[GreenJelloShot]

If sharing wealth leads to greater wealth, then why is it necessary to try to take wealth (by force)? Why don't people willingly give up their wealth so that they can make more?

If it is possible to make more wealth by giving up some, why not let people choose whether or not they will share? If you theory holds true, then people who share will get richer and the people who don't share will get poorer and the problem will solve itself.

[mytherin]

Prisoner's dilemma. A single wealthy person giving up their wealth will not have a large enough effect on society to actually change anything. It will only make them worse off (as they now have less wealth). From the perspective of a single person, hoarding as much wealth as possible is a local optimum.

When all wealthy people get together and divide their wealth, this enables education, housing, preventative health care, etc for poorer people in society. This will in turn lead to reduced crime, reduced homelessness, reduced illness and a much more productive society as a whole. This will then in turn generate more money for them.

This is a global optimum that will make everybody better off, including the rich, but it is not easy to achieve. It requires long-term vision, which is difficult in a world driven by quarterly reports and four year election cycles.

[abfan1127]

there seem to be a ton of assumptions in this comment.

[dTal]

At least they put some effort into it. As it is, your comment contributes nothing. What assumptions, and why are they wrong?

[abfan1127]

That's actually a really valid point. I got interrupted by work. I'll see what I can do.

[AstralStorm]

Assumptions are testable, e.g. using game models. Such as Monopoly.

If you want as more accurate model, you can make one, e.g. mock markets. You can even evaluate then using various programmed strategies.

The problem is if your assumptions are completely invalid. Macroeconomy tends to use a few of those, especially based on workings of debt cycle. An almost correct descriptive model which when used as proscriptive causes ruin. Likewise pure supply-demand models fail when applied in the real world.

[machello13]

I don't think you can talk about this stuff without resorting to unsubstantiated beliefs about the way the world works.

[jamie_ca]

Parent's "wealth for all" does not mean "wealth for each."

Of course taxing the wealthiest to share with everyone results in the wealthiest having less than they would otherwise, which is why they tend not do do so voluntarily.

However, if it makes most people better off, and makes society as a whole better off, then maybe it's worth it for the government to force their most-successful citizens away from their selfish instincts to the betterment of the nation?

[GreenJelloShot]

> However, if it makes most people better off, and makes society as a whole better off, then maybe it's worth it for the government to force their most-successful citizens away from their selfish instincts to the betterment of the nation?

So basically it's ok to sacrifice the minority, as long as it benefits the majority, huh?

[ric2b]

Not much of a sacrifice when it's just a higher tax rate.

[chipotle_coyote]

A lot of these arguments also tend to elide the fact that even under the most "extreme" tax structures in place or being proposed in first-world democracies across the globe, wealthy people are still wealthy even with those taxes. In practice, no one serious is actually talking about forcing Bill Gates to give up all his money so it can be apportioned equally to every American citizen. If Gates had to pay an annual wealth tax of 2%, started with $90B (the most recent estimate of his net worth I can find), and made $2B a year (which is less than the most recent estimate of his annual wealth increase I can find), then after 20 years he would have... $93B.

I'm aware libertarians believe it's the principle of the thing, dammit, but I'm truly weary of arguments which boil down to "Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is philosophically indistinguishable from a call for nationalizing all industry."

[big_chungus]

> I'm aware libertarians believe it's the principle of the thing, dammit, but I'm truly weary of arguments which boil down to "Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is philosophically indistinguishable from a call for nationalizing all industry."

First, while some wealthy people remain wealthy, I'd guess there's a much larger impact on people who are becoming wealthy than those who are already super-rich.

Second, as you said, it's the principle. I've got an objection to seizing people's stuff to then give away to others. There is no reason government should supply anything that is not a pure public good, and it should supply precious few of those, too. Remember that every act the federal government takes is backed up with the threat of death. If you don't comply, a bunch of agents will bust down your door at 3 AM and haul you away (see the disturbing number of paramilitary groups many federal agencies now possess). If you resist, you get killed.

This applies to income tax too, by the way. I couldn't care less how much good you think you can do with it, no one gets to take someone else's stuff because he wants to give it to someone he deems more deserving.

[chipotle_coyote]

> First, while some wealthy people remain wealthy, I'd guess there's a much larger impact on people who are becoming wealthy than those who are already super-rich.

Given that her proposed tax is for wealth over $50M, I'd guess there is not much impact at all on people who are "becoming" wealthy.

> If you don't comply, a bunch of agents will bust down your door at 3 AM and haul you away (see the disturbing number of paramilitary groups many federal agencies now possess). If you resist, you get killed.

The number of first-world multimillionaires brutally gunned down by federal agents because they underpaid their tax is indeed countless. I hear this is a real problem in Denmark.

> This applies to income tax too, by the way. I couldn't care less how much good you think you can do with it, no one gets to take someone else's stuff because he wants to give it to someone he deems more deserving.

Living in a society is quite a tragedy.

[blackflame7000]

>Given that her proposed tax is for wealth over $50M, I'd guess there is not much impact at all on people who are "becoming" wealthy.

It's the corporate taxes that hurt the most because in a globalist society those taxes are taxes their competition does not have to pay and therefore can undercut them in price in world markets.

[bandushrew]

That is objectively wrong though, isn't it?

The government absolutely can, and does, pass laws to legally take anyone's stuff for any reason it likes.

If that is your bottom line, then almost every government in almost every country I know of overran it almost immediately.

