5 ms·

Am I supposed to take the article seriously? A rich guy suggesting that the first thing to do to solve the 1% having 50% of our wealth is "Government can provid

by MrTonyD 11y ago

Am I supposed to take the article seriously? A rich guy suggesting that the first thing to do to solve the 1% having 50% of our wealth is "Government can provide tax incentives to business". It made me think of the quote from John Kenneth Galbraith."It is a strange idea that the rich work better if they constantly get richer, while the poor just work better if they get poorer". We need to stop incentivizing the rich - they have been incentivized for too long already.

gnaritas 11y ago
Money is the incentive for being rich, they don't need any more incentives than that.
gremlinsinc 11y ago
Amen brother- -the only way to solve this is a Guaranteed Basic Income across the board... With maybe a 50-60% tax on the rich, we don't need to go all the way up to 80%. They'll get it back probably in loopholes, and business breaks anyways.
- spacehome 11y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what you think will happen if the tax rate is 50-60%. My tax rate in California is already over 50%, and I just see my dollars funding the murder of lots of brown people.
  - cpursley 11y ago
    Agreed. "Higher taxes" is a lazy excuse for just fixing how the money is being utilized in the first place. I'd agree to higher taxes, but only after political jurisdictions have proved they are good stewards of my money.
- TheHydroImpulse 11y ago
  As a libertarian, basic income seemed quite against everything initially. However, if basic income were to completely replace the current entitlement system and all it's defects, I would absolutely support it. It would cost considerably less and thus higher taxation would be less of a concern (as a way to stifle more money from the rich to the poor).
  - ScottBurson 11y ago
    I like the basic income idea, but from what I've read it would cost considerably more than our current entitlement system, if it provided anything like the same level of benefits. The big reason, as I understand, is the number of young, low-income men who currently receive no support at all, but would under a basic income system. (Many low-income young women, by contrast, are already eligible for support, as they have children.) Do you still like the idea if it's more expensive rather than less?
    - TheHydroImpulse 11y ago
      As with anything, details matter. There are no single definition of what basic income would entail. For example, would it truly be unconditional, regardless of income? I doubt those who make $200,000/year want a basic income cheque. I think the difference would be in the efficiency and simplicity of such a system. Currently, the U.S. spends over a trillion dollars on state and federal welfare programs (spread across 126+ programs). However, the government spends it quite poorly and in many indirect ways. Giving them a cheque would certainly be better. You're right in that it could actually be more expensive. I'm not sure what my stand on the subject would be in that case. Even with my libertarian beliefs, (and there are good arguments that basic income is perfectly compatible with libertarianism) I have to keep in mind of the realities related to the surging amount of poverty and that it's unsustainable.
  - bryanlarsen 11y ago
    The libertarian icon Milton Friedman was one the first to suggest a basic income scheme, although he called it a negative income tax.
- ende 11y ago
  The idea behind a basic income is that it is funded through a land value tax, not income tax. UBI is not an income redistribution scheme. It is a method for paying out to society the 'rent' charged to land owners for the privilege of owning land at the expense of the commons.
  - metasean 11y ago
    No, the idea behind a basic income is that it "is a form of social security system in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income). One possible way to fund it is through a land value tax. Another possible way to fund it is through income tax.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      A real simple way is to print money. Really! That devalues the currency, but remember the 1% will be hit the hardest by that.
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        The 1% are the most capable of finding stores of value that are not tied to the value of the dollar.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Maybe under some proposals. But its definitely not the only way.
- cpursley 11y ago
