18 ms·

I look at these "tax the super-rich" ideas like this: >"Added together, the total net worth for 2018's billionaires was US$9.1 trillion" https://en.wikipedia.o

by nonbel 8y ago

I look at these "tax the super-rich" ideas like this: >"Added together, the total net worth for 2018's billionaires was US$9.1 trillion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires Meanwhile, the US federal government spends ~$4 trillion per year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:CBO_Infographic_2017.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/... So even confiscating all the wealth of the top couple thousand richest people in the world (not just US) would only fund the US government for 2-3 years. And that would be a one-time event. Basically, the amount of money spent by the US government is already so massive that I don't see how giving it more can possibly help with anything. It would be much more realistic to attempt making the government slightly more efficient and then reallocating the money saved. And that ignores that barely anyone will end up paying these 90% taxes, just like almost no revenue was collected from the 90% bracket in the 1950s since various accounting methods/etc were be used to avoid it.

sp332 8y ago
The US GDP was $17.5 trillion last year. I don't think you're looking at the right numbers. This isn't about seizing wealth, it's just an increase in the top bracket of income taxes. Anyway the climate plan is more about moving money around than just taking it and throwing it in a hole. Ideally, more wealth would be generated from people actually spending the money for useful things than would be made from the passive investments favored by the ultra-rich.
- nonbel 8y ago
  >"The US GDP was $17.5 trillion last year. I don't think you're looking at the right numbers." I don't follow. Why do you think GDP is the "right number" instead of tax revenue?
  - sp332 8y ago
    You didn't mention tax revenue in your comment either. My point was you need to look at capital gains and business taxes to get an idea of how much money there is available. Wealth is not relevant and personal income is not the whole picture.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      >"You didn't mention tax revenue in your comment either." Yea, I guess you are correct. I just consider adding to the national debt another form of tax (via inflation). >"My point was you need to look at capital gains and business taxes to get an idea of how much money there is available." Still not following. I am concerned with the government spending a very large amount per year. Spending these resources more efficiently seems like low hanging fruit vs just raising taxes on whatever. The idea of confiscating the wealth of the ultra rich is just to demonstrate that they really aren't that rich compared to what the US government is spending. So if the actual desired outcome was to get, eg this climate project done, then I would expect people to be exploring that option. Plus increased efficiency should be better for the climate...
L_Rahman 8y ago
Taxing the rich isn't about generating revenue to make something. It's a reallocation mechanism for dollars that already exist in the economy to things that we want as a body of people. If this seems radical, notice that this is already part of the American social contract. We already tax people to provide services and invest in long term projects. All this does is change the rates and the allocation direction.
- nonbel 8y ago
  >"Taxing the rich isn't about generating revenue to make something. It's a reallocation mechanism for dollars that already exist in the economy to things that we want as a body of people." Ok, well here is a department of the government I am familiar with admitting they waste $25-30 billion every year (imo that is an underestimate, but they definitely waste over 50% of their funding on worthless stuff): https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3.htm https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3... So why not reallocate that to whatever this climate project is? And I'm sure there is similar massive waste in other departments too. If 87.5% is representative that is $3.5 trillion per year to be used. I mean no one actually wants to waste ~$30 billion a year on worthless medical research, right?
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. The problem with saying "Half of this research is worthless" is that it's impossible to know which of the research will be worthless before you do the research. As long as the research that was useful produced enough value to justify the system (which, in the case of the NIH I'd venture it does), it's worth doing overall. This reminds me of the Wanamaker quote: “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half”.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      >"The problem with saying "Half of this research is worthless" is that it's impossible to know which of the research will be worthless before you do the research." Once you know the common problems, it is actually quite easy to spot design flaws or a history of hiding unwanted results. When you know what to look for you can filter out crappy research in a few seconds. It could probably be automated to a large extent. For example, a common thing in biomed is to have a "headline claim" that x protein/drug/etc influences y behavior/health outcome/etc. But then there is never a scatterplot of x vs y. Another is lack of "blinding" (hiding the experimental conditions from the researcher/subjects). There are more, but you get the picture. The presence of these baffling practices quickly demonstrates they don't know what they are doing, and the research should not be funded.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> So even confiscating all the wealth of the top couple thousand richest people in the world (not just US) would only fund the US government for 2-3 years. And that would be a one-time event. Why? What do you think happens to money after the government spends it? It vanishes?
- nonbel 8y ago
  See my other posts in this thread. I'd guess the money is largely wasted on stuff like incorrect medical "discoveries" that slow down progress. Ie, the money is being used to create problems that require more future money to fix.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by nonbel 8y ago

sp332 8y ago

The US GDP was $17.5 trillion last year. I don't think you're looking at the right numbers. This isn't about seizing wealth, it's just an increase in the top bracket of income taxes. Anyway the climate plan is more about moving money around than just taking it and throwing it in a hole. Ideally, more wealth would be generated from people actually spending the money for useful things than would be made from the passive investments favored by the ultra-rich.

nonbel 8y ago
>"The US GDP was $17.5 trillion last year. I don't think you're looking at the right numbers." I don't follow. Why do you think GDP is the "right number" instead of tax revenue?
- sp332 8y ago
  You didn't mention tax revenue in your comment either. My point was you need to look at capital gains and business taxes to get an idea of how much money there is available. Wealth is not relevant and personal income is not the whole picture.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    >"You didn't mention tax revenue in your comment either." Yea, I guess you are correct. I just consider adding to the national debt another form of tax (via inflation). >"My point was you need to look at capital gains and business taxes to get an idea of how much money there is available." Still not following. I am concerned with the government spending a very large amount per year. Spending these resources more efficiently seems like low hanging fruit vs just raising taxes on whatever. The idea of confiscating the wealth of the ultra rich is just to demonstrate that they really aren't that rich compared to what the US government is spending. So if the actual desired outcome was to get, eg this climate project done, then I would expect people to be exploring that option. Plus increased efficiency should be better for the climate...

L_Rahman 8y ago

Taxing the rich isn't about generating revenue to make something. It's a reallocation mechanism for dollars that already exist in the economy to things that we want as a body of people. If this seems radical, notice that this is already part of the American social contract. We already tax people to provide services and invest in long term projects. All this does is change the rates and the allocation direction.

nonbel 8y ago
>"Taxing the rich isn't about generating revenue to make something. It's a reallocation mechanism for dollars that already exist in the economy to things that we want as a body of people." Ok, well here is a department of the government I am familiar with admitting they waste $25-30 billion every year (imo that is an underestimate, but they definitely waste over 50% of their funding on worthless stuff): https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3.htm https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3... So why not reallocate that to whatever this climate project is? And I'm sure there is similar massive waste in other departments too. If 87.5% is representative that is $3.5 trillion per year to be used. I mean no one actually wants to waste ~$30 billion a year on worthless medical research, right?
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. The problem with saying "Half of this research is worthless" is that it's impossible to know which of the research will be worthless before you do the research. As long as the research that was useful produced enough value to justify the system (which, in the case of the NIH I'd venture it does), it's worth doing overall. This reminds me of the Wanamaker quote: “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half”.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    >"The problem with saying "Half of this research is worthless" is that it's impossible to know which of the research will be worthless before you do the research." Once you know the common problems, it is actually quite easy to spot design flaws or a history of hiding unwanted results. When you know what to look for you can filter out crappy research in a few seconds. It could probably be automated to a large extent. For example, a common thing in biomed is to have a "headline claim" that x protein/drug/etc influences y behavior/health outcome/etc. But then there is never a scatterplot of x vs y. Another is lack of "blinding" (hiding the experimental conditions from the researcher/subjects). There are more, but you get the picture. The presence of these baffling practices quickly demonstrates they don't know what they are doing, and the research should not be funded.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> So even confiscating all the wealth of the top couple thousand richest people in the world (not just US) would only fund the US government for 2-3 years. And that would be a one-time event. Why? What do you think happens to money after the government spends it? It vanishes?

nonbel 8y ago
See my other posts in this thread. I'd guess the money is largely wasted on stuff like incorrect medical "discoveries" that slow down progress. Ie, the money is being used to create problems that require more future money to fix.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]