5 ms·

It has and it's called taxation. And taxing people who have not earned their wealth, using inheritance taxes, is even better.

listenallyall 5y ago
The United States taxes its citizens in many, many ways... income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, liquor tax, inheritance tax, many more. If taxation "benefits" all future citizens, as described by the OP above, then the U.S. would cheer on its billionaires, they would be the heroes of all children because they would be providing almost all of the benefits! Funny that it doesn't work like that in real life...
- anoncake 5y ago
  No, billionaires didn't earn their wealth. And paying your taxes is the bare minimum, it doesn't make you a hero.
  - altusbrown 5y ago
    Do you think Amazon would just exist if Bezos didn't do what he did? Do you think groups of people spontaneously collect in ways that produce more value than they cost to exist? Even if there is no way to benefit from it individually at scale? If you do, I can understand where you are coming from - it doesn't line up at all with my experience or extensive datasets I have, but I'd understand it. If that can't just happen, then how did he not earn it?
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > Do you think Amazon would just exist if Bezos didn't do what he did? Something else very similar would probably exist. And in that universe, people would probably go "Do you think DeNile would just exist if Ben Jeffries didn't do what he did?".
      - altusbrown 5y ago
        Based on your comment, I'm assuming you would expect them to be led by someone doing the same things - which just highlights the role doesn't?
        CRConrad 5y ago
        Yes, indeed: It highlights that it's a "role" that pretty much anyone could have filled if it hadn't happened to be Bezos that did. And since discussion about compensation on this site usually centers around the ubiquity of potential fillers of roles -- "Amazon warehouse workers are paid shit because anyone can be an Amazon warehouse worker!" -- it also shows that Bezos' humongous windfall for more or less at random fulfilling this not so much more unique role is monumentally inequitable. Hopefully that was what you set out to highlight?
    - anoncake 5y ago
      I'm not saying Bezos didn't earn anything. But not billions.
      - altusbrown 5y ago
        Amazon currently employs 798,000 employees. It touches essentially every household, and based on revenue and customer counts is clearly a well used service with utility for a great many people. It is valued by investors at 1660 billion dollars (1.6T market cap), and in 2020 earned revenue of 386 billion dollars. Those employees seem to feel it's a positive deal for them, and the investors certainly seem happy to value it at that amount. Not everyone is happy, but that is true of most things in my experience. They still seem happier than a lot of people at Walmart or the like. How much would be appropriate for the person who had the vision (back before Amazon existed) to build it, pulled the right folks together, hired and fired who it took to make it work, and structured them and the work they were doing to produce that over a decade - including all the reviews and direction through good times and bad? 1%? 5%? 25%? Even 1% is 16 billion dollars. Most people would argue it should be a lot more than 5% if you stripped out the dollar amounts and the names.
        anoncake 5y ago
        How little could Bezos have been paid before he would have done something less productive than founding and running Amazon instead? Maybe millions, at most. That's how much he has earned. He's been very lucky to have the right set of talents in the right circumstances. That doesn't make him so ridiculously hard working or his job so unpleasant that he's earned billions. > Most people would argue That isn't an argument.
        nicoburns 5y ago
        The question is not just whether what was built (Amazon) is valuable, but also how valuable what would have been built had Amazon not existed. At best that will be a fraction of Amazon's market value. At worst it could actually be negative. > How much would be appropriate... 1%? 5%? 25%? I would argue that a flat percentage isn't the appropriate way to apportion. It should be something like 100% (spread amongst shareholders) of the first $1 million, then progressively less as you jump up in orders of magnitude such that by the time you're looking at 100's of billions it's less than 1%. This models two things: - The greater the value of the company, the more likely it is that this is attributable to a market flaw rather the providing of genuine societal value. - There is a societal cost to wealth disparity (aside from political issues, it actually undermines the market mechanism). Thus as your wealth level becomes more extreme, you should have to provide more to society in order to earn the same marginal wealth gain to compensate for this cost.
altusbrown 5y ago
Taxation is not confiscation, unless the taxation is punitively high. I'd argue it would likely need to be 100% to meet the common usage of it. The more you tax, the closer you get to banning or stopping activity. If a government sets a tax rate of 100% at say a certain threshold, it would be a poor planner that would be earning anything in that category no?
- anoncake 5y ago
  That's an artificial distinction. There is no sharp line between "punitive taxes" and just taxes.
  - altusbrown 5y ago
    No sharp line, but hardly artificial. If someone gives you a cake, and I take the whole cake it's clearly confiscation no? You got no cake at the end. If someone gives you a cake and I take a slice (say 25%), then it is clearly not confiscation, since you got cake correct? Not only that, you got most of it.
    - anoncake 5y ago
      Depending on who you are and why you took my cake, it could be a tax, confiscation, theft, a fine...

