14 ms·

I'm somewhat baffled by this simultaneous behavior- if the rich want to be taxed, they have all the wealth to make it happen. Hire lobbyists to close tax loopho

I'm somewhat baffled by this simultaneous behavior- if the rich want to be taxed, they have all the wealth to make it happen. Hire lobbyists to close tax loopholes. Hire lawyers to go after the rich who tax-evade or the accountants that support them. Donate heavily to politicians who support taxing the rich. Invest in muckraking journalism. Donate money to economics academia with strings attached that force academia to teach taxing-the-rich doctrine. What I see here is a small minority of wealthy people who are already invested in the social politics of being a wealthy progressive but are not putting the money where the mouth is. Are there wealthy progressives putting a Koch brothers strategy on their political goals? Why or why not?

mc32 7y ago
Also, they can disengage from tax avoidance schemes and pay full price on taxes. I’m all for billionaires paying more, but two things: the billions from billionaires don’t add much to taxes (it’d be more principle than anything), two, this is socialistic thinking on the part of the billionaires trying to coerce this on others. They don’t want to do it unless others do it.
- kyshoc 7y ago
  Full price, really, is what's left over after tax avoidance. Paying more than you're legally required to is simply paying extra.
- RankingMember 7y ago
  I think these billionaires are willing to pay more taxes with the important caveat that all other billionaires also pay more taxes. I understand that reasoning. Maybe Buffet or someone can actually start lobbying in the direction of closing loopholes.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
    No, you dont. By their logic, they would not rescue a drowning man unless there was a law requiring them to do so. One can see the corruption of their logic with a simple example.
- shawnz 7y ago
  No they can't. Corporations have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the shareholders, which includes not unnecessarily choosing to pay more taxes than you need to. Tax loopholes need to be fixed in law.
  - bobwaycott 7y ago
    > Corporations have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the shareholders No, they don’t. There are no legal requirements to act in the best interest of shareholders. There are no directives to do so inside corporate charters. Your phrasing of “act in the best interest of shareholders” is perhaps the silliest and most extreme version of the “maximize shareholder value” myth I’ve heard yet—a myth that first started being pushed by Friedman and his ilk in the 1970s, and has morphed into this common theme nobody even questions. It isn’t true. There is no such responsibility required of a corporation.
    - shawnz 7y ago
      Huh? Yes they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_(business_associations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_(business_associa...
      - bobwaycott 7y ago
        Did you read the link you just posted? The duty of care is owed to the corporation by its directors—"a duty to exercise good business judgment and to use ordinary care and prudence in the operation of the business ... in the best interest of the corporation [not the shareholders]...". You either are missing the distinction here and conflating the corporation and its shareholders into a single entity, or you're inadvertently moving the goal posts. There is no obligation or responsibility for a corporation—or its directors—to operate in the best interest of shareholders. Which is what you originally stated. Corporations—and their directors—have no such legal or chartered responsibility. Again, it sounds like you've perhaps unwittingly transformed the myth of maximizing shareholder value—a fiction created in the 1970s that has zero legal or chartered basis—into this even looser, but far more extreme, version of a corporate responsibility to act in the best interest of shareholders.
nugget 7y ago
This strikes me as a political PR move by the less generous cohort more than anything else. I am familiar with the Pritzker family mentioned in the article and they are, in my opinion, much more committed to dynastic family wealth than to philanthropy. They are probably much more afraid of the Giving Pledge than any small wealth tax.
- ChrisBland 7y ago
  No one was shocked in Illinois after Pritzker ran for gov and one of the first proposals he and his family put forth was to get rid of the estate tax in Illinois.
  - citilife 7y ago
    Well, at least then they wouldn't have to remove all the toilets from their house to keep their taxes down[1]. [1] https://www.illinoispolicy.org/toilet-scam-could-flush-pritzkers-fair-tax/ https://www.illinoispolicy.org/toilet-scam-could-flush-pritz...
  - Loughla 7y ago
    What kills me is that this was one of the moves that downstate conservatives really supported. Yes, Donny, your 120k worth of property is definitely what they're talking about and you 100% need to worry about an estate tax.
    - murphysbooks 7y ago
      What do the references "downstate conservatives" and "Donny" mean?
      - qntty 7y ago
        Donny is just an example name like Joe Shmoe In Illinois, rich people live in Chicago ("upstate"), and tend to be more liberal, whereas rural folks downstate are conservative and less wealthy.
      - 7y ago
shaki-dora 7y ago
