Taxing Extreme Wealth to Fight Extreme Poverty

[Delta1212]

 

Yes, a progressive increase that tops out at 50%. I don't think the government can be more than a 50% partner for it's contribution to the success of wealthy earners.

Without the present order being sustained, pretty much any wealth that you can't hold in your hands or defend in person effectively goes *poof*.

 

If you want to see how much government contributes to the massive accumulation of wealth, look at how well people accumulate wealth in countries with failed states.

 

Education for yourself and your workforce, infrastructure and physical defense of your person and property are huge contributors to the ability to grow and accumulate wealth, often on a level that most people who have lived their entire lives in stable countries take for granted.

[DrmDoc]

 

I don't think tying the tax to how much of a "partner" the government has been to you is a sound approach. In fact, it's exactly how the wealthy have managed to convince us to lower such taxes, because they don't feel any obligations to the government, and actively call for its reduction. This is more of a societal obligation, or should be. I say let the wealthy object to helping their own society, rather than hiding behind an objection to the government.

 

Is allowing extreme wealth only after extreme poverty has been eliminated such an abhorrent concept?

 

I can't say that I agree with not considering the government a partner. A true partner is indeed entitled to a share of the wealth a company generates. Considering the government as a true partner entitles it to a share of the profits without consideration of its personal expenses (size of government) or consideration of what it does with its share. As I see it, the problem with a view of government as being too big and wasteful is that those who hold that view perceive the government as a dependent rather than a partner. As a dependent, government services are perceived as valueless and contributes nothing to income and growth of profits, which simply isn't true. The government actually does provide services through infrastructure and law enforcement that promote a stable environment for building wealth. Appealing to the wealthy's sense of social responsibility would not be as productive because the wealthy perceives such obligations as just another dependent that doesn't contribute to income or wealth building. In cases of social obligation, the government is a more credible conduit for those services via funds provided through reasonable taxation on the wealthy.

[MigL]

Not just failed states either.

How has V Putin become the richest man in the world ( estimated at up to 200 Bill ) ?

 

And if you're going to consider the Government a partner, should it not also be liable for 50% of your losses ?

Edited March 16, 2017 by MigL

[Phi for All]

 

I can't say that I agree with not considering the government a partner. A true partner is indeed entitled to a share of the wealth a company generates. Considering the government as a true partner entitles it to a share of the profits without consideration of its personal expenses (size of government) or consideration of what it does with its share. As I see it, the problem with a view of government as being too big and wasteful is that those who hold that view perceive the government as a dependent rather than a partner. As a dependent, government services are perceived as valueless and contributes nothing to income and growth of profits, which simply isn't true. The government actually does provide services through infrastructure and law enforcement that promote a stable environment for building wealth. Appealing to the wealthy's sense of social responsibility would not be as productive because the wealthy perceives such obligations as just another dependent that doesn't contribute to income or wealth building. In cases of social obligation, the government is a more credible conduit for those services via funds provided through reasonable taxation on the wealthy.

 

In terms of partnering with the government on issues like healthcare and education, and using that smart and healthy investment to further the goals of the economy in general, I see no harm in viewing the government as a partner. I object to the current popular wealthy viewpoint that the government isn't holding up its end of the partnership, and must be removed (difficult to trust their judgement when it comes to regulatory constraints).

 

I would like to challenge the perception that social programs are some kind of charitable handout. If we viewed them more as our basic investment in our citizenry, maybe we could have some stability, some overall prosperity to change perspectives all the way round.

[DrmDoc]

Not just failed states either.

How has V Putin become the richest man in the world ( estimated at up to 200 Bill ) ?

 

And if you're going to consider the Government a partner, should it not also be liable for 50% of your losses ?

 

It's government that provides and sustains an environment where an investor may succeed or fail. I don't think that government should be held liable for losses because those losses are reciprocated through government's role as the provider of general services to a stable and relatively secure business environment and nation.

