4 ms·

Gary Stevenson, former top Citibank London trader, has a YouTube channel centered on taxing the rich as a solution to wealth inequality. Highly recommended. h

Gary Stevenson, former top Citibank London trader, has a YouTube channel centered on taxing the rich as a solution to wealth inequality. Highly recommended. https://youtu.be/jFHGiq063rA?si=N64KIhk8ezl7tEEm https://youtu.be/jFHGiq063rA?si=N64KIhk8ezl7tEEm

hollerith 2y ago
Does he explain how to do it so that it works better than the last time (1960s and 70s in the US and Western Europe) it was tried?
- Havoc 2y ago
  He seems quite pessimistic on outlook frankly
  - aamargulies 2y ago
    Yes. His most important point though is that things will not get better until a sufficient mass of public political pressure is brought to bear on the issue.
- aamargulies 2y ago
  A common objection is that the rich will 'just move' to avoid taxes. However, he goes in depth in his response, pointing out that the source of the wealth can't move, you tax that at the source. https://youtu.be/t9l7AYl0jUE?si=LUU_8mUpxw0upPk4 https://youtu.be/t9l7AYl0jUE?si=LUU_8mUpxw0upPk4
  - hollerith 2y ago
    That only works if taxes aren't so high as to kill the incentive to create the source.
    - aamargulies 2y ago
      Here's perhaps a better link: Robert Reich refutes the top 12 myths about taxing the rich: https://youtu.be/pnoLAMHwf2I?si=SApa_u3PGUZ-Y150 https://youtu.be/pnoLAMHwf2I?si=SApa_u3PGUZ-Y150
      - xigoi 2y ago
        What a fitting surname.
  - NickC25 2y ago
    There's an easy way to address this: If a corporation "moves" oversees to avoid taxes, they aren't allowed to reap the benefits of the country whose taxes they wished to avoid. If a billionaire moves to avoid taxes, they and their assets are cut off from the system whose taxes they wished to avoid. Oh, you want to move overseas but keep your money in banking institutions propped up by the US government? Too bad. You want your corporations to keep the full protection of the US government (intellectual capital protection, copyright, etc...)? Too bad! You want your company to take full advantage of all the US has to offer (great education system, a large consumer base, secure capital markets, a relatively stable government)? Too bad! Most of these folks are just greedy fucks who know how good they have it...but somehow they want more, yet expect that people with exponentially less wealth will pay for it. I don't like that. Note - the government isn't always the best at allocating capital or resources...but neither are private citizens or corporations.
    - aamargulies 2y ago
      The poor keep voting against their own interests and installing Republican/Tory governments that work to actively increase inequality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwqQvrqunp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwqQvrqunp8
- taeric 2y ago
  I'm a little confused on this. What is the evidence that it didn't work in the 60s/70s? My understanding is that, though we definitely had "stagflation" and other problems, none of them were caused by higher taxes at the top end. Now, granted, I don't know that I have ever seen it put forth that they were ideal levels or anything. I just have never heard the top end tax rate blamed for that. Biggest thing I have seen it blamed on would be employer tied insurance and the like.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    In some countries, certainly the UK in the 1960s with its 90% top tax rate, the government would've collected more tax if the rate were lower because there would have been more economic activity to tax -- or so say a lot of economists. "Laffer curve" is a good thing to search for if you want to learn more.
    - taeric 2y ago
      I mean, this is largely to my point, though? Last I looked, it seemed research into the Laffer Curve largely found most countries set their rates below the ideal. Agreed that a 90% rate would almost certainly be too high, but the general feel was 40-60 would certainly cover the maximum rates. Some folks saying as high as 70, no?
exabrial 2y ago
Speaking of wealth, on an online forum, from an internet capable device, and having the safety and luxury of time to do so, is sort of ironic, no?
- aamargulies 2y ago
  Yes.
- rollinDyno 2y ago
  Explain the irony.
- fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago
  The internet is not a luxury it is a necessity. A mobile phone is not a luxury it is a necessity. There is nothing ironic unless you are living in the year 1995.
  - hungie 2y ago
    It's not a necessity. Plenty of people somehow don't die even though they have landlines and no internet.
- striking 2y ago
  https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som... I think you can criticize wealth while having it. Also, the unhoused have cell phones too.
  - _zoltan_ 2y ago
    unhoused? what is this, new speak? you can say homeless.
    - stanleykm 2y ago
      Unhoused is a term that has been used for a number of years. Just because you dont bother keeping up to date doesnt mean the world needs to cater to you.
kingstoned 2y ago
Why is inequality in wealth a problem to be addressed? What about inequality in other areas of life like dating? Interesting blog post: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/05/30/the-inequality-that-matters-ii-why-does-dating-in-seattle-get-left-out/ https://jakeseliger.com/2014/05/30/the-inequality-that-matte...
- aamargulies 2y ago
  Wealth inequality is tipping our country into oligarchy.
- pfisch 2y ago
  Because ultimately it destabilizes nations/democracy when individuals are able to acquire too much power. That is the end game of extreme inequality.

hollerith 2y ago

Does he explain how to do it so that it works better than the last time (1960s and 70s in the US and Western Europe) it was tried?

