4 ms·

> Sure, let's make every 20-30-40 something work for these 60+ all day instead of having a life. Most of the value produced by workers goes into the pockets of

> Sure, let's make every 20-30-40 something work for these 60+ all day instead of having a life. Most of the value produced by workers goes into the pockets of corporate overlords. For their bosses and managers, for the shareholders, and for the landlords of the corporate mafia who take in 30-70% of working people's income. By your own logic, abolish corporate profits and for-profit housing, and let every worker enjoy huge benefits and retirement. > Now that the situation is not the same, it means each pensioner will get a little less. This is not wrong. But it's entirely due to Macron reforming the pension system with a "point" system. Without such reform, pensioners would continue to get just as much money, adjusted for inflation.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> By your own logic, abolish corporate profits and for-profit housing, and let every worker enjoy huge benefits and retirement. Corporations are owned by pension funds. Investment funds own 80% of the S&P 500. They would be insolvent if corporations stopped posting profits. But also, the reason corporations make so much money is regulatory capture. They buy laws that foreclose competition which makes everything cost more. It's the same reason housing is so expensive (the anti-competition laws there are zoning rules). You can't fix this with taxes -- tax them and everything still costs too much. Meanwhile the government is not going to give the money to you, they give it to the politically connected or use it to buy votes from interest groups with inefficient programs. You have to actually fix the laws that enable this -- as in repeal them, not add some more to the pile.
- newsclues 3y ago
  Let's breakdown the "tax the rich argument" Government has become captured by wealthy interests and has created a legal system that benefits the rich at the expense of the working class. If the power of the government can be seized, the wealth of the rich can be taken and used to help the working class. Problems with this: A) this essentially is a revolution to seize control of the government to take the wealth from the powerful and wealthy. B) there is a high risk that the attempt to seize control of the government will fail, but the wealth transfer will still occur, just from the middle class to the government/wealthy. C) it's unsustainable.
  - thumbuddy 3y ago
    When most people say tax the wealthy they are actually literally saying, tax them on what they make. The middle class pays pretty much all the taxes in the US while the world's wealthiest tend to pay as much as someone who is upper middle class. Some people are now proposing a wealth tax on anyone with more than a billion dollars. That's surprisingly reasonable. It is also completely sustainable, and does not require overthrowing any government ...
    - lumb63 3y ago
      Where does your idea that “the middle class pays pretty much all the taxes in the US” come from? As far as I can tell, the top 1% of earners pay 42.3% of income taxes and earn 22.2% of income. The average 1%-er makes 1.76 million dollars a year. They pay as a group approximately 722 billion dollars annually in income taxes [1]. Then factor in estate taxes and corporate taxes which are disproportionately ultimately borne by the very rich. Then factor in payroll taxes, which are 50% paid by companies. The top 1% bears an incredibly large portion of the national tax burden, as I see it. One could argue it should be more, but I don’t see the argument that the middle class pays “pretty much all the taxes”. As for a wealth tax, a lot of wealth isn’t in a liquid form. Would you see it forcibly liquidated or would you like the government to have substantial holdings in US companies? Personally I think there are much more fruitful ways to go about addressing inequality than the progressive “eat the rich” agenda. [1]: https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/ https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income...
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        I am highly sceptical of this accounting. Many properties, in say, London, are owned through shell corporations in secretive jurisdictions. My landlord is in a tax heaven. It's a corporation and there is no way for me to know who own it! What if I am paying rent to a war criminal? How do they account for this? But let's look at a simpler situation - say you own a company, company let's out apartments, the rent is used to buy new apartments -> if you time purchases of new property well, there is never a profit to tax, corporation tax is zero. If I never take money out, but just grow my net worth, then my personal tax is zero too. So my net worth can keep growing forever, without ever paying tax. You only ever pay tax on the small amount of money you take out of the company for living expenses, like food.
- southerntofu 3y ago