From the article: The letter came together in the last two weeks. Eighteen individuals, spread among 11 families, added their names. All are active in progressive research and political organizations, some of which are pointedly focused on the swelling gap between the richest Americans and everyone else. That does sound quite like what you're suggesting, doesn't it?
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  The language is incredibly vague. Being active in research doesn't mean your donations come with political strings that force people you donate to to champion your causes. Being active in a political organization doesn't mean you're directly funding a team of lobbyists to bribe politicians with fancy dinners and golf and scholarships to their children. It doesn't mean they're making millionares online, funded by their billionare money, to be their mouthpieces on national news the way Fox News has become (NYT Op-Ed might be part of this). "Some of" the 18 individuals means it's unlikely to be a majority (if it was a majority, the NYT would be motivated to use that stronger claim to its benefit). Overall, IMO the claim is so vague, and so without solid, verifiable facts, that it is effectively a smokescreen of pretending-to-be-an-activist.
ataturk 7y ago
It's not even that hard--all they have to do is pay whatever they consider their "fair share" to be voluntarily. They won't, and they aren't asking to be taxed more, they're just looking for cover in an increasingly transparent world where massive wealth is more and more difficult to hide (and how ill-gotten it was achieved). This is why people like the Clintons have foundations they run. They don't suffer the tax consequences nearly as badly and yet they control massive amounts of capital to manipulate, bribe, and otherwise influence politics.
LudwigNagasena 7y ago
And if all of that feels like too much hassle they can simply send what they think their fair share is to the United States Treasury.
- FabHK 7y ago
  They advocate a change in the rules applying to everyone in their situation, not just to themselves.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
    If your political speech does not match your private actions , it invalidates your political speech, not your private actions. By your logic, you would not rescue a drowning person unless there was a law requirement to be a good samaritan. That is the position you advocate.
  - colin_fraizer 7y ago
    Which is why the headline is misleading. Should end "Tax us [and others like us and likely others not as well-situated, but not poor"]
  - LudwigNagasena 7y ago
    Sure, I have read the article.
magashna 7y ago
Until they put their money up for long term change, it's all for show. It wouldn't even cost that much. We've seen how much big ISPs give to bum senators, it ends up being a few thousand each year, maybe 10-20k for guys like Mitch. Pennies to a billionaire.
- skybrian 7y ago
  This is misunderstanding how political influence works. It's much harder to convince politicians to raise taxes (a core issue for Republicans) than to change some obscure regulation most people don't even know about.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    I would be down for the billionaires to begin to change the republican narrative en masse the way conservative billionaires have done in the past. Outright buy conservative media and then force them to publish increasingly progressive narratives while pretending to be conservative or moderate. Advertise heavily for raising taxes on the rich in red states by buying local newspapers, local politicians.
andreilys 7y ago
I chuckled at the donating to academics in economics to push an agenda. Just goes to show how much of a pseudo-science economics is, which more often than not is co-opted by all kinds of different ideologies to push their agenda (more so macro Econ than micro)
- Loughla 7y ago
  I've worked in higher education for decades now. I have worked with schools ranging in size from less than 1,000 students to over 100,000. And the one constant is that the college of economics (and business in general, but they don't claim to be a science) will have a definite political slant depending on who the most major donor is. And I feel that I need to clarify - not the faculty. Faculty in every department tend to wear their politics on their sleeves. I mean the classes and content has a definite political slant. It's disgusting. When people talk about how higher education is nothing but an indoctrination for the youth into whatever liberal value is currently the most hated thing among conservatives, they really hit the nail on the head for the colleges of economics. But they tend to lean hard right, instead of left.
- 1PlayerOne 7y ago
  Taxation is really a choice we as a society make, somewhat obscure by the separation of politics from economic discussions. For a long time, political economy was synonymous with economics. Once a broad political consensus was reached, however, politics was dropped to emphasize the economics based on that consensus. Seems to me that no matter which political party the poor voted for, their economic agenda was always thwart by corporations need for cheap labor in countries near and far. I vaguely remembering President Obama giving a rather technical explanation why nothing can be done to bring back the job for a laid off Midwesterner. As for the Republicans, this new Yorker political cartoon[1] says it all: I am going to eat you. He tells it like it is. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a20072 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a20072
