Oleg Bach Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Self made men in modern society become that way by the un-making of many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) So because you might be bored and you decide to go earn wealth you are undeserving of it? yes (no sacrifice, no merit). Edited March 25, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 yes (no sacrifice, no merit). Sacrifice almost never merits reward...sacrafice can not be done in part - and leave a bit of yourself left over to collect the reward - If you are going to sacrafice your time and energy there is no guarentee that it will be worth it - It might be all for not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Sacrifice almost never merits reward...sacrafice can not be done in part - and leave a bit of yourself left over to collect the reward - If you are going to sacrafice your time and energy there is no guarentee that it will be worth it - It might be all for not. Economically-wise there are three main types of sacrifice: a physical or mental effort that is unpleasant (then you deserve a wage); taking a risk if the risk-taker is risk-averse (then you deserve the profit) and postponing consumption if not consuming the good/service is tough (then you deserve an interest). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) I saw this thread before and thought: "What a good question!" CE's OP strikes at the heart of modern thinking on society, and it's a question after my own heart. We live in a bad economic time. If someone has $2,000,000 or more they should have to share like 10% with unemployed people of the same race.reasons why: 1.) economy is bad and unemployment is at a record high yet greedy fat cats get to have a savings with 7 figures? wow..... 2.) people don't mind helping their own race thoughts or opinions? i heard 4 fat guys were stealing billions of dollars and buying jets with our taxes To understand this dilemma, one must think in terms of incentives. That is, forget about "what exists now" and think rather about "what will exist tomorrow".It may seem "fair" to take $1000 from someone who has $2 million and give it to someone who has nothing, but what is the long run effect of this "tax"? How did the $2 million person get the money? If we take $1000 away, will this change the person's behaviour? Will the person move to a foreign country? Stop working? (See my response to Greenthumb below.) I would suggest that the government should tax (rich) people up to the point where they start to change severely their behaviour. For this reason, I prefer property (land) taxes. After all, people have to live somewhere and the choice to live elsewhere is often difficult. There is the added advantage that rich people tend to take up more space. In short, I think a good tax is one that leads to the least change in people's behaviour. Such a tax also typically raises the most revenue for the government. Isn't this the reason we have escalating tax brackets?Um, no?1) They wroked for it they get to keep it. When they (the rich) may have been at a very low ebb, and perhaps broke and hungry, how quick were you to find them and give them a couple of hundred bucks? I will bet never.2) wtf? Own race? So, Im driving down the street and see a Korean girl injured/broke/starving I can keep on going? Cool ! Saves me money , except I am breaking the law on one of those 3 scenarios. Good answer - but were you being sarcastic?Ummm to me this is a little like guys I know whose fathers worked hard farming and buying up land then give it to their son's to take over. The sons never "earned" that wealth, it was handed to them on a silver platter.Except. If the father knew that teh State would confiscate his land before he coudl leave it to his sons, would he ever have worked so hard to leave them the farm?GreenThumb, how hard would you work in life if the State took everything at your death? Would you even bother to have children? Taxaton is not about fairness - it's about incentives. I can sum up this whole OP. "We need people to help us justify taking something that does not belong to us." Any time things go bad and people get desperate they will look for any excuse to rationalize taking something that has never belonged to them.A (western) moralist speaks. Theft is wrong!IMV, fairness or (western) morality does not help much in understanding taxation. Why? Do lottery winnners not "deserve" their money?Is life a lottery? That is, is life spending a pittance and then waiting around to find out if you won the big prize?If that's life, then we would all be impoverished. Everyone would be waiting for the Big Prize instead of working to create something. Then again, a lottery society is better than a moocher society. Lottery buyers pay for the ticket, and then wait. Moochers hang around and bug people until they get some food. Moochers waste their own time and the time of others. Do rich people deserve their money?...I think people must first ask what they deserve from themselves, instead of relaying their needs immediately to an outside party. Does one deserve to live their life first? Or that of someone else? I beg many people on this board do some soul searching, but from within themselves, not the CEO of AIG. Weird. You're verbose and you miss the point.To be deserving of exclusive ownership of a property, you have to compensate all those who are losing access to this property.And the counterparty must offer "exclusive" ownership of other property. Benny, trade is a mutual affair. Edited March 26, 2009 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 For this reason, I prefer property (land) taxes. After all, people have to live somewhere and the choice to live elsewhere is often difficult. There is the added advantage that rich people tend to take up more space. Please Nooooooooooo! Besides, it is happening already Think cottage country and the soaring (before