4 ms·

What a defeatist attitude. Instead of snarkily poking holes, where's your better solution? Because there has to be a solution. Inequality is reaching levels wh

by sho 6y ago

What a defeatist attitude. Instead of snarkily poking holes, where's your better solution? Because there has to be a solution. Inequality is reaching levels where it's dangerous. No, it is not good nor stable for 1% of the population to control 99% of the assets, and we'll get there soon enough. Redistribution will happen either by law or by knife and gun. This is not about who earned what or what was inconvenient for XYZ person. This is about the citizens of the country, supposedly equal under law, having no chance whatsoever of ever owning an equal part. It's about aristocracy, basically. And do we all remember how aristocracies end? Real life is not some computer model. In real life, if a father of 6 cannot feed or house his children he will not be satisfied by you saying that "well, Jeff Bezos outcompeted you!". There will be a redistribution. Our only choice is how it happens. This is an attempt.

babesh 6y ago
It is not snarky to poke holes. It is snarky to call someone snarky for pointing out issues. You don’t always have to come up with a solution immediately. That would be stupid. Basic income via the printing of money. What do you think those $600 checks were? Inheritance tax. Make education at public schools and universities free. Reform government for greater efficiency.
- sho 6y ago
  All excellent ideas, and inevitable, IMO.
- babesh 6y ago
  Universal healthcare.
- Darmody 6y ago
  Printing money is very risky. The US has the stability to print a lot of money but I'm afraid printing money forever would end up with a huge inflation. Hi Weimar Republic. Hi Venezuela.
  - sho 6y ago
    I guess you have not heard of Quantitative Easing?
    - Darmody 6y ago
      I've heard of it. The question is, have you? Because inflation is precisely the biggest problem when it's applied. It works on certain scenarios but it's not a long term solution.
      - sho 6y ago
        I guess I have heard of it since I mentioned it So, where's the inflation because of it? Or are you going to STFU
        Darmody 6y ago
        But have you heard only the name or do you know when it's used and what are its consequences? I could mention quantum physics and still have 0 idea about it. What about instead of saying "i'M tHe gUy wHo mEnTiOnEd iT" you explain why do you think it's good?
        sho 6y ago
        Did I say it's good? I know exactly what it is. It's a radical expansion of fed credit. What are the consequences? Well, do you think things are better? USD expansion is not going to be a big issue for a while. Your spongebob capitalisations are not appreciated
        Darmody 6y ago
        Well, I criticized printing money to pay a basic income. Which means from now on the Fed will print trillions every year. If you're not trying to fight deflation that would only increase the inflation rate. And what would happen when the USD expansions becomes a problem? Would the Fed stop printing money.
darawk 6y ago
This isn't an attempt to fix that. This isn't an attempt to fix anything at all. The government can just pay people's out of pocket expenses if it wanted to, it doesn't need to tax anyone to do it. This law doesn't even address inequality in any material way - it's a one time tax. It's a vapid political stunt, nothing more.
- sho 6y ago
  Yeah, it doesn't fix everything perfectly forever. But it's a shot across the bow.
  - darawk 6y ago
    It's a one time tax. It has zero chance of passing, and it'd accomplish precisely nothing of value even if it did. It's a political stunt - the only purpose of which is to remind you that Bernie Sanders exists, he hates billionaires, and you should too.
    - sho 6y ago
      OK. Look, I'm not arguing, conceptually, against you. But there is a very big problem and it will need to be addressed. Sanders is doing what he can. Maybe this is not the best approach but is doing nothing better? Yeah, this act sucks! So let's make a better one. I just hated your nit picking attitude.
      - darawk 6y ago
        I don't really see how billionaires being rich is a problem either. The problem isn't that some people are rich, it's that other people are poor. I'm much more interested in solutions that make people not poor than ones that make people not rich. Deleting Jeff Bezos's wealth from the world tomorrow isn't going to make anyone any better off, and it'd be quite likely to make a lot of people worse off. The real problem with our tax system is that equity capital skirt's the income tax, because it is illiquid. Jeff Bezos doesn't pay almost no income tax because the top tax bracket is too low. He pays very little income tax because he doesn't sell his stock, and that allows it to compound, tax-free. The tax-free compounding provided by long term asset holding in the United States is an incredible gift to capital, that labor does not receive - labor is paid a salary, upon which they are taxed every year. People who own capital assets that they do not sell receive the full 'time value' of their money, which adds up to an enormous amount if held over many years. Address this issue, and you will address a major source of inequality. While you're at it, get rid of the tax break for 'long term capital gains', its based on some paternalistic false premise that "long term" investing is somehow good. These things won't get rid of inequality, but they would meaningfully reshape the process that produces it, and they would do so in ways that preserve fundamental notions of fairness and property, in a way that Bernie Sander's proposal does not. We don't want a government that simply randomly expropriates property from targeted slivers of the population who happen to be unpopular at the moment. We want a government based on principle and system design. The real problem with Sander's proposal isn't that it's a stunt. It's that it contravenes principles of good governance. It's a hack, not a principle.
mnky9800n 6y ago
Don't punish people like billionaires. Instead institute policies that are pro worker and pro society. Like no more stock buy backs. Or tax incentives for large cap r&d investment. Or corporate tax incentives for generous pension plans. Basically instead of letting them pay no taxes for dumb reasons let corporations pay no taxes for proworker and pro society reasons.
- sho 6y ago
  It is a very difficult question. It is money vs. society. If you can earn more money for yourself by impoverishing others, but the total wealth and stability of society goes down, is that a good thing? No I think it is not. There's a conflict here. Society vs. money. This is a transitional phase and I believe money will be gone in 20 years, replaced by some kind of "shares in society" or something. I have ideas about how that works but there's no doing nothing. You can't have billionaires living in castles surrounded by millions of starving poor. It's not about "merit" it is about human life. Life will win every time.
- danielheath 6y ago
  Buybacks were never the problem. Buybacks as part of acquisitions, using the acquired companies resources to take complete control for less than its market value, are a ridiculous accounting trick which should never have been permitted. Buybacks combined with tiered stock are also pretty fraught. Buybacks by existing leadership in pure-common-stock orgs are fine.
Darmody 6y ago
This is not an attempt. This is something that wouldn't work. All the big companies would probably die. Imagine all the NASDAQ founders selling 50% of their shares. Who would buy them? The price would sink and they wouldn't be that wealthy any more and the government wouldn't get any money.
postingawayonhn 6y ago
> What a defeatist attitude. Instead of snarkily poking holes, where's your better solution? Higher interest rates.
nextweek2 6y ago
What about all the pension funds invested into these companies. Average people will be hurt by a share price dump. There are already the tools to deal with billionaire's wealth. How these companies aren't broken up for being monopolies is beyond me. Imagine a world where there are 5 Amazon's rather than one. Suddenly there's a cap on how much one person can control.
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  Easy solution, the federal govt takes the shares. Nobody said it had to be cash, tax them in cash or in-kind assets. Then the government can sell the shares as needed for their balance sheets.
RhysU 6y ago
> No, it is not ... stable for 1% of the population to control 99% of the assets... Many ancient cultures had at least this level of inequality and ruling stability. The Ptolemies made something last for longer than the US has existed, e.g..

