
Scott Adams: How to Tax the Rich - georgecmu
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703293204576106164123424314.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth
======
100k
I don't think the rich really get anything out of it, but in the Nordic
countries, fines increase in proportion to your wealth. I remember reading
about a Nokia exec getting pulled over for speeding. His ticket was like
$75,000! <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1670583>

I've often thought some fees should be adjusted for wealth. For example, a
quarter a day isn't really enough to get me to take my library books back on
time. Maybe for me it should be $2 a day.

~~~
dagw
In Sweden many fines are defined in "dagsböter" or literally "day fines" as
opposed to an actual amount. Basically one "dagsböter" is equivalent to one
days wages. So the judge decides that you should pay 60 days wages, without
actually have to take any stance to how much you actually pay.

~~~
klbarry
So Eric Schmidt would pay some pennies? (Since he is paid $1 a year :) )

~~~
jarek
One might assume that the system has a way of establishing the true magnitude
of an individual's compensation.

~~~
jpwagner
fat chance...maybe the above joke is silly, but no one has "a way of
establishing the true magnitude of an individual's compensation."

~~~
redthrowaway
What's wrong with rise in net worth over a year?

~~~
hackerblues
If I go into debt that year does that mean the fine gives me money?

~~~
redthrowaway
I'm not an expert, but I don't believe debt reduces your net worth.
Irresponsible use of that debt does, but if I borrow $250k to buy a house, the
value of that house offsets the debt. It's a wash in the end, is it not?

~~~
hugh3
Well obviously the grandparent should be read as "If my net wealth decreases
over a year then should the fine give me money?"

------
sunsu
"The hole is too big to plug with cost cutting or economic growth alone."

Say's who? Take a look at the 2011 budget:
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html>

The biggest pieces of the pie are things we are UNWILLING to cut (not
incapable of cutting)! Its time for us to make some difficult decisions about
what cuts we should make instead of relying on other peoples' money to solve
other peoples' problems.

~~~
1010011010
Exactly. If we rolled back overall spending to where it was in 1999 and
curtailed the military (stopping the two big wars, closing assorted bases).

A decade without real economic growth should be matched with a decade of no
government growth.

------
frankus
One thing that at least some rich people will pay for is status symbols
(expensive watches, sports cars that will never exceed 100mph, mansions with
rooms that are used only a couple of times a year, $500 t-shirts). Status
signaling is ultimately a zero-sum positional arms race that can lead to some
pretty ridiculous conclusions(1) and doesn't really leave anyone better off
(other than, perhaps, luxury goods suppliers).

The bad version of this idea would be a special ID card and/or bumper sticker
or t-shirt or watch that was given to top-bracket taxpayers. It would have to
be reasonably hard to forge (or at least as hard to forge as, say, a Rolex)
and able to be either displayed publicly or flashed discreetly in situations
where one wants to assert status.

Another variation could be some kind of property tax where certain sub-
neighborhoods would have exceptionally rates, say 100x what the ordinary tax
on the land and improvements would be. Then people could signal status by
living or staying in those areas. (This is actually not too different than
somewhere like Manhattan or San Francisco currently, except the windfall is
going to existing property owners rather than the government).

The nice thing about status symbols is that, like fiat currency, they can be
rather cheaper to produce than what their value to the status-seeking public
is. That is the government could potentially retain a very high seignorage, as
it were, on this stuff.

Ultimately it would have to be determined whether the status symbols could be
legally transferrable, and what, if any, penalty there would be for forging
them.

As an aside, it strikes me that this sort of thing would be extremely similar
to fiat currency, maybe identical.

[1]([http://www.google.com/products/catalog?client=safari&rls...](http://www.google.com/products/catalog?client=safari&rls=en&q=watch+winder&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=15774647568013127762&ei=8U5ETfn9LpL2swOnueCSCg&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CF0Q8wIwAg#ps-
sellers))

~~~
yummyfajitas
The problem is that it's hard to create a high status item. Say you invent the
"US Govt. Certified Top 0.1% Badge" - do you really think Peter Thiel, John
Paulson or Alex Rodriguez will really give a crap?

Taxing existing luxury status symbols could work, and is very likely a good
idea. Creating new status symbols is likely to fail horribly.

Also, the tax on certain neighborhoods neglects the very large non-status
reason why those neighborhoods are valuable: proximity to something cool.
Manhattan is expensive not just because it raises your status to live there,
but also because if you work at Goldman Sachs, you are willing to pay
$3000/month rent + ridiculous NYC income taxes to avoid a 1 hour commute.

I suppose we could also bring back the Sumptuary laws:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law>

~~~
alsomike
My tax plan is to eliminate income tax up to $90,000. After that, income is
taxed at 100%. The government awards tax credits for everyone making less than
that, so that everyone's salary + tax credits = $90,000.

"But wait," you say "How will we incentivize entrepreneurs if they can't earn
more money?" For everyone making over $90,000 (approx. 11% of the population),
their pretax salary is used to assign them national ranking that's publicly
available, much like a ladder tournament, which could be subdivided into
regions, industries, etc.

The rationale for this system is that we use one system - money - for two
unrelated social purposes: reducing suffering and establishing status which
incentivizes production. In my system, these purposes are less coupled.

The $90,000 number was calculated by dividing the total US income by the
number of workers, so this would need to be adjusted yearly. If this system
was applied globally, the average salary would be $25,000 which is quite a
step up for billions of people. It means that today, humans create enough
wealth annually so that every two-parent household on the planet could live
like the American middle class.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Ok - if your system is ever enacted, I'm cutting my work hours back by 50% or
more.

I'm also hoping that not everyone does this, because if everyone did, there
would be far less than $90k/person floating around. But that won't happen,
right?

 _It means that today, humans create enough wealth annually so that every two-
parent household on the planet could live like the American middle class._

This assumes that the total cost of providing the same middle-class resources
to everyone in the world is equal to the present marginal cost of doing so.

~~~
joelhaus
Sounds a little bit like the NFL:
<http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/nfl/14905>

The major sports leagues in the U.S. (football/basketball/baseball) are
definitely an interesting microcosm of various economic systems.

------
abrenzel
Scott Adams, like the politicians in Washington DC, is living in a dream
world.

Cut all discretionary and defense spending to 0, and we would still be running
a deficit due to entitlements. Tax "the rich" at 100%, and we would still be
running a deficit. Tax corporations at 100%, and we would still be running a
deficit.

On the left, politicians make it sound as though we're just a few tax hikes
and some defense cuts away from a sound federal budget. On the right, they
make it sound as though all we need are some cuts to programs like the UN or
foreign aid and some tax cuts to spur economic growth.

