Advocates promised the new tax would bring in over $1 billion a year in new revenue. And they quickly saw their predictions surpassed: the state Department of Revenue estimates it will generate over $1.5 billion this fiscal year.
Equal proportion is not the same as fair. It’s a matter of scale. Low, middle, and even upper middle class people will actually feel the impact of, say, a 2% increase in taxes. Someone making more than a million dollars a year will not. It’ll be a simple blip on a balance sheet and their quality of life will not be affected in any way.
I think there are two factors that make it make sense to me.
People who make oodles of money, that these taxes actually impact, generally don’t make that money by being any more productive than the rest of us. They won the birth lottery, or found the right way to exploit other people’s labour, or created artificial demand, and so on and so forth. So, they don’t really “deserve” that money. I personally agree with this, but I don’t think it’s a great argument in favour of higher wealth taxes because it’s a pretty subjective take.
The purpose of tax is to allow us to collectively allocate wealth to improve society as a whole. We might not all agree on how that should be allocated - some people think we should spend more on health or the military or education or social welfare - but tax is a tool that we (as a culture) have decided is a good way to make sure that we make progress in some shared direction. It’s not wrong to think that tax is wrong, but I personally believe that if we didn’t have that system, the world would go nowhere because everyone would only spend in their personal interests. Cynical, sure, but it is what it is.
With this in mind I think it makes a bit more sense. Increasing the proportion of tax paid by the 0.1% of people who have the most only marginally affects those people, but the amount of money raised which can be used on common interests has the possibility of doing far more good, for far more people. That money has the potential to be more productive if it wasn’t tied up in bonds, or gold, or Bitcoin, or etc.
Many/most western countries already use progressive tax brackets. Wealth taxes, to me, are just adjusting those to “catch up” with the modern definition of wealthy.
This is well articulated opinion. I like acknowledging that we all collectively don’t completely agree on use, but most agree in the necessity. I certainly do.
I like police, fire, roads, infrastructure, education, defense, etc. I dont mind paying taxes. Like all,.I have opinions on its allocation, as you said.
I don’t care for people automatically assuming they’re entitled to rich people’s money just because they make more than the rest of us.
I also don’t have any empathy for (wealthy) people who have accumulated that wealth in despicable ways, examples you described included.
I’ve never had a conversation with someone who makes the kind of money these proposed taxes would affect. I’d be interested in that perspective.
Completely agree that it’d be good to actually know someone megarich. I think that’s one of the biggest problems in modern society, that people don’t have enough opportunities to interact with those outside of their immediate social spheres. I think if the megarich had to interact with normal people (and vice versa) we would all understand each other much better.
I guess I do agree also that no one is entitled to a rich persons money. I guess to go back to fairness though, I find it unfair that there are people going without basic human needs in the same countries as there are people figuratively hoarding piles of gold
A flat tax would likely cause even less taxes to be paid and arguably I wouldn’t consider it a fair. The lowest bracket does carry only 2.3% with the next bracket after that jumping to 7.6% of the tax. There is no argument that the rich doesn’t pay more than the overall person, the argument is that since they make more and they very easily are able to comfortably live with a higher tax bracket that they should be taxed more.
And honestly I agree with that, it’s doing nothing just sitting in a bank account I shouldn’t be helped to better the society that everyone lives including that person. Why should the person making minimum wage be expected to contribute these same percentage as someone who’s making 45- or 70 an hour after incentives, that’s just my viewpoint on it
As if they generated that income from their own labour and fairly nontheless. Yeah they profited from hard work. All the hard work of people working for them
Personally, I believe a worker is entitled to all they create. I’m not going to deny the initial investment of the company is a risk taken and getting a bussiness on its feet requires active effort. But this opportunity is not amongst the many and most business starters are already quite well off and appeals to investors for growth which requires favorability of yet more well off people. Not to mention more well of bussinesses are less affected by law with breaking the law becoming an investment eventually making anticompetitive practices prevalent.
While I do of course support personal property. Personally, I do not believe private property is justified as I believe it creates a wealth disparity and hierarchial power (Socialist here and relevant to workers being entitled to their labour). When working for a private bussiness. The owners of this bussiness get the surplus labour value of what you produce on the grounds of owning thus private property. I do not believe the existing ownership of this property is a justified income as it is a passive income independent of whether you do work or not.
If a worker is entitled to all they create, does that apply to the creator of the business? And of the surplus created as a result?
You stated I your second paragraph that you do t support the idea of claim to a business’s surplus, but why? Just because of the wealth separation between workers and owners?
Some arguments suggest that their stewardship allows that organization to ultimately achieve its goals and earn its profits, which could be significant.
How would you feel if you and a co-worker both closed deals, only you worked much harder and closed a deal that earned the company twice as much money? Should you both be compensated the same?
