3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > 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. Yes, I’m not arguing against redistribution of wealth (or power or influence or whatever you want to call it). I’m interested in the details of how it can be accomplished. Money is simply the most technologically advanced way we have of moving “power” around, but exactly how power gets converted to money is a big question, and one that frequently involves winners and losers. > As I said, even if you'd just destroy all their wealth/power, you'd still get a better society, I agree, and typically this has been accomplished with violence/war. I’m just trying to see if anyone has any good (and “fair”) ideas on how to accomplish it without violence. I have an aunt and uncle in SF Bay Area who worked their whole life and saved for retirement, but didn’t assume that the land under their house would be worth $2.5M in their old age. What should happen to them? They certainly don’t have the cash flow to afford a proportionate property tax without having to move away. I don’t know a good answer either, maybe some people just have to end up screwed.
    - j-pb 6y ago
      We're not talking about old people here that acidentally stumbled upon something that has really sentimental value to them but is also worth 150 billion. Stop mixing billionaires and millionaires. Having billions is unfair by definition.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        All I’m asking for is some specifics. Is someone with $999M “worth” of assets not forced to sell than someone with $1B? Is it setup marginally so anyone over $x is forced to sell y%? What are x and y? That is what I’m interested in. What if the sale price doesn’t match up with the valuation amount? What happens if a majority shareholder is forced to sell and it results in them becoming a minority shareholder? Does that mean one is forced to give up control of their business after a certain size? Yeah, we all agree extreme income inequality is bad. That’s the easy part.
        j-pb 6y ago
s1artibartfast 6y ago
The maximum capital gains tax in the 50s was 35%. Doubling the current 20% would be the highest in history.

by j-pb 6y ago

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.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > 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. Yes, I’m not arguing against redistribution of wealth (or power or influence or whatever you want to call it). I’m interested in the details of how it can be accomplished. Money is simply the most technologically advanced way we have of moving “power” around, but exactly how power gets converted to money is a big question, and one that frequently involves winners and losers. > As I said, even if you'd just destroy all their wealth/power, you'd still get a better society, I agree, and typically this has been accomplished with violence/war. I’m just trying to see if anyone has any good (and “fair”) ideas on how to accomplish it without violence. I have an aunt and uncle in SF Bay Area who worked their whole life and saved for retirement, but didn’t assume that the land under their house would be worth $2.5M in their old age. What should happen to them? They certainly don’t have the cash flow to afford a proportionate property tax without having to move away. I don’t know a good answer either, maybe some people just have to end up screwed.
  - j-pb 6y ago
    We're not talking about old people here that acidentally stumbled upon something that has really sentimental value to them but is also worth 150 billion. Stop mixing billionaires and millionaires. Having billions is unfair by definition.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      All I’m asking for is some specifics. Is someone with $999M “worth” of assets not forced to sell than someone with $1B? Is it setup marginally so anyone over $x is forced to sell y%? What are x and y? That is what I’m interested in. What if the sale price doesn’t match up with the valuation amount? What happens if a majority shareholder is forced to sell and it results in them becoming a minority shareholder? Does that mean one is forced to give up control of their business after a certain size? Yeah, we all agree extreme income inequality is bad. That’s the easy part.
      - j-pb 6y ago

s1artibartfast 6y ago

The maximum capital gains tax in the 50s was 35%. Doubling the current 20% would be the highest in history.