The idea of an integrative agreement seemed to make the most sense to me. If by moving from thinking about positions to thinking about interests two people can both reach their maximum utilities why is this approach not used more often? I understand that often the two parties will have similar interests and this solution will not be possible, but when this is a viable end I cannot fathom why it wouldn't be used. Maybe because I am more of a passive rather than an aggressive person is the reason why I associate most with this solution to negotiating. I am not very good at being deceptive, like asking for more than you need tactics, and I would much rather be up front and honest to solve a conflict. However I am learning that this is how I will get taken advantage of. I am working on these skills, and my job now is a lot of negotiating ( I call people and ask them for money for the university). I am realizing it is not always a negative thing like how I used to perceive it.
Another interesting point of discussion was the mention of Herman Kanes 9-9-9 plan. We discussed the logistics of this plan tonight in my economics class. What I came to find is that this plan sets out to have a 9% tax for corporations income, personal income, and sales tax. This plan would completely get rid of payroll tax. Because the government currently operates on a marginal tax rate for both corporations and personal incomes this would change things quite a bit. The average income tax rate currently is 13.6%, while the current corporation tax is 17.5%. This plan would make both of these a steady nine across the board. This would tip in favor of the wealthy, because they would be giving away a lesser proportion of their wealth (keep in mind wealth and income are two separate ideas) than the average or even poor population. Likewise the 9% sales tax would benefit the wealthy because it would be regressional in the sense that poorer people would be spending a larger portion of their income on things requiring this tax. The saving grace is the idea of eliminating payroll tax altogether which would ultimately tip the scale back in the other direction. The question then comes in finding the balance. This of course is a very simplistic view, only considering these taxes without outside coefficients.
I did not know anything about the 999 plan until I read a little about it and I agree with what you are saying. Although the wealthy pay the same proportion of taxes as middle and lower classes it seems that this plan would as you said tip the scale the other way. I also see no opprotunity for integrative negotiation because the wealthy are never going to give up a good deal and everyone will want to pay less in the end. This plan seems like a good idea but I think overall it is lacking interest based negotiation.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea about integrative negotiating and that people should use it more. It would be nice if people would cooperate with each other instead of trying to get the most out of a deal with the expense of another party. I also need to work on my skills in negotiating. I am often too passive and trusting and that is often a bad habit in the business world.
ReplyDeleteIf what you say is true about the 9-9-9 plan then it definitely benefits the wealthy.
To me the integrative negotiation seems to be very successful for both parties. I guess it isn't used more because of a few reasons. One I believe that there is so much pressure on the deal makers to get the best deal for their respective company that it makes it difficult to see yourself giving in at all. Another reason would be that there isn't always an alternative that best suits both parties. Lastly, the will to compete takes over and some people can't mentally grasp that they can win with the other party winning too.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with your views on the 999 tax plan. While I'm not saying I'm in complete favor of it yet. It's definitely a step that will lead us into a better tax plan. There are in fact 2 phases to the 999 plan. The first is the actual 9% tax base and rate. The plan is meant to shift the burden of taxation from production to consumption. There are also no possible deductions except for charity.Its a very plain and even tax plan. The second phase is when the plan shifts to the "Fair Tax plan". I'm not sure if you have looked into this fair tax plan at all, but it's actually very well done. It is a lot less complicated than the current tax plan we have now. With the Fair tax plan, you get taxed for what you consume. Not what don't.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WACJ8uh0xLI
That is a good video to describe the Fair Tax Plan.
While in an idealistic world, using integrative negotiations whenever feasible would be nice, I'm am quickly learning just how cutthroat the business world can be. Just because it is an option, doesn't mean that it will be used. That is why this works best when negotiating with a party whom you have already developed a good working relationship.
ReplyDelete