patrick.net

Just to clarify, my position on "death tax" has nothing to do with the wealth gap nor social justice. To me, it is all about incentivizing production.

Life is not fair, and we should not attempt to make it more fair. We should make it more optimal.

@Scott,

Ha, ha, you read my mind! I posted that Greenspan "commie' remark before I had read yours.

Well, I agree with you that it’s impossible to control for ALL variables to give everyone a perfectly equal shot/level playing field. No, life ain't fair. However, that being said, tax/inheritance laws are HUMAN creations that we can control. They're not determined by genetics. We will never create any system that's perfectly "fair" because life itself isn't fair, but we can at least try to aim for more "fairness" in those things we can influence.

We will never create any system that’s perfectly “fair” because life itself isn’t fair, but we can at least try to aim for more “fairness” in those things we can influence.

I think we should just aim to create a better society (maximize utility). Whether the eventual system is fair or not should not be important.

@Peter P,

One way of looking at the concept of "fairness" is to define it as "incentivizing production."

"Social justice", however you want to define it, could itself be an outcome of policies that encourage/optimize production.

One way of looking at the concept of “fairness” is to define it as “incentivizing production.”

“Social justice”, however you want to define it, could itself be an outcome of policies that encourage/optimize production.

I agree. Very true. Many people think that fairness means "everyone should be treated equally in everything" though.

Just to play theoretical devil's advocate on the inheritance tax issue:

The argument is that all inherited wealth is either preserved or consumed. Consumed wealth solves itself, because it is recyled into the economy (I'm not making a trickle-down argument nor a social justice statement, just a theoretical truism).

Preserved wealth must be invested in places that produce returns equal to or greater than inflation. This provides necessary capital to the system which allows for productive industry to operate.

Enter taxation. Taxation has varying, often not easily controlled, disproportionate effects. Where taxes are redistributed, the gov't takes on the role of social justice arbitrator. Where taxes are reinvested, the gov't takes on the role of "picking winners". Where taxes are specifically reinvested in "strategic" concerns, the gov't is executing it's responsibility as society's guardian.

Democratic governments engage in all three types of activities. This is where the practical political argument begins.

Assumedly, without any taxation of estates, all wealth would go directly into either consumption or market-arbitrated investment.

(taking off my market fundamentalist hat for the day now)

(taking off my market fundamentalist hat for the day now)

Does the hat have the IMF logo on it?

Does the hat have the IMF logo on it?

It sure doesn't have a Stiglitz logo on it :)

You are not a duck or goose that will have a pipe shoved down its throat and be force fed to fill its gullet for human tastes

Yum. I really feel like a foie gras feast now. I definitely prefer goose. Why do they use duck for foie gras here anyway?

We cannot let those ducks/geese die in vain. We must eat them and enjoy them!

It should cost more to get a Big Mac and Supersized Fries and Coke than to have a bowl of rice and beans and a salad or veg plus a glass of milk, but it doesn’t.

SFWoman, I really want to agree with you, but I would still rather have the free market decide.

New thread: The Libertarianism-Morality Conundrum

HARM,

I think I agree with you on the need for a levelling of the playing field. What I was thinking with my analogy is that a wealth aristocracy means that at least some people are able to do what they want in life. (OK, so that doesn't sound all that good.) I should say, I don't really care if they exist; I care more about the opportunities for everyone else. If most people could afford the lifestyle enjoyed by, say, an average doctor or lawyer, I doubt there would be too much complaints about the hyper-rich.

Like world hunger, I don't think of poverty as a resource problem; more of a political problem. A larger death tax will help solve it about as much as having our farmers grow huge food surpluses. (Which, IIRC, they already do.)

Like world hunger, I don’t think of poverty as a resource problem; more of a political problem.

Exactly. I may be flamed for saying this but I think foreign aids to hungry nations serve no purpose whatsoever. We better just stop wasting money now. They do not need food. They need education. Giving them food will only prolong their hunger.

I don’t really care if they exist; I care more about the opportunities for everyone else. If most people could afford the lifestyle enjoyed by, say, an average doctor or lawyer, I doubt there would be too much complaints about the hyper-rich.

We are in agreement here. The only problem is, in order for the hyper-rich to exist (very high resource individuals), you pretty much have to have large numbers of hyper-poor (very low resource individuals).

Like world hunger, I don’t think of poverty as a resource problem; more of a political problem.

Exactly. I may be flamed for saying this but I think foreign aids to hungry nations serve no purpose whatsoever. We better just stop wasting money now. They do not need food. They need education. Giving them food will only prolong their hunger.

I agree when it comes to sending habitual aid to countries run by corrupt bureaucracies or dictatorships. The aid always gets diverted away from its intended target anyway. More aid just prolongs the existence of these rotten governments and the misery of the people.

Truely, we are all very well off, not hungry (yes, major political/theft/distribution problem with world hunger), have no neighbors chasing us with machetes for being in the wrong ethnic group, etc.

We are indeed very lucky. If we were born in Somalia, we would not be able to get anything no matter what we do.

It irkes the heck out of me that a fruit salad at McDonald’s cost’s damn near $5, but I can get a double cheeseburger for $1.

McDonald needs to protect its brand, selling too much fruit salad may distract it from the core business.

I love vegetables. But I like them cooked in meat or fish broth.

But if you’re in a hurry, and looking for a healthy lunch, it’s tough to find much of anything.

If you want a healthy lifestyle, you should not eat in a hurry anyway. Stress kills. ;)