 100s of children from starving to death. But the subsequent consequences would be far more harmful because Mr. Baker would go out of business...numerous people would lose their jobs and the supply of bread would be diminished. More people out of jobs and less food means a larger supply of starving children...which means that liberals would want more government intervention. It's a vicious cycle.

Bastiat referred to this as the Seen vs the Unseen. Liberals are only capable of seeing the immediate consequences of an action...the SEEN...they are unable to see the subsequent consequences...the UNSEEN. For example...liberals favor higher minimum wages because they SEE that people are immediately better off if they have living wages. What is UNSEEN though is the harmful subsequent consequences.

I just posted a thread on this topic... ...

Like I said, if you want to make yourself truly useful, then it would help to learn the economic (consequential) arguments for liberty. They aren't easy to learn/understand/share...but it's worth the effort.

 

[imagep]

So what? If you're a millionaire...and I steal a loaf of bread from you and give it to a starving child...then clearly your loss is significantly smaller than the gain of a life. Therefore, the total well-being of society would be improved.

The point is, from the purely economic perspective, if we assume that liberals do "better" things with the stolen wealth, then it's beneficial for society as a whole if they share other people's wealth.

Of course, you can simply take the easy/lazy/stupid route and argue that it's morally wrong to steal...no matter how beneficial the consequences are. This is a deontological argument. Clearly though, liberals could care less about your morality because they falsely perceive that the consequences of their actions are beneficial to society as a whole.

So given that their arguments are entirely "consequential" in nature...if you want to get through to them (and others on the sidelines)...then your arguments need to be consequential as well. You have to show that sharing other people's wealth might have initial beneficial consequences...but the subsequent consequences are far more harmful.

For example, let's say that liberals gave away all of Mr. Baker's bread. The initial consequences would be beneficial...they would prevent 100s and 100s of children from starving to death. But the subsequent consequences would be far more harmful because Mr. Baker would go out of business...numerous people would lose their jobs and the supply of bread would be diminished. More people out of jobs and less food means a larger supply of starving children...which means that liberals would want more government intervention. It's a vicious cycle.

Bastiat referred to this as the Seen vs the Unseen. Liberals are only capable of seeing the immediate consequences of an action...the SEEN...they are unable to see the subsequent consequences...the UNSEEN. For example...liberals favor higher minimum wages because they SEE that people are immediately better off if they have living wages. What is UNSEEN though is the harmful subsequent consequences.

I just posted a thread on this topic... ...

Like I said, if you want to make yourself truly useful, then it would help to learn the economic (consequential) arguments for liberty. They aren't easy to learn/understand/share...but it's worth the effort.

Great post!!!

I also gave you a "like" on the post that you linked to. I don't really agree about the minimum wage thing, I see that more as evening up differences in negotiating power than a subsidy, but I got your point, and do totally agree with the rest of it. Subsidies and price controls (with the exception of minimum wage) do tend to distort the market, and rarely if ever (probably more like never) result in optimal results.

To quote the great GW Bush, "I think I mis-underestimated you".

 

[Xerographica]

Great post!!!

I also gave you a "like" on the post that you linked to. I don't really agree about the minimum wage thing, I see that more as evening up differences in negotiating power than a subsidy, but I got your point, and do totally agree with the rest of it. Subsidies and price controls (with the exception of minimum wage) do tend to distort the market, and rarely if ever (probably more like never) result in optimal results.

To quote the great GW Bush, "I think I mis-underestimated you".

Thanks! But I'm not quite sure how you can agree about subsidies and price controls...but disagree about minimum wages. I posted a more in depth critique of minimum wages just for you ...

 

[Dapper Andy]

I said it didn't cause harm when EXCESS was taxed away. Not when needed resources were taxed away.

Exactly. And that's what I'm talking about too.

Bill Gates doesn't need $50B any more than you need $50K and there are plenty of people living on far less who prove it.

You're quick to point out what others don't actually need and to volunteer them to give up their possessions but seem unwilling to do the same.

I guess it's different when we're talking about your excess though.

So everyone should be taxed, except for you. I understand.

Is this any different than your belief that the wealthy should pay exuberant taxes to keep your own tax bill low?

Again, I guess it's different when it comes to you.

So you're OK with taxation?