 

In terms of partnering with the government on issues like healthcare and education, and using that smart and healthy investment to further the goals of the economy in general, I see no harm in viewing the government as a partner. I object to the current popular wealthy viewpoint that the government isn't holding up its end of the partnership, and must be removed (difficult to trust their judgement when it comes to regulatory constraints).

 

I would like to challenge the perception that social programs are some kind of charitable handout. If we viewed them more as our basic investment in our citizenry, maybe we could have some stability, some overall prosperity to change perspectives all the way round.

 

I agree with this basic investment view of such contribution but it's a hard sell to a class of individuals who generally view greed as good and who have little concern for interests beyond their own.

Edited March 16, 2017 by DrmDoc

[iNow]

The mistake is in them forgetting that taking care of their fellow citizens... of investing in roads, and schools, and fire departments, and police forces, and healthcare, and secure networks, and ad infinitum ...very much IS in their own self-interest and very much DOES increase their profit margins, output, and availability of free markets with willing wealth-adjacent customers.

 

Poverty is bad for everyone, and paradoxically the Gordon Gekkos of the world could be even wealthier if they would simply partner with us to help those most in need. It would increase the lowest common denominator. A rising tide raises all ships, including yachts.

[John Cuthber]

That's very large simplification.

If US investor is investing his/her money in Mexico, creates jobs in Mexico, these people remain in Mexico, and don't flood USA as emigrants.

So, by his/her action, even unintentionally, he/she is doing something good for USA. Decreasing rate of emigration..

 

How to have flood of Mexicans on the border to US, and have serious emigration problem.. ? Make a law disallowing US citizens investing in Mexico..

 

How to solve emigration from Mexico problem? Invest, and hire them in newly created companies in Mexico..

You seem to have swallowed the Republican Kool Aid that tells you immigrants are a problem.

[Phi for All]

You seem to have swallowed the Republican Kool Aid that tells you immigrants are a problem.

 

Do you think this emotional perspective on an issue that requires rational support is a Republican/conservative stance, or is it part of the wealthy fortress mentality we're seeing, where defending their assets is far more important than any People, or is it something else?

[Ten oz]

 

Do you think this emotional perspective on an issue that requires rational support is a Republican/conservative stance, or is it part of the wealthy fortress mentality we're seeing, where defending their assets is far more important than any People, or is it something else?

Many Conservatives seem to have huge egos. Many assume they will be wealthy one day. So by supporting loophole for the rich now they are somehow priming the pump for when they finally make their first 10 million.

[DrmDoc]

The mistake is in them forgetting that taking care of their fellow citizens... of investing in roads, and schools, and fire departments, and police forces, and healthcare, and secure networks, and ad infinitum ...very much IS in their own self-interest and very much DOES increase their profit margins, output, and availability of free markets with willing wealth-adjacent customers.

 

Poverty is bad for everyone, and paradoxically the Gordon Gekkos of the world could be even wealthier if they would simply partner with us to help those most in need. It would increase the lowest common denominator. A rising tide raises all ships, including yachts.

 

Indeed, the key is getting the wealthy to this understanding that paying taxes is, in parts, an investment in government's social efforts that support and promote a stable economy for their self-interests and welfare as well.

[Phi for All]

Poverty is bad for everyone, and paradoxically the Gordon Gekkos of the world could be even wealthier if they would simply partner with us to help those most in need. It would increase the lowest common denominator. A rising tide raises all ships, including yachts.

 

Personally, I think this is probably the most effective way to present the concept. It's one of the few that doesn't immediately cause the "class warfare" defenses to be thrown up. "You'll be richer if more people can afford to buy your goods" seems pretty ironclad.

[dimreepr]

 

Personally, I think this is probably the most effective way to present the concept. It's one of the few that doesn't immediately cause the "class warfare" defenses to be thrown up. "You'll be richer if more people can afford to buy your goods" seems pretty ironclad.

