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 7th October 2019, 09:19 AM   #81
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,537
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The problem with getting rid of inherited wealth is that people need to feel like their efforts serve their needs, provide for their wants, and uphold their values. Take away a person's right to spend their wealth providing for their descendants, and it will probably impact their motivation to earn.
"Getting rid of inherited wealth" suggests a 100% tax rate, so yes it would probably do that.

But as an argument against any inheritance tax is is equivalent to the same argument against personal income tax, consumption tax, and most other tax, IE "deadweight loss". I think (can't recall) that it is less influential on behaviour in the case of inheritance tax than on the other taxes I mentioned.
Francesca R 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 7th October 2019, 09:25 AM   #82
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,083
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
.....
Furthermore, would Amazon be worth at much if someone other than Bezos was running it? New billionaires are almost always rich because they are good at running business or good at figuring out where resources are best allocated in the economy. This doesnít actually ďcreate jobsĒ like the right wing propaganda would have you believe, but it does improve economic efficiency which means there is more/better goods & services available. More goods&services is a rising tide that lifts all boats.
.....
But would Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Sam Walton etc. have done anything different if they had had to pay higher tax rates all their lives? Would Amazon have been as successful as fast if it hadn't been able to escape state sales taxes for most of its history? Entrepreneurs certainly want to succeed within whatever framework they operate in. But the framework is a structure created by laws and policies. If Jeff Bezos had known 25 years ago that he would only end up with, say, $20 billion, or $10B, or $2B, do you think he would have said "Ah, screw it, I'll just paint houses?"
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 7th October 2019, 10:12 AM   #83
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,783
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Is this better? 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense (CNN Money, May 22, 2018)


ETA:
Just a point of fact about that statistic - it's one of those stats that's the financial equivalent of "we only use 10% of our brains," in that there was a real study that had real results, but this is a misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the actual finding. And then the media game of telephone got a hold of it, and it's very hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

The published study: [ Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017]

Here's the actual finding:
Quote:
Four in 10 adults, if faced with an unexpected expense of $400, would either not be able to cover it or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money.
That's a set of three possibilities, not all of which are about poverty.

The $400 survey question was about the prevalence of cash in savings account balances. It's not that the 40% don't have $400 to their name, just that it's not in immediately liquid form. I'm one of those people who would have answered that I couldn't come up with $CDN600 (roughly the equivalent in Canadian funds) because I prefer to be fully invested. My 6 months' spending fund is in equities rather than cash. I would "have to sell something" (probably telco stocks).


This is not to say that I don't think conditions are worsening, but that this specific statistic is not very informative.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 7th October 2019, 10:13 AM   #84
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,045
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But would Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Sam Walton etc. have done anything different if they had had to pay higher tax rates all their lives? Would Amazon have been as successful as fast if it hadn't been able to escape state sales taxes for most of its history? Entrepreneurs certainly want to succeed within whatever framework they operate in. But the framework is a structure created by laws and policies. If Jeff Bezos had known 25 years ago that he would only end up with, say, $20 billion, or $10B, or $2B, do you think he would have said "Ah, screw it, I'll just paint houses?"
Tax rate isnít the issue. The issue here is taxation based on the paper value of a publicly traded company. What would happen if you implemented a 5% tax on the market capitalization of a $100 Bn company?

Basically you are saying the people who own shares in that company need to come up with $5Bn in cash, how do they do that? They could sell some stock but if you implement the same tax on every company everyone is trying to sell, no one has any money to buy because they are all trying to come up with the cash to pay their tax. With everyone selling and no one buying the stock price plummets, as does the on paper net worth of the billionaires you are trying to tax. If they are no longer billionaires due to the stock price collapse do you still tax them? If so how much and how much money do you really end up collecting?

