American Solidarity Fund - Redistribution to Fight Inequality

[bad_teammate 13481]

Question 1: Do you think there is a wealth inequality problem in America?

Question 2: Do you think it is something we have the ability to either solve or, at least, improve?

Question 3: What makes it difficult to talk about or address?

The Need for Redistribution

- Essentially everyone, regardless of where they would place themselves on the left-right spectrum, agrees that the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is bad for society, democracy, and the economy.

- We know it's a problem, but we're not sure what to do.

- We dramatically underestimate how bad the problem actually is.

What To Do About It (Dem 2020)

I was watching Beto's speech in El Paso on Saturday (I watched roughly the same speech live in Houston hours later) and he talked about the concentration of wealth and power being unacceptable in our democracy. He offered some ideas as to how to address this inequality:

- Better education (but that doesn't work)
- Small business loans (I don't know how that addresses the problem, honestly)
- Apprenticeships (??)
- Debt-free college (see "Better education")

Undoubtedly these are all good things and I like them, but like the EITC, it's like trying to drain a lake by tossing in some dish towels.

Warren's wealth tax is great, but that money doesn't provide wealth directly to those who don't have it, it merely funds social welfare. Again, social welfare is great and can address the symptoms of wealth inequality, but it doesn't address wealth inequality.

Sanders, whose heart is pure and whose open hostility towards the elite is righteous, suffers the same problem of Warren. He also wants to fund a vast social welfare state (good) using higher taxes on the wealthy (good). But addressing the symptoms, my beautiful dying grandfather, is not the same as fighting the disease.

Yang has made direct wealth transfer the central plank of his meme campaign and I love him for opening the door to the conversation, even though his specific, means-tested, implementation would not do anything meaningful to solving wealth inequality. His idea is to simply cut a $1k check to every adult American every month, but subtract from that $1k other government assistance. So a person receiving welfare money would get less of Yang's "Freedom Dividend" than a person who has a higher income. It might, in fact, make wealth inequality worse. Potentially much worse.

What To Do About It (American Solidarity Fund)

In the 2016 campaign, Hillary motioned towards Alaska's public wealth fund, but ultimately left it in the closet because they "couldn't make the numbers work".

The idea behind the American Solidarity Fund is based on accepting the financialization of the US economy and working with it instead of trying to change it (or working towards something like social democratic cooperative ownership of corporations).

The wealth of America is largely tied up in the stock market, yet only 52% of Americans are invested in the stock market. And that number is falling.

Basic outline of the idea: Create something called the "American Solidarity Fund" and use it to buy stocks, bonds, index funds, etc...

Every American gets 1 share of the ASF and gets a dividend payment based on the fund's performance. Stocks goes up and every single American is rewarded. But this doesn't necessarily impact wealth inequality, of course, because everyone would get the same dividend.

But what it does is make direct redistribution more politically and socially palatable by making it about re-investment into the American economy (as currently constructed). Also, it makes redistribution much simpler since America's wealth is already largely in the stock market.

[NWBuck 8621]

I wonder if Dennis Moore has any perspective on this matter.

[Parliament 14564]

What are the actual wealth numbers for the top 20%?

[elfenix 34661]

5 minutes ago, Parliament said:

What are the actual wealth numbers for the top 20%?

[American Swindle 102]

You can't have this conversation without addressing the Federal Reserve and our government's cozy relationship with banks and corporatist elites.  It's no coincidence that inflation and war have been enabled and escalated since the inception of the Federal Reserve which has artificially distorted interest rates and sent the wrong signals to consumers, borrowers and lenders over the past century. 

Bernie was right just like Ron Paul and Rand, Audit the Fed.  He was also right in his opposition to bailing out the banks in 2008.  What do you think is going to happen when you pump 16 trillion dollars into the world economy to save the system?  Oh yeah, the crony capitalists get all those funds and then cost of living goes up, your dollar power shrinks (thus indirectly taxing EVERYONE INCLUDING THOSE LESS FORTUNATE.) Your graph shows a decline in stock market shares right around 2007 and seems to get worse post bail-out (when everyone got their 401ks decimated thanks to the gubmint)

The government should have NO FUCKING PART in enacting any programs in the name of wealth equality.  They should have gotten out of the way in many cases (Dept of Education, ACA, Bailouts, I could go on but you get it.) 

