Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Envy and Taxes

  1. #1
    Big War Bird's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    12,340

    Default Envy and Taxes

    Losers Take All

    How strong is envy? New research from a top economist provides a startling answer.

    by Jill Neimark


    JULY/AUGUST 2002—In his 1967 hit ballad "Everybody Loves a Winner," songwriter William Bell mourned that "when you lose, you lose alone.”

    Were Bell alive today, he'd probably offer the opposite sentiment: "Everybody hates a winner, and when you lose, you lose together." According to new research, we not only envy winners, we often punish them-even at our own expense.

    "I may have unearthed the dark side of human nature," says economist Andrew Oswald of Warwick University in England. Oswald's ingenious study, conducted with colleague Daniel Zizzo of Oxford University, tested how willing we are to burn away others' wealth, even when we have to give up our own to do so. Participants played an anonymous betting game at a computer terminal. The money they received to play the game-along with any winnings-was theirs to keep. As they played, the screen showed exactly how much other players were winning. At the end, players could secretly burn away other people's money-but only if they burned 25 percent of their own money, too.

    Of 116 study participants-playing several games in anonymous groups of four-almost two-thirds chose to burn other players' winnings. And this was in spite of the high cost-burn a dollar of another's money, lose 25 cents of your own. Losers punished winners, which might seem to be motivated by a kind of perverse logic, driven by envy and resentment. But even winners punished others, though they punished both poor and rich alike-reducing their own windfalls.

    "We were shocked by how much people were willing to hurt themselves to burn other people's money," Oswald says. "We really thought that a cost of 25 percent would kill off all destructive behavior, but it didn't. And most people didn't give very clear explanations as to why they'd done it. I don't believe they fully understood what they were feeling. This is a drive, not a cool-headed, rational choice.”

    The drive, Oswald speculates, may have to do with status, and the fact that relative rank is an important part of life. "We're very driven by a concern about rank, and there is only so much rank to go around in any society. Wages, for instance, are relative. In my own life, on a university faculty, I find that my colleagues are incredibly interested in what others are earning. It goes back to rank. People are more interested in rank than in having resources, per se. Status comes from where you are in the ranking." But how does relative rank account for winners punishing all others, rather than simply exulting in their top status? Oswald speculates that winners struck preemptively, in order to preserve their rank: They expected the losers to punish them and so they punished the losers first.

    Oswald seems to have uncovered, in a stark way, something we all subconsciously recognize: flaunting our success may rouse deep envy in others. A tendency to "play down" one's winnings is evident in the speeches of Nobel Prize winners, says Pam Benoit, a communication professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia and author of Telling the Success Story: Acclaiming and Disclaiming Discourse (State University of New York Press, 1997). When Benoit studied individual success stories, she found that Nobel Prize winners tend to detract from their success in their acceptance speeches. "They just won the Nobel Prize, and that has such enormous status they don't need to enhance it," Benoit says. "So they talk about the others who were responsible, the people who worked in their labs, the scientists whose shoulders they stand upon. They appear very modest.”

    Research shows that children learn the benefits of modesty by age eight. And a 2002 study conducted by Dawn Watling and Robin Banerjee of the University of Sussex in England seems to show that modesty and rank are indeed linked. Ninety-two children between ages eight and eleven were shown social scenarios that reflected modest or immodest behavior. Researchers then asked the children whether the behavior was a good thing and why. In scenes where children interacted with their peers, the kids thought modest behavior was good: They believed they'd be better liked that way. When interacting with adults, however, who rank higher than children, confidence and boasting were seen as a useful strategy. "Children probably learn modesty from their peers, not from adults," Watling concludes. "Now we want to study whether children feel they should act modest with peers, but confident with older children.”

    Oswald's study gives us uneasy insight into the urge to punish winners, and yet it raises as many questions as it answers. For instance, will a majority still burn money if it costs half of their own, or three quarters? And what if the game was played for large sums of money? "I don't believe that would make a difference," Oswald says, "but I'd like to find out. We know that at any given time, individuals enjoy moving up in a ranking. In contrast, if an entire society is lifted up by a wave of prosperity, no given individual feels much happier. What if we ran this study in a very poor, developing country, where the sums we offer are worth a fortune, to see if participants were cooler-headed?”

