I can't believe my eyes actually. As I was opening this comments page, I thought that majority will represent vastly different opinion here. But since that's not the case, I decided to speak up.
Nick Hanauer cannot be more wrong. Taxing rich people means punishing someone for his success. There is no argument that could justify such Robin Hood's behaviour. In fact that's what was (or is) happening in the communism. So regression at it's finest. I think that someone hasn't had his history homework done.
The things is that the root of the problem is somewhere else. If you think about evolution for a second. Weaker species are removed, stronger survive. It leads to creating better and better species. On the other hand, if we helped weaker species to survive as well, then not only this natural filter is effectively stopped, but also ironically, the situation is even worse for the stronger ones. That would inevitably make the whole ecosystem poor.
To wrap it up, if God (or some other kind of Force) decided to help poor species, we, humans, would never exist. Why don't you just support the idea, that put you into existence?
> Taxing rich people means punishing someone for his success.
Why is taxing seen as punitive? Is it punitive when we tax middle class people? It's just a mechanism to collect funds for things that are better done with public money than private money. Since the rich stand to gain more from many of the investments, they should pay more. All those companies that make physical widgets? They have to be shipped, largely via roads. Their business and their continued success relies on well constructed roads, of course they should pay for them in the proportion that they use them.
> There is no argument that could justify such Robin Hood's behaviour. In fact that's what was (or is) happening in the communism. So regression at it's finest. I think that someone hasn't had his history homework done.
Please, if you think the only options are state-socialism and laissez-faire capitalism then it's you who hasn't done their homework. Reading Atlas Shrugged doesn't count.
This is all boilerplate American-libertarian thinking. You don't understand evolution beyond "survival of the fittest", so don't use it to justify your arguments. Cancer is very successful at reproducing, it sucks up resources and bullies around the "weaker" cells, that doesn't mean it's a positive thing or something that will lead to long-term system-wide prosperity.
First, if you want to talk Darwinism you need to get your terms right.
"It's not the strongest who survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most adaptable to change." Charles Darwin.
By (incorrectly) calling someone who isn't rich "weak" you're placing your personal judgements on them, because that's not at all what Darwin was talking about.
<tangent>
I do find it interesting that you consider taxing people "punishment". Does that mean you consider government, or at least funding of the government, a form a punishment?</tangent>
What if the current system is rigged (by loopholes and allowances for swiss banking) so that the rich can avoid paying what the rest of the population does? Wouldn't that mean the "weaker" species were the ones actually being punished? So by raising the effective rate on the rich wouldn't you simply be restoring order to the system?
It's not about punishing success, it's about realizing that the market is not perfect at distributing wealth, and that wealth is not created in a vacuum.
To the first point, are bankers, the founders of instagram, athletes, and movie stars really contributing so much to the world that they are worth hundreds of doctors, or thousands of teachers?
To the second, would you be successful if it weren't for those doctors, teachers, garbage men, police officers, mail carriers, etc.?
Mail carriers? garbage men?? I actually do think my success has little to do with them.
People are paid what the market says they are worth, at least in the private sector. There's only one LeBron James and only one Bill Gates. They may stand on the shoulders of giants, but they each provide more value than what it costs us collectively to have them entertain us and create software. That's called consumer surplus. Mass markets produce mass income disparity- the few winners get the fat end of the distribution curve- but we would be far worse off with out that consumer surplus they provide.
Are you saying we should let the poor die off? Sure natural selection could help create "better" human beings. I really do agree. However, I don't agree on your choice of selection pressure. The economic system as it stands also creates a lot of negatives. Pollution and generally screwing people over are some obvious examples. These do not make healthier smarter people. I hate seeing economics compared to evolution, and I'm not sure you understand either.
>To wrap it up, if God (or some other kind of Force) decided to help poor species, we, humans, would never exist. Why don't you just support the idea, that put you into existence?
So do you not have a problem with someone using brute strength to take the property and wealth of someone else?
Are you against people receiving treatments for curable diseases?
Social cooperation & concepts of fairness have also played a huge part in the success of the human species.
I've been just watching this discussion unfold up till now - and I've been impressed at the level of analysis coming from both sides - arguments that are at least in some minor way backed up by numbers.
But your comment is offensive. Dangerously so.
Your view is actually incredibly typical throughout history - its latest incarnation is Social Darwinism, where one mistakenly applies a biological and genetics principle to economics and morality.
Social Darwinism has been the tool with which countless people have been oppressed, abused, and killed. The pro-slavery crowd used that argument - that colored people were genetically inferior, and that if they were meant be to free, they'd already be. This line of thinking was also popular amongst the Eugenics movement in the early 20th century, which had clear and strong ties to the Nazi party (boy this argument just Godwins itself).
With its colorful history, social Darwinism is nowadays inseparable from racism and fascism.
But your claim is even more specious than this lot of despicable people. At least the slavers and the Nazis made arguments that certain races deserved their lot due to "inferior" genetics, but your appeal to Darwin/evolution doesn't even involve the least bit of biology. It's just pure hand-waving by applying one completely unrelated field to another, with zero facts to even attempt to back it up.
Don't forget sexism and homophobia. Not giving women the vote and being mean to gays has been justified on the basis that it's the natural order of things as revealed by God and/or natural selection.
Nick Hanauer cannot be more wrong. Taxing rich people means punishing someone for his success. There is no argument that could justify such Robin Hood's behaviour. In fact that's what was (or is) happening in the communism. So regression at it's finest. I think that someone hasn't had his history homework done. The things is that the root of the problem is somewhere else. If you think about evolution for a second. Weaker species are removed, stronger survive. It leads to creating better and better species. On the other hand, if we helped weaker species to survive as well, then not only this natural filter is effectively stopped, but also ironically, the situation is even worse for the stronger ones. That would inevitably make the whole ecosystem poor.
To wrap it up, if God (or some other kind of Force) decided to help poor species, we, humans, would never exist. Why don't you just support the idea, that put you into existence?