3 ms·

This is hard due to all the monopolies that exist in the modern world, and it's only possible for B2C businesses. The entire value chain is dominated by B2B whe

This is hard due to all the monopolies that exist in the modern world, and it's only possible for B2C businesses. The entire value chain is dominated by B2B where consumers have little say. I love System76 but their components are still from mega corps with stupid CEO salaries. The only effective ways to deal with this are progressive taxation and labor regulations. Bring back the 90+% top tax bracket that Thatcher and Reagan disposed of. Tie minimum wage to regional cost of living indices. Of course, this article only discusses wages. The truly wealthy don't make much from income. It's incredible that capital gains tax is less than income tax.

maerF0x0 3y ago
I'm still unsettled on the balance between unequal pay, and treating the government as the only redistribution solution (ie taxation). I do prefer market solutions that Charity/Philanthropy offer vs governmental spending. And sometimes I think about how many of the richest have a 100% tax bracket as they've pledged their fortunes to charity after death. Probably seems contradictory to my parent comment, but as I said I'm just not sure of the best path forward tbh.
- renjimen 3y ago
  The nice thing about taxation though is that it doesn't rely on the whims of billionaires. Charity is unreliable and doesn't work for large, long term endeavors that modern society is built on. I recommend reading the History of Equality by Thomas Piketty to better understand the efficacy of progressive income tax and wealth tax.
- NegativeLatency 3y ago
  There are issues with any approach but it seems like the purpose of a democratic government should be to help the common person out in situations like this, because it's the only real mechanism we have to fight back against the concentrated power that wealth brings.
- jacobolus 3y ago
  > market solutions that Charity/Philanthropy offer In practice, laws ostensibly intended to support philanthropy are used as tax dodges, money laundering schemes, workarounds of campaign finance laws, etc., with all manner of perverse incentives and conflicts of interest involved. The big money is generally less in "market solutions" and more in "hacking the tax code for the benefit of the wealthy". In my opinion financial gifts to organizations should not offer tax write-offs for donors (especially of estate/inheritance taxes), or at any rate the maximum write-off should be capped based on plausible middle-class contributions; and universities, churches, and charities should generally pay the taxes businesses pay. If people want to spend their money on charitable activities, that's great, but the government should not be in the business of differentially subsidizing them based on the whims of the wealthy. If we want to have direct government subsidies of charities or educational institutions, it should be based on some transparent and democratically accountable grant system. If we want to help ordinary people, the most effective method is universal direct cash transfers from the government (without means testing, weird income cliffs, or bureaucratic hoops), better labor protections, and restructuring the tax code to be more progressive (e.g. toward land-value tax and away from sales tax, treating capital gains as income, adding higher-rate income tax brackets at the top end, and raising caps on payroll taxes).
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  > And sometimes I think about how many of the richest have a 100% tax bracket as they've pledged their fortunes to charity after death. That's not the same as a 100% tax bracket, because those resources are free to be deployed while the person is still alive. Also, with charity, the devil is often in the details. The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, for example, is focused not only on helping stop disease in disadvantaged countries but also encouraging stronger IP protection in medicine[1] and pushing for privatization of education[2]. Charitable organizations can be conduits for transforming economic power into political power. This is not the same as a tax. [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/162000/bill-gates-impeded-global-access-covid-vaccines https://newrepublic.com/article/162000/bill-gates-impeded-gl... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/19/bill-melinda-gates-have-spent-billions-drive-their-agenda-education-other-issues-now-they-have-created-lobbying-group-push-even-more/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/19/bill-mel...
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  US taxes already allow you to deduct ~60% of your income with charitable deductions. Taxes only apply to what's left over afterwards.
- scrozier 3y ago
  Pledging your fortune to charity is not taxation, and calling this a tax bracket is misleading.
- DonnyV 3y ago
  Market solutions don't work against problems that affect everyone and you can't make money from. More efficiency isn't going solve poor peoples problems or monopoly capture. This is the current problem we have with healthcare. Healthcare should never have been turned into a business, it affects everyone.
ta1243 3y ago
Stop taxing productive work. Tim Cook's 100k/hour doesn't get taxed at the current top rate, let alone a new 90% rate.

maerF0x0 3y ago

I'm still unsettled on the balance between unequal pay, and treating the government as the only redistribution solution (ie taxation). I do prefer market solutions that Charity/Philanthropy offer vs governmental spending. And sometimes I think about how many of the richest have a 100% tax bracket as they've pledged their fortunes to charity after death. Probably seems contradictory to my parent comment, but as I said I'm just not sure of the best path forward tbh.

renjimen 3y ago
The nice thing about taxation though is that it doesn't rely on the whims of billionaires. Charity is unreliable and doesn't work for large, long term endeavors that modern society is built on. I recommend reading the History of Equality by Thomas Piketty to better understand the efficacy of progressive income tax and wealth tax.
NegativeLatency 3y ago
There are issues with any approach but it seems like the purpose of a democratic government should be to help the common person out in situations like this, because it's the only real mechanism we have to fight back against the concentrated power that wealth brings.
jacobolus 3y ago
> market solutions that Charity/Philanthropy offer In practice, laws ostensibly intended to support philanthropy are used as tax dodges, money laundering schemes, workarounds of campaign finance laws, etc., with all manner of perverse incentives and conflicts of interest involved. The big money is generally less in "market solutions" and more in "hacking the tax code for the benefit of the wealthy". In my opinion financial gifts to organizations should not offer tax write-offs for donors (especially of estate/inheritance taxes), or at any rate the maximum write-off should be capped based on plausible middle-class contributions; and universities, churches, and charities should generally pay the taxes businesses pay. If people want to spend their money on charitable activities, that's great, but the government should not be in the business of differentially subsidizing them based on the whims of the wealthy. If we want to have direct government subsidies of charities or educational institutions, it should be based on some transparent and democratically accountable grant system. If we want to help ordinary people, the most effective method is universal direct cash transfers from the government (without means testing, weird income cliffs, or bureaucratic hoops), better labor protections, and restructuring the tax code to be more progressive (e.g. toward land-value tax and away from sales tax, treating capital gains as income, adding higher-rate income tax brackets at the top end, and raising caps on payroll taxes).
AlexandrB 3y ago
> And sometimes I think about how many of the richest have a 100% tax bracket as they've pledged their fortunes to charity after death. That's not the same as a 100% tax bracket, because those resources are free to be deployed while the person is still alive. Also, with charity, the devil is often in the details. The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, for example, is focused not only on helping stop disease in disadvantaged countries but also encouraging stronger IP protection in medicine[1] and pushing for privatization of education[2]. Charitable organizations can be conduits for transforming economic power into political power. This is not the same as a tax. [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/162000/bill-gates-impeded-global-access-covid-vaccines https://newrepublic.com/article/162000/bill-gates-impeded-gl... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/19/bill-melinda-gates-have-spent-billions-drive-their-agenda-education-other-issues-now-they-have-created-lobbying-group-push-even-more/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/19/bill-mel...
AlotOfReading 3y ago
US taxes already allow you to deduct ~60% of your income with charitable deductions. Taxes only apply to what's left over afterwards.
scrozier 3y ago
Pledging your fortune to charity is not taxation, and calling this a tax bracket is misleading.
DonnyV 3y ago
Market solutions don't work against problems that affect everyone and you can't make money from. More efficiency isn't going solve poor peoples problems or monopoly capture. This is the current problem we have with healthcare. Healthcare should never have been turned into a business, it affects everyone.

ta1243 3y ago

Stop taxing productive work. Tim Cook's 100k/hour doesn't get taxed at the current top rate, let alone a new 90% rate.