    Oswald wonders if there is a way to harness or foster a kind of group spirit that will counteract the urge to punish.

    "In my lab, half of all the potential [financial] resources were destroyed," Oswald says, "and so the group as a whole became poorer, because the concern for rank overwhelmed them. Maybe I could design a study where they shared knowledge and cooperation, so that the group as a whole came away with more money. The question is, can we develop some set of institutions that gets us to a group outcome where everyone is richer? This is a very important issue for society.”

    Swiss economist Ernst Fehr agrees. An expert on altruism and punishment at the University of Zurich, Fehr says that people compete for rank, and that relative rank is important for survival. However, he also has found that humans grouped together will cooperate and, as a result, often will punish defectors, or those individuals who don't cooperate. This punishment can be costly for an individual, but enhances the survival of the group. Fehr dubs it altruistic punishment and considers it a major motivator in social interaction. "When we run experiments where people can stay together, cooperation rates are much higher than if people interact with strangers," Fehr says.

    But what of those winners at the very top who, rather than preemptively punishing others, become philanthropists to society at large? In his 1889 essay "The Gospel of Wealth," magnate Andrew Carnegie suggested that the duty of a rich man was to live modestly, provide moderately for his dependents, and regard himself as "the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren," administering his fortune to produce the greatest gain for the community as a whole. This seems a form of pure altruism, and science has long debated why it exists.

    Sometimes winners give all, rather than take all: but the answer to that particular mystery may lie within the human heart rather than the laboratory.
    http://www.science-spirit.org/articl...article_id=316

    The thought that nags me after reading of this study was the confluence of so called progressive taxation with "soak the rich" mentality. We are told that the wealthier one becomes, one should pay absolutely and disperportionally higher taxes. The reason supporters give is that the wealthy have benefited most from society. However, this study shows that even with such an flimsy excuse removed the desire to punish those with more wealth remains. I say flimsy because the wealthiest often have the least need for the services their tax money supports. So we are left with the real motive behind progressive taxation: envy, self destructive envy. "Poor" people in this study were willing to spend their own money just to see the "rich" taken down a peg. Can you imagine what would have happened if it cost the poor nothing to harm the rich? Heck even the rich people of this study destroyed wealth indiscrimately.

    Perhaps the next time a poltician promises to tax the rich you will see it for what it really is.
    As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.

    -Ella Hill

  2. #2

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    This reminds me of the term schadenfreude:
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Schadenfreude (help·info) is a German word meaning "pleasure taken from someone else's misfortune." It is sometimes used as a loanword in English and other languages. The German pronunciation of the word is [ˈʃaːdənˌfʁɔ͡ɪdə] (IPA).

    It derives from Schaden (damage, harm) and Freude (joy); Schaden derives from the Middle High German schade, from the Old High German scado, and freude comes from the Middle High German vreude, from the Old High German frewida, from frō, happy). In German, the word always carries a negative connotation. A distinction exists between "secret schadenfreude" (a private feeling) and "open schadenfreude" (Hohn).
    And, another revealing team: 'sycophant', ancient greek for 'fig revealer'. Who were the 'fig revealers'?
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Sycophant (Gr. συκοφάντης), in ancient Greece was the counterpart of the Roman delator, a public informer.

    According to ancient authorities, the word (derived by them from συκο suko, "fig", and φανης fanēs, "to show") meant one who informed against another for exporting figs (which was forbidden by law) or for stealing the fruit of the sacred fig-trees, whether in time of famine or on any other occasion.
    We all suffer from envy, but the least we can do as a society is to minimize the ways envy can harm others. Small people are always trying to pull down the big ones.


    In Patronicum sub Siblesz

  3. #3
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Big War Bird
    I say flimsy because the wealthiest often have the least need for the services their tax money supports.
    This is not true.
    Except for the unemployed, wealthy people use public services the most.
    Especially infrastructure like roads.
    I'll try to find a link.

    So we are left with the real motive behind progressive taxation: envy, self destructive envy. "Poor" people in this study were willing to spend their own money just to see the "rich" taken down a peg.
    This logic is flawed because progressive taxation reduced the tax level for poor people.
    And tax isn't detroyed like the money in this test, it is given back to society in the form of infrastructure, security, healthcare etc. etc.