 

Hopefully they'll learn that lesson before they find out that paper isn't an ingredient in bread.

[swansont]

I don't think tying the tax to how much of a "partner" the government has been to you is a sound approach. In fact, it's exactly how the wealthy have managed to convince us to lower such taxes, because they don't feel any obligations to the government, and actively call for its reduction. This is more of a societal obligation, or should be. I say let the wealthy object to helping their own society, rather than hiding behind an objection to the government.

Part of that is because they are trying to sell the concept (as they currently are with insurance coverage) that you should only pay for what you personally are using directly. But that's not how it works. One gets peripheral benefits from other people using government services.

 

Take education, for example. Businesses benefit from having educated workers available in the workforce; instead of having to train their workers themselves from the ground up and training is really a polishing on top of years of education they didn't pay (very much) for.

 

They might not use a bridge or highway, but what if one of their suppliers does? Without proper infrastructure they wouldn't have access to components, or even to the same quality of worker — without a well-place bridge, they might lose out on many qualified employees who couldn't commute to work, which could raise wage pressure for less-qualified employees.

[Sensei]

You seem to have swallowed the Republican Kool Aid that tells you immigrants are a problem.

Absolutely not.

 

But half of US citizens truly believe in it, otherwise they wouldn't vote on DT,

so I am just suggesting them IMHO better solution instead of wall..

[iNow]

Absolutely not. But half of US citizens truly believe in it, otherwise they wouldn't vote on DT, so I am just suggesting them IMHO better solution instead of wall..

Point of order: Only 27% of eligible US citizens voted for Trump, roughly a fourth... not half, and even then only 9% chose him during the primaries. 43% of the eligible population didn't vote at all.

 

No matter how you slice this, one cannot in good conscience suggest half of US citizens voted Trump or that so many believe immigrants are a central problem.

[John Cuthber]

Absolutely not.

 

But half of US citizens truly believe in it, otherwise they wouldn't vote on DT,

so I am just suggesting them IMHO better solution instead of wall..

It isn't a better "solution" because immigration doesn't need "solving".

Among the problems is dishonesty.

Telling people that a wall is an expensive solution and that there is a better solution is a lie.

It looks very much like you have fallen into the trap of believing the lie.

 

Do you think this emotional perspective on an issue that requires rational support is a Republican/conservative stance, or is it part of the wealthy fortress mentality we're seeing, where defending their assets is far more important than any People, or is it something else?

I can't tell the difference between "Republican/conservative stance" and " wealthy fortress mentality ".

 

However, I don't see the Labour Party or the Democrats proposing a wall.

[DrmDoc]

It isn't a better "solution" because immigration doesn't need "solving".

Among the problems is dishonesty.

Telling people that a wall is an expensive solution and that there is a better solution is a lie.

It looks very much like you have fallen into the trap of believing the lie.

 

As I understand Sensei, the millions of people who voted for Trump endorsed his ideology whether or not that was their intent. Although you, Sensei, and I may not view immigration as quite the problem Trump portrays, he obviously perceives it as an issue that requires urgent solving. Despite this invalid perception, I believe as Sensei that there are indeed better and less costly solutions than building a stupid wall. No true American wants to deny entry to people seeking the success our ancestors sought and enjoyed after their arrival--to the chagrin of Native Americans--to these shores, but there are solutions addressing foreign desires to immigrate here that doesn't cost over a trillion dollars, which some have estimated as the cost of Trump's idiotic edits and efforts to secure our borders.

Edited March 19, 2017 by DrmDoc

[iNow]

I struggle with the 90% number, whether marginal or not. Feels too high, though I admit I'm unsure what rate wouldn't come across as unfair.

[John Cuthber]

... No true American wants to deny entry to people seeking the success our ancestors sought...

You just tried to tell me that about half the US population (based on the fact that they voted for a man whose central pledge was to deny exactly that) are not true Americans.

Do you see why I struggle with that assertion?

[Delta1212]

You just tried to tell me that about half the US population (based on the fact that they voted for a man whose central pledge was to deny exactly that) are not true Americans.

Do you see why I struggle with that assertion?

No true Scotsman would struggle with that assertion.

[DrmDoc]

You just tried to tell me that about half the US population (based on the fact that they voted for a man whose central pledge was to deny exactly that) are not true Americans.

Do you see why I struggle with that assertion?

 

Perhaps I should have said that no American who truly believes in the spirit upon which this nation was found, would deny hopeful immigrants the opportunities and successes our ancestors enjoyed.

[Phi for All]

I struggle with the 90% number, whether marginal or not. Feels too high, though I admit I'm unsure what rate wouldn't come across as unfair.

 

I understand, and I wonder also if that too-high percentage might be used on earnings that also might be considered too high? Perhaps only earnings above $50M are taxed at 90%, with multiple lesser rates to encourage investment. That's probably less than 200 people, but might be worth a few hundred $M.

 

Median wages for the 99% haven't yet made it into the 21st century, I heard on the radio the other day. Still stuck at 1999, while the number of gazillionaires has steadily been rising since that time. If the middle and lower class earn less so tax revenue declines, the money to keep things running HAS to come from the 1%, and not in the form of a loan or a handout.

[John Cuthber]

 

Perhaps I should have said that no American who truly believes in the spirit upon which this nation was found, would deny hopeful immigrants the opportunities and successes our ancestors enjoyed.

Well, what happened then?

My guess is that Trump (and others) realised that the only "natural" Republican voters are those who are rich enough to afford their own schools, roads healthcare etc. The rest of the population need those things to be funded, at least in part, for them.

And, of course, that means the majority shouldn't ever vote for the Republicans- they should be essentially unelectable.

But they figured that, f they could blame others for the relative poverty of the majority, they could circumvent this issue and get elected anyway.

So, they blame immigrants (and others) for the problems and claim they will solve them.

Then they get into power and use it to ensure that their viewpoint is the only on heard via the media and scare people into waiving their rights in exchange from "protection" from, for example, the Islamic faith.

In reality they enact policies that will ensure that members of that faith do indeed point out that the US is evil and the republicans portray this as evidence they were right.

 

It's clever- while they get away with it.

[Phi for All]

It's clever- while they get away with it.

 

The butchers have had their fingers on the scale since Nixon.

[DrmDoc]

Well, what happened then?

My guess is that Trump (and others) realised that the only "natural" Republican voters are those who are rich enough to afford their own schools, roads healthcare etc. The rest of the population need those things to be funded, at least in part, for them.

And, of course, that means the majority shouldn't ever vote for the Republicans- they should be essentially unelectable.

But they figured that, f they could blame others for the relative poverty of the majority, they could circumvent this issue and get elected anyway.

So, they blame immigrants (and others) for the problems and claim they will solve them.

Then they get into power and use it to ensure that their viewpoint is the only on heard via the media and scare people into waiving their rights in exchange from "protection" from, for example, the Islamic faith.

In reality they enact policies that will ensure that members of that faith do indeed point out that the US is evil and the republicans portray this as evidence they were right.

 

It's clever- while they get away with it.

 

I don't think Mr. Trump is capable of any independent realization because I don't believe he's that thoughtful of his ideology. I think his realization is simple, he considers himself one of the privileged few and he will do anything to protect that privilege from the poor and less privileged regardless of their suffering, race or nationality. The base of the Donald's Republican party are members of this less privileged group who are convinced that they are equally as privilege as their master because he has either allowed them to serve in his house or have given them overseer status over those of us who continue to toil in the fields. Essentially, middle-America supports Donald Trump because he says the things they believe and have convinced them that he is one of them despite his wealth.

Edited March 20, 2017 by DrmDoc