Re: WAY OT: Gas-Gouging Greenspan


"McDuck" <wallymcduckDELETEME@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7fvoi1d95sotgotpslevsfb9knbl7ak60l@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:56:11 -0700, "Marcello" <marcello@xxxxxxxxxx>
> quacked:
>
>>
>>"McDuck" <wallymcduckDELETEME@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:4oeoi1hr38ndu6ar4e77ueu08jjmpj5lq7@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>>>
>>> Okay, I'll briefly address your example. A and B are both your
>>> commission agents. They both work equally hard and take big risks. A
>>> is lucky and the risk pays off, whereas B is unlucky and loses
>>> everything. What is your "market" solution to this inequality --- do
>>> we just tell B to be luckier?
>>
>>What you call luck others call good and bad decisions.
>
> No, what I call luck is what everyone calls luck. You want to change
> the example to some other example. Deal with the "luck" example. A
> calls client X at 10 a.m. and makes the sale. B calls at 9:30 a.m. and
> the line is busy. He calls back at 10:10 and misses the sale.

Right, and the client calls in and speaks to the first agent but doesn't
like the sound of his voice so he hangs up and calls later. There is no
question that there are infinite variables into what occurs in every day
events, thus its completely impossible for any human to ever be able to
adequately assess what is fair. The best we can do is continue to strive
for equality of opportunity.




>
>
>>If you want to
>>punish the agent who made a smart decision in light of the fact that he
>>might be surrounded by perennial failures who aligning themselves with
>>what
>>they believe to be good decision in light of countering conversational
>>wisdom, then you will limit future opportunity in the name of a completely
>>flawed ideal of equality.
>
> I'm not punishing anyone. I'm recommending that the government tax
> people who make a lot of money at higher rates than those who make
> far, far less. There are some possible disincentive effects, but the

You are disproportionately taxing someone that has become more successful.
You want to go on thinking you can determine why everyone is successful, but
that's obviously ridiculous, so there is no humanly possible way to be able
to assess fairness on that basis.



> literature suggests they are pretty trivial. Remember, the USA did
> pretty well in the post-WW II period with real corporate rates of 50%
> and a top marginal tax rate of 91%. We can't do that now, for a
> variety of reasons, but don't pretend that graduate rates stifle
> incentives when there is almost no evidence for it.

Obviously we cannot look back and make any provable claims, but you cant
also be certain that it didn't significantly stifle the economy. There is
only common sense, and a quick read thought this section of the threat will
clear up that common sense is not applying what you suggest.




>
>>
>>Let me counter with this question to your example. If agent A and agent B
>>both take the position knowing very well that there is a high degree of
>>failure among those who choose the field, let's say only a 50% success
>>rate
>>(in realty is even higher), and knowing this both agents decide to accept
>>the position. Then by what stretch of your imagination should the agent
>>who
>>is successful be expected to support the agent who is unsuccessful,
>>especially when once considers the fact that it is impossible to define
>>what
>>background and level of experience each agent has prior to the position.
>
> We are all citizens, and we have a common responsibility. You
> certainly concede that A, the successful guy, should pay some taxes
> and that B, the guy with no income, should not pay. And you say you
> favor a safety net for B. Your example does not get to the issue of
> graduated rates. Assuming A makes really big money, I want to tax him
> more (at a higher rate) than some other successful guy who makes a lot
> less --- successful but just not as successful. Why not? Almost no
> disincentive effects (indeed, might have some incentive gains, since
> the lower-income guy probably values a dollar more than the higher
> income guy) and a fairer distribution of income.

You are again mixing up amount with percentage. I have no issue with the
guy making more money paying more taxes, but only a total basis, not a
percentage basis. Doing it proportionality is the only way to distribute
the fairness, whereas of course the guy who makes no money wont pay any
taxes. As far as the safeties net of welfare, again, i must reiterate that
it is YOUR definition that it should include monetary handouts, not mine. I
advocate a safety net that focuses on making the poor more valued members of
society that can support themselves, which costs money but does not include
redistributing that money directly to the poor. You could certainly have
programs set up to provide opportunities for the poor to enter into more
productive roles, and there would be no reason to limit these programs to
only the poor, there would just be no real reason for anyone but the poor to
take advantage of them. Again, if you want to have a discussion on how to
reform welfare, lets at least start a new thread as I think that could be a
very rewarding topic.




