leady wrote:eSOANEM wrote:No.
Stop talking about quintiles. We don't care about quintiles. We care about marginal tax rates and quintiles do about as good a job at talking about them as the mean does. It's completely irrelevant to anything.
I'll move to deciles then
For god's sake. I hope you're trolling. No finite nth-iles is an accurate way of measuring marginal tax rates. That's the whole point of using marginal tax rates.
Brent666 wrote:eSOANEM wrote:You implied all investment would stop because there would be no incentive. I was arguing that there will still be investment.
I implied no such thing.
Oh look, I can do it too!
And I quote:
Brent666 wrote:Do you envision a global welfare state free from conditions? The cost seems prohibitive. Sure, you can tax the rich, but who invests when they know their returns will be redistributed?PAstrychef wrote:Who are we to decide who deserves food and who deserves to go hungry? Who are you to decide that one person is worthy of assistance and another one isn't ?
"but who invests when they know their returns will be redistributed?" Pretty clearly a rhetorical question there with the conclusion you're leading people to reach being "hey, that doesn't make sense, why would someone do that" i.e. "no-one".
Now, can we please debate logically rather than resorting to fallacies and rhetoric?
Brent666 wrote:eSOANEM wrote:If the poor have no money to spend on goods then companies producing good targetted at them make no money and an investor in that company would make no return. If some of their profit is redistributed to the poor, they buy more goods and the investor makes a bigger return. Obviously at some point the amount redistributed is more than the increase in return but the point stands that redistribution at some level can increase the return (and profit) that investors actually receive.
Did you just invent an economic perpetuum mobile there? Whatever the poor spend has to come from somewhere, if it is financed by redistribution, then others have to be taxed by at least that amount. You can't make a net profit from that. Yes some companies gain more than they have to pay, but only at the expense of others who have to pay more than they gain from selling stuff to the poor.
Even worse, it reduces incentives of the poor to become more productive and incentives of those companies who will run a net loss to invest.
I think you could make an argument to prevent, say, malnutrition of poor children as a kind of investment in the quality of future employees etc., but of course for that you don't need an unconditional Citizen's Wage!
No I did not. People other than the investors also have some of their earnings redistributed. Because of this, it is possible for investors to have bigger returns in a system with some redistribution than they would have if there was no redistribution.
There is no increased amount of money in the system because of redistribution, but certain people will receive more of it (and, because the rich often end up with larger proportions of their wealth in bank accounts and therefore being invested, you see more of the money changing hands as cash for tangible goods (not that this is necessarily a good or bad thing)).
So yeah, it reduces the incentives to be productive but, those incentives do still exist and all of these parameters can be fine-tuned in order to produce a sufficient incentive.
I'd hope you could do more than make an argument to prevent malnutrition of children. Regardless, you don't need a CW to have a system that, in theory, prevents such poverty and I don't think anyone's claiming you do. A CW does however not have many of the problems that current systems do have (and introduces some of its own). Anyone who comes into this debate saying a CW will solve everything with no problems or that the CW will not solve anything and only make things worse either hasn't thought this through or is lying to try and win the argument as some sort of intellectual ego-boost. This debate should not be one side saying "it's the best thing ever" and the other saying "it's the worst" because both of those positions are idiotic. This debate should be about weighing the problems the CW would solve against the ones it would introduce.
leady wrote:Thesh wrote:Are you saying because they take low-paying jobs, they reduce per capita GDP?
Yes absolutely I am asserting that an influx of new people all doing unskilled work in a high social cost state is very much a net negative to per capita GDP. They are going to consume massively more than they produce, just like the native unskilled workers do. I can't even see how thats debatable unless you buy into a whole heap of unlikely assumptions (they'll go home before getting old, the young working poor don't consume services and other known fallacies)
So, given that a demand exists for these jobs, they will exist whatever and those jobs are almost certainly going to end up being filled with either native or immigrant workers. Given that that is true, comparing the cost/benefits to the economy of immigrants with them not existing and those jobs not being filled is utterly misleading. The relevant comparison is between those jobs being filled by natives and being filled by immigrants. If immigrants are a drain on the economy but a lesser one than if those jobs were filled by natives then they are still good for the economy because they reduce the drain.
I do not have any numbers to put to this and I suspect you don't either but if anyone does, I would be grateful.
ucim wrote:No, that is not true. We (which "we"?) diminish the idea of being forced to share. Forcing one to share diminishes the idea of sharing. The freedom to say "yes" is meaningless without the freedom to say "no". But society itself does not diminish sharing. In many ways it embraces it.PAstrychef wrote:We actively diminish the idea of sharing, insisting that people must behave in selfish ways...
Taxation and welfare funded by it are ways in which you are forced to share. No western society diminishes the idea of being forced to share. Many just dislike being reminded of that fact.