Reading has a lot of benefits, you know. Like reading books, with real pages and stuff. Not only blogs. Blogs are fine but every once in a while exposing yourself to a real book could bring a lot of good stuff in your life.
The latest book I read (actually, listened to, as an audiobook, while running) was "Choices and Illusions" by Eldon Taylor. I recently wrote a short review of it, if you're curious, here's the link.
One of the things I didn't write in that review is a story about a funny opener the author had at his training sessions. It goes like this, he starts by asking:
"How many of you want to have a million dollars by the end of this year?"
Everybody in the audience raises his hand. Then he goes like:
"And how many of you want to tax the billionaires because they have way too much money? Like tax 50% of their profits?"
Surprisingly enough, everybody raises his hand again. Then, for the next few seconds, something happens in the mind of those people and some of them are starting to laugh. Some of them are becoming pensive. Some of them are frowning, trying to understand.
Because this is just a self-defeating belief. Wanting to become a billionaire and, at the same time, wanting to tax the shit out of the billionaires, are two conflicting positions. I won't go into details about how I see taxation, this deserves a full blog post (or maybe a mini-series) but I will explain the mechanisms which are at play in this specific situation.
In this case, the approval of taxation on billionaires has nothing to do with the macro-economic principles or needs of a specific society. It's not economically justified. It's just a form of punishment, which stems from the unconscious belief that anyone who has a shitload of money must have stolen it, somehow. There's no way somebody could make a billion dollars without stealing. So take back a part of that money, as a punishment.
Again, I won't go into the details of social programming or how we are actually taught to think like this, but I will stress out the real conflict: if you want to make money, you will have to steal. So better not steal and stay poor.
That's probably the biggest source of scarcity in our world. This conflicting belief that wealth is coming from theft, not from providing genuine value to other people.
Don't take my word for it. As a matter of fact, don't take my word, or anyone's word, for anything. Think with your own mind.
Take a break, right now, and try to understand what's happening in your mind when you think about money and theft. Ask yourself the same two questions, in the same order.
Then give me your opinion in the comments. I'm really, really curious.
image source - Pixabay
I'm a serial entrepreneur, blogger and ultrarunner. You can find me mainly on my blog at Dragos Roua where I write about productivity, business, relationships and running. Here on Steemit you may stay updated by following me @dragosroua.
https://steemit.com/~witnesses
I find myself less concerned with wealth than with greed. The notion of scarcity is also a type of projection that keeps us from putting a reasonable amount (or picture) on what constitutes "enough." The fear of scarcity keep people seeking wealth long after reaching a point where they have enough. In a sense, it is a variation on the mental illness of hoarding... except people are hoarding wealth, instead of old newspapers, or comic books, or whatever.
Money is not the source of evil; the LOVE of money is a potential source of evil-- if we even want to call it that. To use your example above, a million dollars is actually not a lot of money in today's world. But given various choices, I'd rather have a guaranteed 5000 USD a month in my bank account for life... knowing that I can pay my bills and live my life without worry. Because I know that's "enough." I have no need for a billion dollars... does ANYone, really?
There's a HUGE leap from "millionaire" to "billionaire." Philosophically speaking, it's also a leap from "needs" to purely "wants;" people need housing and food, people don't need 90-foot yachts or personal Lear jets.
As an alternative, let us suppose for a moment that we lived in a world where a person's success and status were measured by personal fortune amassed, but by the size and scale of a person's philanthropic contributions to individual and societal causes. It is-- quite literally-- a "philanthropy tax on extreme wealth. The "winner" is he/she who funded the most learning institutions, or hospitals, or affordable housing for the less fortunate, or contributions to a citizen's wage for those whose lower income jobs were displaced by technology.
Love the philanthropy KPI for measuring wealth. :) Also, this:
Scarcity is a fact of the universe. Production alleviates scarcity, while plunder magnifies it. My question is always whether someone gained wealth by producing for others, or through plunder. The modern corporate system is so intertwined with government that they are nearly inseparable, so I doubt any billionaires made their wealth honestly, but calling for more plunder does not fix the root problem.
I like how the two questions point out a cognitive dissonance in people's opinions.
I think of lot of wealth difference comes from interest rates. The interest poor people have to pay and slowly work off for a loan, vs. the interest rates that people with large capital get for "parking" their assets with a bank.
It's definitely more complicated than that, and up for discussion. But it's great that you wrote an article about this very useful anecdote. Thanks!
I don't really see any conflicts in wanting to become a billonnaire and to tax them at the level of 50%. I am no billionaire at all and I am missing many zeros at the level of my salary to be one, and I am already paying 41% taxes. So what iswrong in asking someone to earn more to contribute a little bit more to the societey, especially today which is a difficult period. We are talking about 50% taxes, not 75% which is stealing in my opinion.
The taxation was perceived as "punitive": because they have so much, they should intrinsically and unquestionably suport a different level of taxation. The focus of the questions is on the cognitive bias which creates a conflict between wanting to have a money but stopping any action towards this goal because you hold this belief that having too much money should be taxable punitively. That sends the message that too much money is bad, somehow.
At least that's my understanding of it.
