Random thoughts and plans for the coming inflation.

[JLee]

We can increase opportunity by better funding education and so on.

But I feel like even if we had a perfect meritocracy, you still wouldn't be happy.

Imagine if society were truly frictionless and the most talented people got the lion's share and the least talented got scraps. It may well be a similar distribution we have with incomes as today, but with no nepotism, corruption, etc.

That still wouldn't be your perfect society, would it? Because the issues with distribution of income would remain.

So you're not actually arguing for just greater equality of opportunity. You're arguing for greater equality of outcome. And I don't agree iwith the latter (other than via providing universal basic services as a safety net).

Thumbs up.

No one is heartless. We all want things done for people truly victimized in this world. We all want kids given the best opportunity possible. We all want people to receive healthcare. We can argue the shades of grey on each of those issues - but that is beside the point.

What I take issue with is the current political narrative that the problem of anyone who has a poor outcome is the fault of someone better off than them, and therefore that richer person should bear the cost. That without a doubt is the narrative in todays political climate. It leads to "give me a fish - even if I put no effort into learning how to fish" mentality.

I truly believe that the general rule in the first world (with exceptions) is that the greatest factor in your own success is your own actions.

Literally nobody here is making that argument.

[Simpleton]

We can increase opportunity by better funding education and so on.

But I feel like even if we had a perfect meritocracy, you still wouldn't be happy.

Imagine if society were truly frictionless and the most talented people got the lion's share and the least talented got scraps. It may well be a similar distribution we have with incomes as today, but with no nepotism, corruption, etc.

That still wouldn't be your perfect society, would it? Because the issues with distribution of income would remain.

So you're not actually arguing for just greater equality of opportunity. You're arguing for greater equality of outcome. And I don't agree iwith the latter (other than via providing universal basic services as a safety net).

Thumbs up.

No one is heartless. We all want things done for people truly victimized in this world. We all want kids given the best opportunity possible. We all want people to receive healthcare. We can argue the shades of grey on each of those issues - but that is beside the point.

What I take issue with is the current political narrative that the problem of anyone who has a poor outcome is the fault of someone better off than them, and therefore that richer person should bear the cost. That without a doubt is the narrative in todays political climate. It leads to "give me a fish - even if I put no effort into learning how to fish" mentality.

I truly believe that the general rule in the first world (with exceptions) is that the greatest factor in your own success is your own actions.

Literally nobody here is making that argument.

This is 100% of the political climate today.
-Reparations for historical racial injustice
-Tax the CEO's, they are stealing from the worker
-Tax the boomers, they have all the housing wealth!
-Eat the rich! We cant take enough taxes from them!
-Billionaires are exploiting the world
-Western nations exploit poor nations
-Men conspire to pay women less money

The victim narrative is very prolific. Several of these have come up in prior posts in this thread.

There is some merit in some of these claims, but it is not the best way to raise people up.

Success is not a zero sum game.

[GuitarStv]

I do not understand how you can simultaneously argue that the intrinsic value of an hour of labor does not change based on how many dollars it earns, yet you are okay with exploding CEO pay and claim that increasing the minimum wage will cause inflation.  Enabling people to afford basic necessities of life will somehow cause inflation, but pumping trillions into the hands of the rich will not?

The value of something should be what is freely exchanged for it.

All sorts of distortions occur when you use the political process to manipulate the freely exchanged rate. Inflation, job loss, price changes, service reductions.

This is why its so muddy and difficult and interesting to discuss the outcomes of these (poor) policy enactments.

Where do you stand on slavery?  Plenty of slave owners were freely exchanging money for slaves.  Only government imposed market limits ended up preventing the slave trade in the United States as the free market was very pro-slavery.    Seems like distortions of the free market are necessary and that striving for the freest possible market is a flawed approach.

I agree that it's muddy and difficult to discuss outcomes of policy enactments sometimes.  I disagree that they're all poor.

[GuitarStv]

We can increase opportunity by better funding education and so on.

But I feel like even if we had a perfect meritocracy, you still wouldn't be happy.

Imagine if society were truly frictionless and the most talented people got the lion's share and the least talented got scraps. It may well be a similar distribution we have with incomes as today, but with no nepotism, corruption, etc.

That still wouldn't be your perfect society, would it? Because the issues with distribution of income would remain.

So you're not actually arguing for just greater equality of opportunity. You're arguing for greater equality of outcome. And I don't agree iwith the latter (other than via providing universal basic services as a safety net).

Thumbs up.

No one is heartless. We all want things done for people truly victimized in this world. We all want kids given the best opportunity possible. We all want people to receive healthcare. We can argue the shades of grey on each of those issues - but that is beside the point.

What I take issue with is the current political narrative that the problem of anyone who has a poor outcome is the fault of someone better off than them, and therefore that richer person should bear the cost. That without a doubt is the narrative in todays political climate. It leads to "give me a fish - even if I put no effort into learning how to fish" mentality.

I truly believe that the general rule in the first world (with exceptions) is that the greatest factor in your own success is your own actions.

Literally nobody here is making that argument.

This is 100% of the political climate today.
-Reparations for historical racial injustice
-Tax the CEO's, they are stealing from the worker
-Tax the boomers, they have all the housing wealth!
-Eat the rich! We cant take enough taxes from them!
-Billionaires are exploiting the world
-Western nations exploit poor nations
-Men conspire to pay women less money

The victim narrative is very prolific. Several of these have come up in prior posts in this thread.

There is some merit in some of these claims, but it is not the best way to raise people up.

Success is not a zero sum game.

Which of the claims listed are without merit in your eyes?

[Simpleton]

Where do you stand on slavery?  Plenty of slave owners were freely exchanging money for slaves.  Only government imposed market limits ended up preventing the slave trade in the United States as the free market was very pro-slavery.    Seems like distortions of the free market are necessary and that striving for the freest possible market is a flawed approach.
I agree that it's muddy and difficult to discuss outcomes of policy enactments sometimes.  I disagree that they're all poor.

Obviously anti-slavery. That is by definition not a free exchange for all parties involved.

Also, Pretty sure its known that you win the debate when the other side resorts to essentially calling you a nazi. Poor form

Which of the claims listed are without merit in your eyes?

