4 ms·

I think you make some good points, but in many cases it feels like it's just blindly in the opposite direction of the parent comment. What you cite as problema

I think you make some good points, but in many cases it feels like it's just blindly in the opposite direction of the parent comment. What you cite as problematic regulation is interesting. I'm not sure regulation is to blame for megacorp monopolies. When you have so much money that you can bury any competition, and buy up all the regulators, regulation is effectively useless. It seems having too much money/power is the real problem. Regulation can only stop bad behavior if regulators have more power than the regulated. That can lead to a stagnation of innovation though. I kind of feel like we need more monetary checks and balances. Currently, the court system is extremely skewed in favor of the wealthy. Most people can't afford to go to court to protect their interests, so those with more money can just walk all over whoever they want.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> I'm not sure regulation is to blame for megacorp monopolies. When you have so much money that you can bury any competition, and buy up all the regulators, regulation is effectively useless. It's not just useless, it's actively harmful. The regulations are created at the behest of the megacorp to harm prospective competitors. The problem is we can sit here and agree that we need better regulations, and call Congress and tell them to pass better regulations, and then a 5000 page bill comes up for a vote. Normal people don't have time to understand what's in it, but megacorp's lawyers do. So if it's something they like it sails right through and if it's something they hate they pay for a truckload of sand to be poured into the gears so it never goes anywhere. So the alternatives are A) "have megacorp's preferred regulations" or B) "stop federally regulating that thing" and there is no third option on the table. Which do you choose? "Get a third option" would be great, if anybody knew how to actually do that. But every time anybody has claimed they're going to do it in the last century or so we just end up with option A instead. It'd be great if we still had Teddy Roosevelt in there, but we don't, and he's not even on the ballot. > It seems having too much money/power is the real problem. Regulation can only stop bad behavior if regulators have more power than the regulated. That can lead to a stagnation of innovation though. Fixing this tends to have counterintuitive solutions. People are always talking about "the 1%" as if the problem is people, but the main problem is really corporations. There is no natural person with more money than Apple Inc. And the biggest reason for that is that we have a tax system that rewards huge multinational corporations hoarding cash. The only reason the shareholders don't demand their take of the profits is that they know that actually taking them causes a large amount of taxes to be due to both the company and the shareholder. So they take their gains as share price appreciation, which has preferential tax treatment but leaves the huge pile of money inside the corporation. There are two main things needed to fix that. The first is to replace corporate income tax with VAT, so there is no more incentive for corporations to hold money offshore. And the second is to defer taxes when dividends or capital gains are immediately reinvested, so that an investor who takes profits from a megacorp and invests them in a small or medium business doesn't immediately owe a bunch of taxes, when leaving the cash in the megacorp wouldn't. The problem is both of these policies will inevitably get characterized as helping the rich, even though their effect is to eliminate the relative costs of moving profits from megacorps to smaller businesses.
- iamcasen 9y ago
  Yeah that sounds reasonable. I think you're totally right honestly. I think the hardest part of the problem is that everyone's talking in circles rather than getting to the root of the problem. "Tax the rich" is a vague and easy talking point, but it doesn't get at the true nature of things. What amount of wealth is rich? How did they earn it? How are they currently taxed? etc. From my experience, it feels like there are so many pitfalls and financial traps designed to catch people moving from the middle class on up. Once you make it to 10 Million +, you can coast from there with no financial burdens, but until then there is always something to get you.
  - gt_ 9y ago
    Can you point me to the downhill path to middle class?
    - iamcasen 9y ago
      AMT for one. If you get a sudden windfall in the form of stock options, the IRS requires you pay tax UP FRONT for the full amount. Even if those stocks are not liquid at all. So say you worked at google in the early days and spent 10k of your savings to exercise your stock options. Those stocks are worth 100 million dollars, but google is a private company and you are still uncertain of it's future. The IRS will demand you pay tax on 100 million dollars right that minute. Obviously, this would be impossible since you cannot sell your stock, and it's value is only based on speculative appraisals. Say you somehow got a loan to pay that tax up front. Say the tax was 20 million dollars. Then google goes belly up and your stock becomes worthless. Too bad so sad! You are on the hook for paying back that 20 million dollars.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> I'm not sure regulation is to blame for megacorp monopolies. When you have so much money that you can bury any competition, and buy up all the regulators, regulation is effectively useless. It's not just useless, it's actively harmful. The regulations are created at the behest of the megacorp to harm prospective competitors. The problem is we can sit here and agree that we need better regulations, and call Congress and tell them to pass better regulations, and then a 5000 page bill comes up for a vote. Normal people don't have time to understand what's in it, but megacorp's lawyers do. So if it's something they like it sails right through and if it's something they hate they pay for a truckload of sand to be poured into the gears so it never goes anywhere. So the alternatives are A) "have megacorp's preferred regulations" or B) "stop federally regulating that thing" and there is no third option on the table. Which do you choose? "Get a third option" would be great, if anybody knew how to actually do that. But every time anybody has claimed they're going to do it in the last century or so we just end up with option A instead. It'd be great if we still had Teddy Roosevelt in there, but we don't, and he's not even on the ballot. > It seems having too much money/power is the real problem. Regulation can only stop bad behavior if regulators have more power than the regulated. That can lead to a stagnation of innovation though. Fixing this tends to have counterintuitive solutions. People are always talking about "the 1%" as if the problem is people, but the main problem is really corporations. There is no natural person with more money than Apple Inc. And the biggest reason for that is that we have a tax system that rewards huge multinational corporations hoarding cash. The only reason the shareholders don't demand their take of the profits is that they know that actually taking them causes a large amount of taxes to be due to both the company and the shareholder. So they take their gains as share price appreciation, which has preferential tax treatment but leaves the huge pile of money inside the corporation. There are two main things needed to fix that. The first is to replace corporate income tax with VAT, so there is no more incentive for corporations to hold money offshore. And the second is to defer taxes when dividends or capital gains are immediately reinvested, so that an investor who takes profits from a megacorp and invests them in a small or medium business doesn't immediately owe a bunch of taxes, when leaving the cash in the megacorp wouldn't. The problem is both of these policies will inevitably get characterized as helping the rich, even though their effect is to eliminate the relative costs of moving profits from megacorps to smaller businesses.

iamcasen 9y ago
Yeah that sounds reasonable. I think you're totally right honestly. I think the hardest part of the problem is that everyone's talking in circles rather than getting to the root of the problem. "Tax the rich" is a vague and easy talking point, but it doesn't get at the true nature of things. What amount of wealth is rich? How did they earn it? How are they currently taxed? etc. From my experience, it feels like there are so many pitfalls and financial traps designed to catch people moving from the middle class on up. Once you make it to 10 Million +, you can coast from there with no financial burdens, but until then there is always something to get you.
- gt_ 9y ago
  Can you point me to the downhill path to middle class?
  - iamcasen 9y ago
    AMT for one. If you get a sudden windfall in the form of stock options, the IRS requires you pay tax UP FRONT for the full amount. Even if those stocks are not liquid at all. So say you worked at google in the early days and spent 10k of your savings to exercise your stock options. Those stocks are worth 100 million dollars, but google is a private company and you are still uncertain of it's future. The IRS will demand you pay tax on 100 million dollars right that minute. Obviously, this would be impossible since you cannot sell your stock, and it's value is only based on speculative appraisals. Say you somehow got a loan to pay that tax up front. Say the tax was 20 million dollars. Then google goes belly up and your stock becomes worthless. Too bad so sad! You are on the hook for paying back that 20 million dollars.