Are the rich paying their 'fair' share?

[Jon Miller]

I am amazed that he can have a place to live, pay utilities, and get food at 400$ per month.

Most cities I have lived, the minimum rent was about that high.

JM

[Jaguar]

That is the only incentive, and it is true. Especially since they hold the power (due to having the wealth).
Person A has 100$ + has gotten 100$ in value from his purchase + has an asset that is valued at 200$ = 400$ total of 'present' + 'future' goods and has paid a total of $10 in taxes
Person B has 0$ (he had to consume it all) + 100$ in value from his purchases = 100$ total of 'present' + 'future' goods and has paid a total of $10 in taxes

Not at all. Person A's assets - a house and a cash reserve, would not be exchangeable for $300 worth of goods without paying taxes. You've also decided to have a house give you a 200% ROI in ten years, which is absurd. If houses were really a sure thing to get you a 200% ROI, then no-money-down subprime mortgages were a great idea.

Jon, if you're just trying to argue for some amount of wealth redistribution in general, that should be an easy position - yet you keep migrating from one bizarre, incorrect argument to another - some of which are actually the exact reverse of the actual strong arguments for wealth redistribution.

Wealth should be redistributed from me to Albie because he gets more bang for his buck, not less. He lives a reasonably decent life on a fraction of what I live on, but his life can be improved substantially for small amounts of money, while mine can't.

[Jon Miller]

Of course, if you think that is 'fair', we can consider a slight change (and introduce person C, who with 0 to start but a more able 24$ per month, let's also increase person A and person B to 13$ per month and consider what happens after 100 'turns').

Person B has received 1000$ in consumption, has paid 100$ in taxes, and has 'future consumption' of 200$.
Person A has the option of leaving the wealthy class and joining the capitalist class. He has received 1000$ in consumption, paid 10$ in taxes, and has 'future consumption' of 1300. His asset is worth 1100$. He can purchase another house at 1100$ (with 110$ more in taxes) to increase his income to 23$ per month.
Person C has the option of leaving the poor class and joining the wealthy class. She has received 1000$ in consumption, has paid 100$ in taxes, and has 'future consumption' of 1300$. She can purchase a house at 1100$ (with 110$ more in taxes).

Does this seem fair, tax wise?

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

Jon, if you're just trying to argue for some amount of wealth redistribution in general, that should be an easy position - yet you keep migrating from one bizarre, incorrect argument to another - some of which are actually the exact reverse of the actual strong arguments for wealth redistribution.

QFT, if rich people actually got more utility from an additional 200 dollars than poor people, we should redistribute from poor people to rich people. Reductio ad absurdam.

[Jon Miller]

That effect can be accounted for, with minimal change to the model by introducing:
1. Someone can fall sick for 1 turn, while sick they are entirely unproductive
2. If someone doesn't have a place to live, they are unhappy and are 1/10 as productive

Probably then type A people should be re-labeled working class and the in poverty people would be those without a place to live (type E/F).

You complaint about the first 10 turns being unreasonable can be fixed by setting the model some XX turns in the future (but not so far in the future where type C people all own their own homes).

The model could be made dynamic for allowing:
1. Someone who doesn't work and lives in a home is very satisfied for that turn
2. After YY turns, a person is replaced by their progeny (who might have a different ability than them). All wealth is given to the progeny, the new persons valuation of being 'very satisfied' is pulled again from the theoretical distribution.

Consider the taxes paid and amount of turns spent satisfied/very satisfied as a function of inherited wealth.

How is not taxing capital gains 'fair'?

I can understand how it isn't economically advantageous. That is why I have been saying all along that in a capitalistic society, the 'best' solution might be to tax consumption and put in transfers.

JM
(would be even better if 'ability' was a distribution)

[Jon Miller]

QFT, if rich people actually got more utility from an additional 200 dollars than poor people, we should redistribute from poor people to rich people. Reductio ad absurdam.

No, because that would be evil.

When you consider that for the rich person, because they gain wealth from consumption (which only they can consume), they do get more bang for the buck. Because it is so cheap for them (better than free!).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Just because Warren Buffet could turn the money I gave him around and make it be 2x as much in 10 years doesn't mean that it is better for me to have that money taken from me and be miserable for 10 years so that the overall utility is greater.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

No, because that would be evil.

When you consider that for the rich person, because they gain wealth from consumption (which only they can consume), they do get more bang for the buck. Because it is so cheap for them (better than free!).

JM

Jon, it wouldn't be evil if it were true! If the money actually had more use in the hands of rich people than poor people, then it would be evil NOT to give it to the rich people. If you don't agree, then you probably are misunderstanding something crucial about "utility".

[Hauldren Collider]

Also Jon, what the hell is the point of "fairness" if it leads to demonstrably worse outcomes?

[Jaguar]

No, because that would be evil.

When you consider that for the rich person, because they gain wealth from consumption (which only they can consume), they do get more bang for the buck. Because it is so cheap for them (better than free!).

JM

Purchase of housing is an investment, not consumption. The rent you forgo by living in that housing yourself instead of renting it is consumption. People in econ figured out how to categorize different sorts of spending and labeled them in precise ways to avoid the sort of muddled confusion you're exhibiting here.

[Al B. Sure!]

No, a police man is not more valuable than an actuary unless you think police departments are vastly underfunded.

Which would you rather have? No police or no actuaries?

So you could earn minimum wage and save over half of your income? Weren't you claiming earlier that people on $15,000 have very little ability to save their money?

I'm not most people. I also don't have dependents.

Unfortunately, not everyone can be me or live like me. I understand that.

[Hauldren Collider]

That's not a definition of value. Which would you rather have, no farmers or no computer scientists? But who gets paid more?

[Al B. Sure!]

That's not a definition of value. Which would you rather have, no farmers or no computer scientists? But who gets paid more?

That's precisely the problem with determining the social value of a job solely by the amount the job pays in dollars!

[Hauldren Collider]

Alby, we're not measuring people as good human beings, we're trying to figure out how much resources they should be allocated.

[The Mad Monk]

Wrong.

They make money off the labor of people like me. I do my labor for cheaper so that the human race can benefit, not so that a few people can get rich.

JM

Is that in your contract?