    Heck even the rich people of this study destroyed wealth indiscrimately.
    Which makes me suspicious of the conclusion that people punish out of envy.
    Something else must be going on to explain this.

    Perhaps the next time a poltician promises to tax the rich you will see it for what it really is.
    Yes: a very fair system that destributes the tax load based on peoples ability to carry it.

    I was wondering:
    Have you ever been on a hiking trip with your family? or any simular situation where you had to carry a large load together?
    Did you distribute the weight equally over all members?
    Or did you let the strongest members carry a heavier load than the weaker members?
    To me it sounds unfair to let an 8year old girl carry the same weight as her 35 year old father, but maybe you disagree.



  4. #4
    sephodwyrm's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    6,757

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Plus, taxing the richest 1% harder gets you more money than taxing the poorest 30% brutally.

    This the concept of social justice, btw.
    I wonder when will Christian Compassion actually make its way into the taxation scheme...
    Older guy on TWC.
    Done with National Service. NOT patriotic. MORE realist. Just gimme cash.
    Dishing out cheap shots since 2006.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik
    This is not true.
    Except for the unemployed, wealthy people use public services the most.
    Especially infrastructure like roads.
    I'll try to find a link.
    Ahh, but do they use it proportionally to the money they expend maintaining and building it?


    This logic is flawed because progressive taxation reduced the tax level for poor people.
    And tax isn't detroyed like the money in this test, it is given back to society in the form of infrastructure, security, healthcare etc. etc.
    The fact that poor people pay taxes at all is shameful, but that's another topic.
    Actually, wealth and potential wealth are destroyed when money isn't used to generate the highest return possible. Governments have no incentive to generate returns from the largesse they dispense, so they generally don't use wealth efficiently.



    Which makes me suspicious of the conclusion that people punish out of envy.
    Something else must be going on to explain this.
    Do you live in a cocoon? Ever heard of 'beggar they neighbour'? It's virtually a national pass-time in some countries.


    Yes: a very fair system that destributes the tax load based on peoples ability to carry it.

    I was wondering:
    Have you ever been on a hiking trip with your family? or any simular situation where you had to carry a large load together?
    Did you distribute the weight equally over all members?
    Or did you let the strongest members carry a heavier load than the weaker members?
    To me it sounds unfair to let an 8year old girl carry the same weight as her 35 year old father, but maybe you disagree.
    Such a flawed, flawed analogy.

    Here's a better analogy: people can carry weight as a proportion of their strength. Let's say the average person can, over long distances, support 25/pounds per 70 pounds of body-weight.[give or take] Then, a 70 pound girl can carry 25 pounds, and a 210 pound person, let's say her father, will carry 75. Both are now carrying weight in the same proportions to their strength, but, because the father is heavier by a factor of three, he is carrying 3 times more weight.
    Carry that over to a flat tax. A person earning $20 000 a year pays $2000 a year on a flat tax of 10%, but a person earning $2 000 000 a year pays $200 000 a year. They're carrying a burden on a standardized and recognized understanding of just how much burden can be carried per some measure.


    In Patronicum sub Siblesz

  6. #6
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes
    Ahh, but do they use it proportionally to the money they expend maintaining and building it?
    Probably not, nor did I claim such a think.
    I was just commenting on Ummons assumption that rich people make less use of public services than poor people.

    btw: sadly I can't find a link.
    It was in a newspaper I read a few months ago.
    But it made sense because rich people live a more active life.


    The fact that poor people pay taxes at all is shameful, but that's another topic.
    Well, that depends on who you lable poor.
    People who are so poor they can't afford food shouldn't pay taxes, I agree.

    Actually, wealth and potential wealth are destroyed when money isn't used to generate the highest return possible. Governments have no incentive to generate returns from the largesse they dispense, so they generally don't use wealth efficiently.
    No incentive?
    Of course governments have an incentive to produce the best possible returns.
    Ever heared of elections?

    Ever heard of 'beggar they neighbour'?
    No, what does that mean?


    Such a flawed, flawed analogy.

    Here's a better analogy: people can carry weight as a proportion of their strength.
    No, they can carry weight equal to their strength minus their body weight.
    ie: strength = body weight + maximum load.

