4 ms·

The people being taxed would be the billionares. Those are by no measure the "productive" members of society, these people are statistical outliers created by c

by j-pb 6y ago

The people being taxed would be the billionares. Those are by no measure the "productive" members of society, these people are statistical outliers created by chance and luck in an unstable system that sometimes creates self enforcing feedback loops that grow exponentially. We should recognize these feedback loops as a bug and rectify them. The fact that you even had a job that you could loose, means that you are NOT in that category, and (statistically speaking) never will be.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
How do you plan on taxing unrecognized capital gains? Forcing the sale of equity? What parameters determine when someone is forced to sell equity? How about equity in non publicly listed assets, which don’t have a deep market or clear price?
- j-pb 6y ago
  "Taxing the super rich is hard, so let's not do it." That's what tax inspectors are for.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    What is the purpose of misrepresenting a comment? If it makes it clearer, suppose the market value of the assets you own increases from $10M to $15M in a year. How would you tax this? Do you start forcing people to sell? What if the asset they own isn’t publicly traded, for example land, or privately owned companies? It’s not a “gotcha I’m against increasing taxes on wealthier people statement”. It’s a legitimate question on how to operate society when do much of the wealth is simply from increasing asset prices and decreasing currency values.
    - j-pb 6y ago
      Force them to sell. If there isn't actually the demand at that valuation, then then it's a bubble anyways, that should be popped sooner than later. Also, at that point, you shure as hell diversify your assets, instead of having them all in a single privately held company. That's why we need a transaction tax on stock combined with tax breaks on stocks that have societal value, together with a ban on all derivatives. Stock markets need to be first order long term srategy crowdfunding again like they were originally invented as. Otherwise computers will just chase the next peofitable microsecond and CEOs will juse try to optimise the next quarter.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        How and who do you determine values for assets that aren’t readily traded, such as intellectual property or equity in a private company? I know how real estate and tangible/intangible asset values are assessed for property taxes purposes, and the problems with that are enormous, not to mention the avenues for fraud and increased paperwork. There are definitely winners and losers there based on your level of influence in society. How and who determines what “stocks” have societal value? It’s really easy to say these things, but I have yet to come across someone with even a half baked plan to implement them in a fair way. For example, currently startup employees get screwed with the way taxes work on options, where they owe significant taxes for nebulous gains that they may or may not benefit from.
        j-pb 6y ago
        Oh yeah, you're right. Can't tax those billionaires. I completely forgot the paperwork. And those invaluable art collections. You just can't put a price tag on those!
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      I'm in a jurisdiction with a wealth tax, so such things do exist, and do work. (and contra Graham, it's only assessed at a per-mille level, not percents)
s1artibartfast 6y ago
There are not enough billionaires to fix the budget, even if we doubled their taxes. There are only 600 their annual income isn't so significant in comparison to the budget. Take Jeff Bezos, the richest man on earth, for example. His total compensation is 1.7 million and His capital gains from stock sales are about 1-2 billion per year. The salary is is essentially negligible, and even doubling capital gains would provide an extra 200-400 million. The federal budget for 2020 was 4,790 million dollars.
- j-pb 6y ago
  Ha, doubling it, that's cute. The top marginal tax rate in the US used to be 92% in the 50s, and that's what was widely considered it's "golden age". Those 600 people hold $4 Trillion dollar. Which is the federal budged you mentioned (it's not million btw). The bottom 50% of the us population have 2 Trillion. Those 4+ trillion federal budget include that ridiculous amount of defense spending, that's essentially welfare for the rich. Now imagine if you could increase the federal budget by 25% for 4 years, just for science and education, and as a side effect you get a continued plus through the reduced negative effects of massive political influence by a small elite of 600 people. There would probably a positive societal impact if you took those 4 trillion and burned them. Getting to spend them means, moon colonies, mars missions, broadband internet everywhere, proper healthcare for all, and maybe a shot at surviving the climate and biosphere collapse...
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > Those 600 people hold $4 Trillion dollar. They do not have $4T. They have assets which may be valued at $4T based on the most recent sale price of a small representative piece of the asset. There is no way that the “$4T” in assets can be converted to $4T cash as selling it all would shift the supply and demand curves causing the price to drop, and hence the valuation.
    - j-pb 6y ago
      Your argument is the same as saying "but they don't have any money, they only have 65238 metric tons of gold". Money doesn't have any intrinsic value either. You might as well say "societal power" instead of "wealth", and you get the same outcome. These people have a grotesque amount of influence over everything. As I said, even if you'd just destroy all their wealth/power, you'd still get a better society, because politicians wouldn't constantly try to do the bidding of these people and instead tackle the real problems that we have.

