I came across an article recently that I wanted to bring here to see what people say. It’s the first time that I’ve seen an article cite an official document categorizing the tax contribution of the different income classes. No surprise, the top 10% in England contribute more than half. Funnily enough, the top 1% contribute nearly a quarter of all tax income! It is suggested (accepting the variability of calculation) that the return on state services is only greater than the tax the citizen pays up to about 70% of the income ladder. The top 30% subsidize the lower 70%. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8417205.stm hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.pdf
A whole argument in itself for those arguing socialism vs capitalism. The UK is introducing a 50% tax rise for those earning +150k the next fiscal year, lasting one year but budgeted for up to four years. Can we then argue that such a system hurts the country due to flight of capital? Is the system bound to collapse? Or is the scenario (where people can earn so much to contribute such a high amount) made possible wholly by socialist measures? So that a cycle is maintained, so long as the state and the private sector are in equilibrium. That’s my conclusion so far. Reasonable? I use socialist not in the American sense, but to differentiate from pure capitalism.
As a slight digression, I’d like to note this part in particular because I was having so much trouble articulating it in my discussions with climate change sceptics:
“But my guess is that a lot of us are tempted by b: to think less about the data than how it can be used for our side of the argument, rather than to set out by asking the open question implied by c: what data would I need to form a proper opinion?”
I try to not worry about the rich…This nation, the US, was set up with property paying the support of the government, and for that it received extra legal protections…The protections for property still remain, but the load of taxation has been laid on labor, so at one stroke, property was made more expensive, and labor was made cheaper, and the cost of the support of the government has led to the flight of wealth into the pockets of the Rich…And you should know some of that, since England has got more wealth invested in America than Japan, and yet we worry about the Japanese control of our economy…I am more inclined to doubt the English…
Although this is a digression from the topic, I think it’s funny how some Americans think the English hold sway in the shaping of American politics. This article nytimes.com/2009/12/14/world … quiry.html refers to the sentiment that America’s determination to go to war trumped of Britain’s wishes and efforts. America probably works its influence much more bluntly than the UK, but I think we can at least conclude that distrust is mutual.
I’m curious about the input regarding the tax structure. This topic has a disproportionate number of views to responses, surely someone must have something to say. It’s the first time I’m seeing figures about the contribution of taxpayers to the government. 1% accounts for 25% of total revenue? Good, bad? Arguments?
As I am an American, I can’t speak for the British tax situation, but guessing from american facts, I would
say the article is biased in a sneaky way. For example, You could say the same thing about Americans but
the rich actually make out like bandits under the taxation process here in america. Because the way, they figure
it they give the first half of the equation, the wealthy tax rate but leave out the fact that the wealthy, at least here in america,
get tax break after tax break after tax break plus they get benefits only the rich get such as the so called death tax and such.
My father in law, before he passed away, used to say, if you make a million dollars a year and you pay taxes you are just being
generous. He was an ex-Irs agent turned CPA for over 35 years. He knew what he was talking about. Recall that over 200 companies
that make over 100 million dollars in profit pay NO taxes of any kind. The rich simply get their mouthpieces the GOP, to cover their
tracks by bribing the hell out of congressmen in the form of campaign contributions and get all their goodies. So the official tax rate says
one thing, but the reality is something completely different.
Arguments of this type are difficult because taxation rates are fuzzy (both in terms of policy and ideology) and are necessarily tied up in values. The first of these values is that a functioning state is a good and necessary thing. Anarchists of varying stripes would disagree with that and thus with taxes in general. After that, it becomes a matter of detailing what the duties of a state are. Defense is a common one that most people agree on – indeed, the job of pre-modern governments was to make war. In that capacity, roads and other aspects of infrastructure are important. As an extension of protection from the outside, you have protection on the inside and you get things like police and firemen (who maintain infrastructure).
After that, it gets murkier. For example, the English discovered that providing a minimum standard of living decreased brigandage more effectively and more cheaply than beefing up the police force. We’re talking back in the 1600s here. Is that a logical extension of the state or is that a perversion of its function?