What we are discussing right now is....given that they ca, and do....under what circumstances we want them to do it.

Think of it as a reality based discussion.

[big_chungus]

Unfortunately, governments do indeed steal stuff all the time. That's why it needs to be as hyper-local as possible and why citizens should own military-grade arms. I think our arguments are jousting without clashing, so to speak, because I'm making a principled point rather than a pragmatic one.

[bandushrew]

Im not sure you have thought through the consequences of citizens owning military grade arms.

It (arguably) removes the government as a threat, but replaces the threat with other citizens.

It seems to me that history teaches that in the absence of a strong government, people are taxed by whoever is capable of becoming a strong local warlord.

Somalia or South Sudan would be current examples.

Im not sure how that is better?

[foobarrio]

The income that is paid to you derives it’s value from the stability of the backing gov’t. I don’t think money is as “yours” as you think it is. Gov’t is already involved whether you like it not.

[big_chungus]

It has been since we went off the gold standard, yes. However, the government has already been taxing for this service in the form of inflation (which, incidentally, is one of the more regressive taxes one could devise). All we have to do is abolish the fed and go back to the gold standard and this problem is solved.

[brnt]

The state backs up your right to personal property with violence too. Your stuff is only your stuff we decided it is a right and have our state enforce that right.

[big_chungus]

Well sure, stealing from others is a violation of the NAP. That's part of the "keeping the peace" duty I mentioned in my above position that the state should keep the peace, uphold property rights, and enforce contracts.

[brnt]

What's the NAP? In any case, we rely on the state to uphold those rights, and since we cannot expect the state to work for free, we accept a percentage is needed for the maintenance of those right.

[blackflame7000]

>taxing the wealthiest to share with everyone results in the wealthiest having less than they would otherwise

No taxing the wealthiest results in the wealthiest moving their capital investments elsewhere.

[dTal]

This seems like an easily solvable problem, frankly. Gazillionaires don't tend to want to live in the tax havens they store their gazillions in because (surprise) they tend to be shitholes. So you just tax the movement of money in and out of the country - money is pointless if you can't spend it.

The reason this isn't done isn't because it's hard, it's because the foxes are running the chicken coop.

[Rury]

If that's the case, then why don't we see capital always rushing to countries that have the lowest tax rates? Last I checked Japan has lots of capital investment, a large economy, a substantial wealthy class, and yet a high tax rate...

[lsiebert]

People don't always make the rational choice for long term benefits when there are short term gains to be had. Individuals, thanks to bounded rationality, tend to seek satisfactory solutions, not optimal ones. It takes coordinated effort to find optimal solutions.

Another way to think of it is, that by benefiting from public goods (roads, law enforcement, health regulations) already in existence you and your family have already entered into a social contract with the government, which acts as a representative of the collective will of all people towards a more perfect union, and in which payment is due for the benefits you have obtained.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

[GreenJelloShot]

> People don't always make the rational choice for long term benefits when there are short term gains to be had. Individuals, thanks to bounded rationality, tend to seek satisfactory solutions, not optimal ones. It takes coordinated effort to find optimal solutions.

Translation: People are stupid and need to be forced to do the right thing. (Where the "right thing" is defined by the current people in charge.)

[bosswipe]

Everybody gains from the wealth created by something like a city park, whether they contribute or not. So there's a game theoretic problem that prevents reaching the wealth maxima without public collaboration. For example you might end up with a strip mall that produces more wealth for a few people but less overall wealth for the whole community then the park because surrounding land values don't benefit as much.

[mcguire]

Because "enlightened self interest" is an oxymoron?

By the way, "people who share will get richer and the people who don't share will get poorer" is a misstatement of the theory.

[rorykoehler]

Delayed gratification is one of many reasons.

If exercise leads to greater health, then why is it necessary to try to encourage people exercise? Why don't people willingly exercise so that they can be healthy?

[GreenJelloShot]

There is a difference between "encouraging" and "forcing".

Should we force people to exercise?

[rorykoehler]

No but we should force people to pay taxes due to the same underlying human trait. If you don't exercise you hurt mostly yourself. If you don't pay taxes you are a burden on society.

[bena]

Let's say that you could somehow increase your wealth by 1% each day.

If you have $100, tomorrow you will have $101. Then $102.01. And so on and so forth. At the end of the year, you'll have $3778.34

Now let's say that if you give $50 to someone else, you can both increase your wealth by 1.1% each day. At the end, both of you will have $2711.08. Individually less, but collectively more.

That's the issue: individually less.

While you may get some benefit from the collective betterment of society, it still requires sacrificing some portion of your potential maximum wealth.

[blackflame7000]

Ok now do year 2 and see how that $50 turned into a net loss of $146,998.73

[bena]

You realize you have to double that, right?

It's $146,998.73 for each person. No matter how you slice it, 1.1% is greater than 1%. We're still working with $100 initially.

And if you're talking about one person's unrealized gain, we've already addressed that.

Individually, we may make less, but collectively, we make more.

The idea is that since fortune is largely based on luck and then exploiting that luck, we could be leaving a lot of progress on the table. A landlord who makes their wealth simply by charging rent isn't really doing anything to advance anything. He just happened to own the right bit of land at the right time.

So if we tax him and then use those taxes to provide for those who did not have the same breaks, we may be enabling someone to actually create something that advances technology or science or medicine.

I mean, "individually less, collectively more" also explains why the individual doesn't want to voluntarily give up anything.