Taxing the Wealthy

[CharonY]

I think a study found that maximum happiness was associated with an income of around 60-70 k. After that it did not increase very much.

[Marat]

iNow: When I said that wealth was more efficient at producing happiness when it is distributed evenly, I was of course referring to that more even distribution as an end state, not as the device to reach that end state, which would be counterproductive, because with people having initial holdings which are unequal, giving everyone the same amount of wealth would only preserve, rather than correct, the inequalities. Why anyone would want the kind of redistribution of wealth which would preserve inequalities, when the inequalities already exist even without redistribution, is beyond me. Since I was arguing througout the entire thread for a more even wealth distribution as an end outcome, I can't understand how you could interpret what I was saying as endorsing something totally incomprehensible like the state exacting $1000 from every person so that the state could then give that $1000 back to every person to achieve 'an even distribution of wealth.'

 

You may note that I did not refer to any poster by name in my own comment, but just tried to make a general response to a number of earlier objections, among which was the view that poor people may deserve their poverty because of their own poor choices or lack of motivation. I didn't mean to create the impression that any particular person was responsible for any one of the range of different objections I was responding to.

[padren]

My previous reply was only to his initial statement in the post before that, which was discussing what is the basic premise of natural science and whether it should include the assertion that 'all events have to be causally explained, and nothing can be self-caused.' The reason we were discussing that was because he had said that some of the poor were that way because of their own fault in terms of their laziness or lack of ambition, and I was arguing against it that since everything has to be explained by external causes, the fact that some humans are lazy shoud not be explained because they are blameworthy for having exercised their own free will to be that way, but only because their social environments had caused them to be that way.

I understand what you are saying, which basically is the conflict between a world view based on Strong Determinism, and one based on Free Will and Sin/Virtue. It is an interesting side-topic but the long story short of it is we have to work within the framework where our decision making skills exist - and it is impossible to make all our decisions from a deterministic framework. If someone attacks you in an alley then objectively they had no choice, and their happiness is just as objectively valuable as yours - but you can't really apply that information in a useful way. If you are able to use non-lethal force you should, and if you have to use lethal force you should, and they made decisions that should result in them going to jail.

 

We already have the concept "there but for the grace of God, go I" and we already do what we can to protect the lives of those who attack us. That's where "excessive force" comes into play in self defense. It's also why we call prisons "Correctional Facilities" even if we have a long way to go before they live up to that name.

 

 

I will say we definitely have some blatantly cruel facets to how our society works: We would stagnate horribly with a 0% unemployment, which directly implies that when unemployment gets too low, the market will want it to go up. Since jobs aren't available on the basis of "individual merit" but on a competitive bell curve vs. the skills of other people, this pretty much necessitates that there will always be people at the lower end of the curve that really don't have a lot of room to improve their lives.

 

I do think we should as a society try to do what we can to help people in these situations, and it's theoretically possible to solve these issues at some point. However, I think it's remiss to drop Strong Determinism as a moral hazard into economic policy, since there really is no framework where it is actually useful to us as a decision making aid.

 

With respect to the previous statement of his that you quote, I would offer the following response: We know that at least moderate versions of socialism, such as that practised in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, can work effectively in modern societies. The failure of more extreme versions of socialism, such as those practised in Maoist China, the Soviet Union, or Erich Honnecker's East Germany, cannot be separated from the extraneous variable that these socialist systems were all engrafted onto societies which had all been in one way or the other failed states before their socialist experiments. It is quite likely that the totalitarian or inefficiently structured social forms, cultural dispositions, and popular attitudes just persisted to ruin the newer socialist systems just as they had ruined their respective predecessors. Japan could argue persuasively to the League of Nations, when they were accused of having violated the sovereignty of China in 1932, that China was so chaotic and ineffective as a state that it was in effect not a state at all, but only a geographical expression. Tsarist Russia before the Soviet take-over had the per capita GNP of Portugal, which is today the poorest country in Western Europe. And because the invading Soviets never uprooted the Nazi culture they found when they moved into Eastern Germany in 1945, historians characterized Communist East Germany as essentially just a totalitarian persistence of Nazi Germany into the modern world.

For the record Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are also moderate versions of capitalism and if anything demonstrate that a society can encompass a balance of both.

 

I am curious, how you value the individual's right to self determination and independence? Personally I consider all forms of compulsory compliance with community or state level policies in degrees of infringement, but as a necessary evil since some issues cannot be addressed otherwise. We need the social stability provided by reliable police, fire, military, infrastructure and basic social services and as such we accept some of our freedom of choice will be taken away. However, I can't imagine a state justifying it's involvement in everything from wages to commodity values as would be necessary under a pure socialism.

 

 

Also, consider America's "inefficiently structured social forms, cultural dispositions, and popular attitudes likely to persist" and how well that would translate into a socialist state. If we let our politicians get away with the things they do now, why would our socialist politicians be any less self-serving?

 

Since wealth is vastly more efficient in producing human happiness when it is more evenly distributed so as to answer the basic needs of all rather than service the demands for luxury of the few, it seems that efforts should be made to put that obvious, a priori principle into practise. This may prove technically difficult, but the advantage evident in that initial principle is so great that it would be a pity to give up on it prematurely just because of some failed attempts in the past.

 

What about people like me that aren't after happiness? I hope it's a side-effect of my life, but I'm far more interested in living on next to nothing while I try to strike it big in internet technology. As a gamble I may end up miserable and penniless but it's what I want to do so that I have a chance to privately fund the sort of ventures I want to see realized.

 

Also, you have failed to address that "wealth" isn't a static variable - I went into a lot of detail in previous posts about how supply and demand affect the value of wealth and the commodities people desire. You also failed to address how to help people that consistently spend all their money regardless of how much they have.

 

 

Lastly, the "advantage evident" is anything but - it seems like a policy to take all direct self-determination out of people's lives through an incredibly artificial monolithic political structure. Keep in mind when you step in forcefully and stop someone from making a bad choice that makes them unhappy, you rob them of the option to make a good choice that makes them happy.

I'm all for safeguards that keep the poor from being exploited and ensuring they earn fair wages and I am all for giving people more options to make good decisions, but that can all be achieved within a largely capitalistic model - like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark etc and doesn't require removing almost all personal choice from the equation.

Edited October 10, 2010 by padren