I understand this, but the message is IMO the wrong message. The good one being (still IMO): if you are a bit more wealthy, you give a little bit more to the society (but only a little but more, not a crazy amount). But it is clear this is not how this is perceived most of the times :)
When it comes to "correct" super-rich people, I always think of Bill Gates (I personally know a few more, but they're not as popular as Bill). What he does with his foundation is amazing. At least for me.
Not only for you :)
A billionaire paying a lot of tax will still be rich and they will be benefiting society. There are those who have far more than enough and still want more. So what if you only have 3 Aston Martins and five houses? Greed is bad.
I pay 40% on some of my income. Top rate in the UK is 45%. In the 60s there was a 90% rate, which is why some people became tax exiles. Still, rich people will do all they can to avoid paying tax. It's not illegal, but it's selfish.
My thoughts exactly. And not only related to money. Greed of more of everything is still greed.
Social programming teaches all kinds of self-contradictory nonsense. The very notion that there is some intrinsic difference between "tax" and "theft" is one of those nonsensical lies. Another lie is that wealth has limitations, that there is only so much to go around.
The state robs us all, first, by effectively filling our heads with such nonsense, and next, by pitting us against one another to protect the "right" of the state to rob us.
The true, ultimate source of wealth is the individual human mind. We transform the virtually limitless resources of the material universe into artifacts that serve us. Properly understood, there is no need for theft if we are not lazy thieves.
Agree with the mind as being the source of our wealth or poverty. Still pondering about the state robing us. If you agree to give it away, then it's not theft, IMHO.
The problem comes when the state takes it at the point of a gun, which is always the end game for them.
IF I "agree to give it away" as you put it, then it is not robbery. Yes, we agree on that, but that is a very big "if."
That is not how the state works, although they may pretend to work that way. For example, in the U.S.A., the federal government tax collectors (IRS, Internal Revenue Service) like to call their taxes "voluntary compliance," one of the most amazing oxymorons in history. The problem is, if you don't volunteer, they send men out with guns to help you "agree to give it away."
And so, if the state were a moral entity, it would simply ask for donations. I have no problem with that; it is called voluntaryism. Sadly, I know of no modern state that practices it.
I think it was Murray Rothbard who asked us to imagine any group of people doing an action that the state does. The immorality of the state action becomes immediately apparent.
Hello, @endlessknot, thanks for weighing in.
Just stopped by your blog, read and voted for your (two) articles, and clicked "Follow." In at least the realm of widely varied interests, I can see that we're kindred spirits. If you want to see a real hodgepodge of eclectic articles, click this GIF: 😄😇😄
Couldn't agree more :)
The central argument here is invalid. Wanting to be a billionaire and supporting 52% taxation are not conflicting goals. It would be like saying it's contradictory to want a lot of stuff but to simultaneously believe that stealing is wrong. It's absurd.
You lost me here, a bit.
Would you not argue that it is self defeating to want stuff (things, possessions, and so on) but to simultaneously believe that it is wrong to steal? After all, a prohibition on theft makes it harder to amass things.
If you do believe these are contradictory, then I would say that it does not follow from the fact that these two forces act against each other, that they are morally incomparable. Sure, one makes the other harder, but that obstacle is justified by the moral stakes (namely that taking things that could have reasonably been acquired otherwise is harmful). And as a consequence, your argument is invalid.
If you believe that a prohibition on theft and amassing wealth are morally compatible, I would ask why you think these two opposite forces are compatible, but taxation and amassing wealth are not.
Still don't understand how theft could NOT be considered wrong, but maybe I miss something. I will just copy paste my answer to another comment below, maybe that will clarify my position:
"The taxation was perceived as "punitive": because they have so much, they should intrinsically and unquestionably suport a different level of taxation. The focus of the questions is on the cognitive bias which creates a conflict between wanting to have a money but stopping any action towards this goal because you hold this belief that having too much money should be taxable punitively. That sends the message that too much money is bad, somehow.
At least that's my understanding of it."
You can't understand because it's absurd. The question is: why don't you think it's similarly absurd to oppose taxation on the grounds that it makes amassing wealth difficult?
The "punitive" thread is a red herring. The wealthy are not taxed more aggressively MERELY as punishment, anymore so that theft is prohibited MERELY to be punitive. The punitive impulse is in response to an already established prohibition. In the case of theft, it's a prohibition against taking what isn't yours, and in the case of taxation, it's a prohibition on hording resources to the harm of others.
When possible, I will accept 1m dollars at the end of the year. However, I'll do not intent to earn this by stealing. I'm from the Netherlands; here we tax higher incomes at 52%, this already at income levels of 60k Euro = 65k dollars per year. I do not mind to pay taxes :)
That's a balanced comment, thanks.
Money is the source of a lot of evil. People as a whole focus on money way too much. There's more to life than money. I get you have to have it to survive. My thoughts in return think of all the homeless people you see on the corner, is the arguement for not giving them money exactly the same as the arguement for taxes the rich severely. He has everything so let's take it as punishment; he has nothing let's deny even more him as punishment. So you punished for having too much and also for having too little.
I think money, by itself, is neutral. Attachment to it, a.k.a. greed, is a source of a lot of turmoil in our lives.
Greed excessive want for an object. Or maybe obsessive want for a certain thing. Money is nuetral but people make it a source of envy, distain, evil, etc.