Sponsored

Elizabeth Warren wealth tax

Status
Not open for further replies.

watisthis

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Threads
25
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
688
Location
Odenton, MD
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Pro-charged
Perceived Upward Social Mobility vs. Upward Social Mobility

I love Steinbeck's writings on 'socialism', modest financial and environmental regulations, an adequately progressive income tax, decent social programs for the needy, and decent wages for ordinary jobs. Those things, however, are described as "socialism" by the current US right wing and the current US media. 'Joe the Plumber' types are doubly wrong. Okay, he's unlikely to become a millionaire. But it's far worse than that. The so-called "socialism" that he opposes would be better for him even if he were a multi-millionaire. The marginal utility of slightly lower taxes for someone who is rich is actually outweighed by the marginal utility of being rich in a stable, sustainable, humane society.

Edit: People are so enamored with the idea that "with a little hard work you too could be wealthy" but they fail to realize that the truly wealthy will stop at nothing to ensure you get as little as possible, its a zero sum game.

Originally this was meant as a post for the other thread about socialism but it works here too.
Sponsored

 
  • Like
Reactions: kz
OP
OP
Hack

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
83
Messages
12,283
Reaction score
7,443
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, Camaro
Perceived Upward Social Mobility vs. Upward Social Mobility

I love Steinbeck's writings on 'socialism', modest financial and environmental regulations, an adequately progressive income tax, decent social programs for the needy, and decent wages for ordinary jobs. Those things, however, are described as "socialism" by the current US right wing and the current US media. 'Joe the Plumber' types are doubly wrong. Okay, he's unlikely to become a millionaire. But it's far worse than that. The so-called "socialism" that he opposes would be better for him even if he were a multi-millionaire. The marginal utility of slightly lower taxes for someone who is rich is actually outweighed by the marginal utility of being rich in a stable, sustainable, humane society.

Edit: People are so enamored with the idea that "with a little hard work you too could be wealthy" but they fail to realize that the truly wealthy will stop at nothing to ensure you get as little as possible, its a zero sum game.

Originally this was meant as a post for the other thread about socialism but it works here too.
What changes are you advocating to the current system? I don't think you are talking about a wealth tax, but all the things you listed already exist here in the US.

Modest financial and environmental regulations? Check - probably the regs are a little over the top, especially on cars, but we definitely have tons of financial and environmental regulations here in the US. I would like to see some of them loosened a little, like CAFE and emissions should be relaxed to about year 2000 or mid 1990s standards and then held there. But most of them aren't too bad. Decreasing regulations will help people who want to start businesses and reduce the barriers for people who want to start their own businesses. I think big business is behind many of the tough regulations and they use them to block the competition.

The income tax system is pretty progressive here, with a large percentage of the population paying nothing. Probably too progressive in my opinion. Best would be to eliminate income tax, as there are too many people who pay none. IMO if you don't fund government at all it's wrong for you to be voting. Basically all you do is to make the system more uneven every year. Also, the complexity of the tax system hurts small starting businesses. Another barrier that helps big business to reduce the competition from startups.

Programs for the needy definitely exist and they are good.

Decent wages for ordinary jobs are also in place.

So I think we can agree that things in the US are working well. Most working people have a good standard of living. People aren't starving in the streets. There are no food shortages. It's super easy to find work, especially since Trump implemented his changes. And wages are on the rise since Trump came in office.
 

watisthis

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Threads
25
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
688
Location
Odenton, MD
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Pro-charged
What changes are you advocating to the current system? I don't think you are talking about a wealth tax, but all the things you listed already exist here in the US.

Modest financial and environmental regulations? Check - probably the regs are a little over the top, especially on cars, but we definitely have tons of financial and environmental regulations here in the US. I would like to see some of them loosened a little, like CAFE and emissions should be relaxed to about year 2000 or mid 1990s standards and then held there. But most of them aren't too bad. Decreasing regulations will help people who want to start businesses and reduce the barriers for people who want to start their own businesses. I think big business is behind many of the tough regulations and they use them to block the competition.

