The Politics Test: #4

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Ah you misunderstand. I think it is immoral for a few lucky individuals to amass as much wealth as possible off the backs of others. I'm not necessarily prescribing any specific policies based on that ethical observation, just noting that I find a system where such gross inequality is required as distasteful. Once you have reached a certain threshold, money ceases to bring happiness (and that isn't me being airy-fairy, being have studied it). If we look at this through the eyes of a utilitarian it becomes evident that more happiness is created when money is in the pockets of the less well-off than in the accounts of the very rich. After all it would be nice to think that the rich are the most deserving, and that race goes to the swift, and the battle goes to the strong; but reality shows us that reaching the "elite" is a darkened labyrinth: sure you need some wits and savviness to get there, but dumb luck is the most important attribute.

As I said, this is a moral observation and not a prescription. Economists far smarter than me all wreak out there own competing theories, and I try to chose the best one based on the evidence as I see it. But on some level, I have to maintain a fundamentally moral element to my views: that equality is the most worthy goal we can strive towards.

(Please note I'm not calling you, or anybody else immoral. We all have different moral focuses in our own philosophies - yours, I assume, being based on the fundamental right to private property and the right to accumulate and choose the destiny of your own capital)

[YaBoyNY]

I don't know. Jealousy? It seems like basic morality to me that something is fundamentally unfair when one arbitrary group of people get all the fruits of economic growth while others are left in the cold.

Economic growth doesn't fall from the skies, it happens because people take risks and add something that the market values. I'm for a safety net for those who cannot work, but I don't think it is immoral for some to earn much more than others. And I don't think at this point the rich should be taxed even more.

You sure are right.

All those silver spooned kids took tremendous risks and added to the market by popping out of the vagina of a rich mother who had a rich husband.

[DavidB.]

Wait. Before I reply to you, Crab, I want to make sure that we're talking about the same thing, which is an issue because I'm not a native speaker. I assumed "we need to raise taxes on the rich" means that rich people need to pay more than they currently do (talking about an American context, not about a Dutch context). However, based on your reply I get the idea that "to raise taxes on the rich" could as well simply mean "to tax the rich"(or: "we need to have a system of progressive taxation"). Is that true, and did you argue along those lines? If that's the case, then my argumentation would be different (and in the first case my answer would be different as well, since I do think we should tax the rich - just as much as the poor, through a flat tax).

All those silver spooned kids took tremendous risks and added to the market by popping out of the vagina of a rich mother who had a rich husband.

That is literally nonsense for many people. Personal example: my grandfather worked in a factory all his life, coming from an extremely poor background. My father is a working-class guy, he built his own successful company himself by working 80 to 90 hours a week, every week. While I do agree he should contribute to the social system etc., I do not think at all it's fair to characterize stories like these as people who "were lucky" or "popped out of a rich mother". For every silver spooner, there are so many hard-working people who, in Republican terms, did build that.

[YaBoyNY]

All those silver spooned kids took tremendous risks and added to the market by popping out of the vagina of a rich mother who had a rich husband.

That is literally nonsense for many people. Personal example: my grandfather worked in a factory all his life, coming from an extremely poor background. My father is a working-class guy, he built his own successful company himself by working 80 to 90 hours a week, every week. While I do agree he should contribute to the social system etc., I do not think at all it's fair to characterize stories like these as people who "were lucky" or "popped out of a rich mother". For every silver spooner, there are so many hard-working people who, in Republican terms, did build that.

Notice how it's your father and grandfather who you speak of.

Wealth inequality has jumped tremendously in the past few decades.

[DavidB.]

Notice how it's your father and grandfather who you speak of.

Wealth inequality has jumped tremendously in the past few decades.

Not sure what you're implying with that first statement. Yes, wealth inequality has jumped (in the US probably a lot more than in the Netherlands, but still...) but I don't think this changes reality regarding my statement. Today people are also earning their own money and wealth through hard work. I'd understand raising the capital gains tax, even if I disagree with it, but I have much less understanding for a jealousy-based extreme income tax rate for the rich. The sentiment that all well-off people are simply upper class and didn't earn anything themselves is hopelessly 19th-century-like.

[YaBoyNY]

Notice how it's your father and grandfather who you speak of.

Wealth inequality has jumped tremendously in the past few decades.

Not sure what you're implying with that first statement. Yes, wealth inequality has jumped (in the US probably a lot more than in the Netherlands, but still...) but I don't think this changes reality regarding my statement. Today people are also earning their own money and wealth through hard work. I'd understand raising the capital gains tax, even if I disagree with it, but the sentiment that all well-off people are simply upper class and didn't earn anything themselves is hopelessly 19th-century-like.

It's more modern than it is 19th century. The amount of self-made millionaires really is far smaller than you think.

[DavidB.]

It's more modern than it is 19th century. The amount of self-made millionaires really is far smaller than you think.

Uhm, there are probably still way more self-made millionaires than in the 19th century and there is a much higher degree of upward mobility and meritocracy than in these days.

What's more, income inequality itself has become less problematic because the "floor" in regard to poverty is higher. Being poor in the Netherlands in the 19th century could mean starving. Being poor in the Netherlands in the 21th century means not being able to afford a car (which is much less problematic in a densely populated country with generally good public transportation than in the US) or an iPad, but nobody will starve and nobody really has to live on the streets. It's problematic if person X has a Porsche and person Y dies of starvation. It's not problematic if person X has a Porsche and person Y has enough to eat and lives in a good (albeit modest) house. Poverty would be a problem, and a lack of meritocracy would be a problem, but income inequality is not.