

The longevity gap - prostoalex
http://aeon.co/magazine/being-human/will-new-drugs-mean-the-rich-live-to-120-and-the-poor-die-at-60/

======
kfk
If you speak Italian head over noisefromamerika and search “modello
superfisso”, there you can see why this reasoning is flawed. Prices of stuff
are not fixed, they are a function of demand and offer. The true problem here
is how you innovate enough to make the offer high enough that prices will
drop. Instead, the writer is focusing on the myth of the 10% owning the 90%
and he gets lost in yet another useless complain about spreading the wealth.
Go look at why health services are so expensive in US, hints: monopolies,
artificially low number of doctors, lobbies, patents…

By the way, about 44% of my gross salary is managed by the State (tax and
social contribution). How much more does the writer want to tax people in
order to “help” the poor?

~~~
capisce
Why is labor income taxed so much more than capital gains? Effectively those
with large fortunes are paying a way lower effective tax rate than most
salaried employees.

~~~
dkyc
Because the capital that you invest has been taxed before, when it was earned.
Kind of harsh to tax 40% on your income, and when you save it, tax again the
same amount on your returns.

~~~
nasmorn
So is Sales tax which regressively Hits the poor the hardestas they spend 100%
of income. This is a non argument. Tax what least inhibits growth or like
alcohol and cigarette taxes things that you would like to be used less.

~~~
yummyfajitas
If savers eventually consume whatever they saved, they too will be hit by the
sales tax. Their tax rate will be 1-(1-Income tax)(1-savings tax)(1-sales
tax), compared to the consumer who will pay only 1-(1-Income tax)(1-sales
tax).

If they never consume what they saved, they have effectively given it to
society anyway.

The idea that a sales tax is regressive (w.r.t income) is simply an artifact
of your measurement period. It's strictly speaking a flat tax over the long
term, but it becomes regressive _for a single individual_ if you break his
lifetime up into year-long chunks and if his income or consumption isn't
stable.

tl;dr; do the math, the "sales tax is regressive" meme is silly. Any true
regressivity is solely an artifact of progressive income taxes and vanishes
when you measure progressivity w.r.t. after-tax income.

~~~
yequalsx
In terms of what the phrase "regressive tax" colloquially means it is clear
that sales tax is a regressive tax. The percent of wealth poor person pays in
sales tax is greater than the percent of wealth a rich person pays in sales
tax. Of course if the poor person wins a billion dollar lottery the next day
then for that person it is no longer true. Thus, this is why when talking
about this issue it generally is the case that we are talking about the here
and now and don't factor in lifetime earnings and whatnot.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Colloquially, "progressive" usually means "w.r.t. income". I.e.,
dMarginalTaxRate/dIncome is positive.

By definition, a sales tax is not regressive w.r.t wealth -
dMarginalSalesTaxRate/dWealth = 0. The fact that consumption / wealth goes
down up as money is shifted from savings to consumption is simply a
mathematical identity and not very interesting. I.e.:

    
    
        (consumption + 1) / (wealth - 1) > consumption / wealth

~~~
yequalsx
The percent of income (let's include capital gains for the year since this is
where really rich people derive the increase in their 'money') paid in sales
tax by a rich person is far less than that of a poor person for a given year.
Thus, in the minds of the general populace, sales tax is considered
regressive. This is what people mean when they say this. The effect of a sales
tax on food for a poor person is far more detrimental to them than a sales tax
on food for a rich person. Thus many people find this to be regressive.

~~~
yummyfajitas
As I said, the idea that a sales tax is regressive is simply an artifact of
your measurement period. The "rich person" you describe is simply a saver - at
some future point he will become a consumer.

Literally the _only_ reason the tax appears regressive in year A is because
the act of saving has shifted the taxes to year B > A. This is an artifact of
your measurement period and vanishes in the long term.

~~~
rahimnathwani
_the idea that a sales tax is regressive is simply an artifact of your
measurement period_

But people have finite lifespans. When all is said and done, who do you think
will have paid more sales tax (and VAT) as a proportion of their total income:

A) Bill Gates

B) Me

Before you answer, please also imagine an alternate world in which Bill Gates
isn't so generous, and in which there are no estate taxes.

~~~
yummyfajitas
There are two possibilities. One is that Bill Gates and his descendents spend
everything. In that case, the sales tax paid is the same.

The other possibility is that some of Bill Gates' money is _never consumed_.
In this case it's effectively a tax of 100% - Gates produced wealth for the
world and was never compensated for it.

If the rich escape sales taxes, it's only because they provide benefits to the
world without being compensated for it. Complaining about that is pretty
silly, as is focusing on sales taxes while ignoring this.