They are both in a DREAM WORLD. Some taxes will have to go up, but most
importantly, Social Security and Medicare will have to be substantially
reduced. Whether it means privatization, defined contribution, or some
combination of solutions, no one in my generation (I am currently 24) will see
either of these programs as our parents did. In fact, current retirees and
soon-to-be-retirees will also probably need to have their benefits reduced.
There is just no way around it.

~~~
ryanf
> Cut all discretionary and defense spending to 0, and we would still be
> running a deficit due to entitlements. Tax "the rich" at 100%, and we would
> still be running a deficit. Tax corporations at 100%, and we would still be
> running a deficit.

Do you have some numbers for this?

~~~
harryh
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget>

In 2010 Total income was about 2.1T and total expenses were about 3.5T.
Defense was about 23% of spending and discretionary spending was about 12%.

3.5T * (100% - 23% - 12%) = 2.275T

So thats still about a 175 Billion dollar deficit.

Admittedly 2010 was a below average year in terms of the US economy. In better
years things might not look as bleak.

~~~
ryanf
OK, so that covers the first sentence, except maybe "because of entitlements."
(Although you'll note that without TARP we'd be just about breaking even in
that scenario.)

It doesn't cover the second half, which claims that taxing "the rich" at 100%
wouldn't cover the deficit even though the total income of the richest 1% of
Americans is almost as much as the entire federal budget. (23.9% of income,
GDP is 14.27T, 14.27 * 0.239 = 3.41T)

------
forensic
Scott Adams is just talking about moving towards a visible aristocracy. These
are the first baby steps.

Soon the rich will have special privileges just like the old days.

~~~
philwelch
Aristocracy is different from this. Generally, aristocracy is both hereditary
and disconnected from actual wealth.

In the UK, JK Rowling, even though she is richer than the Queen, is not an
aristocrat. She is, in fact, upper middle class. Someone who's born into the
aristocracy, even if they're not especially wealthy, is an aristocrat.

~~~
nostrademons
I wonder if we're headed towards a hereditary aristocracy as well, because of
assortative mating. People tend to marry others in the same social class; rich
marry rich, smart marry smart, and highly-educated marry highly-educated. And
then they tend to pass on those advantages to their children. It doesn't take
all that many generations before that becomes entrenched and it becomes
impossible to jump from one class to another.

~~~
philwelch
People can move up or down a social class or two. I know people who came from
fairly little wealth who earn decent urban-professional six-figure salaries,
and people come out of families in the upper-middle professional class and
become multimillionaire entrepreneurs. (Likewise, other people move down.)

Entrenched aristocracies happen when you have old money that looks down on the
"nouveau riche". Every country _has_ an old money class that considers itself
more elite than the nouveau riche, of course, but they aren't really an
entrenched aristocracy unless the rest of society agrees with them.

~~~
forensic
>Entrenched aristocracies happen when you have old money that looks down on
the "nouveau riche".

That's not the cause of aristocracy, that's the effect.

~~~
philwelch
It's neither. It's just part of the aristocracy (the other part being the
willingness of the rest of society to humor old money in their self-perception
as being aristocratic).

------
lmkg
I think several of Scott Adam's proposals would be more palatable if we avoid
the T-word. Giving high tax payers an express lane at the DMV smacks of
elitism and pandering. But, giving an "express process" option for $1k doesn't
sound so bad to me. Someone else mentioned auctioning off carpool-lane passes,
it's a similar principle.

More importantly, it directly ties the cost to the reward. The biggest problem
with Adam's system is that if you don't directly tie revenue to entitlements,
then the rich would still push for lower taxes, while also wanting to keep the
corresponding entitlements. The connection between the two has to be strong
enough to resist politics.

------
jakevoytko
The best ideas in this framework would use sliding rewards. But they will
never happen.

Take the HOV lane idea. Giving the top 1% access to HOV lanes is political
suicide. But awarding hours for a special fast lane, linked to the
infrastructure-based taxes you pay, sounds fairer. The family of 4 making $60K
a year gets a few hours they can use when they need them, tax-exempt employees
get nothing, and a CEO gets more hours than she can realistically use in a
year.

But opponents would say you're giving advantages to those who are "ahead."
Talented-yet-poor people have less time to strike it rich. It's a Catch 22 -
you need time to make money, and money to get more time, and you have neither
when you start anew.

This cuts to the heart of optimizing nations for the individual, versus
optimizing for the nation as a whole. I'm not sure the answer is
straightforward, or if the two answers are mutually exclusive.

~~~
gabrielroth
The HOV-lane idea starts out in the wrong place. If you want to raise money
from apportioning a scarce resource (in this case space on the road), you use
prices, not taxes.

Congestion charges have become very popular and successful in London—it's too
bad Bloomberg's attempt to install them in New York failed.

~~~
seabee
> Congestion charges have become very popular and successful in London

Popular and successful with who, exactly? I don't know a single person that
likes it. Traffic was reduced for a few years but now it's just as bad as
ever. And the cost of public transport continually rises above inflation. At
least they recently shrank the chargable area.

So what has it done, exactly, except raise income for the city and raise
prices for businesses on the border and those who need vehicles to function?

~~~
megablast
I like it, lots of my friends like it as well.

If they did not enact it, things on the road would be worse. They just need to
make it more.

The cost of public transport is ridiculous, London has to be the most
expensive city to travel around.

~~~
reubenyeah
Really?

You think £1.30 to get a bus as far as you like is expensive? and £4 to get as
many buses as you like in a day is expensive?

~~~
seabee
Maybe not for you. I did a little calculation at <http://listentotaxman.com/>
and put in the minimum wage for a 37.5 hour week. If you need to take a few
buses to get to work, over 10% of your £190 weekly pay packet gets eaten up on
travel.

It's definitely cheaper (though less flexible) than running a car on your own,
but some of the costs of a car can be spread between more than one person,
which isn't the case with public transport.

However, I was pleasantly surprised to see that teenagers now get free bus
travel and discounted Tube fares. I could've done with that a few years ago!

~~~
windsurfer
London doesn't allow you to tranfer to another bus with a single ticket? Here
in Ottawa busses are $3.25 and about to go up, and I think that's more than
fair.

(I suppose pun intended)

~~~
russss
Yeah, London doesn't have transfer tickets. It's annoying.

At any rate, if you take more than 2 buses per day then getting a monthly bus
pass/travelcard is cheaper.

------
bluedevil2k
There's a potentially dangerous line that the US is approaching where,
factoring in all the exemptions, credits, and deductions, a majority of the
population will not be paying income taxes at all. Thus, a majority of the
population will be deciding (via their votes) how much and on what the taxes
of the minority will be spent.

The only saving grace, if you can call it that, is that the people who
actually place the votes (senators and reps) are themselves almost exclusively
from that well-off minority.