And then, how do we pay for all of this? To me, it makes sense that those who benefit the most should also pay the most. So you get a basic progressive tax scale like the one being discussed here. The wealthiest subsidize everyone else because in so doing they ensure an environment where both their wealth continues to be generated but also because it continues to have meaning. A palace in Somalia is still in Somalia. I’d rather have a mansion in England. Plus, the entire nature of the capitalist system is that those on the top are parasites feeding off those on the bottom. In terms of manufacture, progressive taxation allows for an efficient redistribution of wealth and, more importantly, it allows for a subsidized service class. Servers don’t produce anything but they sure do make the packaging nice. Things like that make life worth living. That is the problem with more hard-line communist ideologies, they remove any incentive for that nice packaging and what you get is drab sameness.
So where is the right balance? I’d say a lot of that depends on what the industries are and how they are held. For diverse economies, I think both the tax rate and services provided by the government are best exemplified by countries like France and Germany (basically what you described for England, but actually a little flatter (though with the huge spike at the top 10% and 1% it isn’t that noticeable I use them simply because I am more familiar with them) because taxes are higher for everybody). For less diverse economies, I think the Nordic states hit a good ratio (sky-high taxes on everything to ensure a low Gini – otherwise you’d get a bifurcation and, well, start to look like Arab oil states).
That’s one perspective. How do we measure “benefit” here? The major industrialists of the last 100 years have contributed immeasurably to the dramatic rise in quality of life for the lowest and poorest members in society. “Benefit” is a relative term. If one’s standard of living is doubled because of the risk taking and idea generating activities of a few single industrialists (ie: Rockafeller, Gates, etc.) - how do you measure who is receiving the most benefit here? Moreover, why aren’t we comparing the aggregate benefit to the number of individuals to whom an increase in standard of living was achieved relative to the monetary gains achieved from the individual industrialist? Again, I ask, who is benefiting more here?
You mean… in your opinion, yes?
If the reward for success in society is an increased portion of the social burdens imposed by others - whats the incentive?
In Canada, as a chartered accountant with 5-years worth of school debt, my after tax earnings are nearly equivalent to an individual working a blue collar job on an assembly line. Sure I can work hard and grind my way up the wage ladder – but then “progressives” start talking about increasing the “progressive” tax structure so as to reduce substantial portions of any gains to be had by working harder and longer. What’s the point?
But none of that is possible without a pre-existing infrastructure that would allow for them to take advantage of it. There were attempts at capitalist reforms in the Russian, Chinese, and Ottoman empires during the 19th Century because there wasn’t any infrastructure in place for capitalism to take advantage of. Likewise, capitalism’s continued success has been fueled by both maintenance and expansion of infrastructure. In Ameirca look at the GI bill and its ramifications, for example.
That is pretty orthodox socialist theory. So it isn’t my opinion but rather an economic school of thought. You are free to disagree with it and adhere to another school but there is no need to formulate it as an individual opinion.
Because while there is an increased burden, that increase does not completely remove the gains. Additionally, many people work for reasons that go beyond the financial. Not just in terms of internal goods (though those ought matter) but also other external goods like prestige, class expectations, comfort on the job, variety and so on. Indeed, that is a big reason why people move out of factories and into white collar jobs. Satisfaction.
Clearly there is a reason, as you choose to make that particular investment. If there were indeed no point for you, you wouldn’t be in the present situation – now would you? Plus, shouldn’t you be all about paying off that debt you took on as a personal responsibility? I mean, really, that is part of how the game is played. The point is what I discussed above.
All that and what you fear isn’t how progressive taxation normally works. Let’s keep the numbers easy and arbitrary. At 40K, there is a 5% taxation rate. Above that, there is a 10% taxation rate.
So, if you earn 40K/year, you will be taxed 2K. You keep 38K, so 95% of what you made pre-taxes.
Now, you’ve gotten a raise and earn 41K, you will be taxed at 5% for the first 40K (so 2K) and 10% for the remaining 1K, so 0.1K. You keep 38.9K, so 94.9% of what you made pre-taxes. Are you seriously arguing that because your total tax rate differs by a tenth of a percent the raise wasn’t worth it?
And it goes on from there. Now, as you fill out a bracket, you asymptotically approach that bracket’s taxation rate. At 41K, you’ve got a 5.1% rate. At 80K, you’ve got a 7.5% rate. At 840K, you’d have a 9.8% rate and so on. But normally that doesn’t happen because another bracket begins anyway.
