So, how much should we tax the rich? 70%? 90%?

I met a guy in Atlanta at the bar in my hotel last year when I was traveling on business.  We were having a respectful but disagreeing conversation about politics.  But the guy would keep getting angry, raising his voice and then apologizing.  The thing that set him off the worst was when we were talking about health care.  He absolutely didn't want to pay for "other people" to get health care on his taxes.  I suggested to him that having universal government funded health insurance was essentially the same as having a government funded fire or police department.  We all pay for those departments to help out other people.  We might never need the fire department (and really don't want to).  But we're all fine with our taxes paying for the FD to show up at someone else's house.  His response was to angrily say "that's the example you liberals always use!!"  And I just said back -- that's because the analogy is pretty much spot on grin



ml1 said:
I met a guy in Atlanta at the bar in my hotel last year when I was traveling on business.  We were having a respectful but disagreeing conversation about politics.  But the guy would keep getting angry, raising his voice and then apologizing.  The thing that set him off the worst was when we were talking about health care.  He absolutely didn't want to pay for "other people" to get health care on his taxes.  I suggested to him that having universal government funded health insurance was essentially the same as having a government funded fire or police department.  We all pay for those departments to help out other people.  We might never need the fire department (and really don't want to).  But we're all fine with our taxes paying for the FD to show up at someone else's house.  His response was to angrily say "that's the example you liberals always use!!"  And I just said back -- that's because the analogy is pretty much spot on grin

If I’m that guy in Atlanta and had some time to put my finger on why that analogy isn’t entirely convincing me, I might weigh the amount of personal choice that influences the health care of strangers against the amount of personal choice that goes into their home’s fire risk or our collective need for police protection, and decide that’s where I’m going to stake my resistance. Then, before my blood pressure spiked again, I might wonder what that visitor from New Jersey would say about that distinction in the analogy.


NFPA.org

  • In 2011-2015, U.S. fire departments responded to an average of 8,690 home1 structure fires that were started by candles per year.  Candles caused 2% of home structure fires.
    • Candle fires caused an annual average of:
    • 82 civilian fire deaths, or 3% of home fire deaths,
    • 800 civilian fire injuries, or 7% of reported home fire injuries, and 
    • $295 million in direct property damage, or 4% of total direct damage in home structure fires.
  • Between 2012-2016, U.S. fire departments responded to an average 170 home fires that started with Christmas trees per year. These fires caused an average of 4 deaths, 15 injuries, and $12 million in direct property damage annually.
  • On average, one of every 45 reported home fires that began with a Christmas tree resulted in a death, compared to an average of one death per 139 total reported home fires.

ETA: No time right now to look up the number of fires and deaths that could have been prevented by a $10 smoke detector or replacement batteries, but there’s plenty of room for individual responsibility (or lack of) in fire prevention. 


DaveSchmidt said:


ml1 said:
I met a guy in Atlanta at the bar in my hotel last year when I was traveling on business.  We were having a respectful but disagreeing conversation about politics.  But the guy would keep getting angry, raising his voice and then apologizing.  The thing that set him off the worst was when we were talking about health care.  He absolutely didn't want to pay for "other people" to get health care on his taxes.  I suggested to him that having universal government funded health insurance was essentially the same as having a government funded fire or police department.  We all pay for those departments to help out other people.  We might never need the fire department (and really don't want to).  But we're all fine with our taxes paying for the FD to show up at someone else's house.  His response was to angrily say "that's the example you liberals always use!!"  And I just said back -- that's because the analogy is pretty much spot on grin
If I’m that guy in Atlanta and had some time to put my finger on why that analogy isn’t entirely convincing me, I might weigh the amount of personal choice that influences the health care of strangers against the amount of personal choice that goes into their home’s fire risk or our collective need for police protection, and decide that’s where I’m going to stake my resistance. Then, before my blood pressure spiked again, I might wonder what that visitor from New Jersey would say about that distinction in the analogy.

