moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited October 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 13 2004, 11:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 13 2004, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The whole concept of "utility" spawns out of the "social contract" - The two are intrinsicly linked. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh, no, the concept of utility is essential to every economic theory ever devised by man.
Correct me if I am wrong, but an argument from a utility standpoint goes something like this:
Because the Utility of a person doesn't change much from $200,000 to $500,000 to $1,000,000 etc. etc. etc Therefore, it is OK to Tax them more "because they won't <i>feel</i> it". A person's worth may go up, but the overall monetary usefulness won't.
That may be true - heck, from my standpoint, having 100,000 is as good as 1,000,000 - Fine. I agree.
But, That does not give us the "right" to determine what an acceptable level of "Utility" is and base tax changes off of that level. To do so is prejudice and class discrimination.
What if I placed an arbetrary value on the color of one's skin, and said "because you have more black in your skin, you have to pay higher taxes". "because you have more income, you have to pay higher taxes".
The reasoning is ludicrous, and outright wrong. If I were a person of means, I would find ways to disguise my income too - just to escape the absolute redicoulousness of this scenerio.
In the same way we should not use the color of ones skin to determine penalizing factors, so should we not use the size of ones pocketbook. Unfortunatly, there area lot of poor people that think the government is their daddy, and the only way daddy can pay for things is to tax the crap out of the rich.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Oct 13 2004, 11:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Oct 13 2004, 11:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 13 2004, 10:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 13 2004, 10:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The idea comes from the "social contract" concept - and the major assumption is that people <b><i>have too / have a duty too / should be made to</i></b> support the poor. This is a flawed assumption. There is no good reason to make that assumption. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My entire point is that it has nothing to do with the "social contract" concept.
The government has to tax the people, and they have to try to do it fairly. The most effective model of fairness to use is to make the taxation proportional to the person's utility. This leads directly to progressive taxes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Unlike skincolor, utility isn't an arbitrary measure to base this on.
I contend that the fairest way to divide up the burden is to divide it such that all feel it equally. Thus I think we should base it on utility.
I can't expect you to accept this model of fairness automatically. Fairness isn't a mathematically defined construct. There are many models of fairness based on different axioms. Each can be reframed in the terms of the other to make it look unfair. For instance, flat taxes cause the poor to feel the burden of the tax more than the rich. There isn't any way to logically derive which is more fair. The argument has to be an appeal to intuition. Personally, I feel that if everyone is feeling the burden of something equally, then things are as fair as they could be.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Oct 13 2004, 11:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Oct 13 2004, 11:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Unlike skincolor, utility isn't an arbitrary measure to base this on.
I contend that the fairest way to divide up the burden is to divide it such that all feel it equally. Thus I think we should base it on utility.
I can't expect you to accept this model of fairness automatically. Fairness isn't a mathematically defined construct. There are many models of fairness based on different axioms. Each can be reframed in the terms of the other to make it look unfair. For instance, flat taxes cause the poor to feel the burden of the tax more than the rich. There isn't any way to logically derive which is more fair. The argument has to be an appeal to intuition. Personally, I feel that if everyone is feeling the burden of something equally, then things are as fair as they could be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What would you recommend we set as the limit of the purchasing power of an individual? I really wonder how much of a burden is fair under your system.
Do we tax everyone until they have 5 thousand dollars in purchasing power? That is how you would have to do it based upon utility.
I still fail to see how shouldering a larger burden of the taxes constitutes equality and fairness.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
That's the whole point. Its not shouldering a larger burden. Its shouldering a burden that feels the same size. Having a limit on purchasing power would be absurd. The function isn't asymptotic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do we tax everyone until they have 5 thousand dollars in purchasing power? That is how you would have to do it based upon utility.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why on earth would we have to do it that way based on utility?
The system I was describing that is already approximated in our tax code is that everyone pays an amount such that they lose the same <i>percentage</i> of their utility. There is never a cap on utility using this, just as there isn't a cap on money using a flat tax. And thus, there is also never a cap on income. Logarithmic curves have no asymptote.
I don't mind taxes at all. Even raising taxes in principle as a means of raising funds doesn't bother me. It's <i><b>what we spend them on</b></i> that bothers me.
Comments
Uh, no, the concept of utility is essential to every economic theory ever devised by man.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility' target='_blank'>Read up</a>
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox' target='_blank'>Here's another useful article</a>
However, the argument hasn't changed.
Correct me if I am wrong, but an argument from a utility standpoint goes something like this:
Because the Utility of a person doesn't change much from $200,000 to $500,000 to $1,000,000 etc. etc. etc Therefore, it is OK to Tax them more "because they won't <i>feel</i> it". A person's worth may go up, but the overall monetary usefulness won't.
That may be true - heck, from my standpoint, having 100,000 is as good as 1,000,000 - Fine. I agree.
But, That does not give us the "right" to determine what an acceptable level of "Utility" is and base tax changes off of that level. To do so is prejudice and class discrimination.
What if I placed an arbetrary value on the color of one's skin, and said "because you have more black in your skin, you have to pay higher taxes". "because you have more income, you have to pay higher taxes".
The reasoning is ludicrous, and outright wrong. If I were a person of means, I would find ways to disguise my income too - just to escape the absolute redicoulousness of this scenerio.
In the same way we should not use the color of ones skin to determine penalizing factors, so should we not use the size of ones pocketbook. Unfortunatly, there area lot of poor people that think the government is their daddy, and the only way daddy can pay for things is to tax the crap out of the rich.
My entire point is that it has nothing to do with the "social contract" concept.
The government has to tax the people, and they have to try to do it fairly. The most effective model of fairness to use is to make the taxation proportional to the person's utility. This leads directly to progressive taxes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Right?
I contend that the fairest way to divide up the burden is to divide it such that all feel it equally. Thus I think we should base it on utility.
I can't expect you to accept this model of fairness automatically. Fairness isn't a mathematically defined construct. There are many models of fairness based on different axioms. Each can be reframed in the terms of the other to make it look unfair. For instance, flat taxes cause the poor to feel the burden of the tax more than the rich. There isn't any way to logically derive which is more fair. The argument has to be an appeal to intuition. Personally, I feel that if everyone is feeling the burden of something equally, then things are as fair as they could be.
I contend that the fairest way to divide up the burden is to divide it such that all feel it equally. Thus I think we should base it on utility.
I can't expect you to accept this model of fairness automatically. Fairness isn't a mathematically defined construct. There are many models of fairness based on different axioms. Each can be reframed in the terms of the other to make it look unfair. For instance, flat taxes cause the poor to feel the burden of the tax more than the rich. There isn't any way to logically derive which is more fair. The argument has to be an appeal to intuition. Personally, I feel that if everyone is feeling the burden of something equally, then things are as fair as they could be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What would you recommend we set as the limit of the purchasing power of an individual? I really wonder how much of a burden is fair under your system.
Do we tax everyone until they have 5 thousand dollars in purchasing power? That is how you would have to do it based upon utility.
I still fail to see how shouldering a larger burden of the taxes constitutes equality and fairness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do we tax everyone until they have 5 thousand dollars in purchasing power? That is how you would have to do it based upon utility.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why on earth would we have to do it that way based on utility?
The system I was describing that is already approximated in our tax code is that everyone pays an amount such that they lose the same <i>percentage</i> of their utility. There is never a cap on utility using this, just as there isn't a cap on money using a flat tax. And thus, there is also never a cap on income. Logarithmic curves have no asymptote.