8 ms·

> Voluntary redistribution through loss making startups is the comfortable alternative to wealth taxes. That's just a little bit of redistribution from the top

> Voluntary redistribution through loss making startups is the comfortable alternative to wealth taxes. That's just a little bit of redistribution from the top 1% to the top 10%, at best. Tech startups and their new fancy apps aren't putting food on the table or paying the health care bill for the bottom 90%.

heartbeats 7y ago
Anything is better than nothing, isn't it? Savings rate goes up with income. On a percentage basis, the 10% are going to be spending more money at restaurants, shops, etc. This is, arguably, preferable to the 1% investing it in the stock market.
- chishaku 7y ago
  trickle down is definitely the solution /s
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  >This is, arguably, preferable to the 1% investing it in the stock market. Arguably is the right word. The global economy is a closed system, so money put anywhere makes its way elsewhere. Spending money in restaurants and shops is most easily visible, but not necessarily any better than other investment. Even in your example, the 1% putting money in the stock market provides capital for companies as well as income for banks and brokers and finance folk of all sorts (which can then be spent in restaurants and shops). Sure, lower income people have a higher propensity to spend a marginal dollar (because they have to), but that isn't necessarily "better".
  - heartbeats 7y ago
    What about tax havens and such? As you said, if I put some money into the stock market, * my broker/bank takes some. If my broker is a public company, some of the money goes to pay operational expenses, and some of the money goes to their shareholders as dividends. * the stocks I bought go up slightly. They get cheaper capital, and their owners get an unrealized gain. Schematically, we can assume all bank employees put all their money into the stock market. So the end result is that the benefits accrue to shareholders of public companies, regardless of which stock you buy. But if money never exits the financial system to go back into the real economy, none of this matters. If a large chunk of the public stock market is held by buy-and-hold investors who just never liquidate their investments nor pay tax, this money will never come to benefit ordinary folks. Some of it will, by way of pension funds and whatnot. But it's worse than spending it on normal consumption, as I see it.
76543210 7y ago
I'm starting to think we need a 10%er collition. Our taxes went up under Trump. Healthcare got worse under Obama. The billionaire class uses the 90 percent to win elections. They have stopped pandering to us.
- krapp 7y ago
  You're not entirely wrong, but Trump did nothing but pander, and it's arguable that the Democrats biggest problem (apart from the email leaks) was Clinton not pandering enough.
  - war1025 7y ago
    Said another way: Trump worked to earn votes, Clinton just felt like she deserved them.
    - krapp 7y ago
      >Said another way: Trump worked to earn votes, Clinton just felt like she deserved them. Both candidates felt they deserved votes and deserved to win (Donald Trump no less a narcissist or elitist than Hillary Clinton) and both worked to earn their votes. However, Donald Trump was willing to make promises to working class people he had no capacity or desire to deliver on, and Hillary Clinton more or less ignored them in favor of pandering to the upper middle class and the left. Neither candidates' strategy says anything about their relative honesty or integrity, one just happened to work better than the other. In a different universe with slightly different conditions, Clinton might easily have won. Remember, she did literally "earn" more votes than Trump (not that it matters as far as the system is concerned.) But yes, we get it... "Trump good, Clinton bad." Zing.
      - war1025 7y ago
        > if you actually believe Donald Trump is any less of a narcissist or elitist than Hillary Clinton, then you're deluded Agree, but I would have put the names in the opposite spots. > Donald Trump was willing to make promises to working class people he had no capacity or desire to deliver on Kind of like Bernie with his plans for healthcare reform with Republicans in control of the Senate. > In a different universe with slightly different conditions, Clinton might easily have won. I voted for Trump and I expected Clinton to win. I suspect most people did. Election night was a welcome surprise. The ensuing three years of "the sky is falling" from the left has been tiring.
buboard 7y ago
it s redistribution regardless
alharith 7y ago
This “berniespeak” needs to go away. It’s divisive and further entrenched people into polarization. There have been plenty of people from the “bottom 90%” that entered a new income bracket thanks to technology. Let’s celebrate it instead of generalizing it to conform to a politicians ideological battle against the “wealthy”
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  It seems you are not aware that economic mobility (i.e. ending up in a different income (or wealth) quintile/decile than you were born into is at an all-time low in the United States.
  - alharith 7y ago
    Do you have a source for that? I am aware, according to the Brookings Institute, and world renowned economist Professor Raj Chetty, that it has been relatively flat for decades. Your parents wealth, and where you are born are the two biggest factors for economic mobility. Always has been, most likely always will be, so this isn't necessarily news or novel. So again, not sure divisive rhetoric and entrenching a feeling of class warfare is going to help anything. California, for example, where most people on this site are located and where a large majority of US-based socialism supporters are located, has some of the best mobility in the country. In fact, the single best thing you can do for your economic mobility is to simply move to a higher mobility area (surprise surprise). http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/mobility_trends.pdf http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/mobi... http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/movers_paper1.pdf http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/move...
    - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
      > Your parents wealth, and where you are born are the two biggest factors for economic mobility The entire point of "economic mobility" is as a measure of the extent to which that statement is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States#Intergenerational_mobility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_... (cites several survey papers and 1 or 2 originals) From a 2015 stanford report (https://web.stanford.edu/~pmitnik/EconomicMobilityintheUnitedStates.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~pmitnik/EconomicMobilityintheUnite...): "Approximately half of parental income advantages are passed on to children. The IGE, when averaged across all levels of parental income, is estimated at 0.52 for men and 0.47 for women. These estimates are at the high end of previous estimates and imply that the United States is very immobile." Lots more where that came from. This isn't class warfare. It's a statement of fact that in the USA you are likely to remain in the income bracket you were born into. What do to about that is where "class warfare" begins, if you insist on using that term.
jhrf 7y ago
What about services like Uber which are used extensively by lower income people and only exist due to VC subsidy?
- bagacrap 7y ago
  Is there evidence that low income people spend less on transportation bc of Uber? It's still hyper expensive compared to public transit and car ownership (if driving daily).
  - derrick_jensen 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure he meant that Uber drivers' pay is subsidized through VC funding, not that Uber rides are practical for people with a lower income.

