You're viewing a single thread.
I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
Also, if the tax increase is percieved to be unfair, rich people can just leave and go to Monaco or Switzerland or any other "rich friendly" country. They are pretty much free to do so and they do it all the time. So increasing taxes will not necessarily lead to more tax revenue if they are increased above what is reasonable.
I am so happy karma is not a thing here btw. I would be in an unenviable position otherwise.
I'm guessing you expected the downvotes to be fair, but I'd try and actually engage with what you said, since you clearly took the time to think it through and express it well.
What you're suggesting (that the wealthy classes play an important role in wealth distribution, that's hampered by tax) is pejoratively referred to as "trickle down economics"[0] and slightly less critically referred to as "supply side economics"[1].
You might want to reduce taxes on the wealthy for some other reason, but the idea that it helps the economy is very poorly evidenced, and there's quote a lot of evidence to the contrary.
It also seems to miss the fact that a lot of poor countries (take Nigeria[2]) have very low taxation, and many very wealthy countries (take Sweden[3]) have very high taxation.
My two cents are that, sure the rich might spend some money on things that benefit everyone, but it's probably a lot less than the amount of infrastructure development taxation can fund.
There's obviously complexities, but the idea that "people will just move" doesn't seem to happen in reality. I'd also say that, excluding perhaps billionaires, being moderately wealthy in a equitable society with good healthcare, transport, roads, etc, is a lot more desirable than being more wealthy in a society with less of those things. But I guess that's just my take, I don't have any evidence for it.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
[2] https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/nigeria/individual/taxes-on-personal-income
The term "Trickle Down Economics" was coined by Will Rogers, but ironically, he wasn't advocating for it, he was warning AGAINST it, in favor of "Trickle UP Economics:
The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.
He was 100% right, and we have proof. During the pandemic quarantine, the economy actually boomed, because the government did a couple of rounds of stimulus payments to all Americans, who spent it, thus STIMULATING the economy the way it was intended. Corporations like Amazon and Walmart had huge increases. The struggling delivery service business suddenly stabilized, and continues to be a viable business. Many people created successful home businesses that added to the economy. Others took the opportunity to learn new skills, and emerged from the quarantine with improved employment and compensation potential.
It proved that if you give the money to the people at the bottom, it will eventually get to the wealthy anyway, but at least it will grease the wheels of the economy as it moves through the system on its way to their hands. The wealthy would prefer that the government just hand them the money directly, it's much more efficient for them than to wait for it to Trickle Up, but all they have to do is be a little patient, and they'll still get their money, just after it has done some good for the economy first.
The current "Trickle Down" system is starting to crack, and it will break and collapse unless it is forced to hold together by oppression and violence, which is the path we are on now. If the Sociopathic Oligarchs don't eventually embrace "Trickle Up Economics," the real Free Market will replace the current "Trickle Down" system with "Robin Hood Economics" (Take from the rich, give to the poor), which the Sociopathic Oligarchs won't like at all, since it usually includes punitive violence toward the oppressors.
Just a nitpick (I’m still against trickle down), but how do we know those sectors boomed from the stimulus, vs from people using those services more because they were quarantined? Video conference platforms also took off—that wasn’t from gen pop citizens spending their stimulus.
We know because this was a unique moment in American history, and there have already been many studies about it, and they have confirmed the economic power of those stumulus checks. They are the reason that the economy emerged from the pandemic in relatively decent shape. Serious inflation followed, but studies have also confirmed that most of that inflation was caused by corporate profit-gouging and greedflatuon, not normal economic fluctuations.
Those were just examples, and not the only vectors for stimulus. For many people, paying off bills, getting long-deferred medical work done, fixing their vehicle, replacing ailing appliances, subscribing to streaming platforms for something to watch while in quarantine, and much more, happened because people suddenly had some money to make their lives a little better. It demonstrates that if we really want to hand out money to stimulate the economy, we shouldn't give it Sociopathic Oligarchs with Financial OCD/ Hoarding Disorder, who will instantly turn it into dead money by stuffing it into offshore tax accounts, we should give it to the working class, who will spend it, and actually stimulate the economy for real.
I do not believe taxes need to be set as low as possible for the rich, I simply said the negative effects of increased taxation of the rich can offset the benefits at some point. The government should not wage war on the market economy, it should optimise it. But for the socialists it seems the economy is the enemy, and they think very little about the consequences.
But there is a more important point: efficiency. You say we do not need the rich to finance things, however, planned economics are less efficient than market economics because central management of such a complicated structure is very difficult. The rich are a lot more opportunistic and conform far better to the expectations(that are expressed in the market by price) of what investments are needed/more efficient than the goverment possibly can.
Well, in my personal experience and according to the people I know, people do move, and if they are sufficiently rich, it is hardly a problem. But I suppose it is not as cut and dry as that, and often it is more difficult for people to move.
Three points. Firstly, in the 1950s, CEOs earned around 20 times what the lowest-paid employee did (including things like bonuses, shares, etc). Now the average is around 400, but can be as high as 2,000.
Secondly, in the US in the 1950s the highest tax band was 91%. Today it’s 37%.
Both these things are perfectly sustainable. And all that’s working under the false premise that there aren’t numerous tax loopholes available to the rich but not the poor.
Thirdly, there’s a tonne of research into what best stimulates economies, but it’s often dismissed because it doesn’t favour the rich. If you give money to the poor, they will spend it in their local communities. Then that money gets spent again, and again, and again, getting taxed each time. IIRC, for every dollar given to someone poor the government itself gets something like a dollar fifty back. Because the money just keeps circulating.
Give money to the rich, though, and what happens? They hoard it, or they spend it abroad. It drains money from the country, either by taking it out of circulation, or by taking it out of the country entirely.
I do not believe income inequality is inherently undesirable.
Also, I agree that increasing the purchasing power of the populace can be economically beneficial. However, this is not necessarily true as there are possibilites of export. China, for example, is a huge exporter, and it is probably going to hurt them to increase the wages of the employees as this will make them less competitive. This policy is working quite well for them, it seems.
This policy is working quite well for them, it seems.
For whom is it working out well for?
Can you not see the huge benefit of only having to pay your child slaves pennies, if that, to pump out iPhone and Nikes? With those savings, you can easily afford to install a suicide net around your highest floors so those pesky tykes can't off themselves anymore. You're making money coming and going.
Edit: /s Just in case it's not clear to some.
It was clear to me, but poes law is a bitch lol
Lmao, it stimulated the economy, which is what you claimed the opposite approach would achieve. You are arguing in bad faith.
I oppose this policy, fyi. This hurts other economies and makes people poor.
You said it works out well for them, I simply asked who is working out for? What claim did I make? How am I arguing in bad faith?
Ok, sorry. I think I answered.
Yeah, and you are flat out wrong. Any system that relies on slave labor is not "working out well for them."
