How The Dutch Economy Shows We Can't Reduce Wealth Inequality With Taxes
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2021, 07:10:26 PM

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  How The Dutch Economy Shows We Can't Reduce Wealth Inequality With Taxes
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Thoughts on the quoted sentence?
#1
Agree (D)
 
#2
Agree (R)
 
#3
Agree (I/O)
 
#4
Agree (S/G/C)
 
#5
Disagree (D)
 
#6
Disagree (R)
 
#7
Disagree (I/O)
 
#8
Disaree (S/G/C)
 
#9
Other
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 25

Author Topic: How The Dutch Economy Shows We Can't Reduce Wealth Inequality With Taxes  (Read 2129 times)
khuzifenq
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,180
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 05, 2020, 12:04:35 AM »




"That goes to show that inequality doesn't always cause issues so long as there are equitable systems in place to make sure that everyone genuinely has the ability to rise up, and that the comfort, safety, and well-being of average people is not sacrificed in the name of profits for a few.

I think I somehow managed to make everybody on both the left and the right angry with that sentence."
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,222
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2020, 12:17:36 PM »

The way to reduce wealth inequity is to allow polygamy from a legal and social point of view.  Very wealthy men would have multiple wives and where all their children will be accepted by society which would incentivizes quality women to choose to be one of many wives of very wealth men.  In such a situation spending on all these families (wives and children) will dissipate the wealth and shift income downward in the wealth hierarchy toward those providing services for all these extra families.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,977
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2020, 04:02:18 PM »

The way to reduce wealth inequity is to allow polygamy from a legal and social point of view.  Very wealthy men would have multiple wives and where all their children will be accepted by society which would incentivizes quality women to choose to be one of many wives of very wealth men.  In such a situation spending on all these families (wives and children) will dissipate the wealth and shift income downward in the wealth hierarchy toward those providing services for all these extra families.

What an idiotic idea. A large proportion of young men without prospects of marriage is a guaranteed recipe for violence.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,222
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2020, 07:22:34 AM »

The way to reduce wealth inequity is to allow polygamy from a legal and social point of view.  Very wealthy men would have multiple wives and where all their children will be accepted by society which would incentivizes quality women to choose to be one of many wives of very wealth men.  In such a situation spending on all these families (wives and children) will dissipate the wealth and shift income downward in the wealth hierarchy toward those providing services for all these extra families.

What an idiotic idea. A large proportion of young men without prospects of marriage is a guaranteed recipe for violence.

Well, I was commenting on the isolated problem of reducing wealth inequity.

Also, at least in the USA, marriage rates are falling quite quickly despite gay marriage becoming legal in many states recently which means heterosexual marriage rates are falling even faster then recent numbers would suggest



In other words, the market is not clearing anyway so you might as well shift the dynamic

Also polygamy would fit historical pattern (we have twice as many women ancestors than man ancestors which would imply half the men in history never had any offspring and any man that did have offspring had on average two women partners) which are unlikely to change

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool

The only issue is would such a dynamic take place in the open of in secret.
Logged
PSOL
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,930


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2020, 10:12:21 AM »

The amount of incels and income disparity in the Gulf and South Asia kind of disproves your point, no?
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,222
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2020, 10:50:24 AM »

The amount of incels and income disparity in the Gulf and South Asia kind of disproves your point, no?

Is that even really true?  Namely GINI in Pakistan and Bangladesh where polygamy is legal is actually a good deal lower than USA and at par with places like Canada.  You can argue that relative economic underdevelopment might hold back the forces of economic inequity.  Now if you look at Saudi Arabia where the level of economic development is higher the GINI coefficient is fairly high and just as high as places like USA and HK.   But there the key data is that GINI is calculated at the family level. Given the legality of polygamy in SA the wealthy families will be 4 times larger than the typical middle income class family (4 wives and children that comes with it vs 1 wife and children).  So on a per capita basis GINI in SA is most likely lower than USA.
Logged
Tsaiite
Blairite
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,730
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2020, 02:13:31 PM »

I love how we're just going into this absurd hypothetical taking it as given that the only people with high earning potential are a very small share of men and men alone.
Logged
SevenEleven
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,076


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2020, 08:05:56 PM »

The way to reduce wealth inequity is to allow polygamy from a legal and social point of view.  Very wealthy men would have multiple wives and where all their children will be accepted by society which would incentivizes quality women to choose to be one of many wives of very wealth men.  In such a situation spending on all these families (wives and children) will dissipate the wealth and shift income downward in the wealth hierarchy toward those providing services for all these extra families.

What an idiotic idea. A large proportion of young men without prospects of marriage is a guaranteed recipe for violence.

I'm not surprised by 95% (actually 70) of the people who recommended this post.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,977
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2020, 09:35:30 PM »

The way to reduce wealth inequity is to allow polygamy from a legal and social point of view.  Very wealthy men would have multiple wives and where all their children will be accepted by society which would incentivizes quality women to choose to be one of many wives of very wealth men.  In such a situation spending on all these families (wives and children) will dissipate the wealth and shift income downward in the wealth hierarchy toward those providing services for all these extra families.