~~~
tptacek
This is pretty disingenuous. I've held low-wage jobs, and so have most of the
members of my immediate family, and taxes took a serious bite out our
paychecks. You are referring to the federal income tax, as many people do in
debates like this, but lower-middle class people pay a much greater percentage
of their income in payroll taxes than do wealthy people; the "income tax"
debate is misleading.

~~~
jmulho
A person making $20,000 pays the same US federal payroll tax rate as a person
making $100,000 (7.65% in 2010, 5.65% in 2011). This tax pays for Social
Security and Medicare (retirement income and retirment healthcare). Federal
income tax pays for most of everything else: national defense, public safety,
infrastructure, education.

In 2009, 47% of US households paid zero federal income tax. We are close to
the point where the voting power of non-tax payers exceeds that of tax payers
- the point at which people can make decisions they don't have to pay for.

Name your issue: foreign wars, Wall Street bailouts, universal healthcare,
bridges to nowhere, prescription drugs for seniors, cash for clunkers. I don’t
know about you, but I want the people making those kinds of decisions to have
some skin in the game.

It is not at all disingenuous to have concerns about this.

~~~
tptacek
First, payroll taxes cost twice as much as that.

Second, payroll taxes are capped; you stop paying them after ~100k.

Third, your overall point is bankrupt. Regardless of what particular bucket of
money their taxes are paid into, working people at all income levels are stung
by our tax rates, which are in turn lower than virtually every other western
industrialized nation. It is simply not the case that the working class has no
skin in the game.

~~~
jmulho
One: right. The employee pays 7.65%. The employer pays the other half.

Two: right (the rate is actually 1.45% on wages over $106,800 in 2010) - the
idea being that you shouldn't have to pay in infinitely given that the
benefits are capped.

Three: it is ironic that you mention bankruptcy... that is what tends to
happen when the people making spending decisions face no direct consequences.

Let me give you a scenario for the sake of discussion. Suppose everyone paid a
10% federal income tax rate. Now suppose the government said, "We are
considering a trillion dollar war, a trillion dollar bailout, and a trillion
dollar stimulus package. You, taxpayer, can have all of the wonderful benefits
of these things for the low cost of changing your federal income tax rate to
30% for the next 10 years. How about it?" You might have more people
questioning these decisions.

~~~
tptacek
I don't know what point you're trying to make. You cited a payroll tax rate
that was half what people really pay in, and implied that it was the same rate
that wealthy people paid. Of course you were wrong on both counts. It takes no
great insight to notice this; the same observation is at the center of Warren
Buffet's complaint that his tax rate is effectively lower than his
secretary's.

Your analysis is just dead wrong, and no hypothetical digs you out of it.

~~~
jmulho
So far, my "overall point is bankrupt", my "analysis is just dead wrong", I am
in some kind of hole I need to dig myself out of, and the point I attempted to
defend is "pretty disingenuous". Ok, may we proceed?

The original point is this: "There's a potentially dangerous line that the US
is approaching where... a majority of the population will not be paying income
taxes at all." That statement contains two contentions: 1) the US is
approaching the line where 50% of the population will be paying no income tax
at all, 2) this is potentially dangerous.

The first contention hasn’t been disputed. The second is what I believe we are
debating.

You interject that the whole discussion ("the income tax debate") is
"misleading"/"disingenuous" because it doesn’t consider payroll taxes -
something that "lower middle-class people" pay a disproportionate amount of
(relative to their income) compared to "wealthy people.'

I attempted to point out that payroll tax isn’t really relevant to the
question because everyone pays the same rate up until the point that the tax
is capped, which is commensurate with the point at which the benefits are
capped.

I will give you that $100,000 per year isn’t all that "wealthy." And I'll give
you the following: A person making $500,000 will pay 2.77% of wages in payroll
tax (6.2% of the first $106,800, plus 1.45% of total wages). A person making
$200,000 will pay 4.76% (same rules). People making $20,000 and $100,000, will
both pay 7.65% (same rules).

If I am wrong that the employee pays half of the payroll tax (7.65%) and the
employer pays the other half (another 7.65%) please let me know. However, I
don’t feel it is relevant to the central question under debate.

I don’t feel your point about payroll taxes is significant enough to dismiss
the question about income taxes. Is the 50% threshold "potentially dangerous"
or not?

~~~
natrius
The person the government sends the tax bill to is rarely the person whose
wealth is reduced by the tax. Since all employers must pay payroll tax, there
are few practical alternatives for earning a living (inelastic supply of
labor), and employers are price-sensitive and will employ fewer people if they
cost more (elastic demand for labor), even the employer's portion of the tax
comes from wealth that would've gone to the employees.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence>

------
nazgulnarsil
The problems of the world summed up in a thread: the average IQ of hacker news
is way above average and yet people feel the need to: comment on issues when
they have no idea of the underlying numbers, use terms that they clearly
haven't bothered to even look at on wikipedia or a dictionary, repeat
fallacies that any undergraduate econ student knows is false, propose vast
social engineering schemes with no regard as to their unintended effects.

I mean if we're the smart ones and we're pulling this bullshit what hope does
the world have? engineers are supposed to know better. :(

------
hugh3
My idea along these lines, which I may have explained in this forum before, is
to replace one of the houses of parliament (or congress, or whatever you call
your local bicameral legislature) with the "House of Taxpayers", where
representatives are elected by taxpayers whose vote counts _in proportion to
how much tax they pay_. The other house remains a "House of Commons" where the
one man/one vote rule applies.

The point of this idea is that every new piece of legislation must be approved
(in effect) by two groups: the people who are affected by it (everybody) and
the people who have to pay for it (disproportionately the rich).

------
mgkimsal
His idea about a 10% cut across the board is so common-sense - I've heard it
before - yet we never ever hear this from anyone in Washington (not that I've
heard, anyway). Why not?

10% may seem extreme - fair enough - but why not 2%? Could we try _one_ year
where _every federal department_ has 2% less to spend than they did the year
before? 2% isn't a lot, and would go a long way toward each dept rooting out
their own 'waste/fraud/abuse', instead of making govt larger by adding
oversight processes and staff.

And I _do not_ mean "2% less than what we'd projected to increase our budget
by next year". I mean if your department had a budget of $1,000,000, you only
get a budget of $980,000 this year. Shaving 2% off a 3.5 trillion budget would
be - what? - 70 billion? While that doesn't quite get us out of the mess we're
in, it's a good start.

~~~
steveklabnik
> Why not?

You're asking the people who are receiving the money to make the rules that
they get less of it.

I think it's fairly obvious.