The income tax system is pretty progressive here, with a large percentage of the population paying nothing. Probably too progressive in my opinion. Best would be to eliminate income tax, as there are too many people who pay none. IMO if you don't fund government at all it's wrong for you to be voting. Basically all you do is to make the system more uneven every year. Also, the complexity of the tax system hurts small starting businesses. Another barrier that helps big business to reduce the competition from startups.

Programs for the needy definitely exist and they are good.

Decent wages for ordinary jobs are also in place.

So I think we can agree that things in the US are working well. Most working people have a good standard of living. People aren't starving in the streets. There are no food shortages. It's super easy to find work, especially since Trump implemented his changes. And wages are on the rise since Trump came in office.
It is very easy for someone to look at this and shrug, wondering what normal people could know about the economy, but the truth is that consumer confidence effects all spending, investments and loans. If people think the economy is faltering, it is a self fulfilling prophecy

We have trained ourselves to be as objective as possible, but in matters like these it is important to look at the subjective as well to see if the figures are being interpreted inaccurately.

Jobs and employment are at all time highs, but so much of those jobs are part time. Someone juggling 3 part time jobs looks great on the economic data but in reality they are working +40 hours a week for minimal benefit. I don't even want to go down the rabbit hole of why wages aren't better than they were 40 years ago and how the minimum wage is a joke.

A common one I hear is that GDP is at an all time high. In reality GDP should always be at an all time high just to keep up with the population. Can you even find a reason why increased productivity is a good thing if your average take home pay has less spending power than it did 20 years ago?

The stock market is at all time highs, but it has been enjoying the effects of nearly a trillion dollars in stock buybacks. if a company spends millions keeping its stock value high you can argue that it has invested in the company to increase its market cap but it wont increase the companies asset value. production output, revenue, or mean anyone outside of its board make any more money.

If Blll Gates and Jim Bezos moved to albania tomorrow the GDP and Median wage in Albania would skyrocket dramatically overnight, but what benefit does that offer to the average worker?

You have to look into the figures and see how and why the economy can look good on theory but is not improving in practice. The middle class took a huge hit thanks to Regan economics.

Edit: What I'm advocating for is a 80% marginal tax much like what Bernie and AOC have been talking about and what worked for the US prior to Regan.
 
OP
OP
Hack

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
83
Messages
12,283
Reaction score
7,443
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, Camaro
Edit: What I'm advocating for is a 80% marginal tax much like what Bernie and AOC have been talking about and what worked for the US prior to Regan.
I snipped the rest of your post because it seemed completely off-topic to me.

80% marginal tax rate would dump the US into the shitter. Many jobs would go away and the economy would tank. Things were terrible here when we had that high marginal tax rate.

Basically what you are advocating would punish the poor and people who have difficulty finding/keeping jobs. The people who have to get by on part time jobs because they are not capable of keeping better, full time work. I don't understand why you hate the poor so much.
 

watisthis

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Threads
25
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
688
Location
Odenton, MD
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Pro-charged
I snipped the rest of your post because it seemed completely off-topic to me.

80% marginal tax rate would dump the US into the shitter. Many jobs would go away and the economy would tank. Things were terrible here when we had that high marginal tax rate.

Basically what you are advocating would punish the poor and people who have difficulty finding/keeping jobs. The people who have to get by on part time jobs because they are not capable of keeping better, full time work. I don't understand why you hate the poor so much.
If you didn't understand where I was coming from rambling about GDP and stock market game theory then I have no reason to keep posting after this as it will not get us anywhere.

Basically, trickle down hasn't worked and for what it was aside from the US rebounding with a post WW2 boom and stocks carrying the market Eisenhower's economy did really well.

Tax receipts under Eisenhower were on the low end of the historical range as a % of GDP, lower than under Bush or Reagan. Federal spending was limited to about 17-18% of GDP, that is how the budget was balanced. If the budget was 17% now we would have been running a surplus 7 of the last 10 years. Comparatively, no tax rates in the history of the US generated enough revenue to bring the deficit to under 4% of GDP under our current budget. As always, the problem is spending with regards to deficit.

Also, we were still on the gold standard (at least to some extent) which limited inflation and were basically the only country left in the world with manufacturing capabilities following WWII.

Obviously, there is no one size fits all, however, I am more inclined to vote for a Bernie sanders/AOC idea than the mess we have now.
 