What an idiotic idea. A large proportion of young men without prospects of marriage is a guaranteed recipe for violence.

I'm not surprised by 95% (actually 70) of the people who recommended this post.

Why? It's simply a basic truth.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,167
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2020, 06:30:54 PM »

Easy access to housing, food and water, clothes, and healthcare for poor people is a core value of liberalism and a good one. We must wage war against poverty, not inequality.
Logged
khuzifenq
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,180
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2020, 12:15:35 PM »

I wonder who was the S/C/G avatar who voted Disagree, and why.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,368
Nepal


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2020, 08:18:33 PM »

Easy access to housing, food and water, clothes, and healthcare for poor people is a core value of liberalism and a good one. We must wage war against poverty, not inequality.

I'd say I agree.  I'm not so much as an egalitarian on economic issues as I am someone who believes that all should have easy access to at least minimal standards of living.
Logged
khuzifenq
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,180
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2020, 12:28:57 PM »

I wonder who was the S/C/G avatar who voted Disagree, and why.

Really curious who the 3 other people who voted Disagree (D, R, I/O) were.
Logged
khuzifenq
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,180
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2021, 09:43:07 PM »

Quote from: AAD
Quote

What makes this mindset even stranger is that it is the complete opposite of the American attitude to every other facet of life: that everyone can be successful if they just "work hard" and stop being lazy and demanding handouts so if you're not rich you have no excuse.

The evidence suggests that everyone can be above the poverty line if they work a steady job and don't commit one of a pretty small number of errors (basically not taking out enormous debt or having a child with someone who won't help you raise the child)...

But the evidence doesn't really suggest that working hard can result in better educational outcomes for all but very a small number of people; for example, contrary to the criticism, expensive tutoring helps very, very few people on standardized tests. Most see no improvement. Something like a third of students will just never be able to pass Algebra II no matter how hard they work. (Obviously being very lazy can tank your grades, but this is only the problem for a very small number of poor performers.) It seems like IQ (or SAT/ACT score, which is incredibly strongly correlated to IQ) is determined partially by genetics and partially by non-shared environment (ie, not school, not home life, some kind of totally unknown x-factor, hypothesized to be largely determined prenatally because one thing we know makes a difference here, even in the First World, is iodine supplementation, which you should really really really do if you are ever pregnant), and working hard does not help.

What this means is that it's very important that our education system -- which is essentially governmental at this point -- doesn't foreclose access to jobs with dignity to those who can't hack it. "If you're not rich you have no excuse" isn't true; first of all because everyone is rich by the standards of the not-too-distant past, but second because obviously many people don't have the skills, knowledge, or intelligence to become rich by our standards. (Including many very educated people, for that matter). This is totally fine because as long as we incentivize people to grow the pie by having a strongly capitalist economic system, everyone will do better in an absolute sense over time.
Logged
PSOL
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,930


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2021, 09:52:26 PM »

Quote from: AAD
Quote

What makes this mindset even stranger is that it is the complete opposite of the American attitude to every other facet of life: that everyone can be successful if they just "work hard" and stop being lazy and demanding handouts so if you're not rich you have no excuse.

The evidence suggests that everyone can be above the poverty line if they work a steady job and don't commit one of a pretty small number of errors (basically not taking out enormous debt or having a child with someone who won't help you raise the child)...

But the evidence doesn't really suggest that working hard can result in better educational outcomes for all but very a small number of people; for example, contrary to the criticism, expensive tutoring helps very, very few people on standardized tests. Most see no improvement. Something like a third of students will just never be able to pass Algebra II no matter how hard they work. (Obviously being very lazy can tank your grades, but this is only the problem for a very small number of poor performers.) It seems like IQ (or SAT/ACT score, which is incredibly strongly correlated to IQ) is determined partially by genetics and partially by non-shared environment (ie, not school, not home life, some kind of totally unknown x-factor, hypothesized to be largely determined prenatally because one thing we know makes a difference here, even in the First World, is iodine supplementation, which you should really really really do if you are ever pregnant), and working hard does not help.

What this means is that it's very important that our education system -- which is essentially governmental at this point -- doesn't foreclose access to jobs with dignity to those who can't hack it. "If you're not rich you have no excuse" isn't true; first of all because everyone is rich by the standards of the not-too-distant past, but second because obviously many people don't have the skills, knowledge, or intelligence to become rich by our standards. (Including many very educated people, for that matter). This is totally fine because as long as we incentivize people to grow the pie by having a strongly capitalist economic system, everyone will do better in an absolute sense over time.

Weight this by identification with a marginalized group and by upbringing type and you would see the difference. There is also the issue of how a student is taught and their peer circle.

Very few people, those with severe dyslexia or inability to read numbers, are physically unable to pass while being “normal” in other major aspects.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 13 queries.