the recent fall) prices for a cottage. I may not be rich by some peoples standard (the really rich I guess) but having a cottage thats valued way up there, and the taxes on that, and well there you are. And for that I get very little bordering on nothing for those taxes. No water sewer nor garbage pickup. Good answer - but were you being sarcastic? Which part? All of it? No I was serious for some of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 And the counterparty must offer "exclusive" ownership of other property. Benny, trade is a mutual affair. If someone is able to live only with what s/he is receiving as compensation from all the owners then s/he will not be considered as an owner and therefore must not offer "exclusive" ownership of other property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) guyser said ... I may not be rich by some peoples standard (the really rich I guess) but having a cottage thats valued way up there, and the taxes on that, and well there you are. And for that I get very little bordering on nothing for those taxes. No water sewer nor garbage pickup. Think about it ... even as an experiment perhaps ... Take $200,000 from everyone earning $1.2m/yr or more (on all income and assets), distribute it to bring everyone up to at least $50,000 ... poof! poverty gone! Taxes are not about fairness but about incentives ... HA! ... only if you are a human able to live in dignity without crime, or a rat ... but even rats play fair with the pellets available. (think about that) better idea ... I'm having another thought ... about criminals who don't pay tax ... better idea than taking it from the ultra rich we can identify ... an additional consumption tax for the ultra biggest spenders ... that would catch the legally ultra rich (if there are any) and the illegally ultra rich. Then distribute that to bring every household up to at least $50,000. And track what happens then ... Edited March 26, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 guyser said ... I may not be rich by some peoples standard (the really rich I guess) but having a cottage thats valued way up there, and the taxes on that, and well there you are. And for that I get very little bordering on nothing for those taxes. No water sewer nor garbage pickup. Think about it ... even as an experiment perhaps ... Take $200,000 from everyone earning $1.2m/yr or more (on all income and assets), distribute it to bring everyone up to at least $50,000 ... poof! poverty gone! It doesn't add up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) It doesn't add up. look at the graph ... http://www.esnips.com/doc/629185b2-3bf1-40...ribution-Canada It does work ... each ultra rich person (over 1.2m income) gives 175,000. It is split up among of five people, an average of $35,000 each, to bring them up to $50,000 My goal is to narrow the HUGE gap between the top 10% and the rest of us, and to bring everyone up to 50,000. Or ... if you can't see the esnips file, This is how the distribution of income looks ... Average income - Canadian Top 10% of Canadians @ [$1,200,000] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% @ [410,000] . . . 10% @ [260,000] . . 10% @ [175,000] . 10% @ [110,000] . 10% @ [60,000] . Bottom 40% @ [25,000]or [5,000]or [0]or [-5000] A little from the top does a LOT at the bottom, and the top 10% are just way out there, and getting further ahead all the time! It isn't fair, and it could so easily be. And a healthier economy because people would be able to support themselves ... ie, consume. Edited March 26, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) look at the graph ...http://www.esnips.com/doc/629185b2-3bf1-40...ribution-Canada It does work ... each ultra rich person (over 1.2m income) gives 175,000. It is split up among of five people, an average of $35,000 each, to bring them up to $50,000 My goal is to narrow the HUGE gap between the top 10% and the rest of us, and to bring everyone up to 50,000. Or ... if you can't see the esnips file, This is how the distribution of income looks ... Average income - Canadian Top 10% of Canadians @ [$1,200,000] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% @ [410,000] . . . 10% @ [260,000] . . 10% @ [175,000] . 10% @ [110,000] . 10% @ [60,000] . Bottom 40% @ [25,000]or [5,000]or [0]or [-5000] A little from the top does a LOT at the bottom, and the top 10% are just way out there, and getting further ahead all the time! It isn't fair, and it could so easily be. And a healthier economy because people would be able to support themselves ... ie, consume. OK! We may say it works but only if we are not adjusting for the fact that the bottom 40 % are families with more children than the families of the top 10 % . Edited March 26, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) Think about it ... even as an experiment perhaps ... Take $200,000 from everyone earning $1.2m/yr or more (on all income and assets), distribute it to bring everyone up to at least $50,000 ... poof! poverty gone! Taxes are not about fairness but about incentives ... HA! ... [/i] You think in zero-sum terms, and you sadly don't understand life.My goal is to narrow the HUGE gap between the top 10% and the rest of us, and to bring everyone up to 50,000. Or ... if you can't see the esnips file, This is how the distribution of income looks ... Average income - Canadian Top 10% of Canadians @ [$1,200,000] .. A little from the top does a LOT at the bottom, and the top 10% are just way out there, and getting further ahead all the time! Ergo. A zero-sum thinker.It's not about fairness: It's about incentives. ---- Mozart, Einstein, Galileo and Newton made the world a better place. They took nothing from anyone and yet made us all richer. Life is not a zero sum game. Some of us can be richer (eg. those who know calculus) without others being poorer. In the future, more people will be smarter and will understand mathematics