 Yeah - my guess is that "personal choice" is as influential on the risk of a house catching fire as it is in the area of health.


kthnry said: NFPA.org
  • In 2011-2015, U.S. fire departments responded to an average of 8,690 home1 structure fires that were started by candles per year.  Candles caused 2% of home structure fires.
    • Candle fires caused an annual average of:
    • 82 civilian fire deaths, or 3% of home fire deaths,
    • 800 civilian fire injuries, or 7% of reported home fire injuries, and 
    • $295 million in direct property damage, or 4% of total direct damage in home structure fires.
  • Between 2012-2016, U.S. fire departments responded to an average 170 home fires that started with Christmas trees per year. These fires caused an average of 4 deaths, 15 injuries, and $12 million in direct property damage annually.
  • On average, one of every 45 reported home fires that began with a Christmas tree resulted in a death, compared to an average of one death per 139 total reported home fires.
ETA: No time right now to look up the number of fires and deaths that could have been prevented by a $10 smoke detector or replacement batteries, but there’s plenty of room for individual responsibility (or lack of) in fire prevention. 

 And space heaters. And bad wiring. You can’t eliminate the effects of choices. But the varying degrees of their roles, depending on how or even whether you take them into account, may complicate the spot-on-ness of analogies.


drummerboy said:


 Yeah - my guess is that "personal choice" is as influential on the risk of a house catching fire as it is in the area of health.

 OK. Your guess is as good as Joe Atlanta’s.


Also, it would be worthwhile to point out to the gentleman in Atlanta that if he pays for health insurance, his premiums are already going to pay for the health care of "other people".

Conservatives, in general, are terrible at analogies. This is because that instead of using analogies as a tool to inform their opinions, they use them as a tool to justify them. That leads to a cognitive mess.


DaveSchmidt said:


drummerboy said:

 Yeah - my guess is that "personal choice" is as influential on the risk of a house catching fire as it is in the area of health.
 OK. Your guess is as good as Joe Atlanta’s.

 Nope - the mere fact that the number one cause of fire related deaths is due to smoking means my guess is better.


drummerboy said:
Also, it would be worthwhile to point out to the gentleman in Atlanta that if he pays for health insurance, his premiums are already going to pay for the health care of "other people".
Conservatives, in general, are terrible at analogies. This is because that instead of using analogies as a tool to inform their opinions, they use them as a tool to justify them. That leads to a cognitive mess.

Credit, then, to the conservative in Atlanta for not making one. 

And if you, kthnry, ml1 or anyone else still likes the analogy after considering my comment, who am I to argue?


drummerboy said:


 Nope - the mere fact that the number one cause of fire related deaths is due to smoking means my guess is better.

 That’s a striking statistic. Fire departments respond whether or not anyone dies, however, and cooking equipment is the top cause of house fires.


DaveSchmidt said:


ml1 said:
I met a guy in Atlanta at the bar in my hotel last year when I was traveling on business.  We were having a respectful but disagreeing conversation about politics.  But the guy would keep getting angry, raising his voice and then apologizing.  The thing that set him off the worst was when we were talking about health care.  He absolutely didn't want to pay for "other people" to get health care on his taxes.  I suggested to him that having universal government funded health insurance was essentially the same as having a government funded fire or police department.  We all pay for those departments to help out other people.  We might never need the fire department (and really don't want to).  But we're all fine with our taxes paying for the FD to show up at someone else's house.  His response was to angrily say "that's the example you liberals always use!!"  And I just said back -- that's because the analogy is pretty much spot on grin
If I’m that guy in Atlanta and had some time to put my finger on why that analogy isn’t entirely convincing me, I might weigh the amount of personal choice that influences the health care of strangers against the amount of personal choice that goes into their home’s fire risk or our collective need for police protection, and decide that’s where I’m going to stake my resistance. Then, before my blood pressure spiked again, I might wonder what that visitor from New Jersey would say about that distinction in the analogy.

