SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A new study (abstract and free PDF available) authored by several economists at the IMF (International Monetary Fund) reveal an inverse relation between increases in inequality and GDP growth. In what could also be considered a heavy blow to trickle-down economic theory, data analyses show (page 7) that increases of income share on the fifth quintile actually hurt growth, while increases in any other quintile favours growth with the lowest quintile showing the strongest push.
From the abstract:
We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down. This suggests that policies need to be country specific but should focus on raising the income share of the poor, and ensuring there is no hollowing out of the middle class.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday June 19 2015, @05:21PM
It is immoral because the state has no right to take it. The money has already been taxed as income, be it from capital gains or employment or otherwise. It is particularly immoral to take over half of anyone's wealth, alive or dead.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2015, @05:44PM
I get taxed when I make money and when I spend that same money. Why should I find it immoral if a parent got taxed when they gained control of a pile of money and then their children get taxed with the pile passes to their control? Especially since both parties will expect the government to protect the smooth transfer of said pile of money?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @03:31PM
Why should I find it immoral if a parent got taxed when they gained control of a pile of money and then their children get taxed with the pile passes to their control?
The grandparent post explained why. Because that wealth is already being taxed. Multiple levels of taxation on the same lawful activity are reasonably considered wrong. The "smooth transfer of said pile of money" is already paid for. And with estate taxes, we actually interfere with that transfer of wealth and make it less smooth.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2015, @07:38PM
I consider it particularly immoral for someone to suck their thumb and whine about not getting their daddy's money when their sole accomplishment to earn that money is the thumb sucking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2015, @11:11PM
Not really related to you, but I find it hilarious that the kind of people who say taxation is immoral or theft often claim that the government should own womens' bodies if they have a certain parasitic infection.
(Score: 2) by monster on Monday June 22 2015, @10:08AM
The state has also provided a framework in which the owner gets support to keep the riches and not be deprived of them by someone stronger. That also has a cost.
Also, could you explain a bit why is it inmoral to take something from the dead? They are not needing it anymore and I don't know of any place where the dead can keep the property of anything.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Monday June 22 2015, @04:59PM
The immorality of confiscation on death should be self-evident. The disregard of the right of inheritance denies nearly a thousand years of law, and for what? To keep the kleptocratic government running?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by monster on Tuesday June 23 2015, @06:23AM
The dead can't benefit from their possessions any longer, so no, it's not self-evident why taking a share of their former possessions is inmoral. As for all the years of law, as I have already said, it used to be that only the older son would inherit and the others would receive nothing. Laws can be changed as customs and social conventions also change.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:37PM
So what gives the State the right to take any of it? Even with your scenario, the rich will continue to use legal loopholes to pass on things, and the middle class will get the confiscation penalty. How progressive.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by monster on Tuesday June 23 2015, @04:51PM
Since it's society as a whole who decides what is the proper distribution of inheritance, it's also society as a whole who can stablish rules which reserve a share for the common good. Apart from natural rights, the other rights you have are given by society, so it has all the right to stablish taxes. And private property is not a natural right, it depends on the common agreement of your society, so why should the State support your property rights over other people's properties for nothing?
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday June 23 2015, @07:20PM
Rights are not given by society or any government, and so cannot be lawfully taken by them without extreme circumstances. In England, Lords were only stripped of titles and lands after treason, not because the Crown wanted more money. Putting the greed of the public, or of the Crown, ahead of the right of private property is madness. We have seen where your ideology leads to, which is authoritarianism. In any case, come, take.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by monster on Wednesday June 24 2015, @06:58AM
Your opinion has been thoroughly refuted many years ago.
Social contract theories [wikipedia.org].
An example of a philosophical analysis of the nature of the State: "The Leviathan [wikipedia.org]" of Thomas Hobbes.
Another one, "The Social Contract [wikipedia.org]" of Rousseau.
All that, and many more, before taking into account the C-word you fear so much, or its phylosophical grounds. Which, by the way, I don't support, but I guess that because I dispute your assumptions I'm inmediatly labelled a communist. That's the level of this debate...
Also, in England lands, titles and privileges were routinely given and taken back by the king on a whim, usually just using dubious charges and a partial court (The Privy Council) if needed unless the affected ones were military capable of fighting the king, so your argument has less weight than you think. And that's before realizing that Common Law is just one of several possible law frameworks, like Roman Law, and not Gospel.