6 ms·

Who defines excessive? How will this solve disparities by giving more money to the govt to spend poorly?

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Democracy. I'm actually fairly happy with how government operates for the most part. If you take issue, get involved. Complaining is free, but not impactful.
- manigandham 7y ago
  This is a discussion forum. How is the government going to solve wealth disparity with more money?
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Labor regulations (an example would be increasing the minimum wage, $15 an hour gets thrown around and would provide workers with a living wage). Universal healthcare, preventing destitution from medical expenses and increasing worker mobility. Subsidized education preventing the need to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt for a degree employers can require at no cost to themselves. Big fan of a Green New Deal; the country needs a massive infrastructure overhaul, and it'd provide quality jobs to participants. You squeeze more from capital (who has been raking labor over the coals for the last 40 years) for labor. What's capital going to do, leave the country? We'll tax it on the way out, and we still get to keep the market if you want access to it from the outside. Disclaimer: My politics are firmly in the democratic socialist camp. Allow success, but not too much, and make failure cheaper and less painful.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      All of those things can be done with the money we have now, while probably costing less. Taxes and insurance are already socialist. I see no point in "democratic socialism" that isn't just better spending like I talked about, outside of some extreme views on limiting wealth. My point remains that if these policies don't change now, more taxes will change nothing while concentrating more money/power into a few political hands that have proven to be bad at spending it.
    - lightedman 7y ago
      "an example would be increasing the minimum wage, $15 an hour gets thrown around and would provide workers with a living wage" Not in most of California or any other 'wealthy' state, it wouldn't. I know people making $18/hr and more than half of their post-tax income is going to rent ALONE.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Super HCOL locations aside, it’s a solid start for most of America.
        jki275 7y ago
        No, unfortunately for that idea raising the minimum wage simply raises the cost of living commensurately.
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        That has not been born out in data from Seattle and Washington DC where the minimum wage has been raised.
        lightedman 7y ago
        It certainly bears out here in California where every year our wage increases are immediately followed with a rent increase. I'm the person paying literally the cheapest apartment rent in the entire county, because of being grandfathered in due to long tenancy. $1300/mo. Everyone else in the same complex, for fewer or the same amenities, pays easily $300 more. Rent everywhere else runs about $1800 and quickly rising.
        lightedman 7y ago
        When wages increase, so do prices. Happens every time. So I really don't think that's a solid start for America, at all.
logfromblammo 7y ago
I volunteer. $10 million is enough that you can take 2.5% every year as $250k of income, and spend 0.5% on the fiduciary wealth manager's fees, and still have investment distributions and interest on the principal that outpace inflation in the long term. A household of one or two people can live its entire lifespan on that, without ever trading hours of labor for cash again, and then pass the same privilege down to a single heir, until civilization collapses. $250k/year is a reasonable and sufficient retirement income. $10M is a plausible sum to accumulate through labor-selling alone, for one or two people each working for 2000 hours/year over 40 years, at an average combined rate of $175/hr, all while spending $100k/year on expenses and devoting $250k/year to savings. It does not blatantly flaunt the "diligent and/or intelligent work generates wealth" story. The temporarily embarrassed millionaires all around the US can plausibly get there, if nothing else goes wrong, and they don't even have to cut expenses down, if they get paid enough per hour. $250k/year is about 4x the median household income in the US. It can support most lifestyles less profligate than a person addicted to luxury travel, high-stakes gambling, top-shelf companionship-for-hire, or ultra-pure cocaine. And $250k/year can still be spent wisely and effectively by one household. The thing about the government spending the money poorly is that they are still actually spending it. Spending is better for the poor than investing. When you spend money, the person you trade it to can go on to spend all of it themselves. When you loan it to them, or invest it, they have to give it back someday; it has strings attached. So the advantage of the wealth tax is in taking money that is not being spent, and putting it back into genuine circulation. So then I take this reasonable number, and pad it by one order of magnitude, to absorb the edge cases that are still reasonable in person, but look bad on paper. Start the tax at $100 million in accumulated wealth, and tax 2.5% of everything in excess of that. Then deduct from that tax the payer's total spending (not loans or investments) in excess of $2.5 million, which is money that will count as someone else's income. If they can spend that much, the government doesn't have to spend it for them, and that spending will get taxed at a higher rate anyway, as income.
- manigandham 7y ago
  How does wealth that is not being spent affect you at all? How is it better for the poor? What do they gain exactly?