Sponsored

OP
OP
Hack

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
83
Messages
12,283
Reaction score
7,443
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, Camaro
If you didn't understand where I was coming from rambling about GDP and stock market game theory then I have no reason to keep posting after this as it will not get us anywhere.

Basically, trickle down hasn't worked and for what it was aside from the US rebounding with a post WW2 boom and stocks carrying the market Eisenhower's economy did really well.

Tax receipts under Eisenhower were on the low end of the historical range as a % of GDP, lower than under Bush or Reagan. Federal spending was limited to about 17-18% of GDP, that is how the budget was balanced. If the budget was 17% now we would have been running a surplus 7 of the last 10 years. Comparatively, no tax rates in the history of the US generated enough revenue to bring the deficit to under 4% of GDP under our current budget. As always, the problem is spending with regards to deficit.

Also, we were still on the gold standard (at least to some extent) which limited inflation and were basically the only country left in the world with manufacturing capabilities following WWII.

Obviously, there is no one size fits all, however, I am more inclined to vote for a Bernie sanders/AOC idea than the mess we have now.
I don't think you understand how jobs work. Basically someone with a lot of money coming in pays a person to do a job. People with lots and lots of income tend to employ quite a few people. You are looking at the person with a lot of money coming in and you think that it would be good to confiscate that money. However, if you take that money away, there is less money left for the high income earner to pay other people to work. So, raise tax rates and you will raise unemployment. It's not a complicated arrangement and history has shown over and over again that the poor and minorities always do best when the top marginal tax rate is low. You seem to think you can deny that history. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Please explain how you think someone who suddenly has their income decreased through higher taxation will be able to continue to pay the same amount of wages when they now have less money.

In simple terms, the people with a lot of income are the people who employ others.

The US economy is the strongest it's been in the last 50 years. You want to change that because you think somehow you will be better off in a weak economy with fewer people having jobs. You call the current situation a mess - explain why it's a mess when it's the best it's been in over 50 years.
 

watisthis

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Threads
25
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
688
Location
Odenton, MD
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Pro-charged
I don't think you understand how jobs work. Basically someone with a lot of money coming in pays a person to do a job. People with lots and lots of income tend to employ quite a few people. You are looking at the person with a lot of money coming in and you think that it would be good to confiscate that money. However, if you take that money away, there is less money left for the high income earner to pay other people to work. So, raise tax rates and you will raise unemployment. It's not a complicated arrangement and history has shown over and over again that the poor and minorities always do best when the top marginal tax rate is low. You seem to think you can deny that history. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Please explain how you think someone who suddenly has their income decreased through higher taxation will be able to continue to pay the same amount of wages when they now have less money.

In simple terms, the people with a lot of income are the people who employ others.

The US economy is the strongest it's been in the last 50 years. You want to change that because you think somehow you will be better off in a weak economy with fewer people having jobs. You call the current situation a mess - explain why it's a mess when it's the best it's been in over 50 years.
You're woefully missing the mark here when it comes to inequality, affordability; and economic growth. Where do you think most of the record economic growth is taking place? The cities with the good jobs. Where do you think the cost of living is highest? The cities with the good jobs. Look at an analysis that factors in job growth, wage; and salary growth and you'll see all 3 are slow. Healthcare costs in big cities are really high because a few people can afford to pay for them. But many can't, yet they need it just as much as anyone, just look at inflation for insulin... nothings changed except for the price. Same thing goes with college(which is even worse in how much it's increased recently, and it's totally unsustainable.) Making more $ is great, but living costs need to be taken into effect, as well as, inflation in every respect. If I moved to India and made 60,000 a year, I'd be super rich but 60,000 in new York city you don't have much left over after paying your bills and basic everyday shit.

I already explained how there wouldn't be an increase in every day Americans taxes, literally re-read the first page of my posts. I have no idea why you're still assuming this.

The top 1% pays about zero percent of their income for Social Security and Medicare. Most Americans are paying 15% in payroll taxes, although how the tax incidence of that is split by workers, businesses, and consumers after shifting is subject to some interpretation. It's a legal fiction to see this as anything other than a regressive welfare program benefiting current retirees. Also remember that the wealthy make most of their money on capital gains, and that they have many tools and strategies to avoid (not evade) paying tax on these gains, the most obvious of which being to rarely realize gains by holding their positions for many years, while their position grows untaxed (except realized dividends).