Sure. I just don't see a reason why one group has to pay nearly all taxes.

 

[KevinKohler]

Because the wealthy reap more benefit, are more able to pay, and have more to lose should they not pay.


It's not about right or wrong, or fair, when the chips are down. It just is.

 

[imagep]

Thanks! But I'm not quite sure how you can agree about subsidies and price controls...but disagree about minimum wages. I posted a more in depth critique of minimum wages just for you ...

Yea, I understand why someone wouldn't think that made any sense and may be someone self contradictory.

Thats part of the reason that I touched based upon that just a tad. Lower end workers don't have the negotiating skills or power that higher end workers do. Also, I see income disparity as one of our greatest economic issues. Again, it's more about leveling the playing field than it is a subsidy. The guberment doesn't subsidise companies to pay employees a decent wage, thus minimum wage isn't a subsidy, even though it may be a price control of sorts. Also, when our guberment distributes our tax money to people who work, but are paid low wages, the tax payer is effectively subsidizing the compensation that these low wage paying companies pay - I'd much rather cut out the subsidies that the tax payer pays, and just require companies to pay a decent wage to begin with.

It's the lesser of evils.

 

[imagep]

Exactly. And that's what I'm talking about too.

Bill Gates doesn't need $50B any more than you need $50K and there are plenty of people living on far less who prove it.

If I had to pay an additional $50k in taxes, it would significantly lower my standard of living. If Gates had to pay an additional $50k in taxes, it wouldn't effect his standard of living as it would simply come from his excess savings.

You're quick to point out what others don't actually need and to volunteer them to give up their possessions but seem unwilling to do the same.

I guess it's different when we're talking about your excess though.

No, it's exactly the same. If I was making a billion dollars a year, I would be perfectly willing to admit that I had "excess", just Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have.

Bill Gates

Warren Buffett calls for a minimum tax on the wealthy | Reuters

Is this any different than your belief that the wealthy should pay exuberant taxes to keep your own tax bill low?

Again, I guess it's different when it comes to you.

Nope, like I said, if I made far more than I need, I would have no issue with paying higher taxes as it would cause me no personal harm. I would also have no issue with those who did not have an income which is in excess of what they need paying lower taxes, or even no taxes.

it's not an issue of fairness. Fairness has no real meaning in economics.

What does matter in economics is practicality and effect. It's not practical for the median wage earner making $40k/yr to pay an additional $50k in taxes. It's not even possible. However it is perfectly practical for Bill Gates to pay an additional $50k in taxes. And as to effect, any time that you shift tax burden from those with the highest propensity to spend the marginal dollar to those with a lower propensity to spend the marginal dollar, then demand increases, and demand is what creates jobs and business profits. It's entirely possible that if we shifted more of our tax burden to the very rich, that the very rich would become even richer due to higher business profits.

Nothing "unfair" about becoming richer due to good economic policies is there?

Sure. I just don't see a reason why one group has to pay nearly all taxes.

Because it would be good for the economy. I know that doesn't fit into your ideology, but apparently people like Buffet and Gates believe it to be true, and I happen to agree with them.

 

[head of joaquin]

Exactly. And that's what I'm talking about too.

Bill Gates doesn't need $50B any more than you need $50K and there are plenty of people living on far less who prove it.

You're quick to point out what others don't actually need and to volunteer them to give up their possessions but seem unwilling to do the same.

I guess it's different when we're talking about your excess though.


Is this any different than your belief that the wealthy should pay exuberant taxes to keep your own tax bill low?

Again, I guess it's different when it comes to you.




Sure. I just don't see a reason why one group has to pay nearly all taxes.

What in Sam Hill are you talking about? We have a bracket system in the US. Gates pays the same rates as his janitor on his first $15K (leaving aside AMT). He's only taxed at the highest rate on the dollars in the top bracket, and that's only about 40%. It isn't "taxed away".

Under out system you're always better off making more money. Always. To claim that people who make a $100M and can keep "only" $60M are somehow suffering indicates how irrational the tax debate has become in certain ideological circles.

 

[RGacky3]

Why should we work toward that model?

Because it solves the internal problems of Capitalism.

 

[RGacky3]

tell that to the pilgrims.

The pilgrims were a subsidiary of the London Corporation, not an actual cooperative, they were chartered.