I’m unfamiliar with Canadian taxation policy in specific, but that is how progressive taxes work in every country I’m familiar with.
Thats not exactly true. It was their job to end wars more so than promote them. Or, I should say, try to end them. At least in tribes, hunter gatherer groups, etc etc. War is near perpetual and people don’t generally love it, non-warrior chiefs have greater political and practical powers. They try and create peace but they generally fail, never the less when the attempts are genuine they’re loved for it.
Their jobs were to protect most times this means unavailable wars, but the people with the most governmental powers tried to avoid war in many circumstances, sometimes succeeding. My point is in almost all societies warriors never reach (well sometimes) the highest level of government, and people like peace seeking leaders even if those leaders are brutal and warrior like when needed.
People everywhere prefer intelligent political leaders that try and avoid unnecessary wars even when they fail, IF they can weather the battles. I’m not talking about cowards or people incapable of violence, just those that try and avoid it.
(minus the thousands of examples where people everywhere give up being political, like Geronimo)
That’s a rather vague statement. What was the pre-existing infrastructure that preceded America? Further, what exactly are you referring to as “the pre-existing infrastructure”? Finally - what are the capitalists “taking advantage” of here?
This is simply one opinion among many. Authoritarian governments seeking to introduce “capitalist reforms” is a perversion of what capitalism really is: a political necessity derived from the philosophy of liberty. Personally, any theory that seeks to trivialize the complete lack of individual liberty as the organizing social philosophy to explain “failed” attempts at capitalism critically lack an even fundamental understanding of what capitalism is.
I’m not familiar with the bill. Can you clarify?
Agreed. I apologize for the tone. I reacted rashly to the structure of your statement as if it were a matter of “fact” … as opposed to the highly opiniated, interpretive matter that it is.
At present, no. However, in Britain in the 1950’s, 60’s - it most certainly did. Many European countries imposed crushing taxes through a “progressive” tax scheme that sought to finance reconstruction and fuel the emerging “social welfare” paradigm. The end result was a mass exodus of the professional talent in Britain and a stagnat economy that remained that way for years until the government’s came to their senses and reduced the tax burdens.
However, if we’re going to debate the underlying principles of a progressive tax scheme, the percentage increase is irrelevent. How you justify it within the context of individual rights - or more precisely - how you rationalize segregating and subjugating the rights of one segment of a population - is where the debate should exist. To suggest that one individual must be forced to pay their productive effort into a system according to a very subjuctive measuring stick – level of financial compensation – is discriminatory at best, unconstitutional at worst. Whether the victims willingly sanction the violation of their rights or not is irrelevent.
You’re attempting to categorize financial reward as it’s own “value” - one among many. I disagree. Financial reward is simply the physical representation of individual effort - the medium of exchange that facilitates the pursuit of real individual values. It is not a “value” in and of itself - simply a means to some real value. Prestige, comfort, variety, etc. - are all possible values that are realized by individuals - each according to his own unique characteristics and aspirations.
Progressive tax schemes, in principle, directly increases the ability of some individuals to pursue their happiness at the expense of other individuals. How you rationalize what makes some people happy - or why some people choose some careers over others is irrelevent when you boil it down to individual rights.
Worth what? To whom? You’re attempting to get me to acknowledge that the degree by which you would violate my individual rights is somehow the measure of its acceptibility. It is not. The ends do not justify the means. Not unless you believe that individual rights do not exist.
Again, you’re arguing in degree, and not in principle. A large component of my qualification requirements involved tax - and implementating various forms of progressive tax structures at the various levels of government. I’ve volunteered my time to low income earners and had the opportunity to see the effects on high income earners. The US is no different in Canada in form - only in degree. However, neither countries can justify such a scheme from a principled position that supports individual rights.
England - most certainly. A constitutional monarchy. A society that attempted to reconcile the emerging acknowledgement of the importance of liberty as a philosophical statement of life – with the antiquated and repressive notions of authoritarianism.
The founding fathers of the US borrowed heavily from the philosophy of liberty - as hashed out by a number of great English thinkers such as Locke. The pre-existing infrastructure was one of liberty. “Capitalists” took advantage of their freedom - nothing more.
I don’t even know what we’re discussing here. I just answered a question I saw at a glance.
