4 ms·

Raising taxes for poorest* will make more difference than taxing wealthiest. What kind of difference are we trying to make? * - there are more poor people and

Raising taxes for poorest* will make more difference than taxing wealthiest. What kind of difference are we trying to make? * - there are more poor people and there are few wealthy

setr 6y ago
In terms of extracted cash? Given that the top 1% now-famously have more funds than the bottom 90%, taxing the wealthiest will definitely make more of a difference. The number of poor people doesn't matter -- only how much large their total pool of cash is to extract from.
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  You really have to squint to get the idea that the 1% have more money than the bottom 90%. In reality, they own businesses that are valuable. You couldn't liquidate all their stocks and end up with their paper net worths in your bank.
  - anaerobicover 6y ago
    One wonders then why they need so much of this imaginary value.
    - beaconstudios 6y ago
      If you start a company and that company is successful, you will be worth a lot of money through your ownership of that company. Does that make you a scrooge mcduck wealth hoarder? No.
      - Can_Not 6y ago
        > Does that make you a scrooge mcduck wealth hoarder? No. My first guess was that "scrooge mcduck wealth hoarding" made you a scrooge mcduck wealth hoarder, but good to see you're ruling out the strawmen early.
        beaconstudios 6y ago
        I'm trying to point out how the 1% aren't somehow hoarding all the cash, which was the implication the parent made. Congrats on knowing the phrase "straw man" though, even if its not applicable in this case.
        Craighead 6y ago
        ... defending a gold hoarding dragon isn't really a great idea.
        sjtindell 6y ago
        The idea you’re arguing is well known on this forum in my experience. In principle I agree, people who act like Jeff Bezos has $100 billion in the bank do more damage to the conversation than good. But I think it also avoids some truth. The wealthy are not usually buying $50 million apartments or $100 million super yachts with stock.
        Can_Not 6y ago
        > “Billionaires don’t actually HAVE all that money, most of it is stocks” that’s fine i’ll take the stocks -- InternetHippo on Twitter
        beaconstudios 6y ago
        Yeah of course there's some truth that wealthy people have more money than poor people, but you have to argue from actual facts about these things. If I start a company that's worth a ton of money then it's because I'm providing a ton of value to my customers (excluding some more arguable examples like HFTs). So the value I have is exchange value in the case of net assets, or the potential for future exchange value in the case of shares. Its a reward for doing societally-valued work. Of course there are reasonable arguments that shareholders are treated preferentially to labour in our economy and that that's as bad thing, but the basic premise of "the wealthy people have all the stuff so let's take their stuff" is just class warfare, not a reasonable argument.
  - setr 6y ago
    Assets are taxed. If your money is 100% illiquid, you’ve done something dumb. You prepare to liquify to settle your taxes yearly — if the taxes are higher, you liquify further; the equation isn’t changing. That is, the format of your money is irrelevant to whether you can be taxed more for it.
    - beaconstudios 6y ago
      It may be irrelevant for taxation purposes, but not for narrative purposes - there's a pervasive "the rich people are hoarding all the money" narrative that just isn't true. I'm pretty ambivalent on the tax front. I think UBI might be the way to go but I wouldn't say I have researched enough to say it'd work as intended.

Raising taxes for poorest* will make more difference than taxing wealthiest. What kind of difference are we trying to make? * - there are more poor people and there are few wealthy

setr 6y ago

In terms of extracted cash? Given that the top 1% now-famously have more funds than the bottom 90%, taxing the wealthiest will definitely make more of a difference. The number of poor people doesn't matter -- only how much large their total pool of cash is to extract from.

beaconstudios 6y ago
You really have to squint to get the idea that the 1% have more money than the bottom 90%. In reality, they own businesses that are valuable. You couldn't liquidate all their stocks and end up with their paper net worths in your bank.
- anaerobicover 6y ago
  One wonders then why they need so much of this imaginary value.
  - beaconstudios 6y ago
    If you start a company and that company is successful, you will be worth a lot of money through your ownership of that company. Does that make you a scrooge mcduck wealth hoarder? No.
    - Can_Not 6y ago
      > Does that make you a scrooge mcduck wealth hoarder? No. My first guess was that "scrooge mcduck wealth hoarding" made you a scrooge mcduck wealth hoarder, but good to see you're ruling out the strawmen early.
      - beaconstudios 6y ago
        I'm trying to point out how the 1% aren't somehow hoarding all the cash, which was the implication the parent made. Congrats on knowing the phrase "straw man" though, even if its not applicable in this case.
        Craighead 6y ago
        ... defending a gold hoarding dragon isn't really a great idea.
        sjtindell 6y ago
        The idea you’re arguing is well known on this forum in my experience. In principle I agree, people who act like Jeff Bezos has $100 billion in the bank do more damage to the conversation than good. But I think it also avoids some truth. The wealthy are not usually buying $50 million apartments or $100 million super yachts with stock.
        Can_Not 6y ago
        > “Billionaires don’t actually HAVE all that money, most of it is stocks” that’s fine i’ll take the stocks -- InternetHippo on Twitter
        beaconstudios 6y ago
        Yeah of course there's some truth that wealthy people have more money than poor people, but you have to argue from actual facts about these things. If I start a company that's worth a ton of money then it's because I'm providing a ton of value to my customers (excluding some more arguable examples like HFTs). So the value I have is exchange value in the case of net assets, or the potential for future exchange value in the case of shares. Its a reward for doing societally-valued work. Of course there are reasonable arguments that shareholders are treated preferentially to labour in our economy and that that's as bad thing, but the basic premise of "the wealthy people have all the stuff so let's take their stuff" is just class warfare, not a reasonable argument.
- setr 6y ago
  Assets are taxed. If your money is 100% illiquid, you’ve done something dumb. You prepare to liquify to settle your taxes yearly — if the taxes are higher, you liquify further; the equation isn’t changing. That is, the format of your money is irrelevant to whether you can be taxed more for it.
  - beaconstudios 6y ago
    It may be irrelevant for taxation purposes, but not for narrative purposes - there's a pervasive "the rich people are hoarding all the money" narrative that just isn't true. I'm pretty ambivalent on the tax front. I think UBI might be the way to go but I wouldn't say I have researched enough to say it'd work as intended.