The U.S. economic system is obviously doing a pretty good job of growing wealth and protecting property rights of the wealthy, and tax rates are historically low. We are polarized right now in terms of wealth on a level unseen since the era of laissez faire. It's a destructive reality. We need a more aggressively corrective tax system. It's not about who pays. It's not about individual rights. It's about social justice and stability moving forward.

Even Henry Ford knew less money hoarded and more time off meant a more stimulated economy, has no one here read any Adam Smith literature.
 

Kevin08

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Threads
29
Messages
2,406
Reaction score
1,246
Location
Panhandle FL
First Name
Kevin
Vehicle(s)
19GT
You're woefully missing the mark here when it comes to inequality, affordability; and economic growth. Where do you think most of the record economic growth is taking place? The cities with the good jobs. Where do you think the cost of living is highest? The cities with the good jobs. Look at an analysis that factors in job growth, wage; and salary growth and you'll see all 3 are slow. Healthcare costs in big cities are really high because a few people can afford to pay for them. But many can't, yet they need it just as much as anyone, just look at inflation for insulin... nothings changed except for the price. Same thing goes with college(which is even worse in how much it's increased recently, and it's totally unsustainable.) Making more $ is great, but living costs need to be taken into effect, as well as, inflation in every respect. If I moved to India and made 60,000 a year, I'd be super rich but 60,000 in new York city you don't have much left over after paying your bills and basic everyday shit.

I already explained how there wouldn't be an increase in every day Americans taxes, literally re-read the first page of my posts. I have no idea why you're still assuming this.

The top 1% pays about zero percent of their income for Social Security and Medicare. Most Americans are paying 15% in payroll taxes, although how the tax incidence of that is split by workers, businesses, and consumers after shifting is subject to some interpretation. It's a legal fiction to see this as anything other than a regressive welfare program benefiting current retirees. Also remember that the wealthy make most of their money on capital gains, and that they have many tools and strategies to avoid (not evade) paying tax on these gains, the most obvious of which being to rarely realize gains by holding their positions for many years, while their position grows untaxed (except realized dividends).

The U.S. economic system is obviously doing a pretty good job of growing wealth and protecting property rights of the wealthy, and tax rates are historically low. We are polarized right now in terms of wealth on a level unseen since the era of laissez faire. It's a destructive reality. We need a more aggressively corrective tax system. It's not about who pays. It's not about individual rights. It's about social justice and stability moving forward.

Even Henry Ford knew less money hoarded and more time off meant a more stimulated economy, has no one here read any Adam Smith literature.
Try as you might, most of the members here (it's a Ford forum after-all) are a few 55 gallon barrels deep into the MAGA kool-aid. Probably not going to be changing anyone's/Fox News' ideals on here.
 

BlackandBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Threads
17
Messages
886
Reaction score
849
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
You're woefully missing the mark here when it comes to inequality, affordability; and economic growth. Where do you think most of the record economic growth is taking place? The cities with the good jobs. Where do you think the cost of living is highest? The cities with the good jobs. Look at an analysis that factors in job growth, wage; and salary growth and you'll see all 3 are slow. Healthcare costs in big cities are really high because a few people can afford to pay for them. But many can't, yet they need it just as much as anyone, just look at inflation for insulin... nothings changed except for the price. Same thing goes with college(which is even worse in how much it's increased recently, and it's totally unsustainable.) Making more $ is great, but living costs need to be taken into effect, as well as, inflation in every respect. If I moved to India and made 60,000 a year, I'd be super rich but 60,000 in new York city you don't have much left over after paying your bills and basic everyday shit.

I already explained how there wouldn't be an increase in every day Americans taxes, literally re-read the first page of my posts. I have no idea why you're still assuming this.

The top 1% pays about zero percent of their income for Social Security and Medicare. Most Americans are paying 15% in payroll taxes, although how the tax incidence of that is split by workers, businesses, and consumers after shifting is subject to some interpretation. It's a legal fiction to see this as anything other than a regressive welfare program benefiting current retirees. Also remember that the wealthy make most of their money on capital gains, and that they have many tools and strategies to avoid (not evade) paying tax on these gains, the most obvious of which being to rarely realize gains by holding their positions for many years, while their position grows untaxed (except realized dividends).

