America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Judge Richard Posner sees a connection between free will (he doesn’t believe in it) and heavy taxation of wealth (he sees nothing unfair about it, though there may be “disincentive effects”).

In a post at the Becker-Posner Blog, the Chicago-based appeals judge notes that liberals tend to see luck as instrumental in financial success, while conservatives see talent and hard work as driving achievement. The argument has implications for taxation, Posner writes. “Taxing success that is attributable to pure luck does not have disincentive effects, and so is a cheap away of financing government,” he says. “Taxing success that is attributable to hard work may induce a substitution toward leisure.”

For his part, Posner says, he doesn’t believe in free will. “I think that ultimately everything is attributable to luck, good or bad,” he writes. Factors such as IQ, a person’s country of birth, a propensity to risk or caution, and decision-making ability are all determined by luck, he says. “Talent is luck but so is the propensity for working hard (often the consequence of a compulsive personality) or not working hard.”

Still, Posner isn’t ready to take Bill Gates’ wealth “and scatter it among the poor.” He sees “terrible incentive effects,” although the extent is likely to vary based on the type of luck that produced the wealth. Heavy taxation of wealth earned as a result of talent and ambition could result in a disincentive to work hard, while taxation of wealth unrelated to personal qualities—money that is inherited or won in a lottery, for example—may not have the same effect.

“So there is in my view nothing ‘unfair’ about heavy taxation of wealth, but there are practical objections,” Posner writes. One is that the wealthy will likely use their clout to “pepper any new tax law with loopholes” that have no social utility. “Another is that the additional tax money raised will be squandered on unproductive governmental activities, including handouts that reduce recipients’ work incentives,” he says. “This objection would disappear, however, if the proceeds of additional taxes on the wealthy were earmarked for reducing the federal deficit.”

You are the Ant...your neighbor is the Grasshopper.

You have won the game.

"A rich person rules poor people, and a borrower is a slave to a lender."

It's not always easy but as Dave Ramsey ( a nationally syndicated radio host on money matters!) always says "Rice and beans and beans and rice".


Luck is for people that cannot or will not believe in the Lord. Let them have their moments. Like you clearly stated, she had nothing invested in her wealth.

The same is for Freewill and Faith. We don't earn a thing here on Earth, we're putting jewels in the Crown that will not be seen.

So the U.S. Government is lucky that some of us are lucky so that they can get at least some tax dollars for the unlucky.

Well said gobbledygook!

I find it funny that if the article was solely about his opinion on the two different types of wealth, most people here would agree.

UNTIL JUDGE JUDY AGREES, I RESERVE COMMENT.

This is about macro-economic theory, the gist of which here is:

Taxing unearned wealth is better than taxing earned wealth because it creates a disincentive for those who earned their wealthy to earn more, which in turn hurts society. But, if we do increase taxes on earned wealth, we should only use that money to pay off the national debt, which in turn benefits society. The alternative of giving that tax money from the wealthy who earned it as a "hand-out" just creates greater disincentive for the recipient to work to earn money. This would hurt society.

So, if and only if taxes for the wealthy are going to be increased, the extra tax money from the wealthy who earned their wealth should go towards paying off the national debt, not transfer payments. This offsets the harm to society (extent not argued or probably known) with a new and different societal benefit.

He has not politically stated that there should be a tax increase, just that if there is those tax dollars from the wealth of those who earned it should be used in a way that better benefits society than transfer payments.

Don't let the use of the term "lucky" jolt you. It has a different than usual meaning in this article. "Luck" here just means-fortuitous events in one's life that one has no control over.

I thought this thread was going to be about the metaphysical constraint of determinism . . . .

Of course you are right.

And I was always going to say that . . . . .