And you want free college and free healthcare?  Not economically feasible.  .

 

What makes it difficult is this: MOST COMMON FOLK ARE ILL INFORMED ON SOUND ECONOMIC THEORY AND ECONOMIC REALITY IN GENERAL.  

Also, we need more competition in education.  How is it that one company (oh, I mean one department) is responsible for ALL PUBLIC EDUCATION?  And why are those that want to eliminate the Dept of Education demonized as wanting No Education?  

The reality is that all Public School propagandizes us all to think we must go to College. We must take out the student loans to pay for it.  Then we get there, with these loans that are backed by our all knowing government overlords, thus leading to colleges jacking the tuition as it's totally risk free for them, thus making it not affordable for THOSE LESS FORTUNATE and leaving students with a non-dis chargeable debt burden.  Reality: not everyone should go to college.  

Free markets are in large part an answer, and if you think that the free market and some sort of deregulation boogey man  are what got us here, then you belong in the NPC echo chamber.    

 

 

[Huckleberry 34407]

There are 50 separate departments in charge of public education in the States.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

27 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Hang on a minute.  What's "Family Wealth?"

[Parliament 14564]

Top 20% is a net worth of $499k per family?

That isn't very much, and I hope this plan wouldn't take anything away from them.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

Slightly OT but I keep hearing this idea that the founding fathers were opposed to "generational wealth," which by inheritance (rather than monarchical fiat/feudalism/noble titles) was a relatively new concept in 1789 England, and generally recognized as a freedom.

Well, here's a list of the wealthiest Presidents in todays dollars.  https://www.thrillist.com/vice/all-the-united-states-presidents-ranked-by-net-worth

Many of the founding fathers were some rich mofos and could have and would have enacted some sort of escheat had they been opposed to "generational wealth."

So that's a load of bs.

Doesn't mean much in the grand scheme, just a false narrative

[elfenix 34661]

 

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Hang on a minute.  What's "Family Wealth?"

Quote

Family is defined by the Survey of Consumer Finances as the primary economic unit in a house-hold. A family, in this context, consists of a single person or a couple and all other people in the household who are financially interdependent with that person or couple.

Family wealth is a family’s assets minus its debt; often referred to as net worth. The measure of wealth examined in this report is marketable wealth.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51846-familywealth.pdf

[elfenix 34661]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Slightly OT but I keep hearing this idea that the founding fathers were opposed to "generational wealth," which by inheritance (rather than monarchical fiat/feudalism/noble titles) was a relatively new concept in 1789 England, and generally recognized as a freedom.

Well, here's a list of the wealthiest Presidents in todays dollars.  https://www.thrillist.com/vice/all-the-united-states-presidents-ranked-by-net-worth

Many of the founding fathers were some rich mofos and could have and would have enacted some sort of escheat had they been opposed to "generational wealth."

So that's a load of bs.

Doesn't mean much in the grand scheme, just a false narrative

the ability to disinherit one's offspring was "new" in the grand scheme of things (statute of wills, 1540).  inheritance was not.

[bad_teammate 13481]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Slightly OT but I keep hearing this idea that the founding fathers were opposed to "generational wealth," which by inheritance (rather than monarchical fiat/feudalism/noble titles) was a relatively new concept in 1789 England, and generally recognized as a freedom.

Generational wealth is EXACTLY where I would attack this.

"I EARNED THIS!" is a tricky argument to deal with. While it is true that anyone who says "I EARNED THIS" is probably wrong (as Obama rightly said, "you didn't build that"), by and large, there is some concept of truth there and it's very hard to determine the full reality. I promote higher taxation, but I'm hesitant/fuzzy on direct expropriation from the person who "earned" that money.

However, we need to take that money once the person who "earned" it dies. Obviously there would be a huge backlash to the inheritance tax being sharply ramped up, but that is way easier to get away with and is more obviously fair than a direct wealth expropriation.

For instance...

Charles Koch is worth $50B. When he dies, give each of his kids $20M. They get to decide how that works (i.e., if I keep daddy's McClaren F1, that's $8M of my $20M allotment right there, or I forego all non-sentimental property and just take $20M cash).

For the rest...
- All shares/stocks/bonds/funds go into the ASF directly to be managed on behalf of the American people
- All cash is put in the ASF investment pile
- Properties are put into an ASF-managed REIT (yet another cool thing about taking advantage of financial instruments as a means of redistribution is that you can use REITs to deal with thorny real estate problems) (Your fat little inheritance child is welcome to keep the vacation home in addition to his $20M, but he has to pay rent to the REIT)
- Those kids still get the dividends from the ASF as American citizens, no means testing involved. 100% universal dividend regardless of income or wealth holdings

Individuals can still build massive empires while they live, but once they die those empires are shared among the people and the next round of financial achievers gets to begin their Hero's Journey of Wealth.

[safe sex 11914]

I am very into this.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

35 minutes ago, elfenix said:

the ability to disinherit one's offspring was "new" in the grand scheme of things (statute of wills, 1540).  inheritance was not.

Inheritance of titles and the accompanying estate at the sufferance of the Crown was not new.  Being able to dictate the terms of inheritance according to one's wishes was newish in the long history of England.  Disenheritance is certainly part of that, but not the whole story.

 

48 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51846-familywealth.pdf

Thanks.  That's reasonable.  A term like "family weath" seems like a term of statistical manipulation.

[Bat Guano 363]

I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Rich folks currently own most of the wealth in the stock market. You propose to invest more money into the market on behalf of regular folks. Which will cause prices and valuations of the market to go up, which raises the value of the stocks currently owned by the rich folks. Regular folks might get a bit of benefit, but the rich would make out like bandits. Literal bandits with eyemasks and the whole works, taking chests full of gold bullion from the train.

What am I missing?

[TwiceHorn 31994]

23 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Rich folks currently own most of the wealth in the stock market. You propose to invest more money into the market on behalf of regular folks. Which will cause prices and valuations of the market to go up, which raises the value of the stocks currently owned by the rich folks. Regular folks might get a bit of benefit, but the rich would make out like bandits. Literal bandits with eyemasks and the whole works, taking chests full of gold bullion from the train.

What am I missing?

Pretty good point.

[Huckleberry 34407]

I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Rich folks currently own most of the wealth in the stock market. You propose to invest more money into the market on behalf of regular folks. Which will cause prices and valuations of the market to go up, which raises the value of the stocks currently owned by the rich folks. Regular folks might get a bit of benefit, but the rich would make out like bandits. Literal bandits with eyemasks and the whole works, taking chests full of gold bullion from the train.
What am I missing?

This sounds like you're arguing that everyone wins with the plan while wondering why people like the plan.

[elfenix 34661]

 

 

 

Thanks.  That's reasonable.  A term like "family weath" seems like a term of statistical manipulation.

 

You probably have to do it that way since so much wealth is owned jointly/in community

 

 

 

I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Rich folks currently own most of the wealth in the stock market. You propose to invest more money into the market on behalf of regular folks. Which will cause prices and valuations of the market to go up, which raises the value of the stocks currently owned by the rich folks. Regular folks might get a bit of benefit, but the rich would make out like bandits. Literal bandits with eyemasks and the whole works, taking chests full of gold bullion from the train.

What am I missing?

This is the driver of the push to funnel social security into the stock market: massive windfall to current owners/financial services

[American Swindle 102]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Generational wealth is EXACTLY where I would attack this.

"I EARNED THIS!" is a tricky argument to deal with. While it is true that anyone who says "I EARNED THIS" is probably wrong (as Obama rightly said, "you didn't build that"), by and large, there is some concept of truth there and it's very hard to determine the full reality. I promote higher taxation, but I'm hesitant/fuzzy on direct expropriation from the person who "earned" that money.

However, we need to take that money once the person who "earned" it dies. Obviously there would be a huge backlash to the inheritance tax being sharply ramped up, but that is way easier to get away with and is more obviously fair than a direct wealth expropriation.

For instance...

Charles Koch is worth $50B. When he dies, give each of his kids $20M. They get to decide how that works (i.e., if I keep daddy's McClaren F1, that's $8M of my $20M allotment right there, or I forego all non-sentimental property and just take $20M cash).

For the rest...
- All shares/stocks/bonds/funds go into the ASF directly to be managed on behalf of the American people
- All cash is put in the ASF investment pile
- Properties are put into an ASF-managed REIT (yet another cool thing about taking advantage of financial instruments as a means of redistribution is that you can use REITs to deal with thorny real estate problems) (Your fat little inheritance child is welcome to keep the vacation home in addition to his $20M, but he has to pay rent to the REIT)
- Those kids still get the dividends from the ASF as American citizens, no means testing involved. 100% universal dividend regardless of income or wealth holdings

Individuals can still build massive empires while they live, but once they die those empires are shared among the people and the next round of financial achievers gets to begin their Hero's Journey of Wealth.

I'm a hard no on all of this, but then again, I'm not an authoritarian. Who is "we"?  The Government?  All of what you propose requires force and aggression.  Property rights were important to the founders of this country and what you propose is having more government interference into private property affairs.  Thomas Jefferson was heavily influenced by John Locke and his principles.  Mainly, the principle of self-ownership.  Do you own yourself BT?  If you answer yes, then if you mixed your time/energy and labor with the fruits of the earth and made something, wouldn't you own that too?  If yes, then don't you have the final say in how that property is to be handled?  You are basically pushing for outright socialism, whereby the government inherits everything the INDIVIDUAL earns with his own blood, sweat, stress and tears and gives it to the Federal Government because they (or for you "we") know how best to distribute it in the name of compassion and equality.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Llano Estacado 1257]

I’m going to agree with American Swindle on this one.

If John McAfee half-ass tried to become a non-resident and live off US capital gains as a multimillionaire, I can only imagine what the American billionaires and their families would do.

Walton, Koch, Mars, Johnson, Hunt they all have multiple billionaires in their families. Why would they remain citizens in a free market with your policies? They could buy an island leave their money in the market and be BETTER tax advantaged. Sure, they could never stay more than 100 something days every 3 years, but it’s a big world out there for an unemployed billionaire.

Paul Allen was actively trying to reduce his networth his last few years and as he spun off LLCs and S-corps pet projects he became wealthier. Imagine what Bezos and the Ex could do with 10x the Bs?

There’s also the confiscate it all group, but the math generally shows to not work. If Bezos tried to buy the American public he could drop $10B in a conservative fund. @ 3% that’s $300MM, so $1/person per year. That’s not much loyalty.

[elfenix 34661]

what if you had your personal property mix his time / energy and labor with the fruits of the earth would you own that too?

Edited April 2, 2019 by elfenix

[Bat Guano 363]

52 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

1 hour ago, Bat Guano said:

I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Rich folks currently own most of the wealth in the stock market. You propose to invest more money into the market on behalf of regular folks. Which will cause prices and valuations of the market to go up, which raises the value of the stocks currently owned by the rich folks. Regular folks might get a bit of benefit, but the rich would make out like bandits. Literal bandits with eyemasks and the whole works, taking chests full of gold bullion from the train.
What am I missing?

This sounds like you're arguing that everyone wins with the plan while wondering why people like the plan.

Not exactly. My gripe is that it would increase inequality, not decrease it.

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 hour ago, Bat Guano said:

I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Rich folks currently own most of the wealth in the stock market. You propose to invest more money into the market on behalf of regular folks. Which will cause prices and valuations of the market to go up, which raises the value of the stocks currently owned by the rich folks. Regular folks might get a bit of benefit, but the rich would make out like bandits. Literal bandits with eyemasks and the whole works, taking chests full of gold bullion from the train.

Not as egregious when paired with wealth taxation, but yeah, the rich are still going to be rich.

However, you are ignoring the long-term impact of ending generational oligarchical power.

21 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I'm a hard no on all of this, but then again, I'm not an authoritarian. Who is "we"?  The Government?  All of what you propose requires force and aggression.

Yes, which is what we already do and which you already support.

You support taxation. You already support using government authority to take from the citizen. So please save the drama.

Just now, Llano Estacado said:

Paul Allen was actively trying to reduce his networth his last few years and as he spun off LLCs and S-corps pet projects he became wealthier. Imagine what Bezos and the Ex could do with 10x the Bs?

Then you don't let them. Freeze/take the assets. Empower a division of the IRS to work on a bounty system where that department (and others) are funded by a portion of the proceeds they capture from fleeing wealth. The more the rich try to hide their wealth, the more bounty money is available to people trying to find them out.

As I said to Swindle, we already do this.

- We already imprison people for being poor and unable to pay bail, fees, and fines.

- We already hunt welfare fraud on bounty systems.

Why are we suddenly fainting with shock that the super rich might have to be slightly inconvenienced?

[bad_teammate 13481]

Just now, longhornmatt said:

Lulz at the champion of extracting a pound of flesh from the big corporatist shitlibs signing on to the plan that would create a multi-trillion dollar hedge fund for Washington and NYC to pilfer.

Only if improperly regulated.

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

Bless your heart.

What do you think we're already living in?

Look at the statistics. You're concerned we're going to have some kind of oligarchical system when that's what we already functionally are.

[ChickenSandwich 9921]

52 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I'm a hard no on all of this, but then again, I'm not an authoritarian. Who is "we"?  The Government?  All of what you propose requires force and aggression.  Property rights were important to the founders of this country and what you propose is having more government interference into private property affairs.  Thomas Jefferson was heavily influenced by John Locke and his principles.  Mainly, the principle of self-ownership.  Do you own yourself BT?  If you answer yes, then if you mixed your time/energy and labor with the fruits of the earth and made something, wouldn't you own that too?  If yes, then don't you have the final say in how that property is to be handled?  You are basically pushing for outright socialism, whereby the government inherits everything the INDIVIDUAL earns with his own blood, sweat, stress and tears and gives it to the Federal Government because they (or for you "we") know how best to distribute it in the name of compassion and equality.  

 

Also, assassination could be used by the government to balance the budget in a tight year

 

 

 

 

[Bat Guano 363]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

However, you are ignoring the long-term impact of ending generational oligarchical power.

Sure, I'm all in on halting the creation of an American aristocracy through the passing on of enormous wealth and power, but that's a separate issue. You could get the first part, the fund which further comforts the comfortable by buoying their investment portfolios, but the part about taking away their kids' inheritances is where the political will would falter. And you wouldn't even need the fund to do that anyway; sure, it might be a good way to administer the funds, but there are other ways to do that, and if you wanted to just eliminate huge inheritances you could do that right now. Or not. I could see a process where you get the fund, make the ultra-rich into ultra-mega-super-rich, and then the inheritance confiscation goes nowhere and you've created exactly what you set out to oppose.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Bat Guano

[gsoda3 3358]

rich folks own most of the wealth in the equities market?  i don't believe so.  not unless the definition of someone owning wealth stretches beyond personal title of stock.  in that case it's a disingenuous distortion of the point.

 

we do have a problem with income inequality, but that's a product of our society.  if you want to address it you need to change our mindset of "i gotta get what's mine" to one where everyone looks out for each other.  see:  denmark.

[American Swindle 102]

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not as egregious when paired with wealth taxation, but yeah, the rich are still going to be rich.

However, you are ignoring the long-term impact of ending generational oligarchical power.

Yes, which is what we already do and which you already support.

You support taxation. You already support using government authority to take from the citizen. So please save the drama.

Then you don't let them. Freeze/take the assets. Empower a division of the IRS to work on a bounty system where that department (and others) are funded by a portion of the proceeds they capture from fleeing wealth. The more the rich try to hide their wealth, the more bounty money is available to people trying to find them out.

As I said to Swindle, we already do this.

- We already imprison people for being poor and unable to pay bail, fees, and fines.

- We already hunt welfare fraud on bounty systems.

Why are we suddenly fainting with shock that the super rich might have to be slightly inconvenienced?

Quote

  1 hour ago, American Swindle said:

I'm a hard no on all of this, but then again, I'm not an authoritarian. Who is "we"?  The Government?  All of what you propose requires force and aggression.

Yes, which is what we already do and which you already support.

You support taxation. You already support using government authority to take from the citizen. So please save the drama

When have I ever said I support taxation?  I want zero taxes for everyone.  If anything, I would support a movement of the needle to as close to zero taxes as possible but it be the same percentage for everyone.  Lastly, how did you come to the conclusion  I support using the government to take from my fellow citizens?  

[Bat Guano 363]

22 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

rich folks own most of the wealth in the equities market? 

Yes

Quote

As of 2013, the top 1 percent of households by wealth owned nearly 38 percent of all stock shares, according to research by New York University economist Edward Wolff.

Indeed, nearly all of the stock ownership in the U.S. is concentrated among the richest. According to Wolff's data, the top 20 percent of Americans owned 92 percent of the stocks in 2013.

https://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/517975766/while-trump-touts-stock-market-many-americans-left-out-of-the-conversation

 

Edit: More recent (2017):

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Bat Guano

[workswithseed 2201]

This "you didn't build that" reminds me of this.

Edited April 2, 2019 by workswithseed

[bad_teammate 13481]

23 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

The management fees with NYC firms and experts to “consult” and assist in managing it, the bureaus set up to administer it, the process/bribery for deciding which companies receive the mega fund investments, the monopoly control over the corporate decisions of every company out there when the largest investor is the same Washington mega fund ... you should be having the biggest shit fit of all time at this idea if you’re against those evil elites taking too much power for themselves.   You’d just be replacing some current elites with much more powerful ones, most of whom are already calling the shots now.

Why are you assuming the ASF would be run by "NYC firms" at their usual fees? Why are you assuming a lack of transparency and oversight? Why are you assuming a lack of extremely obvious regulations?

(It's because you're operating in bad faith.)

21 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Sure, I'm all in on halting the creation of an American aristocracy through the passing on of enormous wealth and power, but that's a separate issue. You could get the first part, the fund which further comforts the comfortable by buoying their investment portfolios, but the part about taking away their kids' inheritances is where the political will would falter.

meh, things change. Political will is not fixed.

[Llano Estacado 1257]

Then you don't let them. Freeze/take the assets. Empower a division of the IRS to work on a bounty system where that department (and others) are funded by a portion of the proceeds they capture from fleeing wealth. The more the rich try to hide their wealth, the more bounty money is available to people trying to find them out.
As I said to Swindle, we already do this.
- We already imprison people for being poor and unable to pay bail, fees, and fines.
- We already hunt welfare fraud on bounty systems.
Why are we suddenly fainting with shock that the super rich might have to be slightly inconvenienced?

Ummmm Paul Allen’s Vulcan Inc wasn’t to hide his assets. It was to spend down his assets, as he never married and has no children.

He’s given multiple $100MMs to philanthropic causes; arts, lower income housing projects, education, hospitals, museums, fighting Zika and Ebola, etc, etc. He hired successful people and they’ll most likely continue to contribute millions and millions to good causes AND the tax base long after we’re dead. Vulcan employees hundreds.

[Bat Guano 363]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

meh, things change. Political will is not fixed.

True. Decades ago, I thought legal weed in the US was something that was never going to happen.

But the point I was making is that the fund and the inheritance tax are two separate issues. You could have an inheritance tax without the fund. The fund would vastly increase the wealth and power of the larval oligarchy, making the hill you have to climb to get the inheritance tax that much higher.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Bat Guano

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

Why are you assuming the largest investment fund in the world by orders of magnitude isn’t going to have top dollar professional consultants at their normal rates?  

That's not how logic works; you don't prove negatives. You invented the concept in your mind in order to justify a patronizing argument. You built a strawman that made no sense in the context of the discussion.

Quote

How do you think transparency and oversight of that system is going to be better than the current transparency and oversight of the financial industry?

Because we will all be shareholders and investors with a vested interest in paying attention. Meanwhile, only 52% of Americans are currently invested and only a smaller percentage of those pay attention. Political parties will be able to fight each other to prove themselves the most effective and just managers of the ASF.

Quote

 Is introducing more incentives for corruption going to help with transparency?

This question doesn't even make sense. Can  you explain?

Just now, Llano Estacado said:

Ummmm Paul Allen’s Vulcan Inc wasn’t to hide his assets. It was to spend down his assets, as he never married and has no children.

He’s given multiple $100MMs to philanthropic causes; arts, lower income housing projects, education, hospitals, museums, fighting Zika and Ebola, etc, etc. He hired successful people and they’ll most likely continue to contribute millions and millions to good causes AND the tax base long after we’re dead. Vulcan employees hundreds.

 

You brought up a whole bunch of different stuff in that post and I just chose that part to avoid quoting the whole thing.

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 minute ago, Bat Guano said:

But the point I was making is that the fund and the inheritance tax are two separate issues.

Yeah, sure. I didn't even talk about the inheritance tax in the OP, only after someone brought it up.

And the fund would only enrich the already rich to the extent that it is allowed to. It all depends on how it is constituted.

[Llano Estacado 1257]

You think every paycheck to paycheck guy wants his windfall to get snatched away from him and dropped into a mutual fund so he can earn that 2.00% dividend on his minuscule slice of the stock market pie?

 

I wonder how much it’d end up the benefit of the Walton’s, Disney’s, Nike, InBev, PepsiCo, etc when that Earthican Tricky Dick $300 Fun Bill drops annually/quarterly.

[American Swindle 102]

50 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

 

Ummmm Paul Allen’s Vulcan Inc wasn’t to hide his assets. It was to spend down his assets, as he never married and has no children.

He’s given multiple $100MMs to philanthropic causes; arts, lower income housing projects, education, hospitals, museums, fighting Zika and Ebola, etc, etc. He hired successful people and they’ll most likely continue to contribute millions and millions to good causes AND the tax base long after we’re dead. Vulcan employees hundreds.

 

You mean he did it voluntarily without the use of government force? Really? 

[bad_teammate 13481]

33 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

What’s patronizing is suggesting you’re going to help the poor oppressed working man by redistributing the upper class’s wealth not to him directly - can’t have that now - but by funneling it through an investment vehicle over which he has no control and that will be managed by the elites.

The bad faith continues. At no point did I suggest that the ASF should be managed undemocratically or by elites.

It's an idea. If you want to discuss the direct expropriation of wealth from the top 1-5% and then cutting checks to everyone else that's great, but me talking about one idea doesn't preclude you talking about another.

You need some emotional control.

Quote

You think every paycheck to paycheck guy wants his windfall to get snatched away from him and dropped into a mutual fund so he can earn that 2.00% dividend on his minuscule slice of the stock market pie?  

At what point did I suggest that the ASF should be funded by taxation on those who live paycheck-to-paycheck? You've spun yourself into a dishonest frenzy because you feel embarrassed that your bad faith argumentation was exposed.

Relax and operate in good faith and it'll be fine.

[bad_teammate 13481]

30 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

I wonder how much it’d end up the benefit of the Walton’s, Disney’s, Nike, InBev, PepsiCo, etc when that Earthican Tricky Dick $300 Fun Bill drops annually/quarterly.

Probably a lot. The masses spend the money they get, which is a good reason to take it out of the hands of the wealthy, where it does relatively little.

[ChiTownDoc 21326]

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Generational wealth is EXACTLY where I would attack this.

"I EARNED THIS!" is a tricky argument to deal with. While it is true that anyone who says "I EARNED THIS" is probably wrong (as Obama rightly said, "you didn't build that"), by and large, there is some concept of truth there and it's very hard to determine the full reality. I promote higher taxation, but I'm hesitant/fuzzy on direct expropriation from the person who "earned" that money.

However, we need to take that money once the person who "earned" it dies. Obviously there would be a huge backlash to the inheritance tax being sharply ramped up, but that is way easier to get away with and is more obviously fair than a direct wealth expropriation.

For instance...

Charles Koch is worth $50B. When he dies, give each of his kids $20M. They get to decide how that works (i.e., if I keep daddy's McClaren F1, that's $8M of my $20M allotment right there, or I forego all non-sentimental property and just take $20M cash).

For the rest...
- All shares/stocks/bonds/funds go into the ASF directly to be managed on behalf of the American people
- All cash is put in the ASF investment pile
- Properties are put into an ASF-managed REIT (yet another cool thing about taking advantage of financial instruments as a means of redistribution is that you can use REITs to deal with thorny real estate problems) (Your fat little inheritance child is welcome to keep the vacation home in addition to his $20M, but he has to pay rent to the REIT)
- Those kids still get the dividends from the ASF as American citizens, no means testing involved. 100% universal dividend regardless of income or wealth holdings

Individuals can still build massive empires while they live, but once they die those empires are shared among the people and the next round of financial achievers gets to begin their Hero's Journey of Wealth.

I couldn't agree more.  Many billionaires sign the giving pledge.  Gates is doing amazing work in this regard.  

[ChiTownDoc 21326]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Only if improperly regulated.

This is where you lose me.  Come the fuck on.  The more money that's involved in any govt project, the more fucked up it's regulation is.  Look at military contracts for example.  Or banks.  Your heart is in the right place but this response is completely laughable.  

I know you actually know it too, but your view is, well, it's better the govt fuck that money up and burn it vs the rich getting any richer.  You're very transparent, whether you realize it or not. 

[ChiTownDoc 21326]

1 hour ago, Llano Estacado said:

 

Ummmm Paul Allen’s Vulcan Inc wasn’t to hide his assets. It was to spend down his assets, as he never married and has no children.

He’s given multiple $100MMs to philanthropic causes; arts, lower income housing projects, education, hospitals, museums, fighting Zika and Ebola, etc, etc. He hired successful people and they’ll most likely continue to contribute millions and millions to good causes AND the tax base long after we’re dead. Vulcan employees hundreds.

 

Shhhhh...he's on a roll.  This is peak BT, sit back and enjoy. 

[Sbbruin 22082]

If the gubment is gonna take all my money when I die, I'm going out in a blaze of hookers and blow like the world has never seen.

[bad_teammate 13481]

11 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

This is where you lose me.  Come the fuck on.  The more money that's involved in any govt project, the more fucked up it's regulation is.  Look at military contracts for example.  Or banks.  Your heart is in the right place but this response is completely laughable.  

Yes, the management of a massive public wealth fund would be complicated and expensive. Great observation.

However, why would we look at military contracts when there are already permanent funds for us to use as models? Why are we pretending like UTIMCO isn't a thing? This is a UT board for Christ's sake.

Quote

I know you actually know it too, but your view is, well, it's better the govt fuck that money up and burn it vs the rich getting any richer.  You're very transparent, whether you realize it or not. 

What exactly do you mean by "burn it up"?

It's interesting to see how guffawing counts as making a point in your mind (and the minds of others).

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, Bat Guano said:

Not exactly. My gripe is that it would increase inequality, not decrease it.

So?  If the choice is the poor get a little richer and the rich get a lot richer versus both staying the same, the former is better.  See Margaret Thatcher’s explanation owning the socialists.  

Wealth inequality shouldn’t be the issue.  The issue should be standard of living.  

[Sgt Hulk 14331]

Interesting prospect.    I wonder if all the welathy politicians are behind it. or if they will be exempt  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

If the gubment is gonna take all my money when I die, I'm going out in a blaze of hookers and blow like the world has never seen.

Hello friend......

[bad_teammate 13481]

8 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

This is a false rule that somehow has been established as one of the cornerstone laws of internet folk logic:

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Rhetorically dishonest, then, or ignorant.

Presuming the ASF would be managed by some NYC firm at their traditional fees was extremely dishonest (or ignorant) and didn't even make sense in the context of what was being discussed. That's not how existing permanent funds are managed.

[ChiTownDoc 21326]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, the management of a massive public wealth fund would be complicated and expensive. Great observation.

However, why would we look at military contracts when there are already permanent funds for us to use as models? Why are we pretending like UTIMCO isn't a thing? This is a UT board for Christ's sake.

What exactly do you mean by "burn it up"?

It's interesting to see how guffawing counts as making a point in your mind (and the minds of others).

By burn it up, I mean ‘mismanage the fuck out of’ with the help of improper regulation.  

Which you seem to agree is a very real fear...