Tax the Rich? Not a Good Idea \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

Tax the Rich? Not a Good Idea mises.org/mises-wire/tax-rich-not-good-idea

358 sats \ 39 comments \ @Undisciplined 12 Aug econ

By Jack Watt

Taxing “the rich” won’t make life more affordable for ordinary people. The true cause of the affordability crisis is inflation caused by central banks.

view all related items

110 sats \ 7 replies \ @SimpleStacker 12 Aug

Economics is the study of how individuals act to satisfy virtually limitless wants in an ever-changing world of limited resources. However, when talk of wealth inequality abounds, one can be sure that economics is about to be mischaracterized as a means of weaponizing the state to distribute a given stock of wealth in a zero-sum and static world. This is redistributionism, or antieconomics.

Seriously.... I kinda wish all high schoolers had to take an economics class (and from a real economist, not someone with a sociology degree or whatever), so that they could understand this basic principle that economics isn't (just) about money and that wealth isn't a zero sum game and that it's really about the conditions that engender the healthy production and exchange of value.

86 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 12 Aug

It would be pretty easy to put together a curriculum around the most approachable introductory books, like Economics in One Lesson.

45 sats \ 5 replies \ @Bell_curve 12 Aug

Micro economics not macro should be taught in high school

31 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 12 Aug

For the most part, I agree, but it is worth learning what a lot of the macro jargon means: i.e. GDP, trade deficit, etc. People are going to see it in the news and they may as well understand it.

50 sats \ 3 replies \ @nichro 12 Aug

Learning about the fugazzi of fractional reserve banking, overnight rates etc. could be useful too

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 12 Aug

I completely agree, but it's hard to avoid being propagandized about that. The basic facts are quite useful, though.

55 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 12 Aug

You have to know the basics of how it works before you can really wrap your head around its problems

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 12 Aug

Micro should be learned before macro especially in high school and college

54 sats \ 10 replies \ @jgbtc 12 Aug

The entire net worth of "the rich" is a rounding error compared to government spending. This is just the classic ploy of turning the people against each other and keeping them distracted from the real problem.

33 sats \ 9 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 12 Aug

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story bro...

When half of the worlds wealth is held by the richest 1% leaving the remaining 99% the other half...the net worth of the wealthy is far from a rounding error!

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/average-net-worth-of-the-1.aspx

When in reality the wealthiest 1% enjoy nearly 2/3 of the wealth created leaving the remaining 99% just over 1/3 the net worth of the wealthy is far from a rounding error!

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years

42 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 12 Aug

I think you should revisit your Adam Smith. We aren't just dividing up fixed resources. The world is getting more prosperous and in a growing resource environment those who make wise entrepreneurial decisions will disproportionately benefit.

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Taurus 16 Aug

“Wise” .. they just abuse people, because workers need a salary to survive or have a “normal” life as sold by the society. They also don’t pay for pollution, society (us through taxes) we pay for it. Look at the top wealthiest people and how they always find a way to crush “costs” for their own benefit (salary, bonus, gifts, external expenses, etc.). Sorry but top 1% shouldn’t exist anymore in 2024.

30 sats \ 3 replies \ @jgbtc 17 Aug

Communists shouldn't exist in 2024.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 17 Aug

You'd think, right. How badly did the 20th century have to go for them to be discredited?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Taurus 17 Aug

Communists doesn’t exist anymore. Because I have another point of view of yours and fight against abuse doesn’t mean I’m communist or against capitalism.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 17 Aug

You are communist and against capitalism if you think the "top 1% shouldn't exist anymore in 2024". Fortunately Bitcoin makes retarded ideas like this much harder to implement.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 17 Aug

That's not how percentiles work

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Taurus 17 Aug

Yes. If one guy earns more it can be because they pay 0.20$ a worker in Bangladesh to make your T-shirt. Crazy how people here always try to defend abusers.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 17 Aug

That wasn't my point, but you're also wrong about the point you're trying to make.

Offering someone in Bangladesh an economic opportunity that they didn't have before is not "abuse" by any reasonable definition.

53 sats \ 6 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 12 Aug

This is Adam Smiths view-

“The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

22 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 12 Aug

Adam Smith didn't understand marginal utility.

45 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 12 Aug

Tell me you have not read 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments' without saying so...

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 12 Aug

The marginal revolution occurred after Smith's works, so tell me you know nothing about the history of economic thought without saying so.

Also, I love The Theory of Moral Sentiments, but that doesn't mean every statement in it is correct.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @jgbtc 12 Aug

What is needed now is protection from the state.

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 12 Aug

The state enforces and supports property rights the wealthy. Good luck to the wealthy in a state of anarchy...they will be crying for protection that is not there and running for their lives as their wealth is taken from them by the hordes. The greatest and most direct beneficiaries of the states monopoly upon the issuance of fiat money are the wealthy.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 12 Aug

I would say the wealthy lobby the government to violate the property rights of others for their own enrichment, more than that they need the state to protect their property rights.

However, you're right that in a state of nature they would be the one's clamoring most for a state.

52 sats \ 0 replies \ @Silent_Hodler 12 Aug

The rich have resources to change tax jurisdiction if they feel the govt is taking too much from them. This is pretty reasonable behavior TBH. IIRC there is the Laffer Curve which desribes relation between tax rates and the amount of money the govt "makes" and if they go overboard, they will actually get much less money b/c the rich will vote with their feet and wallets...

24 sats \ 1 reply \ @SatsMate 13 Aug

The rich will leave, and they have good enough tax accountants to navigate legal tax loopholes.

They understand the game, and taxing the rich will just create less tax receipts for the current government in power.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 13 Aug

Not only do they understand the game, they pay to have the rules changed to their advantage.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 13 Aug

Taxing the rich gives them no incentive to be bigger producers. They just start cutting the things that might take money and help society, so they can pay off their taxes. Its a no win situation.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Akg10s33 12 Aug

I think the same, no matter how much they can constantly add taxes or additional payments to the richest people and with the most assets... that is not the problem... the truth is that the banks do what they want and however they want with the little money that ordinary, sleeping people can raise... who have been taught since childhood that the best thing is to have your money in the bank... and the reality is different! Without a doubt we can all work on having more assets and fight for ours and for our future and that of our family!!

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 12 Aug

Taxing the rich directly reduces the tax burden upon those who are not wealthy and therefore less able to afford paying taxes.

Thus the beauty and truth in Adam Smiths first maxim of taxation - that the wealthy who benefit more from the protection of the state, pay more tax.

User pays its that simple - just there's always some selfish greedy rich pricks don't want to pay their fair share.

42 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 12 Aug

Taxing the rich directly reduces the tax burden upon those who are not wealthy

That is categorically false. Raising taxes on the rich has no necessary relationship with tax rates for anyone else.

When you factor in reduced investment, there will almost certainly be negative fallout on the non-wealthy.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Aug

left wing interpretations of Adam Smith

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 13 Aug

Direct quote in fact -

Adam Smith

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Aug

Proportion to the revenue? This is most likely a flat consumption tax. Income taxes did not exist in 1776.

Adam Smith also outlined four canons of taxation, which serve as guiding principles for a fair and effective taxation system:

The Tax Should be Certain: Tax laws and rates should be clear and stable. The Tax Should be Convenient: Taxation should be easy and convenient for taxpayers. The Tax Should be Easy to Assess: Taxation should be straightforward and simple to calculate. The Tax Should be Light: Taxation should be minimal and not excessively burdensome.