Originally posted by dk3nnyFar be it from me to defend Dr. Scribbles' version of Social Darwinism, but none of these examples you give offers an example of someone thinking, or behaving, rationally.
Thievery isn't rational behavoiur??
Care to explain that one..
Lets say you are hungry and poor, why not rob to feed yourself.
Lets say you are strung out and need your next fix, why not rob to provide that.
Lets say you want that new ipod you saw on tv that all your mates have but your parents can't afford. Society might say you shouldn't rob it b ...[text shortened]... ou go and rob one.
Thieving to satisfying a need is rational, however false that need may be.
Someone driven to crime out of hunger or greed is not behaving rationally. And someone who is an addict certainly isn't going to behave rationally.
Originally posted by VargSo far, all of the best articles, in economics concerning the issue of progressive vs. proportional income taxation, find that a progressive income tax scheme is superior (with respect to the welfare of the majority of citizens ) to a proportional income tax.
The Lib Dems have announced increased income taxation of 50% for those earning over £100,000 (apparently 1% of the UK).
I've never understood this about taxation. I'm not trying to make a political point, or be sarcastic, I genuinely do not understand this:
The Lib Dems (and others) claim that is is "fairer" to tax the rich more than the poor. This is o ...[text shortened]... e tax is completely fair.
What am I not getting here? I would be grateful for an explanation.
The non-mathematical reason:
In the US and in the UK, to a lesser extent I believe, there is a very sharp skewedness to the distribution of wealth. A fairly small percentage of the population holds a disproportionately vast percentage of the wealth in the economy. Because of this, if we hold gov't revenue constant, the tax rate under a proportional tax system (everyone pays the same percentage of income) is fairly close to that of the highest bracket under a progressive tax system (tiered tax schedule).
For the purpose of explaination, let's assume that 95% of wealth is held by 10% of the population. Also let the highest tax bracket pay 50% in taxes on income. Say the revenue equivalent tax rate under a proportional tax system is 45%. Now using a standard strictly concave utility function for each citizen, it follows that the large decrease in utility experienced by the bottom 90% far outweighs the gains of the top 10%. So the aggregate is better off under the progressive tax system.
Now the counter argument to this would be something like the following:
Since wealthy citizens invest more of their income, and investment drives growth in output, the welfare analysis above may be too simple. We have to consider the increase in per capita income due to the increase in aggregate output. So maybe you are not wealthy and you have to pay more in taxes than before, if your income increases because the whole economy becomes wealthier under the new proportional tax scheme then you may be better off after all.
Unfortunately for this argument, the best simulated models have sided heavily with the former position.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: TECHNICAL PAPER
If anyone is interested, the big paper on this exact topic is here
http://www.econ.upenn.edu/Centers/CARESS/CARESSpdf/98-14.pdf
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiWe need to add some precision in order to answer this question correctly.
Does anyone think that economic theories are divorced from philosophical views? Is it not typical for people to see economics as an completely scientific world of statistics and probability calculations?
I think social philosophy and economics are nearly equivalent.
Given a description of some economic system, any predictive and explanatory analysis of that system is purely a scientific undertaking, and only philosophical to the extent that the scientific methods used have a philosophical grounding.
Given a description of that same economy, it can also be analyzed with regard to priniciples of social philosophy, in an effort identify what qualities is exhibits, such as justice or injustice.
Choosing to establish or abolish an economic system lies not in the realm of social philosophy or science, but in the realm of whatever body has the power to impose its will upon society. That body has the option to consider or disregard the findings of the scientists and social philosophers.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI agree. But are any economic theories that predictive? I don't know. It seems if they were, it would be a matter of presenting the data and everyone would see that theory x is the best theory for predicting effects. But I haven't studied that topic in detail. (It's on my todo list.)
Given a description of some economic system, any predictive and explanatory analysis of that system is purely a scientific undertaking, and only philosophical to the extent that the scientific methods used have a philosophical grounding.
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiYes, they are. Given any economic system under study, there exists a most accurate predictive model of it.
I agree. But are any economic theories that predictive? I don't know. It seems if they were, it would be a matter of presenting the data and everyone would see that theory x is the best theory for predicting effects.
Originally posted by VargI believe the Lib Dems have it spot on. 10% more tax on all monies over and above £100k p.a. ($190K) -
The Lib Dems have announced increased income taxation of 50% for those earning over £100,000 (apparently 1% of the UK).
I've never understood this about taxation. I'm not trying to make a political point, or be sarcastic, I genuinely do not understand this:
The Lib Dems (and others) claim that is is "fairer" to tax the rich more than the poor. This is o ...[text shortened]... e tax is completely fair.
What am I not getting here? I would be grateful for an explanation.
Raising National Insurance affects everyone who earns over £75 per week.
And costs employers money too. Increasing sales tax (VAT) also targets everyone and takes no account of ability to pay.
If we are going to work towards a society which gives an equal opportunity. Those who can afford to make a greater contribution should.
I know that tax reciepts wnt up when Maggie reduced the PAYE thresholds. However like all these things it is a question of balance and the Lib Dems have found a way of not scaring high earners or punishing free enterprise.
When I pay 40% income tax I'm pleased I've earnt £35k (or whatever the threshold is) rather than think the government are robbing me.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes, I agree with SCribs here.
Yes, they are. Given any economic system under study, there exists a most accurate predictive model of it.
Certainly, there are philosophical underpinnings to microeconomic theory. It is upon this philosophy that the rest of economic theory is constructed (we'll call econometrics "statistics" here since that's really all it is). Empirical analysis (prediction, policy prescriptions, etc.) are (should be) grounded in the theory. So while just as with any science, economics is firmly grounded in philosophy. Once you lay down the fundamental assumptions though, the rest is really mathematics/science. From this math/science we can make statements about the accuracy of a model.
The richer make more money than poor people on capital gains - for example. buying houses and selling them at a profit. In many cases, these gains are tax free. So what do people think of the middle class selling their home for hundreds of thousands more than they paid for it and paying no tax on their profits?