by j-pb 6y ago

lotsofpulp 6y ago

How do you plan on taxing unrecognized capital gains? Forcing the sale of equity? What parameters determine when someone is forced to sell equity? How about equity in non publicly listed assets, which don’t have a deep market or clear price?

j-pb 6y ago
"Taxing the super rich is hard, so let's not do it." That's what tax inspectors are for.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  What is the purpose of misrepresenting a comment? If it makes it clearer, suppose the market value of the assets you own increases from $10M to $15M in a year. How would you tax this? Do you start forcing people to sell? What if the asset they own isn’t publicly traded, for example land, or privately owned companies? It’s not a “gotcha I’m against increasing taxes on wealthier people statement”. It’s a legitimate question on how to operate society when do much of the wealth is simply from increasing asset prices and decreasing currency values.
  - j-pb 6y ago
    Force them to sell. If there isn't actually the demand at that valuation, then then it's a bubble anyways, that should be popped sooner than later. Also, at that point, you shure as hell diversify your assets, instead of having them all in a single privately held company. That's why we need a transaction tax on stock combined with tax breaks on stocks that have societal value, together with a ban on all derivatives. Stock markets need to be first order long term srategy crowdfunding again like they were originally invented as. Otherwise computers will just chase the next peofitable microsecond and CEOs will juse try to optimise the next quarter.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      How and who do you determine values for assets that aren’t readily traded, such as intellectual property or equity in a private company? I know how real estate and tangible/intangible asset values are assessed for property taxes purposes, and the problems with that are enormous, not to mention the avenues for fraud and increased paperwork. There are definitely winners and losers there based on your level of influence in society. How and who determines what “stocks” have societal value? It’s really easy to say these things, but I have yet to come across someone with even a half baked plan to implement them in a fair way. For example, currently startup employees get screwed with the way taxes work on options, where they owe significant taxes for nebulous gains that they may or may not benefit from.
      - j-pb 6y ago
        Oh yeah, you're right. Can't tax those billionaires. I completely forgot the paperwork. And those invaluable art collections. You just can't put a price tag on those!
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    I'm in a jurisdiction with a wealth tax, so such things do exist, and do work. (and contra Graham, it's only assessed at a per-mille level, not percents)

s1artibartfast 6y ago

There are not enough billionaires to fix the budget, even if we doubled their taxes. There are only 600 their annual income isn't so significant in comparison to the budget. Take Jeff Bezos, the richest man on earth, for example. His total compensation is 1.7 million and His capital gains from stock sales are about 1-2 billion per year. The salary is is essentially negligible, and even doubling capital gains would provide an extra 200-400 million. The federal budget for 2020 was 4,790 million dollars.

j-pb 6y ago
Ha, doubling it, that's cute. The top marginal tax rate in the US used to be 92% in the 50s, and that's what was widely considered it's "golden age". Those 600 people hold $4 Trillion dollar. Which is the federal budged you mentioned (it's not million btw). The bottom 50% of the us population have 2 Trillion. Those 4+ trillion federal budget include that ridiculous amount of defense spending, that's essentially welfare for the rich. Now imagine if you could increase the federal budget by 25% for 4 years, just for science and education, and as a side effect you get a continued plus through the reduced negative effects of massive political influence by a small elite of 600 people. There would probably a positive societal impact if you took those 4 trillion and burned them. Getting to spend them means, moon colonies, mars missions, broadband internet everywhere, proper healthcare for all, and maybe a shot at surviving the climate and biosphere collapse...
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > Those 600 people hold $4 Trillion dollar. They do not have $4T. They have assets which may be valued at $4T based on the most recent sale price of a small representative piece of the asset. There is no way that the “$4T” in assets can be converted to $4T cash as selling it all would shift the supply and demand curves causing the price to drop, and hence the valuation.
  - j-pb 6y ago
    Your argument is the same as saying "but they don't have any money, they only have 65238 metric tons of gold". Money doesn't have any intrinsic value either. You might as well say "societal power" instead of "wealth", and you get the same outcome. These people have a grotesque amount of influence over everything. As I said, even if you'd just destroy all their wealth/power, you'd still get a better society, because politicians wouldn't constantly try to do the bidding of these people and instead tackle the real problems that we have.