We Need a Wealth Tax

[elfenix 34169]

19 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

No, I understand that part (using the year to reference them), but in no other way does it really make sense to use them the outliers here. You are referencing them but they do nothing to refute the point and data. Unless you are trying to disagree with the premise and author, but you haven't stated that so IDK?

the middle class is held up as something artificial and created by government by you at the end of post #443.  the blog you quoted liberally from keeps going back to 1892 as a reference point.*  turns out, those fuckers were just as artificial and created by government as the middle class that you think is artificial and unscalable.  what i'm trying to get you to see is that both of those outcomes - extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of a lucky few in the robber baron era, and a broad middle class in the post war era, are actually the result of intentional policy decisions by the government.  so, how might that inform the current era?

but you'll probably just go back to your obtuse act. 

 

 

 

*and let's go 50 years before that to 1842 and i bet most wealth is inherited.  so i don't know that nouveau riche is the new status quo, to paul graham's point.

Edited April 19, 2021 by elfenix

[DonkeyCigars 144]

Thanks for the attempt at an explanation. It helps.

Quote

 

the question i'm trying to get you to ask yourself

 

 

 

You did an extremely poor job of leading the witness here. I would never have gotten there based on your posts and misguided analysis that you seem to think was as clear as the nose on our faces. Thank you for being explicit and asking, for the sake of the conversation here.

Quote

[Are] both of those outcomes - extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of a lucky few in the robber baron era, and a broad middle class in the post war era, are actually the result of intentional policy decisions by the government?  and how that might inform the current era?

I don't think that the robber barons were intentional government welfare.

I think that calling the robber barons out as examples of organizations that were enabled because the government were favorable to them is mostly wrong in that it was never the intent and the extremely wealthy folks/businesses in that era were not planned, architected and funded to be what they were. They simply innovated to a point that the government needed to play ball and indirectly and tacitly enabled their power. In much the same way today, the innovators who are ahead of the government and so they get huge billion dollar contracts to build for or with the government do so because of their capabilities and product/place in the market (e.g. $10bn JEDI with MSFT beating out AMZN to help the Pentagon or whatever, announced last week Elon's $3bn SpaceX beating out Bezos' Blue Origin for the lunar landing deal to help NASA, etc. ad infinitum)

Oil, railroads, etc. all these robber baron industries would have to have been nationalized for your point to make sense that the government was intentionally creating these people. They just were smart and got lucky and dominated emerging industries that exploded. This is the way, and always has been since Grok the IV found fire.

The middle class is and always has been a product of post war and government policy. It's nanny/welfare state and more people wouldn't mind calling it that if they didn't live in that strata and/or strive to be and to promote the middle class as a DR Horton home owning aesthete. I've said some variation of this for the last six months on this site along with my position that the post-modern (1999- Today) innovation speed of technology (lightning fast) and the interconnectivity of people via technology (lightning fast) is the root cause for why our country is being destroyed from the inside out. The latter is not germane to this topic, though I think it could be argued is related to the former, and I only mention it as these are two points that make up my thesis for most of my posts.

Now that I've poured it on a bit thick in the rhetoric style I'm most comfortable with, let me be clearly humble with this last part so you know exactly my intent: That is my current understanding of the situation and regardless of where you might find your beliefs, I think it's an interesting and unanswered question that is worth discussing.

Edited April 19, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[elfenix 34169]

 nearly 19% of texas was given to railroads.  that's an intentional government policy.  that's not indirectly and tacitly enabling. 

 

(fun fact: texas tried to give nearly 21%, but faulty grants mucked it up)

Edited April 19, 2021 by elfenix

[DonkeyCigars 144]

22 hours ago, elfenix said:

 nearly 19% of texas was given to railroads.  that's an intentional government policy.  that's not indirectly and tacitly enabling. 

 

(fun fact: texas tried to give nearly 21%, but faulty grants mucked it up)

Okay, taking that at face value because I have no reason to doubt you, I can agree that this happened but you are still missing the point, I think. Or trying to make a divergent point that is missing the mark.

[Michael Knight 12878]

[Satchel 6908]

1 hour ago, Michael Knight said:

This is the of stuff that revolutions are made of. Now it’s clear why wokeness is a threat.

[Pescado_Rojo 19330]

Guess I'll just stand here and wait for that money to trickle down...

[Don Johnson 4745]

1 hour ago, Michael Knight said:

So one data point is measured on income and the other on wealth?

[Blotto 23424]

45 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Guess I'll just stand here and wait for that money to trickle down...