heartbeats 7y ago

Anything is better than nothing, isn't it? Savings rate goes up with income. On a percentage basis, the 10% are going to be spending more money at restaurants, shops, etc. This is, arguably, preferable to the 1% investing it in the stock market.

chishaku 7y ago
trickle down is definitely the solution /s
aguyfromnb 7y ago
>This is, arguably, preferable to the 1% investing it in the stock market. Arguably is the right word. The global economy is a closed system, so money put anywhere makes its way elsewhere. Spending money in restaurants and shops is most easily visible, but not necessarily any better than other investment. Even in your example, the 1% putting money in the stock market provides capital for companies as well as income for banks and brokers and finance folk of all sorts (which can then be spent in restaurants and shops). Sure, lower income people have a higher propensity to spend a marginal dollar (because they have to), but that isn't necessarily "better".
- heartbeats 7y ago
  What about tax havens and such? As you said, if I put some money into the stock market, * my broker/bank takes some. If my broker is a public company, some of the money goes to pay operational expenses, and some of the money goes to their shareholders as dividends. * the stocks I bought go up slightly. They get cheaper capital, and their owners get an unrealized gain. Schematically, we can assume all bank employees put all their money into the stock market. So the end result is that the benefits accrue to shareholders of public companies, regardless of which stock you buy. But if money never exits the financial system to go back into the real economy, none of this matters. If a large chunk of the public stock market is held by buy-and-hold investors who just never liquidate their investments nor pay tax, this money will never come to benefit ordinary folks. Some of it will, by way of pension funds and whatnot. But it's worse than spending it on normal consumption, as I see it.