>
>>Lastly, if the agent who failed winds up in a position after failing that
>>causes him/her to lose everything, isn't that perhaps a sign that the
>>agent
>>may have made a better decision to be more prepared to take on such a
>>risk.
>>For all we know, the agent who succeeded had saved for 10 years to be able
>>to sustain some failure for a length of time whereas the agent who failed
>>had no savings thus was ruined by not closing a deal fast enough. And
>>again, the successful agent should be expected to support the less
>>successful agent who just made poor decision? Obviously not.
>>
>>
> No, you agree (see above) that the successful agent should pay taxes,
> and you agree the unsuccessful one should not pay. You really are
> having trouble with my examples, which is not surprising, as they make
> my points pretty well <g>.

How you derive any of that form the example above makes little sense. The
point was there is no logical way to fairly assess the above situation and
have the successful agent should be forced into paying a higher percentage
of taxation.



I believe the problem you have with the comprehension of these points is
that you constantly switch from assessing fairness to total taxes paid and
total percentage of income paid in taxes. The above example illustrates an
example where the successful person will be paying more total taxes yet by
percentage will be paying the same. If you continuously get these mixed up,
you will continually show your confusion on the point.



>
>>
>>Now before you go on to suggest that this is assuming too many factors,
>>understand that is the very point.you can never know all the factors of
>>anyone's background and what they base their decisions on. All you can
>>ever
>>do in the name of fairness is assure that everyone is giving the same
>>opportunity, and how they deal with that opportunity is up to them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A is your risky commission agent and C is your coordinator. C has 4
>>> small children and a sick mother to support. A is footloose and fancy
>>> free. C really, relly wants to be a cmmssion agent and make the big
>>> bucks, but she fears that if she is unlucky, all her loved ones will
>>> perish, so she avoids the big risk for the sure pay check. How does
>>> your "market" solution solve her problem?
>>
>>The solution is already in place. C at some point made the decision to
>>have
>>children that would depend on her, thus limiting her ability to assume
>>certain risks, such as that of becoming an agent...whereas footloose A has
>>no dependants. These are life's choices, and we all get to make them.
>>Punishing those that chose one way just because things worked out better
>>in
>>the end is not fairness, it's ridiculously unfair.
>
> Really? That is your view of society? Did C had a choice whether to
> have a sick mother? Would it matter to you if C, when she had her
> kids, was married to some guy who ran off with someone else and left
> her in the lurch?

Should I be to blame then for who poor choice in husbands? Really, do you
honestly feel that she would have a right to take from someone else because
she chose a husband that eventually ran out on her. What ever happened to
personable accountability and responsibility.



Let me ask you, the sick mother that must be supported...if C goes on to be
successful yet someone with perfectly healthy parents ends up being a
failure, do you honestly believe that one should have a right to take from C
even though she had a sick mother????




>
> Anyway, I do find it amusing that some people seem to view children as
> providing no social benefit. Perhaps you (not you personally, of
> course) will change your view when my kids (not my kids personally, of
> course) are paying for your social security

Children are dependable financially until they are able to provide for
themselves. Unless you are advocating putting young children to work, there
is no way economically they are adding to society as children, Nice try
though.