  > Corporations are owned by pension funds. They would be insolvent if corporations stopped posting profits. Not in France, where retirement fund is a nation-wide socialized entity, which was the core of this debate. Private pension funds are close to non-existent here ; i personally cannot name a single person doing that because the public model worked so well for decades. > It's the same reason housing is so expensive (the anti-competition laws there are zoning rules). I don't entirely disagree because France has the more draconian housing regulations you can imagine: it's to my knowledge the only country in the world where it's illegal to build your own house (or lightweight housing) and produce your own electricity off-grid on land you actually own. However, the argument doesn't stand scrutiny. According to public studies there's hundreds of thousands of empty dwellings in France... not even counting secondary/vacation housing or AirBnBs. There's two faces to the housing crisis here in France. The first is the landlord mafia keeping apartments empty on purpose for speculation. Because if the entire supply was put on market, the prices would collapse, and people could actually afford housing. We could design a law to tax empty housing proportionally to the owner's wealth, and see how fast we get housing for everyone. The second is the government backed off on public housing. Low-cost housing (HLM) programs started after WWII have been mostly cut, and whatever funding is left has been diverted to "ownership accession" and higher-standing "low-cost" housing which are luxury housing below market rates but very inaccessible to minimum-wage workers. To give you an idea, a two-bedroom apartment in standard HLM usually costs 200-500€/month in Paris. The newer ones being produced from public funds are rented for ~800-1500€/month, while the minimum wage is around 1300€ after taxes. I have a hard time calling this a "crisis" when it's a massive defrauding operation orchestrated by the State and the housing mafia.
  - phh 3y ago
    > Not in France, where retirement fund is a nation-wide socialized entity, which was the core of this debate. Private pension funds are close to non-existent here ; i personally cannot name a single person doing that because the public model worked so well for decades. It's not that extreme. There are a lot of "assurances-vie" which are quite literally meant to be private pension funds (with lots of tax incentives...). That being said no-one actually relies on it, and the core of pensions are definitely the nation-wide entities. (Yes plural, we wouldn't be french if there weren't dozens of competing institutions doing the same thing, with of course people getting sucked dry but that administrative complexity) > The first is the landlord mafia keeping apartments empty on purpose for speculation. Because if the entire supply was put on market, the prices would collapse, and people could actually afford housing. We could design a law to tax empty housing proportionally to the owner's wealth, and see how fast we get housing for everyone. I don't agree on the "proportionally to the owner's wealth", simply on the empty apartments' value. But yes, we need to tax empty housing. And we're getting there. There has been a lot of changes with regards to housing taxes that are largely going towards taxing (relatively) more empty housing, with this year being the first year you need to properly declare for every housing you own what its use. And I feel like it's just the start, and we're going to keep those taxes evolving towards taxing empty apartments while taxing less family housing.
pitaj 3y ago
The labor theory of value is simply incorrect. Profit isn't stolen from workers. The biggest problem in this day and age is cost of living, not wages. Housing is way too expensive. But that's not because it's provided by the market for profit, it's because government hasn't allowed it to be build in large enough volume to satisfy the demand of people moving into cities.
- nxx788 3y ago
  > The labor theory of value is simply incorrect. Profit isn't stolen from workers. Why? I mean you don't provide a justification that's more defended than me saying the opposite is true.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> By your own logic, abolish corporate profits and for-profit housing, and let every worker enjoy huge benefits and retirement. Corporations are owned by pension funds. Investment funds own 80% of the S&P 500. They would be insolvent if corporations stopped posting profits. But also, the reason corporations make so much money is regulatory capture. They buy laws that foreclose competition which makes everything cost more. It's the same reason housing is so expensive (the anti-competition laws there are zoning rules). You can't fix this with taxes -- tax them and everything still costs too much. Meanwhile the government is not going to give the money to you, they give it to the politically connected or use it to buy votes from interest groups with inefficient programs. You have to actually fix the laws that enable this -- as in repeal them, not add some more to the pile.

