5 ms·

Tax the people who are creditors and return some of the money to debtors, we could do this for all debts and sure it would be painful but life would go on. The

Tax the people who are creditors and return some of the money to debtors, we could do this for all debts and sure it would be painful but life would go on. The current situation where the wealthy farm out their money to people and make over sized profits with extremely low risk has to be blunted at some point; the debts owed by the US government to the rich is do excessive at this point there has to be a plan to recover some of it. We must find a way to redistribute some of the rent seeking at some point or have society collapse as the rich acquire every last bit of wealth.

alexschnapp 3y ago
You realize that you are a creditor to your bank right? This just means all savings at a bank will be taxed.
- andy_ppp 3y ago
  I don’t make any returns on that at all. I think a short sharp one off redistribution is better than endless austerity for the poor and socialism for the rich. I’d love to hear some other proposals about how to pay our debts, I think interest payments for governments are set to surpass GDP or something. Seems like we need to find a way to tax back some of the money the super wealthy are lending to the government.
  - zamnos 3y ago
    > I don’t make any returns on that at all. You might want to consider switching to to a High Yield Savings Account so that you do.
  - WJW 3y ago
    > I don’t make any returns on that at all. That doesn't make you any less of a creditor; the money in a bank account is a liability for the bank from an accounting standpoint. The bank is indebted to you for the exact amount in your bank account. How much of your money do you think should be taxed to repay debts of the poor?
    - tasuki 3y ago
      Not even necessarily the poor: how much of your money should be taxed to repay debts of the people who lived splendidly, way beyond their means?
      - andy_ppp 3y ago
        How much responsibility do the rich have for a functioning society? Ever more of the money is with them after 2008 and COVID, I’m happier just saying let’s go back to say 2008 levels of inequality which would mean transferring trillions to the poor. Did the poor agree to the transfer of around $13tn in the US in printed money which largely filtered through to the rich?
  - xmcqdpt2 3y ago
    One approach, which tends to be unpopular around these parts, is to print money and hand it to people in the form of universal programs, UBI, etc. This increases inflation which makes past capital depreciate (effectively what brought down SVB) and so level the playing field for those who are currently not holding much capital, which is most people. One of the reason it isn't very popular is that the traditional way of injecting money in the economy is by adjusting interest rates which makes it relatively neutral for capital (because they can get more interest) at the cost of the working class. As Piketty points out in his book though [1], the times where inflation was very high because of large scale government programs (like in the post WWII reconstruction era) were booming times for the middle class. The current covid recovery had unemployment rates at all times lows, well up to the point where governments decided tackling inflation was worth killing jobs. Of course, reducing unemployment to improve returns was never popular so it's being sold to everyone by pushing a scary inflation narrative. Personally, I'd rather pay more for my boxes of cereals than being laid off. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_...
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I hope you realize that the majority of federal and state funding works as you describe with the exception that the benefits are not Universal and targeted at the poor. Wealth transfers from the rich to the poor are at an all-time high.
      - xmcqdpt2 3y ago
        Inequality is also high (when compared to the post war era anyway) so clearly there is plenty of room for more transferring.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        The interesting aspect to me is that the lower inequality wasn't because there were more transfers then.
  - CapstanRoller 3y ago
    >socialism for the rich There's no such thing. You're describing an aspect of capitalism (the part where capitalists benefit). "Socialism" does not mean "benefitting from wealth redistribution". By that logic, someone like Genghis Khan could be considered the ultimate 'socialist' because he pillaged more than anyone and redistributed all that wealth to himself.
- midasuni 3y ago
  Median savings level in America is about 4k Taxing even as much as 5% of that per year would be $200, peanuts compared with tax on earned income from doing useful work
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
You realize that the problem has been debtors have made out like bandits with interest rates being manipulated lower for 25 years, right? Now you want to give them another handout, the first time interest rates get to almost normal levels?
- andy_ppp 3y ago
  Eventually all wealth will end up with fewer and fewer people until the system completely collapses. Debt burden is just another instance of the rich making themselves even richer at the expense of working people - this year tax payers are expected to pay over $660bn to rich people in interest payments. There needs to be some way of taxing the ultra rich effectively to be able start balancing the books. Every time this is discussed people start talking about high earners and never about the types of people lending the government hundreds of millions of dollars. For example the average tax rate paid by the top 400 wealthiest people in the US was just 8.2% (2010-2018) and that is on additional income not the billions they already have. Let's not get started with Trusts handed down generationally to avoid inheritance tax completely.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    You do realize that it is not billionaires in top hats buying the government treasuries? It is pension funds and other institutional investors mostly.
    - andy_ppp 3y ago
      You do realise who makes profits from owning the companies who own the pension and hedge funds that invest in these things? I have no idea what the best solution is but the road to serfdom we are all on is unsustainable.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        How many pension funds are private and how many are owned by governments? I ask because I don't know, and it's a global market with foreign funds buying treasuries (or from the other perspective local funds buying foreign treasuries). I completely agree with your second sentence.
runeks 3y ago
Pensioners comprise the biggest creditor in the world. Are you sure you want to tax people who've worked all their lives, saving up money, who are now living off the interest payments?
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  How about a deal: They stop taxing us first? The amount of wealth being sucked from the labour of younger generations is beyond any ridicule. Extremely high taxes on labour - that goes to the old, extremely high real estate prices - to the old, extremely high rents - to the old. Yet it is not enough and they take on huge debts to the government - to be paid by the young. Top that with the forced pension fund contributions of young workers who are to expect to never receive any pension when they turn old. I know this is a high earner tech forum, and these things don't become most readers, but for people working in other sectors the perspective is different.
  - d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
    Every culture, going back thousands of years has young people taking care of old people. We've just made the system so efficient that you don't have to talk to the old people and wipe their poo.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      I'm not against taking care of older people, and you have to make an effort to interpret my post like that. Every culture has also had older people stepping down at some point to let fresh blood take the charge and carry the burden. In Western societies we don't see that so much anymore. Instead it seems the old prefer to see things rot than to let younger people take over. With land, farms, houses, businesses, etc. If younger people got an honest chance all would benefit, including the old. Instead young people are mostly seen as people to exploit or ignore. It is not difficult to look up history. The current old people who hold power in small and in large, when you look up their history, they all got help to start their ventures. Very few of them are self made, so why the act?
WinstonSmith84 3y ago
Honourable intentions, but you got it all wrong. What you want, or at least the consequence of what you want, is called hyperinflation. It's better to read what it is in Wikipedia than having savings in the country experiencing it. Good though, you're not leading the FED.
LatteLazy 3y ago
So in future no one will lend? And people who over-borrowed will get free money but people who didn't (and saved instead, and put up with 0.5% rates) will be punished?
cudgy 3y ago
Aren’t the creditors that get screwed essentially the citizens of the countries? They pay money into huge pension programs that are pilfered with management fees and poorly structured investment portfolios. These citizens also, more importantly, backstop financial mayhem through funding of depository insurance programs (that apparently insure accounts beyond the insured amount … for arbitrary banks), direct bailouts to failed enterprises, and central banks that provide cheap money for the well-connected fat cats to disburse (or hold onto) as they wish. The system in the US is essentially corrupt and engineered to support the status quo. It is far from a free market supported by savvy players making decisions based on actual risk/reward principles.