-Most of these claims have significant merit for SOME people, and a small amount of merit for many people.
-MANY people using these grievances to explain their positions today also have personal actions/choices which have contributed to their outcomes to a much greater extent.
-The housing wealth one for boomers I think is without any merit... I think thats just a product of interest rates.
-I also think the data is inconclusive regarding the gender pay gap - some data says its personal choices in todays generation. I think historically it was a real thing though.

[GuitarStv]

Where do you stand on slavery?  Plenty of slave owners were freely exchanging money for slaves.  Only government imposed market limits ended up preventing the slave trade in the United States as the free market was very pro-slavery.    Seems like distortions of the free market are necessary and that striving for the freest possible market is a flawed approach.
I agree that it's muddy and difficult to discuss outcomes of policy enactments sometimes.  I disagree that they're all poor.

Obviously anti-slavery. That is by definition not a free exchange for all parties involved.

Also, Pretty sure its known that you win the debate when the other side resorts to essentially calling you a nazi. Poor form

'

I absolutely didn't call you a nazi and expected that you were not pro-slavery.  But my point stands.  The free market fully condoned and accepted slavery.  Slavery only ended when the free market was controlled, and capitalists fought against ending it.

Which of the claims listed are without merit in your eyes?

-Most of these claims have significant merit for SOME people, and a small amount of merit for many people.
-MANY people using these grievances to explain their positions today also have personal actions/choices which have contributed to their outcomes to a much greater extent.
-The housing wealth one for boomers I think is without any merit... I think thats just a product of interest rates.
-I also think the data is inconclusive regarding the gender pay gap - some data says its personal choices in todays generation. I think historically it was a real thing though.
[/quote]

Can you be a little more specific in your answer?  Who exactly is using these grievances to explain their positions today in lieu of attempting to better themself?

[ender]

This is 100% of the political climate today.
-Reparations for historical racial injustice
-Tax the CEO's, they are stealing from the worker
-Tax the boomers, they have all the housing wealth!
-Eat the rich! We cant take enough taxes from them!
-Billionaires are exploiting the world
-Western nations exploit poor nations
-Men conspire to pay women less money

The victim narrative is very prolific. Several of these have come up in prior posts in this thread.

There is some merit in some of these claims, but it is not the best way to raise people up.

Success is not a zero sum game.

Are you really reducing this thread to a complete strawman? "Well, no one in this thread said it. But it's the political climate!"

Why not respond to what people in this thread are actually saying vs a boogeyman argument you constructed?

Personally, I am rather disappointed you reduced 5 pages of discussion to the "victim narrative."

Is it safe for me to reduce your argument to the "heartless bastard" narrative? Where you believe the poor should starve because they are lazy or stupid?

[djadziadax]

This argument is useless - both sides are entrenched into talking points. That is why power matters - whoever is in power gets to implement their talking points.

I only know that even in highly taxed countries (which is the only way to solve this wealth inequality), like Germany, there are still a lot of poor people, and there are still a lot of billionares. But the social net is funded not by the rich, but by the middle class. So the flaw in the taxation argument is that the rich, if taxed enough, will be able to fund free college, free healthcare, free childcare, better infrastructure, etc.

As long as the proponents for higher taxes are willing to pay fed tax of 50% on incomes 5x the average wage

Country    Top Marginal Income Tax Rate (in %) (a)    Top Marginal Income
Tax Threshold (in Euros) (b)    Top Marginal Income Tax Threshold (expressed as a multiple of the average wage)

Germany    47.5     € 267,190    5.4

[mckaylabaloney]

I only know that even in highly taxed countries (which is the only way to solve this wealth inequality), like Germany, there are still a lot of poor people, and there are still a lot of billionares. But the social net is funded not by the rich, but by the middle class. So the flaw in the taxation argument is that the rich, if taxed enough, will be able to fund free college, free healthcare, free childcare, better infrastructure, etc.

As long as the proponents for higher taxes are willing to pay fed tax of 50% on incomes 5x the average wage

Country    Top Marginal Income Tax Rate (in %) (a)    Top Marginal Income
Tax Threshold (in Euros) (b)    Top Marginal Income Tax Threshold (expressed as a multiple of the average wage)

Germany    47.5     € 267,190    5.4

I'm not sure how this follows? You're saying (I think?) that people who claim that higher taxes on the rich alone could fund various social programs are wrong, and that the middle class would have to pay higher taxes too. But in support of that conclusion, you point to a country that...apparently isn't especially taxing its rich relative to the middle class? I don't know how this proves your point. The fact that Germany is funding its social programs through high income taxes on all (and not just the uber wealthy) doesn't, on its own, prove that its social programs couldn't be funded through even higher taxes on the uber wealthy. We would need a lot more information to draw that conclusion (and a lot more yet to conclude that the same thing would be true in the US).

Also, income tax is not the only opportunity to increase taxes on the wealthy. Maybe not even the most potentially lucrative one w/r/t the ultra-wealthy? I don't know what their annual incomes typically look like (compared to other taxable opportunities such as capital gains, overall wealth in the case of the proposed wealth tax, estates, etc.). Does Germany have high taxes on the wealthy in other respects, beyond income tax?

[djadziadax]

Longer thought:

We agree that taxation is really the only way to redistribute/transfer money from the well off to the poor through funding social support nets and eliminating cost of things like healthcare. But is the goal to eliminate poverty and working poor? Is that ever possible? Perhaps an example from Europe can illuminate the discussion.

For example Germany, known for its social protections and high standard of living, has top marginal rate of 47% on incomes starting at 5x the average wage*. That is a very broad tax base. In the US, median wage in 2019 was 51k**, so 47% tax would start at 250K. So just taxing the top earners will not cut it to have social support such as in Germany and still maintain strong economy.

*https://taxfoundation.org/top-individual-income-tax-rates-europe-2019/
*https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/average-american-income/

But still, Germany has not eliminated poverty. Also Germany defense budget is less than 2% (most gov revenue goes to internal spending) while the US is 15%.

https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-minimum-wage-is-barely-above-the-poverty-line/a-46797781

Of course those higher German taxes get you free healthcare, and good SS payments but there are still people living barely over the poverty line.