Havoc 2y ago
He seems quite pessimistic on outlook frankly
- aamargulies 2y ago
  Yes. His most important point though is that things will not get better until a sufficient mass of public political pressure is brought to bear on the issue.
aamargulies 2y ago
A common objection is that the rich will 'just move' to avoid taxes. However, he goes in depth in his response, pointing out that the source of the wealth can't move, you tax that at the source. https://youtu.be/t9l7AYl0jUE?si=LUU_8mUpxw0upPk4 https://youtu.be/t9l7AYl0jUE?si=LUU_8mUpxw0upPk4
- hollerith 2y ago
  That only works if taxes aren't so high as to kill the incentive to create the source.
  - aamargulies 2y ago
    Here's perhaps a better link: Robert Reich refutes the top 12 myths about taxing the rich: https://youtu.be/pnoLAMHwf2I?si=SApa_u3PGUZ-Y150 https://youtu.be/pnoLAMHwf2I?si=SApa_u3PGUZ-Y150
    - xigoi 2y ago
      What a fitting surname.
- NickC25 2y ago
  There's an easy way to address this: If a corporation "moves" oversees to avoid taxes, they aren't allowed to reap the benefits of the country whose taxes they wished to avoid. If a billionaire moves to avoid taxes, they and their assets are cut off from the system whose taxes they wished to avoid. Oh, you want to move overseas but keep your money in banking institutions propped up by the US government? Too bad. You want your corporations to keep the full protection of the US government (intellectual capital protection, copyright, etc...)? Too bad! You want your company to take full advantage of all the US has to offer (great education system, a large consumer base, secure capital markets, a relatively stable government)? Too bad! Most of these folks are just greedy fucks who know how good they have it...but somehow they want more, yet expect that people with exponentially less wealth will pay for it. I don't like that. Note - the government isn't always the best at allocating capital or resources...but neither are private citizens or corporations.
  - aamargulies 2y ago
    The poor keep voting against their own interests and installing Republican/Tory governments that work to actively increase inequality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwqQvrqunp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwqQvrqunp8
taeric 2y ago
I'm a little confused on this. What is the evidence that it didn't work in the 60s/70s? My understanding is that, though we definitely had "stagflation" and other problems, none of them were caused by higher taxes at the top end. Now, granted, I don't know that I have ever seen it put forth that they were ideal levels or anything. I just have never heard the top end tax rate blamed for that. Biggest thing I have seen it blamed on would be employer tied insurance and the like.
- hollerith 2y ago
  In some countries, certainly the UK in the 1960s with its 90% top tax rate, the government would've collected more tax if the rate were lower because there would have been more economic activity to tax -- or so say a lot of economists. "Laffer curve" is a good thing to search for if you want to learn more.
  - taeric 2y ago
    I mean, this is largely to my point, though? Last I looked, it seemed research into the Laffer Curve largely found most countries set their rates below the ideal. Agreed that a 90% rate would almost certainly be too high, but the general feel was 40-60 would certainly cover the maximum rates. Some folks saying as high as 70, no?

exabrial 2y ago

Speaking of wealth, on an online forum, from an internet capable device, and having the safety and luxury of time to do so, is sort of ironic, no?

aamargulies 2y ago
Yes.
rollinDyno 2y ago
Explain the irony.
fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago
The internet is not a luxury it is a necessity. A mobile phone is not a luxury it is a necessity. There is nothing ironic unless you are living in the year 1995.
- hungie 2y ago
  It's not a necessity. Plenty of people somehow don't die even though they have landlines and no internet.
striking 2y ago
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som... I think you can criticize wealth while having it. Also, the unhoused have cell phones too.
- _zoltan_ 2y ago
  unhoused? what is this, new speak? you can say homeless.
  - stanleykm 2y ago
    Unhoused is a term that has been used for a number of years. Just because you dont bother keeping up to date doesnt mean the world needs to cater to you.

kingstoned 2y ago

Why is inequality in wealth a problem to be addressed? What about inequality in other areas of life like dating? Interesting blog post: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/05/30/the-inequality-that-matters-ii-why-does-dating-in-seattle-get-left-out/ https://jakeseliger.com/2014/05/30/the-inequality-that-matte...

aamargulies 2y ago
Wealth inequality is tipping our country into oligarchy.
pfisch 2y ago
Because ultimately it destabilizes nations/democracy when individuals are able to acquire too much power. That is the end game of extreme inequality.