alexschnapp 3y ago

You realize that you are a creditor to your bank right? This just means all savings at a bank will be taxed.

andy_ppp 3y ago
I don’t make any returns on that at all. I think a short sharp one off redistribution is better than endless austerity for the poor and socialism for the rich. I’d love to hear some other proposals about how to pay our debts, I think interest payments for governments are set to surpass GDP or something. Seems like we need to find a way to tax back some of the money the super wealthy are lending to the government.
- zamnos 3y ago
  > I don’t make any returns on that at all. You might want to consider switching to to a High Yield Savings Account so that you do.
- WJW 3y ago
  > I don’t make any returns on that at all. That doesn't make you any less of a creditor; the money in a bank account is a liability for the bank from an accounting standpoint. The bank is indebted to you for the exact amount in your bank account. How much of your money do you think should be taxed to repay debts of the poor?
  - tasuki 3y ago
    Not even necessarily the poor: how much of your money should be taxed to repay debts of the people who lived splendidly, way beyond their means?
    - andy_ppp 3y ago
      How much responsibility do the rich have for a functioning society? Ever more of the money is with them after 2008 and COVID, I’m happier just saying let’s go back to say 2008 levels of inequality which would mean transferring trillions to the poor. Did the poor agree to the transfer of around $13tn in the US in printed money which largely filtered through to the rich?
- xmcqdpt2 3y ago
  One approach, which tends to be unpopular around these parts, is to print money and hand it to people in the form of universal programs, UBI, etc. This increases inflation which makes past capital depreciate (effectively what brought down SVB) and so level the playing field for those who are currently not holding much capital, which is most people. One of the reason it isn't very popular is that the traditional way of injecting money in the economy is by adjusting interest rates which makes it relatively neutral for capital (because they can get more interest) at the cost of the working class. As Piketty points out in his book though [1], the times where inflation was very high because of large scale government programs (like in the post WWII reconstruction era) were booming times for the middle class. The current covid recovery had unemployment rates at all times lows, well up to the point where governments decided tackling inflation was worth killing jobs. Of course, reducing unemployment to improve returns was never popular so it's being sold to everyone by pushing a scary inflation narrative. Personally, I'd rather pay more for my boxes of cereals than being laid off. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_...
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I hope you realize that the majority of federal and state funding works as you describe with the exception that the benefits are not Universal and targeted at the poor. Wealth transfers from the rich to the poor are at an all-time high.
    - xmcqdpt2 3y ago
      Inequality is also high (when compared to the post war era anyway) so clearly there is plenty of room for more transferring.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        The interesting aspect to me is that the lower inequality wasn't because there were more transfers then.
- CapstanRoller 3y ago
  >socialism for the rich There's no such thing. You're describing an aspect of capitalism (the part where capitalists benefit). "Socialism" does not mean "benefitting from wealth redistribution". By that logic, someone like Genghis Khan could be considered the ultimate 'socialist' because he pillaged more than anyone and redistributed all that wealth to himself.
midasuni 3y ago
Median savings level in America is about 4k Taxing even as much as 5% of that per year would be $200, peanuts compared with tax on earned income from doing useful work

