5 ms·

Maybe the government has enough money, maybe it doesn't. It's the structural disparity that Jeff Bezos' wealth represents that is the problem. His wealth also g

Maybe the government has enough money, maybe it doesn't. It's the structural disparity that Jeff Bezos' wealth represents that is the problem. His wealth also gives him disproportionate power to shape the incentives of the government, the economy, and the media narrative. Taxation is the proper remedy for breaking this power. We won't know what's possible until we stop letting barons write the laws.

imgabe 6y ago
The general structure is that people are allowed to own the things they make. If you start a company, it belongs to you. Your company might become very valuable and mine might not, which might create some disparity. There are other systems, like where everybody owns everything, but historically when you allow it so one person can own something that someone else has to create it doesn't work out very well. People don't have any incentive to make things if they can just own things that other people make.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  The general structure is that all businesses rely on the government to maintain the courts and enforce contracts, and they are all built upon public commons. Taxation is not theft, pay your share. Entrepreneurialism is at an all-time low in this low-tax, finance-happy environment, so I don't see how you can conclude that low taxes are good for creativity. It seems like it's been pretty good for concentration - low taxes means more money for acquisitions and buybacks.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    I never said taxation was theft or that taxes shouldn't exist. I said that private ownership of property was good for creativity, this is independent of taxation. You can pay taxes and still own things. Indeed, we do. You seem to be proposing that taxation is an unalloyed good and that more taxation is always better - that all problems are the result of insufficient taxation. Do you have any actual plan for how to spend all this money you propose to collect in taxes, or do you just want to throw more money at the people who are currently doing a bad job with the money they already have?
    - arrosenberg 6y ago
      That seems like a straw man of my position. Suggesting that we tax the wealth of the richest person in the country is not a radical idea, nor is it equivalent to "taxation is an unalloyed good". Likewise, nothing I said conflicts with the idea that private ownership of property is good, generally. Just that inequality is bad, and taxation is a primary way to address it. If you don't think taxation is theft, then it's just negotiating the number, and I don't understand what point you are trying to make other than "government bad". > Do you have any actual plan for how to spend all this money you propose to collect in taxes, or do you just want to throw more money at the people who are currently doing a bad job with the money they already have? Sure, but I'm not running for office, because "small government conservatives" and their presumptions make it absolutely miserable for anyone who would do a good job of it. You can burn the money in a furnace for all I care, as long as the ratio between the richest and poorest goes down substantially.
      - alentist 6y ago
        > You can burn the money in a furnace for all I care, as long as the ratio between the richest and poorest goes down substantially. How does making everyone worse off make things better? For example, inequality skyrocketed in China after they liberalized their economy [0]. Why would it be better for everyone to be equally miserable and starving? I really don't understand this mentality. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
        JamisonM 6y ago
        Why would burning some marginal percentage of the very wealthiest individuals' money make everyone worse off? Seems like it would just put a slight damper on the inflation rate of country estates and enormous yachts. (Heck, for all intents and purposes given the high marginal tax rates in many countries and the enormous amounts of waste that those governments are guilty of we're already doing just that, and the last 80ish years of human history have been pretty darn good!)
  - notSupplied 6y ago
    Taxation to pay 1. “your fair share of the public commons”, which all big businesses benefit from, is very different from 2. taxation to reduce poverty, which is also different from 3. taxation to eliminate rich people. Am I wrong in sensing that you believe in a bit of #3?
robswc 6y ago
>Maybe the government has enough money, maybe it doesn't. This is exactly the problem I have with this "taxing the wealthy will fix it" arguments. What happens if it is the latter? What happens if taxing the rich doesn't fix it and actually makes things worse? >His wealth also gives him disproportionate power to shape the incentives of the government, the economy, and the media narrative. Disproportionate to what? >Taxation is the proper remedy for breaking this power. Why? >We won't know what's possible until we stop letting barons write the laws. Again, what if "what's possible" is worse? Its not some "what if" either, its literally happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_... Same exact line of thinking too. They figured if they taxed "the rich" they would get more money. To this day they have probably lost untold amounts because it essentially killed their markets. You would have to do some modeling but all else holding true, they've missed out on decades capital gains taxes that just don't exist anymore because of that FTT.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  > What happens if taxing the rich doesn't fix it and actually makes things worse? How is it going to be worse if Jeff Bezos is worth $50,000,000,000 instead of $180,000,000,000? I don't get it - America doesn't have a Communist party, what are you picturing happening here? > Disproportionate to what? Me. If he wants a policy to change, he has lobbyists and the Washington Post. If I want to change a policy I have to spend my whole life building a coalition. That's unacceptable for a democracy or a fair capitalist economy. Lots of "what if" and narrow examples here, but we've tried this experiment before, in this country. It worked really well! Economic prosperity, a broad middle class — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal. We've also seen some really gruesome examples of what happens when concentrated wealth is allowed to run amok for too long — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I. Keep nitpicking individual policies, you are missing the bigger picture.
  - 6y ago
pdonis 6y ago
> Taxation is the proper remedy for breaking this power. No, it's one possible remedy, and historically it doesn't appear to have worked very well. The fundamental problem with taxation is that governments are even worse than individual billionaires like Jeff Bezos at choosing what to do with large amounts of money. Another possible remedy is to reduce the power of governments, so there is less value to be captured by influencing them. IIRC pg recommended this fix in one of his (fairly early) essays. > We won't know what's possible until we stop letting barons write the laws. If you think taxation stops this from happening, I have some sad news for you.
- pm90 6y ago
  > The fundamental problem with taxation is that governments are even worse than individual billionaires like Jeff Bezos at choosing what to do with large amounts of money. Citation needed. When Governments had lots of revenue, they assist the population with public services, which tend to benefit the lowest stratum of society the most. But the cumulative effect is to raise the quality of life of society as a whole. There is little evidence that billionaires have that kind of effect on society as a whole (outside of a few notable exceptions like Gates). Having a billionaire class that has so much resources that they can influence public policy and Government... is an even worse outcome, and could be considered the only reason to dismantle this class. The Government is elected by the people (in a democracy) and having mini-kings is absolutely detrimental to the health of our democracy.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Citation needed. When Governments had lots of revenue, they assist the population with public services, which tend to benefit the lowest stratum of society the most. But the cumulative effect is to raise the quality of life of society as a whole. Citation needed.
    - webmaven 6y ago
      > > Citation needed. When Governments had lots of revenue, they assist the population with public services, which tend to benefit the lowest stratum of society the most. But the cumulative effect is to raise the quality of life of society as a whole. > Citation needed. That's actually fairly uncontroversial. Small government fetishists insist that left unfettered the flourishing market and voluntary charity would more than make up the resulting gap, but any evidence to the contrary is generally taken as proof that we just haven't lowered taxes and deregulated enough. The defense of Communism that it hasn't actually been tried for real yet doesn't make any more sense when applied in turn to laissez faire capitalism. On the other hand, we have quite a bit of data about the broad middle ground, and it is pretty clear that the current settings for the US economy are that taxes are currently too low and not progressive enough (how much is a matter of some debate), and that we probably need to revert to Reagan-era levels if only to be able to afford to refresh and replace crumbling public infrastructure that has been a drag on the economy for a while (because putting off maintenance doesn't save money in the long run) and step up enforcement of existing regulations.