~~~
mgkimsal
sort of, but not really. the people making the rules - proposing and approving
budgets - don't _get_ the money themselves. They do get power by apportioning
it out though.

BUT... if _everyone_ had their relative power reduced equally by truly
'across-the-board' cuts, there would't be any real change in the 'my budget is
bigger than yours' contests that undoubtedly go on.

------
axod
Taxing the rich (even more than they are already which IMHO is a _lot_ ) is
just punishing success and rewarding failure.

~~~
izendejas
Of all those that agree with such argument, I'd like to get an answer to these
questions:

1) have you traveled to a developing|third-world country? 2) if you haven't,
you should. if you have... 2a) what price tag do you put on first-class
infrastructure that makes your business run smoothly, not to mention make it
safer to deliver? 2b) what price tag do you pay to ensure that you have a
well-nourished and healthy work-force that is more intelligent, stronger and
efficient? 2c) what price tag do you pay to ensure that everyone has access to
a world-class education (again, compare to a third-world country, I know ours
sucks compared to others') that is again, more knowledgeable, more creative,
etc and will one day help you boost margins, compete globally, etc?

And I could go on...

You see.. safety goes hand in hand with: 1) economic stability 2) health (ever
wonder why some people risk their own lives to cross borders? their families
are starving/dying!) 3) education 4) and much more than just a strong
military, uncorrupt/just police/court system

And those things cost money. If you'd rather grow wealthy in another country,
I dare you to try! And if you're already wealthy and you think taxing you more
is unfair, I dare you to move to countries like Mexico where many business
owners now have to pay "taxes" to drug gangs or else, they just don't go to
prison, they get killed!

I'm not arguing that our tax system doesn't need reform or that current rates
are fair, I'm arguing that if you want to be wealthy one day or are already,
it's in your best interest to contribute more. Consider it an investment where
you can. Yes, surely there is waste, but focus on that, don't whine about the
fact that you're getting punished because YOU ARE NOT... you were rewarded
with all these great opportunities and public goods and services you seem to
take for granted, that's all (again, see my first question above).

~~~
benmccann
You're arguing that education, infrastructure, and a non-corrupt court system
is responsible for this country's success, which may well be true. However,
only a tiny amount of spending is on those things. 85% of spending is on
social security, the military, and medicaid. We could cut all of those things
dramatically without a corresponding decrease in the country's economic
output.

~~~
three14
Preventing old people and sick people from dying in the streets is just one of
those costs you're going to have to pay for, like it or not. Raise Social
Security to 68, maybe. Cut it off, though, and you'll find that the country
will still pay, one way or another. (Maybe force kids to support their parents
- it could be a completely different solution from Social Security, but that
money is going to get spent.)

~~~
izendejas
I'm glad you bring up that idea out at the end (by now, few will read it, but
that's okay). It pains me to learn that some people in this great country (for
cultural reasons?) don't do this. It's a "crazy" idea, but one that works very
well in other countries. Latin Americans, Indians, and others will attest to
that. I wouldn't call for forcing families to take care of their elderly, but
I'd find ways to motivate that because it's simply sad that _we_ have to take
care of others' parents.

And yes, the whole problem with our health care system isn't so much that
we're paying (we have to no matter what, either by premium increases or
footing the bill for emergency patients). The problem is that it sucks at
preventing major health problems that later cost more if undetected and not
treated early.

~~~
khafra
The problem with that system is that it incentivizes overpopulation. If your
retirement plan is your children, you have a lot of children.

~~~
izendejas
Perhaps. But grandchildren, brothers, sisters, etc can all help, not just
children.

------
martinkallstrom
The best way of taxing the rich is producing luxury goods. The fact that you
can buy food, transport, housing, clothing at a magnitude or two (or more)
higher cost is a sort of volontary tax. When you buy a $1000 bottle of
champagne instead of drinking water, a large part of that money takes a pretty
short path to pay the wages of people that never would buy the same bottle
themselves. And would maybe be out of a job if they didn't take a small part
in producing that bottle of champagne. So the fact that luxury goods exist is
a sort of tax that spreads the wealth of the people that choose to afford it.

~~~
khafra
Yes, luxury goods amount to a tax on the status-conscious who can afford them
--but the problem is that they send a price signal that more luxury goods are
needed, when what we really need is investment in infrastructure, basic and
applied research, etc.

~~~
martinkallstrom
That's a really good point. As always, balance is called for.

------
richcollins
_In reality, fairness is not so much about the actual distribution of loot as
it is about the psychology of how you feel about it. That's important to
understand because the rich won't give up their cash unless they feel they are
getting something in return._

I appreciate his attempt at a nuanced view of the subject, but I can't see
taking your possessions under threat of violence as anything other than
reprehensible.

------
BlazingFrog
I think most of the rich people as described in the article (top 2%) already
get most, if not all, of the perks he lists. It may not be in the law, but
make no mistake. These people don't go to the DMV (who cares about the express
lane), don't read their own mail (so much for gratitude letters), often don't
drive their own car (carpool eligible in most places), don't care about social
services and how much they cost and already have a large influence on the
election process.

Scott feels as if he's "on a path toward certain doom" when paying attention
to news. In my case it's when I think about how little hope there is to
radically change the system considering that the people in charge are the ones
who profit the most from that system, by a long shot.

------
te_platt
Eliminate all federal taxes and print the money needed for government
operations. Effectively this becomes an inflation tax. Automatically it
affects the wealthy in direct proportion to their wealth as opposed to their
most recent earnings. No loopholes, no games, no misallocation of resources
for tax breaks.

~~~
benohear
This would hit people with savings in cash (or bonds), i.e. the middle class.
The rich tend to have assets (or foreign holdings) which should be largely
inflation-proof.

~~~
va_coder
..and old people on fixed income.

~~~
melling
If you work for the post office or are a teacher, for example, your pension
adjusts for inflation. Other govt jobs are similar?

So, inflating out of the problem won't help here.

~~~
forgottenpaswrd
Not true. Your pension adjust for OFFICIAL inflation, I invite you to make a
simple shopping cart on Excel with your most important expenses and compare
with official figures. Official's is allays less(all govs massage the numbers
as there is so much money at stake).

------
bluedevil2k
I like the "rich" driving lane idea - put up X licenses for auction in each
city, let people bid up the price, let the market decide how much time is
worth.

~~~
ry0ohki
These were kind of proposed in DC (I think they may actually exist in San
Diego or somewhere), where you pay a variable rate to use the carpool lanes
based on demand. So during rush hour it would cost $6 and 11am on a saturday
it would cost $.50.

People didn't like the idea because they would be "Lexus lanes" giving special
privileges to the rich. Scott Adams is right that if we really want to solve
the budge problems we may need to accept that the people who can help the most
may need some sort of special privileges.