    Let's say the average person can, over long distances, support 25/pounds per 70 pounds of body-weight.[give or take]
    So a fat person can carry more than a lean person who is equally strong?
    That makes no sense.

    Then, a 70 pound girl can carry 25 pounds, and a 210 pound person, let's say her father, will carry 75. Both are now carrying weight in the same proportions to their strength, but, because the father is heavier by a factor of three, he is carrying 3 times more weight.
    Same proportion to their weight, but not their strength.
    But let's assume he is both 3 times as strong AND 3 times as heavy.

    In that case they are both carrying the maximum load possible, ie: they have no strength left to carry any more.

    But if they only had to carry half this laod, and you use the same distribution (12.5 punds for the girl, 35.5 pounds for the father, then the father will be left with more excess strength than his daughter.
    So in this case the trip will be harder on the girl than on her father.

    Carry that over to a flat tax. A person earning $20 000 a year pays $2000 a year on a flat tax of 10%, but a person earning $2 000 000 a year pays $200 000 a year. They're carrying a burden on a standardized and recognized understanding of just how much burden can be carried per some measure.
    Let's assume you need $10,000 per year to survive (ie: but food, rent an appartment, buy some clothes). - that's your "weight".
    Then sombody earning $20.000 a year (his "strength") can contribute a maximum of $10.000, and somebody earning $2.000.000 a year can contribute a maximum of $1.990.000.

    If both were taxed 25% then the person earnin $20.000 will be left with just $5.000 to spend on the nicer things in life - a reduction of 50% and forcing a significant change in lifestyle.
    But the person earning $2.000.000 will be left with $1.490 - a reduction of just 25.1% and his lifestyle could pretty much stay the same.
    And a person who makes just $10.000 per year who would starve to death.
    Conclution: a flat tax hurts the poor more than it hurts the rich.

    This is why I'm in favour of a 3 level tax system:
    -0% tax on life necessities.
    -medium tax on basic luxeries (mid sized cars, up to two holidays/year etc).
    -high tax on decadancy (private jets, 60ft yaughts, 2nd "vacation" villa).
    Last edited by Erik; October 20, 2006 at 03:59 PM.



  7. #7
    Tom Paine's Avatar Mr Common Sense
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Silver Spring, Maryland (inside the Beltway)
    Posts
    33,698

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes
    Ahh, but do they use it proportionally to the money they expend maintaining and building it?
    Probably, in the end; equally, taxes (such as VAT-type ones) are entirely based on wealth - the more you earn, the more you buy, the more you pay.
    The fact that poor people pay taxes at all is shameful, but that's another topic.
    No representation without taxation... Would you mind starting that other topic?
    Actually, wealth and potential wealth are destroyed when money isn't used to generate the highest return possible. Governments have no incentive to generate returns from the largesse they dispense, so they generally don't use wealth efficiently.
    Governments have every incentive to spenjd efficiently and well; re-election. However, their real aim is to spend better and more publicly than the previous administration, and these aren't the same thing.
    Do you live in a cocoon? Ever heard of 'beggar thy neighbour'? It's virtually a national pass-time in some countries.
    That's done by litigation not taxation.
    Such a flawed, flawed analogy.

    Here's a better analogy: people can carry weight as a proportion of their strength. Let's say the average person can, over long distances, support 25/pounds per 70 pounds of body-weight.[give or take] Then, a 70 pound girl can carry 25 pounds, and a 210 pound person, let's say her father, will carry 75. Both are now carrying weight in the same proportions to their strength, but, because the father is heavier by a factor of three, he is carrying 3 times more weight.
    Carry that over to a flat tax. A person earning $20 000 a year pays $2000 a year on a flat tax of 10%, but a person earning $2 000 000 a year pays $200 000 a year. They're carrying a burden on a standardized and recognized understanding of just how much burden can be carried per some measure.
    But actually the richer person effectively loses less; that is, as a proportion of his wealth straight, he loses more, but as a proportion of the income he spends he loses less; and as a proportion of the income he needs to buy neccessities he loses less.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by the Grim Squeaker
    Probably, in the end; equally, taxes (such as VAT-type ones) are entirely based on wealth - the more you earn, the more you buy, the more you pay.
    That's a very poor argument when we're discussing infrastructure, not expenditures on luxuries or cost of living.