- weberc2 7y ago
  Earnest question: do econ departments advertise themselves as a pure science?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nickik 7y ago
Yes there are. Who you think pays all of these think tanks and so on. These think thanks that are centeral left often have much more money then the libertarian think thanks operate on. George Soros does many of the same thing as the Kochs. The strategy is not unique to the Kochs by far, even if the intellectual have an absurd obsession with Kochs and see them as 100x more powerful then they actually are while they ignore 100s of other people who fund think tanks and policy initiatives and so on.
hitpointdrew 7y ago
>I'm somewhat baffled by this simultaneous behavior- if the rich want to be taxed, they have all the wealth to make it happen. Hire lobbyists to close tax loopholes. Hire lawyers to go after the rich who tax-evade or the accountants that support them. Not only this but the IRS allows you to over pay if you want to. If you really WANT to pay more in taxes you can! Just cut them a check, why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check?
- username444 7y ago
  Primarily, I think, because an individual contribution/overpayment has almost zero effect in the big picture. It's the systemic issue that needs to be addressed. This is like giving someone a bottle of water, when what they need is a well built. A compounding factor is that billionaires are by nature, competitive. Giving away half of your net income puts you at a disadvantage against other billionaires who can use that against you. Taking away half of everybody's net income keeps the playing field level.
- Angostura 7y ago
  > Not only this but the IRS allows you to over pay if you want to. If you really WANT to pay more in taxes you can! Just cut them a check, why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check? I hear this mantra time often - sometimes in relation to charity, sometimes in the context of climate change action ('if it bothers you, why not just cycle to work?'. ) There is a big difference between an individual saying "here have some of my cash" and an individual saying "I think people like me should pay more tax". First, there's there question of effectiveness: A donation by one individual isn't going to solve society's ills, much better to have a plurality of people making smaller contributions. Then there's the human feeling as to what is 'fair'. Is it really fair that I solely tackle the burden of solving an ill while others in a similar position to me leach off my good will?'. For this reasons and others people are more likely to say 'we should all pay more' rather than just saying 'take a pile of my cash''.
  - wolco 7y ago
    It's ego driven. I won't give up my money until everyone else does. If you really want to give more, than do. If you want to make sure you are still in top then stop..
empath75 7y ago
> What I see here is a small minority of wealthy people who are already invested in the social politics of being a wealthy progressive but are not putting the money where the mouth is. Most of those people spend a lot of money on philanthropy and progressive causes.
nerdponx 7y ago
It's theater. Make a show of looking like you "care", in order to avoid the wrath of the masses (e.g. populist legislation that leads to wealth redistribution).
dexen 7y ago
"Those who are able to climb up the ladder will find ways to pull it up after them" The proposal by the billionaire to tax themselves more becomes an efficient and pragmatic tactics when considered as closing up the path for the next batch of wannabe-billionaires.
- wybiral 7y ago
  If you only tax "> $X" then you aren't really stopping anyone from reaching $X. I guess you can argue that they're WAY above $X and this is a way to prevent people who reach $X from climbing, but let's be honest the system is mostly rigged that way as it is.
  - nugget 7y ago
    The most impact I see would be on people for whom non-liquid assets comprise the majority or entirety of net worth. Take a YC unicorn for example. As soon as a 409a valuation puts the value of a founder's common stock above $50m (in Warren's plan), the company has to start thinking about a liquidity plan in order to support the payment of wealth taxes. Unintended consequences could be further concentration of ownership and upside in VC/PE hands, more pressure to IPO sooner, or decreased appetite for risk among founders once they've hit a certain threshold.
    - wybiral 7y ago
      There may be unintended consequences in the current scheme that we've just grown to accept too (like an always increasing wealth gap).
    - DontGiveTwoFlux 7y ago
      Pressure to IPO sooner would probably be a good thing for most people. Index fund holders got to benefit from the rise of Amazon and Google much more so than the rise of Uber. Public company accountability mechanisms may put a damper on some of the founder -led vision that private cos are willing to abide, but generally it would be better if the wealth were spread around.
  - 7y ago
SkyBelow 7y ago
At a certain point people have enough money to buy any possession they want. So what is next? Buying fame and reputation. I may be over cynical but I view this as such a purchase.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> they have all the wealth to make it happen Contrary to popular opinion, money doesn't automatically buy votes. Tax is a popular issue. This isn't like changing some minor regulation nobody has ever heard about. You can't bury the changes being advocated. And all the money in the world won't buy off every Grover Norquist from primarying Republicans who dare to raise taxes, however narrowly constrained. This PR expands the Overton window around new tax rates at higher tiers, and that's good. It also helps defang the Grover Norquists by undermining their popular support.
- mparramon 7y ago
  All that is good, but are the doing it regardless of how hard it is? Seems that almost none of them are.
- murphysbooks 7y ago
  The reason the message "All taxes are bad" resonates so well is because there has been a near constant cadence accompanying it that "All government is bad". Many people think there is no inherent value in government because that has been sold to them for the past 50+ years. It is similar to the message that "Adam Smith's capitalism" = "no regulations" when in fact Adam Smith was not against regulations. Regulations are the structure that markets are built upon. Otherwise, everything is caveat emptor (translation: let the buyer beware) all the time. It is hard to know where the correct line between total freedom and total government control lies, but I have to assume it is somewhere closer to the middle than either extreme, but the middle never makes the evening news.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    > Many people think there is no inherent value in government because that has been sold to them for the past 50+ years. I think most Americans' experience with government is bad. Especially with taxes--they won't even tell you what you owe them. Often the electronic systems are just broken (Illinois' form a couple years back required a driver's license to submit payment, but the field only accepted 8 digits while IL DL numbers are 12 digits long). I personally don't have a problem with tax or government if there's a sane value proposition.
benj111 7y ago
I put money into tax advantaged accounts and do other things to minimise the tax I spend. That doesn't mean I'm not averse to taxes increasing. I trying to minimise my supermarket spend, that doesn't mean I would be averse to higher welfare standards, and other things that would push that spend up. Plus I don't think I should have the right to decide what tax I should voluntarily pay, that's a decision for society to make, so I think its reasonable for a rich person to feel the same.
- wolco 7y ago
  You do have the right to pay additional taxes over the minimum if you believe in the cause. Why do things to minimise your taxes if you don't mind paying more and see it as a benefit to society?
  - benj111 7y ago
    First because as I said its a decision for society, just as it isn't exclusively my decision to pay more tax, it shouldn't be exclusively Joe Bloggs decision to pay less tax. At the extreme you could make all taxes voluntary, I don't think that would work because too many people wouldn't pay enough,(or indeed anything), then you'd get a second wave watching those not pay anything and stop contributing themselves. Second, its a bit abstract, there isn't 'a cause', it's taxes, I don't like paying taxes, just like I don't like going to the dentist, but it needs to be done so I do it. The dentist says come back in 6 months, so I come back in 6 months. I trust that people who know about dentistry than I have reached the decision on 6 months for good reasons, and if more data comes to light, I would support them updating those recommendations, but I wouldn't voluntarily visit every 3 months, without that recommendation
    - wolco 7y ago
      But it is your decision and your friends and everyone who feels like the government could use more funds. If you posted what you did on twitter a movement could start. Taxes directly pay for services seen or unseen. Not seeing garbage in the streets or having running water are examples. What kind of services do you use? Would you like to see more services or pay less taxes?
Macross8299 7y ago
The cynic in me says they are lobbying for more taxes on the upper middle class while knowing they can pay for accountants and loopholes on whatever taxes are imposed. If the ultrarich want to be taxed, they are free to make a donation to the treasury any time. But they don't. Really makes you think. Edit: consider the pirate game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_game
- apple4ever 7y ago
  > If the ultrarich want to be taxed, they are free to make a donation to the treasury any time. But they don't. Really makes you think. Exactly this. They can talk all they want. Until I see them actually donating money to this: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm I'll agree with the cynic in you as well.
- tzs 7y ago
  > If the ultrarich want to be taxed, they are free to make a donation to the treasury any time. But they don't. Really makes you think. It's quite possible for someone to believe that things would be better if they and everyone like themselves were taxed more, but that things would not be better if only a few of them paid more, and so it is quite sensible for them to push for more taxes on their group but not to donate absent such a tax increase.