Its piss

[hobbes2702 12791]

15 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

So one data point is measured on income and the other on wealth?

Forests and trees and such

[Biff Tannen 45491]

9 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

This guy from 3 years ago gets it.

Almost like y'all are the same person.

[Neonmoon 38127]

16 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Forests and trees and such

Just asking questions 

[hobbes2702 12791]

47 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Hello McFly! Thats the joke! Anyone home, McFly?

[hobbes2702 12791]

12 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

No, none taken. You know what really chaps my hide though? I spent my life savings turning my van into a dog. The alarm alone cost me two hundred.

[4th&Five 41457]

[Biff Tannen 45491]

4 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

End game capitalism.  We are seeing it.

[HendersonHorns 85]

49 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

End game capitalism.  We are seeing it.

Could it have ever worked for….. 500 years?  1000 years? Capitalism I mean  

Did we screw it up, or was this the end game no matter what?

 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

7 hours ago, HendersonHorns said:

Could it have ever worked for….. 500 years?  1000 years? Capitalism I mean  

Did we screw it up, or was this the end game no matter what?

 

Well, you know, capitalism isn't uniquely American.  Most of western Europe is capitalist with varying degrees of regulation, in most cases more stringent than the US.  The US is fairly unique in the degree to which we employ laissez faire capitalism.

And this is what happens.

I'm not sure anyone is really arguing in favor of tilting actually socialist ala the 1970s UK, but I think we could stand for a bit more regulation.  There is a spectrum to this stuff and a happier median somewhere between capitalist thunderdome and a welfare state.

[Captainant 27404]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure anyone is really arguing in favor of tilting actually socialist ala the 1970s UK, but I think we could stand for a bit more regulation.

The opposition frames literally everything they don't like as big scary SOCIALISM!! If it's anything less than setting up a for profit puppy kicking station then you're a socialist lib

[Biff Tannen 45491]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you know, capitalism isn't uniquely American.  Most of western Europe is capitalist with varying degrees of regulation, in most cases more stringent than the US.  The US is fairly unique in the degree to which we employ laissez faire capitalism.

And this is what happens.

I'm not sure anyone is really arguing in favor of tilting actually socialist ala the 1970s UK, but I think we could stand for a bit more regulation.  There is a spectrum to this stuff and a happier median somewhere between capitalist thunderdome and a welfare state.

Nope. Only black and white. No degrees. It hurts their little brains too much to have it any other way. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13545]

Socialism and capitalism should work as a check and balance. Unfettered either one becomes cancerous and in post-Reagan Revolution America the biggest threat is unchecked capitalism.

[Red Five 40627]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

If it's anything less than setting up a for profit puppy kicking station then you're a socialist lib

[elfenix 34169]

5 hours ago, BeardIP said:

I think that calling the robber barons out as examples of organizations that were enabled because the government were favorable to them is mostly wrong in that it was never the intent and the extremely wealthy folks/businesses in that era were not planned, architected and funded to be what they were. They simply innovated to a point that the government needed to play ball and indirectly and tacitly enabled their power.

holy fuck is this wrong.  the government built the railroads, period, and paid private individuals handsomely to do so.  it was fully fucking intentional.  the robber barons didn't get out front of it, they hitched their wagons to government and then warped government further in their interest.

 

the policy of the united states is to make a few individuals ridiculously, mind bendingly wealthy.  and there's a bunch of petit-rich and outright poors who think that's all just happenstance and the government not only doesn't have anything to do with it, but the government is actually standing in the way of it.  it's a complete lie pushed by billionaires through a web of bullshit think tanks peddling narratives to poors.  and every once in a while when the citizens through their government decide that maybe billionaires shouldn't be killing quite so many of the rest us we get focused, polity-bending action funneled through the web created by those same think tanks.  the powell memorandum may have taken decades to come to its full fruition but if there's one thing generational wealth is good at, it's long term thinking.

[HendersonHorns 85]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you know, capitalism isn't uniquely American.  Most of western Europe is capitalist with varying degrees of regulation, in most cases more stringent than the US.  The US is fairly unique in the degree to which we employ laissez faire capitalism.

And this is what happens.

I'm not sure anyone is really arguing in favor of tilting actually socialist ala the 1970s UK, but I think we could stand for a bit more regulation.  There is a spectrum to this stuff and a happier median somewhere between capitalist thunderdome and a welfare state.

I understand we have a socialist structure surrounding so many things in our society. We have to or our society doesn’t work. 
 

Do you like the Western European style?  Can our country do that?  
 

I appreciate the honest response. I’m not ever going to play a gotcha game. I really am interested in ideas and thought behind it. 