>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A and D are both thinking of taking the big risk and being commission
>>> agents. A is born with genes that induce him to be a risk taker. D is
>>> born with genes that make him very, very wary of taking risks. How
>>> does your "market" mechanism account for this inequality?
>>
>>Your comment is based on pure speculation that such a gene exists which
>>obviously until proven is not worthy of discussion. But I will say this,
>>as
>>through my very own experience in the field I can attest that so much of
>>sales ability and intelligent risk taking is perceived as instinct by
>>many,
>>the fact remains I have seen time and time again countless examples where
>>both attributes are learned, and while I obviously am not actively
>>studying
>>the issue nor have the credentials to post a concrete hypotheses on the
>>subject, I can tell you through my experience which is abundant I believe
>>with certainly that these traits are learned, and not instinctive at all.
>>And generally those that resort to suggesting they are instinctual are
>>almost always very same people that chose not to put in the time to learn.
>
> Actually, it is now well established that a propensity for risk taking
> is inherited. Explains in part why women are much more risk averse, on
> average, than men. I have no problem with your not knowing this, of
> course, and you make no real claims. And I do agree that part of a
> propensity for risk taking is social. However, the social context in
> which one grows up has a large luck component.
>

Oh, and prior to this post you said it had to do with money. Let's go back
to risk for a moment. Risk has with it 2 sides, and risk is certainly no
guarantee of any success. In fact, when considering the low percentage of
business successes, it would seem obvious that more often than not the risk
taker winds up losing rather than gaining. So in all accounts, the non risk
taker who stands less of a chance of making themselves a large success also
stands a far greater chance of not ending up in financial ruin, temporary or
permanent. Success involves many more components that risk.



As far as what one grows up with, this is the exact point you are missing.
One may grow up with advantages or disadvantaged that no human could ever
identify. There are so many entangles just on the basis of personality
alone that make this point. Yet you would suggest that ANYONE could
possibly have the ability to assess what is fair based on what advantages or
disadvantages one has. That, is utterly ridiculous. Again, the only way to
assure fairness is to assure equality of opportunity. You may never agree,
but then again, you may also spend a lifetime making excuses while others
make success, who knows.




>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A has a rich father, so he can take whatever risks he wants with the
>>> certainty that Daddy will come to the resque. E is born of poor
>>> parents and has to bear all the consequences of his risks. So A makes
>>> the big bucks s a commsion agent, and E is forced to play it safe.
>>
>>E has the same oppotunity as eveyrone else in the field who has become
>>successful by starting with nothing. A just as might be less motivated
>>(as
>>is often the example) becuase there is no urgency for success based on the
>>fact that he can rely on his father. As long as the equality of
>>opportunity
>>exists, then fairness is achieved. There is not underlying rule that one
>>has to have money to enter the game, nor is there any rule that suggests
>>one
>>has to even have any education. The rules are that you must have the
>>proper
>>credentials and act according to the laws and real estate regualtions.
>>After that, oppotunity is wide open.
>
> I say A and E are unequal. You reply that E and F are equal. Well,
> perhaps, but that does not explain why the inequality between A and E
> does not justify different treatment of A and E. In any event, you
> claimed that the market handled the inequalities --- I'm showing you
> it does not and can not.
>

I am not claiming anyone is equal, in fact, if anything I would claim that
every single person is unequal. But to suggest there is anyway to determine
some sort of equality in people in any other manner than just offering them
the same opportunity is complexly illogical.





>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We could, as you can imagine, go on and on. The point is that
>>> inequalities in outcome are rarely justified, and the few cases where
>>> they are justified are not sufficient to call into question a
>>> redistributive policy. Now, I do agree that really steeply graduated
>>> rates in the middle class cannot be justified, based on examples of
>>> the type you gave (and I previously gave). that is why I do not favor
>>> such rates. I favor exemption for the poor (the current situation),
>>> pretty flat rates for the middle class (pretty much what we now have)
>>> and fairly heavy taes onthe rich (what we used to have).
>>
>>Let me take the counter approach for a second so that I may offer up a
>>thoughtful question. Let's hypothetically assume that redistribution of
>>incomes based on classes was fair...that being the case, how can you
>>overlook the adverse affects this eventually has on the middle and lower
>>classes you are trying to distribute fairness to in the first place?
>
>
> That is a fair question, but with a false premise. I agree fully that
> one has to take into account possible disincentive effects. The
> literature shows that those effects are not large at high income
> levels. At middle income levels, we do see disincentive effects to be
> more substantial. As previously stated, I'm mostly interested in
> redistribution at the high end, where those effects are not important.
> But it is important to look at them and be concerned about them if
> they are large. I have looked.

