Inequality

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24494
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Inequality

Post by Jennifer » 24 Jul 2019, 17:31

JasonL wrote:
24 Jul 2019, 06:42
Jadagul wrote:
JasonL wrote:
23 Jul 2019, 21:58
Jadagul wrote:
23 Jul 2019, 18:34
This is actually starting to sound like one of the recurring topics of discussion among my tumblr friends. But the difference isn't really between "having friends" and "not having friends"; it's about a certain type of deep community.

A lot of people argue for the benefits of a community that you, effectively, can't escape. Your family is your family. Your neighbors are your neighbors. You're enmeshed in this deep community, and you can't leave and neither can you be kicked out. You know that your friends and neighbors now will still be your friends and neighbors in twenty years. You have a connection not just to people, but to an enduring community. This creates a lot of deep ties but also a lot of restraint and being-trapped.

I'm way on the other end. I have tons of friends. But they're all individual people I have individual ties to; I don't tend to have ties to "a community" as a whole. Other people are less radical about that, but like to have ties to communities they have chosen.

This creates a lot more freedom. You can find the sort of community that you like and that supports you. But it's also scarier, because you're not guaranteed a friend group or a community at all. And so people who aren't good at making connections, and want more connections than they can maintain; or people who want the security of knowing they will _always_ have a community regardless of what they do can find this alienating and frustrating.
The peculiar nature of the left / right split on community has always fascinated me. Like, the explicit goal of many scandinavian social programs is to liberate you from the chains of family or church community you didn't choose by making you a participant/dependent on a government you didn't choose either. Like local bonds bad / national bonds good or something but then you see something like this guy who comes from the left looking to restore dignity to local social conventions it is in other arenas his explicit goal to undermine. It's bizarre and I don't really get it.
We've had this conversation before, but they see two differences. One is that the government benefits are ideally as unconditional as possible, so you don't have to please any particular person to get them. (This is always an ideal, but from what I can tell Scandinavia gets reasonably close.)

Second is that there's a distinction between being socially enmeshed and only being financially enmeshed. The idea is to have some guarantee of your physical needs met so that you aren't beholding to a social group to get them met.
These distinctions are naive.
No, I can definitely see the distinction. Like, for a parent who cannot afford private tutors or private school tuition for their kids (which I'd guess is the majority of parents today), surely enrolling them in public school is more dignified than, like, trying to appeal to your rich in-law's sense of generosity or whatever. And, while I fortunately have never had the experience of needing vital medication I can't afford, I imagine going to your local NHS hospital for an appointment feels more dignified than starting a GoFundMe for your medical bills and hoping the appeal goes viral.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24372
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 24 Jul 2019, 18:12

You still have a rich uncle. You just pretend you don’t.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24494
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Inequality

Post by Jennifer » 24 Jul 2019, 18:16

Huh? Is that supposed to be a reference to Uncle Sam or something?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24372
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 24 Jul 2019, 19:30

The people who actually fund those programs.

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7720
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Inequality

Post by Shem » 24 Jul 2019, 21:12

JasonL wrote:
24 Jul 2019, 18:12
You still have a rich uncle. You just pretend you don’t.
Or, you have someone who wants you back to work and paying taxes ASAP. Or who wants to make sure that they have the resource available when they need it, so they crawl into the risk pool with you. You're talking as if this is some objective fact, rather than being completely derived by culture and framing.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24372
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 24 Jul 2019, 22:32

If you drill down it is objective. Someone is generating the money that is distributed. That wasn’t exactly the angle I was taking with the naive comment tho. The idea that “enmeshed culturally” and “needs-independent” are separable is naive.

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 12576
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Inequality

Post by Ellie » 26 Aug 2019, 08:24

People (more than I realized) really do seem to think billionaires are people with a billion dollars in their checking account. Or a pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck.

"2019 has got to stop injecting dmt straight in the dick hole." - dhex

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4179
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Inequality

Post by Painboy » 26 Aug 2019, 12:50

Ellie wrote:
26 Aug 2019, 08:24
People (more than I realized) really do seem to think billionaires are people with a billion dollars in their checking account. Or a pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck.

Yeah there doesn't seem to be any understanding that their wealth is wrapped up in company stocks and the like. The ones that provide employment.

User avatar
JD
Posts: 11164
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Inequality

Post by JD » 26 Aug 2019, 13:06

Also the ridiculous idea that it's a relative few billionaires whose existence poses "a danger to the entire freaking human existence", rather than the billions of other people on the planet.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27339
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Inequality

Post by Warren » 26 Aug 2019, 13:07

Painboy wrote:
26 Aug 2019, 12:50
Ellie wrote:
26 Aug 2019, 08:24
People (more than I realized) really do seem to think billionaires are people with a billion dollars in their checking account. Or a pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck.

Yeah there doesn't seem to be any understanding that their wealth is wrapped up in company stocks and the like. The ones that provide employment.
I think that when you say "their unhealthy lifestyle that's actually a danger to the entire freaking human existence", you're not really interested in understanding economics. It's just another kind of bigotry.
It's dumb out there kids, keep your heads down. - JasonL

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24372
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 09 Oct 2019, 10:57

Oh look here's a study from Saez (of Picketty and Saez Capital in the 20th Century fame) purporting to show that billionaires pay a lower tax rate than everyone else. It methodologically differs from each of 3 existing studies showing the opposite by way of definitions and the mysterious choice to argue the EITC doesn't count as a tax program affecting your real tax rate. Guess what the headlines all say though? Ugh.

http://www.davidsplinter.com/Splinter-T ... essive.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... last-year/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... lionaires/

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24840
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Inequality

Post by Mo » 10 Oct 2019, 10:34

“Based on IRS net misreporting rates for this reported income level (Johnston, 2008), the AS approach adds about $4 thousand of underreported income—increasing total income to $24 thousand and decreasing the tax rate from 25% to 21%.“

That seems like a big assumption based on the fact that the IRS admittedly goes after misrepresentation in taxable earnings of low income people than high income people because the fights are easier. This will skew up misrepresentation at the low end and skew down at the high end.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24372
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 10 Oct 2019, 11:28

He’s hanging his hat on that specified study of underreported income. I haven’t looked at that part. The exclusion of EITC is a joke by Saez tho.

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7720
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Inequality

Post by Shem » 10 Oct 2019, 11:58

JasonL wrote:
10 Oct 2019, 11:28
The exclusion of EITC is a joke by Saez tho.
Should he also have included food stamps? Offset for social security payments?
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24372
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 10 Oct 2019, 12:18

This is the only study of significance that has ever made the determination that the Earned Income Tax Credit is not relevant to taxes paid. It’s dumb on its face and it was excluded specifically to generate a result.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13820
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Inequality

Post by Eric the .5b » 10 Oct 2019, 16:19

Mo wrote:
10 Oct 2019, 10:34
That seems like a big assumption based on the fact that the IRS admittedly goes after misrepresentation in taxable earnings of low income people than high income people because the fights are easier. This will skew up misrepresentation at the low end and skew down at the high end.
Weirdly, I was just reading claims that that was also a thing in the UK, last night. (Could be universal.)
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24840
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Inequality

Post by Mo » 10 Oct 2019, 16:24

It's not a claim, the IRS commissioner flat out admitted it in a letter to Congress.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13820
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Inequality

Post by Eric the .5b » 10 Oct 2019, 20:18

Mo wrote:
10 Oct 2019, 16:24
It's not a claim, the IRS commissioner flat out admitted it in a letter to Congress.
The "claims" I mentioned were for UK tax authorities.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests