ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th October 2019, 12:07 PM   #1
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,306
An end to billionaires.

Robert Reich argues that the creation and concentration of vast wealth is the result of specific tax and legal policies that could and should be revised.
Quote:
America now has more billionaires than at any time in history, while most Americans are struggling to make ends meet. With such staggering inequality, it’s fair to ask: should we abolish billionaires?
https://www.salon.com/2019/07/06/sho...aires_partner/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:13 PM   #2
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,986
Most Americans are struggling to make ends meet?

I'd like to know his definitions of "most", "struggling", and "make ends meet". Probably "Americans", too.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:20 PM   #3
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,273
Let's throw in "staggering" for good measure as well.
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:23 PM   #4
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,306
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Most Americans are struggling to make ends meet?

I'd like to know his definitions of "most", "struggling", and "make ends meet". Probably "Americans", too.
Great. Change "most" to "many," even "some." That's not his central point.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:26 PM   #5
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,082
Wealth tax would solve this.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:28 PM   #6
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,986
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Great. Change "most" to "many," even "some." That's not his central point.
I'm supposed to be concerned that this is some kind of problem. But the problem statement is flatly retarded.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:28 PM   #7
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,306
Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC View Post
Let's throw in "staggering" for good measure as well.

That's pretty much indisputable.
Quote:
Saez and Zucman show that, in America, the wealthiest 160,000 families own as much wealth as the poorest 145 million families, and that wealth is about 10 times as unequal as income.
https://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequ...lth-income-us/

Quote:
Wealth inequality in the US is at near record levels according to a new study by academics. Over the past three decades, the share of household wealth owned by the top 0.1% has increased from 7% to 22%.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...-the-bottom-90
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:31 PM   #8
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,306
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Wealth tax would solve this.
That would be after the fact. Changes in tax rates and policies, a higher minimum wage and tougher antitrust enforcement would prevent the problem.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:31 PM   #9
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,986
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Wealth tax would solve this.
Solve what? Even with wealth tax, some Americans would still struggle to make ends meet.

How big is the actual problem? How much of it is raw lack of funds, how much is diminishing returns, and how much is mismanagement?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:37 PM   #10
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,587
If I might propose two premises:

- Everyone having the smae mount of money it not desirable in a capitalist system

- one person having all the money is not deisrable in any system


Then at what point, if we accept the above, is it appropriate to take action? Only at the point when the last penny goes to McDuck, or if before then, at what point before then?



Edit:

People are really bad at big numbers. (Personally, I'm not sure I can really conceptualise much beyond a hundred or maybe a thousand), therefore I think it's apt for me to quote this to enable us all to conceptualise how much money billionaires have)



"I like to use the analogy of a staircase, with each step on the staircase representing $100,000 of net worth. Thatís several years of working wages saved up for tens of millions of Americans:

HALF of people in the united states are on the base or the very 1st step. Almost 200 million people who canít even get one step up in this system.

Those households at the 80th percentile, richer than 4/5 Americans, are on the 5th step. Thatís about five seconds of walking to get up there.

Those with more money than 90% of fellow Americans, millionaires who we consider our upper-middle class professional class and live more than comfortably, are on the 11th step. A few more seconds of walking up from that previous middle-class step. Most Americans wonít even come close to accumulating this much over an entire lifetime of working.

A billionaire is ten thousand steps up the staircase. Thatís enough to walk up five Empire State buildings. Thatís almost three hours of walking non-stop. You think they care about the petty squabbles of anyone on those first few steps or so? From these heights they couldnít tell the difference even if they wanted to. And yet those whoíve maybe ascended or were born on the first few dozen steps think they identify with this group as a class.

And Jeff Bezos? Heís so high up it only makes sense to describe his staircase in distance. His stairs take him up 133 miles. Thatís more than halfway to the space station. Thatís more than 24 consecutive Mt. Everestís stacked on top of each other. It would take walking, non-stop, no sleep, over two weeks to ascend that high, each single step worth more than five poverty-level families in America combined."


https://writeleft.net/?p=1050
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 4th October 2019 at 12:42 PM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:38 PM   #11
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,435
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
That would be after the fact. Changes in tax rates and policies, a higher minimum wage and tougher antitrust enforcement would prevent the problem.
No, they would have prevented the problem. At the current juncture, "preventing" the problem is no longer an option; the problem now exists and is stubbornly entrenched. So, addressing the issue now requires active countermeasures, not merely preventative ones.
__________________
"ŅWHAT KIND OF BIRD?
ŅA PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:47 PM   #12
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,689
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Wealth tax would solve this.
Evidence suggests otherwise. When they've been tried they've generally been ineffective at producing revenue or equalizing wealth.
Noted right wing schills at NPR

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/01/69926...work-in-europe
Quote:
In 1990, there were 12 countries in Europe that had a wealth tax. Today there are only three. Perret says they didn't work for a lot of reasons. Among other things, it costs a lot to enforce. It pushed rich people out of the country, and the wealth taxes didn't raise a lot of revenue.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:54 PM   #13
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,527
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Wealth tax would solve this.
Are you familiar with the term "Tax Refugee?"
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:55 PM   #14
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,628
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Evidence suggests otherwise. When they've been tried they've generally been ineffective at producing revenue or equalizing wealth.
Noted right wing schills at NPR

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/01/69926...work-in-europe
It has been true since Roman times.

A rich and powerful landlord can spend a little bit of money to produce an assay report that says his land is nearly worthless. Slaves, what slaves? No, these are tenant farmers I rent out to since I cannot develop the land to any useful purpose of my own, go ahead and feel free to ask them yourself. Brickworks, what brickworks? Oh, that's been abandoned for years, I've been meaning to write it off as a loss...
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:59 PM   #15
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,587
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Evidence suggests otherwise. When they've been tried they've generally been ineffective at producing revenue or equalizing wealth.
Noted right wing schills at NPR

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/01/69926...work-in-europe

I'm guessing that's because it's just too easy to move it somewhere else?

Which makes it a very difficult issue to address with any effect, I think.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 01:10 PM   #16
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,689
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I'm guessing that's because it's just too easy to move it somewhere else?

Which makes it a very difficult issue to address with any effect, I think.
Yes and easy to obfuscate and difficult assess, if say you have a lot of art or even more tangible property, as noted by Delphic.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 01:23 PM   #17
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,100
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Evidence suggests otherwise. When they've been tried they've generally been ineffective at producing revenue or equalizing wealth.
Noted right wing schills at NPR

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/01/69926...work-in-europe
Indeed

Think this is the most obvious one from your quote

"It pushed rich people out of the country, and the wealth taxes didn't raise a lot of revenue."


It is pretty easy for a billionaire to just walk away from a country who introduces it
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With todayís Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 01:26 PM   #18
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 8,776
If you have a product to sell such as but by no means limited to oil or whatever it is you have to offer and if enough people buy it and the money tallies up to a billion dollars or more then you have the right to earn that much money as long as the product you sell is legal and doesn't harm society in any way.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 01:30 PM   #19
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,923
I have a problem with idea that making billions of dollars is somehow a crime in and of itself. I think HOW you made a Billion matters.
I just don't think wealth is and of itself evil, which for some on the left is pretty much an article of faith.
I think no one should live in poverty, but don't want to limit someone's success either
I sort of think everybody should be guaranteed the basics, but for the luxuries you are on your own.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 02:34 PM   #20
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,306
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I have a problem with idea that making billions of dollars is somehow a crime in and of itself. I think HOW you made a Billion matters.
I just don't think wealth is and of itself evil, which for some on the left is pretty much an article of faith.
I think no one should live in poverty, but don't want to limit someone's success either
I sort of think everybody should be guaranteed the basics, but for the luxuries you are on your own.
Nobody says it's a crime. But concentration of wealth is the result of laws and social policies that are not cast in stone, and in fact have changed substantially in recent decades. The question is whether it's good for the society for one person or family to hold vast wealth and all the political power associated with it. Would Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have played more golf if their income and capital gains taxes had been higher? Should the Kochs be able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars opposing environmental protections? Should any one company like Google, Facebook or Amazon be able to dominate their market sectors? None of this is the result of some inevitable process of nature.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 02:51 PM   #21
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,036
Is a wealth tax constitutional? Keep in mind that they had to pass a constitutional amendment (16th) to get the income tax. The text of that amendment is plain:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Incomes, not wealth. The apportionment bit is important, because the constitution requires "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." So for example, if New York has, say twice the population of New Jersey, New York would pay twice as much of any tax. Obviously this is unworkable with an income tax or a wealth tax.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 02:58 PM   #22
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,986
What does a company being able to dominate its market sector have to do with anything?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 03:07 PM   #23
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,306
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Is a wealth tax constitutional? Keep in mind that they had to pass a constitutional amendment (16th) to get the income tax. The text of that amendment is plain:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Incomes, not wealth. The apportionment bit is important, because the constitution requires "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." So for example, if New York has, say twice the population of New Jersey, New York would pay twice as much of any tax. Obviously this is unworkable with an income tax or a wealth tax.
There's been extensive debate on both sides. I suspect getting it through Congress and then affirmed by the courts would be unlikely. But it's a way for Warren and Sanders to talk about the concentration of wealth in concrete ways: "Here's what we could raise for everyone's education and health care if we collected just two percent from the richest people in America." Some of the same goals could be achieved by higher income, capital gains and inheritance taxes, and maybe by a new VAT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/u...ealth-tax.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 03:08 PM   #24
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,306
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What does a company being able to dominate its market sector have to do with anything?
You don't what a monopoly is do you, or why it's generally considered not good?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 03:11 PM   #25
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,986
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
You don't what a monopoly is do you, or why it's generally considered not good?
Dominating your market sector isn't the same thing as having a monopoly.

ETA: It's also kind of beside the point you're supposedly focusing on.

Last edited by theprestige; 4th October 2019 at 03:19 PM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 04:02 PM   #26
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,822
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
There's been extensive debate on both sides. I suspect getting it through Congress and then affirmed by the courts would be unlikely. But it's a way for Warren and Sanders to talk about the concentration of wealth in concrete ways: "Here's what we could raise for everyone's education and health care if we collected just two percent from the richest people in America." Some of the same goals could be achieved by higher income, capital gains and inheritance taxes, and maybe by a new VAT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/u...ealth-tax.html

Ya, more money is always the answer, and sure, it will all come from the rich, I totally believe that .

Dream on. California has some of the highest taxes and we are first in the nation for poverty and homelessness. Just because you give more money away doesn't mean any problems will be solved. I'm living that failed dream.

We have I don't know how many gigantic companies and CEOs that call this state their home (Silicon Valley), yet we can't afford to clean up the streets, fix our roads (even with the new BS tax for it), provide clean water or provide our kids with a decent education (almost last in the nation).

People claim Cali can secede and the rest of the nation would be worse off for it. Think again. California may claim to be rich and in the black (it isn't) but the people are not.

The liberals own this state. Mayors, legislators, almost all Democrats. The rich thrive here, the many many poor do not, just like a lot of other places. There is nothing special going on here, but we pay a hell of a lot more for it.

So....no I'm not ready to give even more of my money to politicians so they can blow it all on themselves and their pals. Been there done that. It sucks.

This fantasy about ending billionaires - who is going to do that? I live in liberal California and there is no shortage of billionaires here!

Doesn't seem to be what they really want. But go ahead and blow more smoke up my ass while I'm paying $3.99 a gallon for gasoline today.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 04:11 PM   #27
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,923
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
You don't what a monopoly is do you, or why it's generally considered not good?
Is Amazon a Monopoly? Last time I looked there were plenty of other on line stores.
To me "restraint of trade" is the big issue. If a company has market dominance because it offers a better product or better service, so be it,just so long as it does not use crappy and illegal tactics to maintain that dominance.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 04:13 PM   #28
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,986
Isn't there also a surprising disparity between the amount the US spends on primary education, and the rank of US primary education globally?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 04:19 PM   #29
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,986
I mean, I'm open to the idea that we need to raise more funds for the social safety net, but it has to be a more detailed idea than, "we need money, you have money, we're taking your money".
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 04:33 PM   #30
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,258
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Most Americans are struggling to make ends meet?

I'd like to know his definitions of "most", "struggling", and "make ends meet". Probably "Americans", too.
Such an easy question, with an equally easy answer: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfri.../#5f40f3e84f10

I'd say having no financial backstop, especially in a country where sick leave isn't mandatory, constitutes "struggling to make ends meet", while 78% would meet anyone's definition of "most".
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 05:31 PM   #31
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,986
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Such an easy question, with an equally easy answer: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfri.../#5f40f3e84f10

I'd say having no financial backstop, especially in a country where sick leave isn't mandatory, constitutes "struggling to make ends meet", while 78% would meet anyone's definition of "most".
As usual, Forbes.com is unreadable for me.

Would you mind linking to whatever study Forbes is citing?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 06:26 PM   #32
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,985
As I recall, taking all that money frm all those billionaires would give a one time payment of umm $270 to each of us poor folks.

But yeah, I'd rather a wealth/property tax over the income tax. Because those rich bastards take in sooo much money but some how none of it is "taxable income".
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 06:36 PM   #33
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,100
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
As I recall, taking all that money frm all those billionaires would give a one time payment of umm $270 to each of us poor folks.

But yeah, I'd rather a wealth/property tax over the income tax. Because those rich bastards take in sooo much money but some how none of it is "taxable income".
Your problem is that all a wealth tax does is make rich people move to other places to avoid it, which means they sack thousands of people, making more poor people struggling.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With todayís Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 07:53 PM   #34
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,306
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Ya, more money is always the answer, and sure, it will all come from the rich, I totally believe that .

Dream on. California has some of the highest taxes and we are first in the nation for poverty and homelessness. Just because you give more money away doesn't mean any problems will be solved. I'm living that failed dream.
.....
If the elected legislators are abusing the people's money, that's a different issue. But as this non-Californian understands it, two big problems in California are prop 13, which means that similar properties are taxed at wildly disparate rates depending on how long the owners have lived there; and tough restrictions on new construction, which means that Google engineers earning six-figure salaries are living in parked RVs because they can't afford multi-million-dollar cottages. Another is that at least some of the wealthiest Californians -- that is, people who mostly live in California -- are able to use complex strategies to avoid high California taxes.

But all of that is really separate from the moral, political, legal and ethical question of how much wealth -- and the related power -- any one person should be able to accumulate and hold in a society that aspires to democracy and equality.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 07:57 PM   #35
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,306
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
As usual, Forbes.com is unreadable for me.

Would you mind linking to whatever study Forbes is citing?

The highlights:
Quote:
- 78 percent of U.S. workers live paycheck to paycheck to make ends meet
- Nearly one in 10 workers making $100,000+ live paycheck to paycheck
- More than 1 in 4 workers do not set aside any savings each month
- Nearly 3 in 4 workers say they are in debt today - more than half think they will always be
- More than half of minimum wage workers say they have to work more than one job to make ends meet
http://press.careerbuilder.com/2017-...Builder-Survey
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 08:07 PM   #36
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,880
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The question is whether it's good for the society for one person or family to hold vast wealth and all the political power associated with it. Would Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have played more golf if their income and capital gains taxes had been higher? Should the Kochs be able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars opposing environmental protections? Should any one company like Google, Facebook or Amazon be able to dominate their market sectors? None of this is the result of some inevitable process of nature.
One option is to remove all regulation and taxes and see what is the inevitable process of nature. If different social engineering produces different outcomes, you can end the social engineering.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 09:00 PM   #37
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,801
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Are you familiar with the term "Tax Refugee?"

"People would not abide by the law." is never a valid reason to not have any particular law.

IOW, if they were able to avoid the law by being a "tax refugee" then the law was not very strict.

That would be an issue with enforcement, not with whether or not the law was a good idea.


Durrr.... rember when we had that "don't rape" law and yet womens still got raped all the time??
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 09:02 PM   #38
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,801
Citizens that have more money can afford to pay more in taxes.

It's as simple as that.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 09:09 PM   #39
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,100
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
Citizens that have more money can afford to pay more in taxes.

It's as simple as that.
It isn't really as simple as that.

Well it is if you don't actually work it out.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With todayís Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 09:27 PM   #40
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,306
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
It isn't really as simple as that.

Well it is if you don't actually work it out.
Actually it really is. The amount of money someone needs to pay for basic needs is finite. You can debate what's a "need," but at some point, after they are living as comfortably and securely as anybody can, the rich are not spending money on any "needs." They are investing their money to make more money. They can afford to pay more of that in taxes.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.