5 ms·

The biggest problem with these tax plans is that they're always focused on collecting more money without ever talking about where that money is actually going.

The biggest problem with these tax plans is that they're always focused on collecting more money without ever talking about where that money is actually going. The government is absolutely useless at spending it well, and it won't magically get better with even more money. Wealthy powerful billionaires is a valid issue but there should be a better strategy based on incentives for the greater good beyond just "tax them more". A look at how much the Bill Gates foundation has done proves that wealth can be deployed with positive impact, but sadly it's not something that gets much news.

mcphage 7y ago
> The government is absolutely useless at spending it well Corporations are absolutely useless at spending it well. The government, on the other hand, has a long list of successful projects that required a tremendous of money—the interstate system, the hoover dam, the moon landing, and so on. Are there initiatives that wasted a ton of money? Of course. But look at any major company, and you'll find the same thing. Apple wasted most of a billion dollars on a sapphire plant that couldn't make what they promised, Google bought Motorola for $12 billion and then sold it 2 years later for $3 billion, every company Verizon or Yahoo! bought turned to garbage. The list goes on and on and on.
- manigandham 7y ago
  That's a strange way to look at it since the corporations have a much better ratio of wins to losses and have to manage profitability. Regardless, the issue is government spending, not collection. I don't see how aggregating even more money into a few politicians is somehow going to solve anything, or what difference a few billion will make when the country spends trillions.
  - istjohn 7y ago
    It's simple. Fund healthcare, education, earned income tax credits, student loan forgiveness, early childhood education, green energy, carbon sequestration. Fund the IRS so the tax code is enforced for the wealthy as vigorously as it is enforced for the poor. It's not hard to find huge societal wins that can be had with increased spending.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      If the answer is as simple as spend more then we wouldn't have any problems since we already spend more (than we have) every year. Pour more billions into a black hole does nothing. Programs are broken because of how money is spent, not because of how much.
      - mcphage 7y ago
        > If the answer is as simple as spend more then we wouldn't have any problems since we already spend more (than we have) every year. Pour more billions into a black hole does nothing. So... you think that Warren is trying to add funding like a wealth tax, but... has no idea what to spend the money on?
        manigandham 7y ago
        That's a non-sequitur. I said the government is bad at allocating and using funds. Do you disagree with that statement? How does poorly spending trillions get fixed by spending a few more billion? That's the problem. Solve that first, then move on to taxes.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    > since the corporations have a much better ration of wins to losses Citation very much needed. When you look at all of the things that our government successfully runs, and all of the thing that corporations successfully run, I'll stick with governments every time.
    - foogazi 7y ago
      What are you talking about? everything in this country is privately made Every storefront, vehicle, food item, article of clothing, the device you are reading this on, is all made and funded privately Government is a net cost on society
      - mcphage 7y ago
        > What are you talking about? everything in this country is privately made > Every storefront, vehicle, food item, article of clothing, the device you are reading this on, is all made and funded privately Uh... dude, I got some news for you, about the country you live in.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      The govt spends more money than it has, and forcefully collects money. Corporations need to make money to stay alive, and must voluntarily get paid. What does "successfully run" mean? A few major projects have turned out well. But many are failing. Otherwise why the constant need for money cash? What is a few billion going to change that a few trillion didn't?
istjohn 7y ago
I believe our society would be healthier if there were only three or four orders of magnitude between the wealth of the richest and poorest households in our nation. Thus taxing billionaires is a Good Thing (TM) regardless of what the money is spent on. What gets done with the proceeds is just icing on the cake. Money is power, and an over-concentration of power is antithetical to a democratic society. Bill Gates makes a show of his charitable spending, rehabilitating his reputation as a ruthless, unscrupulous empire-builder, meanwhile every year he gets richer.
- manigandham 7y ago
  True, money is a form of power. But now you're giving more monetary power to politicians who already have political power. Isn't that concentrating it further into fewer hands?
  - istjohn 7y ago
    To state the obvious, in a democracy, politicians are elected, so the power they wield ultimately redounds to the citizenry.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      That issue is that even fewer individuals will have more power, which is the single biggest challenge to democracy in the first place. I'd much prefer taking money out of politics so that large wealth cant influence govt, at least before any changes to taxes.
- foogazi 7y ago
  > I believe our society would be healthier if there were only three or four orders of magnitude between the wealth of the richest and poorest households in our nation. Thus taxing billionaires is a Good Thing (TM) regardless of what the money is spent on. It’s always about dragging down instead of pulling up
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago

mcphage 7y ago

> The government is absolutely useless at spending it well Corporations are absolutely useless at spending it well. The government, on the other hand, has a long list of successful projects that required a tremendous of money—the interstate system, the hoover dam, the moon landing, and so on. Are there initiatives that wasted a ton of money? Of course. But look at any major company, and you'll find the same thing. Apple wasted most of a billion dollars on a sapphire plant that couldn't make what they promised, Google bought Motorola for $12 billion and then sold it 2 years later for $3 billion, every company Verizon or Yahoo! bought turned to garbage. The list goes on and on and on.

manigandham 7y ago
That's a strange way to look at it since the corporations have a much better ratio of wins to losses and have to manage profitability. Regardless, the issue is government spending, not collection. I don't see how aggregating even more money into a few politicians is somehow going to solve anything, or what difference a few billion will make when the country spends trillions.
- istjohn 7y ago
  It's simple. Fund healthcare, education, earned income tax credits, student loan forgiveness, early childhood education, green energy, carbon sequestration. Fund the IRS so the tax code is enforced for the wealthy as vigorously as it is enforced for the poor. It's not hard to find huge societal wins that can be had with increased spending.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    If the answer is as simple as spend more then we wouldn't have any problems since we already spend more (than we have) every year. Pour more billions into a black hole does nothing. Programs are broken because of how money is spent, not because of how much.
    - mcphage 7y ago
      > If the answer is as simple as spend more then we wouldn't have any problems since we already spend more (than we have) every year. Pour more billions into a black hole does nothing. So... you think that Warren is trying to add funding like a wealth tax, but... has no idea what to spend the money on?
      - manigandham 7y ago
        That's a non-sequitur. I said the government is bad at allocating and using funds. Do you disagree with that statement? How does poorly spending trillions get fixed by spending a few more billion? That's the problem. Solve that first, then move on to taxes.
- mcphage 7y ago
  > since the corporations have a much better ration of wins to losses Citation very much needed. When you look at all of the things that our government successfully runs, and all of the thing that corporations successfully run, I'll stick with governments every time.
  - foogazi 7y ago
    What are you talking about? everything in this country is privately made Every storefront, vehicle, food item, article of clothing, the device you are reading this on, is all made and funded privately Government is a net cost on society
    - mcphage 7y ago
      > What are you talking about? everything in this country is privately made > Every storefront, vehicle, food item, article of clothing, the device you are reading this on, is all made and funded privately Uh... dude, I got some news for you, about the country you live in.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    The govt spends more money than it has, and forcefully collects money. Corporations need to make money to stay alive, and must voluntarily get paid. What does "successfully run" mean? A few major projects have turned out well. But many are failing. Otherwise why the constant need for money cash? What is a few billion going to change that a few trillion didn't?

istjohn 7y ago

I believe our society would be healthier if there were only three or four orders of magnitude between the wealth of the richest and poorest households in our nation. Thus taxing billionaires is a Good Thing (TM) regardless of what the money is spent on. What gets done with the proceeds is just icing on the cake. Money is power, and an over-concentration of power is antithetical to a democratic society. Bill Gates makes a show of his charitable spending, rehabilitating his reputation as a ruthless, unscrupulous empire-builder, meanwhile every year he gets richer.

manigandham 7y ago
True, money is a form of power. But now you're giving more monetary power to politicians who already have political power. Isn't that concentrating it further into fewer hands?
- istjohn 7y ago
  To state the obvious, in a democracy, politicians are elected, so the power they wield ultimately redounds to the citizenry.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    That issue is that even fewer individuals will have more power, which is the single biggest challenge to democracy in the first place. I'd much prefer taking money out of politics so that large wealth cant influence govt, at least before any changes to taxes.
foogazi 7y ago
> I believe our society would be healthier if there were only three or four orders of magnitude between the wealth of the richest and poorest households in our nation. Thus taxing billionaires is a Good Thing (TM) regardless of what the money is spent on. It’s always about dragging down instead of pulling up
- CharlesColeman 7y ago