PPR: A Tale of Two Caucuses
29 Nov 2010, 2:24 pm
marshall wrote:
I didn't say minimize it to zero. Something near (perhaps a bit higher) than Sweden's level of inequality would suffice.
I think the goal shouldn't be to minimize the Gini index by income alone. The ratio of effort expended per dollar of income is the ideal measure to equalize. It seems pretty obvious to me that people who have excessive wealth don't expend nearly as much effort per dollar of income earned than those who live on subsistence wages. People born into a wealthy enough family don't have to work at all. They can simply live off inheritance and investment instruments without doing a shred of real work. This is a fact the Social Darwinists like to sweep under the rug.[/quote]
I have the solution! It was suggested by Kurt Vonegut in his short novel -Harrison Bergeron-.
What we need is the Handicapper General.
ruveyn
29 Nov 2010, 3:47 pm
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
I think the goal shouldn't be to minimize the Gini index by income alone. The ratio of effort expended per dollar of income is the ideal measure to equalize. It seems pretty obvious to me that people who have excessive wealth don't expend nearly as much effort per dollar of income earned than those who live on subsistence wages. People born into a wealthy enough family don't have to work at all. They can simply live off inheritance and investment instruments without doing a shred of real work. This is a fact the Social Darwinists like to sweep under the rug.
I have the solution! It was suggested by Kurt Vonegut in his short novel -Harrison Bergeron-.
What we need is the Handicapper General.
Inherited wealth can't be compared to natural strengths or abilities. To do so smacks of elitism. Poverty is already the Handicapper General as it inevitably forces people to work at jobs that are below their true capacity by denying them the financial means to obtain the educational credentials that are necessary for advancement most societies. Of course, in the minds of Social Darwinists lies the myth that people who lack access to better education through un-earned inheritance must be innately stupid and/or lazy compared to their wealthier superiors.
29 Nov 2010, 6:22 pm
marshall wrote:
Inherited wealth can't be compared to natural strengths or abilities. To do so smacks of elitism. Poverty is already the Handicapper General as it inevitably forces people to work at jobs that are below their true capacity by denying them the financial means to obtain the educational credentials that are necessary for advancement most societies. Of course, in the minds of Social Darwinists lies the myth that people who lack access to better education through un-earned inheritance must be innately stupid and/or lazy compared to their wealthier superiors.
Perhaps I was not clear. Even if inherited wealth were abolished, A one hundred percent death tax levied on all estates, the children of the better people (better = smarter, more energetic, more focused etc) will get better upbringing than the children of a lesser God. So independent of inheritance these more fortunate children will tend to do better than the lesser children who were not as well brought up.
The method I suggest was appointing a Handicapper General to see to it that these brighter better educated better raised children never get to exercise their greater merit. Once that is done the Gini index is saved from perdition and society will slowly crumble into squalor.
ruveyn
29 Nov 2010, 9:42 pm
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inherited wealth can't be compared to natural strengths or abilities. To do so smacks of elitism. Poverty is already the Handicapper General as it inevitably forces people to work at jobs that are below their true capacity by denying them the financial means to obtain the educational credentials that are necessary for advancement most societies. Of course, in the minds of Social Darwinists lies the myth that people who lack access to better education through un-earned inheritance must be innately stupid and/or lazy compared to their wealthier superiors.
Perhaps I was not clear. Even if inherited wealth were abolished, A one hundred percent death tax levied on all estates, the children of the better people (better = smarter, more energetic, more focused etc) will get better upbringing than the children of a lesser God. So independent of inheritance these more fortunate children will tend to do better than the lesser children who were not as well brought up.
I don't believe in abolishing inherited wealth. I believe taxation can and should be used to attempt to lower the gap in opportunities between people who can use inherited wealth to obtain a higher level of education and social status and people who can't (assuming all other things are equal).
I don't see the following as a valid argument:
It's impossible to have a perfectly fair society without draconian silliness, therefore trying to make it marginally more fair is wrong.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the given premise. It follows from an entirely different premise. Namely that wealthier people don't want to make things more fair if it means they have to pay more taxes. The first premise seems like a ruse.