~~~
Alex3917
"we may need to accept that the people who can help the most may need some
sort of special privileges."

Because no-bid contracts, not going to jail when they commit crimes, real
education for their kids, not living in crime zones, food that isn't poison,
actual health care, living an extra three years, etc. aren't enough already.

~~~
viraptor
To some extent... no, they aren't. They're the status quo. If you change
nothing, the rich will still get them. That was the big point really. If you
want to share some of their money, propose something else in exchange.

It will only change during an actual complete crash of the value of money. And
even then it's not guaranteed, because they will still have access to an
extensive network of influential people, while "we" won't.

------
WiseWeasel
A low-hanging fruit would be to retool Social Security to be relevant to the
needs of more affluent contributors; they might feel better about paying in if
they are assured a payout that might actually support what they would consider
to be a reasonably comfortable retirement. As it stands, Social Security is
pretty much a total loss for higher income brackets.

As for a power incentive, the only one I might envision is to create a public
forum where the public and their representatives can debate how their tax
money is being spent, and a user's "karma" or default visibility bonus on the
site would be based on their tax contribution.

~~~
jbooth
You only pay SS on your first 105k or so of income (indexed to inflation).

~~~
WiseWeasel
A cap which would presumably be raised along with the payouts.

------
ctdonath
Recall that uber-rich Steve Jobs has an annual salary from Apple of $1, wears
black turtlenecks and jeans (ever anything else?), and is building a modest
5000 square foot home on property he owns outright. What to tax?

~~~
tsycho
In that case, also recall that the "net impact" that he has already had on the
world economy in terms of jobs created, sales taxes on products sold etc. is
probably much larger than whatever you would tax his income "fairly".

------
megaman821
I think the best solution would be to get rid of income taxes and just have
sales and property taxes.

Taxing the rich a higher rate is always going to seem unfair to them because
the only way those taxes can be lessened is by making less money. Taxing $2
million house at a special rate is a different story, it seems fair because if
you don't want to pay the tax you live in a more modest house. Luxury cars,
fur coats, yachts, etc. can all have different sales tax rates and they still
become a status symbol many of the rich are willing to pay for but not being
forced to pay for.

~~~
yummyfajitas
This is considered by many to be unfair because consumption inequality is not
as large as income inequality.

Peter Thiel may be 10,000-100,000x richer than me, but I'd be very surprised
if he consumes even 1000x more than I do.

~~~
megaman821
The consumption tax doesn't have to be a flat tax. You pay more tax for a pack
a cigarettes than a pack of paper.

Peter Theil makes about 200x more a year than the average person, but he
doesn't have to consume 200 times more than the average person if all the
items he wants to buy are at a much higher tax rate. They only way to avoid
the tax is to not buy luxury items, and if a billionaire wants to live the
life of a guy making 50k a year, let him have at it.

~~~
neilk
You're taxing the wrong thing. Your idea would be great if we wanted
billionaires to act like regular joes. But generally, in North America, we
don't care about that. The problem was about fixing the deficit.

yummyfajitas was right: consumption taxes are generally considered regressive.
Also, the rich, or even the professional class, have many more options to
disguise their consumption as business expenses.

~~~
megaman821
The point is billionaires won't live like regular joes. You think just because
the tax is higher they will start purchasing a Timex instead of a Rolex?

Even now it would be hard to justify a $100k car as a business expense, with a
simplified sales and property tax code it would be even easier to stop.

------
jbooth
Don't we already have this? If you have lawyers, accountants and possibly
lobbyists, you have an entirely different relationship with the gov't than
normal people.

------
JeffL
I reject the premise of the entire article that "The hole is too big to plug
with cost cutting or economic growth alone." The hole was created by
increasing spending, it can be closed by reducing spending.

------
jff
A salient note about how government austerity works: the Department of Energy
labs have decided that as a cost-cutting measure, they will enact a 2-year pay
freeze for all employees (except the top-level managers who work for Lockheed,
not DoE). Hail the great cost-cutting measures! Except the government will
still be putting the same amount of money into the labs andyway; we've been
getting emails talking about how they're now trying to come up with ways to
spend this windfall of excess cash. So far it sounds like they're going to go
for some pseudo-green initiative; maybe we'll just get a new Greenification
Department, which inspects all of our workspaces and penalizes us when we're
not green enough. (This particular pay freeze is because Dr. Chu wants to make
Obama look good. Good policy for a Democrat, screw the researchers but keep
the $2 million salary for the head of the lab... wait isn't that what
Republicans are expected to do?)

The talk about an across-the-board 10% cut made me think of that--unless it's
specified that employee wages and benefits must not suffer, such a cut will
probably just end up boning the minions.

------
Create
_The bad version is that anyone who pays taxes at a rate above some set amount
gets to use the car pool lane without a passenger. Or perhaps the rich are
allowed to park in handicapped-only spaces._

This is all over the place: e.g. London congestion fee (rich have no trouble
paying, and it clears the lanes for them as an added bonus). Same for all
other: parked in the wrong place? The secretary will send off the fine.

IKEA: Kamprad insists, that he and his family have no control over Ikea, which
went entirely to Stichting Ingka Foundation and its subsidiary Inka Holdings,
based in Liechtenstein. Billions are spread through Belgium, Luxembourg,
Switzerland, Virgin Islands (travel Branson :) and Cyprus. When confronted,
Kampard has declared, that Ikea respects the law and pays its taxes, but he
added that it doesn't want to pay too much (GOOG comes to mind with Irish-
Dutch-Bermuda triangle money laundering scheme).

It is just a structure optimisation, which gives the possibility and
flexibility to use capital towards new markets to develop business without the
burden of double taxation ...declared Kamprad. [src: SVT]

------
kanamekun
The US Government could give out badges for every $1m in taxes you pay... then
the rich could level up every April 15th.

~~~
klbarry
This is not bad at all. I feel like the government should use game theory
everywhere - for the poor they want to succeed and teach themselves, for the
rich paying taxes, etc. It's proven to work in so many situations.