When you are dealing with issues of attempting redistribute on the basis of
fairness, every issue is important, and moreover, there are countless issues
not even discusses. Perhpas some rereading of this post will be more
enlightening, but wit hall do respect, you seen more content to search for
reasons why not than opening your mind to why.




>
> Economists note two effects of higher taxes. One is the substitution
> effect --- you substitute leisure, for example, for work. The other is
> the income effect --- you work more to make up for the lost income.
> These effects have opposite signs and can offset each other. At very
> high incomes, the substitution effect is trivial because almost anyone
> earning income when they are really rich is really not that interested
> in leisure --- they work for the power and glory, not just the money.
> And the income effect is also small, but it would tend to make the
> person work more.

Attempting to asses why anyone does anything on a grand scale is ludicrous,
and it in part the reason why trying to assess fairness on the grand scale
is also ludicrous.


>
> Among the upper middle class, you see more of the substitution effect
> --- doctors playing golf on Wednesdays instead of seeing patients if
> the money from their work is not enough. But, if they have a big
> mortgage, the income effect might offset it some or fully.

This is yet another fallacy. If you have evidence that the majority of high
income earners golf on Wednesdays then go ahead and post your reference, but
the reality is that is just a baseless comment as it insults the many high
income earners, and doctors more precisely, who work extensively long hours
to earn their respective pay.




>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> You think that a rich kid has the same opportunities as a poor kid?
>>> What planet are you from? All us carbon units understand that there is
>>> huge inequality in opportunities everywhere, based on difference in
>>> genes, upbringing, family wealth and influence, on and on. Do you
>>> really disagree?
>>>
> No response? Okay.
>
>
> <snip>
>>> Because he has more money, and he "earned" that money through social
>>> actions. He did not invent taxi cabs or build the roads on which the
>>> cabs travel or create the economic opportunities that would make
>>> people want to take a cab, etc. ,etc. so society has a claim to a
>>> portion of his income, and the bigger the income, the bigger the
>>> claim. However, the social claim is not as strong as it is with
>>> millionaires and billionaires, who also exploited the system in one
>>> way or another (and I am assuming legal exploitation through some
>>> economic rent).
>>>
>>
>>Again, if you are of the beleif that the more one becomes success the more
>>one exploits others, then we are never going to get anywhere.
>
> Do you understand the concept of economic rents? I'm mainstream here.
> I'm not asserting that the rich always exploit people --- but I am
> saying that they exploit some economic rent.

And by that account there are many poor who exploit the rich by revising
welfare benefits they don't need. It human nature that there will be
exploiters, but don't kid yourself that its among only one class of people.



>
>>
>>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> If you favor the welfare state, as you now claim, then you favor at
>>> least some redistribution. But you seem to think it is fine on the
>>> spending side but not on the taxing side. Quaint view. Do you want to
>>> tax the poor and then give it back through welfare? If not, then, like
>>
>>This is only true if you consider the current welfare system, to which I
>>wholly object to as its a colossal failure. Your whole basis is that
>>welfare be run as a system of handouts, of which I never advocated nor do
>>I
>>agree with in any part. A social safety net only translates into monetary
>>handouts on the far left.
>>
> I don't follow you at all here.

You are suggesting I am for the welfare system as it is, of which money is
given out as a benefit. I am not for this type of system at all, therefore
your assumption about what I said are wholly incorrect as what you reffered
to was somethign I never said.




> <snip>
>>>
>>> I think the natural tendancy of a capitalist state to have huge
>>> concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few has been mitigated by
>>> graduated rates. Japan and a few other countries, which had more
>>> effective taxes on the rich, had less inequality at the top, although
>>> that is now changing as well. Of course, inequality in the US is
>>> increasing very rapidly, and Bush has unleashed that inequality with
>>> his low rates and lax enforcement policies.
>>
>>And a pushing downward force on the top will always affect those in the
>>middle and bottom as well, a point always overlooked with the progressive
>>taxation theorist.
>
> We don't overlook it, We have a name for it. We call it the trickle
> down theory. We don't give names for stuff we overlook. But it is a
> discredited theory, nutty on its face and not supported by studies.

