3 ms·

Solving child hunger has nothing to do with an individual being worth 200B or not. If the government siezed all of Warren Buffet's money tomorrow would hungry

Solving child hunger has nothing to do with an individual being worth 200B or not. If the government siezed all of Warren Buffet's money tomorrow would hungry children magically have food show up in front of them? The government just spent 1.9T, clearly they are not limited on spending by Buffet hoarding all the money. It is terrible that children grow up with food scarcity and it is terrible that children grow up with alcoholic parents, but taxing rich people isn't going to fix that.

dnadler 6y ago
Not to be too pedantic, but the $200B is Bezos, not Buffett. Regardless, taxing the weathy can feed poor children by literally funding programs like food stamps. The covid payments are effectively unfunded, and taxes are the primary source of revenue for the government We're going to need to pay for these programs somehow. I'd personally be pretty happy with a lot of inflation, give how much my house cost, but I dont think that that would be the best solution for the country as a whole.
- candiodari 6y ago
  I think the point is that the government makes money. They can spend whatever they want, they can literally name any number and spend it in dollars. They have been limited in spending by the rule that they have to loan money, not just spend made up money (after screwing up pretty badly this rule was introduced). But that still gives them trillions per year to spend. Therefore incoming dollars do not matter, taxes do not really matter. Which I think is the point that we were trying to make. So there is no justification in taxing "the rich" in any need for increased spending. This is further complicated that "the 1%" is an annual income of 500k, or an individual income of 250k. A lot of people on this site who don't see themselves as rich (but are) will be included, and will point out that this does not give a "rich" lifestyle in San Francisco. Taxing them so their income drops to, say 160k (down 30% or so) will cost them very directly in comforts, apartments, ... they will fight this tooth and nail. If you then look at the income that can be generated for the government you quickly realize that you need to tax at least the top 30%. You'll see that this will mean increased taxes (and think 70-80%) for any income over, say 90k per person, if you indeed want to increase taxes. I don't think many people will find this acceptable, because they cannot possibly maintain their lifestyles with such taxes. This will effectively mean anyone not in the 1% is limited to ~120k per year, down 30-40% from what they have now, 100 million voters. More than enough to massively swing towards whichever party opposes this. So the question becomes if this fight is really worth it, since it will not actually allow for increased spending ... Much easier for any party to force interest rates to zero and spend infinite.
  - dnadler 6y ago
    Well, actually the Fed is responsible for the money supply, and is pretty independent from the rest of the government (as much as it can be these days, anyway). So the claim that the government can just print money to pay for anything they want is technically true, but fails to understand the nuance of the system. Further, there are consequences to injecting large amounts of money. Namely, inflation. The great "mystery" of the past decade is why inflation hasn't manifested alongside the various forms of stimulus from the Fed and Treasury. However, theoretically, and historically, printing money to pay down government debt will result in inflation which can be harmful if done carelessly or out of necessity (eg. being a forced seller). To your last point about forcing rates to zero, the same principle applies. This would happen via market action undertaken by the Fed (who again, is not concerned with government spending, that's not their mandate). Even if the Fed did act in concert with congress in the manner you describe, they would do so by purchasing bonds in the open market. This would again require the injection of more currency into the economy and provide further upward pressure on inflation. I should say that I definitely agree with your points regarding the politics.
blunte 6y ago
The fact that an individual can accumulate that kind of wealth while another individual can work three jobs and barely live is an indication of some fundamental imbalance. I'm glad you used Warren Buffet as an example. He has made a point to illustrate how he pays a significantly lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Oversimplifying, it is because his income isn't labeled "income" - it is gains from investments. His secretary, however, has "income". the two are taxed much differently. That example alone shows how the wealthiest are taxed at a lower rate than at least the middle class. And very much simplifying the equation, you can see how two people with different tax rates would see their wealth increased at different rates. But the really fundamental problem is not taxation of individuals. It is: - monetary policies which have allowed one group to create money and keep it amongst themselves - loosening of rules regarding corporations and their employees which allow companies to pay less and provide less benefits now than they did when the Baby Boomers and their parents grew up - globalization, which has allowed a small few to take labor and resources from distant lands and profit (at the expense of the people in those distant lands) You've let a bit slip with the "alcoholic parents" phrase. Wouldn't it be convenient if we could explain why poor people who grow up in a slum have few opportunities just because their parents were alcoholics? It doesn't work like that. Without doing research, I would bet that alcoholism is as high or higher amongst the wealthier class than the poorest class. How about higher education? How has that changed in the last few decades? Student debt? Have starting salaries increased in line with cost of education? No, absolutely not. The value proposition for higher education has diminished significantly, but the requirement of having a college degree has increased. There's so much more going on than most people notice.
- bob33212 6y ago
  I agree. That is why I don't like the argument that we should just tax the wealthy to solve our social problems. It isn't that simple.
  - danaris 6y ago
    No, but that's a necessary part of the solution.