mc32 7y ago

Also, they can disengage from tax avoidance schemes and pay full price on taxes. I’m all for billionaires paying more, but two things: the billions from billionaires don’t add much to taxes (it’d be more principle than anything), two, this is socialistic thinking on the part of the billionaires trying to coerce this on others. They don’t want to do it unless others do it.

kyshoc 7y ago
Full price, really, is what's left over after tax avoidance. Paying more than you're legally required to is simply paying extra.
RankingMember 7y ago
I think these billionaires are willing to pay more taxes with the important caveat that all other billionaires also pay more taxes. I understand that reasoning. Maybe Buffet or someone can actually start lobbying in the direction of closing loopholes.
- IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
  No, you dont. By their logic, they would not rescue a drowning man unless there was a law requiring them to do so. One can see the corruption of their logic with a simple example.
shawnz 7y ago
No they can't. Corporations have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the shareholders, which includes not unnecessarily choosing to pay more taxes than you need to. Tax loopholes need to be fixed in law.
- bobwaycott 7y ago
  > Corporations have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the shareholders No, they don’t. There are no legal requirements to act in the best interest of shareholders. There are no directives to do so inside corporate charters. Your phrasing of “act in the best interest of shareholders” is perhaps the silliest and most extreme version of the “maximize shareholder value” myth I’ve heard yet—a myth that first started being pushed by Friedman and his ilk in the 1970s, and has morphed into this common theme nobody even questions. It isn’t true. There is no such responsibility required of a corporation.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    Huh? Yes they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_(business_associations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_(business_associa...
    - bobwaycott 7y ago
      Did you read the link you just posted? The duty of care is owed to the corporation by its directors—"a duty to exercise good business judgment and to use ordinary care and prudence in the operation of the business ... in the best interest of the corporation [not the shareholders]...". You either are missing the distinction here and conflating the corporation and its shareholders into a single entity, or you're inadvertently moving the goal posts. There is no obligation or responsibility for a corporation—or its directors—to operate in the best interest of shareholders. Which is what you originally stated. Corporations—and their directors—have no such legal or chartered responsibility. Again, it sounds like you've perhaps unwittingly transformed the myth of maximizing shareholder value—a fiction created in the 1970s that has zero legal or chartered basis—into this even looser, but far more extreme, version of a corporate responsibility to act in the best interest of shareholders.

nugget 7y ago

This strikes me as a political PR move by the less generous cohort more than anything else. I am familiar with the Pritzker family mentioned in the article and they are, in my opinion, much more committed to dynastic family wealth than to philanthropy. They are probably much more afraid of the Giving Pledge than any small wealth tax.

ChrisBland 7y ago
No one was shocked in Illinois after Pritzker ran for gov and one of the first proposals he and his family put forth was to get rid of the estate tax in Illinois.
- citilife 7y ago
  Well, at least then they wouldn't have to remove all the toilets from their house to keep their taxes down[1]. [1] https://www.illinoispolicy.org/toilet-scam-could-flush-pritzkers-fair-tax/ https://www.illinoispolicy.org/toilet-scam-could-flush-pritz...
- Loughla 7y ago
  What kills me is that this was one of the moves that downstate conservatives really supported. Yes, Donny, your 120k worth of property is definitely what they're talking about and you 100% need to worry about an estate tax.
  - murphysbooks 7y ago
    What do the references "downstate conservatives" and "Donny" mean?
    - qntty 7y ago
      Donny is just an example name like Joe Shmoe In Illinois, rich people live in Chicago ("upstate"), and tend to be more liberal, whereas rural folks downstate are conservative and less wealthy.
    - 7y ago

shaki-dora 7y ago

From the article: The letter came together in the last two weeks. Eighteen individuals, spread among 11 families, added their names. All are active in progressive research and political organizations, some of which are pointedly focused on the swelling gap between the richest Americans and everyone else. That does sound quite like what you're suggesting, doesn't it?

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
The language is incredibly vague. Being active in research doesn't mean your donations come with political strings that force people you donate to to champion your causes. Being active in a political organization doesn't mean you're directly funding a team of lobbyists to bribe politicians with fancy dinners and golf and scholarships to their children. It doesn't mean they're making millionares online, funded by their billionare money, to be their mouthpieces on national news the way Fox News has become (NYT Op-Ed might be part of this). "Some of" the 18 individuals means it's unlikely to be a majority (if it was a majority, the NYT would be motivated to use that stronger claim to its benefit). Overall, IMO the claim is so vague, and so without solid, verifiable facts, that it is effectively a smokescreen of pretending-to-be-an-activist.

ataturk 7y ago

It's not even that hard--all they have to do is pay whatever they consider their "fair share" to be voluntarily. They won't, and they aren't asking to be taxed more, they're just looking for cover in an increasingly transparent world where massive wealth is more and more difficult to hide (and how ill-gotten it was achieved). This is why people like the Clintons have foundations they run. They don't suffer the tax consequences nearly as badly and yet they control massive amounts of capital to manipulate, bribe, and otherwise influence politics.

LudwigNagasena 7y ago

And if all of that feels like too much hassle they can simply send what they think their fair share is to the United States Treasury.

FabHK 7y ago
They advocate a change in the rules applying to everyone in their situation, not just to themselves.
- IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
  If your political speech does not match your private actions , it invalidates your political speech, not your private actions. By your logic, you would not rescue a drowning person unless there was a law requirement to be a good samaritan. That is the position you advocate.
- colin_fraizer 7y ago
  Which is why the headline is misleading. Should end "Tax us [and others like us and likely others not as well-situated, but not poor"]
- LudwigNagasena 7y ago
  Sure, I have read the article.

magashna 7y ago

Until they put their money up for long term change, it's all for show. It wouldn't even cost that much. We've seen how much big ISPs give to bum senators, it ends up being a few thousand each year, maybe 10-20k for guys like Mitch. Pennies to a billionaire.

skybrian 7y ago
This is misunderstanding how political influence works. It's much harder to convince politicians to raise taxes (a core issue for Republicans) than to change some obscure regulation most people don't even know about.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  I would be down for the billionaires to begin to change the republican narrative en masse the way conservative billionaires have done in the past. Outright buy conservative media and then force them to publish increasingly progressive narratives while pretending to be conservative or moderate. Advertise heavily for raising taxes on the rich in red states by buying local newspapers, local politicians.

andreilys 7y ago

I chuckled at the donating to academics in economics to push an agenda. Just goes to show how much of a pseudo-science economics is, which more often than not is co-opted by all kinds of different ideologies to push their agenda (more so macro Econ than micro)

Loughla 7y ago
I've worked in higher education for decades now. I have worked with schools ranging in size from less than 1,000 students to over 100,000. And the one constant is that the college of economics (and business in general, but they don't claim to be a science) will have a definite political slant depending on who the most major donor is. And I feel that I need to clarify - not the faculty. Faculty in every department tend to wear their politics on their sleeves. I mean the classes and content has a definite political slant. It's disgusting. When people talk about how higher education is nothing but an indoctrination for the youth into whatever liberal value is currently the most hated thing among conservatives, they really hit the nail on the head for the colleges of economics. But they tend to lean hard right, instead of left.
1PlayerOne 7y ago
Taxation is really a choice we as a society make, somewhat obscure by the separation of politics from economic discussions. For a long time, political economy was synonymous with economics. Once a broad political consensus was reached, however, politics was dropped to emphasize the economics based on that consensus. Seems to me that no matter which political party the poor voted for, their economic agenda was always thwart by corporations need for cheap labor in countries near and far. I vaguely remembering President Obama giving a rather technical explanation why nothing can be done to bring back the job for a laid off Midwesterner. As for the Republicans, this new Yorker political cartoon[1] says it all: I am going to eat you. He tells it like it is. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a20072 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a20072
weberc2 7y ago
Earnest question: do econ departments advertise themselves as a pure science?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nickik 7y ago