listenallyall 5y ago

The United States taxes its citizens in many, many ways... income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, liquor tax, inheritance tax, many more. If taxation "benefits" all future citizens, as described by the OP above, then the U.S. would cheer on its billionaires, they would be the heroes of all children because they would be providing almost all of the benefits! Funny that it doesn't work like that in real life...

anoncake 5y ago
No, billionaires didn't earn their wealth. And paying your taxes is the bare minimum, it doesn't make you a hero.
- altusbrown 5y ago
  Do you think Amazon would just exist if Bezos didn't do what he did? Do you think groups of people spontaneously collect in ways that produce more value than they cost to exist? Even if there is no way to benefit from it individually at scale? If you do, I can understand where you are coming from - it doesn't line up at all with my experience or extensive datasets I have, but I'd understand it. If that can't just happen, then how did he not earn it?
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > Do you think Amazon would just exist if Bezos didn't do what he did? Something else very similar would probably exist. And in that universe, people would probably go "Do you think DeNile would just exist if Ben Jeffries didn't do what he did?".
    - altusbrown 5y ago
      Based on your comment, I'm assuming you would expect them to be led by someone doing the same things - which just highlights the role doesn't?
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Yes, indeed: It highlights that it's a "role" that pretty much anyone could have filled if it hadn't happened to be Bezos that did. And since discussion about compensation on this site usually centers around the ubiquity of potential fillers of roles -- "Amazon warehouse workers are paid shit because anyone can be an Amazon warehouse worker!" -- it also shows that Bezos' humongous windfall for more or less at random fulfilling this not so much more unique role is monumentally inequitable. Hopefully that was what you set out to highlight?
  - anoncake 5y ago
    I'm not saying Bezos didn't earn anything. But not billions.
    - altusbrown 5y ago
      Amazon currently employs 798,000 employees. It touches essentially every household, and based on revenue and customer counts is clearly a well used service with utility for a great many people. It is valued by investors at 1660 billion dollars (1.6T market cap), and in 2020 earned revenue of 386 billion dollars. Those employees seem to feel it's a positive deal for them, and the investors certainly seem happy to value it at that amount. Not everyone is happy, but that is true of most things in my experience. They still seem happier than a lot of people at Walmart or the like. How much would be appropriate for the person who had the vision (back before Amazon existed) to build it, pulled the right folks together, hired and fired who it took to make it work, and structured them and the work they were doing to produce that over a decade - including all the reviews and direction through good times and bad? 1%? 5%? 25%? Even 1% is 16 billion dollars. Most people would argue it should be a lot more than 5% if you stripped out the dollar amounts and the names.
      - anoncake 5y ago
        How little could Bezos have been paid before he would have done something less productive than founding and running Amazon instead? Maybe millions, at most. That's how much he has earned. He's been very lucky to have the right set of talents in the right circumstances. That doesn't make him so ridiculously hard working or his job so unpleasant that he's earned billions. > Most people would argue That isn't an argument.
      - nicoburns 5y ago
        The question is not just whether what was built (Amazon) is valuable, but also how valuable what would have been built had Amazon not existed. At best that will be a fraction of Amazon's market value. At worst it could actually be negative. > How much would be appropriate... 1%? 5%? 25%? I would argue that a flat percentage isn't the appropriate way to apportion. It should be something like 100% (spread amongst shareholders) of the first $1 million, then progressively less as you jump up in orders of magnitude such that by the time you're looking at 100's of billions it's less than 1%. This models two things: - The greater the value of the company, the more likely it is that this is attributable to a market flaw rather the providing of genuine societal value. - There is a societal cost to wealth disparity (aside from political issues, it actually undermines the market mechanism). Thus as your wealth level becomes more extreme, you should have to provide more to society in order to earn the same marginal wealth gain to compensate for this cost.

altusbrown 5y ago

Taxation is not confiscation, unless the taxation is punitively high. I'd argue it would likely need to be 100% to meet the common usage of it. The more you tax, the closer you get to banning or stopping activity. If a government sets a tax rate of 100% at say a certain threshold, it would be a poor planner that would be earning anything in that category no?

anoncake 5y ago
That's an artificial distinction. There is no sharp line between "punitive taxes" and just taxes.
- altusbrown 5y ago
  No sharp line, but hardly artificial. If someone gives you a cake, and I take the whole cake it's clearly confiscation no? You got no cake at the end. If someone gives you a cake and I take a slice (say 25%), then it is clearly not confiscation, since you got cake correct? Not only that, you got most of it.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    Depending on who you are and why you took my cake, it could be a tax, confiscation, theft, a fine...