Is this about how rich people complain about taxes taking away from what they made “for themselves”? People like that are deluded if they think they exist in a vacuum. They couldn’t have made the money they made without the roads, etc. that allowed them to make the money “for themselves”. Without a government and taxes, would they have gotten together to voluntarily create a system of sharing wealth and resources so as to create infrastructure to support business, etc.? But that is government. Coordination is coordination, no matter what you call it. And there is no success without coordination.
Anon hit this one on the head. You’ve got the mercantilist relationship between America and Britain. Couple that with a high literacy rate (education is infrastructure), an urbanized north for manufacturing supported by an agricultural south (built on slavery) and what do you expect? And even with all that America remained at the periphery of the world stage until the tail end of the long 19th Century.
That’s funny. In terms of economic growth China is outdoing the capitalists. So is capitalism in fact alien to the notion of capital? Seems a strange way of viewing the world to me!
And how does this thesis apply to America, where there was slavery? Hardly something in keeping with a philosophy of liberty. Or Britain with its nobles and their privileged position. Heck, capitalism grew very slowly in France where there was a good narrative of liberty as compared to Britain with its more limited notion. Indeed, France grew more slowly than Imperial Germany and the Prussian concept of liberty is not one held in high regard. Your thesis here would seem to demand that all of Europe necessarily followed a sonderweg. If that is the case, why did Britain and France end up so similar while Germany was so different? The explanatory power of this idea seems weak to me.
The GI bill payed heavily subsidized college education for soldiers returning from WWII. That meant during the '50s and '60s, there was an inordinately high number of Americans with Bachelor’s degrees. This relatively high level of education allowed America the flexibility to change the focus of its workforce. And just in time! It is both a historical fact as well as common sense that the countries with the most recent manufacturing infrastructure are also the best at manufacture. This is because of progress in both technology and organization. But the cost of upgrading is always not quite worth it because the more established countries are still, well, established and can live off that largess until it is too late. In the post-war environment, that means those areas devastated by the conflict got the best new shiny means of production. Not without a benefactor, of course. But instead of self-interested nobles adjusting to a post-agricultural/land-based economy you had a self-interested America that understood the consequences of Versailles and the causes of WWII in terms of Strain Theory which was en vogue at the time. You can contrast the results with the Soviets who were more interested in reparations and creating a buffer zone in case of another invasion, if you want.
Eh, don’t worry about it! That is the nature of discussions like these where a firm right answer has yet to be established. In such cases there is a fine line between holding a firm view and identifying with that view so strongly that one is unwilling to abandon said view because they’ve allowed their ideology the blind themselves. It is perfectly fair that you’d put out feelers to ensure I wasn’t a fanatic like that.
I’d point to what I wrote earlier about the environment in post-war Europe and I’ll allow you to meditate on that. Is social welfare to blame? Or are there other elements that make more sense within the broader historical narrative?
And here we disagree. I think that such ideological absolutes are the realm of the fundamentalist and the fanatic. As a pragmatist, I don’t feel that thinking in such a manner benefits anybody. But I also understand history as a material process whereas you’ve been espousing a more idealistic line.
Right now, I’m not sure which the level we are disagreeing on more (though it is almost certainly both). So allow me to ask you a question:
Theoretically, would you abandon your view if what you were espousing were shown to be less efficient in terms of
A) Economic growth
B) Efficiency (per capita GDP divided by average work week)
C) Absolute economic standing (nominal or adjusted for PPP)
D) Sentiments of the population (either imposed based on standard of living and successful society scales or surveys of the feelings of the local population)
F) Human Development Index
And for each, irrespective of answer, why?
The rest hinges upon determining where we disagree more. I suspect it will be along the ideologue/pragmatist line and we may simply have to agree to disagree.
coughcough
A pragmatist is not in the least concerned with what benefits others; or do you so quickly forget who the father of that particular neocortical art actually is?
Let me know if you’ve forgotten, I’m certain I can find my copy of “Dei discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio” …
Precisely. I see the development of a strong mercantile system as indicative of a population that has embraced–or begun to embrace–a philosophy of liberty whereby individuals are responsible for individuals. The King, the state, etc. are removed from a position of central authority over time.
As you pointed out - the strong mercantile system was sorely lacking in Russia and other such nations in the 19th century.