    Governments have every incentive to spenjd efficiently and well; re-election. However, their real aim is to spend better and more publicly than the previous administration, and these aren't the same thing.
    Re-election isn't an incentive to spend well or efficiently, it's an incentive to spend in such a way as to be re-elected: these are two very different things. It's naive to think that spending well and efficiently constitutes the only way to win elections.

    That's done by litigation not taxation.
    Why would the grand mass of people waste money on litigation, which may or may not go anywhere, when they can get much better results just from electing a government promising free lunch on the backs of the 'rich'. We both know the rich are constantly demonized by the political parties.

    But actually the richer person effectively loses less; that is, as a proportion of his wealth straight, he loses more, but as a proportion of the income he spends he loses less; and as a proportion of the income he needs to buy neccessities he loses less.
    I don't think I would argue this. The more you take, the more you discourage taking risks. There's a reason why Europe lags behind the US in R&D, even though European education is much better.


    In Patronicum sub Siblesz

  9. #9
    Last Roman's Avatar ron :wub:in swanson
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Minnesota, US
    Posts
    16,270

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    The usual justification I hear for progressive tax isn't to tax the rich more just because they're rich, but because they can afford it.

    But I support a flat tax, so meh...
    house of Rububula, under the patronage of Nihil, patron of Hotspur, David Deas, Freddie, Askthepizzaguy and Ketchfoop
    Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company
    -Mark Twain

  10. #10
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes
    That's a very poor argument when we're discussing infrastructure, not expenditures on luxuries or cost of living.
    Almost everything is dependant on infrastructure.
    How do you think your wide-screen TV made it's way to your shop?

    Re-election isn't an incentive to spend well or efficiently, it's an incentive to spend in such a way as to be re-elected: these are two very different things. It's naive to think that spending well and efficiently constitutes the only way to win elections.
    People just love to see their government waste their tax money

    Why would the grand mass of people waste money on litigation, which may or may not go anywhere, when they can get much better results just from electing a government promising free lunch on the backs of the 'rich'.
    Because people are smarter than that?
    Or because they have learned not to trust politicians who make promises like that?
    I think you underestimate the intelligence of the average voter.

    We both know the rich are constantly demonized by the political parties.


    I don't think I would argue this. The more you take, the more you discourage taking risks. There's a reason why Europe lags behind the US in R&D, even though European education is much better.
    Or we could just blame everything on taxes....
    btw: what R&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Roman
    The usual justification I hear for progressive tax isn't to tax the rich more just because they're rich, but because they can afford it.
    That's absolutely correct.

    But I support a flat tax, so meh...
    DAMN YOU!
    I nearly thought we had won you over

    What about flat tax+guaranteed minimum income? is that acceptable in your opinion?
    It is in mine.
    Last edited by Erik; October 20, 2006 at 05:02 PM.



  11. #11

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    i would like tax to erode away the extremes, in britain people still starve and live on the streets and live in poverty, how as one of the worlds leading nations can we justify that?, Some earn millions some earn a few thousand and some can't earn anything because of the way the system is designed. Quite frankly i find it discusting how extreme wages are, the introduction of the minimum wage was a good step forward but there should also be a maximum wage too.

    look at america the worlds leading nation and yet what 40% 50% live in poverty (don't quote me on the numbers), but thats at capatalist society as time goes on that number will get higher and higher until people wake up.
    Last edited by ghost665; October 20, 2006 at 05:20 PM.

  12. #12
    Bovril's Avatar Primicerius
    Civitate Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,017