I am honestly not understanding the personal choice argument from Mr Atlanta. Can someone spell that out? Because I actually think the analogy with Fire Department is pretty good, but maybe I am missing something.


DaveSchmidt said:


drummerboy said:

 Nope - the mere fact that the number one cause of fire related deaths is due to smoking means my guess is better.
 That’s a striking statistic. Fire departments respond whether or not anyone dies, however, and cooking equipment is the top cause of house fires.

 Yes, but even there one of the main causes of cooking fires is leaving the stove unattended.

I never thought about it much before, but there's some interesting facts on this web site:

https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/By-topic/Top-causes-of-fire



Mr. Atlanta thought it was a pretty good analogy or it wouldn't have frustrated him so much, or left him without a substantive response. 


basil said:

I am honestly not understanding the personal choice argument from Mr Atlanta. Can someone spell that out? Because I actually think the analogy with Fire Department is pretty good, but maybe I am missing something.

 In the simplest terms, fires are accidents. While a lot of health issues, too, are accidents of birth, a number also arise from choices we make, ranging from elective procedures to lifestyle decisions like smoking, diet and exercise. 

I’m not saying they negate the Fire Department analogy. I’m saying I can see how they could be weighed differently, depending on one’s viewpoint. That seems to me to be a crack in the analogy. Which is only natural, because most analogies have at least one.


ml1 said:
Mr. Atlanta thought it was a pretty good analogy or it wouldn't have frustrated him so much, or left him without a substantive response. 

 I don’t know about Mr. Atlanta, but I don’t think so good on my feet. I tend to be a little better at reflection (kind of my buzzword for today), so you probably would have had your triumph over me as well.


considering that his complaint was that liberals "always" tell him that, he should have had plenty of time to formulate a good response to me if he could come up with one. 


DaveSchmidt said:
You showed him.

you weren't there.  Not sure why you seem to be assuming I was being a dick to the guy.  He and I sat and chatted for well over an hour, disagreements and all.  It's possible to disagree respectfully, which we did.  I didn't "show him".  I just made my point, that's all.


ml1 said:

Not sure why you seem to be assuming I was being a dick to the guy.  

I don’t think that at all. I disagree that your point was a slam dunk, no matter how much the other guy was posterized in your recounting. Scorecards from the judges will differ.


it's not that my analogy is all that compelling.  It's that the "I don't want to pay for other people" argument is pretty arbitrary when applied to health insurance.  Virtually all of our taxes go to pay for stuff for "other people."  In fact, we're already paying for other people to get health care through our taxes, provided those people are over 65.  It's also how private health insurance premiums work.  And insurance of all sorts for that matter. 

That was probably the source of his frustration.  He probably knows he's making an arbitrary distinction.  And it's a distinction that virtually no other developed nation on earth makes.  


DaveSchmidt said:


ml1 said:
Mr. Atlanta thought it was a pretty good analogy or it wouldn't have frustrated him so much, or left him without a substantive response. 
 I don’t know about Mr. Atlanta, but I don’t think so good on my feet. I tend to be a little better at reflection (kind of my buzzword for today), so you probably would have had your triumph over me as well.

Well you have had plenty of time to think about it now, give it a shot!


basil said:


Well you have had plenty of time to think about it now, give it a shot!

Thanks for the invitation. I have, and expressed the results to my satisfaction.


ml1 said:
it's not that my analogy is all that compelling.  I

 Exactly! As I said, it's because conservatives suck at analogies.  I've been saying this for years...



You guys crack me up.  We're talking about imposing a very high tax rate to "the rich".  Who is arguing for Anarchy on this thread?  You are arguing with nobody.  Let's review...

Most here talk about how great it would be to have this AOC 70% marginal tax rate plan.  Some here proposed great things we could do with the money; be it a Green Energy New Deal, Free College, Free Healthcare, what have you.   I then pointed out that this law is not going to generate enough revenue for any of those things.  I questioned the motives of those here. I assume those arguing this tax plan don't think they'll ever be subject to it, so it's all good. 