20% of children in Germany live in poverty....

https://www.dw.com/en/1-in-5-children-in-germany-grow-up-in-poverty/a-54260165

I do not know what policy is best, but it is clear even countries with high tax regimes have not succeeded in the quest of eliminating poverty and the issue of the working poor.

Perhaps UBI is the only way to guarantee that income of the poor is closer to the median age than to the poverty line. We have a live experiment now where stimulus money are keeping some people from going back to minimum- and low-paid jobs. UBI will be the ultimate social net, it will be immensely expensive since even in Germany high taxes are not enough to eliminate poverty.

[djadziadax]

I only know that even in highly taxed countries (which is the only way to solve this wealth inequality), like Germany, there are still a lot of poor people, and there are still a lot of billionares. But the social net is funded not by the rich, but by the middle class. So the flaw in the taxation argument is that the rich, if taxed enough, will be able to fund free college, free healthcare, free childcare, better infrastructure, etc.

As long as the proponents for higher taxes are willing to pay fed tax of 50% on incomes 5x the average wage

Country    Top Marginal Income Tax Rate (in %) (a)    Top Marginal Income
Tax Threshold (in Euros) (b)    Top Marginal Income Tax Threshold (expressed as a multiple of the average wage)

Germany    47.5     € 267,190    5.4

I'm not sure how this follows? You're saying (I think?) that people who claim that higher taxes on the rich alone could fund various social programs are wrong, and that the middle class would have to pay higher taxes too. But in support of that conclusion, you point to a country that...apparently isn't especially taxing its rich relative to the middle class? I don't know how this proves your point. The fact that Germany is funding its social programs through high income taxes on all (and not just the uber wealthy) doesn't, on its own, prove that its social programs couldn't be funded through even higher taxes on the uber wealthy. We would need a lot more information to draw that conclusion (and a lot more yet to conclude that the same thing would be true in the US).

Also, income tax is not the only opportunity to increase taxes on the wealthy. Maybe not even the most potentially lucrative one w/r/t the ultra-wealthy? I don't know what their annual incomes typically look like (compared to other taxable opportunities such as capital gains, overall wealth in the case of the proposed wealth tax, estates, etc.). Does Germany have high taxes on the wealthy in other respects, beyond income tax?

I believe you are saying that tax of 47% on anyone making more that 267K is not high enough. To me that seems quite high (not arguing against it).

[djadziadax]

Also, on the wealth tax:

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

We can increase opportunity by better funding education and so on.

But I feel like even if we had a perfect meritocracy, you still wouldn't be happy.

Imagine if society were truly frictionless and the most talented people got the lion's share and the least talented got scraps. It may well be a similar distribution we have with incomes as today, but with no nepotism, corruption, etc.

That still wouldn't be your perfect society, would it? Because the issues with distribution of income would remain.

So you're not actually arguing for just greater equality of opportunity. You're arguing for greater equality of outcome. And I don't agree iwith the latter (other than via providing universal basic services as a safety net).

Thumbs up.

No one is heartless. We all want things done for people truly victimized in this world. We all want kids given the best opportunity possible. We all want people to receive healthcare. We can argue the shades of grey on each of those issues - but that is beside the point.

What I take issue with is the current political narrative that the problem of anyone who has a poor outcome is the fault of someone better off than them, and therefore that richer person should bear the cost. That without a doubt is the narrative in todays political climate. It leads to "give me a fish - even if I put no effort into learning how to fish" mentality.

I truly believe that the general rule in the first world (with exceptions) is that the greatest factor in your own success is your own actions.

Literally nobody here is making that argument.

This is 100% of the political climate today.
-Reparations for historical racial injustice
-Tax the CEO's, they are stealing from the worker
-Tax the boomers, they have all the housing wealth!
-Eat the rich! We cant take enough taxes from them!
-Billionaires are exploiting the world
-Western nations exploit poor nations
-Men conspire to pay women less money

The victim narrative is very prolific. Several of these have come up in prior posts in this thread.

There is some merit in some of these claims, but it is not the best way to raise people up.

Success is not a zero sum game.

Which of the claims listed are without merit in your eyes?

All of them. We need a baseline level of tax to fund universal basic services but otherwise why is it germane that a CEO makes $100 trillion dollars a day while a worker makes min wage? It is what it is. You get what you can. If you're unfit in body or mind you get a safety net. As long as the processes are transparent and the rule of law applies I don't have a problem with it.

[Simpleton]

This is 100% of the political climate today.
-Reparations for historical racial injustice
-Tax the CEO's, they are stealing from the worker
-Tax the boomers, they have all the housing wealth!
-Eat the rich! We cant take enough taxes from them!
-Billionaires are exploiting the world
-Western nations exploit poor nations
-Men conspire to pay women less money

The victim narrative is very prolific. Several of these have come up in prior posts in this thread.

There is some merit in some of these claims, but it is not the best way to raise people up.

Success is not a zero sum game.

Are you really reducing this thread to a complete strawman? "Well, no one in this thread said it. But it's the political climate!"

Why not respond to what people in this thread are actually saying vs a boogeyman argument you constructed?

Personally, I am rather disappointed you reduced 5 pages of discussion to the "victim narrative."

Is it safe for me to reduce your argument to the "heartless bastard" narrative? Where you believe the poor should starve because they are lazy or stupid?

I will give you this point.

My argument in this post was lazy.

I was trying to sum up my position on a variety of topics in a few lines which doesn't acutally really work.

While I think my argument in this post was incomplete, and lazy, I do not think it does not apply though. I still stand by my assertion.

[Simpleton]

All of them. We need a baseline level of tax to fund universal basic services but otherwise why is it germane that a CEO makes $100 trillion dollars a day while a worker makes min wage? It is what it is. You get what you can. If you're unfit in body or mind you get a safety net. As long as the processes are transparent and the rule of law applies I don't have a problem with it.

I think this is where "shades of grey/gray" come in.

I don't think anyone, anywhere, argues that any society does not need a safety net for people who truly cannot provide for themselves.

The point of contention is the point where that safety net provides incentive to simply not provide for yourself.

Personally, I think the safety net is way too generous to adults, and way too harsh on children.

It is not an easy problem to solve. I do not have a solution. It needs to be solved.

[Simpleton]

Where do you stand on slavery?

Perhaps you are not used to being called out on this form of argument, but I am calling you out on it.
The implications of your statement were pretty clear; its kind of laughable to deny it.

