5 ms·

How do we go about deciding what an appropriate percentage to make up 50% of AGI is? How much inequality is acceptable?

WalterBright 7y ago
> How much inequality is acceptable? Without inequality you'd also have to give up Teslas, SpaceX, and all those initiatives Bill Gates is investing in. Keep in mind that something like 37% of Federal Income taxes come from the 1%. Eliminate the 1%, and who is going to make up that money?
- claudeganon 7y ago
  > Without inequality you'd also have to give up Teslas, SpaceX, and all those initiatives Bill Gates is investing in. Sounds great. I’d rather have Nordic-style social democracy.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    Norway relies heavily on Teslas :-) and something like 20% of the GDP is pumped out of ground into the government.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      That’s true! Those lousy Norwegians, free riding on American innovation... I wish we had been smart enough to nationalize our oil and gas industries back in the day as well. I wouldn’t have had to spend so much of my adult life hearing wonks go on about about slashing benefits for the elderly or things like Medicaid block grants.
      - WalterBright 7y ago
        The oil & gas industry in the US is 8% of GDP, not 20%. The US oil & gas industry pays about a 37% average income tax rate. Nationalizing that industry isn't going to be a bonanza for the government.
        claudeganon 7y ago
        Sure, but I’m talking about the history of these industries’ private ownership and it’s impact on US history and politics. For example, imagine the US without the Koch brothers or any of the other fossil fuel dynasties. Or if radical labor movements had seized on Norway’s model in the 19th century.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Nordic countries are better described as implementing “democratic capitalism” rather than “democratic socialism.” The starting point is a capitalist market economy, not a socialist economy. See: https://mises.org/power-market/swedish-ex-prime-minister-rebukes-bernie-socialism-only-destroys https://mises.org/power-market/swedish-ex-prime-minister-reb.... Sweden receives top rankings in business and economic freedom: https://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden https://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden. Sweden has drastically cut corporate taxes, to the same levels as Trump: https://www.reuters.com/article/sweden-government-tax-idUSL8N1R33JT https://www.reuters.com/article/sweden-government-tax-idUSL8.... Sweden has long been aggressively privatizing public services, including partially privatizing their social security: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5033569; https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&ar... https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-partially-privatized-its-social-security-heres-how-it-has-worked-out-2019-09-06 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-partially-privatize... Norway and Sweden also have more billionaires per capita than the United States: https://www.insider.com/countries-ranked-by-billionaires-in-proportion-to-population-2015-7 https://www.insider.com/countries-ranked-by-billionaires-in-...
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      I’d prefer a Sweden in the 70s, but where they succeeded in turning industries over to workers and put the IKEA guy in prison for tax dodging and helping Nazis escape prosecution. And yes, the neoliberal turn that actually happened has been going bad for most everyone but the rich, but I’d take even where they are today.
    - jahaja 7y ago
      As usual, you are cherry-picking wildly and implying stuff that just aren't there. The welfare state of Sweden and the Nordic countries that have laid the foundation of these states success is being dismantled rapidly by right-wing politicians bent on neoliberal policies. This have recently led to a crisis in health-care, education, and a burst in increased inequality. The reputation of Swedish welfare state that you are trying to associate with neoliberal policies is just blatantly dishonest.
- booboolayla 7y ago
  You just posed a question no socialist can truthfully answer!
- Rury 7y ago
  >Eliminate the 1%, and who is going to make up that money? If by eliminate, you mean equalize the inequality - then the remaining 99% will contribute more as they'll be making more money...
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    It's not zero-sum. For an analogy, you can shear a sheep every year, but you can eat a sheep only once.
    - Rury 7y ago
      It'd be closer to zero-sum than your analogy, but either way it wouldn't need to be, as taxes could be re-adjusted as needed.
      - WalterBright 7y ago
        It's a nice theory, but has never worked out well for countries that tried it.
  - smegma2 7y ago
    I guess you're saying that the earnings of the 1% stifle the earnings of the 99%. Do you know how we can go about verifying this, as well as finding out what upper percentile of earners stifle the earnings of others? For example do the earnings of the top 10% stifle the earnings of the top 90% as well?
    - Rury 7y ago
      I'm not saying anything about stifling. I'm saying hypothetically you can take the top richest people's incomes and redistribute it to everyone. Since everyone else would then have more income, everyone else would be paying more in taxes; counter-balancing the loss in taxes the richest people would no longer be paying. The federal income wouldn't perfectly balance though, as some of that re-distributed income would be taxed at lower tax brackets. However, the government could always re-adjust the tax brackets as necessary to make it zero-sum. Anyhow, the broader point is that inequality isn't a requirement when it comes to federal taxes.

