6 ms·

I mean, tax the hell out of wealth. The math has never been the problem; it's always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die.

by drb91 9y ago

stcredzero 9y ago
The math has never been the problem; it's always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die. The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts of the US: http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a7635/german-village-with-88-cent-rent/ http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a7635/german-vill...
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts of the US: By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense. Many other cultures have a gift economy, where the powerful voluntarily redistribute their wealth in exchange for status. Culture is very powerful, often overpowering pure economics. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have already pledged huge fractions of their wealth towards the common good. On the other hand, the historical record on politically forcing the wealthy to hand over their wealth also supports the notion of voluntarism. It's the society and culture which are the overarching influences. If we changed the culture such that trusts supporting intentional communities were the way the wealthy could have a meaningful impact and legacy, then we could conceivably house over half of the US in virtually free housing. Arguably, living, thriving creative communities would be far more meaningful than plaques in a museum, park benches, and buildings on a college campus. (Colleges are over-funded and in a bubble as it is.)
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Yeah but there's no solution in your post. Culture can be powerful but we don't exist in the culture you want and I don't see a good way to get there. Hand waving about voluntarism and a culture shift isn't going to fix anything. Tax the shit out of the rich and make them pay for it.
      - stcredzero 9y ago
        Culture can be powerful but we don't exist in the culture you want and I don't see a good way to get there. We used to exist in a culture where women had no options outside of the home and black people were slaves. Hand waving about voluntarism and a culture shift isn't going to fix anything. Tax the shit out of the rich and make them pay for it. In order to tax the rich heavily, you still need a culture shift here in the US. Wherever such taxation works, there is already a thread of communal culture. In order to achieve the same in the US, you need a cultural shift, and not setting up to do that work and simply saying "tax the shit out of the rich" is the hand waving. You're using a slogan that exploits resentment, not setting up for real change.
    - wj 9y ago
      What cultures are those? Honest question.
      - stcredzero 9y ago
        Look up the Wikipedia article for Gift Culture.
        wj 9y ago
        The examples given are for societies that are both incredibly smaller than the U.S as well as not yet reaching industrialization. I'm not sure they are applicable comparisons.
- bduerst 9y ago
  If just the rent was covered for everyone ~$12k/yr, then rents would inflate universally ~$12k/yr because housing pricing is a function of income elasticity. That German gated community you linked has housing that is owned by a trust. I don't think you can ask residents of the U.S. to voluntarily hand over all their housing property to a trust, or require them to be Catholic to reside in it.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    I don't think you can ask residents of the U.S. to voluntarily hand over all their housing property to a trust, or require them to be Catholic to reside in it. However, I think it could be possible to have many, many such trusts which cater to specific interest groups. How about communities which cater to different kinds of artists, musicians, writers, philosophers, etc...? If something like 60% of the US population could be covered this way, it would combine many of the best aspects of universal coverage with the benefits of meritocracy and the advantages of a voluntary basis.
    - bduerst 9y ago
      That's counterintuitive into itself. Everyone living in a trust that's also a meritocracy? Meritocracies reward meritorious individuals, which is difficult to do when forcing everyone to live in communal housing. This isn't very well thought out.
      - stcredzero 9y ago
        Everyone living in a trust that's also a meritocracy? Sure. An artist commune shouldn't be letting you in unless you actually have some skill and artistic talent. Meritocracies reward meritorious individuals, which is difficult to do when forcing everyone to live in communal housing. This isn't very well thought out. You didn't try and prove the null hypothesis very hard, did you? There already exist intentional communities and artist colonies, where some degree of skill (merit) is a requirement. This is analogous to the German trust cited above, except the Catholicism requirement is replaced by some sort of merit-based interest.
