Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Aug 2004 19:40:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2067 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
|
| |
| |
| |
By “wealth tax” do you mean a tax on acquisitions/already-held
holdings separate from income?
|
Yes. I see it as a sure-fire loop-hole avoidance scheme. If all property
is taxed, regardless of who owns it, then the rich -- even when trying to
disguise their wealth are taxed proportionately no matter what.
|
|
In principle I think this would work for me, as long as we can set up a
guarantee against certain individuals legally declaring themselves the tax-free
stewards (rather than tax-liable owners) of a multi-billion dollar estate, or
something similar.
Alternatively, perhaps we should impose the tax on the property/material/money
itself, rather than on the person who “owns” it. That way, each person really
would be the tax-free steward, and the tax revenues would still be generated.
| |
| |
| |
And does “common earnings per hour rate” mean that everyone would get the
same hourly wage regardless of profession?
|
Yeah. Ideally, under such a system the medium of exchange would simply be
the manhour.
|
But wouldn’t that play havoc with comparative advantage? One hour of Bill
Gates’s time is worth more than one hour of Paul Krugman’s time and forcing
them to be the same seems to miss any information the market can transmit to
improve allocations.
|
Well, the inherent “worth” of an individual’s time is subjective and dependent
on context. If I’m about to die of snakebite, then the guy who milks the snakes
is worth a lot more than the guy who founded Microsoft. Nevertheless, it must
be admitted that some people have invested more manhours in training for (or in
otherwise establishing) their vocations, so a greater return on that investment
is understandably desirable to them.
Broadly speaking, I suppose that we already engage in something like this
manhour-based economy, and the coupons redeemable for a manhour’s work are the
existing currency, but a real hour of one person’s work is worth more manhours
than an hour of another person’s work. If a manhour is equivalent to, say,
$5.15, then a guy who takes home $5.15 pre-tax has earned one manhour. If
another guy takes home $51.50 pre-tax, then he’s earned ten manhours in that
same interval.
How does one quantify “improved allocations” by the way?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) That's how I meant it all along. Sorry for being unclear. You don't have to have people as stewards, though that might foster a philosophic advantage for society, so long as what's taxed is the wealth, regardless of who owns it. For the rest (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) But wouldn't that play havoc with comparative advantage? One hour of Bill Gates's time is worth more than one hour of Paul Krugman's time and forcing them to be the same seems to miss any information the market can transmit to improve (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
113 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