Let’s stay instead you were promoted to managing the previous group of coworkers. Now your scope of responsibility increases, stress and headaches, and management duties has increased. You are also now earning the company more money because you’re good at it. Should your pay be tied to how much you’re earning the company? Could you now make double what your subordinates make? More?
In another scenario, you are the most senior manager of an organization. Some of your senior individuals are extremely talented, tenured, and earn the company great deals of revenue because of their skills, people generally like working for them. How easily could those people be replaced, without affecting the organization’s success? How long would it take you to replace them? Would the business suffer in the mean time? Could those individuals be easily poached by another organization who pays them more? How much more? What is the overall market price for that individual’s skill set? How much education and talent versus replaceability do they have? Ultimately what are they worth?
70 times the amount of skill or 70 times the amount of experience or 70 times the amount of physical exertion. Something.
But that’s not how they are paid. Instead, they are paid a market rate. Just like me. And the market doesn’t care how hard you work.
How would you feel if you and a co-worker both closed deals, only you worked much harder and closed a deal that earned the company twice as much money? Should you both be compensated the same?
Clearly not, but because I am paid an hourly wage I get the same amount of compensation no matter how hard I work.
Should your pay be tied to how much you’re earning the company?
Maybe, or maybe just tied to the value of my labor.
That’s not what happens. Instead I am paid a market rate i.e. they pay me as little as they can without causing me to find a different job. They do this to create profits, because all profit is literally just the revenue that’s left over after expenses. I am one of those expenses, ergo-
Ultimately what are they worth?
The market says they are worth 70 times as much as I am.
I’m extremely excited about cybernetic economic planning as AI and quantum computing become a reality.
Central planners couldn’t make a centrally planned economy work with traditional paper book keeping, and even with computers and internet it would be extremely difficult and require an army of bureaucrats so huge it would strain the entire economy. When that process can be automated, with a market AI to handle pricing and supply and production and everything, then we can finally abolish the market.
What’s fairly?
Don’t they already pay a higher percentage? I haven’t looked at tax brackets lately.
Wouldn’t fairly be we all pay the same? Flat tax?
How’s that not fair?
If we all paid the same, but they make more money, their same percentage would be more money. Wouldn’t that be fair?
Equal proportion is not the same as fair. It’s a matter of scale. Low, middle, and even upper middle class people will actually feel the impact of, say, a 2% increase in taxes. Someone making more than a million dollars a year will not. It’ll be a simple blip on a balance sheet and their quality of life will not be affected in any way.
Cognitive dissonance is high for me on this.
I disagree and agree at the same time.
I agree that it wouldn’t make a huge difference, but I still don’t like the entitled stances of both sides.
I think there are two factors that make it make sense to me.
People who make oodles of money, that these taxes actually impact, generally don’t make that money by being any more productive than the rest of us. They won the birth lottery, or found the right way to exploit other people’s labour, or created artificial demand, and so on and so forth. So, they don’t really “deserve” that money. I personally agree with this, but I don’t think it’s a great argument in favour of higher wealth taxes because it’s a pretty subjective take.
The purpose of tax is to allow us to collectively allocate wealth to improve society as a whole. We might not all agree on how that should be allocated - some people think we should spend more on health or the military or education or social welfare - but tax is a tool that we (as a culture) have decided is a good way to make sure that we make progress in some shared direction. It’s not wrong to think that tax is wrong, but I personally believe that if we didn’t have that system, the world would go nowhere because everyone would only spend in their personal interests. Cynical, sure, but it is what it is.
With this in mind I think it makes a bit more sense. Increasing the proportion of tax paid by the 0.1% of people who have the most only marginally affects those people, but the amount of money raised which can be used on common interests has the possibility of doing far more good, for far more people. That money has the potential to be more productive if it wasn’t tied up in bonds, or gold, or Bitcoin, or etc.
Many/most western countries already use progressive tax brackets. Wealth taxes, to me, are just adjusting those to “catch up” with the modern definition of wealthy.
This is well articulated opinion. I like acknowledging that we all collectively don’t completely agree on use, but most agree in the necessity. I certainly do.
I like police, fire, roads, infrastructure, education, defense, etc. I dont mind paying taxes. Like all,.I have opinions on its allocation, as you said.
I don’t care for people automatically assuming they’re entitled to rich people’s money just because they make more than the rest of us.
I also don’t have any empathy for (wealthy) people who have accumulated that wealth in despicable ways, examples you described included.
I’ve never had a conversation with someone who makes the kind of money these proposed taxes would affect. I’d be interested in that perspective.
Completely agree that it’d be good to actually know someone megarich. I think that’s one of the biggest problems in modern society, that people don’t have enough opportunities to interact with those outside of their immediate social spheres. I think if the megarich had to interact with normal people (and vice versa) we would all understand each other much better.