~~~
philwelch
Quibble: "Game theory" refers to scenarios like prisoner's dilemma and so
forth, not to gameplay mechanics.

~~~
klbarry
Accurate quibble, my apologies.

------
law
There's certainly a lot of merit to this article. I think it's important to
remember that the "rich" aren't necessarily people as wealthy as Warren Buffet
and Bill Gates. Moreover, while there are many people born into wealth, there
are many who make their own wealth through earnest work and frugal
investments. They're the ones who are likely more outraged than "taxes on the
rich," and it's a very valid argument.

If we look to how the private sector handles this, we see that airlines have
their own VIP status system. You might have "Elite Access" status on
Continental Airlines, you might have an American Express Platinum card, you
might be an HHonors member at Hilton. These companies offer loyalty incentives
to hold onto customers, and I think it's a model that the government could
eventually adopt.

------
ubasu
Some of these already exist

1\. Time: e.g There are already carpool lanes where you can ride by paying an
extra fee. Even otherwise, if you are rich enough, you can just pay the fine,
which would be the added tax.

5\. Power: Rich people already have power by having access to lobbyists or to
the appropriate media. If you are rich enough, you can fund a movement on your
own.

Others don't make sense in a democracy where everyone is presumably equal,
e.g. writing thank you notes to richer people for being kind enough to
participate in the functioning of the country. As another comment said, this
is like moving toward a visible aristocracy.

Also, it is mostly not true that the country doesn't go to war unless the
middle class majority is on board.

~~~
law
"Just paying the fine" undermines the entire argument about saving time. When
a cop pulls you over for illegally driving in the carpool lane, he's not going
to run out of his car, hand you the ticket, and run back. He's going to keep
you there for fifteen minutes, because he wants to waste your time. It's just
not worth it.

Regarding power, I think you're overestimating how rich these people are. The
people in the highest federal income tax brackets aren't making over a million
a year. For 2010, the highest federal tax bracket is 35% for above $375k/year.
It's 33% for over $170k. Just for reference, if you're married, filing
jointly, and you're both engineers making $90k or something, you would be in
the 33% tax bracket. Certainly these people don't have access "to lobbyists or
to the appropriate media."

------
KMStraub
Lots of gems in here. My favorite line: "They also know that any project can
get by with 10% less money if there is no alternative."

The world would be a much better place if there was less quibbling overall.

------
Ntagg
Let's say there are ten people in a room and they each give five dollars to an
"elected" member who gets to redistribute that money, after which all the
members re-vote on the next elected member. A savvy elected member would
redistribute the money to five members, plus himself, thus perpetually stay in
power and continue to receive the majority of votes.

I use this illustration to show that as long as one official or group gets to
continue in power, they don't have incentive to do right by everyone; rather,
they are incentivized to do well to only a slim majority.

The short-term problem this article presents is that our country's budget
crisis demands a surplus contribution from the wealthy. For argument's sake,
I'll admit it does.

The understated, long-term problem is that elected officials are personally
motivated to spend their political power on getting re-elected, which only
requires making a little more than half of their constituents satisfied.

My suggestion would be to stop allowing anyone to be re-elected. Once they
know that their decisions don't have to be popular, they're free to make
decisions that help long-term, even at short-term discomfort or
dissatisfaction. There are obvious problems (how this reflects on their party,
for example), but I think that there's a solution embedded in this line of
reasoning.

------
joshwa
1\. Fix healthcare costs: single-payer.

Really. That's it.

$600B in administrative savings alone, which doesn't take into account the
cost reductions that the system will achieve by negotiating rates downward.

------
chrismealy
Why have the rich suddenly became a bunch of babies? What's with all the
whining? Having money isn't enough, now they want to be worshipped like feudal
lords.

~~~
burgerbrain
Do you similarly decry the people who spend extra money at amusement parks to
skip lines? Seems like exactly the same thing as this. You pay more: you get
more.

~~~
teamonkey
By skipping the lines at amusement parks, those who don't pay extra have to
wait even longer for their turn than they would if that system wasn't in
place. So in effect, those who pay more benefit and simultaneously penalise
those who do not.

~~~
burgerbrain
That wasn't my question. My question was do you similarly decry those people
for being "a bunch of babies"?

~~~
teamonkey
If there was no fast pass system and people were saying "I'm rich, I'm
entitled to a system where people like me get to the front of the queue," then
yes, suck it up.

~~~
disc
That's the whole point of the article; the rich must perceive that they'll get
additional value (ie., no waiting in line) before they'll voluntarily agree to
pay additional taxes.

------
joshuagamen
He(Pres Obama) said that it doesn't make any sense that people who have
accountants and attorneys can get away with not paying taxes, while the rest
of the ppl get stuck with the bill. This translates to, “bye bye middle
class.” The Pres was put in offc by the richest men in the world, he is not
going 2 make them pay more taxes, hell, they benefit from taxes, especially
the biggest of all(inflation). The way to level the playing field is not by
stopping tax cuts to the top 2% in income, the way to level the playing field
would be to extend tax cuts to the bottom 98% in terms of income. Bigger
government won't solve anything. If you look at world history, you will notice
that any government that tries to do too much, does not do anything well
enough..

------
jeffreyrusso
The ultra wealthy have done a great job of engineering the system to control
how much they pay in - so why do we think incentivizing them would work? It
may take time, but every perk that could potentially be offered at a premium
would be just one more race to the bottom.

------
grego
How about just let the rich be rich and get richer, but making it very hard to
pass on inheritance. So their kids would be on equal playing field with
everybody else. That would make it their vested interest to improve conditions
in that field for all.

~~~
ams6110
Except why is it any business of anyone else's whether one wants to spend
one's money or save it and pass it to one's children?

------
andreyf
I think the "power" category is best, but obviously a sensitive topic. What we
need is a layered democracy, where the smart people who understand a field and
have power to influence laws there (with the advice of experts in whatever
fields those laws have side-effects on), but not in a selfish way.