It depends entirely on your notion of values and how you view human life. Communist Russia from the end of WW2 through the 80’s centrally planned their society and achieved a level of economic growth and production that outstripped almost every other nation on the planet. There is some debate about exactly how many million people either died by death squad or will culled by hunger and energy shortages… but if your goal is simply to achieve a specific goal with no regard for individual rights then I agree with you, capitalism certainly will not be the most efficient system - too many individuals who would object - strongly - to a central message that violates their right to life.
More to your point above: to which “capitalists” are you referring? America is less “capitalist” and more statist (mixed economic) than ever - and has been moving that way in leaps and bounds since the start of the 20th century. So yes - China is outdoing the other less centrally planned economies - because (in my opinion) those economies are burdened with a pesky notion of individual rights. American politicians see the solution to the economic plight as one that requires much more central planning - imposing “their” view of what is right - with no regard for the impact that may have on other individuals… just so long as their objective is achieved relative to some imaginary level of “acceptability” (the pragmatist approach…).
It’s certainly a fair observation. Many historical accounts of the major thinkers and contributors to the Constitution indicate that slavery was abhored and attempts were made to abolish it. However, influencial and bigoted individuals would not endorse the movement without exceptions made to allow slavery. We can debate their memoirs and journals… interpret them within the context of their essays… but I don’t feel it’s necessary. I agree that it was a failing of the initial Constitution from our perspective – but if we’re going to hold all historical events and thinkers to our measure of equality today, then we’ll have to throw out almost everything as being tainted by mysoginism in some form or another.
As we’ve discussed above - if pure, short term economic development is your only measure of what constitutes an appropriate economic (and by extension, political) model - then you can’t beat communism. Centralize enough power, gather your weapons and force people to work according to the whims and “ideas” of a few. It’s interesting that you highlighted “slavery”…
If however, you acknowledge individual rights, and believe that economic production is only valuable insofar as individuals are free to generate and participate, then a simple metric based on short term economic output falls short. As you correctly observed, America remained on the periphery until the 19th century until the seeds laid 100 years prior began to bear fruit. The difference that you appear to ignore is that Americans achieved this level of growth and development without central authority dictating how they should do it. The result? The largest sustained period of wealth creation and innovation the world has ever seen.
I hadn’t come across this particular fact before. I’m interested in reading a little more on it. Essentially, you’re arguing that it was only through fortuitous government central planning that made the American economic boom after WW2 possible?
I appreciate and echo the same sentiment. However, dismissing an argument as “fanatic” or “extreme” could, in many instances, be construed as an attempt at strawman reasoning. That too, is a fine line.
Firstly - apologies for the excessive quoting here - I couldn’t reasonably quote your response without the original paragraph.
Agan, it appears you’re suggesting that the ends justify the means. That the needs of the society - the mob - somehow provide the justification to violate the rights of the individual. If I’ve overlooked or misunderstood a previous point you may have made here, I apologize and ask that you reiterate it.
Yes - we certainly disagree. As a pragmatist, there are no guiding principle (what you’ve decided to villify as my ideology) around which the scope of possible actions are determined. Rather, whatever “need” a particular pragmatist decides - from moment to moment - is to be their objective – the means to achieve that objective are irrelevent so long as it is achieved. You villify me as fundamentalist and declare that “thinking in such a manner [does not] benefit anybody”. But really, what makes me a fundamentalist? My belief that no one human being can use other human beings as a means to their own ends? That all action to achieve an objective is possible so long as no individual rights are violated? Are these the notions you would villify? Pragmatists gear their economies towards a very few specific objectives that they “feel” are the best measures of what constitutes “happiness” or “quality of life”. What they overlook is the inherent arrogance at thinking themselves able to dictate what are acceptable values to other individuals.
When it comes to the value of an individual human life - and the implementation of that life through the recognition of liberty as the guiding philosophy - I am most certainly fundamentalist. As such, I can not ever sanction the violation of the rights of one group of individuals to the benefit of some other group of individuals.
The answer to all is “no”. You and I have both made reference to the observed fact that, if your specific metrics above were the only basis for determining the efficacy of a particular socio-economic system - incarnations of communism over the last 60 years would win hands down. Againn, this is where you as a pragmatist, and I as an advocate for liberty, differ greatly. Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding your philosophy - but it appears that you feel it justifiable to violate a single individual’s rights if it meant you could improve the results of your specific metrics (ie: the above). I fundamentally disagree with any philosophy that endorses such a condition.
