patrick.net

It's not the wealth. It's the corruption.

We go at it here, but I -- assuming I am one of the 'pseudo-rationalists' you are referring to -- don't hate "the rich".

People who provide real value from their labor deserve every penny.

It's the rent-seeking I hate, profiting from mere ownership of existing wealth, or taking advantage of monopoly rent situations to extort wealth in non-consensual transactions.

We can find these operators in real estate, consumer finance, our $8500/capita health industry, natural resource sector, etc.

Altogether this is a several trillion dollar flow from the nation's productive population -- our workers -- to the parasitically wealthy, who already own 90% of the country and are going for 100% apparently.

Seeing the corruption in our economy is really mind-boggling. We're just about as bad as the Soviet Union was ca. 1980. Maybe we got another 10 years too, maybe not.

that some people "deserve" their "excess" wealth is too severe for their egos to bear.

LOL. For a supposed non-'pseudo rationalist' you're sure painting in broad strokes here, Tex.

Peter P says

The consequence of accepting that some people "deserve" their "excess" wealth is too severe for their egos to bear.

Textbook straw man.

You're out on a limb that you don't support in the slightest.

If I think that a guy who makes $500,000 can afford to pay $10K more in taxes and that he should, IT doesn't mean that I have any feelings of hate or even envy (although I might be a little envious). It's just logic, or an opinion based on logic.

Given our broken financial and economic situation, the question of how much should be paid by those with huge discretionary income is a fair debate to have.

You have a keen sense for the obvious, if you are observing that the opinion on this subject of someone who makes 60K a year may (but will not always) be different from someone who makes 600K per year.

But you sound not so bright when you try so hard to to conclude that just because the opinion of many of the wealthy on the subject is influenced by their self interest and ego (sense of entitlement), that therefore the opinion of a regular joe on this should be driven by such similar psychology.

Reasons are ultimately driven by emotions. We need to be true to ourselves. We all tend to over-rationalize in order to make ourselvds feel better.

taxee says

It's not the wealth. It's the corruption.

Corruption is a symptom of market inefficiency.

What if we had a system where income distribution was flatter? Like some of the more socialist countries have? (NO NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO COMPLETELY FLAT).

Is it clear that we would be a less wealthy country in the long run if this were the case? Is it clear we would have less extremely rich people and less extremely poor? (yes).

Are we ready for that (maybe not)?

These are big questions.

The fact that a poor or middle class person is maybe going to have a different opinion on this than some wealthy individual, is a given and is really beside the point.

Peter P says

Reasons are ultimately driven by emotions

I disagree. It's more complicated.

Emotions often become intermingled with and attached to our opinions and beliefs, and they play a role. But the genesis of the opinion or belief, that is eventually backed up with emotion, is not emotion. At least not usually.

The genesis can sometimes be self interest though. Often it's not. Take the many many people with income above 250K who think their tax rates should go up. Keep in mind if their income is just a little over 250K, it hardly affects them.

My point is that we form such opinions and beliefs based on our emotional needs and wants.

Peter P says

My point is that we form such opinions and beliefs based on our emotional needs and wants.

In the case of taxes paid by someone on their marginal income over 250K, that person's opinion is somewhat likely to be affected by their self interest (which they may or may not have emotion about - but the emotion if it does exist, comes about as they rationalize their opinion).

But I on the other hand am very close to being objective about the question. I can balance what I see as a potential benefit to the system of lowering wealth inequality, and improving our budget versus the hit that the person in the high bracket takes to that higher increment of their income. And I can even take in to account my opinion of the degree to which that rich person may feel justified in not wanting to pay a little more, and objectively whether I think they are correct.

To some people, the label of "rich" may give them enough emotional satisfaction to support the tax plan.

Then there are rich rent seekers who benefit from a big government.

Peter P says

To some people, the label of "rich" may give them enough emotional satisfaction to support the tax plan.

I just can't begin to see what this anti-rich emotion you think is out there. You sound like Romney talking about envy of the rich.

Americans in general love the rich, and hope to be there themselves one day.

Or did you mean that the high income guy who wants to pay more(thinks the marginal rate needs to go up), would want to because he gets to be in the "rich" group?

That's just crazy.