better. The world of the future will be richer, unless our great-great-grandchildren live in a dark age of ignorance, superstition and medieval religion where women must cover their heads, even in public. Edited March 26, 2009 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) You think in zero-sum terms, and you sadly don't understand life.Ergo. A zero-sum thinker. It's not about fairness: It's about incentives. I think that if we would include incentives, this would reinforce tango calculus. Currently welfare recipients are trapped in a so-called "welfare trap" that annihilates work incentive and also currently the rich receive so much easy money that they have no incentive to work (more). Edited March 26, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 guyser said ... I may not be rich by some peoples standard (the really rich I guess) but having a cottage thats valued way up there, and the taxes on that, and well there you are. And for that I get very little bordering on nothing for those taxes. No water sewer nor garbage pickup. Think about it ... even as an experiment perhaps ... Take $200,000 from everyone earning $1.2m/yr or more (on all income and assets), distribute it to bring everyone up to at least $50,000 ... poof! poverty gone! Taxes are not about fairness but about incentives ... HA! ... only if you are a human able to live in dignity without crime, or a rat ... but even rats play fair with the pellets available. (think about that) better idea ... I'm having another thought ... about criminals who don't pay tax ... better idea than taking it from the ultra rich we can identify ... an additional consumption tax for the ultra biggest spenders ... that would catch the legally ultra rich (if there are any) and the illegally ultra rich. Then distribute that to bring every household up to at least $50,000. And track what happens then ... That's the most stupid thing I've ever read. Why in all that is holy should I have 200K poached from me. What the hell did poor people do to feel they deserve 200K of my money? As a "rich" person, i could easily blow up my operation, leave Canada, throw it in a foreign bank and live off the interest, and not generate any money at all. That results in 1 million less per year being spent in the economy. By trying to screw over rich people like that, that is what will happen. Your socialist experiment sucks, leave economics to the big boys, you don't know what the hell your talking about. This is why the left wing fails consistently at economic policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) OK! We may say it works but only if we are not adjusting for the fact that the bottom 40 % are families with more children than the families of the top 10 % . It's based on households. Here's some hints about who is 'low income' Low income (<$25,000): Unattached persons 65 years of age and over Males 14.0 Females 16.1 Unattached persons under 65 years of age Males 31.2 Females 37.1 Persons under 18 years of age In two-parent families 7.7 In female lone-parent families 32.3 In all other economic families 9.5 Thus, 'Low income' households are largely single people with or without children. If a single Mom with 2 children is raising them on $25,000, she won't complain about getting another $25,000. The point of the exercise is not to do another 'means test' or sliding scale of expenses ... but simply to point out ... We could get rid of poverty entirely if there was no household income under $50,000 And ... We can do that easily by taking from the top ... preferably via additional consumption tax but by income tax if necessary. $175,000 from each person earning over $1m/yr. I think it would be a great experiment! Edited March 26, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 That's the most stupid thing I've ever read. Why in all that is holy should I have 200K poached from me. What the hell did poor people do to feel they deserve 200K of my money? As a "rich" person, i could easily blow up my operation, leave Canada, throw it in a foreign bank and live off the interest, and not generate any money at all. That results in 1 million less per year being spent in the economy. By trying to screw over rich people like that, that is what will happen. Your socialist experiment sucks, leave economics to the big boys, you don't know what the hell your talking about. This is why the left wing fails consistently at economic policy. In case you haven't noticed the interest rate is at zero right now. It will remain at zero until operations like yours come to life again. There will be no real recovery until people understand that economics is about sharing a surplus no one deserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) I think that if we would include incentives, this would reinforce tango calculus. Currently welfare recipients are trapped in a so-called "welfare trap" that annihilates work incentive and also currently the rich receive so much easy money that they have no incentive to work (more).In Canada, anyone who wants to learn differential calculus can learn it. And anyone can learn calculus.Benny, "poverty" in Canada is different. Edited March 26, 2009 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Benny, "poverty" in Canada is different. I think all Canadians should try to take a vow of poverty. Poverty has to be valued as a form of openness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) That's the most stupid thing I've ever read. Why in all that is holy should I have 200K poached from me. What the hell did poor people do to feel they deserve 200K of my money? Because you can take 5 households out of poverty and turn them into consumers. As a "rich" person, i could easily blow up my operation, leave Canada, throw it in a foreign bank and live off the interest, and not generate any money at all. That results in 1 million less per year being spent in the economy.By trying to screw over rich people like that, that is what will happen. Your socialist experiment sucks, leave economics to the big boys, you don't know what the hell your talking about. This is why the left wing fails consistently at economic policy. And the right wing fails at humanity. Depends which of those you think is the purpose of life. Some of us just have a different way of measuring success - ie, collective success - how well we take care of everyone in our society, especially the vulnerable. Rather than big-dog-eat-little-dog. Look at the data: 43%[/b of those living in poverty in Canada [b]are children under 18 years of age with singlemoms. 