Redistribution will ALWAYS reduce incentives.

January 27, 2017 08:20AM
But after a certain point, incentives become meaningless. There's no qualitative difference between the lifestyle of somebody worth 50 million dollars and somebody worth 150 million dollars - they can both afford almost anything they want. Unless you're extremely, extremely poor at financial management, after a certain level of income its almost impossible to spend all your money anyway.

After that point of enormous financial security is reached, money is just a lousy way to keep score.

My point is: "incentives" aren't really meaningful after a certain level of compensation is reached. You see this all the time with those fortune 500 CEOs taking pay cuts to 1$ a year until their company starts doing well - their salary doesn't matter to them, they're so rich that this level of compensation is paltry and meaningless to them anyway.

---

Fun fact: A lot of people like talking about the "golden age of manufacturing" - which started in the 1940s, as the US had to gear up for world war 2, and ramped up government spending to a level beyond all reason. One thing they don't often mention is that the marginal tax rate on the highest income bracket during this period was 90%. Literally, if you made income in the highest bracket, 90% of your earnings went to the government.

The government then spent ALL of this money on factories, infrastructure, manufacturing, and the military - one of the big reasons all these factories and manufacturing jobs went away, aside from cheaper costs elsewhere, is because the government contracts that made them so profitable have disappeared. This caused an enormous recovery effect on the US economy that was in shambles from the great depression, and caused them to multiply both productivity and GDP per capita by several times. It also rapidly reversed the spiraling deflation of the US currency - the more the prices dropped, the harder it was for businesses to get money to pay their employees.

Reagan did indeed cut taxes to generate economic growth - but he cut them to a 70% marginal tax rate on the richest bracket. Now the richest bracket in the US pays something like 45%, and is going to receive an even bigger tax cut once Trump is done. It should surprise no one that jobs for blue collar workers are rapidly disappearing - the money that once sustained these jobs is now going back to the pockets of the rich instead..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2017 08:23AM by vortexmagus.
Subject Author Posted

Oil the flames

Kstatida January 23, 2017 10:52PM

Thanks for sharing.

Jib January 25, 2017 12:10PM

Well, I'll try to cut it in pieces

Kstatida January 26, 2017 01:12AM

This sounds about similar to CF cabal politics, lol. (n/t)

Murphy January 27, 2017 03:38PM

I don't think our point our views are that vastly different.

Jib January 26, 2017 09:55AM

I feel like your problem with globalism is a problem with capitalism in general

vortexmagus January 26, 2017 01:40PM

You are confusing true Capitalism with Corporatism.

Jib January 27, 2017 09:23AM

A truly free market always favors the rich and well-connected

vortexmagus January 27, 2017 09:25AM

Full stop. I'm saying globalism isn't capitalism. Period.

Jib January 27, 2017 11:47AM

Right, this is what I was saying, I was saying that you're blaming globalism for stuff that is inherent to all forms of capitalism.

vortexmagus January 28, 2017 11:18AM

He's blaming globalism for making that shit global (n/t)

Kstatida January 29, 2017 12:19AM

Dude, you know no shit, seriously

Kstatida January 27, 2017 09:42AM

No. No, they don't.

MiyagiYojimbo January 27, 2017 02:46PM

Geography isn't mandatory?

Murphy January 27, 2017 03:28PM

Want to know a secret?

MiyagiYojimbo January 27, 2017 06:10PM

Looks right to me. I wonder why all the blue islands have dragons. (n/t)

Matrik January 27, 2017 05:24PM

Haha. "Blue islands." #LAPR (n/t)

Murphy January 28, 2017 01:04AM

Think of it more like a poker game

Quas January 27, 2017 10:32AM

I'm confused at what point I mentioned a perfectly competitive market?

vortexmagus January 27, 2017 09:57AM

Exactly, so please don't use the term "free market"

Kstatida January 27, 2017 01:15PM

But what do we call your wife's vagina then? NT

Sam January 28, 2017 04:52PM

Think you meant dessert. (n/t)

Matrik January 28, 2017 05:14PM

Not when you give head. Dryer than a dessert. NT

Sam January 28, 2017 05:53PM

2/10 for effort.

Matrik January 28, 2017 06:21PM

C'mon, that's at least a 4/10 for the original subject line. NT

Sam January 28, 2017 06:38PM

No market is perfectly free and competitive, but functionally people advocate for deregulation of markets all the time. (n/t)

vortexmagus January 27, 2017 11:26PM

Please specify "people"

Kstatida January 28, 2017 12:57AM

Trump and Putin, to name two prominent ones. Their policies on oil and gas, in particular, are globalist and push deregulation. (n/t)

vortexmagus January 28, 2017 04:08PM

free market n/t

jalim January 27, 2017 01:39PM

This: but redistribution also tricky to implement without making it unfair for hardworking middle class or reducing incentives (n/t)

starbright January 26, 2017 10:01PM

Redistribution will ALWAYS reduce incentives.

vortexmagus January 27, 2017 08:20AM

Re: I don't think our point our views are that vastly different.

Kstatida January 26, 2017 12:20PM

It's a good article

Flipside Oreo January 24, 2017 04:29AM

That's a good article, I enjoyed reading it. Do you have more such articles from similar perspectives?

starbright January 24, 2017 12:20AM

I mean I agree with you on every count

vortexmagus January 24, 2017 04:55AM

I propose "Democratic Objective-Setting with Technocratic Execution" form of government

starbright January 24, 2017 05:53AM

Well that's a good question, but I can't think of any that are English-speaking.

Kstatida January 24, 2017 04:02AM



Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 112
Record Number of Users: 5 November 04, 2022
Record Number of Guests: 358 August 31, 2022