Poor form. Cheap points.

We (by which I mean YOU AND I specifically) are done the discussion since you have brought it to a non-civil place.

[mckaylabaloney]

I only know that even in highly taxed countries (which is the only way to solve this wealth inequality), like Germany, there are still a lot of poor people, and there are still a lot of billionares. But the social net is funded not by the rich, but by the middle class. So the flaw in the taxation argument is that the rich, if taxed enough, will be able to fund free college, free healthcare, free childcare, better infrastructure, etc.

As long as the proponents for higher taxes are willing to pay fed tax of 50% on incomes 5x the average wage

Country    Top Marginal Income Tax Rate (in %) (a)    Top Marginal Income
Tax Threshold (in Euros) (b)    Top Marginal Income Tax Threshold (expressed as a multiple of the average wage)

Germany    47.5     € 267,190    5.4

I'm not sure how this follows? You're saying (I think?) that people who claim that higher taxes on the rich alone could fund various social programs are wrong, and that the middle class would have to pay higher taxes too. But in support of that conclusion, you point to a country that...apparently isn't especially taxing its rich relative to the middle class? I don't know how this proves your point. The fact that Germany is funding its social programs through high income taxes on all (and not just the uber wealthy) doesn't, on its own, prove that its social programs couldn't be funded through even higher taxes on the uber wealthy. We would need a lot more information to draw that conclusion (and a lot more yet to conclude that the same thing would be true in the US).

Also, income tax is not the only opportunity to increase taxes on the wealthy. Maybe not even the most potentially lucrative one w/r/t the ultra-wealthy? I don't know what their annual incomes typically look like (compared to other taxable opportunities such as capital gains, overall wealth in the case of the proposed wealth tax, estates, etc.). Does Germany have high taxes on the wealthy in other respects, beyond income tax?

I believe you are saying that tax of 47% on anyone making more that 267K is not high enough. To me that seems quite high (not arguing against it).

Nah, I’m not making any argument with respect to what taxes ~should~ be. I don’t know enough on that front to advocate for or against any particular tax policies. I was just pointing out that your argument didn’t follow.

[JLee]

This is 100% of the political climate today.
-Reparations for historical racial injustice
-Tax the CEO's, they are stealing from the worker
-Tax the boomers, they have all the housing wealth!
-Eat the rich! We cant take enough taxes from them!
-Billionaires are exploiting the world
-Western nations exploit poor nations
-Men conspire to pay women less money

The victim narrative is very prolific. Several of these have come up in prior posts in this thread.

There is some merit in some of these claims, but it is not the best way to raise people up.

Success is not a zero sum game.

Are you really reducing this thread to a complete strawman? "Well, no one in this thread said it. But it's the political climate!"

Why not respond to what people in this thread are actually saying vs a boogeyman argument you constructed?

Personally, I am rather disappointed you reduced 5 pages of discussion to the "victim narrative."

Is it safe for me to reduce your argument to the "heartless bastard" narrative? Where you believe the poor should starve because they are lazy or stupid?

I will give you this point.

My argument in this post was lazy.

I was trying to sum up my position on a variety of topics in a few lines which doesn't acutally really work.

While I think my argument in this post was incomplete, and lazy, I do not think it does not apply though. I still stand by my assertion.

Yet you still have not answered the questions. Which of those claims do you see as without merit?

[Simpleton]

This is 100% of the political climate today.
-Reparations for historical racial injustice
-Tax the CEO's, they are stealing from the worker
-Tax the boomers, they have all the housing wealth!
-Eat the rich! We cant take enough taxes from them!
-Billionaires are exploiting the world
-Western nations exploit poor nations
-Men conspire to pay women less money

The victim narrative is very prolific. Several of these have come up in prior posts in this thread.

There is some merit in some of these claims, but it is not the best way to raise people up.

Success is not a zero sum game.

Are you really reducing this thread to a complete strawman? "Well, no one in this thread said it. But it's the political climate!"

Why not respond to what people in this thread are actually saying vs a boogeyman argument you constructed?

Personally, I am rather disappointed you reduced 5 pages of discussion to the "victim narrative."

Is it safe for me to reduce your argument to the "heartless bastard" narrative? Where you believe the poor should starve because they are lazy or stupid?

I will give you this point.

My argument in this post was lazy.

I was trying to sum up my position on a variety of topics in a few lines which doesn't acutally really work.

While I think my argument in this post was incomplete, and lazy, I do not think it does not apply though. I still stand by my assertion.

Yet you still have not answered the questions. Which of those claims do you see as without merit?

I did answer above.

I had answered both you and another question in the same answer so it was not really clear that I was replying to both of you. Sorry!

[EvenSteven]

Where do you stand on slavery?

Perhaps you are not used to being called out on this form of argument, but I am calling you out on it.
The implications of your statement were pretty clear; its kind of laughable to deny it.

Poor form. Cheap points.

We (by which I mean YOU AND I specifically) are done the discussion since you have brought it to a non-civil place.

I think you are missing the point that GuitarStv is trying to make here. He is not trying to accuse you of supporting slavery. The assumption in his question is that you obviously do not support slavery. The argument that he is trying to make is that because obviously you don't support slavery, therefore you also do not support a no regulations sort of absolute free market.

Whatever you think of the merits of that argument, it doesn't actually make you the victim you are trying to play here.

[ender]

I only know that even in highly taxed countries (which is the only way to solve this wealth inequality), like Germany, there are still a lot of poor people, and there are still a lot of billionares. But the social net is funded not by the rich, but by the middle class. So the flaw in the taxation argument is that the rich, if taxed enough, will be able to fund free college, free healthcare, free childcare, better infrastructure, etc.

As long as the proponents for higher taxes are willing to pay fed tax of 50% on incomes 5x the average wage

Country    Top Marginal Income Tax Rate (in %) (a)    Top Marginal Income
Tax Threshold (in Euros) (b)    Top Marginal Income Tax Threshold (expressed as a multiple of the average wage)

Germany    47.5     € 267,190    5.4

I'm not sure how this follows? You're saying (I think?) that people who claim that higher taxes on the rich alone could fund various social programs are wrong, and that the middle class would have to pay higher taxes too. But in support of that conclusion, you point to a country that...apparently isn't especially taxing its rich relative to the middle class? I don't know how this proves your point. The fact that Germany is funding its social programs through high income taxes on all (and not just the uber wealthy) doesn't, on its own, prove that its social programs couldn't be funded through even higher taxes on the uber wealthy. We would need a lot more information to draw that conclusion (and a lot more yet to conclude that the same thing would be true in the US).