  > 50-60% tax on the rich What does that mean? Income, capital gains? Also, what prevents them from moving out of the jurisdiction? Instead, wealthy people should be encouraged to immigrate to the jurisdiction (brining their skills and capital with them). What about getting rid of the loopholes, business breaks, income tax and move to a (very) progressive consumption tax? Then drop much of the current inefficient and convoluted entitlement programs and replace with basic income.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    >Also, what prevents them from moving out of the jurisdiction? Exit tax, having to give up citizenship. > (brining their skills and capital with them). What skills does the inheritance class have exactly? Why do we want to incentivize the hoarding of wealth? What creates more jobs: 100k investment in your company 10k new customers for your company >(very) progressive consumption tax? So we want to provide disincentives to consume? We want to incentivize saving money over spending money? Seems like a negative for the economy - people will consume less, or they will consume elsewhere. What will likely happen is, a wealthy person can avoid consumption tax by purchasing something lavish elsewhere, say purchasing a yacht in spain - then having it delivered to their US home. How about buying a BMW in germany, having it shipped to the US. This is something a poor person cannot do, but a rich person can. Especially on the types of goods we would most want to tax based on consumption (luxury goods) So now you are hurting the local economy by depressing local consumption, hurting the poor the most by adding taxes to consumption, meanwhile the rich can easily afford to avoid taxes and have things shipped from overseas.
    - cpursley 11y ago
      > Exit tax, having to give up citizenship. This is borderline fascism. A modern day Berlin Wall. Besides, the US already charges an exit tax for those who relinquish their citizenship (which is a growing trend - and it's not rich people doing it). > What skills does the inheritance class have exactly? I agree this is a problem, and a growing one. But I think you over estimate the % of wealth by inheritance vs. earned. Either way, I'd rather have these folks living, spending and investing that money in my community. > We want to incentivize saving money over spending money? Yes, people would consume less and save more. This is a good thing as thrift vs. debt would be encouraged. Debt payments transfer money the banking class and contribute to the up/down economic cycles. > What will likely happen is, a wealthy person can avoid consumption tax by purchasing something lavish elsewhere Not likely except perhaps on small portable items. Anyways, you can't just purchase a vehicle overseas and register it in the US due to differences in vehicle safety. And import tariffs can be modified to mitigate. > ...hurting the poor the most by adding taxes to consumption... This is why it must be very progressive. Basic necessities should be either tax free or close to it. And used goods sold person-to-person (non retail) should not be taxed at all. In fact, this would be better for low income folks. Instead of taxes withheld from each paycheck, only to be returned at the end of the tax season but with no interest payed, they'd get all of their paycheck. Overall, this encourages thrift and introduces more control over how much tax one pays. It also gives conscientious objectors a legal way to reduce their tax. That's pretty powerful if you're say against the war in Iraq or against planned parenthood. Oh, and illegal immigrants and those participating in black market activities are instantly brought into the taxation system as there is no longer such a thing as income tax avoidance. There's billions on the table here.
- tired_man 11y ago
  LOLOL Utopian ideas such as that are predestined to failure because human nature doesn't work the way you think it does. You can raise taxes as much as you want. The wealthy don't care. Why should they? They can just leave. Look at the UK. They tax the bejesus out of people. Now count how many wealthy UK entertainers (selected for having acquired new wealth, as opposed to old family money that's more or less tied to the land) emigrate after they score. So who's going to fund your basic stipend after you tax away the wealthy and the corporate taxpayer?
  - unprepare 11y ago
    >(selected for having acquired new wealth, as opposed to old family money that's more or less tied to the land) Those are exactly the people we want to tax higher. the nouveau riche generally actually do something to earn money, the trust-fund/inheritance class produces very little benefit but captures vast amounts of wealth. Also, London has ever increasing real estate costs specifically because of all of the ultra rich foreign investors buying property in London. That seems to run counter to your claim that rich people will flee anywhere with high taxes. Also to leave the country, you would have to pay an exit tax. You will also have to relinquish your US citizenship. Those are two costs that i would bet the vast majority of the wealthy would not be willing to pay, no matter what the current tax climate is.
    - tired_man 11y ago
      Exit tax? LOL. Good luck collecting. The operative part of that term is EXIT. Citizenship that guts your wealth is not worth having. Any number of countries that don't have such avaricious tax laws would be happy to have a new, monied resident to spend money there. Absentee Landowners. I'll bet the Irish are laughing up their sleeves at England being reduced to foreign ownership.
ikeboy 11y ago
Tax incentives to raise wages for employees.
- MrTonyD 11y ago
  And by that logic we should be giving WalMart and McDonalds tax breaks for their recent wage increases. The rich don't need more money. They need to be stopped from destroying our society.

