8 ms·

This is exactly how populism rises: who will vote no to the simple proposal to take money from "others" and give it to them?

by nickpp 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rpgwaiter 2y ago
Others in this case generally being corporations and rich folk
- nickpp 2y ago
  > corporations and rich folk In 2022, about 58% of American households owned stock, either directly or indirectly through mutual funds and other investment accounts. https://www.axios.com/2023/10/18/percentage-americans-own-stock-market-investing https://www.axios.com/2023/10/18/percentage-americans-own-st...
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    I would expected an individual in the top 10% to have more than 30x the stock an individual below 10% but apparently not [1]. Although top 10% holding 89% of stocks does pretty much mean the rest of america is really just dabbling in the stock market. [1]: https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/#toc_stock-ownership-by-level-of-wealth https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/#...
- gus_massa 2y ago
  It's a 3% sale tax on corporations. It's more complicated, but corporations will just increase prices 3% and the consumers will pay it. If you are earning more than 25.000 anualy, you will get a negative total.
  - lucianbr 2y ago
    If corporations can just increase prices with whatever percent they need to offset some tax, why don't they just increase prices with 5% or 500% already, and pocket the profit, despite there being no tax that requires the increase? Seems like an obvious thing to do, and the incentive is totally there (free profit).
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      Competition. They wouldn’t be able to do it individually, but they could collude so they all do it. Of course that would be illegal.
  - atherton33 2y ago
    I think you mean spending more than 25000 (on things subject to sales tax), not earning 25000.
    - gus_massa 2y ago
      Unles you are hordingypur money in the bank or burning it in the backyard, you are going to buy something that has the tax. I think you must discount the taxes aplied directly to your salary. You can also go abroad in the holidays, or perhaps buy online from another state (but they may close the "loophole").
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    This sounds like the "if you raise minimum wage by $10 then a burger just becomes $10 more expensive" which sounds true but never is [1]. > [2] Despite the different methodologies, data periods and data sources, most studies found that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises food prices by no more than 4% and overall prices by no more than 0.4%. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=effect+of+raising+minimum+wage+on+price https://www.google.com/search?q=effect+of+raising+minimum+wa... [2]: https://docs.iza.org/dp1072.pdf https://docs.iza.org/dp1072.pdf
    - jostylr 2y ago
mmustapic 2y ago
All taxes are taking money from others. In this case it's taking it from corporations and giving them to every citizen. In other cases you take it from citizens and give it to other citizens, the military, corporate subsidies, etc. Also, populism means something else.
- jakderrida 2y ago
  >Also, populism means something else. Excellent point! Trump is a populist and his tax bill (his only achievement) suggests he does not endorse this at all.
  - mmustapic 2y ago
    Exactly. Populism usually means "the people vs the elite", and in this case is just taxes.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    Coincidentally, that achievement raised my taxes several thousand a year. Because I live in Oregon. Oh well. It expires soon, right? I mean, the middle class part at least? I’m confused at how that’s populist.
    - willcipriano 2y ago
      How is it more populist that low tax states subsidize high tax states? Its taxation without representation with extra steps. I don't get a vote on your spending but I need to give more to the feds because of something you wanted for yourself. What if they paid high taxes in Europe and got all these services, why shouldn't you give extra to NATO and spend billions defending the European theater (resulting in pretty high taxes) and then Europeans can make fun of you for not having any services they have. (I started this as a hypothetical but realized that's just how it is.)
      - rootusrootus 2y ago
        You have to know it is more complicated than that. Oregon is very much not one of the states that gets the most welfare from the feds vs what we pay. Just like almost every other measure I can find, Oregon is pretty much smack in the middle. The SALT change just screwed over individual taxpayers. Also, the populist comment was aimed at the fact that the tax 'cuts' were built with an expiration date for the poors but permanent for the wealthy. That's pretty much the opposite of what a true populist would do.

This is exactly how populism rises: who will vote no to the simple proposal to take money from "others" and give it to them?

by nickpp 2y ago

This is exactly how populism rises: who will vote no to the simple proposal to take money from "others" and give it to them?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rpgwaiter 2y ago

Others in this case generally being corporations and rich folk

nickpp 2y ago
> corporations and rich folk In 2022, about 58% of American households owned stock, either directly or indirectly through mutual funds and other investment accounts. https://www.axios.com/2023/10/18/percentage-americans-own-stock-market-investing https://www.axios.com/2023/10/18/percentage-americans-own-st...
- lesuorac 2y ago
  I would expected an individual in the top 10% to have more than 30x the stock an individual below 10% but apparently not [1]. Although top 10% holding 89% of stocks does pretty much mean the rest of america is really just dabbling in the stock market. [1]: https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/#toc_stock-ownership-by-level-of-wealth https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/#...
gus_massa 2y ago
It's a 3% sale tax on corporations. It's more complicated, but corporations will just increase prices 3% and the consumers will pay it. If you are earning more than 25.000 anualy, you will get a negative total.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  If corporations can just increase prices with whatever percent they need to offset some tax, why don't they just increase prices with 5% or 500% already, and pocket the profit, despite there being no tax that requires the increase? Seems like an obvious thing to do, and the incentive is totally there (free profit).
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Competition. They wouldn’t be able to do it individually, but they could collude so they all do it. Of course that would be illegal.
- atherton33 2y ago
  I think you mean spending more than 25000 (on things subject to sales tax), not earning 25000.
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    Unles you are hordingypur money in the bank or burning it in the backyard, you are going to buy something that has the tax. I think you must discount the taxes aplied directly to your salary. You can also go abroad in the holidays, or perhaps buy online from another state (but they may close the "loophole").
- lesuorac 2y ago
  This sounds like the "if you raise minimum wage by $10 then a burger just becomes $10 more expensive" which sounds true but never is [1]. > [2] Despite the different methodologies, data periods and data sources, most studies found that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises food prices by no more than 4% and overall prices by no more than 0.4%. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=effect+of+raising+minimum+wage+on+price https://www.google.com/search?q=effect+of+raising+minimum+wa... [2]: https://docs.iza.org/dp1072.pdf https://docs.iza.org/dp1072.pdf
  - jostylr 2y ago

mmustapic 2y ago

All taxes are taking money from others. In this case it's taking it from corporations and giving them to every citizen. In other cases you take it from citizens and give it to other citizens, the military, corporate subsidies, etc. Also, populism means something else.

jakderrida 2y ago
>Also, populism means something else. Excellent point! Trump is a populist and his tax bill (his only achievement) suggests he does not endorse this at all.
- mmustapic 2y ago
  Exactly. Populism usually means "the people vs the elite", and in this case is just taxes.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  Coincidentally, that achievement raised my taxes several thousand a year. Because I live in Oregon. Oh well. It expires soon, right? I mean, the middle class part at least? I’m confused at how that’s populist.
  - willcipriano 2y ago
    How is it more populist that low tax states subsidize high tax states? Its taxation without representation with extra steps. I don't get a vote on your spending but I need to give more to the feds because of something you wanted for yourself. What if they paid high taxes in Europe and got all these services, why shouldn't you give extra to NATO and spend billions defending the European theater (resulting in pretty high taxes) and then Europeans can make fun of you for not having any services they have. (I started this as a hypothetical but realized that's just how it is.)
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      You have to know it is more complicated than that. Oregon is very much not one of the states that gets the most welfare from the feds vs what we pay. Just like almost every other measure I can find, Oregon is pretty much smack in the middle. The SALT change just screwed over individual taxpayers. Also, the populist comment was aimed at the fact that the tax 'cuts' were built with an expiration date for the poors but permanent for the wealthy. That's pretty much the opposite of what a true populist would do.