On 10/08/2012 05:09 AM, Michael Madigan wrote:
Tax the rich and the rich move to a different country. Brilliant!
Tax the middle class and poor and you will literally tax some people to
death, (eg some of the poor will die for like of food, clothing, and
shelter). Tax the rich, and you only reduce their happyness marginally
factoring in the Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth. LOL
Regards,
LelandJ
----- Original Message ----- From: lelandj <[email protected]> To:
ProFox Email List <[email protected]> Cc: Sent: Monday, October 8,
2012 6:04 AM Subject: Re: [OT] Oui crowd voting with their feet? 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
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
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.
