Slice it any which way, and it’s still re-distributing wealth.
Fairness is whatever you think it is, as is Equal.
“All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others”
You could say that, but by that measure, how is it any different than a trade union negotiating a wage increase with a ultra-profitable enterprise that gives it’s CEO multi-$M bonuses and pays it’s stockholders huge dividends?
Completely different because of the term, “negotiating”. If someone in the gov decides what is your “fair share”, I seriously doubt negotiating would be allowed.
I can see why you feel that way, but actually the two situations are similar in more ways than they are different.
A labor union has appointed or elected negotiators, your elected negotiators regarding the taxes you must pay are your state’s congressional team. As a member you vote them in or out, as a citizen, you vote your congressional reps in or out.
Whatever deal the union negotiates must be followed by it’s members, if you don’t want to do that you can quit. If you don’t like the tax deal your political reps agreed on, you can renounce your citizenship and leave the country.
In both cases the terms of the agreement are enforced by a third party. For an employer, it’s management or HR. For taxes, it’s the IRS. Both can levy enforcement penalties.
If a penalty is levied against you in either case, you can appeal it to an agreed-upon authority. In the case of one it will probably be an arbitration board. In the case of taxes it’s our court system.
In both cases money eventually changes hands. And that is the definition of wealth redistribution.
But, even when dealing with an on-site IRS audit, negotiation can take place. I’ve had two on-site IRS audits and one handled via phone and mail. Both of the on-site audits involved negotiations. I found the IRS auditors professional, courteous, fair and polite.
Having spent decades in negotiating teams with Teamsters, Machinists and Welders unions, and as Third Step Hearing Officer pitching dozens of arbitration and mediation cases, I have a fair idea how unions function.
Working with both new employees in a mfg plant, “Use this tool to tighten that bolt”, along with System Technicians who analyze and troubleshoot complex electrical-mechanical systems, I wonder at the reaction to having them all make the same wage.
If progressive wealth redistribution is enacted, is the re-balance done yearly? Quarterly? Hourly?
No matter how or when it’s done, wealth inequality is the natural result of some people having greater ability to manage their lives and money than others, or having the skills to produce goods and services others need and are willing to purchase.
So, the “wealth re-distribution” will aways be temporary and require constant new calculations, confiscations, and distributions. Yearly? Monthly? Weekly?
You can force equality on people, but you cannot make them equal. Examine the successes / failures of LBJ’s War on Poverfy. [if you can find a non-partisan analysis]
I didn’t suggest that they should all make the same wage. I suggested that that labor getting an increase in wages was a form of wealth re-distribution. It would be taking money from the company stockholders and giving it to the workers getting the raise. That’s re-distributing wealth, isn’t it?
For progressive income taxation it’s quite simple, the more money you make the higher the marginal tax bracket you move into and the more more tax you pay. If you make less than the previous year you pay less income tax. What’s to re-calculate?
The same circumstance would not apply to pay based on worker skill levels, seniority or value-added by each worker. They should each be paid according to the value they bring to the company.
So, my highly skilled tech, Able, makes $150K, and the assembler, Baker, makes $40K. During this yearly “tax redistribution”, Able gets hit with huge taxes, while Baker pays none. In fact, he gets a nice refund.
At what point does the income paradox surface?
Able realizes “The more I make, the less I have.”
Baker realizes, “The less I make, the more I have.”
Able loses all motivation to increase his earning potential
Baker loses all motivation to work at all.
When it comes to net income after taxes, the old saw “The more I make, the less I have,” is simply not true. We’ve heard that old saying many times and it may make sense in terms of how a person handles their own finances, but in terms of the net amount of take-home pay, it’s a false premise. I think you know that. The same goes with the accuracy of the statement “The less I make the more I have.”
As far as your inference that the move to higher income brackets has a negative effect on the motivation of workers goes, I think it’s a mix of ignorance of mathematical certainties, the human inclination to avoid physical exertion and, availability bias, on behalf of the worker and perhaps your empathy for the hourly-worker’s position due to your long experience in representing their interests.
And your premise above begs the question, “Did you ever let the reality of moving into a higher income tax bracket due to a raise deter you from pursuing a higher compensation?”
I completely agree. Nobody turns down a raise fearful of tax increases.
Up until this new “fair share redistribution of wealth” is implemented.
How can the “fair share” concept be achieved without Able paying new Draconian taxes? In order to achieve a “fair share” he must pay huge taxes or the goal is not met.
To meet the “fair share redistribution” objective, Able must pay a lot more.
True, I was being a bit facetious with my example, but not by much.
How can the goal be achieved without massive tax increases on all the Ables in the country?
Both of these guys are so far down the income percentiles neither one would have to pay any more taxes than they do now. And Able will probably pay less.
The folks in the top 10th percentile would see the increase and the maybe the 70th to 90th percentile would see a slight increase. The biggest increase would be in the top 10% of the top 1%.
The wealth redistribution happening in your scenario with Able and Baker occurs between the stockholders and/or owners of the company that they work for when Able and Baker get an increase in compensation. The money goes from the owners to the workers, you were the middleman in that transaction.