The "Them" is the problem. Who is "Them" in your premise? It certainly isnt the people who are actually creating the items, literally providing the products that fuel the economy. The only "Them" benefitting from this system is the Government and their own Oligarchs, and they benefit at the detriment of their citizens.
Your statement that it is working out well for them is Sociopathic. The government shouldn't be benefitting themselves, a government exists to benefit the people, ALL the people, not just the rich ones.
Oh my god is nuance not a thing on Lemmy?
He said it is always better for the economy(economic growth) to give more purchasing power to the people. This is false, as the approach China takes is quite effective.
I do not advocate for it, and, in fact, oppose it for reasons I already mentioned, but this is irrelevant.
Did you? Who is benefiting from the arrangement?
The policy is working out well for them? Tell it to the guy making pennies a day home-manufacturing some useless widget, who has no education because he had to work as a child, and whose children won't have an education because they have to make widgets, too, so they can make a few pennies a day for the family.
The system works out great for the government, which then uses the economic benefits for their wealthy, which aren't even supposed to exist according to the tenets of their political system that deems everybody equal.
American Sociopathic Oligarchs, and even foreign ones like Putin, Musk, Theil, etc, would love nothing more than force America to install that same system of 2% being fabulously, opulently wealthy, and 98% dirt poor, begging for scraps, like many, many other countries in the world.
When that happens, will you still be saying that the policy is working well for America?
Consider the claim I replied to first.
It doesn’t seem like you’re really replying to what i wrote.
"I simply said the negative effects of increased taxation of the rich can offset the benefits at some point."
That's reasonable. I think that point is somewhere between 80 and 100% .
And I'm willing to wreck a few fortunes to find out where exactly.
You say we do not need the rich to finance things, however, planned economics are less efficient than market economics because central management of such a complicated structure is very difficult.
I'd question this one a lot- I agree central planning is bad for a lot of things, but it's great for infrastructure like roads, water supply, transport etc. I think this bears out in the evidence as well- the USA has suprisingly poor water supply, education and rail transport, despite by some measures being the wealthiest country in the world. Compare this to infrastructure standards on Europe or China.
We could probably argue all day and longer on this, but please at least consider wealthy high taxation countries in Europe as a counter example. At the very least, I think they show a successful alternative to low taxation economies.
I agree that government financing is good for some things, but since most of the economy is run by the market making markets less effective is an interesting decision.
Also, European countries with high taxation do not exist independently, they rely on international capital and financial sector.
I am not totally opposed to taxing the wealthy, but this should be limited by reason.
Ok, one last question, but can you expand on why you think taxation makes markets less effective? I'm not sure I understand why this should be a given?
I live in the UK, and VAT is applied to some but not all goods. It doesn't seem to me clear at all that, say, cakes (not taxed) exist in a more competitive environment than say, biscuits (taxed)?
They reduce profit, by extension, investment, make domestic firms less competitive to financial institutions, making the economy less productive.
you talk like an economist. economists don't care about the individual. they look at economic benefits on a large scale, where most of the measurements are in relation to financial institutions. i've met many people who benefited from recession. large firms and wealthy shareholders often liquidate things during recessions at reduced prices, which allow poor people to finally afford something.
economists also go great with garlic, so watch yourself.
Well macroeconomics looks at the entire economy. Microeconomics focuses on individual agents.
A recession can cause inflation and unemployment in the long run.
I am not an economist, but a philosopher by education. Anti-intellectualism bugs me all the same.
me too, but if you can't divorce yourself from economic theories and see what the reality looks like outside the textbook, you're no smarter than any other overeducated idiot.
taxes increase the more you earn, so its a sliding scale... you can still earn a boatload of money, invest multiple millions, and still not be multi-billionaire rich :)
Norway still has billionaires.
Why do a small amount of individuals need to be the gatekeepers on so much wealth?
And what is the alternative? What would you prefer?
Capital is economic power. Should it be concentrated or not? Well, I will first say that I do not see a reasonable way to drastically reduce this inequality of power apart from socialism(as in planned economy, not welfare) which I reject for many reasons.
I would say it should be concentrated because: Most people do not have the desire or capacity to wield economic power. This has nothing to do with their intelligence or worth as an individual, but with their character mostly. It involves making many difficult decisions and significant responsibility, as you are at risk of losing your investments. You also need to show initiative which many people lack. If capital was evenly distributed most people would not have the foresight to invest but likely would just spend it to buy the things they need/want for the already mentioned lack of desire and initiative for entrepreneurship.
Also, there would be no or very little incentives to do well since you would have about the same amount of money as everyone else anyway, and this would destroy our economy, since it relies on capitalists altering the allocation of resources based on personal incentives and information granted by the market(expressed by price). If these incentive structures are weakened, this can make the economy unresponsive, which will make the resource allocation uneffective, probably even less effective than when the economy is managed by the state(socialism).
If capital was evenly distributed most people would not have the foresight to invest but likely would just spend it to buy the things they need/want for the already mentioned lack of desire and initiative for entrepreneurship.
That doesn't explain the extreme wealth disparity that can be seen from the top 0.1% and the literal rest of society. Salaries stagnate while top level profit skyrockets. The distribution is being unfair to those that also have responsibility for the success.
Also, there would be no or very little incentives to do well since you would have about the same amount of money as everyone else anyway, and this would destroy our economy, since it relies on capitalists altering the allocation of resources based on personal incentives and information granted by the market(expressed by price).
One of the ironies of that statement is that monopolies exist today and are some of the biggest wealth funnels on the world. Monopolies have no reason to "do well", they just do the bare minimum after they've secured their place and use their vast resources to buy or fuck the competition.
I do not care about wealth disparity. Salaries should probably rise, and reform may be needed for that to happen, but I do not care if the society is unequal.
Monopolies are doing very well in terms of market success. This is what I meant.
I do not care about wealth disparity. Salaries should probably rise, and reform may be needed for that to happen, but I do not care if the society is unequal.
Ah, the fuck you I got mine animal in the wild. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
I knew it was just a matter of time until final confirmation appeared. I acknowledge and respect your honesty, even if you've just lost any other possibility of respect.
Not at all. I do care about the wellbeing of the working class, but I do not believe that equality is a value in itself. This is the point I made.
Economical equality is in itself impossible, because each person will have different needs in the end. Equity, on the other hand, understands that, but still wants to level out the playing field.
However, from that to thinking that wealth disparity/concentration isn't part of the problem is one hell of a leap, because it very much is part of the problem, and it is also stagnating growth: less money in the hands of people who will actually spend it means there's less incentive to risk starting a new business. Reduction of buying power forces smaller businesses to close/sell out, creating more concentration of wealth and power (or monopolistic advances) and spreading unemployment.
I cannot understand how you can say you care about the wellbeing of the working class while not being against, at the very least, excessive wealth concentration
I am not saying I am not against wealth concentration. I saying I am not opposed to it inherently.
I am not saying I am not against wealth concentration.
You did say earlier:
I would say it should be concentrated because: Most people do not have the desire or capacity to wield economic power.
