The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all the federal taxes collected. The top 25% pay 89% of taxes.
Net of transfers, 60% of households receive more from government transfers than they pay in taxes.
The idea that rich people don't pay taxes is just not correct. The entire system is basically rich people subsidizing everybody else through byzantine distributional systems.
GINI is still going up. That means we are getting less equal over time. The entire system is subsidized by the rich because nobody else has any money! By definition rich people have to pay.
If we have a pool of $100 and I take $99 and you get $1, and then I get taxed $5 and you get taxed $0, I still have almost everything. Is this.. unfair to me?
It's in fact the opposite of what you said: everyone else is subsidizing the rich, who have gamed the system to live extravagant lifestyles. Eventually this will lead to a revolution and all us rich people will be beheaded. It's the normal outcome of this sort of thing.
The top 0.01% still pay enormous taxes. Elon one year personally paid $11B in taxes.
I get that a lot of people think people's unrealized capital gains should be taxed, so maybe the argument you're making is something like:
"People with very large paper-gains based on appreciation of the market-value of the assets they own pay 0% taxes on those unrealized gains"
In which case, yeah, that's definitely true. But if they sell those assets, they pay taxes. Some of the taxes from those sales can be offset by doing things like donating enormous sums of money to charity. And sometimes people take loans against their equity, which is not a taxable event. Though, in order to pay those loans back, they have to sell something (taxable) or earn money elsewhere (also taxable). So loans are tax deferral...
Buy assets (stocks, real estate, etc.)
Hold them as they appreciate (no tax on unrealized gains)
Borrow against them (loans are not taxable income)
Die without ever selling
What is happening is that they are becomming richer and lower ranks are becomming poorer. Simply, they are so much richer that the little fraction they pay on taxes looks big.
This perception that "lower ranks" are becoming poorer is just empirically not true.
On every metric, people in all income brackets are earning more on both a gross and COL-adjusted basis. It is the case that top quintile income has increased more than bottom quintile income, but a faster relative increase does not mean the other group is getting poorer.
The other very interesting thing is that there is statistically not really a "upper ranks" and "lower ranks". The majority of people in the 1% each year are there for the first (and often only) time. And a very, very small percentage of people in the bottom percentiles remain there for their whole life.
Some interesting research:
* 12% of the population will find themselves in the top 1% for at least one year
* Nearly 70% will spend at least one year in the top 20%
* More than half will have at least one year in the top 10%
* While 12% may reach the top 1% at some point, a mere 0.6% stay there for 10 consecutive years
All of that is to say, the idea that there are is some entrenched upper class waging war against some entrenched lower class is just empirically not true. If you dig through the data what you'll find is:
1. People who are just entering the workforce don't make a lot of money
2. As people spend time in the workforce, they make increasingly more money
3. When they retired, they start making less money but tend to have assets to live on
It's far more dynamic than most people's intuition leads them to believe.
Billionaires aren’t becoming billionaires from income. It’s increased stock valuations that create that level of wealth.
I constantly see posts focused on high earners already paying tons of tax. They do, but this should reinforce the point that the ultra wealthy should be paying more tax. People aren’t saying the guy on £500k should pay more, they’re saying the guy with £100m in assets should be.
This is definitely the way. There are good use cases for real sandboxes (if your agent is executing arbitrary code, you better it do so in an air-gapped environment).
But the idea of spinning up a whole VM to use unix IO primitives is way overkill. Makes way more sense to let the agent spit our unix-like tool calls and then use whatever your prod stack uses to do IO.
Reflexivity is nodded to in the definition of complex systems in the piece!
I think what you're saying is poverty is actually simple, and the solution is to stop the bad actors causing poverty? But at the same time, you are correctly recognizing that attempts to stop bad actors from causing poverty triggers reflexive responses and cascading repercussions. Which sounds mighty like a complex system?
I think you need to distinguish between complex systems, and byzantine systems. You can have complex systems where every piece shares a common goal, but feedback loops are hard. You can also have systems which, if a common goal was shared, wouldn't be that hard to understand, modelize and optimize, but where the actors of the system are not acting in good faith.
And I agree with the above poster: often, a problem is described as "hard" as a way to make an excuse for the agents. Sure, the problem is hard. The reason why it's hard isn't some esoteric arcane complexity, it's that some of the agents aren't even trying.
No, I'm not saying the problem is simple, but I'm saying that in many of these cases a systematic understanding of the problem isn't what we're lacking in pursuit of fixes - the reason the problem seems so intractable is because parts of the system benefit from perpetuating the problem and take agency to ensure the problem does not get fixed.
Poverty is one of these, but I think Climate Change is the most direct - the climate is complex, but climate change is simple: we're releasing too much carbon into the atmosphere, we have been for a century, and we've known that for at least half a century*. The issue isn't that we don't have the capacity to model or understand the problem, the issue is that powerful actors have used the leverage available to them within the system to prevent us from making changes to fix the problem.
And, you're right, that makes the problem difficult, because the system includes those actors resisting changes to the system, but again, it's not difficult because we don't understand it, it's difficult because we're being actively resisted by people who do not want to solve the problem, and that should be acknowledged by people looking to make it an abstract mathematical modeling problem.
Not the intention at all. The part about mechanistic interpretability was meant to gesture at how building such systems can provide new tool kit for building further intuition and understanding.
Perhaps a failure of communication -- I was indeed attempting to say that Chomsky was wrong and his ideas were interesting, but more or less a dead end.
I have this little bookmarklet in my bookmarks bar that I use constantly. It removes all fixed or sticky elements on the page and re-enabled y-overflow if it was disabled:
A simple salary + percent commission is a great model.
That said, this calculator was built to model/simulate the things that are super common in enterprise SaaS:
1. It takes sellers time to ramp up. Experienced sellers might be willing to jump to your company, but not if they are guaranteed to only get their (relatively) low base salary for 1-2 quarters.
2. If you decide to do a ramp, you have to make a choice about the OTE.
If you can avoid doing these things, that's great. Though whether that will fly largely depends on whether your sales cycle and target talent market supports it!
I wonder if it would be reasonable to offer sellers a sliding scale to trade off their salary and commission rate over, say, ten graduations. Then let them choose whatever scale they want, maybe with some rules about how they can change it etc to prevent high frequency minmaxing.
Some companies do things like this, but I'd be cautious about it.
There's a few things I'd consider:
* If you have a bunch of reps, doing the periodic accounting to cut the right checks becomes more of a pain (though it's a pain anyways)
* When you give a choice, the employee might make what, in retrospect, winds up being the wrong choice. This can lead to pissed off sales people and regrettable churn.
OTOH, sales comp plans change every year anyways, so could just be renegotiated
Net of transfers, 60% of households receive more from government transfers than they pay in taxes.
The idea that rich people don't pay taxes is just not correct. The entire system is basically rich people subsidizing everybody else through byzantine distributional systems.