~~~
rahimnathwani
Yes, but now you're bringing Bill's descendants into the discussion. I agree
with your extension of the term regressive to include an arbitrarily long time
frame, but I don't buy the inclusion of an abitrarily long line of
descendants.

On your other point, I'm not complaining. I was just stating the fact that I
will pay more sales tax (as a proportion of my lifetime income) than a richer
person like Bill Gates. So, by the common definition of 'regressive tax',
sales tax is a regressive tax.

I'm not saying this is good or bad or neutral. Just that it is so, by
definition. (BTW I don't like the term regressive tax, because the term
'regressive' sounds intuitively negative.)

------
casualobserver
Kind of misleading title after clicking through:

> Costly new longevity drugs could help the wealthy live 120 years or more –
> but will everyone else die young?

Drug research is costly, but it's not wealthy benefactors of the clinical
application that pay for it. Some research is privately funded, much is
government funded but it's also costly to fail to pay for it.

The age gap due to wealth discussed in the article is not related to the cost
to the individual of drug research and development.

Once the research is done, most drugs become inexpensive to produce and if
they prevent the burden of ageing on healthcare and society. Reason to fund
gerontology research if it decreases healthcare expenditure.

The then minor cost could be subsidised and there would be little argument in
limiting its availability beyond that of aspirin and clean drinking water.

The current longevity gap due to poverty/environment discussed isn't a reason
to discount increases in healthspan/lifespan that might benefit the rich more
immediately.

Gerontology/drug research is not mutually exclusive of improving access to
education, mental health and reducing pollution etc.

------
jorleif
> College-educated white men can expect to live to age 80, while counterparts
> without a high-school diploma die by age 67.

I wonder if reality is as bad as it sounds here. Factors that cause early
death might very well correlate with bad education outcomes. Any kind of
lacking self-control could result both in bad education outcomes as well as
early death.

~~~
Sambdala
> might very well correlate with bad education outcomes

So would dying at age 16.

It's definitely possible (probable?) they've taken the appropriate figures
here, but there's definitely a chance for bad statistics here.

------
Turukawa
I think the idea of revolution as a result of age-disparity is a tad
overstated. At the point most people would become sufficiently aware of any
age-gap, and angry-enough to want to riot about it, you'd probably be
suffering age-related effects and want a nap.

Also, drugs eventually fall out of patent and become available at far lower
prices to everyone. The poor have far larger problems than whether they get to
live an extra 10 years or so once they get to 70.

------
adwn
I don't see a single argument why the life spans of the less wealthy should
shorten further, even though this is claimed several times in the article. Did
they just take two data points and extrapolate from there?

~~~
Tycho
It's the politics of envy at its worst. Better that the rich die earlier to
make things more fair, than everyone live unevenly longer.

~~~
rayiner
I think that's unnecessarily dismissive. More even societies are higher trust,
more orderly, and by most accounts more pleasant. The U.S. is much richer than
Finland, but I doubt the majority of Finns would rather be Americans.

------
Filligree
While thinking about these things is important, it would be good not to lose
track of the greater picture. I couldn't possibly say it as well as Nick
Bostrom, so I won't try: Death is bad; it needs to go.

This seems like an apropos time to re-read
[http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html](http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html)

------
netrus
Nota bene the high cost of such meds won't be the meds themselves, but cost
for the social system. Will those super old people work until they are 100
years old? If not, it has to remain the luxury of a small minority.

------
dorfsmay
What about A. de Gray's theory that states with universal healthcare will pay
for this tpe of treatment, as it will be cheaper than treating diabetes,
cancer, etc...?

------
pawelkomarnicki
I dont' want to live 120 years, do you?

~~~
GotAnyMegadeth
I'd be happy to live as long as the Sun, longer if we start colonising new
planets. As long as I can die before the heat death of the Universe.

~~~
FranOntanaya
No way! Give me then a few mirrors and I'll start trapping far-red photons to
restart the Universe again.

~~~
jacquesm
You're going to have to construct your mirrors from far-red photons, that's
sort of the problem. Without stable matter you're not going to be doing much
of anything (or even _be_ much of anything).

~~~
Filligree
And I'm happy to worry about this problem _for as many trillions of years as
it takes_.

