Interesting Article on Wealth Inequality

#1
rjd970

rjd970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
24,298
Likes
24,325
#1
A New Year’s Resolution for the Rich : Sam Harris

Will probably start some fires around here. Harris rails on tax cuts for the wealthy. I am still in doubt with how much of this I really agree with, but if the left wants to argue the wealth re-distribution side, they should take note at the coherence of this structured argument.

I thought this an interesting take on the "No one is stopping you from paying more" line. Unexpected slight against government you won't hear from the left:

Some readers will point out that I am free to donate to the treasury even now. But such solitary sacrifice would be utterly ineffectual, and I am no more eager than anyone else is to fill the pork barrels of corrupt politicians. However, if Gates and Buffett created a mechanism that bypassed the current dysfunction of government, earmarking the money for unambiguously worthy projects, I suspect that there are millions of people like myself who would not hesitate to invest in the future of America.
Click to expand...
 
#2
#2
they still conveniently leave out the fact that there simply aren't enough "rich" people to tax.

I think I heard that if 100% of the income of everyone making 200k and above was confiscated, it still wouldn't cover the current budget deficit let alone make a dent in the overall debt.
 
#3
#3
On a first reading, here is what I take from Harris's column:

1. While he is ostensibly concerned with actual impoverishment, in the form of homelessness and crumbling infrastructure, he is more directly concerned with wealth inequality.

2. He argues that part of the problem is that we are spending government money on inane projects (like the Noah's Ark project) when we should be spending on education. He contrasts our poor education with better or similar educations even in "Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Albania, Kazakhstan, and Indonesia". I have not checked, but I am inclined to think that the US far outspends these countries on education. This, combined with his statement that even the most advantaged (the richest) students in America are receiving subpar educations compared to Shanghai, demonstrates to me that the corrupted quality of our education system has little to nothing to do with how much money we spend on it.

3. I do not understand how Harris rails against tax-cuts for the wealthy when it seems to me that his entire argue implies that the government use of funds is ineffectual and wasteful. To me, this would indicate that one should not promote giving any revenue to said government, until it can prove itself to be wise in its spending habits. The only reason, then, for arguing that the rich should pay more taxes than everyone else is purely punitive; it certainly cannot be for any greater good.
 
#4
#4
rjd970 said:
A New Year’s Resolution for the Rich : Sam Harris

Will probably start some fires around here. Harris rails on tax cuts for the wealthy. I am still in doubt with how much of this I really agree with, but if the left wants to argue the wealth re-distribution side, they should take note at the coherence of this structured argument.

I thought this an interesting take on the "No one is stopping you from paying more" line. Unexpected slight against government you won't hear from the left:
Click to expand...

Very interesting take. I agree with this - giving to the govt will only help sponsor silly expensive projects that aren't necessary. Unless we can directly monitor where the money goes - I can't see it getting used properly.
 
#5
#5
MG1968 said:
they still conveniently leave out the fact that there simply aren't enough "rich" people to tax.

I think I heard that if 100% of the income of everyone making 200k and above was confiscated, it still wouldn't cover the current budget deficit let alone make a dent in the overall debt.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like a problem of spending and inefficient government then tax policy, which is what he addresses.
 
#6
#6
He is arguing for charity (the why not pay more individually argument). He, Buffet, Gates et al can easily form a foundation that addresses unambiguously worthy projects that avoid the dysfunction of government.

Agree with TrUT's points on education - it is blatantly clear that it is not a spending problem.
 
#7
#7
therealUT said:
On a first reading, here is what I take from Harris's column:

1. While he is ostensibly concerned with actual impoverishment, in the form of homelessness and crumbling infrastructure, he is more directly concerned with wealth inequality.

2. He argues that part of the problem is that we are spending government money on inane projects (like the Noah's Ark project) when we should be spending on education. He contrasts our poor education with better or similar educations even in "Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Albania, Kazakhstan, and Indonesia". I have not checked, but I am inclined to think that the US far outspends these countries on education. This, combined with his statement that even the most advantaged (the richest) students in America are receiving subpar educations compared to Shanghai, demonstrates to me that the corrupted quality of our education system has little to nothing to do with how much money we spend on it.

3. I do not understand how Harris rails against tax-cuts for the wealthy when it seems to me that his entire argue implies that the government use of funds is ineffectual and wasteful. To me, this would indicate that one should not promote giving any revenue to said government, until it can prove itself to be wise in its spending habits. The only reason, then, for arguing that the rich should pay more taxes than everyone else is purely punitive; it certainly cannot be for any greater good.
Click to expand...

This was my biggest beef with the article. He rails on wealth inequality, but the real issue he doesn't make the focus of the article what this is really about, government inefficiency.

I do, however, agree to some extent, that a slightly higher marginal rate on the wealthy would be a good idea if we could confirm it wouldn't be wasted. The problem, is unless major overhauls are made on the mechanisms for spending the revenue then it is a mute point, and just punitive, as you said. When it comes down to it, I think this is the underlying issue most have with filling the coffers.
 
#8
#8
He is arguing for charity (the why not pay more individually argument). He, Buffet, Gates et al can easily form a foundation that addresses unambiguously worthy projects that avoid the dysfunction of government.

Agree with TrUT's points on education - it is blatantly clear that it is not a spending problem.
 
#9
#9
rjd970 said:
This was my biggest beef with the article. He rails on wealth inequality, but the real issue he doesn't make the focus of the article what this is really about, government inefficiency.

I do, however, agree to some extent, that a slightly higher marginal rate on the wealthy would be a good idea if we could confirm it wouldn't be wasted. The problem, is unless major overhauls are made on the mechanisms for spending the revenue then it is a mute point, and just punitive, as you said. When it comes down to it, I think this is the underlying issue most have with filling the coffers.
Click to expand...