Yes there are. Who you think pays all of these think tanks and so on. These think thanks that are centeral left often have much more money then the libertarian think thanks operate on. George Soros does many of the same thing as the Kochs. The strategy is not unique to the Kochs by far, even if the intellectual have an absurd obsession with Kochs and see them as 100x more powerful then they actually are while they ignore 100s of other people who fund think tanks and policy initiatives and so on.

hitpointdrew 7y ago

>I'm somewhat baffled by this simultaneous behavior- if the rich want to be taxed, they have all the wealth to make it happen. Hire lobbyists to close tax loopholes. Hire lawyers to go after the rich who tax-evade or the accountants that support them. Not only this but the IRS allows you to over pay if you want to. If you really WANT to pay more in taxes you can! Just cut them a check, why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check?

username444 7y ago
Primarily, I think, because an individual contribution/overpayment has almost zero effect in the big picture. It's the systemic issue that needs to be addressed. This is like giving someone a bottle of water, when what they need is a well built. A compounding factor is that billionaires are by nature, competitive. Giving away half of your net income puts you at a disadvantage against other billionaires who can use that against you. Taking away half of everybody's net income keeps the playing field level.
Angostura 7y ago
> Not only this but the IRS allows you to over pay if you want to. If you really WANT to pay more in taxes you can! Just cut them a check, why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check? I hear this mantra time often - sometimes in relation to charity, sometimes in the context of climate change action ('if it bothers you, why not just cycle to work?'. ) There is a big difference between an individual saying "here have some of my cash" and an individual saying "I think people like me should pay more tax". First, there's there question of effectiveness: A donation by one individual isn't going to solve society's ills, much better to have a plurality of people making smaller contributions. Then there's the human feeling as to what is 'fair'. Is it really fair that I solely tackle the burden of solving an ill while others in a similar position to me leach off my good will?'. For this reasons and others people are more likely to say 'we should all pay more' rather than just saying 'take a pile of my cash''.
- wolco 7y ago
  It's ego driven. I won't give up my money until everyone else does. If you really want to give more, than do. If you want to make sure you are still in top then stop..

empath75 7y ago

> What I see here is a small minority of wealthy people who are already invested in the social politics of being a wealthy progressive but are not putting the money where the mouth is. Most of those people spend a lot of money on philanthropy and progressive causes.

nerdponx 7y ago

It's theater. Make a show of looking like you "care", in order to avoid the wrath of the masses (e.g. populist legislation that leads to wealth redistribution).

dexen 7y ago

"Those who are able to climb up the ladder will find ways to pull it up after them" The proposal by the billionaire to tax themselves more becomes an efficient and pragmatic tactics when considered as closing up the path for the next batch of wannabe-billionaires.

wybiral 7y ago
If you only tax "> $X" then you aren't really stopping anyone from reaching $X. I guess you can argue that they're WAY above $X and this is a way to prevent people who reach $X from climbing, but let's be honest the system is mostly rigged that way as it is.
- nugget 7y ago
  The most impact I see would be on people for whom non-liquid assets comprise the majority or entirety of net worth. Take a YC unicorn for example. As soon as a 409a valuation puts the value of a founder's common stock above $50m (in Warren's plan), the company has to start thinking about a liquidity plan in order to support the payment of wealth taxes. Unintended consequences could be further concentration of ownership and upside in VC/PE hands, more pressure to IPO sooner, or decreased appetite for risk among founders once they've hit a certain threshold.
  - wybiral 7y ago
    There may be unintended consequences in the current scheme that we've just grown to accept too (like an always increasing wealth gap).
  - DontGiveTwoFlux 7y ago
    Pressure to IPO sooner would probably be a good thing for most people. Index fund holders got to benefit from the rise of Amazon and Google much more so than the rise of Uber. Public company accountability mechanisms may put a damper on some of the founder -led vision that private cos are willing to abide, but generally it would be better if the wealth were spread around.
- 7y ago