> How much inequality is acceptable? Without inequality you'd also have to give up Teslas, SpaceX, and all those initiatives Bill Gates is investing in. Keep in mind that something like 37% of Federal Income taxes come from the 1%. Eliminate the 1%, and who is going to make up that money?

claudeganon 7y ago
> Without inequality you'd also have to give up Teslas, SpaceX, and all those initiatives Bill Gates is investing in. Sounds great. I’d rather have Nordic-style social democracy.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  Norway relies heavily on Teslas :-) and something like 20% of the GDP is pumped out of ground into the government.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    That’s true! Those lousy Norwegians, free riding on American innovation... I wish we had been smart enough to nationalize our oil and gas industries back in the day as well. I wouldn’t have had to spend so much of my adult life hearing wonks go on about about slashing benefits for the elderly or things like Medicaid block grants.
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      The oil & gas industry in the US is 8% of GDP, not 20%. The US oil & gas industry pays about a 37% average income tax rate. Nationalizing that industry isn't going to be a bonanza for the government.
      - claudeganon 7y ago
        Sure, but I’m talking about the history of these industries’ private ownership and it’s impact on US history and politics. For example, imagine the US without the Koch brothers or any of the other fossil fuel dynasties. Or if radical labor movements had seized on Norway’s model in the 19th century.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Nordic countries are better described as implementing “democratic capitalism” rather than “democratic socialism.” The starting point is a capitalist market economy, not a socialist economy. See: https://mises.org/power-market/swedish-ex-prime-minister-rebukes-bernie-socialism-only-destroys https://mises.org/power-market/swedish-ex-prime-minister-reb.... Sweden receives top rankings in business and economic freedom: https://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden https://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden. Sweden has drastically cut corporate taxes, to the same levels as Trump: https://www.reuters.com/article/sweden-government-tax-idUSL8N1R33JT https://www.reuters.com/article/sweden-government-tax-idUSL8.... Sweden has long been aggressively privatizing public services, including partially privatizing their social security: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5033569; https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&ar... https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-partially-privatized-its-social-security-heres-how-it-has-worked-out-2019-09-06 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-partially-privatize... Norway and Sweden also have more billionaires per capita than the United States: https://www.insider.com/countries-ranked-by-billionaires-in-proportion-to-population-2015-7 https://www.insider.com/countries-ranked-by-billionaires-in-...
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    I’d prefer a Sweden in the 70s, but where they succeeded in turning industries over to workers and put the IKEA guy in prison for tax dodging and helping Nazis escape prosecution. And yes, the neoliberal turn that actually happened has been going bad for most everyone but the rich, but I’d take even where they are today.
  - jahaja 7y ago
    As usual, you are cherry-picking wildly and implying stuff that just aren't there. The welfare state of Sweden and the Nordic countries that have laid the foundation of these states success is being dismantled rapidly by right-wing politicians bent on neoliberal policies. This have recently led to a crisis in health-care, education, and a burst in increased inequality. The reputation of Swedish welfare state that you are trying to associate with neoliberal policies is just blatantly dishonest.
booboolayla 7y ago
You just posed a question no socialist can truthfully answer!
Rury 7y ago
>Eliminate the 1%, and who is going to make up that money? If by eliminate, you mean equalize the inequality - then the remaining 99% will contribute more as they'll be making more money...
- WalterBright 7y ago
  It's not zero-sum. For an analogy, you can shear a sheep every year, but you can eat a sheep only once.
  - Rury 7y ago
    It'd be closer to zero-sum than your analogy, but either way it wouldn't need to be, as taxes could be re-adjusted as needed.
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      It's a nice theory, but has never worked out well for countries that tried it.
- smegma2 7y ago
  I guess you're saying that the earnings of the 1% stifle the earnings of the 99%. Do you know how we can go about verifying this, as well as finding out what upper percentile of earners stifle the earnings of others? For example do the earnings of the top 10% stifle the earnings of the top 90% as well?
  - Rury 7y ago
    I'm not saying anything about stifling. I'm saying hypothetically you can take the top richest people's incomes and redistribute it to everyone. Since everyone else would then have more income, everyone else would be paying more in taxes; counter-balancing the loss in taxes the richest people would no longer be paying. The federal income wouldn't perfectly balance though, as some of that re-distributed income would be taxed at lower tax brackets. However, the government could always re-adjust the tax brackets as necessary to make it zero-sum. Anyhow, the broader point is that inequality isn't a requirement when it comes to federal taxes.