Anyway, I pointed out that the countries that have these programs that many here argue for have those kinds of tax rates for the middle class.   I don't see anyone here signing up for that.  Just the benefits and higher taxes for the rich. 

PVW tells me that Sweden is a great country, and is lucky enough to know many Swedes.   As if I was taking a shot at Sweden.  I was just pointing out, they don't get those benefits by taxing those who make over $10 million dollars.  Their threshold for these high tax rates is more like $60 K.

Basil then questions the monetary value of  those who make contributions  in the free market(i.e. not rent seeking.)  I then point out that most modern societies exist on a continuum between a free market and government compelled action.   I have not made the argument for anarcho-capitalism in this thread.  

So, then people start arguing with god knows who about Libertaria.  The proposal on this thread is that a 70% marginal tax rate on the rich is useful to society in some way.   Nobody on this thread has come close to making an argument.  If nobody can make that argument, I'm sorry, the best explanation is that you like this plan because you resent those who have done better than you have.  

Nobody on this thread proposed privatizing Fire Departments.  I must say that its a shame that our friend in Atlanta didn't ask "Are you proposing we federalize the police and fire departments?"  And offer up, "Hey if your municipal government wants to provide free healthcare to all the people in your town, I think that is fantastic. If you're successful, perhaps other municipalities will follow suit.  But, I fear that providing free healthcare may come with a bit more complexity than putting out fires."  

PVW said:


terp said:


But since you know so many Swedes, I must ask. Did they speak to you about their minimum wage laws?  Did they tell you about their school voucher program?   Did they share their corporate tax rates with you?   Did they share the Swedish history of free exchange prior to the construction of their welfare state that resulted in a tenfold increase in the standard of living establishing them as the 4th richest country in the nation?   
Did they share with you how the establishment of the welfare state in the 1960's and 1970's has caused them to start falling down the list of wealthiest nations?   Did they tell you about all the currency devaluations that caused them to start to roll back some of the welfare state in the 1990's
One of the most vapid arguments that people on the left seem to make is that we can simply map a specific policy they prefer from another country to the United States and it will work exactly as it does there.    
 Ah, the casual assumption of the ignorance of your interlocutors. I suppose you're just being a good sport and backing ML1 up in his observation that "you have a tendency to assume people you don't agree with are either stupid or venal." 

 I take it that they didn't tell you about those things. 

Look, I never said you or ml1 was stupid.  But, I have to say.  I was making the case that countries that have these programs tend to have these high tax rates starting at much lower compensation rates that what is being proposed here.  You then say "Sweden is great!  I know Swedes." or whatever.  My apologies, but that does not strike me as a very good argument. 


Yes, terp, in order to transform the U.S. into a Democratic Socialist Utopia, tax rates will have to change and even the bottom 90% will have to shoulder higher tax rates.

We get it.

Still don't know what your point is though, except that you equate higher taxation with encroaching dystopia.



My point is that there seems to be a groundswell of support for this tax change.  However, there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what, if anything, it will accomplish.   It reminds me of a wall. 


terp said:
My point is that there seems to be a groundswell of support for this tax change.  However, there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what, if anything, it will accomplish.   It reminds me of a wall. 

 As I said, it's a step in the process of changing decades of government largesse towards the wealthy and corporations.

Seems to me that's all the justification that's needed. Gotta bend the arc sometime.  There's a whole truckload of policy changes that need to be made, but none will get done until one gets done.

And while you carp about high tax rates - how do taxes differ from the high price we pay for essentials like health care, education, child care, drugs, etc? Is the fact that these are technically "voluntary" enough to differentiate them from mandated taxes? I think not. If you add up all of these high costs and add them to our taxes, there's a good bet we pay as much or more than  Dem Soc countries already. And for crappier results. As we funnel more and more of our money to the 1%.

Lacking any real-world evidence whatsoever, you maintain those issues would be resolved by making the market more "free".

