Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Akula who wrote (4417)	10/22/1999 7:11:00 AM
From: MikeH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

<<And is it just a coincidence that the wealthiest members of society will benefit most - those people that need a benefit least?>> Assume that we are Cro-Magnons again. I am a great hunter, I bring in 10 mammoths a week, all by myself. You on the other hand can only manage to bring in 1. Why does that mean that you have the right to claim 5 of my mammoths, which I want to give to my family, and you want to give to the lazy Cro-Magnons that don't hunt.

To: Akula who wrote (4417)	10/22/1999 9:30:00 AM
From: Null Dog Ago	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

You're naive. If a rich man pays 10% and a man struggling pays 10%, who do you get more from? However, the progressive tax rate makes it hard for someone to move up in life. Your way of things keeps the same rich people you rail against in the positions of monetary power that they hold over the rest. If you want a communism, go to a country that isn't based on the belief that every person can achieve greatness through hard work, dedication, and the pursuit of continued education through life. Quit trying to destroy one of the greatest countries that has ever existed with the insane ideals that are being fed to your overly impressionable young mind.

To: Akula who wrote (4417)	10/22/1999 10:06:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

Just as a matter of curiosity, what important effect is achieved by reducing the income gap between Bill Gates and a salesclerk a percentage point or two?

To: Akula who wrote (4417)	10/22/1999 11:30:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 6418

Although I posted these awhile back (on another thread) in response to a call for income caps, they are just as applicable to the attempt to equalize incomes through taxation: For what reason and by what right would an income cap be imposed? Because it is unfair that some people make more money than others? Well, they either do so because their skills are more economically valuable than others, or because they are lucky. Suppose the former: Then why should they forego the advantage and give it to others, and how would one determine the allocation of limited resources---- by lot? Take Michael Jordan: the man could command millions because he could draw spectators, and in addition to his natural talent he spent years honing his skills. Why should he take all of that trouble so that ticket buyers can get in for pennies? And how does he choose among teams? Should he be forced to go here or there because someone "won" him. Obviously, it is unfair not to give people their market value, and it would deplete our supply of doctors, scientists, and entrepeneurs, anyone who goes through a lot to achieve success. On the other hand, suppose that someone gets more by luck. Luck is neither fair nor unfair, it just is. Should we put a cap on beauty and intelligence? Should we not let people have great parents because not all parents are so hot? And if you say that it is unfair that rich people get more in life, consider that most of these goodies would be either not be available without someone who could afford them, or they would be in such limited supply that they themselves would be doled out by lot, and some people wouldn't get them anyway. Why is it necessary that you rob someone of their good fortune, out of envy and spite? I deliberately do not deal with "ill- gotten gain". You seem to think that much of what passes for honest earnings is unrecognized ill- gotten gain. Since we do not ordinarily let the criminal retain the profits of his adventures, if your premise is granted, the income cap makes sense. But since the market determines wages and salaries, I do not grant the premise. Rather, I say that any tampering with the price system, which is the most efficient means that we know of to determine the allocation of resources, threatens economic efficiency, and therefore over- all economic well- being. Sometimes, such tampering may be justified, but not the kind of wholesale regulation that an income cap would entail. We are rarely in a position to evaluate the propriety of individual negotiations. For example, it is simply true that the loss of Michael Eisner would cause the value of Disney Stock to plummet, at least unless there were a well- prepared and publicized succession. Merely hiring Michael Eisner would cause the stock of another company to rise sharply, even before he could be credited with doing anything, such is his reputation as a CEO. Therefore, there is every incentive for another company to try to lure him away from Disney, and for Disney to increase his compensation to induce him to stay. This is a reflection of his actual market value.I choose Eisner because he is one of the top paid executives in the country, and his compensation package would widely be viewed as exorbitant. But it fits precisely with my Michael Jordan example earlier, and the questions arising from it... Why shouldn't Eisner benefit from his actual market value, and how would we allocate him as a resource absent such incentives? Indenture him to Disney? Raffle him off? Anyway, the relative merit of people's income is usually beyond obvious calculation, and nobody's business.