by sho 6y ago

babesh 6y ago

It is not snarky to poke holes. It is snarky to call someone snarky for pointing out issues. You don’t always have to come up with a solution immediately. That would be stupid. Basic income via the printing of money. What do you think those $600 checks were? Inheritance tax. Make education at public schools and universities free. Reform government for greater efficiency.

sho 6y ago
All excellent ideas, and inevitable, IMO.
babesh 6y ago
Universal healthcare.
Darmody 6y ago
Printing money is very risky. The US has the stability to print a lot of money but I'm afraid printing money forever would end up with a huge inflation. Hi Weimar Republic. Hi Venezuela.
- sho 6y ago
  I guess you have not heard of Quantitative Easing?
  - Darmody 6y ago
    I've heard of it. The question is, have you? Because inflation is precisely the biggest problem when it's applied. It works on certain scenarios but it's not a long term solution.
    - sho 6y ago
      I guess I have heard of it since I mentioned it So, where's the inflation because of it? Or are you going to STFU
      - Darmody 6y ago
        But have you heard only the name or do you know when it's used and what are its consequences? I could mention quantum physics and still have 0 idea about it. What about instead of saying "i'M tHe gUy wHo mEnTiOnEd iT" you explain why do you think it's good?
        sho 6y ago
        Did I say it's good? I know exactly what it is. It's a radical expansion of fed credit. What are the consequences? Well, do you think things are better? USD expansion is not going to be a big issue for a while. Your spongebob capitalisations are not appreciated
        Darmody 6y ago
        Well, I criticized printing money to pay a basic income. Which means from now on the Fed will print trillions every year. If you're not trying to fight deflation that would only increase the inflation rate. And what would happen when the USD expansions becomes a problem? Would the Fed stop printing money.