Democracy. I'm actually fairly happy with how government operates for the most part. If you take issue, get involved. Complaining is free, but not impactful.

manigandham 7y ago
This is a discussion forum. How is the government going to solve wealth disparity with more money?
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Labor regulations (an example would be increasing the minimum wage, $15 an hour gets thrown around and would provide workers with a living wage). Universal healthcare, preventing destitution from medical expenses and increasing worker mobility. Subsidized education preventing the need to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt for a degree employers can require at no cost to themselves. Big fan of a Green New Deal; the country needs a massive infrastructure overhaul, and it'd provide quality jobs to participants. You squeeze more from capital (who has been raking labor over the coals for the last 40 years) for labor. What's capital going to do, leave the country? We'll tax it on the way out, and we still get to keep the market if you want access to it from the outside. Disclaimer: My politics are firmly in the democratic socialist camp. Allow success, but not too much, and make failure cheaper and less painful.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    All of those things can be done with the money we have now, while probably costing less. Taxes and insurance are already socialist. I see no point in "democratic socialism" that isn't just better spending like I talked about, outside of some extreme views on limiting wealth. My point remains that if these policies don't change now, more taxes will change nothing while concentrating more money/power into a few political hands that have proven to be bad at spending it.
  - lightedman 7y ago
    "an example would be increasing the minimum wage, $15 an hour gets thrown around and would provide workers with a living wage" Not in most of California or any other 'wealthy' state, it wouldn't. I know people making $18/hr and more than half of their post-tax income is going to rent ALONE.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Super HCOL locations aside, it’s a solid start for most of America.
      - jki275 7y ago
        No, unfortunately for that idea raising the minimum wage simply raises the cost of living commensurately.
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        That has not been born out in data from Seattle and Washington DC where the minimum wage has been raised.
        lightedman 7y ago
        It certainly bears out here in California where every year our wage increases are immediately followed with a rent increase. I'm the person paying literally the cheapest apartment rent in the entire county, because of being grandfathered in due to long tenancy. $1300/mo. Everyone else in the same complex, for fewer or the same amenities, pays easily $300 more. Rent everywhere else runs about $1800 and quickly rising.
      - lightedman 7y ago
        When wages increase, so do prices. Happens every time. So I really don't think that's a solid start for America, at all.

logfromblammo 7y ago

I volunteer. $10 million is enough that you can take 2.5% every year as $250k of income, and spend 0.5% on the fiduciary wealth manager's fees, and still have investment distributions and interest on the principal that outpace inflation in the long term. A household of one or two people can live its entire lifespan on that, without ever trading hours of labor for cash again, and then pass the same privilege down to a single heir, until civilization collapses. $250k/year is a reasonable and sufficient retirement income. $10M is a plausible sum to accumulate through labor-selling alone, for one or two people each working for 2000 hours/year over 40 years, at an average combined rate of $175/hr, all while spending $100k/year on expenses and devoting $250k/year to savings. It does not blatantly flaunt the "diligent and/or intelligent work generates wealth" story. The temporarily embarrassed millionaires all around the US can plausibly get there, if nothing else goes wrong, and they don't even have to cut expenses down, if they get paid enough per hour. $250k/year is about 4x the median household income in the US. It can support most lifestyles less profligate than a person addicted to luxury travel, high-stakes gambling, top-shelf companionship-for-hire, or ultra-pure cocaine. And $250k/year can still be spent wisely and effectively by one household. The thing about the government spending the money poorly is that they are still actually spending it. Spending is better for the poor than investing. When you spend money, the person you trade it to can go on to spend all of it themselves. When you loan it to them, or invest it, they have to give it back someday; it has strings attached. So the advantage of the wealth tax is in taking money that is not being spent, and putting it back into genuine circulation. So then I take this reasonable number, and pad it by one order of magnitude, to absorb the edge cases that are still reasonable in person, but look bad on paper. Start the tax at $100 million in accumulated wealth, and tax 2.5% of everything in excess of that. Then deduct from that tax the payer's total spending (not loans or investments) in excess of $2.5 million, which is money that will count as someone else's income. If they can spend that much, the government doesn't have to spend it for them, and that spending will get taxed at a higher rate anyway, as income.

manigandham 7y ago
How does wealth that is not being spent affect you at all? How is it better for the poor? What do they gain exactly?