[safe sex 11676]

We've tried tax breaks for the rich and trickle-down capitalism over and over since the 80s, and look at where we are. Can we at least try a little Western European capitalism? Just a lil? Just the tip, to see how it feels?

[HendersonHorns 85]

4 hours ago, safe sex said:

We've tried tax breaks for the rich and trickle-down capitalism over and over since the 80s, and look at where we are. Can we at least try a little Western European capitalism? Just a lil? Just the tip, to see how it feels?

How do they capitalism differently?  I know they have government healthcare. Any other advantages?

 

i have to admit, I have come full circle on the government healthcare. After paying attention to what goes out of (financially) the country, I don’t know why we don’t at least try. We won’t be any more in debt I don’t figure 

[WhatTheBuck 28703]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-bezos-buys-90-million-194549310.html

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13545]

 

[SamsCorner 395]

On 5/10/2024 at 2:18 PM, Pescado_Rojo said:

Guess I'll just stand here and wait for that money to trickle down...

You post on Surly, you’re the guy paying the  23%.

[BrickHorn 18186]

On 5/10/2024 at 2:59 PM, Don Johnson said:

So one data point is measured on income and the other on wealth?

What a ridiculous red herring.

Do you honestly believe that any billionaire, as measured by wealth, would even remotely approach the bottom 50% annual income bracket? Even assuming a modest 5% annual return on their wealth, the least wealthy billionaire would rake in $50 million, placing them somewhere within the top tiny fraction of a percent income wise. Other than weird one-offs where some mega billionaire has to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stock at a paper “loss,” of course. 

And do you think anyone in the lower half income wise has anywhere approaching a billionaire’s accumulated wealth? 

 

Edited May 12 by BrickHorn

[TwiceHorn 31240]

23 hours ago, HendersonHorns said:

I understand we have a socialist structure surrounding so many things in our society. We have to or our society doesn’t work. 
 

Do you like the Western European style?  Can our country do that?  
 

I appreciate the honest response. I’m not ever going to play a gotcha game. I really am interested in ideas and thought behind it. 

Stop using the term "socialist."  it has bad connotations (intentionally, I might add) and, short of state-owned means of production, doesn't really apply.  Collectivist might be a better word.

Anything that is government funded for the general welfare is a collectivist policy.  Chief among those might be the military.  It's not a bad thing in and of itself, it's why government exists, any government:  it can accomplish things for the general welfare that citizens acting alone cannot, I.e. collectivism.

Regulation is not "socialist," or even really collectivist in the same way other governmental activities can be considered collectivist.  Can it be overdone and become nonsensical? Bet your fur.  Can it also be underdone?  Bet your fur, again.

I think we are in an extended period of under regulation.  It may have initially been a reaction to overdone regulation that had become somewhat nonsensical, but it has gone too far.

I don't think we have to use Western Europe or anyone else as a model. We just need to rein in corporatism.  There's wealth inequality in Europe too, not as broad, but probably in extremis, worse.  Their rich people have had more than two centuries to accumulate wealth, though.  They tend not to do it in a lifetime.

Edited May 12 by TwiceHorn

[softlynow 1783]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Stop using the term "socialist."  it has bad connotations (intentionally, I might add) and, short of state-owned means of production, doesn't really apply.  Collectivist might be a better word.

Anything that is government funded for the general welfare is a collectivist policy.  Chief among those might be the military.  It's not a bad thing in and of itself, it's why government exists, any government:  it can accomplish things for the general welfare that citizens acting alone cannot, I.e. collectivism.

Regulation is not "socialist," or even really collectivist in the same way other governmental activities can be considered collectivist.  Can it be overdone and become nonsensical? Bet your fur.  Can it also be underdone?  Bet your fur, again.

I think we are in an extended period of under regulation.  It may have initially been a reaction to overdone regulation that had become somewhat nonsensical, but it has gone too far.

It was sold as an overreaction with an assist by appeals to our tribal nature and the ignorance of fundamentalists.

There may have been a few nonsensically overbroad or overbearing policies here and there, but the most important policy, that taxation should fall much more heavily on those who benefit more from government allowing for the steady and predictable accumulation of wealth. That Cletus came to believe he greatly benefited from tax cuts is the biggest of big lies and the one they cared most about.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

2 minutes ago, softlynow said:

It was sold as an overreaction with an assist by appeals to our tribal nature and the ignorance of fundamentalists.

There may have been a few nonsensically overbroad or overbearing policies here and there, but the most important policy, that taxation should fall much more heavily on those who benefit more from government allowing for the steady and predictable accumulation of wealth. That Cletus came to believe he greatly benefited from tax cuts is the biggest of big lies and the one they cared most about.

Yeah trickle down was the real poison, but its driving or underlying belief is that if we just let business business, everyone will be better off, not just the business.  It's false.

Edited May 12 by TwiceHorn
My fingers just type "it's"

[TwiceHorn 31240]

On 5/11/2024 at 9:19 AM, elfenix said:

holy fuck is this wrong.  the government built the railroads, period, and paid private individuals handsomely to do so.  it was fully fucking intentional.  the robber barons didn't get out front of it, they hitched their wagons to government and then warped government further in their interest.

 

the policy of the united states is to make a few individuals ridiculously, mind bendingly wealthy.  and there's a bunch of petit-rich and outright poors who think that's all just happenstance and the government not only doesn't have anything to do with it, but the government is actually standing in the way of it.  it's a complete lie pushed by billionaires through a web of bullshit think tanks peddling narratives to poors.  and every once in a while when the citizens through their government decide that maybe billionaires shouldn't be killing quite so many of the rest us we get focused, polity-bending action funneled through the web created by those same think tanks.  the powell memorandum may have taken decades to come to its full fruition but if there's one thing generational wealth is good at, it's long term thinking.

Point of fact:  almost all railroads were built on land granted by the federal government.  The federal government also issued railroad bonds to finance the construction, in combination with private financing.  So, yeah, the idea that things weren't subsidized back then is off.

[ClubWhatever 12086]

14 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-bezos-buys-90-million-194549310.html

Who has said they can't afford it?

[Don Johnson 4745]

5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

What a ridiculous red herring.

Do you honestly believe that any billionaire, as measured by wealth, would even remotely approach the bottom 50% annual income bracket? Even assuming a modest 5% annual return on their wealth, the least wealthy billionaire would rake in $50 million, placing them somewhere within the top tiny fraction of a percent income wise. Other than weird one-offs where some mega billionaire has to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stock at a paper “loss,” of course. 

And do you think anyone in the lower half income wise has anywhere approaching a billionaire’s accumulated wealth? 

 

If that’s what the graph wants to say, then it needs to say it. But it didn’t on purpose.  Compare the top 400 in income in 2023 vs the bottom half.  Will be a totally different graph. 
 

Wealth =\= income. 
 

I could sell my business for $10 billion in 2022, pay $4.5 billion in taxes that year, and not necessarily have income to be taxed the next year in 2023. Doesn’t mean I haven’t paid a shitload on my billions. 

[BrickHorn 18186]

10 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I could sell my business for $10 billion in 2022, pay $4.5 billion in taxes that year, and not necessarily have income to be taxed the next year in 2023.

That’s unrealistic and you know it. If you have $4.5 billion and aren’t making at least $200 million in annual income just off investment returns, dividends, rents, etc., you’re an idiot and don’t deserve your money anyway. 

And no billionaire should ever be in a situation where their annual income only qualifies them for the bottom 50% on that measure (which would mean less than $75k), much less the 400 richest Americans as a class (which is what that chart measured). 

Your criticism is pedantic and ultimately meaningless. It’s a pure red herring. 

Edited May 12 by BrickHorn

[Don Johnson 4745]

Just now, BrickHorn said:

That’s unrealistic and you know it. If you have $4.5 billion and aren’t making at least $200 million in annual income just off investment returns, dividends, rents, etc., you’re an idiot and don’t deserve your money anyway. 

I could absolutely have unrealized gains or even losses in many years.  Or I could reinvest it into a new venture that isn’t profitable yet. 

I could’ve donate $200 million to charity that year. 

If they wanted to make an apples to apples comparison they would’ve. 

[Slacks 6791]

So... There will be a wealth tax. You can mark that down. 

You can also mark down that there is already a wealth tax and innumerable was to avoid it.

[BrickHorn 18186]

23 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I could absolutely have unrealized gains or even losses in many years.  Or I could reinvest it into a new venture that isn’t profitable yet. 

I could’ve donate $200 million to charity that year. 

If they wanted to make an apples to apples comparison they would’ve. 

And you and 399 other randos could all fuck Sydney Sweeney, but the chances of that happening are vanishingly small. Your point is based on an irrelevant fantasy world.

Edited May 12 by BrickHorn

[Don Johnson 4745]

11 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

And you and 399 other randos could all fuck Sydney Sweeney, but the chances of that happening are vanishingly small. Your point is based on an irrelevant fantasy world.

Actually none of that is fantasy. 

That said, I’d love to see some backup on the bottom 50% paying an effective tax rate of 24%. 

[BrickHorn 18186]

2 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Actually none of that is fantasy. 

Your view is that it is possible that, on average, the 400 wealthiest Americans earn less than $75k in annual income? And you believe that view is not fantasy?

Okay. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Stop using the term "socialist."  it has bad connotations (intentionally, I might add) and, short of state-owned means of production, doesn't really apply.  Collectivist might be a better word.

It has bad connotations with some because it’s shit policy, and that bad connotations stem from one side.  Any other nifty changes you’d like to suggest? Maybe something new and nifty for communism, affirmative action, or whatever we’re calling the purchasing of votes (although hard to top free shit army)? 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

It has bad connotations with some because it’s shit policy, and that bad connotations stem from one side.  Any other nifty changes you’d like to suggest? Maybe something new and nifty for communism, affirmative action, or whatever we’re calling the purchasing of votes (although hard to top free shit army)? 

Socialism has a specific meaning that is an economic system in which the state owns the means of production and natural resources. 

Those that use it to describe general welfare programs and the safety net are being deliberately deceptive. 

[BrickHorn 18186]

13 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Actually none of that is fantasy. 

That said, I’d love to see some backup on the bottom 50% paying an effective tax rate of 24%. 

Let’s stop talking logic and discuss actual data. This article claims the 400 richest families in America mad $1.8 trillion in income between 2010-2018 (the chart posted above is actually from 2018). That equates to an average annual income of $500 million. 

Stop wasting everyone’s time with bullshit distractions. 

[Don Johnson 4745]

3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Your view is that it is possible that, on average, the 400 wealthiest Americans earn less than $75k in annual income? And you believe that view is not fantasy?

Okay. 

What?  We are talking about the average effective tax rate for 400 individuals without knowing their income.  Some paid more than 23%. Some less.  
 

But the whole point was that they pay less than the bottom 50%, who pay 24%. Can you provide any evidence that is true?  
 

 

[Don Johnson 4745]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

Let’s stop talking logic and discuss actual data. This article claims the 400 richest families in America mad $1.8 trillion in income between 2010-2018 (the chart posted above is actually from 2018). That equates to an average annual income of $500 million. 

Stop wasting everyone’s time with bullshit distractions. 

That article is a joke based on including unrealized gains as income. 
 

 

 

[Captainant 27404]

2 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

That article is a joke based on including unrealized gains as income. 
 

Unrealized gains are routinely used as collateral for loans, which enables the investor class to liquidate their holdings tax free AND drive the inflation cycle to help deprecate their own debt bubble. 

[softlynow 1783]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah trickle down was the real poison, but its driving or underlying belief is that if we just let business business, everyone will be better off, not just the business.  It's false.

Greed was the “belief.” Pure self-interest. Laissez-faire is the con. Those who believe(d) are/were the marks. The kleptocratic class doesn’t believe in anything but themselves. 

[HendersonHorns 85]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Stop using the term "socialist."  it has bad connotations (intentionally, I might add) and, short of state-owned means of production, doesn't really apply.  Collectivist might be a better word.

Anything that is government funded for the general welfare is a collectivist policy.  Chief among those might be the military.  It's not a bad thing in and of itself, it's why government exists, any government:  it can accomplish things for the general welfare that citizens acting alone cannot, I.e. collectivism.

Regulation is not "socialist," or even really collectivist in the same way other governmental activities can be considered collectivist.  Can it be overdone and become nonsensical? Bet your fur.  Can it also be underdone?  Bet your fur, again.

I think we are in an extended period of under regulation.  It may have initially been a reaction to overdone regulation that had become somewhat nonsensical, but it has gone too far.

I don't think we have to use Western Europe or anyone else as a model. We just need to rein in corporatism.  There's wealth inequality in Europe too, not as broad, but probably in extremis, worse.  Their rich people have had more than two centuries to accumulate wealth, though.  They tend not to do it in a lifetime.

I didn’t mean it in bad connotation. I’ve heard it described that way from a very close liberal friend, and it made sense. 
 

social security, interstate highways, Medicare Medicade. Etc. 

social programs we have to have in my opinion. 

Never really thought about the military.  
 

i do think money like Elon Bezos or Gates is gross. When I saw that pic posted of what bezos did is nauseating. 

would a 10% flat tax across the board with no breaks fix things?  15%. 
 

i hope you understand I am not as educated as most of you. I ask a lot of questions from places of ignorance and enjoy the explanations from a lot of you.