Also, income tax is not the only opportunity to increase taxes on the wealthy. Maybe not even the most potentially lucrative one w/r/t the ultra-wealthy? I don't know what their annual incomes typically look like (compared to other taxable opportunities such as capital gains, overall wealth in the case of the proposed wealth tax, estates, etc.). Does Germany have high taxes on the wealthy in other respects, beyond income tax?

I believe you are saying that tax of 47% on anyone making more that 267K is not high enough. To me that seems quite high (not arguing against it).

I also think people underestimate how much you pay in the USA on incomes that high. 

An income of 267k euros translates to about $322k USD. In Germany, almost all taxation is either income/VAT. But in the USA, we have a lot of misc income taxes other than federal income taxes.

In my state, for a single person making $322k you will pay:

• 2.35% medicare (1.45% + 0.9% supplemental)
• 35% federal marginal
• 9.85% state

This results in... 47.2% marginal tax rate, which is almost exactly what someone in Germany would pay on their income from a marginal perspective.

[pecunia]

I also think people underestimate how much you pay in the USA on incomes that high.

An income of 267k euros translates to about $322k USD. In Germany, almost all taxation is either income/VAT. But in the USA, we have a "lot of misc income taxes other than federal income taxes.

In my state, for a single person making $322k you will pay:

    2.35% medicare (1.45% + 0.9% supplemental)
    35% federal marginal
    9.85% state


This results in... 47.2% marginal tax rate, which is almost exactly what someone in Germany would pay on their income from a marginal perspective."

Gee and they don't get the same value for their money either, I'll bet.  European countries have health care and long vacations and such.  Some don't even have the 40 hour week.

Yeh - the guy making $322,000 should lodge a complaint.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Where do you stand on slavery?

Perhaps you are not used to being called out on this form of argument, but I am calling you out on it.
The implications of your statement were pretty clear; its kind of laughable to deny it.

Poor form. Cheap points.

We (by which I mean YOU AND I specifically) are done the discussion since you have brought it to a non-civil place.

I think you are missing the point that GuitarStv is trying to make here. He is not trying to accuse you of supporting slavery. The assumption in his question is that you obviously do not support slavery. The argument that he is trying to make is that because obviously you don't support slavery, therefore you also do not support a no regulations sort of absolute free market.

Whatever you think of the merits of that argument, it doesn't actually make you the victim you are trying to play here.

Slavery wasn't free market. The slaves couldn't escape. They couldn't buy their freedom. They couldn't start their own plantation. Even if they had the capability to, they didn't have the autonomy.

Whereas in modern society if you have the work ethic or talent you can do anything you want. Be a surgeon, law firm partner, investment banker, whatever. Get scholarships, get athletic scholarships, whatever.

[JLee]

Where do you stand on slavery?

Perhaps you are not used to being called out on this form of argument, but I am calling you out on it.
The implications of your statement were pretty clear; its kind of laughable to deny it.

Poor form. Cheap points.

We (by which I mean YOU AND I specifically) are done the discussion since you have brought it to a non-civil place.

I think you are missing the point that GuitarStv is trying to make here. He is not trying to accuse you of supporting slavery. The assumption in his question is that you obviously do not support slavery. The argument that he is trying to make is that because obviously you don't support slavery, therefore you also do not support a no regulations sort of absolute free market.

Whatever you think of the merits of that argument, it doesn't actually make you the victim you are trying to play here.

Slavery wasn't free market. The slaves couldn't escape. They couldn't buy their freedom. They couldn't start their own plantation. Even if they had the capability to, they didn't have the autonomy.

Whereas in modern society if you have the work ethic or talent you can do anything you want. Be a surgeon, law firm partner, investment banker, whatever. Get scholarships, get athletic scholarships, whatever.

That is not remotely accurate.

[Metalcat]

I also think people underestimate how much you pay in the USA on incomes that high.

An income of 267k euros translates to about $322k USD. In Germany, almost all taxation is either income/VAT. But in the USA, we have a "lot of misc income taxes other than federal income taxes.

In my state, for a single person making $322k you will pay:

    2.35% medicare (1.45% + 0.9% supplemental)
    35% federal marginal
    9.85% state


This results in... 47.2% marginal tax rate, which is almost exactly what someone in Germany would pay on their income from a marginal perspective."

Gee and they don't get the same value for their money either, I'll bet.  European countries have health care and long vacations and such.  Some don't even have the 40 hour week.

Yeh - the guy making $322,000 should lodge a complaint.

I know! I always thought Americans paid so much less tax than Canadians. I learned here how wrong that was and I was SO CONFUSED.

[Telecaster]

Slavery wasn't free market. The slaves couldn't escape. They couldn't buy their freedom. They couldn't start their own plantation. Even if they had the capability to, they didn't have the autonomy.

The slaves themselves were the commodity being traded on the free market. 

[Simpleton]

I think you are missing the point that GuitarStv is trying to make here. He is not trying to accuse you of supporting slavery. The assumption in his question is that you obviously do not support slavery. The argument that he is trying to make is that because obviously you don't support slavery, therefore you also do not support a no regulations sort of absolute free market.

Whatever you think of the merits of that argument, it doesn't actually make you the victim you are trying to play here.

I think the implication is that I am supporting a system which facilitated slavery.

It's a cheap way to try to gain some sort of moral high ground and the whole thing is frustratingly transparent.

It's basically a strawman argument designed to make me run in circles trying to prove I am not a Nazi rather than debating what we had initially started. That sort of argument is only slightly better than me blurting out "you are a racist" mid conversation, and forcing you to deny it before we could continue.

I am not trying to play a victim, I just don't think the debate is productive when its reduced to this.

[Simpleton]

I know! I always thought Americans paid so much less tax than Canadians. I learned here how wrong that was and I was SO CONFUSED.

At the top end the gap closes significantly.