newsclues 3y ago
Let's breakdown the "tax the rich argument" Government has become captured by wealthy interests and has created a legal system that benefits the rich at the expense of the working class. If the power of the government can be seized, the wealth of the rich can be taken and used to help the working class. Problems with this: A) this essentially is a revolution to seize control of the government to take the wealth from the powerful and wealthy. B) there is a high risk that the attempt to seize control of the government will fail, but the wealth transfer will still occur, just from the middle class to the government/wealthy. C) it's unsustainable.
- thumbuddy 3y ago
  When most people say tax the wealthy they are actually literally saying, tax them on what they make. The middle class pays pretty much all the taxes in the US while the world's wealthiest tend to pay as much as someone who is upper middle class. Some people are now proposing a wealth tax on anyone with more than a billion dollars. That's surprisingly reasonable. It is also completely sustainable, and does not require overthrowing any government ...
  - lumb63 3y ago
    Where does your idea that “the middle class pays pretty much all the taxes in the US” come from? As far as I can tell, the top 1% of earners pay 42.3% of income taxes and earn 22.2% of income. The average 1%-er makes 1.76 million dollars a year. They pay as a group approximately 722 billion dollars annually in income taxes [1]. Then factor in estate taxes and corporate taxes which are disproportionately ultimately borne by the very rich. Then factor in payroll taxes, which are 50% paid by companies. The top 1% bears an incredibly large portion of the national tax burden, as I see it. One could argue it should be more, but I don’t see the argument that the middle class pays “pretty much all the taxes”. As for a wealth tax, a lot of wealth isn’t in a liquid form. Would you see it forcibly liquidated or would you like the government to have substantial holdings in US companies? Personally I think there are much more fruitful ways to go about addressing inequality than the progressive “eat the rich” agenda. [1]: https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/ https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income...
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      I am highly sceptical of this accounting. Many properties, in say, London, are owned through shell corporations in secretive jurisdictions. My landlord is in a tax heaven. It's a corporation and there is no way for me to know who own it! What if I am paying rent to a war criminal? How do they account for this? But let's look at a simpler situation - say you own a company, company let's out apartments, the rent is used to buy new apartments -> if you time purchases of new property well, there is never a profit to tax, corporation tax is zero. If I never take money out, but just grow my net worth, then my personal tax is zero too. So my net worth can keep growing forever, without ever paying tax. You only ever pay tax on the small amount of money you take out of the company for living expenses, like food.
southerntofu 3y ago
> Corporations are owned by pension funds. They would be insolvent if corporations stopped posting profits. Not in France, where retirement fund is a nation-wide socialized entity, which was the core of this debate. Private pension funds are close to non-existent here ; i personally cannot name a single person doing that because the public model worked so well for decades. > It's the same reason housing is so expensive (the anti-competition laws there are zoning rules). I don't entirely disagree because France has the more draconian housing regulations you can imagine: it's to my knowledge the only country in the world where it's illegal to build your own house (or lightweight housing) and produce your own electricity off-grid on land you actually own. However, the argument doesn't stand scrutiny. According to public studies there's hundreds of thousands of empty dwellings in France... not even counting secondary/vacation housing or AirBnBs. There's two faces to the housing crisis here in France. The first is the landlord mafia keeping apartments empty on purpose for speculation. Because if the entire supply was put on market, the prices would collapse, and people could actually afford housing. We could design a law to tax empty housing proportionally to the owner's wealth, and see how fast we get housing for everyone. The second is the government backed off on public housing. Low-cost housing (HLM) programs started after WWII have been mostly cut, and whatever funding is left has been diverted to "ownership accession" and higher-standing "low-cost" housing which are luxury housing below market rates but very inaccessible to minimum-wage workers. To give you an idea, a two-bedroom apartment in standard HLM usually costs 200-500€/month in Paris. The newer ones being produced from public funds are rented for ~800-1500€/month, while the minimum wage is around 1300€ after taxes. I have a hard time calling this a "crisis" when it's a massive defrauding operation orchestrated by the State and the housing mafia.
- phh 3y ago
  > Not in France, where retirement fund is a nation-wide socialized entity, which was the core of this debate. Private pension funds are close to non-existent here ; i personally cannot name a single person doing that because the public model worked so well for decades. It's not that extreme. There are a lot of "assurances-vie" which are quite literally meant to be private pension funds (with lots of tax incentives...). That being said no-one actually relies on it, and the core of pensions are definitely the nation-wide entities. (Yes plural, we wouldn't be french if there weren't dozens of competing institutions doing the same thing, with of course people getting sucked dry but that administrative complexity) > The first is the landlord mafia keeping apartments empty on purpose for speculation. Because if the entire supply was put on market, the prices would collapse, and people could actually afford housing. We could design a law to tax empty housing proportionally to the owner's wealth, and see how fast we get housing for everyone. I don't agree on the "proportionally to the owner's wealth", simply on the empty apartments' value. But yes, we need to tax empty housing. And we're getting there. There has been a lot of changes with regards to housing taxes that are largely going towards taxing (relatively) more empty housing, with this year being the first year you need to properly declare for every housing you own what its use. And I feel like it's just the start, and we're going to keep those taxes evolving towards taxing empty apartments while taxing less family housing.

pitaj 3y ago

The labor theory of value is simply incorrect. Profit isn't stolen from workers. The biggest problem in this day and age is cost of living, not wages. Housing is way too expensive. But that's not because it's provided by the market for profit, it's because government hasn't allowed it to be build in large enough volume to satisfy the demand of people moving into cities.

nxx788 3y ago
> The labor theory of value is simply incorrect. Profit isn't stolen from workers. Why? I mean you don't provide a justification that's more defended than me saying the opposite is true.