Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally • Hacker News Board

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#41

Post by Kaveren » Sun, Oct 28, 2018, 7:18 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #24

Kaveren wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes already do focus on the wealthy with progressive taxes (in many countries), though. From an American perspective, the top federal income tax bracket is 37%. The top state income tax rate can be anywhere from 0% to 12.3% (California), so in total you can pay up to 49.3% of a potion of your income in taxes. In America, the top 1% paid 45.7% of total income tax in 2015 [1] (earning 17% of "expanded cash income"),…

You are creating a straw-men. The GP clearly wasn't talking about the top 1%.

> "It's a major reason why taxation should focus on the rich (as opposed to the 'well off' e.g. high incomes). They really will not notice it aside from ideological opposition."

I don't understand what the srawman you think I was making is supposed to be. The quote is what I was replying to. He was referring on taxation focusing on the rich (not the well off). My original reply was commenting on that.

Is the strawman supposed to be that 1% is too high a bar of entry to be considered rich? Or something else?

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#42

Post by matthewmacleod » Sun, Oct 28, 2018, 7:19 PM UTC

sovietmudkipz wrote: post #35

nicoburns wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes it sound like double is a big proportion. But given how much of the wealth the rich control, I'd expect it to be closer to 80 or 90% of tax coming from the rich. They just don't need it.

That seems like it would decentivize being rich pretty dramatically. The truth is that many rich people are the main movers of the economy, generating positive value for everyone (versus rent seeking). If you decentivize being rich you decentivize generating value. Ayn Rand explores a world where the rich value creators go on strike when people and the government “loot” and plumber their wealth, through regulations a…

If you decentivize being rich you decentivize generating value

There’s no real evidence to support that. Why must gross overcentralisation of capital be the only way to invest in productive activity?

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#43

Post by barrkel » Sun, Oct 28, 2018, 7:28 PM UTC

lhnz wrote: post #8

esotericn wrote: post #3

I don't think anyone contests the fact that money increases happiness _up to a point_. Once you have full financial security though, it becomes quite nonlinear. Outside of bonkers areas, 1 million NW gets you retirement. 10 million NW gets you that plus... toys. It's a major reason why taxation should focus on the rich (as opposed to the 'well off' e.g. high incomes). They really will not notice it aside from ideolog…

Are you speaking from personal experience or is this just what you've heard elsewhere? I've still not reached the point where more money hasn't increased my happiness, however I'm definitely making far more than an above-average wage in London. I think a great number of people could be happier with more money assuming they have good ideas on how they can spend their money to improve their lives.

An average wage will leave you pretty unhappy in London. London has a lot of wealthy people, which is distinctly different to high income, and it has a fair number of high income people too.

I think being a big fish in a small pond has a lot to say for itself in terms of mental satisfaction about one's place in the world. It's relative, unfortunately: someone else must be worse off for you to feel relatively better off.

It takes a lot of income to make a meaningful dent in your self-perceived place on the ladder in London, if your ladder includes things like owning a home in a safe area within reasonable distance of transport.

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#44

Post by nightski » Sun, Oct 28, 2018, 7:31 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #40

nightski wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I truly believe in a consumption/sales tax instead of income tax (aka FairTax). You can build as much wealth as you'd like, but it doesn't do you any good until you spend it. At that point there is no avoiding the tax and it's much easier for the IRS to track. Even if a black market developed, at some point that money flows back into the economy and is taxed whereas today it does not (aka tax havens and m…

Wealthy people don't consume in the way you understand consumption. Wealth, at the higher levels, is almost synonymous with power. It's what amplifies your agency. By owning large organizations, investing in new developments, starting new organizations, controlling organizational output (think media companies in particular), wealth is converted into control over people and to a certain extent, governments. Wealth get…

I actually understand all of this. But if you are investing in society, then that is different than consumption. That should be encouraged imho.

Actually if you dig deeper into fair tax it is theorized that cost of goods would largely remain the same. this is due to the removal of corporate income taxes altogether. Also companies would not pay any sales tax on goods/services.

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#45

Post by nightski » Sun, Oct 28, 2018, 7:32 PM UTC

stanleydrew wrote: post #29

nightski wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I truly believe in a consumption/sales tax instead of income tax (aka FairTax). You can build as much wealth as you'd like, but it doesn't do you any good until you spend it. At that point there is no avoiding the tax and it's much easier for the IRS to track. Even if a black market developed, at some point that money flows back into the economy and is taxed whereas today it does not (aka tax havens and m…

The idea is nice, and I'm sure I'm not introducing anything you haven't already considered, but a flat consumption tax is in fact regressive. The simplest way to think about it I guess is that regardless of wealth, everybody needs a certain number of calories to live. If you are poor and can only afford subsistence, you are paying a much larger portion of your overall wealth just to stay alive. That may be ok with yo…

Fairtax has a prebate to cover all tax for essentials (everyone, poor or wealthy, gets a "check" at the beginning of the month). You theoretically only pay tax on non-essential items.