Americans DO pay much less when they belong to the middle class though. Also the sales tax is much less in most states which is a flat reduction across the board.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/big-government-requires-high-taxes-the-middle-class
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0411/do-canadians-really-pay-more-taxes-than-americans.aspx

[mckaylabaloney]

I think you are missing the point that GuitarStv is trying to make here. He is not trying to accuse you of supporting slavery. The assumption in his question is that you obviously do not support slavery. The argument that he is trying to make is that because obviously you don't support slavery, therefore you also do not support a no regulations sort of absolute free market.

Whatever you think of the merits of that argument, it doesn't actually make you the victim you are trying to play here.

I think the implication is that I am supporting a system which facilitated slavery.

It's a cheap way to try to gain some sort of moral high ground and the whole thing is frustratingly transparent.

It's basically a strawman argument designed to make me run in circles trying to prove I am not a Nazi rather than debating what we had initially started. That sort of argument is only slightly better than me blurting out "you are a racist" mid conversation, and forcing you to deny it before we could continue.

I am not trying to play a victim, I just don't think the debate is productive when its reduced to this.

You seem really determined to read the worst possible intent into GuitarStv's post. IMO he wasn't saying anything derogatory about your moral code -- he was pointing out a logical flaw in your argument.* His entire point hinged on his assumption that you don't support slavery, and that you wouldn't be in favor of a system that produces slavery. He was saying "you say you're in favor of this system, but that system produced something you're obviously against, so you must not actually be in favor of that system."

I do hope you see the irony of decrying other people's "victim narratives," then misreading a post and jumping straight to "you're calling me a Nazi!"

*Since you went right to the Nazi thing, it's still unclear to me whether he was right about the logical flaw. The post that upset you was in response to this one:

I do not understand how you can simultaneously argue that the intrinsic value of an hour of labor does not change based on how many dollars it earns, yet you are okay with exploding CEO pay and claim that increasing the minimum wage will cause inflation.  Enabling people to afford basic necessities of life will somehow cause inflation, but pumping trillions into the hands of the rich will not?

The value of something should be what is freely exchanged for it.

All sorts of distortions occur when you use the political process to manipulate the freely exchanged rate. Inflation, job loss, price changes, service reductions.

This is why its so muddy and difficult and interesting to discuss the outcomes of these (poor) policy enactments.

I personally couldn't tell from that post whether you were talking specifically about the employment market (in which case slavery may not be a flaw in your argument) or the free market generally (in which case slavery is a pretty obvious flaw in your argument). GuitarStv assumed the latter, I think?

[Edubb20]

What I take issue with is the current political narrative that the problem of anyone who has a poor outcome is the fault of someone better off than them, and therefore that richer person should bear the cost. That without a doubt is the narrative in todays political climate. It leads to "give me a fish - even if I put no effort into learning how to fish" mentality.

Fisheries, vertical integration of supply chain, mass production and ultra low prices, environmental impacts due to insufficient regulation, lack of options for alternative employment in small towns, unfair and unstoppable land acquisitions, inability for the little guy to compete, etc. etc.

We don't need to go all learn to fish to take care of ourselves. We need to make the 3 companies that cornered the fish market pay their fare share in taxes, take care of the environment and give us a product that is safe or they need to be obliterated.


We need to stop using the "teach a man to fish" metaphor as it relates to complex economic systems. It doesn't work for this. It does work when teaching your child basic life skills.



Yes, I understand that what I'm saying sounds literal and no I'm not fixated on fish. I'm just sticking with a theme... it could be any industry and it's impacts.

[Radagast]

I may regret entering the discussion on this note, but I have seen @GuitarStv say several times over the years that slavery was a free market. I am astounded by the claim, and that nobody has repudiated this BS. If a transaction has three participants, and one of them (notably the one doing all the work) isn't free, by definition it is not a free market. 2/3≠1.

This argument is like saying "I am vegan 16 hours a day." Nope, the definition of vegan excludes you from being vegan unless you are vegan 24/7.

It is like saying that if two people burglarize my home, and freely agree in advance that one would get the TV and the other get any computers, that it was a free market because they freely agreed to the theft and the government didn't have a law against it. No, it was not a free market, because I did all the labor. It was theft. The government failure wasn't the lack of regulation of the free market, it was lack of illegalization of burglary. The government failure regarding slavery was not the lack of regulation of the free market, it was lack of illegalization of kidnapping, theft, assault, and a hundred other things that could be summed up in the single word "slavery." It was a failure that government didn't force everyone into a free market.

The distinction is meaningful. Two salient reasons the South lost the war were first that Gen. Lee had the military mind of a child, and second that the Union had a much stronger industrial base. One of the reasons the south had a weak industrial base is that they did not have a free market. The slave owners and traders had little incentive to innovate or industrialize because they did not work. The slaves had no incentive to innovate because they did not profit and obviously industrialization was out of the question. Even had the South not lost the war, their lack of free market labor made it inevitable that they would have become weak and impoverished by comparison to the North. Within a few more decades the northern states would have become so strongly industrialized that the south would have gone from near equality to the modern equivalent of the "third world," and the economic system of slavery would have been the cause.

To summarize, by definition the slave trade was not a free market, because the slaves were not free. (I mean.. obviously... I really can't comprehend why this is not obvious.) Further, this is not just a semantic distinction.

[Telecaster]

To summarize, by definition the slave trade was not a free market, because the slaves were not free. (I mean.. obviously... I really can't comprehend why this is not obvious.) Further, this is not just a semantic distinction.

You are missing the point.   The market doesn't know if the slaves are free or not.  The market only knows about the slave trade. 

[Simpleton]

To summarize, by definition the slave trade was not a free market, because the slaves were not free. (I mean.. obviously... I really can't comprehend why this is not obvious.) Further, this is not just a semantic distinction.

You are missing the point.   The market doesn't know if the slaves are free or not.  The market only knows about the slave trade.

Its absolute bullshit that 40 posts later we are still talking about how capitalism produced or didn't produce slavery.

This is exactly what I was upset about when he brought it up. It is just a shitty argument designed to associate capitalism with slavery in every readers head. Now its literally the the theme of the thread!

How about we flip this on its head and talk about how communism and socialism killed millions of people. The largest mass murders in history are the result of big government power and the redistribution of wealth. Lets make the next 40+ posts about that.

I say if you support socialism, you support mass murder. Lets go.

mckaylabaloney/guitarstv - I say you both support mass murder if its necessary to ensure wealth redistribution. Unless you can prove to me that your support of socialist policies isn't by association support for mass murder, you are terrible people.

Go chase your tails.

[Simpleton]

The slave owners and traders had little incentive to innovate or industrialize because they did not work. The slaves had no incentive to innovate because they did not profit and obviously industrialization was out of the question. Even had the South not lost the war, their lack of free market labor made it inevitable that they would have become weak and impoverished by comparison to the North. Within a few more decades the northern states would have become so strongly industrialized that the south would have gone from near equality to the modern equivalent of the "third world," and the economic system of slavery would have been the cause.

To summarize, by definition the slave trade was not a free market, because the slaves were not free. (I mean.. obviously... I really can't comprehend why this is not obvious.) Further, this is not just a semantic distinction.

Given the position I have taken on even talking about this, I feel it a bit hypocritical to even comment on this; but I do fully agree with this position.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2010/06/25/did-capitalism-end-slavery/

There is a reason why the free market economies of the world were among the first ones to officially outlaw slavery.

Slavery is much more at odds with capitalism. Capitalism by definition hinges on the free, willfull exchange of good and services.

Slavery is actually very compatible with socialism/communism - both use state power or law to extract value by force from one group in favor of another.

Now I am going to go back to ranting about how we shouldn't even be talking about this.

[pecunia]

"How about we flip this on its head and talk about how communism and socialism killed millions of people. The largest mass murders in history are the result of big government power and the redistribution of wealth. Lets make the next 40+ posts about that."

It it really black and white?  Public Schools - Socialism  Military and Police protection - Socialism  Public Roads - Socialism

I guess those socialistic highways have killed way more than the toll roads.

Maybe we'll get more Socialist medicine in the US and save more of those lives.

How fast a rate do we expect the coming inflation to be?  Maybe, it'll just creep in like socialism.

[Simpleton]

"How about we flip this on its head and talk about how communism and socialism killed millions of people. The largest mass murders in history are the result of big government power and the redistribution of wealth. Lets make the next 40+ posts about that."

It it really black and white?  Public Schools - Socialism  Military and Police protection - Socialism  Public Roads - Socialism

I guess those socialistic highways have killed way more than the toll roads.

Maybe we'll get more Socialist medicine in the US and save more of those lives.

How fast a rate do we expect the coming inflation to be?  Maybe, it'll just creep in like socialism.

I think you missed my point entirely. I was speaking (or typing?) tongue in cheek.

I think if you understood what I was getting at we would be in 100% agreement.

If you read the last couple days of posts on this, you will see that I was upset that someone tried to reduce capitalism to weather or not it produced slavery - and implying that capitalists support slavery by association.

I was making an ironic argument about reducing socialism to mass murder. I obviously don't think that is the case, and I don't feel this way about people who support socialism.

I was pointing out how absurd that form of argument is on either side.

[Radagast]

To summarize, by definition the slave trade was not a free market, because the slaves were not free. (I mean.. obviously... I really can't comprehend why this is not obvious.) Further, this is not just a semantic distinction.

You are missing the point.   The market doesn't know if the slaves are free or not.  The market only knows about the slave trade.

Nope you are badly missing the point. The slaves are part of the slave market and they very much know whether they are free or not. It matters.

Apart from the general immorality, a slave based economy will always make less efficient use of its resources than a free market economy, and the simple fact that this sentence is true implies there is a difference.

Slavery is not a free market as perceived by the slaves. It is not a free market by definition. Is is not a free market by function, nor by outcome, nor by free market theory. It is not a free market, period.

[BicycleB]

I kind of thought that what GuitarStv meant was that America's slavery system claimed to be a free market but obviously wasn't; or to use different words, it was free for the people who had power, but not free for the enslaved people. I supposed that his point was to compare with today's "free" market, implying that some participants have more power than others, that these power imbalances make our own market system an unfree one to the extent that its opportunities are unequal, and that powerful participants may fail to recognize others' lack of freedom.

In other words, the slavery reference was an example of the principle that power imbalances interfere with a free market, yet some of the participants may ignore or not even notice that the market's "freedom" excludes some of the other participants. Maybe his point was that our markets aren't as free as some people think.

[PDXTabs]

Slavery is actually very compatible with socialism/communism - both use state power or law to extract value by force from one group in favor of another.

I'm going to disagree here. The traditional definition of socialism is that the state owns the means of production. But this is not traditionally interpreted to mean the workers, only capital.

[Green_Tea]

Of course those higher German taxes get you free healthcare, and good SS payments but there are still people living barely over the poverty line.

20% of children in Germany live in poverty....

https://www.dw.com/en/1-in-5-children-in-germany-grow-up-in-poverty/a-54260165

I do not know what policy is best, but it is clear even countries with high tax regimes have not succeeded in the quest of eliminating poverty and the issue of the working poor.

Perhaps UBI is the only way to guarantee that income of the poor is closer to the median age than to the poverty line. We have a live experiment now where stimulus money are keeping some people from going back to minimum- and low-paid jobs. UBI will be the ultimate social net, it will be immensely expensive since even in Germany high taxes are not enough to eliminate poverty.

Regarding the article about Kids in Poverty in Germany - I think it's important to point that the authors use a definition of "relative poverty", meaning relative to the rest of the population.
One major definition of relative poverty is a family earning less than 60 % of the average of all households - no matter how much you can buy for those 60% and how well you are otherwise cared for in terms of education, healthcare etc:

The study considered several factors in its analysis of childhood poverty. In addition to looking at families that receive Germany's Hartz IV welfare benefits, researchers also considered children from families whose income is less than 60% of the average of all households, considered to be at-risk of poverty.

By this definition there will ALWAYS be (relative) poverty in any country - unless everyone earns exactly the same e.g. in a communist country. To use two extreme examples, if 100 CEOs lived in a country together, a couple of them would be living in poverty and also if 100 people earning between one and three dollars a day lived in a county together, a lot of them would not be living in poverty.

Now this is not to say that there aren't kids in bad situations in Germany but rather that by the used definition of poverty you cannot really tell how well or bad off people are that are called "poor".