15% are single seniors. Some people are just not 'money producers' ( some would call them "useless eaters") but the elderly, the young and the disabled still deserve to live in dignity. Some MEN are so enraged because they think some other MEN are getting a 'free ride' ... that they can't see the truth about who is being hurt by those attitudes: Largely children, single Moms and Seniors, mentally and physically disabled ... kept well below poverty levels ... ? For what purpose? ... To PUNISH them for being "useless eaters"? And by the way ... all the men living in poverty? ... I'm sending them to you for a job. You'll hire them right? Mentally/physically disabled, addict, or not right? You gonna hire them all, right? Edited March 26, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I think all Canadians should try to take a vow of poverty. Poverty has to be valued as a form of openness.We are all ordinary but we are not impoverished.The Catholic Church requires vows, to justify possibly submission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 The Catholic Church requires vows, to justify possibly submission. The Catholic Church requires vows to combat what is the cause of the present economic crisis: hubris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 The Catholic Church requires vows to combat what is the cause of the present economic crisis: hubris. The Catholic Church itself has certainly never taken a vow of 'poverty'. I guess it's hubris for a few, poverty for the rest, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 The Catholic Church itself has certainly never taken a vow of 'poverty'. I guess it's hubris for a few, poverty for the rest, eh? Hubris is a mental disorder; no one deserves a mental disorder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) I think that if we would include incentives, this would reinforce tango calculus. Currently welfare recipients are trapped in a so-called "welfare trap" that annihilates work incentive and also currently the rich receive so much easy money that they have no incentive to work (more). "tango calculus" ... very cute! And a very astute observation about incentive, benny. I would say ... perhaps about 20% of those on welfare might be chronic, many partially disabled but not enough to get disability, or semi-literate and they can't do the paperwork - ie, they are unemployable in today's society, except for odd jobs. And yes, they have lost 'incentive' because they can't keep a job. People on disability are a significant portion of those living in poverty too. Very difficult, with whatever limitations they have, to stretch a poverty budget. BUT ... we know that 80% of welfare recipients are OFF welfare within 2 years. Most of those are single Moms going to school and then getting jobs. (Didn't know that did you blueblood? Thought they were all just slackers, eh?) And then ... people earning minimum wage ... they all live in poverty if they are the only income in the household, and even with two if there are children. And then the rich ... so much easy money profiting from the labour of others, and no incentive except to make sure no poor person or underpaid worker gets near their stash! Whatever turns your crank! Gee ... I haven't heard a GOOD argument against my idea yet! Come on boys ... BRING IT ON!! I expected better arguments than this! In my opinion ... sure the rich deserve to be rich ... but only if all the poor people are taken care of too! The rich will still be rich, and the poor will then be consumers to help the rich stay rich! And those who want to leave will leave. Love it or leave it eh! Edited March 26, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 "tango calculus" ... very cute! And a very astute observation about incentive, benny. I would say ... perhaps about 20% of those on welfare might be chronic, many partially disabled but not enough to get disability, or semi-literate and they can't do the paperwork - ie, they are unemployable in today's society, except for odd jobs. And yes, they have lost 'incentive' because they can't keep a job. People on disability are a significant portion of those living in poverty too. Very difficult, with whatever limitations they have, to stretch a poverty budget. BUT ... we know that 80% of welfare recipients are OFF welfare within 2 years. Most of those are single Moms going to school and then getting jobs. (Didn't know that did you blueblood? Thought they were all just slackers, eh?) And then ... people earning minimum wage ... they all live in poverty if they are the only income in the household, and even with two if there are children. And then the rich ... so much easy money profiting from the labour of others, and no incentive except to make sure no poor person or underpaid worker gets near their stash! Whatever turns your crank! Gee ... I haven't heard a GOOD argument against my idea yet! Come on boys ... BRING IT ON!! I expected better arguments than this! In my opinion ... sure the rich deserve to be rich ... but only if all the poor people are taken care of too! The rich will still be rich, and the poor will then be consumers to help the rich stay rich! If only politics could be about the force of the best argument! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.