Trickle down theory is the basis that growth among the wealthy will trickle
to the lower classes. This is not the same.



>
>>Let's not also discount that perhaps the natural
>>tendency is also a compilation of natural motivation, dedication, and
>>long-term interest in success. There have always been less people willing
>>to pay the price for success than those give-up at the earliest failure,
>>so
>>one naturally would expect such a tendency.
>
> I don't know what this means. But Liberals do favor the market. We
> just want to adjust market outcomes for what we perceive to be some
> unfair outcomes.
>

Nail on the head! You want to adjust the market based on what you PERCEIVE
to be fair/unfair and if you get anything from reading in this group you
hopefully will understand that its inconceivable to think that anyone could
possibly understand how to distribute equality other than in opportunity as
there are an infinite amount of variables most of which are intangibles that
go into human life. Unless of course you think you are of the level of a
god?




>>
>>
>>
>>Its a real shame that your viewpoint includes distaste for those few who
>>give up so much time, dedication and hard work to succeed while insisting
>>they should be punished for doing so while others sit back and watch and
>>wait to lay claim to those very successes while doing little to succeed on
>>their own. I think your viewpoint on Bill Gates success could not be a
>>more
>>shining example as you are clear in your distaste in his successes while
>>completly overlooking the thousands upon thousands who have benefited with
>>good and secure paying jobs for doing far less than Gates ever had to and
>>then suggesting Gates has exploited society in spite of the fact that he
>>created thousands of additional taxpayers and given out financial security
>>through employment to so many.
>>
>>
>
> I don't have a distaste for successful people. Where did you get that
> idea? I just want to tax them on their huge gains at a fairly high
> rate. Nothing personal, I assure you. I'm happy to tax unsuccessful
> people at high rates if they happen to have a lot of income.
>
> As for Gates and Microsoft, well, you can like or dislike Microsoft.
> You can boast about the jobs it has created, much of it offshore or
> through importation of foreign laborers, or you can complain about all

I am sure there are thousands in the state of Washington that would take
issue with that statement.



> the jobs it destroyed and the innovations it has inhibited through
> what the courts have found to be illegal monopoly practices. I'll say

Microsoft paid for any wrongdoings it was proven to have committed. If you
don't think it was enough, then you have issue with the legal system, not
Microsoft.




> out of that debate. I simply note that he is enormously wealthy, has
> paid a pittance in taxes, and is the poster boy for why the rich

Well naturally he is the poster boy, he is the richest person in history.
Of course he is enemy number one for those that choose to com0plain rather
than strive for the same excellence, and who also overlook the absolutely
magnificent accomplishment of having windows operating system in billions of
computers worldwide. If you have a better idea, a better system, well then
you better get cracking putting a business plan together rather than wasting
time in here.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WAY OT: Gas-Gouging Greenspan
    ... If agent A and agent B ... >is successful be expected to support the agent who is unsuccessful, ... and that B, the guy with no income, should not pay. ... >may have made a better decision to be more prepared to take on such a risk. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Corn meal in motion!
    ... into one and found a worm. ... I finally decided it was time to take a risk. ... Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply. ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: OT Agent 3.0 is Finally out
    ... >before upgrading to Agent 3.0. ... At the risk of making my ignorance obvious - how do I do ... Do you mean a simple backup of Agent 2? ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Threats to my children reported to Police; Judys incident
    ... "It is beyond much doubt that Chuck P Adams is some kind of agent and ... indeed run a risk of getting killed." ... lol, ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: GDP up 3.3% Why are we not rich?
    ... boards are paid large sums and their self interest is to go along with the ... The issue is largely about risk. ... demand to know the details of executive pay in the late 90's, ... managers--whose major qualification is that they have already been a fund ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)