The other consideration is how would you do this for an equivalent privately held company? Do you just take the owners word if he says the value of the company is only $1 billion even though the market capitalization of the publicly traded equivalent is 100X that? If you donít accept their valuation, how DO you come up with a valuation?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 7th October 2019, 10:22 AM   #85
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,783
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
This paper (also editorialised in "The Economist" last week) argues that wealth tax can be superior to capital gains tax. Several economists rubbish both taxes but mostly for reasons that can be brought out to criticise almost any tax ("if you tax something you get less of it in the first place and for most things that's bad")

Capital gains tax "punishes" folks that use wealth to generate high returns and lets off others that don't. Wealth tax would do it the opposite way round in a "use it or lose it" sense
The main complication with wealth taxes that I see at the moment is the effect on people who purchased humble real estate that has exploded in value. I live in Vancouver, where we have ordinary single family dwellings purchased by low income labourers in the 1960s that are worth multimillions today because the demand for real estate grew so much faster than the supply for 50 years. My neighbour lives in the house he grew up in, inherited from his dad, it's worth $3M. His dad was a construction worker, he's a postal worker. To punitively tax this 110 year old woodframe house on a 33' x 120' lot as 'wealth' seems unfair to me.

But other than that yeah, the research shows there's possibly some merit in taxing wealth instead of income, especially where equities are involved, because they do represent power as well as just standard of living.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 7th October 2019, 10:28 AM   #86
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,783
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Tax rate isn’t the issue. The issue here is taxation based on the paper value of a publicly traded company. What would happen if you implemented a 5% tax on the market capitalization of a $100 Bn company?

Basically you are saying the people who own shares in that company need to come up with $5Bn in cash, how do they do that? They could sell some stock but if you implement the same tax on every company everyone is trying to sell, no one has any money to buy because they are all trying to come up with the cash to pay their tax. With everyone selling and no one buying the stock price plummets, as does the on paper net worth of the billionaires you are trying to tax. If they are no longer billionaires due to the stock price collapse do you still tax them? If so how much and how much money do you really end up collecting?
This is the concern I have, and the example I used above was real estate. Over time, it sounds like seniors would be desperate to find new revenue streams in order to pay down the tax applicable to their dwellings, and many will fail to do so and be forced to sell, especially as they age into cognitive decline.



Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
The other consideration is how would you do this for an equivalent privately held company? Do you just take the owners word if he says the value of the company is only $1 billion even though the market capitalization of the publicly traded equivalent is 100X that? If you don’t accept their valuation, how DO you come up with a valuation?
I think the question about mechanics is not in and of itself a barrier to implementation, there are ways to objectively evaluate business worth, not the least of which is revenue generation and profitability, which is part of every company's annual reporting. As we do for real estate today.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 7th October 2019, 10:34 AM   #87
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,866
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
The main complication with wealth taxes that I see at the moment is the effect on people who purchased humble real estate that has exploded in value. I live in Vancouver, where we have ordinary single family dwellings purchased by low income labourers in the 1960s that are worth multimillions today because the demand for real estate grew so much faster than the supply for 50 years. My neighbour lives in the house he grew up in, inherited from his dad, it's worth $3M. His dad was a construction worker, he's a postal worker. To punitively tax this 110 year old woodframe house on a 33' x 120' lot as 'wealth' seems unfair to me.

But other than that yeah, the research shows there's possibly some merit in taxing wealth instead of income, especially where equities are involved, because they do represent power as well as just standard of living.
At least in much of the US he would have to be paying property taxes on the $3M value.

Funnily enough 3M can mean either 3000 or 3000000 depending on if you are using something derived from roman numerals or scientific notation.

And as for property taxes I am not at all sure what is the best way to deal with such owners.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 7th October 2019, 10:48 AM   #88
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,783
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
At least in much of the US he would have to be paying property taxes on the $3M value.

Funnily enough 3M can mean either 3000 or 3000000 depending on if you are using something derived from roman numerals or scientific notation.
Right, in this case, M = million.



Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And as for property taxes I am not at all sure what is the best way to deal with such owners.
At the moment in Canada, a dwelling can be identified as a primary residence, and it's exempt from capital gains.

So I'm thinking it might be possible to put a higher minimum threshold on primary residences, maybe something in the $5Million range, adjusted annually for inflation, or alternatively, based on 99th percentile of local properties instead of a dollar threshold.

The downside is that all these costs, any business experiencing wealth taxation will just pass it along to consumers. So in the case of real estate, the application of a wealth tax on revenue generating rental properties will simply translate into an increase in local rents.

For manufacturing, my expectation is that the additional taxation will translate into higher product pricing, which has implications for international competitiveness.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 7th October 2019, 10:49 AM   #89
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,193
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But would Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Sam Walton etc. have done anything different if they had had to pay higher tax rates all their lives? Would Amazon have been as successful as fast if it hadn't been able to escape state sales taxes for most of its history? Entrepreneurs certainly want to succeed within whatever framework they operate in. But the framework is a structure created by laws and policies. If Jeff Bezos had known 25 years ago that he would only end up with, say, $20 billion, or $10B, or $2B, do you think he would have said "Ah, screw it, I'll just paint houses?"
At 2B it would still be worth it to do Amazon. He'd need to drop below 300 million and then maybe the painting would be a better deal. That's if he has the skills of Jasper Johns or Damian Hirst, anyway.
__________________
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 7th October 2019, 10:52 AM   #90
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,783
Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC View Post
At 2B it would still be worth it to do Amazon. He'd need to drop below 300 million and then maybe the painting would be a better deal. That's if he has the skills of Jasper Johns or Damian Hirst, anyway.
In Bezos' case, he was a hedge fund manager previously, I think he'd have considered staying there.

Another loophole just occurred to me... offshore property ownership... would that be taxable? I fully expect that if it wasn't, American earners would be exploring offshore assets.

In my case, my wife is Vincentian, we'd plan on buying revenue generating real estate in the Caribbean as we have relatives we can trust to manage them. Global funds if I wanted to invest in equities.That sort of thing.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 7th October 2019, 10:53 AM   #91
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,866
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post

At the moment in Canada, a dwelling can be identified as a primary residence, and it's exempt from capital gains.
In america also to at least a point. But this isn't capital gains but property tax where you pay the town/city a percentage of the properties value for things like schools and local road maintenance.

So kind of a wealth tax but only on real property. I am not sure a wealth tax would be the best solution, though clearly cutting top tax rates and basic conservative economic policies are not helping the situation.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 7th October 2019, 10:54 AM   #92
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,193
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
In Bezos' case, he was a hedge fund manager previously, I think he'd have considered staying there.
I was really just trying to show off my ability to google "rich painters"
__________________
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 7th October 2019, 10:56 AM   #93
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,783
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
In america also to at least a point. But this isn't capital gains but property tax where you pay the town/city a percentage of the properties value for things like schools and local road maintenance.

So kind of a wealth tax but only on real property.
Yes, what I meant was that there's already an exception in place for capital gains where 'homes' are concerned, so I think it would be easy to implement a similar exception for asset taxation.

Actually, we even have an exception for property tax in Vancouver - primary residence is taxed lower than a revenue generating rental property, and seniors 65 years and older get a further 50% reduction in their primary residence's property tax.



-----
ETA: property taxation is publicly available, so I looked up my neighbour's, he pays $6500/yr in property taxes, which is probably over 10% of his salary to stay in his childhood home. It's about 1800 square feet, built in 1913, 33' wide, no driveway, no garage.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; 7th October 2019 at 10:59 AM.
blutoski 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 7th October 2019, 11:17 AM   #94
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,866
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Yes, what I meant was that there's already an exception in place for capital gains where 'homes' are concerned, so I think it would be easy to implement a similar exception for asset taxation.

Actually, we even have an exception for property tax in Vancouver - primary residence is taxed lower than a revenue generating rental property, and seniors 65 years and older get a further 50% reduction in their primary residence's property tax.



-----
ETA: property taxation is publicly available, so I looked up my neighbour's, he pays $6500/yr in property taxes, which is probably over 10% of his salary to stay in his childhood home. It's about 1800 square feet, built in 1913, 33' wide, no driveway, no garage.
Doesn't sound so bad. I am used to property taxes like 15k in a 500k house.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 7th October 2019, 11:18 AM   #95
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,037
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.
Well, they only have one spartphone!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 7th October 2019, 11:20 AM   #96
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,866
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well, they only have one spartphone!
Why many even have refrigerators!
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 7th October 2019, 11:25 AM   #97
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,783
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Doesn't sound so bad. I am used to property taxes like 15k in a 500k house.
It's hard to compare... in Canada, property taxes don't pay for schools, for example.

Schools are paid for out of provincial taxation (which appears to do a better job of equalizing the quality of schools across communities than to fund capital and operations through municipalities).

Vancouver's property taxes pay for water, road maintenance, parks, police, and firehalls. Median here appears to be in the $3600/yr range.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 7th October 2019, 11:41 AM   #98
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,783
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.
Despite my earlier post about personal choices contributing to many stories of hardship, I do think there's strong evidence that financial conditions are worsening for Americans (and Canadians).

Specifically, what I use as my unit of measurement is hours of work required to meet basic needs and nice-to-haves. The number of hours required to pay for significant basics like housing, healthcare, and food have gone up steadily for 40 years. Each generation during this period has had to ratchet standard of living expectations downward, reversing the trend that seems to have peaked in the 1960s.

My vested interest is that I have grandchildren who will have to live in this world.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 7th October 2019, 11:45 AM   #99
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,866
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
D
Specifically, what I use as my unit of measurement is hours of work required to meet basic needs and nice-to-haves. The number of hours required to pay for significant basics like housing, healthcare, and food have gone up steadily for 40 years. Each generation during this period has had to ratchet standard of living expectations downward, reversing the trend that seems to have peaked in the 1960s.

My vested interest is that I have grandchildren who will have to live in this world.
But as long as you make sure they are in at least the top 1-5% it is all wine and roses for them for quite some time. It is only an issue if you think your kids/grand-kids might fall into the lesser classes.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 7th October 2019, 11:48 AM   #100
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,037
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What does a company being able to dominate its market sector have to do with anything?
Yeah trust and monopoly laws? Pfft!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 7th October 2019, 06:28 PM   #101
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,564
Just to make sure everyone is up on their talking points, it's not the reckless spending of young people (please destroy last month's talking points on this). They are being so haphazardly frugal, that's the problem!

There’s a theory that stingy millennials are to blame for the sluggish economy

Pay no attention to the record cash on hand of multinational conglomerates, mind you.
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 7th October 2019, 07:11 PM   #102
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,298
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Just to make sure everyone is up on their talking points, it's not the reckless spending of young people (please destroy last month's talking points on this). They are being so haphazardly frugal, that's the problem!

Thereís a theory that stingy millennials are to blame for the sluggish economy

Pay no attention to the record cash on hand of multinational conglomerates, mind you.
Supply follows demand, yes? If consumers are spending less, than this is probably a bad time to spend capital on creating new offerings. Better to wait and see what millennials actually want to spend their money on, and then invest in that market.

Too, it looks like the next few decades are going to see a lot of expensive changes. Wages will be mandated higher. New environmental and energy use regulations are going to multiply. Not to mention costs associated with adapting to climate change.

Then there's the costs associated with converting to automation, and the costs of pensioning out your workforce when replacing them with robots becomes illegal otherwise.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is probably the right time to hoard capital, as a hedge against the future.
theprestige 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 7th October 2019, 08:44 PM   #103
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,757
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Supply follows demand, yes? If consumers are spending less, than this is probably a bad time to spend capital on creating new offerings. Better to wait and see what millennials actually want to spend their money on, and then invest in that market.