imgabe 6y ago

The general structure is that people are allowed to own the things they make. If you start a company, it belongs to you. Your company might become very valuable and mine might not, which might create some disparity. There are other systems, like where everybody owns everything, but historically when you allow it so one person can own something that someone else has to create it doesn't work out very well. People don't have any incentive to make things if they can just own things that other people make.

arrosenberg 6y ago
The general structure is that all businesses rely on the government to maintain the courts and enforce contracts, and they are all built upon public commons. Taxation is not theft, pay your share. Entrepreneurialism is at an all-time low in this low-tax, finance-happy environment, so I don't see how you can conclude that low taxes are good for creativity. It seems like it's been pretty good for concentration - low taxes means more money for acquisitions and buybacks.
- imgabe 6y ago
  I never said taxation was theft or that taxes shouldn't exist. I said that private ownership of property was good for creativity, this is independent of taxation. You can pay taxes and still own things. Indeed, we do. You seem to be proposing that taxation is an unalloyed good and that more taxation is always better - that all problems are the result of insufficient taxation. Do you have any actual plan for how to spend all this money you propose to collect in taxes, or do you just want to throw more money at the people who are currently doing a bad job with the money they already have?
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    That seems like a straw man of my position. Suggesting that we tax the wealth of the richest person in the country is not a radical idea, nor is it equivalent to "taxation is an unalloyed good". Likewise, nothing I said conflicts with the idea that private ownership of property is good, generally. Just that inequality is bad, and taxation is a primary way to address it. If you don't think taxation is theft, then it's just negotiating the number, and I don't understand what point you are trying to make other than "government bad". > Do you have any actual plan for how to spend all this money you propose to collect in taxes, or do you just want to throw more money at the people who are currently doing a bad job with the money they already have? Sure, but I'm not running for office, because "small government conservatives" and their presumptions make it absolutely miserable for anyone who would do a good job of it. You can burn the money in a furnace for all I care, as long as the ratio between the richest and poorest goes down substantially.
    - alentist 6y ago
      > You can burn the money in a furnace for all I care, as long as the ratio between the richest and poorest goes down substantially. How does making everyone worse off make things better? For example, inequality skyrocketed in China after they liberalized their economy [0]. Why would it be better for everyone to be equally miserable and starving? I really don't understand this mentality. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
      - JamisonM 6y ago
        Why would burning some marginal percentage of the very wealthiest individuals' money make everyone worse off? Seems like it would just put a slight damper on the inflation rate of country estates and enormous yachts. (Heck, for all intents and purposes given the high marginal tax rates in many countries and the enormous amounts of waste that those governments are guilty of we're already doing just that, and the last 80ish years of human history have been pretty darn good!)
- notSupplied 6y ago
  Taxation to pay 1. “your fair share of the public commons”, which all big businesses benefit from, is very different from 2. taxation to reduce poverty, which is also different from 3. taxation to eliminate rich people. Am I wrong in sensing that you believe in a bit of #3?