When it comes to pre-meditated murder - I suspect we’re both “ideologues”. Is there room for compromise on this idea? Is it ever acceptable to plan and murder another innocent human being? Labelling me “ideologue” or “fundamentalist” is an attempt to subvert the discussion by avoiding a debate of the principles, and instead, debating your strawmen.
So, you are a religious fundamentalist. Go for it. But my dear Dairdo, we have nothing else to discuss because you are in fact, completely insane. Cling to your ideologies, they area all fine. But they prevent anything resembling rational discourse or at the very least philosophical engagement.
Enjoy your life. Granted, it doesn’t sound like you are but I hope you do!
Strawmen can be artistic - but in the end, they’re empty. As an atheist for most of my life - I find your lack of insight and ability to jump to decidedly false conclusions amusing.
Yes, I can see how requesting that you justify the subordination of one individuals rights to the will of another as defined by a progressive tax structure, according to some consistent philosophical principle can be construed as “insane”.
As mentioned - if value for every human life is considered my “ideology” than I suppose I’m guilty as charged. If you choose to engage me without providing any sort of philosophical justification for your arguments - then sadly sir, the lack of ability to engage in rational discourse is yours, not mine.
I live on a beach in the Cayman Islands and am currently enjoying the exploration of a personal philosophy that resonates best with my values. I can only wish you the same.
Should you wish to actually address the number of issues I’ve raised with your “pragmatist” philosophical position - and re-engage in rational discourse - I’ll still be here, waiting politely. Cheers.
Eh, cheers buddy! I, for one, think rhetoric in the unappreciated middle child of Western thought. As a middle child myself, I can’t help but represent.
See, I don’t believe in the existence of the individual self. That may be important for this discussion, especially considering how we consider liberty! After all, liberty deals with the conceptions of individual and self.
As per our differing conceptions of economic theory, the line between “insane” and “an orthodoxy I disagree with” is thin indeed.
That said, you are insane and heretical and as such ought be burnt at the stake!
Here we can start to actually engage each other beyond my favorite middle child. Let’s not tap-dance. Let us dance with Isaiah Berlin and freedom to vs. freedom from. We both see ourselves as noble defenders of each human life, after all (assuming we take each other in good faith – and to admit my own conceit I don’t think anyone is actually a capitalist in the same way I don’t actually think anyone is a theist. Yet, I recognize both exist. My perception is clearly skewed).
For example, I imagine we both want to see each human potential fully realized, we’re neither of us nihilists or pessimists. I value social mobility. Classes ought be fluid so that everyone can best fulfill the niche best suited for them. Libertarians, following Nozick (the camp I imagine you belong to, though if I am wrong please correct me) value the excitement provided by the random whiles of fate.
Idealism vs. pragmatism again. But not just that, values as represented by gini.
Cheers! Then why are you complaining about your debt and such? Aren’t such concerns rather petty? Especially considering the tax haven you live in?
Not to be too parochial, though Confucians are notoriously narrow in their focus, but given your location why do you care? As a patriot bound to America by both national narratives as well as familial concerns, I’m rather bound to a country embracing a system I consider not merely flawed but so ass-backwards as to be morally corrupt.
I have to “bite the bullet” and accept that the juice is worth the squeeze not because the fruit is sweet but because there are vitamins in the pulp I need to live.
If you are indeed on the Caymen Islands, why do you care?
I hope that clarifies my position some. Though I don’t consider this discussion rational. We’re both talking about values, which (as a sentimentalist) precede rational discourse.
Ah - then our disagreement is a metaphysical one… I think. At least I understsand where you’re coming from now. To be honest, I’m not sure how to approach rational discourse when the foundations of what we each consider our ability to reason is directed by a set of philosophical principles that directly contradict…
Honesty is the best policy!
Most assuredly. It just seems to be the “how” that we disagree.
I believe in freedom from interference - such than even the “elite” industrialists can be dethroned by the lowliest individual with a great idea. Remove the upper class’ historical ability to use government to shield them by rationally limiting the scope of government - and the classes become fluid.