Too, it looks like the next few decades are going to see a lot of expensive changes. Wages will be mandated higher. New environmental and energy use regulations are going to multiply. Not to mention costs associated with adapting to climate change.

Then there's the costs associated with converting to automation, and the costs of pensioning out your workforce when replacing them with robots becomes illegal otherwise.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is probably the right time to hoard capital, as a hedge against the future.
According to GOP economic gospel, demand follows supply.
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 8th October 2019, 01:52 AM   #104
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,750
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The more I think about it, the more I think this is probably the right time to hoard capital, as a hedge against the future.

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is the right time to get rid of capitalism.
I've got nothing against letting machines take over the work so far done by people. It's replacing income with nothing, i.e. making people unable to sustain themselves, that's wrong. And that's the whole point of capitalism: making the work process easier and faster by means of machines (or 'robots'), so you don't have to pay as many people as much as you used to do.
That people no longer have to work is fine by me: "The realm of freedom begins only where labour determined through want and external utility ends." But in capitalism, the end of labour means that you (and/or your colleagues) lose your paycheck since new machines aren't acquired by the capitalists in order to liberate you from having to work. Capitalists buy new machines to free themselves from having to pay your wages.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 8th October 2019, 02:18 AM   #105
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,884
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.
You're missing a few zeros.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...can-dream.html

Quote:
In 2018, American households boasted a collective net worth of over $98 trillion. If that wealth were divided evenly across the U.S. population, every human being in our country would have roughly $298,000 to their name ó and every family of four would be millionaires.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 8th October 2019, 02:26 AM   #106
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,363
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Just to make sure everyone is up on their talking points, it's not the reckless spending of young people (please destroy last month's talking points on this). They are being so haphazardly frugal, that's the problem!

Thereís a theory that stingy millennials are to blame for the sluggish economy

Pay no attention to the record cash on hand of multinational conglomerates, mind you.
Clearly nobody's making whatever it is that the millenials want to buy.

I'm always confused at these 'look, capitalism operating' stories.
__________________
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 8th October 2019, 02:35 AM   #107
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,903
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
This paper (also editorialised in "The Economist" last week) argues that wealth tax can be superior to capital gains tax. Several economists rubbish both taxes but mostly for reasons that can be brought out to criticise almost any tax ("if you tax something you get less of it in the first place and for most things that's bad")

Capital gains tax "punishes" folks that use wealth to generate high returns and lets off others that don't. Wealth tax would do it the opposite way round in a "use it or lose it" sense
I can see the argument, but I'd counter that we'd better make a careful distinction between wealth and assets. Elizabeth Warren's current plan is for a 2% tax on assets above $50 million. I would point out that assets are not necessarily wealth, particularly in the case of commercial real estate, which is commonly purchased with debt. Say somebody (obviously a wealthy individual) bought a $50 million property with $37.5 milllion of debt. He would have $12.5 million in equity, and after his first year, he'd be expected to cut a check to the government for his tax of $1 million. You can imagine how horrifying the NPV calcs would look.

Obvious solution: go corporate ownership instead of individual or partnership/llc/tic. When you own shares, your assets are already net of liabilities. Except that commercial real estate is worth less to corporations than it is to individual investors because of the tax treatment. So expect a huge shakeout in commercial real estate and ownership concentrated in corporate rather than individual hands.

And, by the way, there goes trillions in assets that I am sure Warren is counting on to fund her programs.
__________________
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 8th October 2019, 02:42 AM   #108
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,884
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If Bill Gates tomorrow finds himself worth.... *pulls number out of thin air* 10 billion dollars that 85.4 billion wouldn't magically be distributed to the rest of us, it would just go away.
It would not "just go away", and people don't lose money via magic.

if Bill Gates spent all his money on hookers and blow, for example, the money would end up with prostitutes and drug dealers first, and then most of it would move to whoever profited off them spending the money.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 8th October 2019, 02:58 AM   #109
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,884
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Itís not billionaires that matter itís economic mobility.
If you care about democracy, extreme inequality in and of itself is harmful.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/...democracy.html
Quote:
In truth, the most formidable obstacle to responsive government in the U.S. is ó and always has been ó the disproportionate power that economic elites wield over its political system. Influencing elections and legislative processes requires investments of time, money, and attention. Wealthy individuals and corporations can easily shoulder such expenses; ordinary voters canít. This simple reality ó that economic power is easily converted into the political variety ó is an inherent constraint on popular sovereignty in all (capitalist) democracies. But itís a constraint that can be more or less restrictive, depending on how unequally wealth is distributed, how easily large masses of ordinary people can organize politically, and how effectively outsize political spending is regulated or socially stigmatized. More concretely, policymaking tends to be more responsive to popular concerns in nations with strong labor unions, as such institutions help secure workers a larger share of economic growth, while also enabling working-class voters to collectivize the costs of political engagement.

In the contemporary United States, however, unions are on the verge of extinction; the richest 0.1 percent of the population commands as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent; and legal restrictions on political spending are effectively nonexistent. The Koch Network plans to spend $400 million electing its preferred Congress this November; corporate America is poised to spend upwards of $2 billion lobbying it next year. Given these conditions, one wouldnít expect policymaking to reflect popular preferences, no matter the social makeup of the nationís two political parties.

After all, the last time organized labor was this weak and wealth, this concentrated, it was the Gilded Age. And that era was plagued by governance so unresponsive to public needs, the average height and life expectancy of ordinary Americans declined during it,
even as their nation grew immensely wealthier.
(worth noting that life expectancy is again declining in the US.)
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 8th October 2019, 04:30 AM   #110
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,595
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The problem with getting rid of inherited wealth is that people need to feel like their efforts serve their needs, provide for their wants, and uphold their values. Take away a person's right to spend their wealth providing for their descendants, and it will probably impact their motivation to earn.
People can provide for their descendants whilst they still exist.

If they don't want to give their wealth to their descendants before they cease to exist, tough.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 8th October 2019, 04:38 AM   #111
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,595
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But would Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Sam Walton etc. have done anything different if they had had to pay higher tax rates all their lives? Would Amazon have been as successful as fast if it hadn't been able to escape state sales taxes for most of its history? Entrepreneurs certainly want to succeed within whatever framework they operate in. But the framework is a structure created by laws and policies. If Jeff Bezos had known 25 years ago that he would only end up with, say, $20 billion, or $10B, or $2B, do you think he would have said "Ah, screw it, I'll just paint houses?"
Amazon became successful by losing money, sounds counter intuitive at first but if your business doesn't need to make a profit then of course you can "undercut " the rest of the market and provide a service other competitors can't afford to offer and this will then squeeze out your competitors.

Plus of course a lot of Amazon's success came about from something that was never planned or even envisioned when it was a struggling new business.

Amazon obviously uses the tax systems it has to operate within very effectively, I would say that tax systems that allow a business model of "we will lose money until our competitors fold" probably needs some tweaks.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 8th October 2019, 04:49 AM   #112
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,595
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
This is the concern I have, and the example I used above was real estate. Over time, it sounds like seniors would be desperate to find new revenue streams in order to pay down the tax applicable to their dwellings, and many will fail to do so and be forced to sell, especially as they age into cognitive decline.





I think the question about mechanics is not in and of itself a barrier to implementation, there are ways to objectively evaluate business worth, not the least of which is revenue generation and profitability, which is part of every company's annual reporting. As we do for real estate today.
To me that sounds as if they can't afford to live in their current home and we all have to make calls on what we can afford. Why should age exempt people from this?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 8th October 2019, 04:55 AM   #113
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,298
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
According to GOP economic gospel, demand follows supply.
In that case, it's totally wrong to conserve capital. Is that what you believe?
theprestige 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 8th October 2019, 04:55 AM   #114
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,595
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Yes, what I meant was that there's already an exception in place for capital gains where 'homes' are concerned, so I think it would be easy to implement a similar exception for asset taxation.

Actually, we even have an exception for property tax in Vancouver - primary residence is taxed lower than a revenue generating rental property, and seniors 65 years and older get a further 50% reduction in their primary residence's property tax.



-----
ETA: property taxation is publicly available, so I looked up my neighbour's, he pays $6500/yr in property taxes, which is probably over 10% of his salary to stay in his childhood home. It's about 1800 square feet, built in 1913, 33' wide, no driveway, no garage.
Always confused me why the OAPs are no longer expected to pay their way like the rest of us. If they can't afford to live where they are living they should have to do what all us not OAPs would have to do I.e. live within their means.

If I lost my job at age 45 and ended up getting a job that paid substantially less than I used to get the mortgage company wouldn't consider reducing my payments because I no longer had the same income, I'd have to sell up and move to something within my new means.

Old folks should have to do the same.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 8th October 2019, 05:01 AM   #115
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,901
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Specifically, what I use as my unit of measurement is hours of work required to meet basic needs and nice-to-haves. The number of hours required to pay for significant basics like housing, healthcare, and food have gone up steadily for 40 years. Each generation during this period has had to ratchet standard of living expectations downward, reversing the trend that seems to have peaked in the 1960s.

My vested interest is that I have grandchildren who will have to live in this world.
Do you have some figures for that? I think that's a pretty good metric actually, though it is important to make sure we're comparing like-for-like (hours worked to pay for healthcare when you're 60 should be more than when you're 20, for instance, and given technological progress there are some things that you might have simply been left with no choice with that now have an option of an expensive treatment. Building codes have changes and so while you may need to pay more for you house today, you're also getting a different house than you used to, etc.)
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 8th October 2019, 05:01 AM   #116
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,757
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
In that case, it's totally wrong to conserve capital. Is that what you believe?
no.
I believe that the state has an obligation to make sure supply and demand stay in a balance. And that externalities are priced in when buying and selling.
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 8th October 2019, 05:14 AM   #117
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,298
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
no.

I believe that the state has an obligation to make sure supply and demand stay in a balance. And that externalities are priced in when buying and selling.
Then why even bring it up in reply to me? Do you think it's what I believe?
theprestige 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 8th October 2019, 05:47 AM   #118
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,432
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
It would not "just go away", and people don't lose money via magic.

if Bill Gates spent all his money on hookers and blow, for example, the money would end up with prostitutes and drug dealers first, and then most of it would move to whoever profited off them spending the money.
That's my point.

If (g)you have "X" amount of money and Bill Gates has "X times some insane multiple" amount of money and you want some of Bill Gate's money you have to provide a product or service to Bill Gates, you don't just deserve it by fiat because it's unfair that he has so much more than you.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 8th October 2019, 05:52 AM   #119
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,363
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's my point.

If (g)you have "X" amount of money and Bill Gates has "X times some insane multiple" amount of money and you want some of Bill Gate's money you have to provide a product or service to Bill Gates, you don't just deserve it by fiat because it's unfair that he has so much more than you.


Given the distribution in the first place is a matter of policy, not a matter of the natural order of things, I don't find the above a convincing argument.
__________________
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 8th October 2019, 06:57 AM   #120
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,193
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
It would not "just go away", and people don't lose money via magic.

if Bill Gates spent all his money on hookers and blow, for example, the money would end up with prostitutes and drug dealers first, and then most of it would move to whoever profited off them spending the money.
Much of their wealth is not cash. Wealth and cash are not the same thing. If the price of Amazon's stock declines, that decreases what Bezos is "worth", but no one else gains that wealth. His wealth is calculated by how many shares he has vs. how much people are willing to pay for each share on any given day.
__________________
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
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 05:36 AM.
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.