SkyBelow 7y ago

At a certain point people have enough money to buy any possession they want. So what is next? Buying fame and reputation. I may be over cynical but I view this as such a purchase.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> they have all the wealth to make it happen Contrary to popular opinion, money doesn't automatically buy votes. Tax is a popular issue. This isn't like changing some minor regulation nobody has ever heard about. You can't bury the changes being advocated. And all the money in the world won't buy off every Grover Norquist from primarying Republicans who dare to raise taxes, however narrowly constrained. This PR expands the Overton window around new tax rates at higher tiers, and that's good. It also helps defang the Grover Norquists by undermining their popular support.

mparramon 7y ago
All that is good, but are the doing it regardless of how hard it is? Seems that almost none of them are.
murphysbooks 7y ago
The reason the message "All taxes are bad" resonates so well is because there has been a near constant cadence accompanying it that "All government is bad". Many people think there is no inherent value in government because that has been sold to them for the past 50+ years. It is similar to the message that "Adam Smith's capitalism" = "no regulations" when in fact Adam Smith was not against regulations. Regulations are the structure that markets are built upon. Otherwise, everything is caveat emptor (translation: let the buyer beware) all the time. It is hard to know where the correct line between total freedom and total government control lies, but I have to assume it is somewhere closer to the middle than either extreme, but the middle never makes the evening news.
- weberc2 7y ago
  > Many people think there is no inherent value in government because that has been sold to them for the past 50+ years. I think most Americans' experience with government is bad. Especially with taxes--they won't even tell you what you owe them. Often the electronic systems are just broken (Illinois' form a couple years back required a driver's license to submit payment, but the field only accepted 8 digits while IL DL numbers are 12 digits long). I personally don't have a problem with tax or government if there's a sane value proposition.

benj111 7y ago

I put money into tax advantaged accounts and do other things to minimise the tax I spend. That doesn't mean I'm not averse to taxes increasing. I trying to minimise my supermarket spend, that doesn't mean I would be averse to higher welfare standards, and other things that would push that spend up. Plus I don't think I should have the right to decide what tax I should voluntarily pay, that's a decision for society to make, so I think its reasonable for a rich person to feel the same.

wolco 7y ago
You do have the right to pay additional taxes over the minimum if you believe in the cause. Why do things to minimise your taxes if you don't mind paying more and see it as a benefit to society?
- benj111 7y ago
  First because as I said its a decision for society, just as it isn't exclusively my decision to pay more tax, it shouldn't be exclusively Joe Bloggs decision to pay less tax. At the extreme you could make all taxes voluntary, I don't think that would work because too many people wouldn't pay enough,(or indeed anything), then you'd get a second wave watching those not pay anything and stop contributing themselves. Second, its a bit abstract, there isn't 'a cause', it's taxes, I don't like paying taxes, just like I don't like going to the dentist, but it needs to be done so I do it. The dentist says come back in 6 months, so I come back in 6 months. I trust that people who know about dentistry than I have reached the decision on 6 months for good reasons, and if more data comes to light, I would support them updating those recommendations, but I wouldn't voluntarily visit every 3 months, without that recommendation
  - wolco 7y ago
    But it is your decision and your friends and everyone who feels like the government could use more funds. If you posted what you did on twitter a movement could start. Taxes directly pay for services seen or unseen. Not seeing garbage in the streets or having running water are examples. What kind of services do you use? Would you like to see more services or pay less taxes?

Macross8299 7y ago

The cynic in me says they are lobbying for more taxes on the upper middle class while knowing they can pay for accountants and loopholes on whatever taxes are imposed. If the ultrarich want to be taxed, they are free to make a donation to the treasury any time. But they don't. Really makes you think. Edit: consider the pirate game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_game

apple4ever 7y ago
> If the ultrarich want to be taxed, they are free to make a donation to the treasury any time. But they don't. Really makes you think. Exactly this. They can talk all they want. Until I see them actually donating money to this: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm I'll agree with the cynic in you as well.
tzs 7y ago
> If the ultrarich want to be taxed, they are free to make a donation to the treasury any time. But they don't. Really makes you think. It's quite possible for someone to believe that things would be better if they and everyone like themselves were taxed more, but that things would not be better if only a few of them paid more, and so it is quite sensible for them to push for more taxes on their group but not to donate absent such a tax increase.