I, and most of the rest of the Non-USA world, think not.


terp said:
My point is that there seems to be a groundswell of support for this tax change.  However, there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what, if anything, it will accomplish.   It reminds me of a wall. 

I am pretty sure everyone on this thread agrees on the fact that it will increase IRS revenue.


terp said:
 I take it that they didn't tell you about those things.

 Knowing only two things -- that I know Swedes and have been to Sweden, and that I disagree with you, your conclusion is that I must be ignorant of these issues. I'll grant that perhaps "ignorance" should be added to "venal or stupid" as a third category, but it's certainly in the broad category of unwarranted uncharitable conclusions.

Though to be fair to you, your attitude here is fairly typical online. In fact, you yourself are often on the receiving end. It's just too bad, because you are a rare poster here who not only has a point of view radically different from mine, but that point of view is a coherent and articulated one. It's not every discussion that leads to a discussion of de Tocqueville, after all.

But having to make the effort to sift out the substantive points from the peevish, self-congratulatory slights means that, in the worst case, it doesn't seem worth the effort to engage or, in the second-to-worst-case, it leads to my own falling short and responding in kind. Again, not unique to you, but still an unfortunate example of how the standard cultural norms of online discussion tend to promote less frequent and more shallow exchanges.

Anyway, that aside, let's give responding a go.


terp said:
This will not pay for any of the things that drummerboy proposes.   To pay for those kinds of things you want in the Scandanavian countries, you are going to have to pay taxes at rates AOC proposes.  In those countries the top tax rates kick in much lower(say $60,0000 a year). 

I responded under the assumption that you and I both know it would be facile to map Ocasio-Cortez's proposal directly to the specific tax regime in Sweden, and that your point was that in Sweden everyone in general pays more taxes than they do here. Given that, I took your point to be that Sweden should be instructive of the dangers of such a high-tax regime. You take it a priori that paying more taxes is bad. I don't share that base assumption, and my point was simply that I do not find the examples of countries where I would pay a higher tax all that disturbing.


As for your question of whether I've ever discussed topics such as the minimum wage or public education with the Swedes I know, I have with some and not with others. The thing about Sweden the country -- as opposed to Sweden the political prop -- is that it's made of actual people, with various interests and beliefs. Some of the Swedes I know like to talk politics. Some don't. Many are pretty politically liberal; a handful are closer to your way of seeing things (though, again, worth noting terms like "liberal" and "conservative" rarely map 1:1 between different country's cultural contexts). Like any country, some things work well in Sweden and some don't, and people from there disagree on what is working well and what is broken.

I will note this -- the Swedes I know who are close to your point of view tend to be younger and without children. Most Swedes (indeed most Europeans) I know tend to move back home when it comes time to raise a family, both because its easier to be near relatives, but also because they find the American approach to family issues much less congenial than most European ones. High taxes might be onerous for a free and unattached individual, but seem make for a more supportive environment for families.


To clear up some numbers a little: The highest Swedish income tax is between 53% and 59%. It depends on the town you live in, which highlights the fact that the rate covers both local and national income taxes. (Not to mention Social Security and Medicare taxes.)

Another adjustment: The average U.S. income is 43% higher than the average Swedish income, so you might factor that in when comparing the thresholds. I figured that the top Swedish rate kicks in at the equivalent of about $105,000. Add my employer health insurance, then amortize four years of $30,000/year college costs over a working career, and I’m up to $125,000. That’s roughly what a Swede is getting before paying 53% to 59%.

(These are literally back-of-the-envelope calculations. Your methods and results may vary.)

Two things that strike me are the relatively narrow range of local taxes in Sweden and the Swedes’ trust in their tax regime — both a reflection, I surmise, of the demographics. It’s not a very populous or diverse country. It’s hard to imagine municipalities in even one U.S. state fitting into that narrow rate range, or the wide disparities within and among them allowing for that kind of trust in the system’s fairness. 

How big of a wrench, PVW, do you or the Swedes you know think demographic differences throw into “If they can do it there, why not here” discussions?


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.