I guess I do agree also that no one is entitled to a rich persons money. I guess to go back to fairness though, I find it unfair that there are people going without basic human needs in the same countries as there are people figuratively hoarding piles of gold
I picture scrooge McDuck diving into a golf coin vault.
A flat tax would likely cause even less taxes to be paid and arguably I wouldn’t consider it a fair. The lowest bracket does carry only 2.3% with the next bracket after that jumping to 7.6% of the tax. There is no argument that the rich doesn’t pay more than the overall person, the argument is that since they make more and they very easily are able to comfortably live with a higher tax bracket that they should be taxed more.
And honestly I agree with that, it’s doing nothing just sitting in a bank account I shouldn’t be helped to better the society that everyone lives including that person. Why should the person making minimum wage be expected to contribute these same percentage as someone who’s making 45- or 70 an hour after incentives, that’s just my viewpoint on it
As if they generated that income from their own labour and fairly nontheless. Yeah they profited from hard work. All the hard work of people working for them
Why isn’t that fair?
You’re suggesting they didn’t do anything?
No wisdom, vision, guidence, leadership, investment, risk taking of their own money that happened to pay off?
Yeah, maybe the rich person you’re thinking of didn’t swing a mallet, but they did something at some point right?
What constitutes hard work or labor/labour?
Personally, I believe a worker is entitled to all they create. I’m not going to deny the initial investment of the company is a risk taken and getting a bussiness on its feet requires active effort. But this opportunity is not amongst the many and most business starters are already quite well off and appeals to investors for growth which requires favorability of yet more well off people. Not to mention more well of bussinesses are less affected by law with breaking the law becoming an investment eventually making anticompetitive practices prevalent.
While I do of course support personal property. Personally, I do not believe private property is justified as I believe it creates a wealth disparity and hierarchial power (Socialist here and relevant to workers being entitled to their labour). When working for a private bussiness. The owners of this bussiness get the surplus labour value of what you produce on the grounds of owning thus private property. I do not believe the existing ownership of this property is a justified income as it is a passive income independent of whether you do work or not.
If a worker is entitled to all they create, does that apply to the creator of the business? And of the surplus created as a result?
You stated I your second paragraph that you do t support the idea of claim to a business’s surplus, but why? Just because of the wealth separation between workers and owners?
Let us assume average CEO-to-worker pay ratio 70-to-1
The CEO does lots of work managing the company.
Do they work 70 times harder than their workers?
I’m not sure. How do you qualify 70 times harder?
Some arguments suggest that their stewardship allows that organization to ultimately achieve its goals and earn its profits, which could be significant.
How would you feel if you and a co-worker both closed deals, only you worked much harder and closed a deal that earned the company twice as much money? Should you both be compensated the same?
Let’s stay instead you were promoted to managing the previous group of coworkers. Now your scope of responsibility increases, stress and headaches, and management duties has increased. You are also now earning the company more money because you’re good at it. Should your pay be tied to how much you’re earning the company? Could you now make double what your subordinates make? More?
In another scenario, you are the most senior manager of an organization. Some of your senior individuals are extremely talented, tenured, and earn the company great deals of revenue because of their skills, people generally like working for them. How easily could those people be replaced, without affecting the organization’s success? How long would it take you to replace them? Would the business suffer in the mean time? Could those individuals be easily poached by another organization who pays them more? How much more? What is the overall market price for that individual’s skill set? How much education and talent versus replaceability do they have? Ultimately what are they worth?
70 times the amount of skill or 70 times the amount of experience or 70 times the amount of physical exertion. Something.
But that’s not how they are paid. Instead, they are paid a market rate. Just like me. And the market doesn’t care how hard you work.
Clearly not, but because I am paid an hourly wage I get the same amount of compensation no matter how hard I work.
Maybe, or maybe just tied to the value of my labor.
That’s not what happens. Instead I am paid a market rate i.e. they pay me as little as they can without causing me to find a different job. They do this to create profits, because all profit is literally just the revenue that’s left over after expenses. I am one of those expenses, ergo-
The market says they are worth 70 times as much as I am.
They are not.
I find the reality of the ‘market rate’ frustrating.
I’m extremely excited about cybernetic economic planning as AI and quantum computing become a reality.
Central planners couldn’t make a centrally planned economy work with traditional paper book keeping, and even with computers and internet it would be extremely difficult and require an army of bureaucrats so huge it would strain the entire economy. When that process can be automated, with a market AI to handle pricing and supply and production and everything, then we can finally abolish the market.
I assume you’re talking about an automated socialist style economy?
I thought the USSR or a few other countries tried that in the last 40 or 50 years as computer networking became possible.
Edit: Quick web search listed USSR, Chile, China.