6 ms·
>How is it going to be worse if Jeff Bezos is worth $50,000,000,000 instead of $180,000,000,000? on the inverse, how much worse has it gotten since Jeff Bezos
by robswc 6y ago
>How is it going to be worse if Jeff Bezos is worth $50,000,000,000 instead of $180,000,000,000?
on the inverse, how much worse has it gotten since Jeff Bezos went from $50b to $180b?
It keeps coming back to the fact that there is such a focus on "wealth" or whatever.
That's like asking "how is this tax bad if it literally makes more tax revenue?" - the answer is that it will have unforeseen consequences (or even foreseen by a lot).
>what are you picturing happening here?
You're the one even implying its possible, I figured you would have the answer lol
>Me.
Oh, so anyone with more power than you is bad?
What about people that don't even have the privilege of arguing on HN?
>That's unacceptable for a democracy or a fair capitalist economy
Why? I would probably agree there's limits that should be imposed so that anyone can't just push around whatever law they want but at the same time, how else would you suggest these things work?
>Economic prosperity, a broad middle class — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal.
Since we're talking about taxes... I checked out the section called "Tax Policy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Tax_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Tax_policy
It literally says here:
The bill imposed an income tax of 79% on incomes over $5 million. Since that was an extraordinary high income in the 1930s, the highest tax rate actually covered just one individual—John D. Rockefeller. The bill was expected to raise only about $250 million in additional funds, so revenue was not the primary goal. Morgenthau called it "more or less a campaign document". In a private conversation with Raymond Moley, Roosevelt admitted that the purpose of the bill was "stealing Huey Long's thunder" by making Long's supporters of his own. At the same time, it raised the bitterness of the rich who called Roosevelt "a traitor to his class" and the wealth tax act a "soak the rich tax".
The only other thing is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undistributed_profits_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undistributed_profits_tax
Which essentially only lasted 3 years...
If you're not talking about these things, then I would ask you don't just send a wikipedia link with over 100 subsections lol.
>We've also seen some really gruesome examples of what happens when concentrated wealth is allowed to run amok for too long
How do you reason all these things are "caused by concentrated wealth"?
>Keep nitpicking individual policies, you are missing the bigger picture.
The big picture is made up of individual policies... that is actually my entire point. I gave you clear example of what happens when one fails to remember the big picture.
You gave me links to wikipedia pages covering topics as broad as WWI and left it at that...
- arrosenberg 6y agoJeff Bezos' net worth was ~$33,600,000,000 at the beginning of 2017. I would argue things are considerably worse for the average American since then. It's not the wealth, it's the level of inequality that the wealth is indicative of. If every American had healthcare and access to quality education, housing, and food, it would not matter to me how wealthy Jeff Bezos gets. It's about the floor, not the ceiling, but the floor comes first. > Oh, so anyone with more power than you is bad? What about people that don't even have the privilege of arguing on HN? Snore. If you really want to reduce things to personal jabs, that's cool I guess. I was using myself as a stand-in for an average person - feel free to substitute any name that makes your heart warm. > I would probably agree there's limits that should be imposed so that anyone can't just push around whatever law they want but at the same time, how else would you suggest these things work? Sever the links between money and political power. Limit private ownership of news organizations. Take away the tools that are being abused. > Since we're talking about taxes... I checked out the section called "Tax Policy" Social Security taxes and Medicare Taxes; and most New Deal programs were financed by the Revenue Act of 1932 [1] passed in the year FDR was campaigning on the New Deal. Again, I didn't realize you were going to be a pendant, otherwise I would have linked more specifically. My b. > How do you reason all these things are "caused by concentrated wealth"? Slavery was propagated by the concentrated wealth of the southern aristocracy. They rebelled when they felt that their wealth was threatened. Similarly, in Europe, World War 1 was a war of prestige and conquest fought between a bunch of wealthy (largely related) families who had built huge empires. > The big picture is made up of individual policies... that is actually my entire point. I gave you clear example of what happens when one fails to remember the big picture. You mocked me a bit and told me I should have the answers, but I didn't see any clear examples. You are wrong about the first point - you can nitpick implementations and individual policies all day. I'm not claiming that 100% of policies that tax the wealthy are good, or will succeed. The big picture is important because it abstracts those smaller points away - the bigger picture is that inequality is driving our societal issues, and taxing the wealthy is an obvious, primary way to help remedy that. Talking about a Swedish wealth tax from 1990 is a joke. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932
- robswc 6y ago