6 ms·

>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 happen

by 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.
- imgabe 6y ago
  > How is it going to be worse if Jeff Bezos is worth $50,000,000,000 instead of $180,000,000,000? Hmm, how would it be if Amazon stock dropped in price by 73%? Actually, I think that would be pretty bad. Ironically, least of all for Jeff Bezos. How good would it be for you if your 401k dropped by that much? Or maybe you're thinking we could just confiscate the stock, or force him to sell it. Sell it to whom? Other billionaires? And do you think this wouldn't have an effect on the stock prices (i.e. people's retirement funds) and availability of capital (i.e. money to pay people's salaries)?
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    I'd be fine, I'm not that rich. I'm also not that heavily invested in Amazon, so I'd be even more fine. Again, how will things be worse if Jeff Bezos was worth $50,000,000,000 instead of $180,000,000,000? That's what was supposed - that it would make things worse if we made him pay a fair rate to the American people for helping maintain his wealth.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      Jeff Bezos does not exist in a vacuum. There is no world in which you reduce Bezos' net worth by that much without affecting the rest of the economy. I already mentioned a couple possible effects. I'm sure there are many others including ones that nobody will think of until after they happen. I also don't see how you talk about fair while proposing to enact a special tax to target one specific individual. That seems more like a personal vendetta than an economic policy.
      - arrosenberg 6y ago
        It's strange you won't answer the question. I haven't prescribed what would happen to the money, simply that the rich need to take a haircut to make things more even. If you also pursue a more robust, less concentrated economy more generally, you could certainly invest the money in entrepreneurship, small farms, improved IT infrastructure, etc., etc. That would do more good for the economy than letting Jeff launch it into space. Again, we've done this kind of thing before, and the billionaires and their defenders ho-hummed the same tune, and all that happened was the emergence of the middle class and fairly broad economic prosperity. We've also see what happens when we let the concentration of wealth continue. > That seems more like a personal vendetta than an economic policy. Won't somebody please think of the poor billionaire! I'm using him as an example, because he's first on the list, but feel free to substitute whatever name or array of names you want if it makes it more palatable for you. FWIW, there is historical precedent for passing a tax law targeting the single richest person in the country (John D. Rockerfeller at the time).

by robswc 6y ago

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.

imgabe 6y ago
> How is it going to be worse if Jeff Bezos is worth $50,000,000,000 instead of $180,000,000,000? Hmm, how would it be if Amazon stock dropped in price by 73%? Actually, I think that would be pretty bad. Ironically, least of all for Jeff Bezos. How good would it be for you if your 401k dropped by that much? Or maybe you're thinking we could just confiscate the stock, or force him to sell it. Sell it to whom? Other billionaires? And do you think this wouldn't have an effect on the stock prices (i.e. people's retirement funds) and availability of capital (i.e. money to pay people's salaries)?
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  I'd be fine, I'm not that rich. I'm also not that heavily invested in Amazon, so I'd be even more fine. Again, how will things be worse if Jeff Bezos was worth $50,000,000,000 instead of $180,000,000,000? That's what was supposed - that it would make things worse if we made him pay a fair rate to the American people for helping maintain his wealth.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Jeff Bezos does not exist in a vacuum. There is no world in which you reduce Bezos' net worth by that much without affecting the rest of the economy. I already mentioned a couple possible effects. I'm sure there are many others including ones that nobody will think of until after they happen. I also don't see how you talk about fair while proposing to enact a special tax to target one specific individual. That seems more like a personal vendetta than an economic policy.
    - arrosenberg 6y ago
      It's strange you won't answer the question. I haven't prescribed what would happen to the money, simply that the rich need to take a haircut to make things more even. If you also pursue a more robust, less concentrated economy more generally, you could certainly invest the money in entrepreneurship, small farms, improved IT infrastructure, etc., etc. That would do more good for the economy than letting Jeff launch it into space. Again, we've done this kind of thing before, and the billionaires and their defenders ho-hummed the same tune, and all that happened was the emergence of the middle class and fairly broad economic prosperity. We've also see what happens when we let the concentration of wealth continue. > That seems more like a personal vendetta than an economic policy. Won't somebody please think of the poor billionaire! I'm using him as an example, because he's first on the list, but feel free to substitute whatever name or array of names you want if it makes it more palatable for you. FWIW, there is historical precedent for passing a tax law targeting the single richest person in the country (John D. Rockerfeller at the time).