7 ms·

> Taxing the rich won't provide enough The rich shouldn't be taxed just for providing for other people, but also as a sort of dampening effect to make sure tha

> Taxing the rich won't provide enough The rich shouldn't be taxed just for providing for other people, but also as a sort of dampening effect to make sure that getting rich doesn't become the non-rich people's only objective in life (like it seems to, for many in the US). Taxing the rich at high rates and ensuring that lifestyles are slightly more equitable will enable everyone (both rich and non-rich) to be able to enjoy the kind of "semi-retirement where a person dips out of high-pressure work in favor of lower pressure intellectual work" that you mention. In fact, taxes on the rich could be set up explicitly to fund something like basic income programs for older people.

logicchains 3y ago
>Taxing the rich at high rates and ensuring that lifestyles are slightly more equitable will enable everyone (both rich and non-rich It doesn't work this way. Ambitious people either just move to a county that's more open to business, bringing jobs and economic growth there instead, or they go into politics and get rich just by leeching off the economically productive populace, like corrupt officials in Russia and China. Europe is a good example of this: it's got the highest tax rates globally, and some of the lowest GDP growth rates (and number of new businesses) in the world. People in France, Germany and the UK are seeing their standards of living get worse year by year, not better
- vel0city 3y ago
  A place can still be good for business and still tax personally wealthy people at a high-ish rate. Sane and easy to understand regulations, fast and competent permitting processes, good labor stock, easy capital access for business growth, etc. are all separate from making extremely wealthy people pay 35% effective tax rate instead of only like 10%. https://projects.propublica.org/americas-highest-incomes-and-taxes-revealed/ https://projects.propublica.org/americas-highest-incomes-and...
- MSFT_Edging 3y ago
  Trickle down economics is a myth. You cant just shout "Job Creator!" enough to make it matter. You(a nation-state government entity) has the power to drag someone back home to pay their taxes. If Apple went 100% based out of Ireland, you could tariff the hell out of Apple products until their sales drop to zero. You can put sanctions on places that run offshore bank accounts where people hide their money. You can nationalize industries that are falling apart due to the requirement to increase profit, ie rail infrastructure. The issue is why would the elected officials who benefit from this, do something to counter it. They're fine with an inequitable world governed by the Koch Brothers' school for business fairy tales. The economy is a sham, the government could pay people to run the farms and clothing factories and stockpile the excess rather than burn it to create scarcity. There are other ways to live beyond this narrow system of faux economic sciences.
wonderwonder 3y ago
Why would the rich continue to create businesses and employ hundreds of millions of people if the end result was just to be taxed to oblivion. Yes there are rich people that have more $ that they can spend in a lifetime, many of them also provide more to the economy than they take out. Also much of their wealth is imaginary as it exists in shares that they cannot sell without losing control of their company. Musk is the obvious example. Tesla provides ~120k well paying jobs. Its the first electric car company that makes having an electric car cool thus putting tens of thousands of people in non polluting vehicles. SpaceX has fundamentally changed space travel plus employs 12k people directly. Should we have just capped his income after he sold paypal? Think of all that would have been lost. Also who are we to decide what people should aspire to?
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  Imagine if Elon Musk has $100 billion (I believe the number is somewhat higher), and the government takes $99 billion from him in taxes. Do you imagine that he would stop doing his thing? Do you think he would be materially less comfortable than he is now?
  - wonderwonder 3y ago
    Yes. He does not have $100 billion liquid. He would have to liquidate his ownership in spacex and tesla. Losing control of the companies. So yes I think he would be forced to stop doing his thing as he would no longer control the companies. It has nothing to do with comfort, dude lives in a 200 SqFt fabricated house or sleeps at work.
    - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
      I'm sure if we implemented this, we could make accommodations such as making it possible to transfer share ownership 'in kind' and stripping voting rights from those shares. Musk would still be able to do his thing, the government would have a boatload more revenue to work with. Now, some might make the argument that without the possibility of becoming a multi billionaire some might not be motivated to start or run a business. That, I think would be a small enough loss to be worthwhile

logicchains 3y ago

>Taxing the rich at high rates and ensuring that lifestyles are slightly more equitable will enable everyone (both rich and non-rich It doesn't work this way. Ambitious people either just move to a county that's more open to business, bringing jobs and economic growth there instead, or they go into politics and get rich just by leeching off the economically productive populace, like corrupt officials in Russia and China. Europe is a good example of this: it's got the highest tax rates globally, and some of the lowest GDP growth rates (and number of new businesses) in the world. People in France, Germany and the UK are seeing their standards of living get worse year by year, not better

vel0city 3y ago
A place can still be good for business and still tax personally wealthy people at a high-ish rate. Sane and easy to understand regulations, fast and competent permitting processes, good labor stock, easy capital access for business growth, etc. are all separate from making extremely wealthy people pay 35% effective tax rate instead of only like 10%. https://projects.propublica.org/americas-highest-incomes-and-taxes-revealed/ https://projects.propublica.org/americas-highest-incomes-and...
MSFT_Edging 3y ago
Trickle down economics is a myth. You cant just shout "Job Creator!" enough to make it matter. You(a nation-state government entity) has the power to drag someone back home to pay their taxes. If Apple went 100% based out of Ireland, you could tariff the hell out of Apple products until their sales drop to zero. You can put sanctions on places that run offshore bank accounts where people hide their money. You can nationalize industries that are falling apart due to the requirement to increase profit, ie rail infrastructure. The issue is why would the elected officials who benefit from this, do something to counter it. They're fine with an inequitable world governed by the Koch Brothers' school for business fairy tales. The economy is a sham, the government could pay people to run the farms and clothing factories and stockpile the excess rather than burn it to create scarcity. There are other ways to live beyond this narrow system of faux economic sciences.

wonderwonder 3y ago

Why would the rich continue to create businesses and employ hundreds of millions of people if the end result was just to be taxed to oblivion. Yes there are rich people that have more $ that they can spend in a lifetime, many of them also provide more to the economy than they take out. Also much of their wealth is imaginary as it exists in shares that they cannot sell without losing control of their company. Musk is the obvious example. Tesla provides ~120k well paying jobs. Its the first electric car company that makes having an electric car cool thus putting tens of thousands of people in non polluting vehicles. SpaceX has fundamentally changed space travel plus employs 12k people directly. Should we have just capped his income after he sold paypal? Think of all that would have been lost. Also who are we to decide what people should aspire to?

hotpotamus 3y ago
Imagine if Elon Musk has $100 billion (I believe the number is somewhat higher), and the government takes $99 billion from him in taxes. Do you imagine that he would stop doing his thing? Do you think he would be materially less comfortable than he is now?
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  Yes. He does not have $100 billion liquid. He would have to liquidate his ownership in spacex and tesla. Losing control of the companies. So yes I think he would be forced to stop doing his thing as he would no longer control the companies. It has nothing to do with comfort, dude lives in a 200 SqFt fabricated house or sleeps at work.
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    I'm sure if we implemented this, we could make accommodations such as making it possible to transfer share ownership 'in kind' and stripping voting rights from those shares. Musk would still be able to do his thing, the government would have a boatload more revenue to work with. Now, some might make the argument that without the possibility of becoming a multi billionaire some might not be motivated to start or run a business. That, I think would be a small enough loss to be worthwhile