by MrTonyD 11y ago

gnaritas 11y ago

Money is the incentive for being rich, they don't need any more incentives than that.

gremlinsinc 11y ago

Amen brother- -the only way to solve this is a Guaranteed Basic Income across the board... With maybe a 50-60% tax on the rich, we don't need to go all the way up to 80%. They'll get it back probably in loopholes, and business breaks anyways.

spacehome 11y ago
I'm not sure exactly what you think will happen if the tax rate is 50-60%. My tax rate in California is already over 50%, and I just see my dollars funding the murder of lots of brown people.
- cpursley 11y ago
  Agreed. "Higher taxes" is a lazy excuse for just fixing how the money is being utilized in the first place. I'd agree to higher taxes, but only after political jurisdictions have proved they are good stewards of my money.
TheHydroImpulse 11y ago
As a libertarian, basic income seemed quite against everything initially. However, if basic income were to completely replace the current entitlement system and all it's defects, I would absolutely support it. It would cost considerably less and thus higher taxation would be less of a concern (as a way to stifle more money from the rich to the poor).
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  I like the basic income idea, but from what I've read it would cost considerably more than our current entitlement system, if it provided anything like the same level of benefits. The big reason, as I understand, is the number of young, low-income men who currently receive no support at all, but would under a basic income system. (Many low-income young women, by contrast, are already eligible for support, as they have children.) Do you still like the idea if it's more expensive rather than less?
  - TheHydroImpulse 11y ago
    As with anything, details matter. There are no single definition of what basic income would entail. For example, would it truly be unconditional, regardless of income? I doubt those who make $200,000/year want a basic income cheque. I think the difference would be in the efficiency and simplicity of such a system. Currently, the U.S. spends over a trillion dollars on state and federal welfare programs (spread across 126+ programs). However, the government spends it quite poorly and in many indirect ways. Giving them a cheque would certainly be better. You're right in that it could actually be more expensive. I'm not sure what my stand on the subject would be in that case. Even with my libertarian beliefs, (and there are good arguments that basic income is perfectly compatible with libertarianism) I have to keep in mind of the realities related to the surging amount of poverty and that it's unsustainable.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  The libertarian icon Milton Friedman was one the first to suggest a basic income scheme, although he called it a negative income tax.
ende 11y ago
The idea behind a basic income is that it is funded through a land value tax, not income tax. UBI is not an income redistribution scheme. It is a method for paying out to society the 'rent' charged to land owners for the privilege of owning land at the expense of the commons.
- metasean 11y ago
  No, the idea behind a basic income is that it "is a form of social security system in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income). One possible way to fund it is through a land value tax. Another possible way to fund it is through income tax.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    A real simple way is to print money. Really! That devalues the currency, but remember the 1% will be hit the hardest by that.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      The 1% are the most capable of finding stores of value that are not tied to the value of the dollar.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Maybe under some proposals. But its definitely not the only way.
cpursley 11y ago
> 50-60% tax on the rich What does that mean? Income, capital gains? Also, what prevents them from moving out of the jurisdiction? Instead, wealthy people should be encouraged to immigrate to the jurisdiction (brining their skills and capital with them). What about getting rid of the loopholes, business breaks, income tax and move to a (very) progressive consumption tax? Then drop much of the current inefficient and convoluted entitlement programs and replace with basic income.
- unprepare 11y ago
  >Also, what prevents them from moving out of the jurisdiction? Exit tax, having to give up citizenship. > (brining their skills and capital with them). What skills does the inheritance class have exactly? Why do we want to incentivize the hoarding of wealth? What creates more jobs: 100k investment in your company 10k new customers for your company >(very) progressive consumption tax? So we want to provide disincentives to consume? We want to incentivize saving money over spending money? Seems like a negative for the economy - people will consume less, or they will consume elsewhere. What will likely happen is, a wealthy person can avoid consumption tax by purchasing something lavish elsewhere, say purchasing a yacht in spain - then having it delivered to their US home. How about buying a BMW in germany, having it shipped to the US. This is something a poor person cannot do, but a rich person can. Especially on the types of goods we would most want to tax based on consumption (luxury goods) So now you are hurting the local economy by depressing local consumption, hurting the poor the most by adding taxes to consumption, meanwhile the rich can easily afford to avoid taxes and have things shipped from overseas.
  - cpursley 11y ago
    > Exit tax, having to give up citizenship. This is borderline fascism. A modern day Berlin Wall. Besides, the US already charges an exit tax for those who relinquish their citizenship (which is a growing trend - and it's not rich people doing it). > What skills does the inheritance class have exactly? I agree this is a problem, and a growing one. But I think you over estimate the % of wealth by inheritance vs. earned. Either way, I'd rather have these folks living, spending and investing that money in my community. > We want to incentivize saving money over spending money? Yes, people would consume less and save more. This is a good thing as thrift vs. debt would be encouraged. Debt payments transfer money the banking class and contribute to the up/down economic cycles. > What will likely happen is, a wealthy person can avoid consumption tax by purchasing something lavish elsewhere Not likely except perhaps on small portable items. Anyways, you can't just purchase a vehicle overseas and register it in the US due to differences in vehicle safety. And import tariffs can be modified to mitigate. > ...hurting the poor the most by adding taxes to consumption... This is why it must be very progressive. Basic necessities should be either tax free or close to it. And used goods sold person-to-person (non retail) should not be taxed at all. In fact, this would be better for low income folks. Instead of taxes withheld from each paycheck, only to be returned at the end of the tax season but with no interest payed, they'd get all of their paycheck. Overall, this encourages thrift and introduces more control over how much tax one pays. It also gives conscientious objectors a legal way to reduce their tax. That's pretty powerful if you're say against the war in Iraq or against planned parenthood. Oh, and illegal immigrants and those participating in black market activities are instantly brought into the taxation system as there is no longer such a thing as income tax avoidance. There's billions on the table here.
tired_man 11y ago
LOLOL Utopian ideas such as that are predestined to failure because human nature doesn't work the way you think it does. You can raise taxes as much as you want. The wealthy don't care. Why should they? They can just leave. Look at the UK. They tax the bejesus out of people. Now count how many wealthy UK entertainers (selected for having acquired new wealth, as opposed to old family money that's more or less tied to the land) emigrate after they score. So who's going to fund your basic stipend after you tax away the wealthy and the corporate taxpayer?
- unprepare 11y ago
  >(selected for having acquired new wealth, as opposed to old family money that's more or less tied to the land) Those are exactly the people we want to tax higher. the nouveau riche generally actually do something to earn money, the trust-fund/inheritance class produces very little benefit but captures vast amounts of wealth. Also, London has ever increasing real estate costs specifically because of all of the ultra rich foreign investors buying property in London. That seems to run counter to your claim that rich people will flee anywhere with high taxes. Also to leave the country, you would have to pay an exit tax. You will also have to relinquish your US citizenship. Those are two costs that i would bet the vast majority of the wealthy would not be willing to pay, no matter what the current tax climate is.
  - tired_man 11y ago
    Exit tax? LOL. Good luck collecting. The operative part of that term is EXIT. Citizenship that guts your wealth is not worth having. Any number of countries that don't have such avaricious tax laws would be happy to have a new, monied resident to spend money there. Absentee Landowners. I'll bet the Irish are laughing up their sleeves at England being reduced to foreign ownership.

ikeboy 11y ago

Tax incentives to raise wages for employees.

MrTonyD 11y ago
And by that logic we should be giving WalMart and McDonalds tax breaks for their recent wage increases. The rich don't need more money. They need to be stopped from destroying our society.