Global Warming playbook for inequality

The old “tipping point” drum that the global warming alarmists have been beating is now being used by the inequality alarmists. Here comes the steady rise in the chorus calling for government swoop in and save the day. That, of course, will exaccerbate the problem, but who cares if it wins you votes?

Well, if you took Bill Gates’ money now and distributed it among people in the bottom 50% of income, overall spending probably *would* increase. Bill Gates is just sitting on his capital for the most part: he doesn’t need anything. The people with less money, on the other hand, would buy stuff they need.

Of course, the other thing to consider is whether Bill Gates would have started a cool edgy company in the 80s if he knew someone would later take his earnings…

where would that money end up after the bottom 50% get it? right back at the top, so maybe you help people buy some gadgets that will last them a year or two. yippy skippy.

here’s an idea. instead of redistributing wealth, why not take away the hundreds of thousands of bone crushing pages of federal regualtions? Do you think that might have a positive effect on business formation? Of course that would never happen because it creates competition for the liberal (and “conservative”) elite.

The issue is that those in power (the elite crony capitalists on both sides of the political spectrum) continue to obfuscate the real cause of inequality, so people continue to vote for the same poison that’s killing them. Competition drives prosperity. the current system of corporate funded governments picking winners and losers hurts the average person.

Yeah but this is the Keynesian lie that consumption drives the economy. Bill’s funds are tied up in investments: companies, capital, etc. that are helping way more than any douche buying trinkets.

competition does drive overall prosperity but this prosperity has concentrated itself at the top, thus why we have the high degree of income inequality and somewhat elevated level of wealth inequality today.

the biggest issues with inequality today is that income inequality is mostly related to the quality of and access to education. one’s educational opportunities tends to have a socio-economic origin and thus those from less wealthy families are often underperforming relative to their potential. and that the inequality of income and wealth are once again becoming highly correlated like they were over a hundred years ago, mostly as a result of the formula; wealth begets education begets income begets wealth.

one way to prevent this is to tax passive income at a higher rate than active income which would prevent the whole future oligarchy situation. i know doing so wouldn’t be so great for those in our business but it is the most sensible and easiest thing to do to promote social cohesion over the long-run.

at the current time, there is basically no redistribution of the wealth relative to historical standards. increasing concentration of wealth will eventually create a more volatile society that requires much more radical solutions than “increase the estate tax to 75%” or “increase the highest marginal tax rate to 90%” like it was just 50 years ago. american society was seen as most cohesive when tax rates were closer to these two figures. well, white american society at least.

as of today relative to 50 years ago, low and high income folks are much better off while the large middle income group is worse off.

drivel. your argument falls apart in the first sentence. the type of prosperity we’ve seen has concentrated itself directly because we’ve had an activist government over the last 70+ years that wedges itself into the economic affairs of people, limited competition and picked winners and losers, to the benefit of incumbant businesses (in exchange for campaign funding). this type of prosperity can mask its inherent flaws only so long, at least that’s my hope. who knows, if Europe is any indication, maybe we have another 100 years of the status quo. but at some point one would hope that rational average people start to realize they are the losers in this system by design.

Sounds like you are saying that we should all work harder, not smarter.

my argument is supported by the historical precendent that higher taxes = greater equality. does it equal higher economic growth? probably not. please tell me why the correlation between the marginal tax and estate tax rates and equality are well over 0.9 in every country in the world over the past 200 years.

your stance is supported by some ideology that i can only assume is americanist anti-taxism.

you’ve been brainwashed, and with no supporting evidence, by the republican party that somehow no taxes are better than taxes.

this is why i don’t argue with analysts. shame on me for starting one with you. you think taxes, regulations, etc. are levers to be pulled with no philosophical justification. as long as there’s a stat you can point to, the ends justify the means, regardless of how it affects people and motivations on the long arc of time. never mind whether or not there is a moral justification, doesn’t matter if you have a stat you can pull out.

so you’d rather argue against the facts with no facts of your own? how have you made it this far in life?

we’re talking about cures for inequality not how to accelerate economic growth and maximize the return on capital. higher taxes = higher equality but lower growth and lower return on capital. its quite simple. i understand the downside of higher taxes but do you understand the downside of 1800s style inequality?

Matt Likes Analysis (but not freedom)

Why is that because it’s a Republican talking point? Both consumption and investment are equally important just like capital and labor. A properly run govermnet will step in, appropriately, with a light footprint, if one side is outweighing the other. Given the income inequality and current worldwide interest rate (i.e. cost for capital) i think it’s clear where the imbalance currently is…

Is the imbalance in the size of government involved in my private life?

Is equal but shitty better than unequal but a little less shitty?

You don’t think government tilts the scales by taxing labor more than it taxes capital?

So I’ve worked and lived in quite a few countries over the years. A large difference between many Americans and many in the rest of the World is that we don’t really care if you think you can prove what is the “best” way to do things. We would prefer to make our own decisions and live with the consequences. A good example is school choice. Even if the NEA can show that not giving parents school choice is without a doubt the better way, we don’t care. We’ll figure it out on our own thanks. The choice is what matters. Seems many in the rest of the World have a mental block when it comes to understanding the concept. Those that founded this country may just have been a fairly unique bunch. A little of them lives in a lot of us.

I don’t understand why equality is viewed as inherently good. It’s not. Our society thrives on incentives.

My biggest beef is with the American anti-opportuinty mentality that is creeping into my country. “Oh, this one random guy made it big so if you don’t, you’re a failure.” Disagree. A just society is built on equality of opportunity, not of outcome. Every kid should get quality education and health care. And limited estate transfer via heavy estate taxation.

And then let everyone fight it out and keep what they earn. That would be fair, even though it would be grossly unequal. More fair than today’s inhereted status society, and more fair than the radical left’s cry for equality.

yes. the greatest risk is high wealth inequality as it concentrates political power beyond a single generation and reduces labour incentives for almost everyone but particularly the rich. the children of rich people should generally be doing much more with their labour than they are currently, and it will get worse with time if wealth continues to concentrate towards the extremes of the early 1900s and prior.

wait, did i just read geo quasi-support a piketty-like global wealth tax? i know you stated estate taxation but wealth tax and estate tax are sisters.

i’m okay with a flat tax or zero tax rate on labour if the tax on wealth is punitive.