robswc 6y ago

>Maybe the government has enough money, maybe it doesn't. This is exactly the problem I have with this "taxing the wealthy will fix it" arguments. What happens if it is the latter? What happens if taxing the rich doesn't fix it and actually makes things worse? >His wealth also gives him disproportionate power to shape the incentives of the government, the economy, and the media narrative. Disproportionate to what? >Taxation is the proper remedy for breaking this power. Why? >We won't know what's possible until we stop letting barons write the laws. Again, what if "what's possible" is worse? Its not some "what if" either, its literally happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_... Same exact line of thinking too. They figured if they taxed "the rich" they would get more money. To this day they have probably lost untold amounts because it essentially killed their markets. You would have to do some modeling but all else holding true, they've missed out on decades capital gains taxes that just don't exist anymore because of that FTT.

arrosenberg 6y ago
> What happens if taxing the rich doesn't fix it and actually makes things worse? How is it going to be worse if Jeff Bezos is worth $50,000,000,000 instead of $180,000,000,000? I don't get it - America doesn't have a Communist party, what are you picturing happening here? > Disproportionate to what? Me. If he wants a policy to change, he has lobbyists and the Washington Post. If I want to change a policy I have to spend my whole life building a coalition. That's unacceptable for a democracy or a fair capitalist economy. Lots of "what if" and narrow examples here, but we've tried this experiment before, in this country. It worked really well! Economic prosperity, a broad middle class — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal. We've also seen some really gruesome examples of what happens when concentrated wealth is allowed to run amok for too long — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I. Keep nitpicking individual policies, you are missing the bigger picture.
- 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> Taxation is the proper remedy for breaking this power. No, it's one possible remedy, and historically it doesn't appear to have worked very well. The fundamental problem with taxation is that governments are even worse than individual billionaires like Jeff Bezos at choosing what to do with large amounts of money. Another possible remedy is to reduce the power of governments, so there is less value to be captured by influencing them. IIRC pg recommended this fix in one of his (fairly early) essays. > We won't know what's possible until we stop letting barons write the laws. If you think taxation stops this from happening, I have some sad news for you.

pm90 6y ago
> The fundamental problem with taxation is that governments are even worse than individual billionaires like Jeff Bezos at choosing what to do with large amounts of money. Citation needed. When Governments had lots of revenue, they assist the population with public services, which tend to benefit the lowest stratum of society the most. But the cumulative effect is to raise the quality of life of society as a whole. There is little evidence that billionaires have that kind of effect on society as a whole (outside of a few notable exceptions like Gates). Having a billionaire class that has so much resources that they can influence public policy and Government... is an even worse outcome, and could be considered the only reason to dismantle this class. The Government is elected by the people (in a democracy) and having mini-kings is absolutely detrimental to the health of our democracy.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Citation needed. When Governments had lots of revenue, they assist the population with public services, which tend to benefit the lowest stratum of society the most. But the cumulative effect is to raise the quality of life of society as a whole. Citation needed.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > > Citation needed. When Governments had lots of revenue, they assist the population with public services, which tend to benefit the lowest stratum of society the most. But the cumulative effect is to raise the quality of life of society as a whole. > Citation needed. That's actually fairly uncontroversial. Small government fetishists insist that left unfettered the flourishing market and voluntary charity would more than make up the resulting gap, but any evidence to the contrary is generally taken as proof that we just haven't lowered taxes and deregulated enough. The defense of Communism that it hasn't actually been tried for real yet doesn't make any more sense when applied in turn to laissez faire capitalism. On the other hand, we have quite a bit of data about the broad middle ground, and it is pretty clear that the current settings for the US economy are that taxes are currently too low and not progressive enough (how much is a matter of some debate), and that we probably need to revert to Reagan-era levels if only to be able to afford to refresh and replace crumbling public infrastructure that has been a drag on the economy for a while (because putting off maintenance doesn't save money in the long run) and step up enforcement of existing regulations.