The U.S. economic system is obviously doing a pretty good job of growing wealth and protecting property rights of the wealthy, and tax rates are historically low. We are polarized right now in terms of wealth on a level unseen since the era of laissez faire. It's a destructive reality. We need a more aggressively corrective tax system. It's not about who pays. It's not about individual rights. It's about social justice and stability moving forward.

Even Henry Ford knew less money hoarded and more time off meant a more stimulated economy, has no one here read any Adam Smith literature.

I think the idea behind democracy is pretty simple. You give people the idea they matter in making decisions while always keeping the people in power insulated by always having your people on either side.

Warren is full of crap. She will spout anything to get elected and then have a terrible bout of amnesia. The biggest private bank in the world would never allow her plan to succeed. If they thought she was serious they wouldn’t even allow her to be there.

Taxing the rich doesn’t even matter at this point. They are rich because they own the assets that the Fed pumps. Stock buy backs? Where do those loans come from? The feds super low interest rates of course. Why wouldn’t you borrow at 2.5% to boost stock prices by 5%? Seems like a no brainer to me.

The banks control everything at this point in human history.

History repeats. If you understand finance read this article. It shows how they modified history. It also shows how the next step will go down. We are primed and ready to go.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-crush-bankers-dictatorship-lesson-1933
 
OP
OP
Hack

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
83
Messages
12,283
Reaction score
7,443
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, Camaro
You're woefully missing the mark here when it comes to inequality, affordability; and economic growth. Where do you think most of the record economic growth is taking place? The cities with the good jobs. Where do you think the cost of living is highest? The cities with the good jobs. Look at an analysis that factors in job growth, wage; and salary growth and you'll see all 3 are slow. Healthcare costs in big cities are really high because a few people can afford to pay for them. But many can't, yet they need it just as much as anyone, just look at inflation for insulin... nothings changed except for the price. Same thing goes with college(which is even worse in how much it's increased recently, and it's totally unsustainable.) Making more $ is great, but living costs need to be taken into effect, as well as, inflation in every respect. If I moved to India and made 60,000 a year, I'd be super rich but 60,000 in new York city you don't have much left over after paying your bills and basic everyday shit.


The records are being set by more people having jobs. Those people can buy a lot more with jobs than they can without. Please explain why those people are worse off having jobs and making money than they would be with no jobs.


I already explained how there wouldn't be an increase in every day Americans taxes, literally re-read the first page of my posts. I have no idea why you're still assuming this.
I understand that, but it's off topic. Everyday people don't have the money to hire a bunch of workers. Increasing the taxes on everyday workers will hurt the economy, but it won't hurt the economy as much as if you tax the people who want to give people jobs.

The top 1% pays about zero percent of their income for Social Security and Medicare. Most Americans are paying 15% in payroll taxes, although how the tax incidence of that is split by workers, businesses, and consumers after shifting is subject to some interpretation. It's a legal fiction to see this as anything other than a regressive welfare program benefiting current retirees. Also remember that the wealthy make most of their money on capital gains, and that they have many tools and strategies to avoid (not evade) paying tax on these gains, the most obvious of which being to rarely realize gains by holding their positions for many years, while their position grows untaxed (except realized dividends).
This is also off topic. I'm asking your to explain why you think it's bad that there is record low unemployment and you talk about something you think is unfair with respect to wealthy people. There's no link.


The U.S. economic system is obviously doing a pretty good job of growing wealth and protecting property rights of the wealthy, and tax rates are historically low. We are polarized right now in terms of wealth on a level unseen since the era of laissez faire. It's a destructive reality. We need a more aggressively corrective tax system. It's not about who pays. It's not about individual rights. It's about social justice and stability moving forward.


There is record low unemployment, so there are few people making nothing. If you take money from the job creators, there will be more making ZERO. That will be greater inequality in that system.

Even Henry Ford knew less money hoarded and more time off meant a more stimulated economy, has no one here read any Adam Smith literature.
Savings is what banks use to invest in businesses and people (it's called LOANS). Without people investing, there would be no money for banks to lend out. Savings are very important to a robust economy.

You still haven't explained how people are going to have jobs if the money for those jobs gets taken away from those peoples' employers.

How will a top income earner pay wages if the government takes the money for those wages away?
 

Sponsored

Weather Man

Persistance is a Bitch
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Threads
7
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
1,032
Location
MN
Vehicle(s)
2015 I4 T Prem Auto
If you didn't understand where I was coming from rambling about GDP and stock market game theory then I have no reason to keep posting after this as it will not get us anywhere.

Basically, trickle down hasn't worked and for what it was aside from the US rebounding with a post WW2 boom and stocks carrying the market Eisenhower's economy did really well.

Tax receipts under Eisenhower were on the low end of the historical range as a % of GDP, lower than under Bush or Reagan. Federal spending was limited to about 17-18% of GDP, that is how the budget was balanced. If the budget was 17% now we would have been running a surplus 7 of the last 10 years. Comparatively, no tax rates in the history of the US generated enough revenue to bring the deficit to under 4% of GDP under our current budget. As always, the problem is spending with regards to deficit.

Also, we were still on the gold standard (at least to some extent) which limited inflation and were basically the only country left in the world with manufacturing capabilities following WWII.

Obviously, there is no one size fits all, however, I am more inclined to vote for a Bernie sanders/AOC idea than the mess we have now.
God almighty, what you post is a complete mishmash of incorrect crap and a basic misunderstanding of how our economy works. Your embrace of nihilism is remarkable.
 

watisthis

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Threads
25
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
688
Location
Odenton, MD
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Pro-charged


The records are being set by more people having jobs. Those people can buy a lot more with jobs than they can without. Please explain why those people are worse off having jobs and making money than they would be with no jobs.




I understand that, but it's off topic. Everyday people don't have the money to hire a bunch of workers. Increasing the taxes on everyday workers will hurt the economy, but it won't hurt the economy as much as if you tax the people who want to give people jobs.



This is also off topic. I'm asking your to explain why you think it's bad that there is record low unemployment and you talk about something you think is unfair with respect to wealthy people. There's no link.




There is record low unemployment, so there are few people making nothing. If you take money from the job creators, there will be more making ZERO. That will be greater inequality in that system.



Savings is what banks use to invest in businesses and people (it's called LOANS). Without people investing, there would be no money for banks to lend out. Savings are very important to a robust economy.

You still haven't explained how people are going to have jobs if the money for those jobs gets taken away from those peoples' employers.

How will a top income earner pay wages if the government takes the money for those wages away?
I'm not even going to bother debating this any further, obviously, the concept of our debt economy vs gdp, how purchasing power works, wage growth vs employment, or great man theory is lost on most here. I don't not care to explain basic Adam Smith capitalism, or how we are one too many steps past what a balanced economy.

Lastly, my argument is about the long term future of society. I don't know if you're aware of Piketty's Capital in the 21st century and his argument that r > g? A lot of people have disputed his precise figures but very few have disputed that r is indeed > g. What that means is that in our current economy, and indeed in any capitalist economy that doesn't have a wealth tax, you are going to have a problem in that money makes itself money faster than people can. While there will be occasional individual exceptions the overall trend is that simply having money is rewarded far more greatly than actually doing anything is. And over time one consequence of that is if you have money you don't need to do anything with it other than just have it, and so you become a parasitic entity that contributes nothing to society. And another consequence of this is that the share of the pie that goes to those parasitic entities grows faster than the pie itself can grow. And so those parasitic entities end up controlling a greater and greater proportion of the worlds assets. Forever. So without a wealth tax we are trapped in to a long term future of ever increasing inequality without end. And that might be sustainable for a few decades or even centuries. But long term that either leads to dystopia or revolution.

Like someone said perviously, I don't know why I bother trying to explain basic economics here when the arguments I read are the same things I see people ask reddit to explain to them like they're 5.
 
Last edited:

watisthis

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Threads
25
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
688
Location
Odenton, MD
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Pro-charged
God almighty, what you post is a complete mishmash of incorrect crap and a basic misunderstanding of how our economy works. Your embrace of nihilism is remarkable.
You provided nothing to this argument and have no grasp on how governance or any economic system works, if you cared to debate at all you would have provided facts rather than your misinformed opinions.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Hack

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
83
Messages
12,283
Reaction score
7,443
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, Camaro
I'm not even going to bother debating this any further, obviously, the concept of our debt economy vs gdp, how purchasing power works, wage growth vs employment, or great man theory is lost on most here. I don't not care to explain basic Adam Smith capitalism, or how we are one too many steps past what a balanced economy.

Lastly, my argument is about the long term future of society. I don't know if you're aware of Piketty's Capital in the 21st century and his argument that r > g? A lot of people have disputed his precise figures but very few have disputed that r is indeed > g. What that means is that in our current economy, and indeed in any capitalist economy that doesn't have a wealth tax, you are going to have a problem in that money makes itself money faster than people can. While there will be occasional individual exceptions the overall trend is that simply having money is rewarded far more greatly than actually doing anything is. And over time one consequence of that is if you have money you don't need to do anything with it other than just have it, and so you become a parasitic entity that contributes nothing to society. And another consequence of this is that the share of the pie that goes to those parasitic entities grows faster than the pie itself can grow. And so those parasitic entities end up controlling a greater and greater proportion of the worlds assets. Forever. So without a wealth tax we are trapped in to a long term future of ever increasing inequality without end. And that might be sustainable for a few decades or even centuries. But long term that either leads to dystopia or revolution.

Like someone said perviously, I don't know why I bother trying to explain basic economics here when the arguments I read are the same things I see people ask reddit to explain to them like they're 5.
People are not equal. They never will be equal.

Trying to destroy the best and brightest people (or even slugs that just happened to be related to the best and brightest) will only bring all of us down.

We want people in our society to strive for success. It's those efforts that raise all of us. If you take too much from the achievers, they will stop trying and everybody suffers.

There is no doubt that what I said is true. It has happened over and over again. Countries where the rich aren't allowed to keep their wealth end up failing.

Stop with the politics of envy. Work hard and make good decisions and you will do well in life. Hope and pray that what you are advocating never comes to pass here in the US, because life will become much more difficult for us.
 

watisthis

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Threads
25
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
688
Location
Odenton, MD
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT Pro-charged
People are not equal. They never will be equal.

Trying to destroy the best and brightest people (or even slugs that just happened to be related to the best and brightest) will only bring all of us down.

We want people in our society to strive for success. It's those efforts that raise all of us. If you take too much from the achievers, they will stop trying and everybody suffers.

There is no doubt that what I said is true. It has happened over and over again. Countries where the rich aren't allowed to keep their wealth end up failing.

Stop with the politics of envy. Work hard and make good decisions and you will do well in life. Hope and pray that what you are advocating never comes to pass here in the US, because life will become much more difficult for us.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/income-from-abroad-is-taxable
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/expatriation-tax
To prevent rich citizens from just renouncing their citizenship, there's a big tax imposed on you (treating you as if you'd sold all your assets) if you expatriate while being rich.

Most high income Americans can't just up and move nor would they want to. There's tons of money to be made in the US, even with slightly higher taxes. For any rich person who gets upset at having to contribute their fair share of taxes and leaves, there will be at least 2+ people fighting for that business opportunity. You think the oil and rail
barons just left when we taxed the shit out of them, or how about large car manufacturers, Citi bank, etc. You think that only being #89 on the Forbes top 100 wealthiest individuals in the world instead of being #1 on that same list is somehow going to disincentivize people from trying to build a company? In either instance you have, for any practical life purposes, unlimited money. A relatively small tax is not going to destroy the best and brightest or stifle success if anything the Amazons, Apples, Microsofts are doing that by monopolizing literally everything. Plenty of geniuses and successful people have done far greater for far less.

The 4 most powerful companies in America are headquartered in CA which has some of the highest tax rates and regulations. You still can not fathom that large companies and wealthy people simply do not pay their fair share in taxes currently. Yes, I also understand business are moving out of CA, however, next to none are moving outside the U.S. nor will they ever. Many states have already called their bluffs.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double-irish-with-a-dutch-sandwich.asp

Crazy how only 0.0002% of Americans worked hard enough to become Billionaires. Can't believe we're so lazy. Also, we should scale regulations to help smaller businesses.
Sponsored

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
 




Top