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  I mean, maybe we could just tax the 5 wealthiest men in the U.S. who own about half of the world's wealth?
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Your numbers are wrong. The 5 wealthiest people in the US are well below $1 trillion and in just the US there are tens of trillions of dollars of wealth. Even if you did manage to tax all the wealth without destroying it, it'd only provide 10 or 20 years of basic income. Which is a lot, but it is hardly enough to make or break a BI as long term policy.
    - evanlivingston 9y ago
      You're right. It looks like I misunderstood. The 5 wealthiest people own the same amount as the poorest 50% of the worlds population. I think I'd be alright with UBI not being a long term policy if it meant radical wealth redistribution.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- drb91 9y ago
  You must be joking. Wealth people? Depart with wealth? Willingly? They can pay their taxes now and don't; I wouldn't hold your breath waiting. No, to tax rich people you have to seize the damn money.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    You must be joking. Wealth people? Depart with wealth? Willingly? People who fund raise for non-profits convince the wealthy to part with their wealth all the time. If we changed society to make this the way to have a legacy as a rich person, then it would happen. Cultures around the world have convinced their wealthy and powerful to do far wackier things than endow an intentional community. History shows us that the crazy thing to do is to try and force very smart people with lots of resources and power to do something they find distasteful. The same thing to do is to change how people think, feel, and behave, using historical models as precedents.
    - drb91 9y ago
      Well there is some success in getting rich people to divorce with the majority of their money, but as a general rule you don’t make money by giving it away. I don’t see any tax scheme succeeding if it depends on the participation of the taxed—that will be abused by the rich, who have more resources to launder money.
      - stcredzero 9y ago
        Getting the wealthy to depart with their money works if it's voluntary, and the impetus comes from the culture they want to be a part of. When it doesn't work, it's when other people try to force them to do it. Also, if you look at cultures where heavy progressive taxation works, you'll find there is already a communal thread of culture on which it's based. Schemes to tax the rich and powerful only succeed with the participation of the rich and powerful. That is what you are also saying, but your view is distorted because you are othering "the rich."
  - dahdum 9y ago
    Vast majority of the wealthy pay every dime of their taxes, because one of the few things that wealth can't buy is protection from the IRS. Now of course they do everything they can to avoid taxes, but very few evade them. I'm not so wealthy, but if I can legally avoid paying a tax, I will. That's more available for my retirement, charitable causes, and my family. I don't expect more from the wealthy than I do of myself.
creaghpatr 9y ago
I might take Sam Altman seriously when I discover exactly how much of his own wealth he is willing to dilute to accomplish this dream.
nightski 9y ago
Honestly if you are going to give me free money + tax the hell out of me for working hard and going above and beyond I'll just relax and play video games and work on personal projects on my monthly stipend.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sjg007 9y ago
  Ok but your personal project could be a new video game that nets you millions. That’s the whole point of UBI.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - heynonynony 9y ago
    "nets you millions" probably not if "tax the hell out of wealth" ... right?
    - themacguffinman 9y ago
      If you earn $10MM and you get taxed 80%, you've still netted millions.
      - nightski 9y ago
        Right but your costs are not reduced by a similar amount. When I purchase things or take out a loan for a personal expense I have to pay that off with post-tax dollars. So I have to earn more money to buy the same things. In this regard a large tax greatly reduces purchasing power and makes it less worth the trouble.
tc313 9y ago
>I mean, tax the hell out of wealth. Easy to say when it's not your wealth being taxed.
heynonynony 9y ago
if everything you do that yields wealth gets taxed to death, then pretty much no one will do anything that will generate wealth just to give it away to everyone else... it's a zero sum game that only idiots will play.

I mean, tax the hell out of wealth. The math has never been the problem; it's always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die.

by drb91 9y ago

I mean, tax the hell out of wealth. The math has never been the problem; it's always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die.

stcredzero 9y ago

The math has never been the problem; it's always been taxing the wealthy that causes the conversation to die. The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts of the US: http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a7635/german-village-with-88-cent-rent/ http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a7635/german-vill...

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts of the US: By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense. Many other cultures have a gift economy, where the powerful voluntarily redistribute their wealth in exchange for status. Culture is very powerful, often overpowering pure economics. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have already pledged huge fractions of their wealth towards the common good. On the other hand, the historical record on politically forcing the wealthy to hand over their wealth also supports the notion of voluntarism. It's the society and culture which are the overarching influences. If we changed the culture such that trusts supporting intentional communities were the way the wealthy could have a meaningful impact and legacy, then we could conceivably house over half of the US in virtually free housing. Arguably, living, thriving creative communities would be far more meaningful than plaques in a museum, park benches, and buildings on a college campus. (Colleges are over-funded and in a bubble as it is.)
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Yeah but there's no solution in your post. Culture can be powerful but we don't exist in the culture you want and I don't see a good way to get there. Hand waving about voluntarism and a culture shift isn't going to fix anything. Tax the shit out of the rich and make them pay for it.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Culture can be powerful but we don't exist in the culture you want and I don't see a good way to get there. We used to exist in a culture where women had no options outside of the home and black people were slaves. Hand waving about voluntarism and a culture shift isn't going to fix anything. Tax the shit out of the rich and make them pay for it. In order to tax the rich heavily, you still need a culture shift here in the US. Wherever such taxation works, there is already a thread of communal culture. In order to achieve the same in the US, you need a cultural shift, and not setting up to do that work and simply saying "tax the shit out of the rich" is the hand waving. You're using a slogan that exploits resentment, not setting up for real change.
  - wj 9y ago
    What cultures are those? Honest question.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Look up the Wikipedia article for Gift Culture.
      - wj 9y ago
        The examples given are for societies that are both incredibly smaller than the U.S as well as not yet reaching industrialization. I'm not sure they are applicable comparisons.
bduerst 9y ago
If just the rent was covered for everyone ~$12k/yr, then rents would inflate universally ~$12k/yr because housing pricing is a function of income elasticity. That German gated community you linked has housing that is owned by a trust. I don't think you can ask residents of the U.S. to voluntarily hand over all their housing property to a trust, or require them to be Catholic to reside in it.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  I don't think you can ask residents of the U.S. to voluntarily hand over all their housing property to a trust, or require them to be Catholic to reside in it. However, I think it could be possible to have many, many such trusts which cater to specific interest groups. How about communities which cater to different kinds of artists, musicians, writers, philosophers, etc...? If something like 60% of the US population could be covered this way, it would combine many of the best aspects of universal coverage with the benefits of meritocracy and the advantages of a voluntary basis.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    That's counterintuitive into itself. Everyone living in a trust that's also a meritocracy? Meritocracies reward meritorious individuals, which is difficult to do when forcing everyone to live in communal housing. This isn't very well thought out.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Everyone living in a trust that's also a meritocracy? Sure. An artist commune shouldn't be letting you in unless you actually have some skill and artistic talent. Meritocracies reward meritorious individuals, which is difficult to do when forcing everyone to live in communal housing. This isn't very well thought out. You didn't try and prove the null hypothesis very hard, did you? There already exist intentional communities and artist colonies, where some degree of skill (merit) is a requirement. This is analogous to the German trust cited above, except the Catholicism requirement is replaced by some sort of merit-based interest.
evanlivingston 9y ago
I mean, maybe we could just tax the 5 wealthiest men in the U.S. who own about half of the world's wealth?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Your numbers are wrong. The 5 wealthiest people in the US are well below $1 trillion and in just the US there are tens of trillions of dollars of wealth. Even if you did manage to tax all the wealth without destroying it, it'd only provide 10 or 20 years of basic income. Which is a lot, but it is hardly enough to make or break a BI as long term policy.
  - evanlivingston 9y ago
    You're right. It looks like I misunderstood. The 5 wealthiest people own the same amount as the poorest 50% of the worlds population. I think I'd be alright with UBI not being a long term policy if it meant radical wealth redistribution.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
drb91 9y ago
You must be joking. Wealth people? Depart with wealth? Willingly? They can pay their taxes now and don't; I wouldn't hold your breath waiting. No, to tax rich people you have to seize the damn money.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  You must be joking. Wealth people? Depart with wealth? Willingly? People who fund raise for non-profits convince the wealthy to part with their wealth all the time. If we changed society to make this the way to have a legacy as a rich person, then it would happen. Cultures around the world have convinced their wealthy and powerful to do far wackier things than endow an intentional community. History shows us that the crazy thing to do is to try and force very smart people with lots of resources and power to do something they find distasteful. The same thing to do is to change how people think, feel, and behave, using historical models as precedents.
  - drb91 9y ago
    Well there is some success in getting rich people to divorce with the majority of their money, but as a general rule you don’t make money by giving it away. I don’t see any tax scheme succeeding if it depends on the participation of the taxed—that will be abused by the rich, who have more resources to launder money.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Getting the wealthy to depart with their money works if it's voluntary, and the impetus comes from the culture they want to be a part of. When it doesn't work, it's when other people try to force them to do it. Also, if you look at cultures where heavy progressive taxation works, you'll find there is already a communal thread of culture on which it's based. Schemes to tax the rich and powerful only succeed with the participation of the rich and powerful. That is what you are also saying, but your view is distorted because you are othering "the rich."
- dahdum 9y ago
  Vast majority of the wealthy pay every dime of their taxes, because one of the few things that wealth can't buy is protection from the IRS. Now of course they do everything they can to avoid taxes, but very few evade them. I'm not so wealthy, but if I can legally avoid paying a tax, I will. That's more available for my retirement, charitable causes, and my family. I don't expect more from the wealthy than I do of myself.

creaghpatr 9y ago

I might take Sam Altman seriously when I discover exactly how much of his own wealth he is willing to dilute to accomplish this dream.

nightski 9y ago

Honestly if you are going to give me free money + tax the hell out of me for working hard and going above and beyond I'll just relax and play video games and work on personal projects on my monthly stipend.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sjg007 9y ago
Ok but your personal project could be a new video game that nets you millions. That’s the whole point of UBI.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- heynonynony 9y ago
  "nets you millions" probably not if "tax the hell out of wealth" ... right?
  - themacguffinman 9y ago
    If you earn $10MM and you get taxed 80%, you've still netted millions.
    - nightski 9y ago
      Right but your costs are not reduced by a similar amount. When I purchase things or take out a loan for a personal expense I have to pay that off with post-tax dollars. So I have to earn more money to buy the same things. In this regard a large tax greatly reduces purchasing power and makes it less worth the trouble.

tc313 9y ago

>I mean, tax the hell out of wealth. Easy to say when it's not your wealth being taxed.

heynonynony 9y ago

if everything you do that yields wealth gets taxed to death, then pretty much no one will do anything that will generate wealth just to give it away to everyone else... it's a zero sum game that only idiots will play.