dnadler 6y ago

Not to be too pedantic, but the $200B is Bezos, not Buffett. Regardless, taxing the weathy can feed poor children by literally funding programs like food stamps. The covid payments are effectively unfunded, and taxes are the primary source of revenue for the government We're going to need to pay for these programs somehow. I'd personally be pretty happy with a lot of inflation, give how much my house cost, but I dont think that that would be the best solution for the country as a whole.

candiodari 6y ago
I think the point is that the government makes money. They can spend whatever they want, they can literally name any number and spend it in dollars. They have been limited in spending by the rule that they have to loan money, not just spend made up money (after screwing up pretty badly this rule was introduced). But that still gives them trillions per year to spend. Therefore incoming dollars do not matter, taxes do not really matter. Which I think is the point that we were trying to make. So there is no justification in taxing "the rich" in any need for increased spending. This is further complicated that "the 1%" is an annual income of 500k, or an individual income of 250k. A lot of people on this site who don't see themselves as rich (but are) will be included, and will point out that this does not give a "rich" lifestyle in San Francisco. Taxing them so their income drops to, say 160k (down 30% or so) will cost them very directly in comforts, apartments, ... they will fight this tooth and nail. If you then look at the income that can be generated for the government you quickly realize that you need to tax at least the top 30%. You'll see that this will mean increased taxes (and think 70-80%) for any income over, say 90k per person, if you indeed want to increase taxes. I don't think many people will find this acceptable, because they cannot possibly maintain their lifestyles with such taxes. This will effectively mean anyone not in the 1% is limited to ~120k per year, down 30-40% from what they have now, 100 million voters. More than enough to massively swing towards whichever party opposes this. So the question becomes if this fight is really worth it, since it will not actually allow for increased spending ... Much easier for any party to force interest rates to zero and spend infinite.
- dnadler 6y ago
  Well, actually the Fed is responsible for the money supply, and is pretty independent from the rest of the government (as much as it can be these days, anyway). So the claim that the government can just print money to pay for anything they want is technically true, but fails to understand the nuance of the system. Further, there are consequences to injecting large amounts of money. Namely, inflation. The great "mystery" of the past decade is why inflation hasn't manifested alongside the various forms of stimulus from the Fed and Treasury. However, theoretically, and historically, printing money to pay down government debt will result in inflation which can be harmful if done carelessly or out of necessity (eg. being a forced seller). To your last point about forcing rates to zero, the same principle applies. This would happen via market action undertaken by the Fed (who again, is not concerned with government spending, that's not their mandate). Even if the Fed did act in concert with congress in the manner you describe, they would do so by purchasing bonds in the open market. This would again require the injection of more currency into the economy and provide further upward pressure on inflation. I should say that I definitely agree with your points regarding the politics.

blunte 6y ago

The fact that an individual can accumulate that kind of wealth while another individual can work three jobs and barely live is an indication of some fundamental imbalance. I'm glad you used Warren Buffet as an example. He has made a point to illustrate how he pays a significantly lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Oversimplifying, it is because his income isn't labeled "income" - it is gains from investments. His secretary, however, has "income". the two are taxed much differently. That example alone shows how the wealthiest are taxed at a lower rate than at least the middle class. And very much simplifying the equation, you can see how two people with different tax rates would see their wealth increased at different rates. But the really fundamental problem is not taxation of individuals. It is: - monetary policies which have allowed one group to create money and keep it amongst themselves - loosening of rules regarding corporations and their employees which allow companies to pay less and provide less benefits now than they did when the Baby Boomers and their parents grew up - globalization, which has allowed a small few to take labor and resources from distant lands and profit (at the expense of the people in those distant lands) You've let a bit slip with the "alcoholic parents" phrase. Wouldn't it be convenient if we could explain why poor people who grow up in a slum have few opportunities just because their parents were alcoholics? It doesn't work like that. Without doing research, I would bet that alcoholism is as high or higher amongst the wealthier class than the poorest class. How about higher education? How has that changed in the last few decades? Student debt? Have starting salaries increased in line with cost of education? No, absolutely not. The value proposition for higher education has diminished significantly, but the requirement of having a college degree has increased. There's so much more going on than most people notice.

bob33212 6y ago
I agree. That is why I don't like the argument that we should just tax the wealthy to solve our social problems. It isn't that simple.
- danaris 6y ago
  No, but that's a necessary part of the solution.