With respect to “camps” - I was ripped away from my cozy left-wing sense of humanitarian superiority by Rand (who for very specific reasons, despised “libertarians”). Much of the Objectivist philosophy resonates with me - though I am by no means expert, and would never blindly cling to one philosophy over the next. I value principled discussion rooted in a consistent philosophy. For instance - I see a major contradiction between political and economic rights - the former being negative rights, the latter being positive material rights.
All of that said - I’m a voracious reader (I have a beach to read on! ) and will never stop gathering as much perspective as I can get my hands on. Which, incidentally, is also why I joined this forum.
What is “gini” ?
You’re falling victim to a huge media misconception. The Cayman Islands might have been a haven for drug and criminal money 20 years ago - but today - at least to the vast majority of us - it simply isn’t the case. There are no income taxes to speak of (direct tax) - rather, our salaries are all reduced by the hefty fees our employers must pay annually for the right to employ us. Moreover, all goods have 20-100% duties over and above the USD prices you see on the mainland.
So - I dont think concern for my debt is petty - just a reality check.
I relish a good debate and the opportunity to learn - to gather new and challenging perspectives. I couldn’t stop reading and seeking these opportunities any more than I could stop breathing… and that coming from an apnea diver! I don’t think I’ll ever reach a point in my life where the desire to engage others on all matters of intellectual discourse will dissipate. There is just too much to learn - too much to see - and insofar as experiences go - learning is one of the greatest.
We disagree here. I think reason creates values. You value fresh water because it is rational to do so - not the other way around. We value what we as individuals reason to be valuable insofar as they are uniquely life affirming to each of us as individuals. If you wander over to the “What is Happiness” thread in the other forum, you’ll see that defining happiness is next to impossible. Only the individual can make that determination - and that determination stems from those experiences that we reason are commonly and uniquely necessary to live our lives. (My opinion of course)
The graph shows that while the Gini is technically equal to the area marked ‘A’ divided by the sum of the areas marked ‘A’ and ‘B’ (that is, Gini = A/(A+B)), it is also equal to 2*A, since A+B = 0.5 since the axes scale from 0 to 1, and the total surface of the graph therefore equals 1.The Gini coefficient is usually defined mathematically based on the Lorenz curve (below). It can be thought of as the ratio of the area that lies between the line of equality and the Lorenz curve (marked ‘A’ in the diagram) over the total area under the line of equality (marked ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the diagram); i.e., G=A/(A+B).
The Gini coefficient can range from 0 to 1; it is sometimes multiplied by 100 to range between 0 and 100. A low Gini coefficient indicates a more equal distribution, with 0 corresponding to complete equality, while higher Gini coefficients indicate more unequal distribution, with 1 corresponding to complete inequality. To be validly computed, no negative goods can be distributed. Thus, if the Gini coefficient is being used to describe household income inequality, then no household can have a negative income. When used as a measure of income inequality, the most unequal society will be one in which a single person receives 100% of the total income and the remaining people receive none (G=1); and the most equal society will be one in which every person receives the same percentage of the total income (G=0).
Some find it more intuitive (and it is mathematically equivalent) to think of the Gini coefficient as half of the Relative mean difference. The mean difference is the average absolute difference between two items selected randomly from a population, and the relative mean difference is the mean difference divided by the average, to normalize for scale. Worldwide, Gini coefficients for income range from approximately 0.247 (24.7) in Denmark to 0.707 (70.7) in Namibia although not every country has been assessed.
As a mathematical measure of inequality, the Gini coefficient does not necessarily entail any value judgement, i.e. the “rightness” or “wrongness” of a particular level of equality.
K:If you look elsewhere in wiki, you will find a list of countries in which they are listed by their Gini and the more “socialist” countries
are rated much higher than the so called capitalist countries, which means their equality is greater than capitalist countries.
If you backtrack and look at their standings in regards to such things as GDP, these countries rank higher. For example, the paragraph
above mentions Denmark, now Denmark has a lower gini and has one of the higher GDP in the world. One can make the argument
that by having a lower gini or more equality in income distribution, you can improve your GDP. This is very important to understand.
Wealth may be a creation of having a society that has a very small class at the top and at the bottom and the vast majority of people
right in the middle in income. this correlation between a low gini and a higher GDP means that types such as Rand are wrong
about the creation of wealth and its effects on society.
