This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
On what do you base this? Gini index seems fine.
Germany's wealth inequality, as opposed to income inequality, is very high.
One thing I've heard about Germany and the Netherlands is that the extractive taxation and regulation makes it very difficult for a middle class person to get rich. So the wealthy are composed of heirs. (Although, to be fair, this doesn't explain why French wealth inequality appears to be low).
If we were to measure generational wealth inequality I'm certain that Germany would look awful compared to more dynamic countries like the U.S. where it's quite easy for a normal person to become moderately wealthy.
France created a parallel bureaucratic elite of people who don't make a lot of money but who have a huge amount of 'status' in French society (and who monopolize places on the prep school - grandes ecoles - senior bureaucrat pipeline (funded by the state)). They might not technically be 'rich', but pure wealth in France means less than it does in the Anglosphere. Everything runs on patronage, money is often less important than power, things like the Academie Francaise and certain senior intellectual positions are arguably more coveted than senior jobs in finance or in the management of large corporations. It's the last Western culture that has preserved a major tradition of 'public intellectuals' with actual influence.
Interesting. Might we assume that these positions also come with large apartments in central Paris, personal drivers, and other things that are not counted as "wealth" but act in similar ways? I think I remember hearing about Jacques Chirac hosting over-the-top culinary events at taxpayer expense. But I'm not sure that kind of largess would extend to mere academics and functionaries.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For what it's worth, when I last saw this, the gap had grown immensely in the last 10 or 15 years. It was quite surprising, as I haven't really noticed it in German society (where I live, but I'm in a rich city).
Although I think I saw income inequality. The hope would be that it's somewhat reversible, as I think (too much) inequality is bad for a society. OTOH, I pay quite a lot in taxes already, so it's not too clear to me how thing will improve. Higher minimum wage / whatever Harz-4 is called now?
High property taxes on large central city apartments would be one way to drive down wealth inequality, as that is one thing which all wealthy people want that they can't easily hide.
I'd also propose the following for inheritance taxes: The government gets 1 "share" of your inheritance. For example, if you have 1 heir, the government would get half. If you have 2 heirs, the government would get one third. With 10 heirs, they would get 1/11th. Although this proposal would possibly lower overall inheritance taxes, it would also incentive the rapid dissolution of large fortunes. Wealthy families used to have more children than now. This is one factor in increasing wealth inequality.
It's also worth pointing out that ideas to reduce inequality without reducing overall quality of life probably won't work. Wealth inequality almost always goes up except for in times of major disaster (Great Depression, WWII, Communist revolution, etc...).
What definitely doesn't work is high income and business taxes. They merely ensure that the existing elite is not challenged by upstarts, although it might narrow the gap between middle and low. When talking about inequality, it is the 0.1% that is the largest driver of distortions. They need to be challenged directly. Instead what we get is insane taxes and regulation on a small business whose owner makes $500,000/year.
While I'm not sure your exact proposal is the way, I do think inheritance taxes are both a good way to reduce inequality, and are also, honestly, democratic (even playing field). That said, they do go against human nature to give something to your kids, so I think you need to be careful. (Yes, I know trusts are a standard way to work around them; it seems like if this is known, a counter-play should be possible). I say this as someone intending to leave something (but not too much :D) to his kids.
Agreement on the expensive real estate. Also, especially anything more than a single home should be hit fairly hard, IMO.
More options
Context Copy link
This is an interesting idea that would also have some eugenic effects. I have often wondered how to incentivise rich people to have more children.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Correct, however it's worth pointing out that this pattern is universal across the world where we have good data. Even in supposedly egalitarian societies. There simply does not seem to be that much social mobility at the very top. The rate of taxation doesn't appear to make much difference for the elites.
Finance in the UK is very much not the preserve of the tradition "English Upper Class" anymore, you're more likely to hear Chinese accents instead of the King's English. Modern day aristocratic wealth comes from price appreciation of their landholdings, not them holding top positions in the city etc.
Finance wasn't exclusively upper class in the UK even in the past. During the post-WWII years, I have a grandfather who made it pretty far in finance coming from a family of mid-ranking naval officers. Like a lot of people in finance in those days, his main assets were that he was reliable, risk-averse, sceptical, and disciplined in a relaxed, gentle, unambitious way. He worked in London, but lived in a modest cottage in the Shires, and he got a fair number of clients just because of his reputation from "the War". Ironically, he almost never spoke about the War, because he had lost too many friends and family, and killed too many people himself - not an easy thing to do for a gentle giant.
The shift in the 1980s/1990s period, AFAIK, was that UK finance became more open to working class people, women, non-white people, foreigners, and even Irish people^. Most of all, the big money jobs were increasingly for those who were ambitious, risk-loving, optimistic, and disciplined in an intense, obsessive way. And naturally most people entering finance hadn't even been in a serious fist-fight, let alone built up a reputation in war.
^ This comes up in David Lodge's Nice Work, where the middle class academic woman (the book's main character) is finds out that a seemingly ditzy working class London lass (her brother's girlfriend, as I recall) is earning much more than her in the supposedly reactionary world of Thatcher-era finance. The working class woman comes from a family of bookies, and so thinking fast with numbers is to her like waking up early is to a farmer's daughter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Compared to the US the wages are very poor, even adjusting for GDP per capita, at least for professionals.
So while things are technically equal between the wage workers the distribution of wealth is society is very unequal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link