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    The major problem with this experiment (n.b. economists are notoriously awful at creating and conducting experiments) is the issue of ecological validity. What this means is that the conditions that people are exposed to during this experiment have very little to do with the real life conditions that the researchers are interested in. A more sociolgical questionaire based aproach would probably give a far more accurate account of people's behaviour when it came to voting for certain tax levels. This experiment also has certain theoretical issues, since it assumes low tax economies are 'better' than high tax economies. We only need look at the difference between countries like czeckoslovakia and slovenia, or the UK and Germany, to see that this analysis is at best simplistic and at worst willfully wrong.
    Basically, this is bad science. Why would intellegent people produce bad science like this. Well for one thing they come from a tradition (classical economics) which has a very poor record when it comes to experimental method. The second reason is that they have a vested interested in propogating their paradigm (se Kuhn's 'the structure of scientific revolutions) which holds beliefs consitant with the results of this experiement which should ahve been fairly predicatble with anyone with a basic knowlege of psychology before hand.
    Last edited by Bovril; October 20, 2006 at 05:26 PM.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik
    Almost everything is dependant on infrastructure.
    How do you think your wide-screen TV made it's way to your shop?
    But out! You joined this argument with no knowledge of what precedes the things you are presently criticizing. Get some perspective on this argument, and, hopefully, you'll make some objections that are reasonable and valid.


    People just love to see their government waste their tax money
    Which just goes to show how completely you fail to understand this entire topic.



    Because people are smarter than that?
    Or because they have learned not to trust politicians who make promises like that?
    I think you underestimate the intelligence of the average voter.
    I don't think it's possible to underestimate the intelligence of the average voter, or overestimate his predilection to be swayed by emotions.


    Oh, how very a-propos.



    Or we could just blame everything on taxes....
    btw: what R&D?
    R&D is research and development. I'm not blaming anything on taxes. Taxes have their place.



    That's absolutely correct.
    How many people do you know who are stupid enough to shout out their real reasons for all the tawdry, vulgar and petty acts they do?


    DAMN YOU!
    I nearly thought we had won you over

    What about flat tax+guaranteed minimum income? is that acceptable in your opinion?
    It is in mine.
    Guaranteed income for low-income employed people is a much better system than minimum wage. I support guaranteed income and a flat tax.


    In Patronicum sub Siblesz

  14. #14
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Bovril
    Basically, this is bad science.
    I don't think the test itself is bad science.
    But it's unscientific to use the results of this test to explain a real-world situation that is clearly very different from the test.

    Maybe in a next test they can change the "punishment" so that the it resembles the tax system more, and see how it compares.



  15. #15
    Last Roman's Avatar ron :wub:in swanson
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Minnesota, US
    Posts
    16,270

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik

    DAMN YOU!
    I nearly thought we had won you over

    What about flat tax+guaranteed minimum income? is that acceptable in your opinion?
    It is in mine.
    you're going to have to explain what guaranteed minimum income is.
    house of Rububula, under the patronage of Nihil, patron of Hotspur, David Deas, Freddie, Askthepizzaguy and Ketchfoop
    Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company
    -Mark Twain

  16. #16
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,977

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    it's a price floor bsically where everyone is garanteed x amount of dollars no matter class. It's economically crap if you want my opinion...
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  17. #17
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Roman
    you're going to have to explain what guaranteed minimum income is.
    It's like welfare, only everybody gets it no matter how much they make.
    This way everybody is guaranteed a minimum living condition, and there is no welfare trap because your income starts to rise from the first hour you work.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226
    it's a price floor bsically where everyone is garanteed x amount of dollars no matter class. It's economically crap if you want my opinion...
    Why do you think it's crap?

    I love the idea because it can solve a lot of bureaucracy.



  18. #18
    Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    MSP, MN, USA
    Posts
    753

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    I have a question, why do the rich complain so much about being taxed higher?
    Shouldn't they be thanking us for taking away more of their money and helping them live so lavishly tax-free as the poor?

  19. #19

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226
    it's a price floor bsically where everyone is garanteed x amount of dollars no matter class. It's economically crap if you want my opinion...
    Yeah, the more I think about it, the less I like it. It's an incentive to work long-term at a bad job, and, once again, will result in rising price levels. Which hurts most the people who have a little too much income to qualify for it.


    In Patronicum sub Siblesz

  20. #20
    mrjesushat's Avatar (son of mrgodhat)
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Left of center, but Right of wherever you are.
    Posts
    833

    Default Re: Envy and Taxes

    Wealthy folks do tend to be filled with envy for those whose lives are fuller and more realistic. But I see no reason to penalize them for this by making them pay higher taxes. Instead make it a requirement for social standing that the rich should have to fund large-scale public works projects and civic entertainment/education venues and programs.
    Of the House of Wilpuri, with pride. Under the patronage of the most noble Garbarsardar, who is the bomb-digety.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •