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

[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fighting with 1050's level thinking, people like Bezos and Musk invested in the future and those older companies with outdated management philosophy and infrastructure are paying the prices and extended those costs to their workers.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 prac ioner 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 prac ioner 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. , 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 ball 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 masses

Free 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...ntier-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. , 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

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

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 ty defense project that never comes to fruition?

They have foundations that pay for a lot of 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 ty defense project that never comes to fruition?

They have foundations that pay for a lot of 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.

Such melodramatic bull . 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]

Such melodramatic bull . 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.

Bull . You offered a strawman about "real work" as if money made by investment is fraudulent. You're likely a latent sexual 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