(And as a side that the percentage of kids living in relative poverty cannot decrease unless the income distribution shifted _a lot_ towards a very equal distribution so that per definition there weren't any poor people, or unless people within the definition of relative poverty had less kids than people who are better off.)

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

America is a country where millions of migrants have come here, started with scratch, no knowledge of the prevailing culture, no grasp of the language, and in 2-3 generations their children are bankers, lawyers, surgeons, dentists.

If that's not success I don't know what is.

Yes, we need a better safety net in some respects (e.g. American healthcare) and yes we need to do better to ensure poor children have normal educational options - e.g. accessible schooling, meals and libraries etc.

But beyond that...if you have the talent America is still a place where you can make it. How many children at Harvard come from migrant families - which were not actually rich when they first came to the States?

America really is the land of opportunity. Like in my favourite rags to riches tale (Scarface starring Al Pacino), a greasy little migrant can still make it big in America. It's something to be proud of.

[ender]

It it really black and white?  Public Schools - Socialism  Military and Police protection - Socialism  Public Roads - Socialism

Well, the easiest way to "win" an argument is creating a strawman like what numerous people (on both sides here) have done.

This is also known as the appeal to the extremes - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Extremes

It's disappointing and frankly a reason I have numerous posters in this thread on ignore, because they consistently troll like this and regularly derail otherwise good discussions into extremes that are not the point of the thread.


Going back to a post on the previous thread:

Put it differently, if 200 kids in the wild had nothing to eat, and one kid had 50 pizzas... what would happen? Best case, that one kid has the foresight to share. Next best case, 200 kids agree to create collective power, and force sharing to happen equally.

Money is not pizza. Wealth is not finite.

Teaching 200 kids that the best way to get pizza (fish) is to take it from the one who has 50 pizzas (fish) only works for one meal.

Teach the kids to fish, teach them to make pizza

Setup processes that enhance the pizza making or fishing processes so that one industrious kid gets 300 pizzas and the rest each have several, but they all have equal ability to make them or catch them.

What processes do you recommend setting up so that everyone has roughly equalish opportunity to learn to fish?

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

What processes do you recommend setting up so that everyone has roughly equalish opportunity to learn to fish?

Give everyone an instruction manual on how to fish, and enough money to rent a rod for a day and buy some bait.

Some people will be naturally better fishers. Some will live closer to nice rivers with fish in them. Some will have better luck. Some will be more apt to practise. Some will waste the fishing rod money on cigarettes.

That's okay - life doesn't have to be perfectly equal. It suffices that everyone's had a chance.

[pecunia]

Bloop Bloop - good words - I like the tale of the rags to riches thing in the United States.  You know the Emma Lazarus thing:

Give me your tired your poor your huddled masses yearning to be free.

I guess some scientists somehow studied this.  (I guess they had a huddled masses meter.)  It turns out in terms of upward mobility, the US ain't even close to the top.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-social-mobility-of-82-countries/

Who was up there?  Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland.

Don't worry Horatio Alger is not dead.  He just emigrated.

[Simpleton]

What processes do you recommend setting up so that everyone has roughly equalish opportunity to learn to fish?

With the caveat that perfect equality of opportunity is not possible, I would say that greater emphasis on education would be the biggest driver of opportunity.

I also think the forms of education kids are getting need to be revamped, and kids need to be given much more information about career paths.

Healthcare does appear to be an issue in the USA - Im not advocating full Canadian style healthcare which has big limits too, but I think I could get behind an argument for greater access in America.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Two things I can immediately see as being notable with that 'social mobility' chart:

1. "social mobility" is defined in terms of 5 factors, including "social protection" and "healthcare". These are, of course, not measures of mobility per se; they are measures of basic welfare safety net. The US does need to improve in those measures, but they do not actual relate to social mobility per se.

2. Equality of opportunity does not mean that social mobility should be maximised. In a genuine meritocracy, many things - such as genes, learned habits, and also of course fortunes and networks - are passed from parents to children. While I think we should tax estates to minimise the fortunes and networks passed on from generation to generation, I am not in favour of doing anything about the heritability of genes or nurturing generally.

To use a very simplified example, the NBA is not particularly socially mobile: ex-NBA players tend to have children who are very good basketballs. That does not mean that the NBA is not still a very meritocratic system.

[ender]

What processes do you recommend setting up so that everyone has roughly equalish opportunity to learn to fish?

With the caveat that perfect equality of opportunity is not possible, I would say that greater emphasis on education would be the biggest driver of opportunity.

I also think the forms of education kids are getting need to be revamped, and kids need to be given much more information about career paths.

Healthcare does appear to be an issue in the USA - Im not advocating full Canadian style healthcare which has big limits too, but I think I could get behind an argument for greater access in America.

Can you expand what you mean by this?

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

What processes do you recommend setting up so that everyone has roughly equalish opportunity to learn to fish?

With the caveat that perfect equality of opportunity is not possible, I would say that greater emphasis on education would be the biggest driver of opportunity.

I also think the forms of education kids are getting need to be revamped, and kids need to be given much more information about career paths.

Healthcare does appear to be an issue in the USA - Im not advocating full Canadian style healthcare which has big limits too, but I think I could get behind an argument for greater access in America.

Can you expand what you mean by this?

If every child has access to free primary and secondary school, and access to librarys, and subsidised meals (for the poor children) and transport to school (for the poor children), then that represents equality of opportunity.

Every child then has the means to obtain an education. What he or she does with the education is not a matter of 'opportunity'; it is a matter of outcome.

[pecunia]

That's another great phrase, "Better access for health care."

You don't catch it right away.  It sounds sooo good.

Well - I have access to a  Lamborghini.  It don't mean I and pay for it.

Likewise, there is access to many hospitals, clinics, etc.  The trick is being able to afford said services.  And, that's where the trouble lies.

[Simpleton]

That's another great phrase, "Better access for health care."

You don't catch it right away.  It sounds sooo good.

Well - I have access to a  Lamborghini.  It don't mean I and pay for it.

Likewise, there is access to many hospitals, clinics, etc.  The trick is being able to afford said services.  And, that's where the trouble lies.

I can see how you would interpret it that way, but my intent was actually to say that greater subsidies.