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

You realize that the problem has been debtors have made out like bandits with interest rates being manipulated lower for 25 years, right? Now you want to give them another handout, the first time interest rates get to almost normal levels?

andy_ppp 3y ago
Eventually all wealth will end up with fewer and fewer people until the system completely collapses. Debt burden is just another instance of the rich making themselves even richer at the expense of working people - this year tax payers are expected to pay over $660bn to rich people in interest payments. There needs to be some way of taxing the ultra rich effectively to be able start balancing the books. Every time this is discussed people start talking about high earners and never about the types of people lending the government hundreds of millions of dollars. For example the average tax rate paid by the top 400 wealthiest people in the US was just 8.2% (2010-2018) and that is on additional income not the billions they already have. Let's not get started with Trusts handed down generationally to avoid inheritance tax completely.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  You do realize that it is not billionaires in top hats buying the government treasuries? It is pension funds and other institutional investors mostly.
  - andy_ppp 3y ago
    You do realise who makes profits from owning the companies who own the pension and hedge funds that invest in these things? I have no idea what the best solution is but the road to serfdom we are all on is unsustainable.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      How many pension funds are private and how many are owned by governments? I ask because I don't know, and it's a global market with foreign funds buying treasuries (or from the other perspective local funds buying foreign treasuries). I completely agree with your second sentence.

runeks 3y ago

Pensioners comprise the biggest creditor in the world. Are you sure you want to tax people who've worked all their lives, saving up money, who are now living off the interest payments?

carlosjobim 3y ago
How about a deal: They stop taxing us first? The amount of wealth being sucked from the labour of younger generations is beyond any ridicule. Extremely high taxes on labour - that goes to the old, extremely high real estate prices - to the old, extremely high rents - to the old. Yet it is not enough and they take on huge debts to the government - to be paid by the young. Top that with the forced pension fund contributions of young workers who are to expect to never receive any pension when they turn old. I know this is a high earner tech forum, and these things don't become most readers, but for people working in other sectors the perspective is different.
- d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
  Every culture, going back thousands of years has young people taking care of old people. We've just made the system so efficient that you don't have to talk to the old people and wipe their poo.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    I'm not against taking care of older people, and you have to make an effort to interpret my post like that. Every culture has also had older people stepping down at some point to let fresh blood take the charge and carry the burden. In Western societies we don't see that so much anymore. Instead it seems the old prefer to see things rot than to let younger people take over. With land, farms, houses, businesses, etc. If younger people got an honest chance all would benefit, including the old. Instead young people are mostly seen as people to exploit or ignore. It is not difficult to look up history. The current old people who hold power in small and in large, when you look up their history, they all got help to start their ventures. Very few of them are self made, so why the act?

WinstonSmith84 3y ago

Honourable intentions, but you got it all wrong. What you want, or at least the consequence of what you want, is called hyperinflation. It's better to read what it is in Wikipedia than having savings in the country experiencing it. Good though, you're not leading the FED.

LatteLazy 3y ago

So in future no one will lend? And people who over-borrowed will get free money but people who didn't (and saved instead, and put up with 0.5% rates) will be punished?

cudgy 3y ago

Aren’t the creditors that get screwed essentially the citizens of the countries? They pay money into huge pension programs that are pilfered with management fees and poorly structured investment portfolios. These citizens also, more importantly, backstop financial mayhem through funding of depository insurance programs (that apparently insure accounts beyond the insured amount … for arbitrary banks), direct bailouts to failed enterprises, and central banks that provide cheap money for the well-connected fat cats to disburse (or hold onto) as they wish. The system in the US is essentially corrupt and engineered to support the status quo. It is far from a free market supported by savvy players making decisions based on actual risk/reward principles.