Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bar Stool Economics

doc.cat-v.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#21

Post by mhd »

notahacker wrote: post #15
cies wrote: post #12

Kamerschen really likes to oversimplify things here. The violent mass of poorer guys beating up their richer drinking buddy who used to pay half the drinking bill. I had to laugh, though i dont think it's realistic. The only real point he makes is that taxing the rich too much will drive them abroad. As far as i know there is no proof for this. I feel another problem is more important than scaring out the rich by hig…

The rich might not use public schools and hospitals, but they benefit vastly more than the poor from other services that governments provide, such as economic stability, protection of property rights, infrastructure giving them better access to markets etc.

There are lots of countries where public schools are basically the only way, and don't imply a second rate education. And if the company that made you rich employs a high rate of white collar workers, you benefit from their high level of training. (Depending on your country, this also applies to highly trained blue color workers)

But yes, with all these benefits, I'm really amazed when I hear people talk as if the whole tax system is basically fraud (as opposed to taxes just being too high). Unless they're very idealistic libertarians, of course. Or live in New Jersey.

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#22

Post by cies »

notahacker wrote: post #15
cies wrote: post #12

Kamerschen really likes to oversimplify things here. The violent mass of poorer guys beating up their richer drinking buddy who used to pay half the drinking bill. I had to laugh, though i dont think it's realistic. The only real point he makes is that taxing the rich too much will drive them abroad. As far as i know there is no proof for this. I feel another problem is more important than scaring out the rich by hig…

The rich might not use public schools and hospitals, but they benefit vastly more than the poor from other services that governments provide, such as economic stability, protection of property rights, infrastructure giving them better access to markets etc.

What you say is hard to measure.

I think the benefit of "fairness" that results from having everyone go though the same schools and hospitals is far greater then any of the benefits you mention.

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#23

Post by cies »

mhd wrote: post #21
notahacker wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rich might not use public schools and hospitals, but they benefit vastly more than the poor from other services that governments provide, such as economic stability, protection of property rights, infrastructure giving them better access to markets etc.

There are lots of countries where public schools are basically the only way, and don't imply a second rate education. And if the company that made you rich employs a high rate of white collar workers, you benefit from their high level of training. (Depending on your country, this also applies to highly trained blue color workers) But yes, with all these benefits, I'm really amazed when I hear people talk as if the wh…

> There are lots of countries where public schools are basically the only way, and don't imply a second rate education.

Yups, the Netherlands is luckily still one of those. :)

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#24

Post by brc »

fab13n wrote: post #2

> they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. That's the limiting factor indeed. However, even if taxation is much lower in Bolivia or Burma or Afghanistan, I doubt they'd be happier there even with 0% taxation. Happiness and disposable income are positively correlated, but not proportional, especially for higher incomes. Moreover, many fortunes built in America are dependent on US…

While I'm not here to defend the article there are plenty of low taxation countries with a very high standard of living. There's a reason why a lot of sports stars move to places like Monaco. And that's not the only example - there are plenty of places accommodating to rich individuals.

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#25

Post by fab13n »

brc wrote: post #24
fab13n wrote: post #2

> they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. That's the limiting factor indeed. However, even if taxation is much lower in Bolivia or Burma or Afghanistan, I doubt they'd be happier there even with 0% taxation. Happiness and disposable income are positively correlated, but not proportional, especially for higher incomes. Moreover, many fortunes built in America are dependent on US…

While I'm not here to defend the article there are plenty of low taxation countries with a very high standard of living. There's a reason why a lot of sports stars move to places like Monaco. And that's not the only example - there are plenty of places accommodating to rich individuals.

Monaco is a nice place to spend your wealth, but it's a poor place to produce wealth. No real estate (not at a realistic price anyway), no skilled workforce except in fiscal optimization (although they might call themselves bankers), no natural resources.

Wealth-producing countries tolerate Monaco because it's too tiny for its parasitism to produce big effects. De Gaulle threatened to close Monaco off with a blocus, unless it stopped welcoming French taxpayers. Needless to say, the prince complied immediately.

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#26

Post by randallsquared »

msy wrote: post #17
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #16

Instead of throwing rocks at rich folks or regurgitating what some professor told us in college, let's change the experiment such that perhaps we can look at it from a fresh perspective. Let's say that everybody at the bar is happy. The rich guy has what he wants, and the poor guy has what he wants. They all have a good time. Let's even assume that after the new rules the rich guy decides not to move and comes back t…

Your idea of a fresh perspective is build a straw man to imply that the poor are all lazy?

imply that the poor are all lazy

Speaking of straw men...

The words I'd use for what you call lazy include "rational" and "goal-oriented".

Of course, human nature seems to be such that people eventually stop being satisfied with what they have, so I don't think DanielBMarkham's argument is a great one: if the poor feel getting ahead is hopeless, they'll be unhappy, but if they don't feel it's hopeless, they'll (eventually) be dissatisfied with what they have.

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#27

Post by yummyfajitas »

cies wrote: post #12

Kamerschen really likes to oversimplify things here. The violent mass of poorer guys beating up their richer drinking buddy who used to pay half the drinking bill. I had to laugh, though i dont think it's realistic. The only real point he makes is that taxing the rich too much will drive them abroad. As far as i know there is no proof for this. I feel another problem is more important than scaring out the rich by hig…

The only real point he makes is that taxing the rich too much will drive them abroad. As far as i know there is no proof for this.

Proof that this occurs: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/08/20/100/

Another far more dangerous effect is that the rich might produce less. If they produce goods abroad, the only deadweight loss is the cost of shipping. For every good/service not produced, we lose the entire consumer surplus. One famous (albeit historical) example of this is that actor Ronald Reagan only made one movie a year - due to high taxes, making two movies/year earned him virtually no additional income.

The only remaining question is the degree to which these effects occur.

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#28

Post by [deleted] »

msy wrote: post #17
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #16

Instead of throwing rocks at rich folks or regurgitating what some professor told us in college, let's change the experiment such that perhaps we can look at it from a fresh perspective. Let's say that everybody at the bar is happy. The rich guy has what he wants, and the poor guy has what he wants. They all have a good time. Let's even assume that after the new rules the rich guy decides not to move and comes back t…

Your idea of a fresh perspective is build a straw man to imply that the poor are all lazy?

[deleted]

Re: Bar Stool Economics

#29

Post by [deleted] »

notahacker wrote: post #15
cies wrote: post #12

Kamerschen really likes to oversimplify things here. The violent mass of poorer guys beating up their richer drinking buddy who used to pay half the drinking bill. I had to laugh, though i dont think it's realistic. The only real point he makes is that taxing the rich too much will drive them abroad. As far as i know there is no proof for this. I feel another problem is more important than scaring out the rich by hig…

The rich might not use public schools and hospitals, but they benefit vastly more than the poor from other services that governments provide, such as economic stability, protection of property rights, infrastructure giving them better access to markets etc.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN