|
lyric, you can't be serious about being so stubborn with how your 5-man island is even remotely comparable to modern economics (not to mention the fact that the "if a gov't were formed where the rich guy had to cut up his assets evenly amongst the lazy asses, then the rich guy wouldn't work anymore" thing trying to be analogous with progressive taxes is a retardedly obvious strawman).
drop bill gates on the island. boom, all he has to do is donate 1% of his billions of fish and everyone is fed for the rest of their lives and NO ONE has to work again, so who gives a shit about motivation. that's just an example (and far from the best one) as to how this scenario isn't analogous at all.
one could argue (and that's as far as I'm willing to say, 'cause even the statement to follow is arguable, especially considering YOU'RE the one arguing that humans are so naturally nice and charitable) that in your scenario where the other four islanders eat solely of the fish provided by the hard-working islander, then both sides would be de-incentivized. again, this has nothing to do with progressive taxation, though. let's say mark zuckerburg were to have a magic crystal ball, and he simoltaneously lived in two different worlds:
World 1) he makes 2 billion dollars off of his pet project called Facebook.
World 2) he makes 1 billion dollars off of his pet project because the rest has been taxed off.
according to your island "analogy", in world 1 zuckerburg's like ZOMFG YEAH SNAPCALL! I'M GONNA WORK MY BUNS OFF FOR THIS PROJECT, and in world 2 he's like "fuck that, i don't wanna be a billionaire, if there's free money out there to be spent, i'm gonna fake a crack addiction like dennis and dee did in that one episode and live off of enough money to feed myself with mac n chz and live in a studio apartment the rest of my life. FREE MONEY FOR THE WIN!"
this is only point one of how your analogy is an exaggeration at the very very very very best: for the 10th time, wuf's not talking about rich people like the small business owner who's raking 500k a year or durrr or anything liek that, he's talking people who have so much money that if you were to decimate it, you still would have nfi what to fucking spend all that much money on--it's unfathomable.
maybe it's tough to conceptualize as a poker player, because if your inverse equity in a pot (in other words, risk of ruin in the business world) were to be the same, yet the amount you stand to win (or how much net worth your company can have after taxes, etc) were to be cut in 1/2, then you would be VERY de-incentivized to get involved in that pot. EV's don't work like that in the real world, though. if a magic genie were to pop up and grant you a wish and you ask for $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and the genie's like, "wait you said $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, right?" and you'd be like "i think you missed a zero, thus fucking DECIMATING how much money i get in this deal, yet i don't care because it's still more money than i can use or even generations of my family can possibly use, so sure i'll take it"
again, pointing out how the proportionality in your argument doesn't match up, isn't even the biggest incongruity to be pointed out in your analogy. things like, the fact that this society is too small to even necessitate currency, much less banks, much less credit, much less legacies of debt, and that assets and value are simply and purely based in how much edible shit you got, etc etc etc are even much bigger glaring differences.
e.g. explain to me the recent financial crisis in the terms of your hypothetical island and explain to me which governmental system, or lack thereof would do best to prevent/alleviate/recover from it. in b4 an lolable post that's like "surely if they don't band together and make a gov't and just keep it a free flowing market, then that'll prevent the rich guy from making risky investments on the armless guy's sharpened stick and sell it to the legless guy..."
|