The way congress works now, it's the people with money who influence law, and
some of them are doing it either out of self-interest, or in the short-term
financial interests of their institutional shareholders (401(k) managers, for
example), who don't understand anything about the domain.

~~~
rst
But Congressmen and the executive honestly think that they're listening to
"the smart people" right now, for the most part. When they consider copyright
issues, they listen to the smart people who run record companies and movie
studios. When they consider energy policy, they listen to the smart people who
run oil companies. (Big oil was in charge of the Gulf oil spill cleanup
because the government genuinely didn't have the expertise.) When they
consider finance, they listen to the smart people who run the banks. And so
forth. Or so they say --- and you can call it rationalization for cashing
their lobbyists' large checks, but I think they honestly believe it
regardless. After all, these folks do have a record of achievement in their
fields, and how else is a Congressman to judge?

What we need is a better answer to that question, which has measures for
expertise other than "they made a lot of money at it." Unfortunately, it's
hard to see anything like Adams's proposal, of explicit preferential treatment
for the rich, as being a step in that direction.

------
motters
The rich and their tax situation is really only part of the wider picture of
how to govern an economy in a sustainable manner. It's my opinion that we need
to take more of a systems approach, making use of lessons from cybernetics.

It's pretty obvious now that the economy is not like an ecosystem with
multiple more or less autonomous agents acting independently, but is instead
more like a machine where information flows are centralised and significant
components of the system can act in concert.

------
kree10
Deliberately proposing bad solutions sounds fun, but wow could that backfire.
Applied to software projects, the "bad" version will get the go-ahead, and
we'll be stuck maintaining it forever.

You could argue that this is already happening, but the difference is I think
the people proposing bad solutions are usually not aware their ideas are bad.
I'm sure I've been guilty of proposing and implementing bad ideas in software
myself.

------
csbartus
(after reading through that 340 comments)

So no hope for America! At least not from hackers. Thanks God!

Solving the tax problem by hackers has a probability like RIAA solving the
ilegal file sharing problem.

Instead, as engineers and people thinking is systems and infrastructures
hackers should reverse-engineer the problem. That would be a success!

Hint: Ask yourself: "How Rich Are Looking At Taxpayers?"

------
daimyoyo
We live in a society that uses fiat currency so why does it matter how much
we're in debt? Why can't we simply say "that $12,000,000,000,000 we owed? We
just hit a triple word score and we have it in the bank now." The USA has
carried a debt for the last 190 years and we haven't gone bankrupt yet.

~~~
josh33
Because Fiat currency is a representation of a promise that is paid for with
human life, rather than a precious resource. Our debt is a guarantee that
american tax payers have to pay OR the government will need to declare
bankruptcy of sorts.

------
zdw
My bad idea: Taxes and number of votes both increase on how "gifted" you are -
smarter people would therefore have more say in the government, and have more
incentive to make it more efficient and do it's job better.

I have no clue how to measure or implement this.

~~~
TomOfTTB
Not to criticize but I think you missed his point. The way I read it the point
of the article is this...

We can't force the rich to pay more because they always find a way out of it.
We know this because there were days when upper tax rates were 90% but tax
revenue was roughly the same because the rich can lobby for loop holes and pay
people to exploit those loop holes. The rich will find a way to keep from
paying too much in taxes even if they have to buy some backwards little
country and form their own nation.

So the only way to get rich people's money is to find something we can give
them which makes them feel like they're spending their money for something
rather than giving it away.

So the stupid ideas are in the context of "how can we make the rich give us
their money?"

~~~
pzxc
Who is John Galt?

~~~
sambeau
I very nearly fell for that.

------
sambeau
If I could, I would link tax paying to the National Lottery. The more tax you
pay the bigger your chance of winning big.

It would make a refreshing change to see people queueing up on a Saturday
night, desperate to pay their tax.

~~~
pzxc
I would have an emotional reaction from seeing that sight but I wouldn't call
it "refreshing".

------
sayemm
Here's a good video on the topic: "Warren Buffett's Tax Rate is Lower than His
Secretary's" - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s>

------
teyc
Actually, every rich tax payer should be given a free trip to developing
countries where poverty and crime is rampant, and the rich are forced to live
in gilded prisons because it is so unsafe outside.

------
KMStraub
My "bad" thought: The rich work hard because they're running out of time. The
poor work less because they have too much time to waste.

~~~
KMStraub
Disclaimer: I am poor.

------
benohear
How about land ownership being allocated according to the size of your tax
bill?

------
known
In India Govt is auctioning _street names_. You can grab one.

------
maeon3
Tax the rich too much and then they stop creating jobs for all you whiners who
can't hold on to your money. The whole notion of taxing the rich more than the
poor seems unfair, what makes you worthy of benefits and him worthy of a
penalty? Just because he was more responsible and hard working than you were?
Americans are not broke, it's the government that is broke and instead of take
the negative consequences, they would rather have someone else do it.

~~~
spankythemonk
> Tax the rich too much and then they stop creating jobs for all you whiners
> who can't hold on to your money.

This is true. You're essentially increasing the tax burden on the entrepreneur
class. This means less money spent on business formation, job creation and
capital investment. The last thing that the US Economy needs right now. Not
only that, but many "rich" might just decide to leave the country and go
somewhere where they are allowed to keep the money they earn. What will you
tax then?

Taxing the rich is a stupid policy. Look at the unintended consequences. There
are two sides to every coin.

The problem with the US economy is simply that there is too much government
and it's choking the private sector like a giant parasite killing it's host.
CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

~~~
vannevar
Or the problem might be that wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands
of a few who are vulnerable to groupthink and consequently triggering
financial disasters with their incompetence. DISTRIBUTE MORE OF THE WEALTH.

~~~
rick888
"Or the problem might be that wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands
of a few who are vulnerable to groupthink and consequently triggering
financial disasters with their incompetence. DISTRIBUTE MORE OF THE WEALTH."

"distribute more of the wealth" sounds so clean and nice. What you are really
doing is taking this money away by force, which is anything but.

Here is a scenario: Let's say you are a senior developer for a company and you
make $90,000/year. A new guy joins the company with almost no experience and
your boss tells you that he needs to "distribute more of your wealth". You
will make $60,000 so he can make $30,000 more. He is putting in much less
effort than you. This is okay, right?

Everyone that wants wealth redistribution should be put into the same
situation. I think we would have much less people out there interested in
taxing the rich to death.

"consequently triggering financial disasters"

What about the people that took out loans they obviously couldn't afford? It's
the same with credit card debt. People blame the credit card companies for
giving them the loans in the first place, yet they keep putting themselves
into more and more debt buying things they don't need. We need more personal
responsibility.

~~~
vannevar
_"distribute more of the wealth" sounds so clean and nice_. Indeed. Much like
'cut government spending'. My point is that slogan-based solutions are
unhelpful.

You sound like someone who takes Ayn Rand seriously as an economist, as
opposed to a philosopher. The truth is that most of the wealthy were born into
the upper classes of income, and further that wealth tends to create wealth
quite apart from the physical or mental effort of the owner. And in all cases,
both chance and social institutions that have been built up over centuries
contribute disproportionately to becoming wealthy.

So let me give you a counter example: you work very hard in your company as a
senior developer. Once day the boss comes and tells you you're fired because
he's hired his son to do your job. Now you're on unemployment for months due
to an economic downturn, but because there are no income taxes you get no
unemployment benefits. To top it off, you lost your health benefits when you
lost your job, and now you find you have cancer (33% of us will get it at some
point). The good news is, it's curable. The bad news is the treatment is
prohibitively expensive, so like all of the losers in society's Randian
economic game, we're going to expect you to simply die gracefully in a
cardboard box somewhere out of sight. Thanks for playing, though.

