Sorry, don't see it. Post # ?
Sorry, don't see it. Post # ?I responded to the comment way back on page 16.
Apologies, I meant our definition of equality of outcome.
The #post number doesn't display for me.
Do you accept, for the few hundred people earning more than 2m a year, that your proposal to implement a 100% tax in incomes over 2m would result in them having the same income? (It's kinda basic maths).
It should be just to the left of the Like MultiquoteQuote Reply options. Failing that could you repost the entry?
True, I would go further to state that we live in one of (or in a group of) the wealthiest, most developed and safest countries in the world.
I agree about the safety net , or those that fall through it. It is hard to envisage a society that is all things to all people.
Take homelessness for instance, an age old problem that is hard, for multiple reasons, to wholly eradicate. Nevertheless, when the homelessness rate starts to increase, coupled with a new demographic (working people, with families), then something is going wrong that wasn't occurring previously.
It is simply not sufficient to dismiss what is happening as a consequence of the market, or some 'invisible hand', or as the failure of public sector worker's to deliver the service.
If the class was told that all results were going to be added together and they were all going to get the average score; that would be equality of outcome.Similarly if I get 90% in my test and you get 91% we both receive a grade A, that is equality of outcome.
If the class was told that all results were going to be added together and they were all going to get the average score; that would be equality of outcome.
What you are proposing is something like the class being told that nobody was going to get over 90% and any score above that was going to be cut to 90% and those points would be given to those who got the lowest grade. That should be considered fair because only a small number of people get over 90%.
Not universal no, but it's a step in that direction and, in my opinion, unfair.So, to be clear, what I'm proposing is not equality of outcome?
No, this is like a TV soap; we can just keep having the same broad conversations over and over again and sure what harm, it's only a discussion on the inter-web.Ah now Purple those are kinda cheap shotsI must admit I missed the origins of the "equality of outcomes" motif and felt a lot of its later life was rather dancing on pins.
It is indeed interesting though, if I read BigShort correctly, that s/he reads current Irish society as fairly nearly achieving his/her objectives in so far as is practical. Maybe we are nearing the end of this 19 page thread, though it would be nice to hit the even score
Maybe we are nearing the end of this 19 page thread, though it would be nice to hit the even score
Not universal no, but it's a step in that direction and, in my opinion, unfair.
(I never said it was BTW).
Do you think the classroom scenario I outlined above would be fair?
That's different, that's grouping scores. I'm talking about a scenario where 90% gives an A1 and all scores above that are redistributed to those who scored less. That's what your suggestion is analogous with.Thank you. And when the issue of equality of outcome arose, I took it as organising society as a whole in such a fashion. I would be opposed to that. But at micro levels, e.g., if I break a speed limit and you do too, and your income is twice mine, but we both pay the same fine (equality of outcome), is that fair?
No, but while it doesn't occur like that, at a micro level it still happens. If I get 100%, you get 91% we both get A1 grade (equality of outcome). Is that fair?
Actually the 7 year refinement introduced latterly by B/S addresses many of the obvious flaws such as the absence of incentive above the threshold.
Anyway, those earning over €2 million a year will be able to leave the country or do an Apple on it and just not bring that income back into the country, i.e. keep it as a asset and not draw it as income.
I agree on the intent but I disagree with the cause and effect bit in that the reason there are starving kids isn't because there are billionaires but because average people want their incomes protected from open trade so we distort markets to our advantage at a scale that billionaires could never dream of and because we want cheap petrol and cheap clothes and cheap toys.This would be part of the nuts and bolts of the proposal to be scrutinized in-depth.
The purpose is not to disincentive or penalize talent and wealth. But to recognize, as we do, that there is something wrong in the world when starving children are advertised on tv for drumming up token contributions whilst simultaneously, some property 'tycoon' in Iceland, who buys a private jet designed with the same pin strips as his suit can effectively bankrupt his country!
That is all I am saying. It's great to be rich, I want to be rich, but surely there is a limit?
Ok, but then wealth just stays in assets. You are in a difficult situation here as you are speaking in broad terms and being analysed on the minutia. I see the problem with people who earn hundreds of millions a year due to their control of vast asset portfolios and businesses as being the problem. They are effectively trans-national, just like the biggest companies. That is what we need to look at and it requires a global solution.First, I did mention earlier that it would not affect the wealth generated in assets. E.g. if I earn €1.5m and spent €50,000 on Bitcoin at €100 a coin, today I would be looking at €1m bitcoin value. No problem there, still in the €2m income limit.
If I liquidate that value, coupled with my €1.5m income, I breach the €2m threshold and am liable for 100% tax.
Alternatively, if bitcoin was a once off, and I earn only €1.5m the following year, I can begin the process of retrieving the 100% tax liability.
LolI'm kinda still warming up to be honest!
It takes a while, but it generally works in this pattern - a thread is opened that identifies an apparent anomaly in our tax and welfare system that purports to disproportionately disadvantage higher earners over lower earners and welfare recipients.
I generally take the side against the proposal and a debate of ensues until such time as that at least the spirit of one contributor has been broken!
All good fun though!
Why? He wants to take all income earned above a certain amount and redistribute to those who have less. My argument is that such an absolutist scheme would mean people just stop creating wealth beyond the point at which it will generate the maximum income. By the same tolken students who knew that all marks above 90% would be taken from them would only work hard enough to achieve a 90% score.My dear Purple it is well recognised that our tax system is to some extent redistributitive. I don't think any case can possibly be made that marking of exams should to any extent be redistributive, nor do I think it is reasonable to imply that it would be a logical consequence of BigShort's argument.
No, it just creates a whole industry for tax evasion, sorry, avoidance, lawyers and accountants.Actually the 7 year refinement introduced latterly by B/S addresses many of the obvious flaws such as the absence of incentive above the threshold.
Absolutely.As an aside I note that far from weariness or closure setting in on this thread we are here for the long haul.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?