6 ms·

> We need to be pragmatic and get our people and economy through this crisis OK, tax the rich. PS: It was the winning strategy before the crisis too.

hinkley 6y ago
It was a winning strategy after the Spanish flu too.
MiroF 6y ago
What income do you consider the rich? I thought we were all in agreement, but I recently saw some Pew research that had me surprised.
- abduhl 6y ago
  We should just use the same objective approach as we use for classifying other drivers: anyone going faster than me is a dangerous asshole and anyone going slower than me is a dangerous idiot. But with salary instead of speed, I guess.
- refurb 6y ago
  Link to the Pew research? It reminds me of way back in 2000 when the NDP Party of Canada (left wing) said "we need to tax the rich way more" and a reporter finally asks "what do you mean by rich?" and the NDP leader inferred "a family of four making more than $60,000".[1] That turned some heads, especially among the labor unions who typically vote NDP and typically make more than that. [1]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/income-over-60-000-qualifies-as-wealthy-says-mcdonough-1.203528 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/income-over-60-000-qualifies-...
  - MiroF 6y ago
    > https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-say-there-is-too-much-economic-inequality-in-the-u-s-but-fewer-than-half-call-it-a-top-priority/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-sa... Namely what stood out, > Among Americans with the highest incomes – a subset of upper income adults who are in the top 7% of the sample’s adjusted income distribution – about a third (34%) of those who say there’s too much economic inequality say the government should raise taxes on people like them to deal with this, while 64% say this should not be done. This surprised me. So I'm curious, for those who are making in the top 7% and believe there is too much income inequality (over about ~$145,000/yr) -- and I do suspect there are a few of us here, you don't think that a plan to reduce income inequality involves taxation on that level of income?
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      When someone proposes to address a problem by giving the government lots of money, I'm always skeptical. Why should we expect them to spend that money wisely? I'm not opposed to raising taxes if there's something important to spend the money on, but the words "income inequality!" aren't IMO a sufficient description.
      - MiroF 6y ago
        Large amounts of government money go towards discretionary transfers like medicare, medicaid, social security, SNAP, etc. Is your claim that you think vast amounts of that money don't get to where they're supposed to go? I think most of these programs are characterized by extremely low administration costs as a percentage of budget.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        My claim is that raising taxes won't by itself bring an effective program to fight income inequality into existence. The poll question is like asking "should the federal government expand its office space to deal with income inequality" - how's anyone supposed to know without an explanation of what it'll be used for?
        MiroF 6y ago
        > that raising taxes won't by itself bring an effective program to fight income inequality into existence. Raising taxes on rich people changes the post-tax distribution to have less inequality, so it does literally bring into place a program to "fight income inequality." Given the fact that most government revenue goes towards social security, medicare, medicaid, you already know what it will be spent on and there already are effective programs.
        refurb 6y ago
        How would taxing the rich more and spending it on Medicare reduce income inequality? The low income might get better/more healthcare, but they don't get any more income from that spending.
- sooheon 6y ago
  Don't tax the high income bracket, tax the rentier bracket.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    But what about the overlap? And tax the rentier bracket's what? The reality is that that professional/managerial bracket has a large proportion of both the wealth and income in America, just because there are so many compared to the extremely wealthy large-scale owner class.
    - sooheon 6y ago
      Tax the rentier bracket's rent income. The overlap need not be considered. > The reality is that that professional/managerial bracket has a large proportion of both the wealth and income in America This is irrelevant. Tax policy should not be judged by what proportion of total wealth or income it collects, but by the economic incentives it creates and the externalities it offsets.
      - MiroF 6y ago
        Actions should be judged by their consequences. Size of the resource collected impacts the impact of the consequence.
        sooheon 6y ago
        > Actions should be judged by their consequences I agree, we just have different perspectives on which consequences are relevant, and on which timescales. Optimizing for "size of resource collected" at time 0 affects the system and each agent's incentives within that system, usually leading to the kind of adversarial loophole-chasing/closing we see with income tax and tax havens. Optimizing for economically sound incentives will lead to higher "impact" (by my definition, reduction of externalities, inefficiency, and inequality) in the long run for a dynamic system, imho.
- bmn__ 6y ago
  The commonly used definition, even among non-economists, comes from the OECD and Eurostat. You are rich if your equivalised household income is over 150% of the median.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    > even among non-economists Definitely not the definition that people with household income over 150% of the median seem to be using.

hinkley 6y ago

It was a winning strategy after the Spanish flu too.