76543210 7y ago

I'm starting to think we need a 10%er collition. Our taxes went up under Trump. Healthcare got worse under Obama. The billionaire class uses the 90 percent to win elections. They have stopped pandering to us.

krapp 7y ago
You're not entirely wrong, but Trump did nothing but pander, and it's arguable that the Democrats biggest problem (apart from the email leaks) was Clinton not pandering enough.
- war1025 7y ago
  Said another way: Trump worked to earn votes, Clinton just felt like she deserved them.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >Said another way: Trump worked to earn votes, Clinton just felt like she deserved them. Both candidates felt they deserved votes and deserved to win (Donald Trump no less a narcissist or elitist than Hillary Clinton) and both worked to earn their votes. However, Donald Trump was willing to make promises to working class people he had no capacity or desire to deliver on, and Hillary Clinton more or less ignored them in favor of pandering to the upper middle class and the left. Neither candidates' strategy says anything about their relative honesty or integrity, one just happened to work better than the other. In a different universe with slightly different conditions, Clinton might easily have won. Remember, she did literally "earn" more votes than Trump (not that it matters as far as the system is concerned.) But yes, we get it... "Trump good, Clinton bad." Zing.
    - war1025 7y ago
      > if you actually believe Donald Trump is any less of a narcissist or elitist than Hillary Clinton, then you're deluded Agree, but I would have put the names in the opposite spots. > Donald Trump was willing to make promises to working class people he had no capacity or desire to deliver on Kind of like Bernie with his plans for healthcare reform with Republicans in control of the Senate. > In a different universe with slightly different conditions, Clinton might easily have won. I voted for Trump and I expected Clinton to win. I suspect most people did. Election night was a welcome surprise. The ensuing three years of "the sky is falling" from the left has been tiring.

buboard 7y ago

it s redistribution regardless

alharith 7y ago

This “berniespeak” needs to go away. It’s divisive and further entrenched people into polarization. There have been plenty of people from the “bottom 90%” that entered a new income bracket thanks to technology. Let’s celebrate it instead of generalizing it to conform to a politicians ideological battle against the “wealthy”

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
It seems you are not aware that economic mobility (i.e. ending up in a different income (or wealth) quintile/decile than you were born into is at an all-time low in the United States.
- alharith 7y ago
  Do you have a source for that? I am aware, according to the Brookings Institute, and world renowned economist Professor Raj Chetty, that it has been relatively flat for decades. Your parents wealth, and where you are born are the two biggest factors for economic mobility. Always has been, most likely always will be, so this isn't necessarily news or novel. So again, not sure divisive rhetoric and entrenching a feeling of class warfare is going to help anything. California, for example, where most people on this site are located and where a large majority of US-based socialism supporters are located, has some of the best mobility in the country. In fact, the single best thing you can do for your economic mobility is to simply move to a higher mobility area (surprise surprise). http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/mobility_trends.pdf http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/mobi... http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/movers_paper1.pdf http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/move...
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    > Your parents wealth, and where you are born are the two biggest factors for economic mobility The entire point of "economic mobility" is as a measure of the extent to which that statement is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States#Intergenerational_mobility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_... (cites several survey papers and 1 or 2 originals) From a 2015 stanford report (https://web.stanford.edu/~pmitnik/EconomicMobilityintheUnitedStates.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~pmitnik/EconomicMobilityintheUnite...): "Approximately half of parental income advantages are passed on to children. The IGE, when averaged across all levels of parental income, is estimated at 0.52 for men and 0.47 for women. These estimates are at the high end of previous estimates and imply that the United States is very immobile." Lots more where that came from. This isn't class warfare. It's a statement of fact that in the USA you are likely to remain in the income bracket you were born into. What do to about that is where "class warfare" begins, if you insist on using that term.

jhrf 7y ago

What about services like Uber which are used extensively by lower income people and only exist due to VC subsidy?

bagacrap 7y ago
Is there evidence that low income people spend less on transportation bc of Uber? It's still hyper expensive compared to public transit and car ownership (if driving daily).
- derrick_jensen 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure he meant that Uber drivers' pay is subsidized through VC funding, not that Uber rides are practical for people with a lower income.