Jump to Navigation
Home

Main menu

  • Home
  • News
  • Markets Map
  • Sentiments
  • Topics
  • Data
  • Comments
  • Images
  • Blog
  • About

Secondary menu

  • Latest News
  • Top Rated
  • Most Popular
  • Archive
  • Discussions
  • Would the City suffer or benefit if the UK quit the EU?
  • Mercer clients turn attention to loans
  • Bats Chi-X Europe plots ETF clean-up
  • Nasdaq OMX eyes global assault on fixed income
  • Triton makes history with €3.3bn new fund
  • CFM endorses London as Europe’s financial capital
  • Tempers flare in ‘pay for order flow’ row
  • Chat launch to rival Bloomberg
  • Walters has never faltered
  • Great rotation? Great frustration, more like

    Does the well-off law professor have cause to complain?

    Mon, 09/20/2010 - 07:31 EDT - Marginal Revolution
    • Comments
    • Economics
    • Law
    • Philosophy

    This guy is the blogging topic of the weekend; his family earns $455,000 a year and yet he worries about his taxes going up and the resulting diminution of real income.  I think we cannot permanently extend the Bush tax cuts; nonetheless, being a contrarian, I would like to explore the question of when a wealthy person has cause to complain.  I read about this guy and his pitchfork and it genuinely scared me, especially his description of Ben Stein and his intermingling of the political and the aesthetic.
    Let's say you live in a country which has some rich people, some people in the lower middle class, and some very very poor people.  Or let's say you are a non-nationalist cosmopolitan.  Or let's say they discovered the indigenous people in Alaska and New Mexico were worse off than we had thought. 
    In such societies, do the "lower middle class but not very poor people" have cause to complain?  After all, some large group of others has it much, much tougher.  Doesn't everyone who might suffer a loss have a potential claim to complain?  At what percentile of wealth does your claim to complain go away or diminish?  Even if it's an exponential function, can't Henderson's complaint lie within the shaded area, small though that region may be?  Can't a rich person point out that he has a higher MU of money than a non-rich person might think?  Or must that necessarily offend others?  What kind of genuflections must he package along with that information, so as to avoid being considered offensive?
    Do you have more of a right to complain about taxes if you were going to spend the money, bringing about the treasured "stimulus," noting that right now the wealthy are more inclined to spend?  Do spendthrift wealthy people have a stronger right to complain if the multiplier on their potential spending is 1.5 rather than 0.6?  Should wealthy people simply acquiesce to any policy change that leaves them in the top two percent, and keep their mouths shut in the meantime?
    If you are wealthy, and complain about a pending loss, must you each time note that some people -- many people -- are worse off than you are?  If you read a bad complaint, and complain about it, must you note that other people are stuck reading far worse material?  Or is it OK just to complain?  What if some other country's rich people support political tyranny, or perhaps an oppressive caste system, or maybe they don't pay any taxes at all?  Can you still complain about your rich people?  Or must you put in a disclaimer that you don't really have it so bad, given that others, in other countries, are stuck with even worse rich people?
    Beware of moral arguments which do not address "At which margin?"  I see a lot of attempts to lower the status of Todd Henderson, but not much real moral engagement.  
    A lot of people just like to complain, and that includes complaining about the complaining of others.  
    Oddly -- or perhaps not -- it's the people who feel they deserve their money who are the most likely to give it away.

    • Original article
    • Login or register to post comments
     

    Related

    • Democrats and the Bush Tax Cuts

      By James Kwak

    • More on the Tax Deal

      By James Kwak First, the comic relief. From the Times: “Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said that he still wanted the Bush-era rates extended permanently and that the cost of the package was worrisome.”

    • Health Care Excise Tax Blogging

      The idea of taxing health insurance benefits entails a lot of complexity, but in a general sense it comes down to a pretty simple question. Do you think that John, who earns $80,000 a year and gets an insurance plan worth $8,000 should pay more taxes than Jim who earns $70,000 a year and gets an insurance plan worth $18,000? After all, John and Jim are both getting $88,000 worth of compensation so it seems like they should pay the same in taxes. But under the current system, Jim pays substantially less.

    • Ben Bernanke Makes History, But No News

      My piece on Ben Bernanke’s historic press conference for TAP online is about how even though he made history by holding the thing, he didn’t make news by offering any relief to the struggling labor market:

    • What If They Gave a Pitchfork, And Nobody Noticed

      Ryan Avent marvels that “It’s striking how little inchoate public rage has actually boiled to the surface in the rich world” and elaborates:

    • Considering Better Alternatives to Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for More Stimulus

      The key word in the title of this post, from my perspective, is “alternatives”–not “additions.”  The Obama Administration is reportedly considering some new proposals for a variety of business tax cuts that they believe would be particularly effective in creating jobs quickly.  As the AP’s Julie Pace reports:

    • Research Desk investigates: Do the rich spend less of new income than the poor?

      By Dylan Matthews PtitSeb did not ask this exactly, but this quotation he posted from Mark Zandi raises an interesting question:

    • Today's poor vs yesterday's rich

      Wat Tyler points to a fascinating fact from the IFS - that a moderately poor person today is better off in real terms than a reasonably rich one was in 1961. After housing costs, the best-off person in the bottom 25% today has a real income equivalent to £218.80 for a childless couple. In 1961, such an income would have put you in the top 25% of incomes.

    • An “Incomplete” for the President in Tax Policy

    Latest

    ‘Subject to parliamentary approval’: Harper government buys prime-time ads to promote job grant program that may never exist
    ‘Subject to parliamentary approval’: Harper...
    Yen Surges In Early Trading, Takes Out USDJPY 102 Stops
    Yen Surges In Early Trading, Takes Out USDJPY 102...

    User login

    • Create new account
    • Request new password
    • Click on the icon to sign in with your social network login or enter your Bullfax.com login

    Our Blog

    • Aviva steps up drive for cost cuts
    • Food Demand, JM Financial, UK Startups Incubator and Sina in Our News for Today 05/17/2013
    • Budget black hole at heart of George Osborne’s finances

    Markets Map

    Markets Map

    Follow Us

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS
    S&P 500: 1667.47 1.02% FTSE: 6723.06 0.52% Nikk.: 15138.12 0.67% DAX: 8398.00 0.33% HSI: 23082.68 0.17% FX: EUR/GBP: 1.182 USD/EUR: 1.2834 JPY/USD: 103.225 Commodities: Gold: 1345.95

    Bullfax.com - Market News & Analysis 2008-2011
    Contact Us | About Us | Terms & Conditions

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS .

    Secondary menu

    • Latest News
    • Top Rated
    • Most Popular
    • Archive
    • Discussions