We've done this shit in Europe for a long time. I live in Norway and make about 90K or so in the tech business. I pay roughly 34% in income tax. How is that so bad.
Americans tend to grossly exaggerate by talking about marginal tax rate rather than their actual effective tax rate.
Of course the rates might not be hugely different, but that is partly because most Europeans pay a lot more taxes in other areas. Sales tax in Norway is 25%. Alcohol and cigarettes have very high taxes and so does cars with big engines. Car taxes could be 200-300% at its worst. However electric cars have no taxes, so there is a way out ;-)
Honestly though, I don't think wealth distribution purely through taxes is the way to go. That is not how we created equality in Norway. A lot has to do with the corporatist model where big employer and employee unions set wages in big national bargains. This combined with public education with very even quality, levels the playing field.
Education in America is extremely uneven in the US and that creates a very uneven playing field. In the US education is sort of monopolized. People can't go to schools other than their local school district unless of course they pay a private school. That means poor people are locked out of good schools. In Norway I can send my kids to any school. However I send them to one of the closest schools because academic quality of schools is not that different from each other.
Richer schools can't bid for better teachers etc. In fact schools in poorer neighborhoods are more likely to get more money to compensate for their relative disadvantage.
Being incredibly resource rich in comparison to your population numbers helps - that's most of the underpinning for the welfare economy of Norway, if I'm not mistaken, not income taxes or taxes on cigarettes.
Totally agree as far as education is concerned, though.
Poor people suffer far more theft on a daily basis -- they are forced to pay higher rates for credit, they spend vastly more time interacting with the bureaucracy while receiving substantially fewer benefits, and the terrible options available to them for healthy living robs them of quality twilight years -- but we rich folks kick up an almighty fuss any time it's suggested that we redress this balance by paying tiny bit more in taxes. So little, in fact, that it wouldn't likely impact our lifestyles in the slightest.
I live in a high-tax country now and, although I receive a smaller paycheck than I did back in the US, I'm richer in almost every other way. The crime rate is effectively zero. There's no homelessness. Substance abuse and its associated ill effects are exceedingly rare. My family and my neighbors' families are healthy -- owing to the free universal health care we all receive, regardless of income or status -- so the risk of communicable disease is extremely low.
So don't think of wealth redistribution as "stealing from the wealthy and giving to the poor". Think of it as "investing in a healthy and sizable middle class". Like the one our parents grew up in. The one that oversaw the most prosperous period in world history. The one now being systematically dismantled by we privileged few.
At least that is what the neo-liberal fantasy world seems to be. They treat capitalism as if it some natural law of nature.
Every capitalist has to make their money within a society. That society is what enables them to become rich. Put Bill Gates in Somalia as a child, and there never would have been a Microsoft and he never would have been a billionaire.
Bill Gates and his fortune is a product of the society he grew up in which is shaped by democratic participation, deciding on what should and should not be taxed.
If a democracy says we can increase taxes on the wealthy, then that is just a choice, not stealing.
Somewhat true. Where you go with it is false, though. You seem to think that the society is all that enabled them to become rich. But if that's true, why does Bill Gates have more money than me? I'm in the same society.
> If a democracy says we can increase taxes on the wealthy, then that is just a choice, not stealing.
That presumes that everything a democracy decides on is just a choice - that it can't be wrong. I disagree with that statement. More, I think history disagrees with that statement.
Billionaires didn't really exist until there were billions of people. You can't amass that kind of wealth if there aren't people to generate it. Wealth is a means of capturing value and part of the value it captures is the value created by human intelligence and labor.
The fact that some people are both talented at capturing value created by society as a whole and well positioned to do so is a large factor in why some people have vast wealth and some do not. It doesn't mean someone like Bill Gates is "better"/smarter/whatever overall than other people. There is a combination of factors that lead to the concentration of wealth in the hands of one person like that.
This is why people argue so much about it. That wealth is created by the very existence of all of society, but inordinately benefits a small percentage of people.
I don't know how we do this better. I am not for Basic Income, nor am I for trying to manipulate things with a goal of creating "level" outcomes. I think both of those approaches are inherently problematic.