MiroF 6y ago

What income do you consider the rich? I thought we were all in agreement, but I recently saw some Pew research that had me surprised.

abduhl 6y ago
We should just use the same objective approach as we use for classifying other drivers: anyone going faster than me is a dangerous asshole and anyone going slower than me is a dangerous idiot. But with salary instead of speed, I guess.
refurb 6y ago
Link to the Pew research? It reminds me of way back in 2000 when the NDP Party of Canada (left wing) said "we need to tax the rich way more" and a reporter finally asks "what do you mean by rich?" and the NDP leader inferred "a family of four making more than $60,000".[1] That turned some heads, especially among the labor unions who typically vote NDP and typically make more than that. [1]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/income-over-60-000-qualifies-as-wealthy-says-mcdonough-1.203528 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/income-over-60-000-qualifies-...
- MiroF 6y ago
  > https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-say-there-is-too-much-economic-inequality-in-the-u-s-but-fewer-than-half-call-it-a-top-priority/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-sa... Namely what stood out, > Among Americans with the highest incomes – a subset of upper income adults who are in the top 7% of the sample’s adjusted income distribution – about a third (34%) of those who say there’s too much economic inequality say the government should raise taxes on people like them to deal with this, while 64% say this should not be done. This surprised me. So I'm curious, for those who are making in the top 7% and believe there is too much income inequality (over about ~$145,000/yr) -- and I do suspect there are a few of us here, you don't think that a plan to reduce income inequality involves taxation on that level of income?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    When someone proposes to address a problem by giving the government lots of money, I'm always skeptical. Why should we expect them to spend that money wisely? I'm not opposed to raising taxes if there's something important to spend the money on, but the words "income inequality!" aren't IMO a sufficient description.
    - MiroF 6y ago
      Large amounts of government money go towards discretionary transfers like medicare, medicaid, social security, SNAP, etc. Is your claim that you think vast amounts of that money don't get to where they're supposed to go? I think most of these programs are characterized by extremely low administration costs as a percentage of budget.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        My claim is that raising taxes won't by itself bring an effective program to fight income inequality into existence. The poll question is like asking "should the federal government expand its office space to deal with income inequality" - how's anyone supposed to know without an explanation of what it'll be used for?
        MiroF 6y ago
        > that raising taxes won't by itself bring an effective program to fight income inequality into existence. Raising taxes on rich people changes the post-tax distribution to have less inequality, so it does literally bring into place a program to "fight income inequality." Given the fact that most government revenue goes towards social security, medicare, medicaid, you already know what it will be spent on and there already are effective programs.
        refurb 6y ago
        How would taxing the rich more and spending it on Medicare reduce income inequality? The low income might get better/more healthcare, but they don't get any more income from that spending.
sooheon 6y ago
Don't tax the high income bracket, tax the rentier bracket.
- MiroF 6y ago
  But what about the overlap? And tax the rentier bracket's what? The reality is that that professional/managerial bracket has a large proportion of both the wealth and income in America, just because there are so many compared to the extremely wealthy large-scale owner class.
  - sooheon 6y ago
    Tax the rentier bracket's rent income. The overlap need not be considered. > The reality is that that professional/managerial bracket has a large proportion of both the wealth and income in America This is irrelevant. Tax policy should not be judged by what proportion of total wealth or income it collects, but by the economic incentives it creates and the externalities it offsets.
    - MiroF 6y ago
      Actions should be judged by their consequences. Size of the resource collected impacts the impact of the consequence.
      - sooheon 6y ago
        > Actions should be judged by their consequences I agree, we just have different perspectives on which consequences are relevant, and on which timescales. Optimizing for "size of resource collected" at time 0 affects the system and each agent's incentives within that system, usually leading to the kind of adversarial loophole-chasing/closing we see with income tax and tax havens. Optimizing for economically sound incentives will lead to higher "impact" (by my definition, reduction of externalities, inefficiency, and inequality) in the long run for a dynamic system, imho.
bmn__ 6y ago
The commonly used definition, even among non-economists, comes from the OECD and Eurostat. You are rich if your equivalised household income is over 150% of the median.
- MiroF 6y ago
  > even among non-economists Definitely not the definition that people with household income over 150% of the median seem to be using.