On 10/07/2012 10:47 PM, Pete Theisen wrote:
Hi Everybody,
Why you can't tax the rich:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-07/paris-luxury-apartment-prices-slide-french-1ers-dump-real-estate-avoid-soaring-taxes#comment-2866699
A tax on income that uses increasing rates on each additional layer or
range of income is the most civilized and fair ever devised, (eg the
progressive tax), considering the Diminishing marginal Utility of
Wealth/Money. In the thread you provided I didn't see mentioned the
economics of "Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth", which is outlined
below.
#-----------------------------------------------
Excerpt:
As you would imagine, the law of diminishing marginal utility also
translates to our inability to predict our happiness, especially when it
comes to money. A contentment quote from Lau-Tzu would be too easy here
-- So I dug up a philosophy gem from a lesser known philosopher, Jeremy
Bentham, dating back nearly 200 years, which illustrates what an
economist today might call the diminishing marginal utility of wealth:
So far as depends on wealth, -- of two persons having unequal
fortunes, he who has most wealth must by a legislator be regarded as
having most happiness.
But the quantity of happiness will not go on increasing in anything
near the same proportion as the quantity of wealth...
The effect of wealth in the production of happiness goes on
diminishing, as the quantity by which the wealth of one man exceeds that
of another goes on increasing: in other words, the quantity of happiness
produced by a particle of wealth (each particle being of the same
magnitude) will be less and less at every particle; the second will
produce less than the first, the third than the second, and so on. ~
Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832), 'Pannamonial Fragments', Works, III, p. 228
Recent studies in behavioral finance illustrate the point that the
wealthiest nations are not the happiest. When we have little money, we
tell ourselves that "more money" will bring us "more happiness." To a
certain degree, this is true, if your life depends on it: Humans, at a
minimum, require food, shelter and clothing to meet their basic
physiological needs, and money is the primary means to acquire these
basic needs. The point at which these needs are met, however, is where
our utility for money begins to diminish -- yet we move beyond our
physiological needs and convince ourselves that greater monetary wealth
will meet our ever-increasing needs for "happiness" as well...
http://www.thefinancialphilosopher.com/2008/08/the-diminishing-marginal-utility-of-wealth.html
#----------------------------------------------------
Regards,
LelandJ
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