darawk 6y ago

This isn't an attempt to fix that. This isn't an attempt to fix anything at all. The government can just pay people's out of pocket expenses if it wanted to, it doesn't need to tax anyone to do it. This law doesn't even address inequality in any material way - it's a one time tax. It's a vapid political stunt, nothing more.

sho 6y ago
Yeah, it doesn't fix everything perfectly forever. But it's a shot across the bow.
- darawk 6y ago
  It's a one time tax. It has zero chance of passing, and it'd accomplish precisely nothing of value even if it did. It's a political stunt - the only purpose of which is to remind you that Bernie Sanders exists, he hates billionaires, and you should too.
  - sho 6y ago
    OK. Look, I'm not arguing, conceptually, against you. But there is a very big problem and it will need to be addressed. Sanders is doing what he can. Maybe this is not the best approach but is doing nothing better? Yeah, this act sucks! So let's make a better one. I just hated your nit picking attitude.
    - darawk 6y ago
      I don't really see how billionaires being rich is a problem either. The problem isn't that some people are rich, it's that other people are poor. I'm much more interested in solutions that make people not poor than ones that make people not rich. Deleting Jeff Bezos's wealth from the world tomorrow isn't going to make anyone any better off, and it'd be quite likely to make a lot of people worse off. The real problem with our tax system is that equity capital skirt's the income tax, because it is illiquid. Jeff Bezos doesn't pay almost no income tax because the top tax bracket is too low. He pays very little income tax because he doesn't sell his stock, and that allows it to compound, tax-free. The tax-free compounding provided by long term asset holding in the United States is an incredible gift to capital, that labor does not receive - labor is paid a salary, upon which they are taxed every year. People who own capital assets that they do not sell receive the full 'time value' of their money, which adds up to an enormous amount if held over many years. Address this issue, and you will address a major source of inequality. While you're at it, get rid of the tax break for 'long term capital gains', its based on some paternalistic false premise that "long term" investing is somehow good. These things won't get rid of inequality, but they would meaningfully reshape the process that produces it, and they would do so in ways that preserve fundamental notions of fairness and property, in a way that Bernie Sander's proposal does not. We don't want a government that simply randomly expropriates property from targeted slivers of the population who happen to be unpopular at the moment. We want a government based on principle and system design. The real problem with Sander's proposal isn't that it's a stunt. It's that it contravenes principles of good governance. It's a hack, not a principle.

mnky9800n 6y ago

Don't punish people like billionaires. Instead institute policies that are pro worker and pro society. Like no more stock buy backs. Or tax incentives for large cap r&d investment. Or corporate tax incentives for generous pension plans. Basically instead of letting them pay no taxes for dumb reasons let corporations pay no taxes for proworker and pro society reasons.

sho 6y ago
It is a very difficult question. It is money vs. society. If you can earn more money for yourself by impoverishing others, but the total wealth and stability of society goes down, is that a good thing? No I think it is not. There's a conflict here. Society vs. money. This is a transitional phase and I believe money will be gone in 20 years, replaced by some kind of "shares in society" or something. I have ideas about how that works but there's no doing nothing. You can't have billionaires living in castles surrounded by millions of starving poor. It's not about "merit" it is about human life. Life will win every time.
danielheath 6y ago
Buybacks were never the problem. Buybacks as part of acquisitions, using the acquired companies resources to take complete control for less than its market value, are a ridiculous accounting trick which should never have been permitted. Buybacks combined with tiered stock are also pretty fraught. Buybacks by existing leadership in pure-common-stock orgs are fine.

Darmody 6y ago

This is not an attempt. This is something that wouldn't work. All the big companies would probably die. Imagine all the NASDAQ founders selling 50% of their shares. Who would buy them? The price would sink and they wouldn't be that wealthy any more and the government wouldn't get any money.

postingawayonhn 6y ago

> What a defeatist attitude. Instead of snarkily poking holes, where's your better solution? Higher interest rates.

nextweek2 6y ago

What about all the pension funds invested into these companies. Average people will be hurt by a share price dump. There are already the tools to deal with billionaire's wealth. How these companies aren't broken up for being monopolies is beyond me. Imagine a world where there are 5 Amazon's rather than one. Suddenly there's a cap on how much one person can control.

gremlinsinc 6y ago
Easy solution, the federal govt takes the shares. Nobody said it had to be cash, tax them in cash or in-kind assets. Then the government can sell the shares as needed for their balance sheets.

RhysU 6y ago

> No, it is not ... stable for 1% of the population to control 99% of the assets... Many ancient cultures had at least this level of inequality and ruling stability. The Ptolemies made something last for longer than the US has existed, e.g..