I've never had a problem with a slightly higher marginal rate but without spending discipline it is a meaningless gesture.
 
#10
#10
Bottom line is no matter how much they manipulate the tax code it historically maintains a tax revenue of about 18% of GDP (last 70 years or so). They can cause very brief spikes or drops in revenue, but in the long run it always comes back to about 18%.

There ain't no way around it. The budget has to be about 18% of GDP, because apparently we're not capable of generating more tax revenue than that. We can complicate the tax code and damage the economy in the process and we'll still end up with the same amount of tax revenue (or less, because maybe we do so much damage we've shrunk GDP).
 
#11
#11
He lost me when, while arguing that the wealthy should have a greater interest in raising our standards of education, he said, "Consequently, no one is responsible for his intelligence, range of talents, or ability to do productive work." So, if we are ultimately limited by our God given abilities, then throwing more money at "education" or other programs aimed at curbing "wealth inequality" would be futile. By his own admission, wealth equality can only be achieved by taking from the "wealthy" and giving to the "needy."
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#13
#13
dreVol said:
He lost me when, while arguing that the wealthy should have a greater interest in raising our standards of education, he said, "Consequently, no one is responsible for his intelligence, range of talents, or ability to do productive work." So, if we are ultimately limited by our God given abilities, then throwing more money at "education" or other programs aimed at curbing "wealth inequality" would be futile. By his own admission, wealth equality can only be achieved by taking from the "wealthy" and giving to the "needy."
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It's the lie of socialism. As Andrew Jackson stated:

Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law;
Click to expand...
 
#14
#14
We all want people to earn and have more if they work hard and are successful. That basic premise has served as our economic model for centuries, and it works. At the same time, I think it perfectly reasonable to question whether those who have earned so much by hard work and ingenuity at some point turn to obtaining more wealth (or unreasonably overprotecting it from modest taxation) by use of shady politics and relationships.

The problem with the "more transparency" solution is that those benefiting from the system, and who would presumably craft the mechanism for transparency, have a mighty incentive to manipulate it even further.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
We all want people to earn and have more if they work hard and are successful. That basic premise has served as our economic model for centuries, and it works. At the same time, I think it perfectly reasonable to question whether those who have earned so much by hard work and ingenuity at some point turn to obtaining more wealth (or unreasonably overprotecting it from modest taxation) by use of shady politics and relationships.

The problem with the "more transparency" solution is that those benefiting from the system, and who would presumably craft the mechanism for transparency, have a mighty incentive to manipulate it even further.
Click to expand...

Correct. This is where regulation comes in. Large corporations enjoy economies of scale. They get in bed with politicians that pass regulations to "protect consumers" (have you ever noticed how frequently big business supports regulatory practices). Regulation increases the cost of doing business which makes it harder for the little guy to make ends meet, thus crowding him out of the marketplace. The consumer is not better off because there is less supply and they face higher prices.

It's a joke that politicians think they can just pass a law and accomplish any objective.
 
#16
#16
299557_1878735907629_1818238117_1277582_399687703_n.jpg
 
#17
#17
nbakerld said:
299557_1878735907629_1818238117_1277582_399687703_n.jpg
Click to expand...


Where do you draw the line? All taxes are, as he would put it, are "taken at gunpoint." (A little hyperbole from him, but whatever)

Is he/are you saying we should have no taxes to fund schools or social security, or Medicare, or any social welfare program of any kind?
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
Where do you draw the line? All taxes are, as he would put it, are "taken at gunpoint." (A little hyperbole from him, but whatever)

Is he/are you saying we should have no taxes to fund schools or social security, or Medicare, or any social welfare program of any kind?
Click to expand...

Hyperbole? Revenue agents in prohibition weren't playing around, now were they? Ever heard of these people?

Edward and Elaine Brown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well it's considered theft if it's taken for wealth distribution purposes. Libertarians don't have the same objections when it goes to the actual common good like schools, national defense, or roads. They may not like it in certain cases, but they view it on a much different level.
 
#20
#20
KiffinKiller said:
ya - it's only theft if it's going somewhere we don't agree with.
Click to expand...

There's a lot more to it than that. If you take money from me to spend it on the roads I drive on it's a lot more justifiable than simply taking from me and giving it to someone else because they can't afford cigarettes AND groceries.

In one case, I see some of the benefit. In the other I get no benefit, thus I view it differently.

So if you understand economic classifications of goods, if spent on a "public good"*, taxes are viewed very differently.

*good is non-excludable and non-rival
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
rjd970 said:
A New Year’s Resolution for the Rich : Sam Harris

Will probably start some fires around here. Harris rails on tax cuts for the wealthy. I am still in doubt with how much of this I really agree with, but if the left wants to argue the wealth re-distribution side, they should take note at the coherence of this structured argument.

I thought this an interesting take on the "No one is stopping you from paying more" line. Unexpected slight against government you won't hear from the left:
Click to expand...

what is wealth inequality? Since we are we promised to all be equally wealthy?
 
#22
#22
If you want to tax the rich, just change the mortgage write off amount. Its currently over $1 Million. Thats insane that you can write off a million $ mortgage. The max it should be is $500K
 
#23
#23
theFallGuy said:
what is wealth inequality? Since we are we promised to all be equally wealthy?
Click to expand...

Is this a troll question? Because it makes no sense.

Wealth inequality is not the opposite of equally wealthy. Wealth inequality is a measure of difference, not a state. It could be 99 to 1, or 51 to 49. Equally wealthy is a state vector of economic equilibrium, ie...50 to 50, nothing else.

Where exactly in the posted article does the author advocate equal wealth distribution? Seems to me all he is arguing for is closing the gap a little, and not only that, he openly admits that taxation in the form of current government allocation isn't necessarily the optimal solution.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top