SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Human beings largely object to income inequality and are willing to correct injustice—unless, of course, it rattles their status quo.
That's the conclusion of a recent study looking at how far people would go to redistribute resources between the haves and have nots. Participants fiercely objected to "when winners become losers and losers become winners," researchers note in the paper, published in the latest issue of Nature Human Behaviour.
Researchers initially recruited Indian, American, and Chinese participants take part in an experimental game they called "the redistribution game." The gist of the game was simple: Participants were given a number of scenarios that would redistribute a fixed sum from a richer person to someone poorer. Participants were told the original standing of wealth was assigned randomly.
In the first scenario, participants had to decide if they wanted to transfer two coins from person A (who already had four coins) to person B (who had one). Researchers note the "transfer would reduce inequality," (as there's less of a gap between them), but person B would end up one coin richer than person A, reversing their status.
In the second version of game, participants were asked whether they'd transfer one coin to person B (where person A ended up with three coins and person B with two coins). Researchers ran a third and fourth scenario that allowed participants to transfer coins from person A to B, where the outcome still left person A with significantly more coins.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @05:17AM
The 22% number is substantially disputed. Not in terms of order of magnitude, but in terms of a substantial proportion. If I remember correctly, Piketty came up with that number, along with fellow researchers, but made some rather aggressive assumptions when doing so. Other numbers I've seen are below 20%.
That aside, what you DID say was "the idea that the rich are a relatively insignificant portion for tax purposes just isn't true."
In the context of where to put taxes, it does raise the question of what taxes to demand of whom - and since those were options on the table, guessing at what you are advocating seems reasonable.
But aside from that, your observation by itself isn't that helpful anyhow. It doesn't address questions such as the people who earn nothing (like babies, the indigent, college students living off loans rather than jobs) and it leaves the question of households a little open. It also takes no account whatsoever of living circumstances. If you're in the 1% of household income, and you're in rural Mississippi, you're doing just great! If you're living in Manhattan, you're ... kind of doing OK. There's a massive difference.