I do not care about wealth disparity.
Also, you seem to be clinging too hard to "i'm against equality", which is fine, as I stated in my previous comment, but your sole reasoning for that is "without an incentive to gain lots of money, people won't take risks" - which is not true at all, either, unless you assume money is the only thing that can motivate people into doing anything. Not every teacher teaches just because of money, not every medic treats people just because of money (maybe not true in USA, but more likely outside of it), not every game developer is in just for the money.
I did say that. Because I believe the decisionmaking power should be concentrated, but if it is necessary to increase the purchasing power of the populace, I am not against that.
I am simply saying equality is not a value. That means whether or not society should be equal is a practical question for me and not a moral one.
"without an incentive to gain lots of money, people won't take risks" is not my point at all. Also, what do they even risk if they are not capitalist?
I believe you are constructing strawmen and false dichotomies. Wealth is not just economic power, it's power, period. If concentration is good, why not embrace it to the full extent? Is the current distribution of wealth appropriate (in, based on the OP, the US), or was it better 50 yrs ago?
I did not say equal distribution or no incentives. I did not argue against the entrepreneur. The current situation is extreme inequality. We are nowhere near risk of losing the incentive. This reduces quality of life for almost all due to hoarding of resources. This also stifles the entrepreneur. So much of the fruits of labor is directed towards so few.
Investment is not limited to individuals with massive wealth. There is no reason investment cannot occur by combining resources of many instead of few. By and large, large amounts of money seeks to generate more money. I believe it's far better to have broad ownership. I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don't act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity). People will still act that way, but I'm convinced that broad ownership will improve that aspect.
Economic power is power, yes.
I do not believe that wealth equality or equality at all is desirable.
I understand that many working class people find themselves in a precarious position nowadays. I am sympathetic, but I believe that this is better addressed by reforms to the capitalist system than socialism.
In my previous comment I already addressed why I think most people would be more comfortable and better suited having less economic power. This does not necessarily mean their quality of life is worse.
Regarding your other point: "I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don't act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity)." I completely disagree. The reason the "current and future health of humanity" is not accounted for is that under a market system these things are not factored into the price. So the market as a regulating tool is ignoring these issues. It would be no different if a commonly owned investment fund was investing, for instance, as it would still do things that make the most sense under a market system. This is known as a problem of externalities, and it is an argument for government intervention in the market system that I fully accept, but not for redistribution of wealth as that will likely not change anything for as long as markets are involved.
But money is power and power is expressed through regulatory capture. It's not right, but there will always be pressure towards wealth dictating the market structure and rules. Ultra wealth inequality dismantles the systems you expect to ensure externalities are considered.
In any case, yes, we agree that markets often fail on considerations of important externalities. Furthermore, we agree that government has a role in correcting that.
That is actually a good point. Unusual, but welcome.
while i would argue with you on a few points, i just wanna say i appreciate the reasonable tone of your comment
His entire answer boils down to "people with money have proven they can handle it" which is absolute horseshit, and frankly all the pretty words sound like code for "suck it peons, you don't deserve it because you didn't figure out how to game this rigged system in your first few years of life."
0 people should have more money than they can count while other people are choosing between rent and food and medicine.
I would prefer if you did argue, but I appreciate your comment.
I’ll argue! Most of this is simply wrong… but first I’m going to reject the premise of your argument.
You’re providing a false choice by suggesting that money can only be concentrated or diffused and that it can only be concentrated or diffused at the level of the single individual. You’ve placed two extremes on the table (a command economy driven by oligarchs vs a command economy driven by autocrats) and asked us to pick.
I pick neither. A command economy is not necessary to achieve reasonable societal goals, and it’s not necessary to flip the switch all the way into a 1950s Red Scare version of communism to be able to see where the economic model of unfettered capitalism breaks down.
The next problem is that you conflate the question of “how should the government collect taxes” with the question of “how should an economy operate”. Those are different questions with different answers, but the underlying principle is the same.
The government should prevent circumstances in which being an asshole is financially rewarded. The citizens should try to avoid being assholes. A civil society should correct the behavior of people that are being assholes using social pressures.
In the economic arena, that basically boils down to “not fucking over the little guy”. The government should seek to prevent circumstances where the little guy gets fucked over. The citizens should try not to fuck each other over. A civil society should shun those who violate that norm.
In the taxes arena, that basically boils down to “pay your fair share.” We all know what that looks like and feels like because we’ve had to divvy up the check after a long night of drinking. Folks with cash throw in some extra to cover their friends that might be struggling, a couple of people that are doing well might just “make the check right at the end of the night.” It works out. People know how to do this instinctively. People, by and large, know what their fair share is. Some just don’t want to pay.
In a situation where people consistently make the moral choice to not be an asshole, a lot of economic models can work. The breakdown isn’t in the economic model, it’s in the role of the civil society - society is not enforcing the “don’t be an asshole” rule. Instead, we’ve decided to idolize the assholes.
There’s not an economic model that works when everyone is trying to fuck over everyone else.
You’re focused on the wrong problem.
Didn't see your post before mine, but yeah, you covered it well.
I said in my opinion the only feasible alternative is a command economy. I then discussed in separation from this question the issue of concentration of capital abstractly, which is what the person asked me about. I have not created a dichotomy at all.
Again, I was asked a question about the economy. Not taxes.
Finally, I will say that a society that relies on morality of individuals to function is a bad society, and our economic system pushes capitalists, especially those that find themselves in precarious postitions, to increase margins and avoid taxes. This is not surprising and not avoidable. It should be the governments responsibility to enforce taxation and patch loopholes.
Civil society requires the willing participation of the populace. It’s the best kind of society, but it’s only available to a culture that has decided not to be assholes.
I choose not to be an asshole. Even when it would be easy. Even when it would improve my life or mood or bank balance. I refuse to idolize people that are assholes. Even if they’re rich.
Even in the strictest of command economies, the opportunity to be an asshole exists. You can’t command your way into a scenario where the choice of villainy is simply unavailable. Every single one of us has to make the choice to turn away from the pull of assholery ourselves and to refuse to countenance it in others.
I still believe that we, as a species, have both the capability and the requirement to step back from that cliff. We’ve done it before. Mostly, I don’t want to live in the world your approach would create. I think the only people that would enjoy it are the folks you’ve given your free will away to.
Then why tax the rich at all? Let them choose for themselves how much they want to give.
Why do you persist in treating the rich differently? They are just people. They aren’t a special class of people that are better or smarter. They just have more money.
Treat everyone the same, and this comes out as “why tax people”. Well, that’s a complicated question with a pretty clear answer that I don’t think is worth repeating.
Stop assuming they’re better than you. They aren’t.
It might be necessary to concentrate wealth and thus economic power into a smaller amount of entities but why should so few have control over these entities? If the actual employees receive more benefits from a company doing well and a board of directors is not responding to the needs of a few shareholders but to the actual market need and the need of the company employees you would still have a concentration of wealth in the form of a company but with more participants. The employees would then have the incentive to provide quality labour because that in turn makes the company do well of which they profit directly.
