Are the rich paying their 'fair' share?

[Al B. Sure!]

They weren't forced to have dependents. If someone makes a lifestyle choice that eats up half of their income (in spite of being subsidized by the government) it's their own fault.

While I would agree in spirit, we humans have ideas like compassion and mercy that get in the way of reverence for absolute responsibility.

[giblets]

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

No, you've demonstrated that you don't understand marginal concepts.

[giblets]

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

Which would you rather have, no farmers or no doctors? Ergo farmers are more valuable than doctors!

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

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

They weren't forced to have dependents. If someone makes a lifestyle choice that eats up half of their income (in spite of being subsidized by the government) it's their own fault.

[Jon Miller]

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.

If you want to complicate things further, you can rename things. There is no muddled confusion which I am demonstrating, my model is clear and gives a pretty clear conclusion.

Those like yourself to defend the current unfairness and wish to make things even more unfair are the ones who muddle the issue, by either taking a too simple argument (see earlier), or complicating things to such an extant that relevant relationships are unclear.

Still doesn't change the fact that the wealthy have consumption and investments which are available to them and not to that working class/poor which are incredibly advantageous. And that only they can take advantage of.

To not tax the wealthy correspondingly higher for 'extra' that they get (which is most often realized as capital gains) is unfair.

JM
(Once more, I am not saying that taxing capital gains highly makes the best sense, based on arguments from KH (mostly), it is very likely the case that taxing consumption+wealth transfers to the poor/working class makes the best economic sense. I am just pointing out that when you consider what is going on, taxing capital gains is what is fair.)

[Al B. Sure!]

Volunteer firefighters do not get paid, whether in salary or pension. Yet they provide a valuable, nay absolutely necessary, service to the community.

It's not rational to be a volunteer firefighter. The same job in a major city gets paid fairly well (though there are barriers to entry). In fact, just considering the budget of the Philly Fire Department divided by personnel, each firefighter costs the city $86K/year to train, pay, and equip. Remaining in your own community means that you will be working a necessary and dangerous job for no compensation. That also means these communities get a HUGE discount.

Do Philadelphians value fire protection services more than people in the surrounding suburbs with volunteer departments?

It's not rational yet it happens.

This is because either people are irrational or there's non-monetary compensation in such jobs, which means that simply looking at the dollar amount of a salary is insufficient to determine the value society holds for that position.

[Jon Miller]

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".

It would be evil.

I disagree with 'maximize utility'.

Utility wise (to maximize gdp/etc), it would be best if everyone in the US was taxed and the money given to Buffet/etc. The poor especially.

But the poor are already somewhat miserable due to income.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Is that in your contract?

The research that we do is public, yes.

Is it in my contract? No. Just like it isn't in any scientist contract.

We are the original open source community. We just don't give the same restrictions as the open source code community sometimes does. Maybe we should. When you publish something openly, it is hard to also then say 'if you use our work, you can't charge an unreasonable price..'

I once worked a professor who had been private for a few years between postdoc and being a professor. He had patents from his company during that time, which he had sold. I think he was fairly rich for a professor, but regretted it, as it restricted the scientific progress he was involved in as a professor.

JM
(There might be some fine print that I am not aware of.)

[The Mad Monk]

Police are more valuable than actuaries. Firefighters, as well, yet most communities don't even pay firefighters! Must be a very valueless job!

It's not about value. There's other factors that affect pay beyond how 'valuable' or necessary the job done is. For example, how many people could and are willing to do the job. Shifts towards higher-paying professions are not instantaneous, especially when they require a certain educational background and certification.

It's difficult to realistically consider Police and other government pay without including the typical pensions they come with.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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!]

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.

[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.

[Hauldren Collider]

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