LSE study of the last 50 years of tax policy: keeping taxes low on the rich doesn't boost the economy, it just increases inequality

[Winehole23]

Data from 18 OECD countries, including the UK and the US, over the last five decades. The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_publi shed.pdf), by David Hope and Julian Limberg, shows that the last 50 years were a period of falling taxes on the rich in the advanced economies. Major tax cuts were spread across countries and throughout the observation period but were particularly clustered in the late 1980s.
It states: “Our results show that…major tax cuts for the rich increase the top 1% share of pre-tax national income in the years following the reform. The magnitude of the effect is sizeable; on average, each major reform leads to a rise in top 1% share of pre-tax national income of 0.8 percentage points. The results also show that economic performance, as measured by real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate, is not significantly affected by major tax cuts for the rich. The estimated effects for these variables are statistically indistinguishable from zero.”
It continues: “Our findings on the effects of growth and unemployment provide evidence against supply side theories that suggest lower taxes on the rich will induce labour supply responses from high-income individuals (more hours of work, more effort etc.) that boost economic activity. They are, in fact, more in line with recent empirical research showing that income tax holidays and windfall gains do not lead individuals to significantly alter the amount they work.”
The authors conclude: “Our results have important implications for current debates around the economic consequences of taxing the rich, as they provide causal evidence that supports the growing pool of evidence from correlational studies that cutting taxes on the rich increases top income shares, but has little effect on economic performance.”



: “Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak. Major tax cuts for the rich since the 1980s have increased income inequality, with all the problems that brings, without any offsetting gains in economic performance.”https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_publi shed.pdf

[Bogie]

https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_publi shed.pdf

in other news water is wet

[Winehole23]

in other news water is wetAmericans are highly indoctrinated to say and think otherwise.

[Bogie]

Americans are highly indoctrinated to say and think otherwise.

I’m aware. The biggest con ever pulled in this country was to scare the stupids into blaming oppressed black peoples and brown peoples for all their problems, and not the people that actually have the power.

[Winehole23]

HBS study: the US failed, during the longest economic expansion on record, to invest in public goods, reform structural weaknesses or make the US more competitive. Also, the two major political parties left the people behind.

https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/a-recovery-squandered.pdf

[Chucho]

The day the bulk of Murica learns to hold onto their monies, economize and stop keeping up with the Joneses is the day Murica is truly ready for this conversation.

Can't completely fault the rich when the overwhelming majority of Muricans can't stop giving them their monies.

I don't know why people think "Taxing the rich" will solve problems when the rich find so many loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Apple, anyone? Paid nothing during the Obama Admin, so it doesn't really what side is in control, there is always a way for those with Power.

It's not popular this day and age, especially with the blame-shift culture, but accountability is part of the equation. The rich will continue to get richer because we can't stop giving them our monies. It's a cycle we know exists and we don't want to do anything about it because we love having stuff.

[Trill Clinton]

The day the bulk of Murica learns to hold onto their monies, economize and stop keeping up with the Joneses is the day Murica is truly ready for this conversation.

Can't completely fault the rich when the overwhelming majority of Muricans can't stop giving them their monies.

I don't know why people think "Taxing the rich" will solve problems when the rich find so many loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Apple, anyone? Paid nothing during the Obama Admin, so it doesn't really what side is in control, there is always a way for those with Power.

It's not popular this day and age, especially with the blame-shift culture, but accountability is part of the equation. The rich will continue to get richer because we can't stop giving them our monies. It's a cycle we know exists and we don't want to do anything about it because we love having stuff.

the bulk of america is broke and its not because they try to keep up with the joneses. their credit is shot so they can't buy luxury items or fancy houses. people are just broke and working multiple jobs living paycheck to paycheck just to makes ends meet. rent and mortages are going up and wages are stagnant.

[Winehole23]

the bulk of america is broke and its not because they try to keep up with the joneses. their credit is shot so they can't buy luxury items or fancy houses. people are just broke and working multiple jobs living paycheck to paycheck just to makes ends meet. rent and mortages are going up and wages are stagnant.Owners have been screwing US workers for 60 years.

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/idsoFdCI5b2s/v1/-1x-1.png

Profitability vs compensation got much worse in the last 20 years:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Corporate-Profit-Margins-and-Employee-Compensation-Q2.gif

[Chucho]

the bulk of america is broke and its not because they try to keep up with the joneses. their credit is shot so they can't buy luxury items or fancy houses. people are just broke and working multiple jobs living paycheck to paycheck just to makes ends meet. rent and mortages are going up and wages are stagnant.

The bulk of Murica, which is struggling as we all know, has made industry leaders almost exclusively luxury brands. Movies are breaking box office records year over year. The rich get richer because broke people give them money.

I'm not arguing wages aren't stagnant, but you're saying people aren't spending, which is only true to a few during this pandemic. But, during the last decade as wages stagnated, spending didn't. There's no correlation to what your stance is.

[vy65]

I don't subscribe to the notion that billionaires shouldn't exist, but I can't fathom someone like Bill Gates or Elon Musk having in excess of $100 bn. Any system that produces outliers who have more wealth than Panama's GDP is clearly broken.

[Winehole23]

billionaires do not work millions of times harder than you do, they just have more employees to steal from, and more money that makes money while they sleep.

1342373626146766849

[Spurtacular]

The people pushing socialism the hardest are the ones with the most money and power. That computes, amirite?

[Winehole23]

The people pushing socialism the hardest are the ones with the most money and power. That computes, amirite?who are you talking about? you sure ain't talking about me.

[Frenchfred]

The people pushing socialism the hardest are the ones with the most money and power. That computes, amirite?

Despite the fact that taxes for rich people and big corporations have pretty much never been so low, a vast majority of americans are now closer to poverty, what a success for capitalism. What's the next step, 0% tax bracket for the rich? Promise, it'll work this time.

[boutons_deux]

HBS study: the US failed, during the longest economic expansion on record, to invest in public goods, reform structural weaknesses or make the US more competitive. Also, the two major political parties left the people behind.

https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/a-recovery-squandered.pdf

Exactly what you get when the Capitalist oligarchy owns and operates govt, both parties, EXCLUSIVELY for its own enabling/enrichment rather than the govt working For The People. Been going on since the VRWC and BigCorp got organzied in the early '70s.

After 45 years, mission accomplished, there's no going back.

Even if the Dems take both GA seats, watch the Dems do fuck all to repair the Repug catastrophe, and esp watch the Dems not investigate Trash and his mafiya which will signal to the next Repug Congress and WH to terminate democracy, with approval from 6-3 authoritarian SCOTUS.

[baseline bum]

I’m aware. The biggest con ever pulled in this country was to scare the stupids into blaming oppressed black peoples and brown peoples for all their problems, and not the people that actually have the power.

Tried and true method of controlling the people though, has worked great for 400 years now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Tried and true method of controlling the people though, has worked great for 400 years now.

Emperor Augustus blamed the Illyrians and the Slavic tribes to the East for all of Rome's ills. He conquered the territory and enslaved the people to eclipse the name of his uncle.

[Will Hunting]

The people pushing socialism the hardest are the ones with the most money and power. That computes, amirite?
Which of those people are pushing socialism? Be specific.

[CosmicCowboy]

I suspect he is referring to the George Soros boogyman.

[Xevious]

The bulk of Murica, which is struggling as we all know, has made industry leaders almost exclusively luxury brands. Movies are breaking box office records year over year. The rich get richer because broke people give them money.

I'm not arguing wages aren't stagnant, but you're saying people aren't spending, which is only true to a few during this pandemic. But, during the last decade as wages stagnated, spending didn't. There's no correlation to what your stance is.
Yeah, Bezos isn't increasing his wealth during the pandemic because people are hunkering down and spending money only on the absolute essentials. No, people are spending as much as they ever have, they're just doing it different ways.

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EqXAHOkW8AIaEvj?format=png&name=medium

[spurraider21]

cant believe everybody forgot about those decades of socialism here

[DMC]

I don't subscribe to the notion that billionaires shouldn't exist, but I can't fathom someone like Bill Gates or Elon Musk having in excess of $100 bn. Any system that produces outliers who have more wealth than Panama's GDP is clearly broken.

I think a system that allows an individual to gain and keep wealth, if given enough iterations, should produce some outliers.

While many American companies are still fighting with 1050's level thinking, people like Bezos and Musk invested in the future and those older companies with outdated management philosophy and infrastructure are paying the prices and extended those costs to their workers.

By the "owners are taking advantage of.." comment above yours, the lesson is to be an owner. We aren't born into our roles.

If we took our networth to work ratio and compared it to some others, we'd find that we also do little work compared to them, and get a lot more for it than they get. Once you get to the 50m level, I doubt your standard of living changes much afterward.

[DMC]

Yeah, Bezos isn't increasing his wealth during the pandemic because people are hunkering down and spending money only on the absolute essentials. No, people are spending as much as they ever have, they're just doing it different ways.

Stock price is a lot of it.

[DMC]

Emperor Augustus blamed the Illyrians and the Slavic tribes to the East for all of Rome's ills. He conquered the territory and enslaved the people to eclipse the name of his uncle.

I was wondering how that played out. Thanks for the update.

[spurraider21]

I think a system that allows an individual to gain and keep wealth, if given enough iterations, should produce some outliers.

While many American companies are still fighting with 1050's level thinking, people like Bezos and Musk invested in the future and those older companies with outdated management philosophy and infrastructure are paying the prices and extended those costs to their workers.
of course, and people should be able the reap the rewards for their work and foresight. but the question of to what extent those outliers should exist is a legitimate one. ie an outlier where somebody has a net worth of 150 million vs 150 billion is a huge difference.


By the "owners are taking advantage of.." comment above yours, the lesson is to be an owner. We aren't born into our roles.

If we took our networth to work ratio and compared it to some others, we'd find that we also do little work compared to them, and get a lot more for it than they get.
sure... but a society where everybody is an owner or solo practitioner isn't plausible. the system effectively mandates that there will be relatively few owners and a vast majority of workers. im not saying that's inherently bad, but "you should be one of the very few" is fortune cookie advice imo. "be one of the rich ones" doesnt solve a broader societal issue of an outlandish wealth gap.

individual advice works fine at the individual level, but you quite frankly need policy to impact the broader public issue. ie to solve the obesity problem, with an individual you can help them plan a better diet, motivate them to exercise more, etc. but you're not going to tackle america's obesity problem with pep talks on TV. you likely would need some policy in place, either regulating ingredients in fast food, setting tax on sugar, etc etc (the specific solution is not the takeaway here)


Once you get to the 50m level, I doubt your standard of living changes much afterward.
mostly agree with this when it comes to personal standard of living, but when it comes to buying influence, being somebody who can fork over tens of millions to PACs or candidates buys something too.

but either way, if this premise is taken as true, if anything it acts as an argument to set some artificial high end limit to the wealth gap.

[DMC]

of course, and people should be able the reap the rewards for their work and foresight. but the question of to what extent those outliers should exist is a legitimate one. ie an outlier where somebody has a net worth of 150 million vs 150 billion is a huge difference.


sure... but a society where everybody is an owner or solo practitioner isn't plausible. the system effectively mandates that there will be relatively few owners and a vast majority of workers. im not saying that's inherently bad, but "you should be one of the very few" is fortune cookie advice imo. "be one of the rich ones" doesnt solve a broader societal issue of an outlandish wealth gap.

individual advice works fine at the individual level, but you quite frankly need policy to impact the broader public issue. ie to solve the obesity problem, with an individual you can help them plan a better diet, motivate them to exercise more, etc. but you're not going to tackle america's obesity problem with pep talks on TV. you likely would need some policy in place, either regulating ingredients in fast food, setting tax on sugar, etc etc (the specific solution is not the takeaway here)


mostly agree with this when it comes to personal standard of living, but when it comes to buying influence, being somebody who can fork over tens of millions to PACs or candidates buys something too.

but either way, if this premise is taken as true, if anything it acts as an argument to set some artificial high end limit to the wealth gap.

If you're going to keep giving your money to someone (Bezos, for example... and I am as guilty as anyone), don't complain that they have all the money. How does it impact your life that a few people are disgustingly wealthy? It's always been the case that poor people have little to nothing and rich people have everything they want. This wealth gap you're talking about doesn't impact my life in the slightest. If anything, people like Gates and Bezos have made my life easier. If Bezos and Gates wealth prevented you or I from pursuing or attaining wealth, that would be different. It doesn't.

The wealthy have always had political influence, they always will. This is true in every system it seems. You either have influence or you don't. This seems more like a problem with the political system than with the ability to become super wealthy. We equate wealth with success. You seem to be saying there should be limits to success.

[spurraider21]

If you're going to keep giving your money to someone (Bezos, for example... and I am as guilty as anyone), don't complain that they have all the money. How does it impact your life that a few people are disgustingly wealthy? It's always been the case that poor people have little to nothing and rich people have everything they want. This wealth gap you're talking about doesn't impact my life in the slightest. If anything, people like Gates and Bezos have made my life easier. If Bezos and Gates wealth prevented you or I from pursuing or attaining wealth, that would be different. It doesn't.

The wealthy have always had political influence, they always will. This is true in every system it seems. You either have influence or you don't. This seems more like a problem with the political system than with the ability to become super wealthy. We equate wealth with success. You seem to be saying there should be limits to success.
the fact that bezos is worth 100 billion+ does not effect my life, but that's not the claim i made. imo its a good question of to what degree wealth disparities can/should be tolerated in a given society. why go back to the days of the pharaohs if we can come up with something that works better for the masses

[Spurminator]

Conservatives love to talk a big game about working harder to make more money but they favor a system where, at a certain point, having money is all that is required to make more money, at amounts that typically eclipse what most of the American population will make in a lifetime of real work.

Progressive taxation doesn't prevent billionaires from making more billions. Hell, it doesn't even prevent them from making ungodly amounts of money off of their investments. It just closes the gap ever so slightly between "making $100,000 by working full time 52 weeks a year" and "making $100,000 today because that's my average daily earnings from rents in the real estate empire my daddy passed down to me."

[boutons_deux]

Note how, after the Lewis Powell/VRWC got active, got organized, in the early 1970s, that they got Carter to approve the top tax rate cut precipitously, which started the inequality shitball rolling for decades, while BigCorp/Capital busted unions to suppress Labor's wages.

[Winehole23]

the fact that bezos is worth 100 billion+ does not effect my life, but that's not the claim i made. imo its a good question of to what degree wealth disparities can/should be tolerated in a given society. why go back to the days of the pharaohs if we can come up with something that works better for the massesFree lunch rentier capitalism has hollowed out industry, captured government and leans too hard on employers and workers.

One obvious way to reverse this trend is to tax wealth more and provide more public goods related to the costs of production, like transportation, healthcare, education etc..


The financial sector essentially is of the 1% or the 10% that holds the rest of the economy in debt. The financial sector makes its money by getting the rest of the economy indebted to itself and making money off asset price gains. In the past, the financial sector made its money by getting interest. But now, with almost zero interest what it’s after is capital gains because capital gains basically are either untaxed or taxed at very, very low rates.

So, the financial sector essentially makes its money not by being part of the production and consumption economy but by siphoning off as much money from the production and consumption economy as it can for real estate, for insurance and for debt service and banking services. The insurance, of course, would include the health insurance.

The result is that Americans have to spend so much of their money now on housing. Up to 40% to 43% of their income goes for housing as opposed to 25% back in the 1940s,’50s and ‘60s . They have to pay huge amounts for medical insurance.
And the taxes have been shifted off real estate, off of finance onto labor and industry. So you have America really being unable to revive its industry today. Because how can you create an export industry or even compete with foreigners when you have to pay such high housing costs, such high medical insurance and healthcare costs instead of the government taking over, such high debt service. If you got all of your clothing and food and basic needs for nothing you still couldn’t compete with foreigners because of all of these FIRE sector – finance, insurance and real estate – costs.

Now the job of the government under industrial capitalism was all spelled out in the late 19th century in the United States. For instance, by Simon Patten, who was the first Professor of Economics at the first business school, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. And Patten said that public infrastructure was a fourth factor of production. And the role of the government was to provide basic needs like healthcare, education, transportation and other basic services at very low price so that you lower the cost of doing business. You lower the cost of living so that the private sector will be able to compete with foreign countries.

Now, most countries now provide free healthcare. Because if they didn’t, then the employers and the laborers would have to pay healthcare. Their cost of production would be much higher. And America has not done that. America has the highest cost of production in the world. Not because it’s technologically inefficient. The technology is all available and there.

The reason is all of these extra costs that are paid by labor and by employers that are borne by governments in other countries. So as long as essentially America’s dismantling the government, what you’re dismantling is the basic means of subsidizing industrial production and manufacturing. And that’s what’s left America in a high cost position and driven American industry abroad without any idea of how to create a national economy that makes it profitable to invest in industry here.
https://gpenewsdocs.com/polarization-then-a-crash-michael-hudson-on-the-rentier-economy/

[DMC]

the fact that bezos is worth 100 billion+ does not effect my life, but that's not the claim i made. imo its a good question of to what degree wealth disparities can/should be tolerated in a given society. why go back to the days of the pharaohs if we can come up with something that works better for the masses

If a free society the "tolerated" aspect handcuffs that freedom. We never left the days of the Pharaohs.

The only bad things I see about the uber wealthy is that they don't share it with their employees as much as they should. But if your wealth is derived primarily on the value of the company you started, you have every right to retain that wealth.

[DMC]

Conservatives love to talk a big game about working harder to make more money but they favor a system where, at a certain point, having money is all that is required to make more money, at amounts that typically eclipse what most of the American population will make in a lifetime of real work.

Progressive taxation doesn't prevent billionaires from making more billions. Hell, it doesn't even prevent them from making ungodly amounts of money off of their investments. It just closes the gap ever so slightly between "making $100,000 by working full time 52 weeks a year" and "making $100,000 today because that's my average daily earnings from rents in the real estate empire my daddy passed down to me."

You might have a point if this wasn't all about what's better for you personally. It's almost always about what's better for you personally.

Investing is real risk. At some point you have to stop living hand to mouth, week to week with this fruit picking "real work" mentality and start making your money work for you. Oh but doing so makes you evil.

[spurraider21]

If a free society the "tolerated" aspect handcuffs that freedom. We never left the days of the Pharaohs.
perhaps we should


The only bad things I see about the uber wealthy is that they don't share it with their employees as much as they should. But if your wealth is derived primarily on the value of the company you started, you have every right to retain that wealth.
thats pretty socialist of you :lol

but jabs aside, why limit it just to employees? the business is functionless, and frankly, is not going to be productive outside of the greater society as well. building a massive infrastructure of amazon is useless if it was in a desert wasteland without any participants/consumers

[Spurminator]

You might have a point if this wasn't all about what's better for you personally. It's almost always about what's better for you personally.

Investing is real risk. At some point you have to stop living hand to mouth, week to week with this fruit picking "real work" mentality and start making your money work for you. Oh but doing so makes you evil.

Higher tax rates on higher incomes is not better for me personally.

You want to make this personal because otherwise you have no argument, as usual. It's boring.

[DMC]

perhaps we should


thats pretty socialist of you :lol

but jabs aside, why limit it just to employees? the business is functionless, and frankly, is not going to be productive outside of the greater society as well. building a massive infrastructure of amazon is useless if it was in a desert wasteland without any participants/consumers

I am all about sharing but not about being forced to share. Pro choice.

Giving away your profits would basically be running a charity. Why give money to the feds who are going to put it on pallets and dump it to some warlord in Somalia for intel, or to Iran for cooperation? Or hundreds of millions on a shitty defense project that never comes to fruition?

They have foundations that pay for a lot of shit for 3rd worlders like Hater. Without those contributions, people like Hater would never be free to predict global disasters.

[DMC]

Higher tax rates on higher incomes is not better for me personally.

You want to make this personal because otherwise you have no argument, as usual. It's boring.

It skips you. That's good for you. It's not personal, you're not the only one who wants to better themselves by bringing more successful people down through government intervention.

[spurraider21]

I am all about sharing but not about being forced to share. Pro choice.

Giving away your profits would basically be running a charity. Why give money to the feds who are going to put it on pallets and dump it to some warlord in Somalia for intel, or to Iran for cooperation? Or hundreds of millions on a shitty defense project that never comes to fruition?

They have foundations that pay for a lot of shit for 3rd worlders like Hater. Without those contributions, people like Hater would never be free to predict global disasters.
im not interested in the taxation is theft argument, tbh. anybody can point to things in the state/federal budgets they dont personally agree with.

"giving away your profits" implies that the owner doesnt keep any, or much of the profits, which is not what's being advocated for by anybody here.

[Spurminator]

It skips you. That's good for you. It's not personal, you're not the only one who wants to better themselves by bringing more successful people down through government intervention.

:lol Such melodramatic bullshit. No one's talking about bringing anyone down, and no one said investing is evil.

You're a good soldier, though. I can see why the MAGA victimhood mentality was so appealing.

[DMC]

im not interested in the taxation is theft argument, tbh. anybody can point to things in the state/federal budgets they dont personally agree with.

"giving away your profits" implies that the owner doesnt keep any, or much of the profits, which is not what's being advocated for by anybody here.

You haven't said how it benefits anyone else other than saying it reduces the wealth gap. If it doesn't lift you up, only brings them down, why is it a good thing?

[DMC]

:lol Such melodramatic bullshit. No one's talking about bringing anyone down, and no one said investing is evil.

You're a good soldier, though. I can see why the MAGA victimhood mentality was so appealing.

Bullshit. You offered a strawman about "real work" as if money made by investment is fraudulent. You're likely a latent homosexual and you take it out online. It's not Bezos' fault you aren't rich. Get over it.

[spurraider21]

You haven't said how it benefits anyone else other than saying it reduces the wealth gap. If it doesn't lift you up, only brings them down, why is it a good thing?
well yeah, raising taxes just for the sake of raising taxes doesnt do people good. ideally it would be packaged with a wider social safety net including programs like universal health coverage, increased child care support, reduced public tuitions, free contraceptives, etc

[DMC]

well yeah, raising taxes just for the sake of raising taxes doesnt do people good. ideally it would be packaged with a wider social safety net including programs like universal health coverage, increased child care support, reduced public tuitions, free contraceptives, etc

So how does getting a few hundred million from a handful of people enable this social safety net?

[spurraider21]

So how does getting a few hundred million from a handful of people enable this social safety net?
are you asking how tax revenue can pay for government programs?

[DMC]

are you asking how tax revenue can pay for government programs?

I'm asking how just those uber wealthy being taxed more would pay for it.

[spurraider21]

I'm asking how just those uber wealthy being taxed more would pay for it.
i didnt suggest that you can fund these safety nets exclusively with a new tax aimed only at people worth 50 billion or more.

seemed like we were discussing this at a more abstract level... im not prepared with proposed legislation that i've drafted up after having had a fiscal analysis of the bill conducted

[DMC]

i didnt suggest that you can fund these safety nets exclusively with a new tax aimed only at people worth 50 billion or more.

The conversation was about the fliers, the uber wealthy.

[spurraider21]

The conversation was about the fliers, the uber wealthy.
the uber wealthy are symptoms of a system that is too inequitable

[DMC]

That the left wants to redistribute wealth isn't news.

[spurraider21]

That the left wants to redistribute wealth isn't news.
everybody who lives somewhere that taxes exists does too

[Winehole23]

That the left wants to redistribute wealth isn't news.The right has been redistributing wealth up the income scale for 50 years, the equities are totally out of whack.

[DMC]

everybody who lives somewhere that taxes exists does too
False equivalence but you operate in that realm.

[DMC]

The right has been redistributing wealth up the income scale for 50 years, the equities are totally out of whack.

Who forces you to give your money to the wealthy?

[DMC]

the uber wealthy are symptoms of a system that is too inequitable

That's how the conversation got started. You're now using circular reasoning.

[Ef-man]

^^^^

False equivalence but you operate in that realm.

[spurraider21]

That's how the conversation got started. You're now using circular reasoning.
nothing circular.

bad system leads to inequitable results. the existence of the super billionaires like bezos is the clearest example of that. my fixation is not on bringing out the guillotine and redistributing bezos' personal wealth. its about addressing the roots of the issue, ie through a more aggressive tax scheme to benefit the broader public

[DMC]

nothing circular.

bad system leads to inequitable results. the existence of the super billionaires like bezos is the clearest example of that. my fixation is not on bringing out the guillotine and redistributing bezos' personal wealth. its about addressing the roots of the issue, ie through a more aggressive tax scheme to benefit the broader public

You're using the statement you're trying to prove as proof. At best you're begging the question.

[Winehole23]

Who forces you to give your money to the wealthy?Rent, debt, education, health care, transportation and taxes

[DMC]

Rent, debt, education, health care, transportation and taxes

Which of those is going to the wealthy?

"Debt" is too general a statement. Why do you owe? Who do you owe?

Healthcare costs go to a lot of people, many who work in the HC industry have to get paid.

You're saying everything you use is forcing you to give money to the wealthy. That's not a valid argument.

Taxes? :lol

Aren't you arguing for more taxes?

[Winehole23]

Also, the government that gives owners, lenders and employers rule and subsidy based advantages over me.

[DMC]

Also, the government that gives owners, lenders and employers rule and subsidy based advantages over me.

So you want to better yourself at their expense?

[Winehole23]

Which of those is going to the wealthy?

"Debt" is too general a statement. Why do you owe? Who do you owe?

Healthcare costs go to a lot of people, many who work in the HC industry have to get paid.

You're saying everything you use is forcing you to give money to the wealthy. That's not a valid argument.

Taxes? :lol

Aren't you arguing for more taxes?Yes, but not into a black bag, but into public goods like education, healthcare, transportation, banking/credit that reduce the costs of production and the burden that employers and workers disproportionately bear.

[spurraider21]

You're using the statement you're trying to prove as proof. At best you're begging the question.
what i'm arguing for is a solution. seems you're stuck on whether the problem exists.

[Winehole23]

So you want to better yourself at their expense?The equities are too skewed in favor of the wealthy, I think that should change. YMMV.

[DMC]

Yes, but not into a black bag, but into public goods like education, healthcare, transportation, banking/credit that reduce the costs of production and the burden that employers and workers disproportionately bear.

You're arguing for more than more taxation. You're arguing for an overthrow.

[DMC]

what i'm arguing for is a solution. seems you're stuck on whether the problem exists.

I don't believe it's a problem. I just think it's low hanging fruit that's an easily assignable cause that has little to no affect on what you're trying to achieve.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you want to better yourself at their expense?

They can afford it unlike the poor and middle class that they have been used at their expense by the rich. The income gradient over time is what it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're arguing for more than more taxation. You're arguing for an overthrow.

ARe you arguing the antitrust laws and their application is an overthrow? They are literally talking about dismantling oligarchy.

[spurraider21]

I don't believe it's a problem. I just think it's low hanging fruit that's an easily assignable cause that has little to no affect on what you're trying to achieve.
only if the assumption is that im only interesting in policy that redistributes the net worths of specific people with net worths in the tens of billions

[Winehole23]

You're arguing for more than more taxation. You're arguing for an overthrow.I can see how using political power to prioritize public goods in the national interest might look like a revolution to you. It isn't and it needn't be. You're shitting you pants over commonplaces of political reform *not necessarily favorable* to short term profit.

My argument is that state support of certain public goods is good not only for the public, but for industrial competitiveness and productivity.

[Winehole23]

ARe you arguing the antitrust laws and their application is an overthrow? They are literally talking about dismantling oligarchy.He seems to think shifting money off the throne of power and putting the public interest there is VIOLENT REVOLT AND OVERTHROW.

[Winehole23]

DMC has argued in the past that society is a fiction and the common interest is ersatz. There's only individuals against a doctrinally evil state. The essential problem is how to spirit what one can to make a tolerable life for oneself from an immutably oppressive order.

Cheap cynicism fused with personal greed, elevated to a principle.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

DMC has argued in the past that society is a fiction and the common interest is ersatz. There's only individuals against a doctrinally evil state. The essential problem is how to spirit what one can to make a tolerable life for oneself from an immutably oppressive order.

Cheap cynicism fused with personal greed, elevated to a principle.

There's a reason so many objectivists end up killing themselves.

[Winehole23]

There's a reason so many objectivists end up killing themselves.That would explain a lot, but much of objectivism is common to various flavors of libertarianism. DMC's streak of blithe cruelty reminds me of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, but who knows where he got it. Asshole libertarianism has a thousand fathers.

[DMC]

They can afford it unlike the poor and middle class that they have been used at their expense by the rich. The income gradient over time is what it is.

So the answer is yes.

Of course, who doesn't want to change rules to better themselves?

[DMC]

DMC has argued in the past that society is a fiction and the common interest is ersatz. There's only individuals against a doctrinally evil state. The essential problem is how to spirit what one can to make a tolerable life for oneself from an immutably oppressive order.

Cheap cynicism fused with personal greed, elevated to a principle.

And every day that passes you bitch more and more about the reality of it. But I don't believe in a doctrinally evil state because I don't believe in evil. I believe these "individuals" find the most efficient means to better themselves and their offspring, and often that means stepping on others.

[ElNono]

What’s the problem with bitching about it?

[DMC]

What’s the problem with bitching about it?

If it isn't true what's there to bitch about?

[DMC]

ARe you arguing the antitrust laws and their application is an overthrow? They are literally talking about dismantling oligarchy.

He's talking about changing the entire system, not just increase of taxes but a change in how those taxes are used. That's simply not going to happen when the same group of career wealthy folks are cycling through the offices. What's so hard to understand about the concept of individuals shoring up their own wealth, and a political system that ensures the masses will be salved by "change" (they all preach it), so they can continue putting the people into powerful positions, people that have no plans on change?

[DMC]

only if the assumption is that im only interesting in policy that redistributes the net worths of specific people with net worths in the tens of billions

That's what we were discussing.

[DMC]

I can see how using political power to prioritize public goods in the national interest might look like a revolution to you. It isn't and it needn't be. You're shitting you pants over commonplaces of political reform *not necessarily favorable* to short term profit.

My argument is that state support of certain public goods is good not only for the public, but for industrial competitiveness and productivity.

It's funny you think I am concerned about it. I am laughing at the ideologue mentality you espouse, as if you saying it gives power to the idea. Keep jousting those windmills.

[ElNono]

If it isn't true what's there to bitch about?

Why would something being true or false preclude bitching? It’s true that Mitch doesn’t want to send $2000 checks. Bitching about that being morally/philosophically/whatever wrong isn’t unwarranted.

[DMC]

Why would something being true or false preclude bitching? It’s true that Mitch doesn’t want to send $2000 checks. Bitching about that being morally/philosophically/whatever wrong isn’t unwarranted.

If you say I believe in something that's not true, then you proceed to bitch about it as if it is true, there's a conflict. Otherwise I have no idea what you're objecting to.

[Winehole23]

It's funny you think I am concerned about it. I am laughing at the ideologue mentality you espouse, as if you saying it gives power to the idea. Keep jousting those windmills.Keep having a conversation with yourself, you can't differ with others honestly. There is no objective, ideology-free viewpoint from which to criticize others. If you think there is, that's just indoctrination.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He's talking about changing the entire system, not just increase of taxes but a change in how those taxes are used. That's simply not going to happen when the same group of career wealthy folks are cycling through the offices. What's so hard to understand about the concept of individuals shoring up their own wealth, and a political system that ensures the masses will be salved by "change" (they all preach it), so they can continue putting the people into powerful positions, people that have no plans on change?

So you don't think it is going to happen so people should just give up? That is some egomaniacal and specious argumentation.

And i am not interested in your pseudo-objectivist rationalizations of US society.

[ElNono]

If you say I believe in something that's not true, then you proceed to bitch about it as if it is true, there's a conflict. Otherwise I have no idea what you're objecting to.

I don’t believe there’s election fraud, but I would certainly bitch about claims of election fraud.

There’s no conflict there.

[ElNono]

Sorry, to round out the thought, I object to the notion that because somebody doesn’t adhere to something, they’re precluded from bitching about it. Because you don’t believe something to be true doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect you in some way. Religion is a notorious example.

[Winehole23]

It's funny you think I am concerned about it. I am laughing at the ideologue mentality you espouse, as if you saying it gives power to the idea. Keep jousting those windmills.Discussion boards are for discussion. Talk ain't much but it's not nothing.

Things that a lot of people talk about *sometimes* make the political to do list. If people didn't talk about them, they might not make it on the agenda.

[DMC]

I don’t believe there’s election fraud, but I would certainly bitch about claims of election fraud.

There’s no conflict there.

Bitching about the claims isn't the same as bitching about the fraud. Why would you bitch about something you don't believe happened?

[DMC]

Discussion boards are for discussion. Talk ain't much but it's not nothing.

Things that a lot of people talk about *sometimes* make the political to do list. If people didn't talk about them, they might not make it on the agenda.

Talk is nothing.

[DMC]

Sorry, to round out the thought, I object to the notion that because somebody doesn’t adhere to something, they’re precluded from bitching about it. Because you don’t believe something to be true doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect you in some way. Religion is a notorious example.

There's a difference, again, between bitching about the effects of religion and bitching about God.

[DMC]

So you don't think it is going to happen so people should just give up? That is some egomaniacal and specious argumentation.

And i am not interested in your pseudo-objectivist rationalizations of US society.

It's not going to happen. What would he be giving up, talking about it? :lol

Get over yourself, idiot.

[DMC]

Keep having a conversation with yourself, you can't differ with others honestly. There is no objective, ideology-free viewpoint from which to criticize others. If you think there is, that's just indoctrination.

Unlike you I don't paint the other side as melting down every time someone disagrees with me. I also don't post every news story I find online like some OCD shut-in.

[Winehole23]

I also don't post every news story I find online like some OCD shut-in.You're overselling youself, you provide close to zero content to this forum besides your own hauteur and derision. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Winehole23]

Talk is nothing.You're wrong.

[Frenchfred]

Who forces you to give your money to the wealthy?

You pay for a product or service done by employees not by a rich person. The rich don’t manufacture the goods I’m buying, they don’t provide me with the service, employees do

[Frenchfred]

So you want to better yourself at their expense?

the rich have been doing this for years, it doesn’t seem to bother you. The average wage corrected by inflation has barely moved over the years while the rich have been taking pretty much all the wealth created by the employees. You think it’s fair?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's not going to happen. What would he be giving up, talking about it? :lol

Get over yourself, idiot.

:lol Someone is salty. You should take your own advice, Nostradamus.

You don't know what is going to happen. There is a changing demographic as the boomers die off.

Your objectivist ship is sinking. Sorry it bothers you others like to talk about it.

[boutons_deux]

There is a changing demographic as the boomers die off.

the oligarchy is multi-generational and institutionalized (Congress, Federal judiciary)

the demographic is trending towards non-whiteness, but voting is a charade, essentially just another multi-$B business.

Votes don't count towards getting one's elected legislators to do what you want. They, both parties, react only to the bribes of BigDonor class.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the oligarchy is multi-generational and institutionalized (Congress, Federal judiciary)

the demographic is trending towards non-whiteness, but voting is a charade, essentially just another multi-$B business.

Votes don't count towards getting one's elected legislators to do what you want. They, both parties, react only to the bribes of BigDonor class.

The incoming demographic is pretty famously disenfranchised economically. We'll see if they get bought out.

And votes still matter. They choose who gets elected and primaried. It has to work its way up but the state and local levels are easier to change. There are still federal level candidates interested in changing Citizens United and stock trading by legislators.

[DMC]

the rich have been doing this for years, it doesn’t seem to bother you. The average wage corrected by inflation has barely moved over the years while the rich have been taking pretty much all the wealth created by the employees. You think it’s fair?

It doesn't bother me. I just want to make sure I understand the intent. "Gets mines" is a universal motive.

[DMC]

:lol Someone is salty. You should take your own advice, Nostradamus.

You don't know what is going to happen. There is a changing demographic as the boomers die off.

Your objectivist ship is sinking. Sorry it bothers you others like to talk about it.

Star Citizen will be finished before this is ever considered.

[DMC]

You're overselling youself, you provide close to zero content to this forum besides your own hauteur and derision. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

So now you're a content provider? Right up there behind ducks and Boutons Deux I suppose.

[ElNono]

Bitching about the claims isn't the same as bitching about the fraud. Why would you bitch about something you don't believe happened?

Now we’re talking semantics. Whether I believe fraud happened or not, the fact that there are people that drive that lie in detriment of democracy affects me, so I very much will bitch about it.

Ultimately the keyword here is ‘believe’. We’re not talking facts, but opinion.

[ChumpDumper]

Man, DMC is so pissed that he lost the election.

[CosmicCowboy]

A lot of things have affected earnings in the last 50 years. Blaming it only on tax rates is ridiculous. Besides, the stated "high" tax rates of earlier years were offset by more generous deductions and tax shelters. The effective tax rate has stayed relatively constant.

[Winehole23]

So now you're a content provider? Right up there behind ducks and Boutons Deux I suppose.We all are. Thanks for underscoring my point.

[Winehole23]

It doesn't bother me. I just want to make sure I understand the intent. "Gets mines" is a universal motive.There's the cheap cynicism and selfishness raised to principle I was talking about.

Your ideology.

[Frenchfred]

A lot of things have affected earnings in the last 50 years. Blaming it only on tax rates is ridiculous. Besides, the stated "high" tax rates of earlier years were offset by more generous deductions and tax shelters. The effective tax rate has stayed relatively constant.

when you see income and wealth distributions, it is pretty clear where the money went. It is pretty clear as well that the "rich" won't distribute the money; perfect example with Amazon who refuses to provide health benefits to part-time employees despite record benefits. Taxation is unfortunately the only way to force this redistribution for a better society

[DMC]

Now we’re talking semantics. Whether I believe fraud happened or not, the fact that there are people that drive that lie in detriment of democracy affects me, so I very much will bitch about it.

Ultimately the keyword here is ‘believe’. We’re not talking facts, but opinion.

It's not semantics to consider "people who drive that lie" vs "election fraud" as two completely different things. My comment was saying that Winehole will bitch about the effects of individualism but then spout off about how he doesn't believe it exists.

[DMC]

There's the cheap cynicism and selfishness raised to principle I was talking about.

Your ideology.

It's your claim :lol

so when I shut you down you just find other evil traits in those who disagree with you.

"You're overly concerned!"

"I'm not concerned"

"You're selfish!"

:lol

[DMC]

when you see income and wealth distributions, it is pretty clear where the money went. It is pretty clear as well that the "rich" won't distribute the money; perfect example with Amazon who refuses to provide health benefits to part-time employees despite record benefits. Taxation is unfortunately the only way to force this redistribution for a better society

Do you think "the rich" are a genetic group who were born on an island and developed this distance between themselves and the not-so-rich?

If you became rich, you'd be "the rich". Would you suddenly be evil like these people you're whining about?

[Winehole23]

:blah

[ElNono]

It's not semantics to consider "people who drive that lie" vs "election fraud" as two completely different things. My comment was saying that Winehole will bitch about the effects of individualism but then spout off about how he doesn't believe it exists.

But the fact that some people believe that individualism exists and drive policy that affects him (or all of us) means that Wino is perfectly entitled to have that bitching.

Again, plenty of examples of this, ranging from religion to racism, etc

[DMC]

But the fact that some people believe that individualism exists and drive policy that affects him (or all of us) means that Wino is perfectly entitled to have that bitching.

Again, plenty of examples of this, ranging from religion to racism, etc

That's not what I claimed he was bitching about. I claim he bitches about the reality of the condition he denies exists.

He lampoons the notion that individualism rules man, but then bitches about being ruled by individualism.

[ElNono]

That's not what I claimed he was bitching about. I claim he bitches about the reality of the condition he denies exists.

He lampoons the notion that individualism rules man, but then bitches about being ruled by individualism.

Because it’s clearly not an all or nothing proposition. I don’t think individualism rules all men either. I think individualism taken to certain extremes by some men (sometimes glorified) is indeed bad.

[Winehole23]

it's not equitable

1345183419341410312

[boutons_deux]

.. AND

there's NO solution, not even the slightest improvement.

The oligarchy has a crushing iron grip on the USA. There's no escape.

[Will Hunting]

A lot of things have affected earnings in the last 50 years. Blaming it only on tax rates is ridiculous. Besides, the stated "high" tax rates of earlier years were offset by more generous deductions and tax shelters. The effective tax rate has stayed relatively constant.
Yeah this is just patently false bullshit

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/styles/original_optimized/public/figure1_v2_0.png?itok=dwZqdq8s

[Winehole23]

Yeah this is just patently false bullshit

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/styles/original_optimized/public/figure1_v2_0.png?itok=dwZqdq8sauthoritively intoned PFA bullshit is CC's specialty

[Frenchfred]

Do you think "the rich" are a genetic group who were born on an island and developed this distance between themselves and the not-so-rich?

If you became rich, you'd be "the rich". Would you suddenly be evil like these people you're whining about?

I don't even understand what you're trying to say. You think that the rich become rich just because of themselves? Are they the ones manufacturing the goods and providing the services that they are selling?

The republicans are selling the tax cuts on the rich with the promise that it'll trickle down and it causes massive debt. So what's the point with continuing doing it if the outcome is bad for society?

[Winehole23]

DMC doesn't believe there is any such thing as society.

[Winehole23]

recurs to the point El NoNo was making about the role of access to credit

1418974441636352005

[Winehole23]

Bloomberg seconds Zucman


Rock-bottom interest rates have fueled the biggest borrowing binge on record and even billionaires with enough cash to fill a swimming pool are loathe to sit it out… ‘Families with wealth of $100 million or more can borrow at less than 1%,’ said Dan Gimbel, principal at NEPC Private Wealth. ‘For their lifestyle, there may be things they want to purchase — a car or a boat or even a small business — and they may turn to that line of credit for those types of things rather than take money from the portfolio as they want that to be fully invested.’https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-23/wall-street-is-throwing-cheap-credit-at-ultra-wealthy-clients

[Winehole23]

worth stressing again

1422717112959778818

[RandomGuy]

A lot of things have affected earnings in the last 50 years. Blaming it only on tax rates is ridiculous. Besides, the stated "high" tax rates of earlier years were offset by more generous deductions and tax shelters. The effective tax rate has stayed relatively constant.

... but the wealth has gotten increasingly concentrated.

It is a simple sort of math.

The rich got lucky, and absolutely do not pay as much back into the system as they take out.

[RandomGuy]

DMC doesn't believe there is any such thing as society.

Libertarians tend to be selfish twats who just can't quite understand the super-duper difficult obscure concept of interdependence.

[Winehole23]

educational attainment helps somewhat..if you're white


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8SM_vNVUAYB1hF?format=jpg&name=medium

[Winehole23]

Thematically related: hedge funds capitalizing on a real estate crash caused by securitization, using debt and securitization to gobble up real-estate, limiting housing supply, capturing municipal markets and guaranteeing income streams via eviction. And in so doing, increasing inequality.

great thread

1424332601318428677

[Winehole23]

the influence of a small number of ultrawealthy donors was mighty, as were the accrued benefits .


Dick and Liz Uihlein of packaging giant Uline, along with roofing magnate Diane Hendricks, together had contributed around $20 million to groups backing Johnson’s 2016 reelection campaign.


The expanded tax break Johnson muscled through netted them $215 million in deductions in 2018 alone, drastically reducing the income they owed taxes on. At that rate, the cut could deliver more than half a billion in tax savings for Hendricks and the Uihleins over its eight-year life.


But the tax break did more than just give a lucrative, and legal, perk to Johnson’s donors. In the first year after Trump signed the legislation, just 82 ultrawealthy households collectively walked away with more than $1 billion in total savings, an analysis of confidential tax records shows. Republican and Democratic tycoons alike saw their tax bills chopped by tens of millions, among them: media magnate and former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg; the Bechtel family, owners of the engineering firm that bears their name; and the heirs of the late Houston pipeline billionaire Dan Duncan.


Usually the scale of the riches doled out by opaque tax legislation — and the beneficiaries — remain shielded from the public. But ProPublica has obtained a trove of IRS records covering thousands of the wealthiest Americans. The records have enabled reporters this year to explore (https://www.propublica.org/series/the-secret-irs-files) the diverse menu of options the tax code affords the ultrawealthy to avoid paying taxes.


https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-irs-files-reveal-how-much-the-ultrawealthy-gained-by-shaping-trumps-big-beautiful-tax-cut

[Winehole23]

Proponents touted it as boosting “small business” and “Main Street,” and it’s true that many small businesses got a modest tax break. But a recent study (https://www.nber.org/papers/w28680) by Treasury economists found that the top 1% of Americans by income have reaped nearly 60% of the billions in tax savings created by the provision. And most of that amount went to the top 0.1%.

[Winehole23]

ingrates


The company’s lobbying on the Trump tax bill, and the tax break it received, highlight a paradox at the core of Bechtel: The family has for years showered money on anti-tax candidates even though, as The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer has written, Bechtel “owed almost its entire existence to government patronage.” Most famous for being one of the companies that built the Hoover Dam, in recent years it has bid on and won marquee federal projects. Among them: a healthy share of the billions spent by American taxpayers to rebuild Iraq after the war. The firm recently moved its longtime headquarters from San Francisco to Reston, Virginia, a hub for federal contractors just outside the Beltway.

[Winehole23]

chronic redistribution to top


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?width=880&height=440&id=WFRBST01134

[The Reckoning]

it's embarrassing that it took this long for people to realize this. trickle down is one of the biggest promulgated lies of the last century.

[Winehole23]

if, as rumored in the press, respect for economic freedom is strikingly low among Millenials, maybe because thats because economic freedom no longer delivers the goods



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9xNEcxXIAQ9Dob?format=png&name=900x900

[spurraider21]

^its easy to see why :lol

look at the thread about home ownership

i bought my home for x, now its worth 6x that!

[Winehole23]

expenditures keep rising, but life expectancy keeps falling.

the free market isn't delivering the goods.

1190809740500074497

[Winehole23]

"thar be dragons"


1432734906400919555

1432734912105177089

[Winehole23]

frothiness detected

1432937085049008136

[RandomGuy]

It is astonishing how much the right avoids this thread.

[Winehole23]

It is astonishing how much the right avoids this thread.their adherence to trickle down economics is doctrinal, not evidence based. at bottom it's all about money, power and social control --- inequality was the desired result.

[Winehole23]

wealth tax

1433907758051446784

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-uXeFbUUAcV6iF?format=png&name=medium
https://c.tenor.com/acU28-Gj1W0AAAAC/jack-nicholson-jack.gif

[RandomGuy]

it's embarrassing that it took this long for people to realize this. trickle down is one of the biggest promulgated lies of the last century.

As WH noted: Trickle down has become a sort of gospel to the kinds of people who read... gospels.

The rise of prosperity gospel and megachurches that are more business than churches and would probably have made any itinerant rabbi from 2000 years ago livid.

But that "don't question things" when it comes to one topic... bleeds over into others.

[RandomGuy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-uXeFbUUAcV6iF?format=png&name=medium
https://c.tenor.com/acU28-Gj1W0AAAAC/jack-nicholson-jack.gif

That would go a long way towards universal health care.

[Winehole23]

git em

free lunch rentiers need to start paying their fair share

1435609344565923841

[boutons_deux]

That would go a long way towards universal health care.

put all taxes back to Jan 2001 before the Repugs cut them, which is their immediate and never-ending priority each time they take office

[Winehole23]

Pay now or pay later

https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-08-2017/Z02EpS.gif

1437107763352584197

[boutons_deux]

Dems don't have the Senate votes to raise taxes through reconciliation,

Repugs had the 2001 Senate votes use conciliation to cut taxes on the oligarchy

Dems ain't gonna raise no taxes.

If Dems lose the House and Senate in 2022, Repugs will definitely cut taxes through reconciliation, as well as defunding the IRS by even more $100Ms.

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_ONt0iWYAEvmx-?format=jpg&name=small

[boutons_deux]

Higher tax rates on higher incomes is not better for me personally.



so it's not better for anybody, not better for society, right?

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_pyYzEWEAE9rrb?format=jpg&name=largehttps://wid.world/news-article/2020-distributional-national-accounts-guidelines-dina/

[Winehole23]

free-lunch rentiers

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_nbJwHXsAEVpOj?format=jpg&name=small

[Frenchfred]

https://wid.world/news-article/2020-distributional-national-accounts-guidelines-dina/

I don’t understand how republicans support that. A lot of them are in the first 6 deciles. They have been brainwashed

[DMC]

I don’t understand how republicans support that. A lot of them are in the first 6 deciles. They have been brainwashed

Hey subfred.. how's that submarine thing going? :lol

[Winehole23]

^^^strictly here to bite ankles, nary a topical take anywhere

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_01XDHVIAEUJuW?format=jpg&name=largehttps://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2021/09/neoliberalism-corporations-and-wealth.html

[Frenchfred]

Hey subfred.. how's that submarine thing going? :lol

What's the link with what we are talking about?

I'm not personally impacted by the submarine deal. This just confirms that the US are bullies. Maybe siding with Russia or China wouldn't be a bad thing after all.

[DMC]

What's the link with what we are talking about?

I'm not personally impacted by the submarine deal. This just confirms that the US are bullies. Maybe siding with Russia or China wouldn't be a bad thing after all.

:lmao "bullies"

No one wants your fucking diesel submarines :lol

[Winehole23]

^^^ ducking topics and biting ankles full-time

[DMC]

^^^ ducking topics and biting ankles full-time

No one gives a shit about your obscure Twitter drunk posting topics

[Frenchfred]

:lmao "bullies"

No one wants your fucking diesel submarines :lol

what a douche. Thanks for confirming that you are uninformed about the topic.

[Winehole23]

No one gives a shit about your obscure Twitter drunk posting topicsso why do you like it here? you're all towel-snapping and pillow talk with guys. :lol

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_6dpuWUcAAL_5V?format=png&name=medium

[Winehole23]

1441814515788693509

[Thread]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_6dpuWUcAAL_5V?format=png&name=medium

Mother fucker Biden just wants more money to play with.

[Winehole23]

free lunch rentiers

1442967891184287745

[Winehole23]

1444837573310955523

[Winehole23]

1444780047047401474

[Winehole23]

1445007042083647490

[Winehole23]

Mark Zuckerberg is 40% of the Millenial 5% share.

Fwiw, Millenials are the most educated cohort of US workers ever, in the most productive workforce in the world.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0PADXmVIAMufnA?format=jpg&name=medium

[Winehole23]

https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/great%20depression%20welath_0.jpg?itok=uvugjyr7

[Winehole23]

https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/share%20of%20income%20earned.jpg?itok=CTQcnhji

[Winehole23]

https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/top%2010%25%20control%2070%25%20of%20wealth.jpg?it ok=zjQVGA_a

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBjGS0OUUAEGD8e?format=jpg&name=medium

[Winehole23]

1448345779962265604

[Winehole23]

fish where the hsh are

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1448437285347790853/h2m0l5F8?format=jpg&name=900x900

[Winehole23]

the trend accelerated in 2020-1

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCufCx8VIAA7ZIj?format=jpg&name=medium

[Winehole23]

education, all by itself, isn't a solution

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEYD1q8WYAA5Jkz?format=jpg&name=900x900


I have become so tired of hearing about education that I have hopefully made the graph to end all graphs on this. In this graph we have the percentage of the population with high school degrees, the percentage of the population with college degrees, GDP per capita, and the average market income of the bottom 90% of income earners. They are all indexed to 100 at 1973. I realize it is a bit strange to index percentages of the population alongside levels, but I think it works here.


So take a look. Since 1973, the share of the population with a college degree has gone up from 12.6% to 30.4%, and the share with high school degrees has gone up from 59.8% to 87.6%. And it sure does show in productivity gains: since 1973, GDP per capita has gone up 82%. Meanwhile market incomes for the bottom 90% have completely stagnated. That green line, according to the education parrots, should be rising along with the others. Instead, it is completely flat, and in fact dips below the 1973 level in all but three years.
https://mattbruenig.com/2012/11/24/its-the-distribution-stupid/

[Winehole23]

Mark Zuckerberg is 40% of the Millenial 5% share.

Fwiw, Millenials are the most educated cohort of US workers ever, in the most productive workforce in the world.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0PADXmVIAMufnA?format=jpg&name=mediumFollows the previous, though it preceded it in the thread.

[SnakeBoy]

Mark Zuckerberg is 40% of the Millenial 5% share.

Fwiw, Millenials are the most educated cohort of US workers ever, in the most productive workforce in the world.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0PADXmVIAMufnA?format=jpg&name=medium

So what point are you trying to make here? That the Silent Generation is dying off? That Boomers are the largest generation? That GenX'ers have entered their wealth building years? That Millenials are screwed?

All are true.

[RandomGuy]

So what point are you trying to make here? That the Silent Generation is dying off? That Boomers are the largest generation? That GenX'ers have entered their wealth building years? That Millenials are screwed?

All are true.

Opportunity is not what it once was, especially for younger people. We should actively do something about it, such as student loan forgiveness, or simply extend public education another four years for those who want it. Like they do in Europe.

[Winehole23]

So what point are you trying to make here? That the Silent Generation is dying off? That Boomers are the largest generation? That GenX'ers have entered their wealth building years? That Millenials are screwed?

All are true.The free market no longer delivers the goods. Gross accumulation of capital hinders productive investment and spreads social misery.

And yes, milllenials and Gen Z are screwed.

[SnakeBoy]

The free market no longer delivers the goods. Gross accumulation of capital hinders productive investment and spreads social misery.


lol free market. That's the Fed you're talking about.

[DMC]

Opportunity is not what it once was, especially for younger people. We should actively do something about it, such as student loan forgiveness, or simply extend public education another four years for those who want it. Like they do in Europe.

Back in the good old days we could post online all day and night and never have to work, AND get paid for doing it! These days our wives have to work!

[DMC]

So what point are you trying to make here? That the Silent Generation is dying off? That Boomers are the largest generation? That GenX'ers have entered their wealth building years? That Millenials are screwed?

All are true.

He doesn't know what point to make. He just likes big busy charts he can regurgitate.

[Winehole23]

lol free market. That's the Fed you're talking about.I agree that the so-called free market isn't free. Never has been.

[SnakeBoy]

He doesn't know what point to make. He just likes big busy charts he can regurgitate.

It was rhetorical tbh. His point is always some version of muh capitalism bad.

[Winehole23]

It was rhetorical tbh. His point is always some version of muh capitalism bad.How it's good and bad is important.

[SnakeBoy]

How it's good and bad is important.

If you never present your alternative it is just whining and you never do

[Winehole23]

If you never present your alternative it is just whining and you never donah, you've not been paying attention.

[Winehole23]

A mixed system would be a closer approximation to the optimal imho. Absent monopoly/monopsony abusiveness, capitalism is great at setting prices and distributing goods. It's not so good at childcare, healthcare, housing, education and infrastructure. The profit motive sorts ill in many ways with the public weal and common prosperity.

[Winehole23]

A mixed system would be a closer approximation to the optimal imho. Absent monopoly/monopsony abusiveness, capitalism is great at setting prices and distributing goods. It's not so good at childcare, healthcare, housing, education and infrastructure. The profit motive sorts ill in many ways with the public weal and common prosperity.How to fund it?

A wealth tax, yes, but more taxes for the middle class too. Robust public investment in the foregoing would lower the cost of doing business for everyone, preferably starting with Medicare for all.

[Winehole23]

the trend accelerated in 2020-1

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCufCx8VIAA7ZIj?format=jpg&name=mediumSocial misery from an epochal pandemic is a goldmine for those with ready cash to invest.

[Winehole23]

I'm looking at y'all too, Nancy Pelosi, Richard Burr and Randesivir.

[Winehole23]

A mixed system would be a closer approximation to the optimal imho. Absent monopoly/monopsony abusiveness, capitalism is great at setting prices and distributing goods. It's not so good at childcare, healthcare, housing, education and infrastructure. Acquisitiveness sorts ill in many ways with the public weal and common prosperity.Besides protecting property, enforcing contracts and defending the country, that's sort of why we have a government at all, tbh.

[Winehole23]

"promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty"

[Winehole23]

A mixed system would be a closer approximation to the optimal imho. Absent monopoly/monopsony abusiveness, capitalism is great at setting prices and distributing goods. It's not so good at childcare, healthcare, housing, education and infrastructure. The profit motive sorts ill in many ways with the public weal and common prosperity. many, not all.

criticism is separation of the good from the bad, it's not all or nothing.

Gr. "krinein," to separate or distinguish

[Winehole23]

even Marx was a cheerleader of capitalism's expansion of productive capacity. his theory couldn't work without it.

[Winehole23]

IRS estimates selfish cheats and wealthy free lunchers hide $1 trillion annually


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-13/tax-cheats-are-costing-u-s-1-trillion-a-year-irs-estimates

[Winehole23]

The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than You (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html)


https://i.imgur.com/xhYCQh4.gif?noredirect

[CosmicCowboy]

IRS estimates selfish cheats and wealthy free lunchers hide $1 trillion annually


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-13/tax-cheats-are-costing-u-s-1-trillion-a-year-irs-estimates

Of course they do. Every bureaucracy wants more funding, more employees and more power. Making unsubstantiated claims of massive cheating justify more of everything.

[Winehole23]

^^^ Blindfold securely tied, hands waving

[DMC]

^You've gone off the deep end.

[Winehole23]

someone's got a grudge :lol

[DMC]

someone's got a grudge :lol

Probably your bathroom scales.

[Ef-man]

someone's got a grudge :lol

He cannot stop himself. :lol

[DMC]

He cannot stop himself.

-Reporting live from Spurstalk, I'm Extremely Fat-Man


Let's try harder to keep this professional.

[Ef-man]

someone's got a grudge :lol

See.

The fat fuck is extra salty this weekend and regrets posting pictures of his fat hands.

What an idiot!

[Winehole23]

Probably your bathroom scales.Avoiding all topical handles, only talking about me, as an honest broker does.

I'm just a pony on your carousel of grudges. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

^^^ Blindfold securely tied, hands waving

I could say the same of you. If they are really missing ONE TRILLION a year of TAXES when the total GDP of the entire US economy is only TWENTY TWO TRILLION then they need to start by firing everyone and starting over.

[DMC]

The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than You (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html)


https://i.imgur.com/xhYCQh4.gif?noredirect

Lower tax rate != lower taxes

[Winehole23]

Lower tax rate != lower taxesdistinction without a difference, the equities are screwed.

[baseline bum]

https://i.ibb.co/0Y94960/6n4xywtvtk281.jpg

[DMC]

distinction without a difference, the equities are screwed.

There's a huge difference. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean there's no difference. Words matter.

Person A pays 20% income tax for a total of 18K
Person B pays 5% income tax for a total of 180K

That's a difference factor of 10. If you think your 18K is doing the same amount of support as the 180K, you should be able to live just as well as them.

[CosmicCowboy]

There's a huge difference. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean there's no difference. Words matter.

Person A pays 20% income tax for a total of 18K
Person B pays 5% income tax for a total of 180K

That's a difference factor of 10. If you think your 18K is doing the same amount of support as the 180K, you should be able to live just as well as them.

You will never change him no matter how you try. He hates and is angrily jealous of success.

[Th'Pusher]

There's a huge difference. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean there's no difference. Words matter.

Person A pays 20% income tax for a total of 18K
Person B pays 5% income tax for a total of 180K

That's a difference factor of 10. If you think your 18K is doing the same amount of support as the 180K, you should be able to live just as well as them.

Person A has $72k left after taxes.

Person B has $3.42M left after taxes.

There is a reason taxes were designed to be progressive.

[DMC]

Person A has $72k left after taxes.

Person B has $3.42M left after taxes.

There is a reason taxes were designed to be progressive.

I didn't suggest either should pay more or less, but that lower tax rate and lower taxes are not the same. Maybe both should end up with 72K left so that no one feels it useful to push forward any more once they reach that 72K remaining.

[Th'Pusher]

Maybe both should end up with 72K left so that no one feels it useful to push forward any more once they reach that 72K remaining.

DMClown

You’re not a serious person.

[DMC]

DMClown

You’re not a serious person.

I seem to be the only reason you post these days.

[Ef-man]

DMClown

You’re not a serious person.

:lol
You got under his skin.

He is down to his lame schtick of saying everyone is out to get him.

[RandomGuy]

I could say the same of you. If they are really missing ONE TRILLION a year of TAXES when the total GDP of the entire US economy is only TWENTY TWO TRILLION then they need to start by firing everyone and starting over.

Or hire more IRS agents to go after the cheats. Seems like a pretty big win as far as cost/benefit goes, amaright?

[RandomGuy]

There's a huge difference. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean there's no difference. Words matter.

Person A pays 20% income tax for a total of 18K
Person B pays 5% income tax for a total of 180K

That's a difference factor of 10. If you think your 18K is doing the same amount of support as the 180K, you should be able to live just as well as them.

Yeah, but what does the speed limit sign say is the right amount of taxes?

[RandomGuy]

You will never change him no matter how you try. He hates and is angrily jealous of success.

Not jealousy. No matter how many times you claim it is, that will not make it true.

So, once again, I will will explain it to you, in the hope you may understand.

It is based on fairness, and the simple economic concept of marginal income over the poverty level.

If the bare minimum for food, shelter, clothes, i.e. life sustaining is 20K taking even one dollar away means something that sustains life has to give. That is a great harm.

Someone making, say 200K could lose 90% of that before that level of harm. Each dollar of marginal income above that poverty line they lose only requires them to give up quality of food/shelter, etc or something not required to sustain life. The harm is less.

This is the fairness that our progressive income tax system is based on. It is fairness, not jealousy.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not jealousy. No matter how many times you claim it is, that will not make it true.

So, once again, I will will explain it to you, in the hope you may understand.

It is based on fairness, and the simple economic concept of marginal income over the poverty level.

If the bare minimum for food, shelter, clothes, i.e. life sustaining is 20K taking even one dollar away means something that sustains life has to give. That is a great harm.

Someone making, say 200K could lose 90% of that before that level of harm. Each dollar of marginal income above that poverty line they lose only requires them to give up quality of food/shelter, etc or something not required to sustain life. The harm is less.

This is the fairness that our progressive income tax system is based on. It is fairness, not jealousy.

Its already progressive. The top 5% pay 58% of federal taxes and the bottom 50% pay zero. I get it that you want more free shit from the federal government by taxing people higher that make more than you.

[baseline bum]

You will never change him no matter how you try. He hates and is angrily jealous of success.

So now even a flat tax would be class warfare against the rich?

[CosmicCowboy]

So now even a flat tax would be class warfare against the rich?

I didn't say that. It would certainly save me a shitload on accounting fees. I still think the problem is that people don't seem to understand the difference between wealth and income. Musk and Bezos may own billions of tesla and amazon stock but its just a bunch of paper until they sell that stock and get income to be taxed.

[Adam Lambert]

You will never change him no matter how you try. He hates and is angrily jealous of success.


Its already progressive. The top 5% pay 58% of federal taxes and the bottom 50% pay zero. I get it that you want more free shit from the federal government by taxing people higher that make more than you.

Why are so many supposedly wealthy people so insecure about it?

"Jealousy" this, "free shit" that. You act like it's so hard for you to make another $25K next year and the poor (most of whom work three times as hard as you on an average day and will be lucky to increase their income by even $1K next year) just want to freeload off your hard-earned investment income.

Until every next dollar earned is the same difficulty factor regardless of wealth or income (and we're nowhere near that point, nor should we be), there's really no merit to claims that progressive taxes punish the rich.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why are so many supposedly wealthy people so insecure about it?

"Jealousy" this, "free shit" that. You act like it's so hard for you to make another $25K next year and the poor (most of whom work three times as hard as you on an average day and will be lucky to increase their income by even $1K next year) just want to freeload off your hard-earned investment income.

Until every next dollar earned is the same difficulty factor regardless of wealth or income (and we're nowhere near that point, nor should we be), there's really no merit to claims that progressive taxes punish the rich.

I have no problem with progressive taxation on new income. However, when after tax dollars are then saved and invested and the investment grows in value it shouldn't be taxed at ordinary income rates when it is sold, especially when the gain is not indexed for inflation.

[Adam Lambert]

I have no problem with progressive taxation on new income. However, when after tax dollars are then saved and invested and the investment grows in value it shouldn't be taxed at ordinary income rates when it is sold, especially when the gain is not indexed for inflation.

I agree they shouldn't be taxed at ordinary rates. They should be taxed at higher rates. It's passive income and it does less good for the overall economy.

We are an investment economy now instead of a producer, and that's because we disproportionately incentivize investment. I have no problem taxing on the way in and on the way out. It's still new income and it's the easiest income by far to earn outside of inheritance.

I'd rather lower taxes on all of the CEOs' multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses than give any kind of break to even the lowliest of renters and day traders.

[CosmicCowboy]

I agree they shouldn't be taxed at ordinary rates. They should be taxed at higher rates. It's passive income and it does less good for the overall economy.

We are an investment economy now instead of a producer, and that's because we disproportionately incentivize investment. I have no problem taxing on the way in and on the way out. It's still new income and it's the easiest income by far to earn outside of inheritance.

I'd rather lower taxes on all of the CEOs' multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses than give any kind of break to even the lowliest of renters and day traders.

You have lost your fucking mind. Investments aren't guarantees. There is always risk. Follow your plan and the risk/reward kills innovation investment. Might as well just blow your savings on hookers and blow.

[Adam Lambert]

You have lost your fucking mind. Investments aren't guarantees. There is always risk. Follow your plan and the risk/reward kills innovation investment. Might as well just blow your savings on hookers and blow.

If you lose on an investment your tax rate is zero on that investment. The risk is exactly the same regardless of the tax rate.

But I don't see any reason we have to treat innovation investment the same as stock/property earnings and I'm sure our creative tax reform lobbyists can find a way to still encourage innovation in the new plan.

[DMC]

:lol People who spend their careers lauding "soft skills" complaining about not contributing.

Income is income. Who gives a fuck if it helps the hippie commune?

[Winehole23]

You will never change him no matter how you try. He hates and is angrily jealous of success.it’s not personal.

Our legislators let wealthy donors and special interests write rules that benefit them disproportionally and hollow out investment in public goods — it’s legalized corruption. I’m just asking that the field be more level for those who don’t happen to be rich and well connected. That’s not resentment, it’s fairness.

[DMC]

it’s not personal.

Our legislators let wealthy donors and special interests write rules that benefit them disproportionally and hollow out investment in public goods — it’s legalized corruption. I’m just asking that the field be more level for those who don’t happen to be rich and well connected. That’s not resentment, it’s fairness.

Thanks Karl.

[Winehole23]

Tax reform isn’t Marxist-Leninism, Herr Hoppe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe).

[Winehole23]

Its already progressive. The top 5% pay 58% of federal taxes and the bottom 50% pay zero. I get it that you want more free shit from the federal government by taxing people higher that make more than you.The first governments were basically granaries with an army. To keep the productive power of the country from dying.

Didn't Pharoah task Joseph with something similar?

[Winehole23]

Seriously, wtf is government for?

[Winehole23]

To coddle powerful and successful people and shit on everyone else?

[Winehole23]

To coddle powerful and successful people and shit on everyone else?That's the 50 year trend in the US, tbh.

[Winehole23]

https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/fit-in/1200x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Ftimworstall%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F1 0%2Fwagescompensation-1200x1093.png

[Winehole23]

HBS study: the US failed, during the longest economic expansion on record, to invest in public goods, reform structural weaknesses or make the US more competitive. Also, the two major political parties left the people behind.

https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/a-recovery-squandered.pdf

[Winehole23]

billionaires do not work millions of times harder than you do, they just have more employees to steal from, and more money that makes money while they sleep.

1342373626146766849

[Winehole23]

1441814515788693509

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBjGS0OUUAEGD8e?format=jpg&name=medium

[Winehole23]

ARe you arguing the antitrust laws and their application is an overthrow? They are literally talking about dismantling oligarchy.


I can see how using political power to prioritize public goods in the national interest might look like a revolution to DMC. It isn't and it needn't be. He's shitting his pants over commonplaces of political reform *not necessarily favorable* to short term profit.

My argument is that state support of certain public goods is good not only for the public, but for industrial competitiveness and productivity.



You're arguing for more than more taxation. You're arguing for an overthrow.



DMC seems to think shifting money off the throne of power and putting the public interest there is VIOLENT REVOLT AND OVERTHROW.

[Winehole23]

Karl Marx wasn't a tax reformer.

[Winehole23]

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Corporate-Profit-Margins-and-Employee-Compensation-Q2.gif

[Winehole23]

The trends reflected in the linked graphs did not occur in a state of nature, there was a political and legal context that enabled it all. The pendulum swung too far in favor of money and owners.

[CosmicCowboy]

If the warehouse worker doesn't like working at amazon he should work somewhere else. If he doesn't have the skill to work somewhere else he might want to question the multitude of choices he has made since getting spit out of his mamas cooch.