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#46

Post by Izkata » Sun, Oct 28, 2018, 7:33 PM UTC

lhnz wrote: post #8

esotericn wrote: post #3

I don't think anyone contests the fact that money increases happiness _up to a point_. Once you have full financial security though, it becomes quite nonlinear. Outside of bonkers areas, 1 million NW gets you retirement. 10 million NW gets you that plus... toys. It's a major reason why taxation should focus on the rich (as opposed to the 'well off' e.g. high incomes). They really will not notice it aside from ideolog…

Are you speaking from personal experience or is this just what you've heard elsewhere? I've still not reached the point where more money hasn't increased my happiness, however I'm definitely making far more than an above-average wage in London. I think a great number of people could be happier with more money assuming they have good ideas on how they can spend their money to improve their lives.

Personal anecdote time - I have, three times. Some of it I think is just easy to forget over the years, simply because it's not repeatable. And like the post eventually gets to, it's pretty indirectly tied to money, but all relies upon it:

* About two months after getting my first full-time job, actually seeing my savings go up.

* After buying a place and moving in, something that wasn't possible without having enough money. Note that moving out of my parents' house and into a rented apartment didn't do it, but buying did.

* Upon paying off my mortgage, doing some math and realizing early retirement through financial independence was actually a possibility.

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#47

Post by nightski » Sun, Oct 28, 2018, 7:34 PM UTC

ohyes wrote: post #34

nightski wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I truly believe in a consumption/sales tax instead of income tax (aka FairTax). You can build as much wealth as you'd like, but it doesn't do you any good until you spend it. At that point there is no avoiding the tax and it's much easier for the IRS to track. Even if a black market developed, at some point that money flows back into the economy and is taxed whereas today it does not (aka tax havens and m…

This is even easier to tax dodge because you just pay cash and do stuff off the books. Regressive taxation schemes don’t take into account the disproportionate advantages that the wealthy get from having sound infrastructure provided by the government. How does a sales tax properly impact the monopolist who is getting advantages from state sponsored research and educational subsidies? They also don’t take into accoun…

How do you avoid a sales tax by paying cash? I don't understand that at all.

Sure, the tax can't go back in time and make up for the poor system we have now. But you have to start somewhere - at least we could get on the right track.

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#48

Post by stephengillie » Sun, Oct 28, 2018, 7:34 PM UTC

stanleydrew wrote: post #33

stephengillie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great argument against working unpaid overtime. Unpaid overtime work holds M constant while reducing T - recomputing your M and T cause M to reduce at a rate of 2.5% per hour worked past 40. And your Q might reduce as well.

What if the model were changed to M + T*Q = H so that time and quality of the time are tightly coupled. Unpaid overtime that has a high quality might then still pay off (although this is also true in the case where T and Q are additive, just tougher to achieve).

Since Q is already a component of T, this would cause both to decline even faster. The more you value your off-time, and the less you have, the less happier you'll be.

What you're looking for is W, the happiness you get from your work. To modify the equation again:

  M + T*Q + W = H

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#49

Post by amai » Sun, Oct 28, 2018, 7:36 PM UTC

esotericn wrote: post #3

I don't think anyone contests the fact that money increases happiness _up to a point_. Once you have full financial security though, it becomes quite nonlinear. Outside of bonkers areas, 1 million NW gets you retirement. 10 million NW gets you that plus... toys. It's a major reason why taxation should focus on the rich (as opposed to the 'well off' e.g. high incomes). They really will not notice it aside from ideolog…

That is why I opt for a wealth dependent income tax. If your wealth is already very high you basically won’t notice a higher tax on your income :https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9421/why-not-ha...

Re: Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally

#50

Post by _kxbd » Sun, Oct 28, 2018, 7:40 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #25

Kaveren wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes already do focus on the wealthy with progressive taxes (in many countries), though. From an American perspective, the top federal income tax bracket is 37%. The top state income tax rate can be anywhere from 0% to 12.3% (California), so in total you can pay up to 49.3% of a potion of your income in taxes. In America, the top 1% paid 45.7% of total income tax in 2015 [1] (earning 17% of "expanded cash income"),…

This makes it sound like double is a big proportion. But given how much of the wealth the rich control, I'd expect it to be closer to 80 or 90% of tax coming from the rich. They just don't need it.

Since you said "expect", this comment isn't directed at you specifically.

But let's say someone is advocating for that 80%-90% tax-rate on income:

1. Why should I try to make more money if I'm going to be taxed at 80%-90%, forking over such a massive sum of my money as to make it mostly worthless?

2. Even if this advocate believes the rich don't need the money, what makes the government entitled to take the vast majority of their income? That was money the rich income earner made for themselves. I'd argue that it should be their decision how to spend the majority of it.

I'd argue that advocating for seizing such a high amount of money is very anti-capitalist. It's not really a government's position to regulate how much wealth someone "needs" when you have a high degree of freedom.