Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When Pelosi starts talking the same points as Cortez -- I will debate this issue -- until then this is a non-issue for me. As you can see I'm a wee bit lazy and won't spend time over analyzing something that is being presented by one very junior House representative.
When Pelosi starts talking the same points as Cortez -- I will debate this issue -- until then this is a non-issue for me. As you can see I'm a wee bit lazy and won't spend time over analyzing something that is being presented by one very junior House representative.
I don't think you'll ever see ol Nance pushing this one, even she knows better than that.
As other have indicated the rich are a lot more mobile these days and I can see them figuring out ways around this kinds of proposed high taxes.
If punishing people for having wealth is your goal, which you clearly imply that it is, then direct tax on owned/stored wealth is a far better solution. Think of it like a living estate tax that is levied annually. Let us say someone is worth $10 billion in assets/cash/stocks. OK, under the new living estate tax, we tax their entire net worth at oh, say 25%, which means that billionaire needs to cough up $2.5 billion to cover his punishment for being successful and wealthy. Hopefully, in 4-5 years, we bankrupt him, thus reducing wealth inequality. Basically, skin certain sheep instead of shearing them.
Now, I grant you that the combined worth of every millionaire and billionaire in America only funds the government for about 21 months, and we have a spending problem as I wrote earlier, and punishing the rich that much will discourage anyone from ever saving/earning more money ever again....but if punishing wealthy people is your goal, stop taxing that which they do not do, and start taxing that which they own/possess?
I didn't advocate for any proposal because I don't have an answer.
So please don't attribute 'punishing the rich' to me.
I didn't advocate for any proposal because I don't have an answer.
So please don't attribute 'punishing the rich' to me.
What is YOUR solution? Let them eat cake?
1) You directly stated that something must be done to prevent further wealth inequality. Given that government cannot actually produce wealth, but is skilled in the art of taking it from other's by force, your implication is clear. Punish the rich.
2) "Let them eat cake" is one of the top 5 most misquoted lines ever. It is incorrectly attributed to Marie Antoinette as a symbol of the uncaring attitude of the aristocracy towards the poor. Here's the various reasons why it is wrong:
First, it is a quote from the book "Confessions" by Rousseau, which was written when Marie Antoinette was 10 years old and living in Austria.
Second, in the book, it was actually "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" which meant, let them eat brioche/fancy bread.
Next, that quote was in reference to the limousine liberal policy of the day where the French government, in order to quell uprisings based on food shortages, ordered the bakers of Paris and outlying areas to sell expensive pastries at the same price as the cheapest bread the poor normally ate. What this did is drive bakers into financial ruin and disincentivized anyone from selling bakery, thus exacerbating the food shortages. (like all government "solutions" it made things worse)
Finally, the reason for the actual bread/food shortages of Paris was not capitalism, weather, drought, or some nefarious plot, but rather nationalized appropriation of basic food items for the military, who were being sent all over the place to fight in one thing or another under the reign of Louis XIV, XV and XVI. Farmers had been disincentivized from excess production for years as a result, which resulted in food shortages as a rule rather than exception. By the time Marie Antoinette came to Versailles, the French economy was already in shambles. She simply became it's scapegoat because she was an avowed, unflinching monarchist who believed in the divine right of kings and all that.
So basically, government had a spending problem on government nonsense, tried to placate the masses with policies that villainized and scapegoated businesses, and eventally scapegoated the easiest target they could find who symbolized a narrative, but was nowhere near the actual cause of the problems. Sound familiar?
3) I am an anarchist. What do you think my solution is to government spending, overspending, etc? In the natural free market system (which we do not actually have) there will be those who succeed and those who fail simply based on supply, demand, voluntary association and competition. Between those who succeed and those who do not will be inequality in their income and accumulated wealth. That's a perfectly natural occurrence when all actors are free to pursue their own rational self-interests. Given that success and failure are both individual outcomes, neither is a problem that collective can nor should solve.
A preview of the above article (There is more to the article both before and after the snapshot I post below, but I didn't want to copy the entire thing).
What are people's thoughts on the above? As a general follow-up to that, for those of you who subscribe to libertarian economic philosophy, why is the Keynesian view on tax policy wrong? I've been hungering to see this kind of intellectual debate in action but it is truly hard to find.
I had never thought about the extra incentive and production that a higher tax rate generates. All in all, it's a benefit to society to raise taxes on the richest members.
To be more specific, Diamond, in work with Emmanuel Saez — one of our leading experts on inequality — estimated the optimal top tax rate to be 73 percent.
There is no inequality and the assumption there is dooms all of their claims.
Wealth is created by an individual through their own efforts. An individual needs only to want to build wealth to create it. The fact that some individuals fail or refuse to build wealth or to even attempt to build wealth does not result in inequality.
Propagandists like Saez falsely equivocate Wealth with Income. They are not the same. Wealth includes Income, but not all Wealth is cash. Bill Gates' net worth is currently about $93.9 Billion, but Gates doesn't have $93 Billion in cash, what he has is several Million shares of Microsux stocks, which is currently theoretically valued at $102/share, plus real estate with a certain theoretical value.
If Gates started selling his Millions of Microsux shares, it would induce a panic among Microsux shareholders who would start selling their shares and it would end up like Chiquita stocks selling for $0.03/share.
Gates's net worth of $93.9 Billion evaporates to $9.39 Million.
So-called Wealth Inequality is irrelevant.
Income Inequality is non-existent and irrelevant as well. There are those who set high professional and personal goals and enact plans to reach them, and then there are those who are content to drink a six-pack every night and play video games. It's not a crime, it just is what it is.
There were massive tax loopholes back in the old days. Rush gave an example today where you could buy a herd of cows worth X amount yet deduct 4X amount.
I seem to recall the UK had 98% tax rate which inspired George Harrison to write Tax Man. Ringo's legal residence was (maybe still is) Monaco. Mick Jagger and others lived in the Bahamas or similar tax havens. So the UK wound up losing a lot of tax money.
When rich people move out, guess on whose shoulders the tax burden falls on.
To echo Mircea real fast, consider what other countries consider wealthy. By the living standards of many countries in this world, someone with $10k in actual liquid assets would be considered fabulously wealthy. Hell, there was a time not very long ago that $10k would purchase all of the property for two city blocks in inner Detroit.
Wealth is defined in purely relative terms that are largely independent of income, and are almost always more illusory than tangible.
I agree. We’ve had the same trickle down tax policies for 40 years resulting in the rich getting richer and the middle class getting smaller. Let’s reverse this trend.
You are assuming the only factor in anything is tax policy. That doesn't make sense. There are hundreds, if not thousands of factors that affect wealth. Wealthy inequality is the term used to pi$$ off people who aren't wealthy but the fact is, the US is a country where you can get very rich if you invent something cool or do something really different that people will value. Do you think countries like Cuba (where EVERYONE) no matter what they do makes the same salary, have that kind of innovation?
please keep up the high quality posts, folks. Some of us aren't qualified to comment, but we're still following along.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