With the concentration of wealth and thus power being the ideal state, you appear to be arguing in favor of a landed aristocracy who are inherently better at ruling than everyone else because of their noble character. The peasantry would not know how or even want to wield power, and need to be guided by those with the right to rule. In this case it is the right mix of sociopathy and exploitation that defines nobility of character instead of strictly bloodline and Devine Right. This is a very interesting take.
I personally feel that along broad scopes, any human is equally capable of the desire and capacity to wield economic power. It is nurture and not nature that derives this. I would then argue that a level playing field with the Government enforcing strong anti-trust laws is a much better driver of economic force and growth. Healthy competition with no artificial barriers to market entry will allow the market to produce the best results.
Preventing monopoly, duopoly, and oligarchy will constrain the scope of inequality along with taxation without any need for a planned economy. I favor something like a land use tax, but there is much discussion to be had on that front.
Humans are semi-eusocial creatures, so greed must be properly channeled and cannot be allowed to run unchecked. Inequality at certain levels is expected and can/does increase drive for success, but must be tempered for optimal results.
Bourgeoisie amd aristocracy are very different kinds of elites. You assume too much about what I believe.
Education and upbringing certainly play a role in forming character, but what does it matter, if we know that most people are still probably better off not having a significant degree of power. Maybe if they were brought up differently they wouldn't be, but they were not, were they?
In my experience most people do not like responsibility. They just want things to go well for them. Vote for someone and hope they solve all your problems, work for eight hours(I am sure they would rather not work at all, to be fair), recieve a wage and not have to think about it for the rest of the day.
How many people you know that refuse to put money in a pension fund? That instead of investing or being responsible with their money buy stupid things? That go into debt to buy non-essential stuff?
Most people are extremely irresponsible and inert, and I do not blame them for that, I think they should be compensated fairly for their labour, but I do not think they should run the economy.
Also, you are underestimating the role of culture in humanity. The idea that humans should be equal was unthinkable to the people of antiquity, as the seeds of that were planted by Christianity. They only sprouted in the Enlightenment.
You're literally preaching trickle down economics. Which from the state of things today, clearly does not work for the benefit of the lower and middle class. The greatest times for the middle class in US history was when we had a 70% corporate tax rate. Upward mobility though hard and smart work is a myth. The richest people in this country see you as indentured servants, and they would let you get mangled in an industrial accident if they thought it would save them a dollar.
I am not advocating lowering taxes, just not increasing them beyond what is sensible.
Also, I sincetely doubt the richest people in America see me as an indentured servant. You are being overly dramatic.
What amount of taxes for the wealthiest people makes sense to you? Keep in mind that the top 10% of earners own 50% of everything.
You're right that I was being dramatic about them seeing you as an intendentured servant. They don't fucking care if you exist at all. You're less than a slave to them, and that is the harsh reality. You're the peasant sold with the land, but effectively cheaper than that. You're expected to work and manage their capital, their investments, and if they don't object, then you can eek out part of a meager existence on the scraps they can't be assed to pay someone else to account for.
You think I'm lying, or being overly dramatic about that? Consider this. Last time I checked, which was over 10 years ago, each Walmart employee was on average, a $40k net loss to their Local community. Walmart's heirs will never have to work a day in their life, their great great great great...grandchildren will be born rich enough to plop into this world and never need to put in the effort to wipe their own ass. Meanwhile we subsidize their workforce because those people make so little for their effort that they can't afford the food, transportation, and housing to work their jobs without financial assistance (through taxes) from their neighbors. Amazon is the richest company on the planet, their CEO made so much money, that when he divorced his wife, the settlement was basically the GDP of the UK. His wife became the first Woman multi-Billionaire from that settlement. Meanwhile, the people working at Amazon warehouses can't afford rent without a second job, and have to piss in bottles during their shifts to avoid the loss on in productivity for a 15 minute bathroom break. African slaves in the US got fucking bathroom breaks and a place to live; modern day Amazon workers don't. Oh, and let's not forget that Amazon warehouse workers were forced to work during a fucking tornado, and died because they were not allowed to seek shelter in time.
How's that for "Overly Dramatic?"
Most of what they own is not private jets and yachts, but means of production, and they should be owned by the capitalists. I should say I am not familiar enough with america to say for sure, perhaps it needs to be a bit higher, but overall it is important that it is not too high. I would say maybe property taxes should be increased to redirect investments from real estate(which lowers housing prices and disincentifises speculation) to more useful things. Corporate taxes should probably be kept reasonably low, and income above 50 per cent at most is definetly too much.
Well, let me help out here.
Jeff Bezo's effective tax rate was somewhere between 1.1% and 0.98% based on some quick searching. Amazon's ETR was 6.1% for the same period.
I paid an effective tax of 17.4% last year.
Trump just gave Amazon, and Bezo's, and everyone making 500 Million or more a year a huge tax break. Meanwhile, I will pay about 1200 dollars more. That's on top of the tax break they got last time he was in office.
So, what's a fair amount for the richest, most affluent people to pay in taxes, to contribute to the country they live in, the infrastructure they ride on, the airports they land at and the localities that subsidize their workforce?
Most of what they own is not private jets and yachts, but means of production, and they should be owned by the capitalists.
lol. lmao even. Keep making the capitalists richer, if you keep supporting them maybe they'll let you into the club.
Lots of companies have people dedicated to deciding at what point it is cheaper to ignore safety regulations and take the fines associated with their employees dying than it is to follow the safety regulations. Literally whichever makes more money they do it, they give zero shits about you. They will replace you in a heartbeat the MOMENT a machine can do your job for cheaper. It may be five cents a day cheaper and they will drop your ass in a heartbeat and let you starve with not a care in teh world.
I am not an American.
Also, I am not a worker.
Obviously. Another of those "why should I care, it doesn't hurt me any" types then?
So if the rich don't like paying their fair share if the taxes, they'll just move? And go where? Any country they'd like is going to have even higher taxes than are being suggested in America. In addition, Americans living abroad still pay annual income taxes to America, as well as the country they live in.
They'd likely have to learn a new langugage, a new culture, new food, etc. They'd be far from the things they love about America, all so they can save money on taxes that wouldn't improve their already opulent lives one tiny bit. Do you really think a multi-billionaire, who already is so wealthy that neither he nor his descendents could ever spend it all, is going to leave the incredible comfort of America just to save a few million in taxes that they'll never even notice?
You should visit Monaco or Dubai, see for yourself.
Rich Americans are still Americans, and most people are happiest where they grew up. Sure, its fun visiting other places, but you are always going to be happiest in the culture you are most familar with, provided there isn't a dangerous economic or political situation.
Most would be loathe to give up their American comfort for another place. Nobody is really suggesting that American Oligarchs give up their comforts, just that they should keep a little bit less of their nearly limitless hoard of treasure to keep the system that benefits them above all others healthy, so they can get even richer.
We are an unapologetic Capitalist society, but the Sociopathic Oligarchs are killing the Golden Goose with their enthusiastic unbridled greed, and we are trying to save them from themselves. By taxing them only SLIGHTLY heavier, we are preserving that system so they can continue to get even richer. If they insist on continuing down the fraudulent Trickle Down path, the system will eventually break, and installing the new system will likely include a very bad situation for the wealthy.
But some people will leave. "American comfort" is not a thing. Switzerland, Monaco, Netherlands and some other countries are better places to live even for the working person(though there are not many of those in Monaco, to be fair). And trust me, if you are rich, it does not matter where you live, you will be perfectly comfortable wherever you are(but I would not prefer america anyway, though americans might feel differently).
You just state that ""American Comfort" is not a thing," as if it is a known fact. It absolutely is a thing. We live in a very comfortable society, and it has been that way for a long time. People flock to America because it is more comfortable and stable than most other places in the world. People even come here knowing they will be treated poorly by much of society, because even that is better than where they come from.
If you don't think that walking down realtively safe streets, driving on safe roads, having a stable utilities infrastructure, an economic system where endless access to quality employees and a stable market are expected, safe and high quality food, the best health in the world (even if it is one of the worst health care SYSTEMS), etc., contributes to a comfortable America, then you are just one more American Sociopath who doesnt appreciate what really makes America a great place to live, and makes it the envy of the world.
Or at least it was, until MAGA decided to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Horrible infrastructure. NY metro is disgusting, for instance. Aeroports are shitty too.
No public services. No public transportation.
Rich society, not as rich as some european countries.
Least safe country in the west.
the best health in the world There are 54 countries with higher life expectancy that the US, though not as high as one has to be to believe the nonsense you believe about America.
All nonsense straight from the Conservative Propaganda Machine.
We have phenomenal infrastructure. There could always be improvements, like high-speed rail, which we are far behind on, but everything else is pretty good. I travel all ever the eastern US for my job, and in general, roads and airports are easily useable. Far better than many countries, and the equal of most European countries. And we have plenty of public transportation in the form of subways, busses, trains air travel, and the biggest car culture on the planet. People don't have any problem getting around.
We are so not the least safe country in the west, and just saying that proves how foolish you are. Go spend a week in Brazil, or Russia, or many other nations. I can walk all over my neighborhood in Astoria Queens at night, and never feel unsafe. I can't remember the last time there was a violent crime in my neighborhood.
As for health care, polish your reading comprehension skills, and read my post again. What I said was that while we have the best Health Care in the world, we also have one of the worst health care SYSTEMS. Wealthy people from around the world come to America for health care, because they can access it with their money. The problem is that regular working class people have trouble getting that same level of health care in their own country, and that's what leads us to having such poor outcomes compared to the rest of the world. Medicare For All would go a long ways towards changing that.
As for not being as rich a society as some European nations, that is not a valid objective. The goal isnt to create as many rich people as possible, its to give EVERY American access to a decent life free from homelessness, hunger, preventable illness, crime, corporate exploitation, etc.
Sacrificing every single one of those moral objectives so that wealthy people can add a half-percent of profit to their bank accounts is what has been destroying America. Now we have a triumvirate of two foreign Sociopathic Oligarchs (Putin and MuskRat) with no patriotism or loyatly to America, and the most prolific traitor in American history, who is also psychopath, who all see America only as a fat, lazy, rich mark to be ruthlessly exploited like the mobsters they are, doing a speed run through our government, destroying everything as quickly as they can, just tonweaken us and make us easier to rob and enslave.
Monaco is a country where most people are at the very least millionaires, insanely luxurious and almost completely crimeless. Switzerland is the richest country in the world per capita that is not a microstate or a tax haven. Rich european countries like the Netherlands and some others are more comfortable to live in than America, since they have better welfare, infrastructure and general quality of life. People come to Europe as well, believe it or not.
You should leave your country and see the world.
Those are lovely places, of course, but American Oligarchs didn't become opulently wealthy in those countries, they became wealthy in America. They aren't likely to leave America because the taxes go up a few percent, decreasing their annual revenues by what equates to a rounding error.
And if a few leave, who the fuck cares? America mints new millionaires and billionaires every day. We already have too many anyway. If they don't give a little ground to the nation that has given them limitless wealth, they will eventually lose literally EVERYTHING, when the working class finally has enough and Luigis the entire ruling class. It has happened MANY times in history, and it can still happen today, and America is quickly aporoaching the moment when it will happen here. We've already revolted at least twice in this country, in 1776 and 1860, revolt is in our National DNA.
My dude, the Netherlands has a wealth tax, if you live there you pay a percentage of your total wealth every year. Maybe there is a reason why it's working so well.
It is still a tax haven, and no capital gains taxes apply if you pay the wealth tax, which is even better for speculation.
I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
It's also not ideal for them to run rampant with unbridled greed.
fuck off with that neoliberal bullshit.
I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
Governments already do "investing". Elon Musk is the wealthiest man in the world thanks to the US government subsidizing Tesla, SpaceX and Starlink. Your tax money is already going into allocating and managing capital in society, so how about instead of letting wealthy individuals choose how capital gets invested we let the government decide that? It's neoliberal brainrot that wealthy capitalists, without any real oversight, should be the ones to dictate how capital is used.
Also, if the tax increase is percieved to be unfair, rich people can just leave and go to Monaco or Switzerland or any other “rich friendly” country. They are pretty much free to do so and they do it all the time. So increasing taxes will not necessarily lead to more tax revenue if they are increased above what is reasonable.
And let them go. The wealthy can go wherever they want but most their wealth is tied to their businesses and moving those businesses elsewhere is extremely expensive. The can take their wealth with them only if they spend an insane amount to transfer all their businesses out of the country or if they cash out their businesses. Both come with a significant drop in wealth, so they're not going to do that. You've been fed bullshit propaganda.
Governments invest in some things, but they can't effectively manage the entire economy. It is too complex, and markets provide information that will simply not be available under central planning.
Hell, even now government investments are highly inefficient for many reasons. The government is getting ripped of by private contractors, as they can't control the complexities of production, have nearly unlimited resources, so they do not optimise, and a lot of asinine decisions are made because nobody cares enough. Look at how bloated the military funding is in the US for example.
I don't feel like writing an essay so I'll approach it a bit differently.
Governments invest in some things, but they can’t effectively manage the entire economy. It is too complex, and markets provide information that will simply not be available under central planning.
I'm not sure why you brought up central planning. That didn't even cross my mind when I made my comment. I don't think there's anything else to address here because most of what you said seems to be in the context of central planning.
The government is getting ripped of by private contractors
Why do you think the wealthy aren't getting ripped off? What are they doing that the government cannot do?
as they can’t control the complexities of production
And the wealthy can? And by wealthy I mean the wealthy individual, not the companies they own.
have nearly unlimited resources, so they do not optimise
unlimited resources is clearly hyperbolic because if they did have unlimited resources then who cares if they're getting ripped or and are extremely inefficient, as long as the things get done. As for "optimizing", optimizing for what? Should the government optimize for profit the same way companies do?
and a lot of asinine decisions are made because nobody cares enough.
Do you think companies don't make asinine decisions? COVID showed that work from home is perfectly viable. It's also an obvious cost cutting method because you don't need to rent or own a huge office space, you get to downsize and save money. Most companies chose the more expensive option. For what?
Look at how bloated the military funding is in the US for example.
How do you think the military industrial complex came to be? Modern MIL came into existence during and after WW2 when private enterprises saw a huge market in war. The very people you claim should be making the decisions about capital allocation are the people who played an integral role in bloating the US military funding.
You said the govenment ahould decide how capital is allocated, and not capitalists. What is it if not central planning?
You are talking about wealthy individuals, how they are not special and can get ripped off, do not know more than other people, etc. But this is not the point. The competency of the individual matters, but less than the incentive structures that exist around them.
Competition and profit motive create incentives to decrease production costs, increase production, look for new markets and lower the price(not always, do not tell me about when this is not the case, I know).
And both capitalists and upper management exist in a very pressured environment. Capitalists have to allocate resources correctly, because they own them. For that reason, they are careful when investing, and only do economically sensible things(if they themselves are sensible, and if they are not they will see their capital diminish). The organisations that manage finances and corporations are held accountable by that: they have to make sure they are making correct decisions to attract capital.
Corporate structure in America is characterised by a prominence of markets in management. High publicity of company actions and results, coupled with a structure that holds management accountable to the shareholders creates a system where both good and bad decisions are reflected in the capitalisation and management is, as I said, under great pressure to perform because the will have to pack their bags and leave otherwise.
This is the system that made America the largest economy in the world.
The same can not be said about government owned firms. I said nearly unlimited, and this is more or less the case. Governments throw money at the problem until it is solved, since there is no profit motive, no pressure to perform, costs are higher, performance is worse, etc. Of course, they try to optimise, but history shows that they are almost always less efficient than private firms.
They should still be employed in certain parts of the economy, like social services, infrastructure, etc. But probably only when there are good reasons for that.
You said the govenment ahould decide how capital is allocated, and not capitalists. What is it if not central planning?
I assume it's implied we're talking about investment capital considering you said taxing the rich would reduce their ability to invest and I talked exclusively about investing.
Competition and profit motive create incentives to decrease production costs, increase production, look for new markets and lower the price(not always, do not tell me about when this is not the case, I know).
None of those things have anything to do with the existence of wealthy people.
And both capitalists and upper management exist in a very pressured environment. Capitalists have to allocate resources correctly, because they own them. For that reason, they are careful when investing, and only do economically sensible things(if they themselves are sensible, and if they are not they will see their capital diminish)
Maybe 50-100 years ago. Do you really think Google, Amazon, Meta and anything Elon Musk touches exists in a pressured environment? Google has so much money they can create new tech for a new product and then 2-3 years later throw the tech with the product into the dumpster. Amazon has deliberately attritioned out an entire market (by undercutting everyone) to create a monopolistic empire. Meta "expansions" into other markets have been exclusively through buying out a potential competitor, because they just have that much money. And Musk blew away 42 billion to run one of the biggest social media sites into the ground. They don't feel pressure. They don't need to allocate resources correctly. Mega corporations have so much capital they don't even know what to do with it. They probably could torch half their market value and their closest competitor still wouldn't be competition to them.
Or did you mean the time wall street literally crashed the economy so hard the government had to bail them out? When it comes to the wealthy there are no risks.
This is the system that made America the largest economy in the world.
And for what purpose? Who benefits from having the largest economy in the world? It's clearly not the American people.
The same can not be said about government owned firms. I said nearly unlimited, and this is more or less the case. Governments throw money at the problem until it is solved, since there is no profit motive, no pressure to perform, costs are higher, performance is worse, etc. Of course, they try to optimise, but history shows that they are almost always less efficient than private firms.
You're trying to say China isn't on the verge of beating the US in the economic game? It has nothing to do with who controls the company, it's about how much you make your employees slave away. The more they slave the more profitable you'll be. Government entities tend to be "less efficient" because there's higher scrutiny towards slaving away (they can still end up slaving away because they're usually underfunded so one person has to fulfill multiple roles, but that's because there's not enough taxation coming in due to us not properly taxing the rich).
So you think there is a distinction between investment capital and some other capital I do not know about?
Yes it does. If there is not an expectation of profit, private property, etc this does not work at all. If there are, it will lead to capital accumulation.
Yes they do. Creating a monopoly is not an example of unreasonable decitions. What? Google has a lot of money, and experimenting with possible products is not what I would call an example of stupid decisions. The point is, they have those resources, their market cap crows by the day(well, until recently), they are effective. Bying a competitor is a terrific idea. Why do you say this is an example of unreasonable behaviour if it benefits the owners of these companies?
The wall street did not crash because of individual mistake of investors, but because of market tendencies. This is completely unrelated.
"The more they slave the more profitable they will be" is, of course, true in a sense that paying less can increase profit margins amd you can force the workers to work more, but this is not always possible as there are usually regulations that protect workers, unions, and some positions are highly competitive. I do not know what is the case in America, but here government jobs pay less than private sector. Often a lot less. Goverment workers are as likely to overwork because they are understaffed. They are still less efficient. There is no research that reflects what you are saying. This is just your opinion.
So you think there is a distinction between investment capital and some other capital I do not know about?
Ookay... So what's the issue with taxing them? It's not like the office chair they own suddenly becomes useless if they get taxed. Their capital in the most general sense will stay the same.
Yes it does. If there is not an expectation of profit, private property, etc this does not work at all. If there are, it will lead to capital accumulation.
Ah yes, we were all hunter gatherers until capitalism was invented. We didn't improve our production methods, we didn't improve our tools, we didn't educate ourselves. No offense but that's an absolutely moronic argument.
Creating a monopoly is not an example of unreasonable decitions. What?
So we don't need a market economy? Because a monopoly destroys the market.
Google has a lot of money, and experimenting with possible products is not what I would call an example of stupid decisions.
I never said it was a stupid decision. You said they need to allocate resources correctly, they don't because because they're probably making more money they can spend. They don't feel any pressure to make correct decisions.
Bying a competitor is a terrific idea.
I'm sorry, I thought competition in the market is the reason companies make great decisions. So it's a terrific idea to get rid of the very thing that forces you to make great decisions?
Well, you're not wrong. Capitalism loves when it can just buy itself into a monopoly and churn out shitty products because people have no other option.
The wall street did not crash because of individual mistake of investors, but because of market tendencies. This is completely unrelated.
Those market tendencies were all reckless financial actions from orders that came top to bottom. The capital owners were squeezing everything they could out of the people, until it all came crashing down. And then they got bailed out by the government.
“The more they slave the more profitable they will be” is, of course, true in a sense that paying less can increase profit margins amd you can force the workers to work more, but this is not always possible as there are usually regulations that protect workers, unions, and some positions are highly competitive.
So capitalism is okay because the non-capitalist things are supposed to keep it in check?
I do not know what is the case in America, but here government jobs pay less than private sector. Often a lot less. Goverment workers are as likely to overwork because they are understaffed. They are still less efficient. There is no research that reflects what you are saying. This is just your opinion.
Okay, so provide sources proving otherwise you saying the government is less efficient is also JUST YOUR OPINION.
So capitalism is okay because the non-capitalist things are supposed to keep it in check?
Yeah if you talk to this reaganbot for a while or starts to offload responsibilities upon the institutions the ultra wealthy commandeer. Is happening in real time in the US.
"Ookay... So what's the issue with taxing them? It's not like the office chair they own suddenly becomes useless if they get taxed. Their capital in the most general sense will stay the same."
No, it will not stay the same. That's the point of taxation.
"Ah yes, we were all hunter gatherers until capitalism was invented. We didn't improve our production methods, we didn't improve our tools, we didn't educate ourselves. No offense but that's an absolutely moronic argument."
This just shows how bad faith all of your arguments are. I clearly do not mean competition and profit are necessary, just that they lead to capital accumulation, which is what you denied.
Next we have, honestly, an incredibly wrong understanding of what I said. I will try to explain.
A market compels economic agents to act a certain way, as they are driven by profit, and markets provide information on what is in demand/profitable. Within a market framework, establishing a monopoly is highly profitable and makes a lot of sense. Which is why your accusation of incompetence you made in a previous comment falls apart, since while that, which is profitable is not the same as that which is good for society(governments should try to make sure the markets exist in contexts that make them beneficial) this is irrelevant and they did act rationally.
If you do not accept this, I see no point in talking to you any longer. You are thinking in one line slogans and do not see the context of what I, or you for that matter, are saying.
No, it will not stay the same. That’s the point of taxation.
If you own a chair today how does that change when tomorrow some tax is applied to your "capital"?
This just shows how bad faith all of your arguments are. I clearly do not mean competition and profit are necessary, just that they lead to capital accumulation, which is what you denied.
I guess it depends on how you define capital accumulation. If we take the standard capitalist understanding of capital, then yes it leads to capital accumulation and I'm not denying that because adding labor power inevitably leads to an increase of capital.
However, you argued that the profit motive and competition lead to production efficiencies and then added that without " an expectation of profit, private property, etc" this doesn't work at all. I denied that you need a profit motive or competition to reach better efficiency. We've had at least 2 millenia of increasing production efficiency a real need for profit or competition. Capitalism is not a necessity for production efficiency. Believing we couldn't be efficient without capitalism is just capitalist propaganda.
A market compels economic agents to act a certain way, as they are driven by profit, and markets provide information on what is in demand/profitable. Within a market framework, establishing a monopoly is highly profitable and makes a lot of sense. Which is why your accusation of incompetence you made in a previous comment falls apart, since while that, which is profitable is not the same as that which is good for society(governments should try to make sure the markets exist in contexts that make them beneficial)
Do you even understand what you're saying? You pretty much just said that capitalism is not good for society. And your original argument about the wealthy needing their wealth is one that wants to perpetuate capitalism. You're pretty much arguing against yourself here.
And just as an FYI, markets are not unique to capitalism. Market socialism is also a thing.
If you do not accept this, I see no point in talking to you any longer. You are thinking in one line slogans and do not see the context of what I, or you for that matter, are saying.
What am I supposed to accept? That we should put profits over what is good for the society? If you want me to accept that then I also don't see a point in talking with you. If you want me to accept that capital accumulation is something that happens, I can accept that (though I definitely have a different option on what should be done with that "capital" we keep producing).
That's an interesting point. The government tends to get ripped off because of negotiation issues. Private orgs can hire and retain the best negotiators, whereas govt can't afford that and if they can, they'd still be vulnerable to accusations of cronyism to have the best of the private sector's negotiators negotiating with the companies they've probably dealt with privately before and who they will likely be back with in the future.
This is one reason why competitive procurement is such a big deal and so complicated and time consuming.
We know from bitter historical experience that privatising public operations, especially natural monopolies like utilities, results in worse service and higher prices, coupled with sub-par investment. A private company can be bailed out if it goes bankrupt sending all its profits out to shareholders. A public org has an incentive not to waste taxpayer money.
That is true, some things should stay public. But you can surely see why making the government run everything is inefficent amd stupid(ignoring all the other problems with that).
I was gearing up to go off on your comment, but meh. You're just wrong and there's no need to explain beyond that.
Was this written by a rich person?
Well, I actually used to be more leftist before, but at some point my values changed, it seems. I do not see how my social position is relevant to the discussion.
Unless you are here arguing against your own interests (and I'm choosing my word there carefully) I'd say it's pretty relevant.
I think you would say I was arguing against my interest when I held socialist(like radical socialist) beliefs. My values changed since then. We are not defined by the circumstances we find ourselves in.
Also, I reject that class war rhetoric that is championed by Marxists.
In any case, I am arguing in good faith. If my social position is enough to make you disregard me completely, then you are not.
Also, I reject that class war rhetoric that is championed by Marxists.
I'm not a marxist, nor a socialist. But if I have to believe in unbridled greed to support capitalism then I should start looking around.
In any case, I am arguing in good faith. If my social position is enough to make you disregard me completely, then you are not.
If you are wealthy and arguing not to raise taxes on the wealthy, it's hard to disregard your self interest no matter what you claim. Edit: And it's disingenuous of you to conceal it for that very reason.
I was not concealing it. I strongly implied I was.
Unless you are in the top .01% percent you are doing yourself a disservice.
"I just think things work better when the pigs decide how we do everything."
-said the pig.
Because we’re talking about a class war. Separated by social position.
the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes
You need to understand wealth as power, and the wishes of the wealthy being to exercise that power over others.
Their role in "allocating resources in society" is controlling the resources of society. But what is "rule" if not "control of the resources of society"? What is democracy if the rich have all of the power over society.
It's a damn lie, is what it is.
Taxation is a demand by the demos to control the resources of society. That is, it is a demand for democracy.
Which means the rich can allocate themselves into a fucking hole, stuff their heads up their own asses, and suffocate.
I understand it. Capital is absolitely economic power. I discussed this in a different comment, feel free to read it.
It seems we just have different values. There is no point in arguing.
Dude that line of reasoning went out with Reagan, and the last time it worked was in the 1920s. You might want that to be how the rich behave, but mostly they just lock capital away and watch the numbers grow.
We don’t need an economy based on pandering to rich assholes in the hopes they give us money. We need an economy where everyone pays their fucking taxes. It’s that easy. If the very wealthy stopped hiding their money and coming up with impenetrable tax evasion schemes and just paid their taxes like everyone else, we wouldn’t have to raise them on anyone.
Even if they do mostly "lock capital away", as you said, this changes very little in my opinion. The market incentives are still present, and it is the expectation of the return on investment that keeps the economy running.
"We don’t need an economy based on pandering to rich assholes in the hopes they give us money." - but you do have to discriminate on who gets money. Rich people fulfil this regulatory function. What is the alternative?
I should say that rich people, especially those that find themselves in precarious positions, are motivated to minimise their tax obligations by our economic system. This behaviour is not surprising by any means, and the responsibility is on the government to manage taxation in a proper way, not on the rich.
But the problem is the rich have managed their own taxation for 50 years. They've decided through exercising power on the government that they will pay less and less. As they do so, working class conditions worsen. This has been accelerated through multiple bills and decisions implemented by the rich. The most destructive one recently was the citizens United decision.
Tell me, if it's so easy to just take all your money to Monaco, why would the wealthiest in our country spend so much money and effort to war against the working class for the past 50 years?
Why not just go to Monaco instead of cutting the taxes on rich and corporations again (to still be higher than Monaco)
The taxes are not high enough for a significant part of captialists to leave, but some people do. Of course it is not quite as easy to move, but it is done trivially.
They can go where they please but taxes are inevitable.
How so? Income taxes are only paid in the country of residence.
Income tax is not really what's relevant to the rich. It's pretty easy for them to basically have no taxable income at all. (E.g. that thing Musk did some years ago where he polled Twitter on if he should sell some stock to actually have to pay taxes for once.)
Also, as far as I know, the USA tax your worldwide income even if you live abroad, and there's an exit tax on your net worth if you renounce citizenship. This is the reason most US billionaires don't live in e.g. Switzerland.
Yes, US taxes are insane in that regard. I am not american, but I have heard of that. The american tax system is quite notorious.
US taxes are insane in that regard.
I actually think that's one good decision they made to prevent tax evasion.
I'm sure Trump will eventually get rid of that though.
But they also tax poor people after they leave, as far as I know, which sucks.
Not according to this.
I believe they have to pay other taxes.
"If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. You are subject to tax on worldwide income from all sources and must report all taxable income and pay taxes according to the Internal Revenue Code."
From the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad
Maybe my reading comprehension skills are lacking, but it seems to me I am not wrong.
But that's the same tax they'd pay at home. There apparently are various tax credits for expats to avoid double taxation too.
Well you should have to pay taxes to the country you do not live in in addition to the one you do. In principle.
I wouldn't be so sure. He seems to have(always had, actually) a lot of protectionist sentiments. I think he might feel quite strongly about preventing capital flight.
True. I thought this is what was proposed for some reason. Well, a lot of taxes can still be avoided by leaving the country. I should say, I am in favour of property taxes to reduce real estate speculation, however, other forms of taxation also have problems associated with them that have to be considered.
This is completely false. US citizens must file taxes and are liable for income taxes no matter where they live.
Edit: I also know this because I recently filed my US taxes from my full-time residence in Germany.
This is not "completely false", this is "almost entirely correct".
I am aware of that fact, but this is just a single country. Also you can renounce your citizenship.
This is also false. You can't just renounce your citizenship if you want to. To renounce US citizenship you must submit an application and appear in person for affirmation. They will not approve your application if you don't have a second passport or citizenship somewhere else. They aren't going to just make stateless people.
Well no shit, but you can buy citizenship. It is not difficult.
Then you probably know how prohibitively expensive it can be, especially if you want access to developed nations like in Europe. So this isn't even an option for the vast majority of American citizens. I know you're not responding in good faith so I'll just drop it.
We are talking about rich people leaving the country by the way.
It may be a simplistic take, but if a person is hoarding wealth doesn't that take the money out of the economy?
Taking money out of the economy is not bad. This allows the government to print more money without consequences.
Until a market crash right?
If they were competent at allocating resources, then the 2008 Financial Crisis never would have happened. They're just the ones in charge, with no better information than anyone else. So we might as well just vote on how to spend the taxes.
An easy way to prevent capital flight is to increase Land Value Taxes.
What makes your position unenviable is not its score.
They are competent at allocating resources according to market tendencies, which, if the economy is mismanaged by the government, can cause damage lick the 2008 financial crisis. Crises are a well known trait of market economies, and successful government intervention should prevent them, as it has for quite a while.
Information that is provided by the market to capitalists and is expressed in price is exclusive to market actors. Price shows what should be invested in, what should be bought, built, etc. What is needed, to summarise. This is impossible under the command economy, and this is why since the economy is very complex it csn't be effectively managed by the government.
They are competent at allocating resources according to market tendencies, which, if the economy is mismanaged by the government, can cause damage...
...and this is why since the economy is very complex it csn't be effectively managed by the government.
So they'll be competent once a thing that can't be done... gets done? When/where do you think the wealthy did do a good job of managing society's resources?
successful government intervention should prevent them, as it has for quite a while.
What year is this comment from? 2008? 2020? Right now?
Sorry bro but you're stuck in the 2000s and coping hard. You immediately went from "they manage resources effectively" to "well um the govt messed up those resources, but not the stuff that went well, and I'm just talking about prices anyways".
To take your seriously for a moment: Lack of investment sounds like next generations problem.
What?
It isn't, unless you enjoy inflation.
There is a crisis in Europe because of lack of investment, are you sure it is not your problem?
I do in fact wish we had European problems. That would be a massive upgrade. We should be so lucky.
Yeah, when welfare and pensions are butchered because the EU is trying to salvage the deindustrialising increasingly uncompetitive economy by pouring lots of money in the military-industrial complex instead of social services this is going to be soooo awesome. Only Europe is going to be doing that in a much more fiscally constrained environment that America. Greaaaat.
You are trying to scare me, an American, by saying that if Europe keeps going the way they are going someday they might be as terrible a place to live as America.
That's better odds than my current reality. I'm guaranteed to live in a country no social safety net and a constrained fiscal environment because that describes America right fucking now.
Again, we should be so lucky.
I would say that America can afford a safety net, it just doesn't do it for ideological reasons.
I mean, I am not trying to scare you, just showing you that a lack of investment is bad.
Really sounds like you are arguing in favor of those ideological reasons.
I'm not saying we should take the fortunes of the rich and light them on fire. (Though there would be benefits even to that destructive approach)
Sure, eating the rich would not solve all our problems forever. It would solve some immediate problems today, and future generations would need to grapple with their problems tomorrow.
"We can't change things! There would be costs!" There are costs to inaction. We are paying them every day.
If you get rid of the rich, what will you do then? The institutions we have now, the social order we have now, what will you replace it with? Who will control the economy and by what means?
Some new asshole I have no doubt. Are you giving me a magic wand? The powers of a dictator? How broad can I make the changes for this fully functional society you are implicitly asking me to dream up on Lemmy?
I'm just one person. We have a whole as society to figure that stuff out.