~~~
rick888
"Much like 'cut government spending'."

So..why did you say it in the first place? It's obviously something you
believe.

"You sound like someone who takes Ayn Rand seriously as an economist, as
opposed to a philosopher. The truth is that most of the wealthy were born into
the upper classes of income"

Define wealthy. You are going to the extremes. Wealthy to me might be
$100,000/year if I'm living in the mid-west. You also need to back up that
statements with some citations/sources.

Here is a list of wealthy people that were born poor:
<http://www.intelligenius.net/rich-people-who-were-born-poor/> There are
countless others that may not have billions, but still live very comfortable
lives.

I'm really tired of people that don't want to put the time and effort into
becoming successful trying to knock the actual successful people down a notch
by saying it was luck or they were born into wealth (that must be the only
reason they have money).

I have a quote for you:

"Chance favors only the prepared mind." - Louis Pasteur

I have felt this way for years. There are opportunities all around us every
day. If you aren't educated enough to act on it, it will pass you by/you won't
even be able to recognize it as an opportunity.

With Internet the being so prevalent, you could easily learn a new skill
online, without ever having to pay exorbitant education fees. (MIT has free
coursework available). Every city I've lived in has had free Internet access
through the library. There are no more excuses. If you aren't physically or
mentally incapable, you can succeed if you put in the effort.

"so let me give you a counter example: you work very hard in your company as a
senior developer. Once day the boss comes and tells you you're fired because
he's hired his son to do your job."

The boss owns the company. If he wants to hire his son, it's his freedom. If I
was a senior developer, I probably would have the skills to easily find a job
somewhere else. In a few months, when the boss realizes his son can't do the
job, it will be too late. If it isn't, I will need a much higher salary to
come back.

"Now you're on unemployment for months due to an economic downturn, but
because there are no income taxes you get no unemployment benefits."

So when did I say we should have no taxes? You are once again taking things to
the extreme to further your point. Sounds like a red herring to me.

"To top it off, you lost your health benefits when you lost your job, and now
you find you have cancer (33% of us will get it at some point). The good news
is, it's curable. The bad news is the treatment is prohibitively expensive"

Treatment is expensive no matter what. The difference is that either the
government pays the cost (IE: the tax payers) pr your insurance company pays
for it. My problem with all of the current universal health care advocates is
that they propose plans that assume medical care is an infinite resource.
There needs to be some way to limit doctor visits or people will be coming
into the office many more times than they should (because hey, it's free I'm
paying for it). There needs to be overall limits in place and after those
limits are hit (maybe a yearly visit limit), you need to pay out of pocket. If
we got rid of the insurance companies altogether, the hospitals wouldn't be
able to charge $100 for a bottle of aspirin.

Another point I would like to make is that in pretty much all countries with
socialized medicine, there are long waiting lines for things like cancer
treatments. I have many older relatives that live in Canada that have had to
come over to the US because they weren't able to get treatments in time.

"so like all of the losers in society's Randian economic game, we're going to
expect you to simply die gracefully in a cardboard box somewhere out of sight.
Thanks for playing, though."

red herring #2. Your post is filled with them.

~~~
rick888
"A problem doesn't have to have a single cause; in fact, most real world
problems don't. I think it's a good idea to cut spending. I also think it's a
good idea to distribute wealth."

We are already redistributing wealth through taxes and social programs.

"But the fact is that most of them started well-off and got richer."

Citation?

"And it's also a fact that it is easier to earn a million dollars if you
already have a million dollars."

It's also easier when you have the mindset of someone that is successful. Poor
parents pass on poor decision making to their kids.

"So you don't mind if they take 35% by force, but 39% is looting?"

When did we ever talk about percentages? I seriously doubt that all of the
social programs you are talking about would only be a matter of 3%.

"As for your anecdotal long lines in Canada, I'm guessing that option would
look pretty good from your cardboard box, dying slowly of liver failure."

I guess it gives them hope. If the waiting lines are so long that you die
before you get care, it doesn't really matter.

"But you've indicated you're immune to bad luck, that you could always find a
place willing to hire a good developer even in the middle of major layoffs and
even if you need to take time off every day for chemo. Good for you. But what
do we do with all the people who don't have your skills, training or work
ethic? What do we do with the losers? Let them die in the streets? What do we
do with them?"

How do we stop our hospitals from being flooded with people that don't really
need care? There needs to be some system in place to force people to only go
to the hospitals when they absolutely need it, or the system will eventually
collapse. Nobody seems to want to think in the long-term, which is dangerous.

~~~
vannevar
I'm well aware that we're already redistributing wealth, I'm simply advocating
we do more of it by raising taxes on the wealthy.

If you Google 'economic mobility' you'll come up with a lot of citations
supporting the idea that most rich people come from families in the upper
reaches of the economic spectrum. Here's a particularly good study that got a
lot of press a couple of years ago:
[http://www.economicmobility.org/reports_and_research/other?i...](http://www.economicmobility.org/reports_and_research/other?id=0004)
. Keep in mind that I'm not saying no one goes from being poor to rich, only
that it's a minority of the wealthy. One reason that it may seem like there
are more is that those stories are more compelling and so get more media
attention (who wants to hear about the upper middle class doctor's kid who
became a millionaire?), and because Republicans focus on those stories in
their campaign rhetoric to deflect taxation on the wealthy.

It would be terrible to die waiting for treatment; fortunately that doesn't
happen any more often in Canada than it does in the free-market US (where,
until the recent health care reform, insurance companies could arbitrarily
drop sick patients altogether).

And contrary to whatever ideas you may have about hospital life, they're
really not all that pleasant. Most people stay away from them unless
absolutely necessary, to the point that a lot of people (heart patients in
particular) don't go when in fact they should. No doubt there are some
hypochondriacs who waste doctors' time, but they are hardly justification for
throwing up our hands at helping the truly sick who greatly outnumber them.

------
aj700
Communism sucks, so there's no alternative to the 0.1% (winner) takes all
(80%) system that we've got.

Of course we have a "vampire squid on our face" (GS) but it seems to be
necessary to allow technological progress and the industrialisation of the
rest of the world

We have scarcity now, but it won't last. Money will be abolished. The question
is how do we spend money now to bring about the end of scarcity sooner. Well
conspicuous consumption and luxuries are probably no help.

~~~
scrod
>Communism sucks, so there's no alternative to the 0.1% (winner) takes all
(80%) system that we've got.

Wow, thanks for making things so clear. I had no idea that the alternative to
our emerging world of total corporate feudalism was straight-up dictatorial
Stalinism! Who'd-a thunkit?