For one thing, society as a whole benefits when we actively reward certain behaviors. Being too punitive and too angry about some folks being rich hurts society as a whole. Bill Gates helped create real value for society by making the PC available to the masses, thereby revolutionizing life and business for pretty much everyone.
We need to not be discouraging things like that (things like people creating real value for society by being business people, etc). But I do think we need to do a better job of not shafting the masses.
Yes, exactly. Bill Gates created way more value than I did, therefore it is not totally unreasonable that he has way more money than I do.
> But I do think we need to do a better job of not shafting the masses.
Yeah, there's the real problem. We want to reward value creators enough that people try to create value. And yet, those who don't (or who try and fail) shouldn't be left completely behind.
One of the problems with this statement is the assumption that poor people are poor because they don't create value. One of the problems with that is the feminization of poverty. Women tend to be poorer than men. This is so not because we all simply laze around watching soap operas and eating bon bons. Instead, it is true because some portion of our time and energy goes into having and raising kids, taking care of relatives who are sick, and supporting the careers of our husbands in various ways.
One largely invisible way that women end up poorer is that families typically move to follow the husband's career. In other words, if they move to a new city as a family, it is because the husband sought employment elsewhere and got it.
For him, this is almost always a step up for his career. When his wife then quits her job to go with him, her next job is usually a step down for her. You do this enough and women end up going nowhere fast in their careers.
It is a complicated topic, but one of those complications is that an awful lot of poor people do create value for society, it just mostly doesn't result in them capturing value. If it is a woman who is poor, the odds are very high that she did plenty to benefit other people, but, no, it in no way resulted in financial security for her.
It would be really nice if people would stop implying that poor people are just lazy ass bums who do nothing at all of value. I was a military wife and homeschooling mom. I supported my husband's career and I took excellent care of two special needs sons. I just got off the street recently, after nearly 6 years of homelessness.
So, your framing implies ugly things about me and other people like me that are absolutely not true.
I meant to be saying that people can, though no fault of their own, fail to create much economic value, at least as measured in dollars that people will pay for what they do. (Yeah, sometimes it's their fault. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's kind of a mix - they made a choice, and it worked out badly, but it wasn't a clear-cut bad choice. Sometimes it's hard to tell. The point is, these people are there, in very bad economic circumstances.) The question is, what do we do about it? What do we do that genuinely helps them, without taxing the rich so much that it dulls the incentive to create the stuff that will make all of us better off?
And since there's (I think) a lot of "help" that doesn't actually help, I'll specifically ask you: What would have helped you?
I posted the announcement that I was off the street to HN and it very, very quietly got upvoted over the course of the night and people were very kind to me in remarks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15205436
It didn't make the front page. The surprisingly high karma count for the piece happened really slowly, not enough to get it on the front page, so I imagine that a lot of people missed the announcement. It was a very strange experience.
What would have helped me would have been to get taken more seriously. In fact, once I began getting taken more seriously, that did help me. In recent months, I sometimes get resume work and I have a small amount of Patreon money for my blog writing. (Plus, my blogs sometimes get tips and my ad money is trending up as traffic trends up.) That preceded me getting back into housing and helped facilitate it.
I have reason to believe that sometimes rather influential people read what I write, but do not ever promote my work. They don't want to admit to reading anything I write. This makes me pretty crazy. A little more traffic, a small amount more social proof that I am not just a crazy loser or whatever can (and did, when it finally happened on a very small scale) make a difference for someone like me.
I think there are a number of reasons I don't get taken seriously or treated in a manner that helps me make money. I think classism is a factor and I think my gender is a factor.
There are other issues, like some people legitimately think I am nuts. But, some of those people were extremely ugly to me in a way that is wholly unwarranted by an assumption of mental health issues. These were often people who imagine they are good and kind people. They often wear that on their sleeve. It is virtue signaling and their actions (at least wrt me) don't match their claims.
So, less virtue signaling, and more just helping me figure out how to make money online, which was the primary I thing I asked for consistently over the years and was often openly dismissed, often by people who, themselves, earn their living online in some sense or to some degree.
I don't find the thought of not being able to afford healthcare if bad luck strikes very appealing.
So yeah, if you're making double what I'm making, maybe pay in a bit more. What's so crazy about that?