3 ms·

> For reasons I can't quite understand, nobody seems to be advocating for revoking this tax deduction. Why can you not understand why the US would prefer peopl

> For reasons I can't quite understand, nobody seems to be advocating for revoking this tax deduction. Why can you not understand why the US would prefer people to be invested in the future of the US? That's essentially what putting your money into US debt means. You are in the interest of the US not exploding in the middle of the night. I do think that the typical 90% debt to 10% equity LBO ratio is toxic and should be regulated down. I can see this incentivizing the types that would put in 10M now to get 100M now - spending that on coke & hookers now, and then hoping the US collapses and they don't have to pay anything back.

pjmorris 3y ago
> Why can you not understand why the US would prefer people to be invested in the future of the US? I can understand investing in the future of the US. I add an interest in investing in the present of the US, e.g. wages that support the consumption needs of the populace, including but not limited to food, shelter, health care, and education.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  US wages dwarf almost every non-tax haven in the world adjusted for taxes and the cost of living.
  - pjmorris 3y ago
    I'd be interested to see where you get your numbers. To my eye, wages for the median worker haven't gone much of anywhere in 20-30 years, while asset prices and other costs have gone up. I'd be happy for clearer vision.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
      Where are you getting your data? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q - according to the Fed, real median weekly earnings are up almost 10% over 30 years. And why does it matter if they're going up? They dwarf everywhere else. US productivity per worker is arguably going down - mainly because actual working hours are going down.
      - dingusdew 3y ago
        [dead]
      - pjmorris 3y ago
        I'm clearly out-of-date on data, as my assertion is more in line with your chart from e.g. 1990 to about 2015. That said, if I've understood what we're looking at - wages in terms of buying power as measured by CPI, I'd like to admit some other data to the conversation: 1. The series I'm looking at (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB) has productivity doubling over the same time that wages went up 10%. You can argue that productivity is going down now, but the gains up to this point appear to have gone somewhere besides wages. 2. As an example, the rent component of CPI has roughly quadrupled over the same time period, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SEHA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SEHA ... which I take to mean that less is being spent on other components of the CPI. That's a factor in what's available for present needs. 3. As a percent of the population, there are about as many workers as there were in 1980, down 2-5% from the 90s and 2000s. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO) With wages up 10%, productivity up 100% and rent up 400%, it seems to me that there's a tipping of the balance toward the future rather than the present.
        onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
        You are not too far off. Wages are up far more than 10%. 10% is real wage growth - adjusted for inflation. Median weakly earnings in 1990 was $412. Now it's $1,118 - 270% increase (most of that being inflation). Inequality is at the highest point it's ever been in the US (and globally) - even surpassing the Belle Epoch before the French Revolution. That being said, it doesn't mean there's anywhere better to sell your time for money than in the US.
tim333 3y ago
Presently I believe if you have a company making $1m profit and the company is owned by investors holding bits of paper classified as debt the whole $1m gets paid out. If they hold bits of paper classified as equity, 21% tax is deducted before paying out. Investing in US enterprise is good but favouring one type of paper over the other is dubious. If anything you might think the government would want to favour equity holdings as that makes the whole set up more stable in downturns.

pjmorris 3y ago

> Why can you not understand why the US would prefer people to be invested in the future of the US? I can understand investing in the future of the US. I add an interest in investing in the present of the US, e.g. wages that support the consumption needs of the populace, including but not limited to food, shelter, health care, and education.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
US wages dwarf almost every non-tax haven in the world adjusted for taxes and the cost of living.
- pjmorris 3y ago
  I'd be interested to see where you get your numbers. To my eye, wages for the median worker haven't gone much of anywhere in 20-30 years, while asset prices and other costs have gone up. I'd be happy for clearer vision.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    Where are you getting your data? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q - according to the Fed, real median weekly earnings are up almost 10% over 30 years. And why does it matter if they're going up? They dwarf everywhere else. US productivity per worker is arguably going down - mainly because actual working hours are going down.
    - dingusdew 3y ago
      [dead]
    - pjmorris 3y ago
      I'm clearly out-of-date on data, as my assertion is more in line with your chart from e.g. 1990 to about 2015. That said, if I've understood what we're looking at - wages in terms of buying power as measured by CPI, I'd like to admit some other data to the conversation: 1. The series I'm looking at (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB) has productivity doubling over the same time that wages went up 10%. You can argue that productivity is going down now, but the gains up to this point appear to have gone somewhere besides wages. 2. As an example, the rent component of CPI has roughly quadrupled over the same time period, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SEHA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SEHA ... which I take to mean that less is being spent on other components of the CPI. That's a factor in what's available for present needs. 3. As a percent of the population, there are about as many workers as there were in 1980, down 2-5% from the 90s and 2000s. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO) With wages up 10%, productivity up 100% and rent up 400%, it seems to me that there's a tipping of the balance toward the future rather than the present.
      - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
        You are not too far off. Wages are up far more than 10%. 10% is real wage growth - adjusted for inflation. Median weakly earnings in 1990 was $412. Now it's $1,118 - 270% increase (most of that being inflation). Inequality is at the highest point it's ever been in the US (and globally) - even surpassing the Belle Epoch before the French Revolution. That being said, it doesn't mean there's anywhere better to sell your time for money than in the US.

tim333 3y ago

Presently I believe if you have a company making $1m profit and the company is owned by investors holding bits of paper classified as debt the whole $1m gets paid out. If they hold bits of paper classified as equity, 21% tax is deducted before paying out. Investing in US enterprise is good but favouring one type of paper over the other is dubious. If anything you might think the government would want to favour equity holdings as that makes the whole set up more stable in downturns.