4 ms·

There are three major reasons why, with very few exceptions, wealth doesn't last centuries: 1. Descendants of really successful people tend to fritter away tha

by jmyeet 2y ago

There are three major reasons why, with very few exceptions, wealth doesn't last centuries: 1. Descendants of really successful people tend to fritter away that wealth, thinking they're as gifted as their forebears. Look no further than the Vanderbilts; 2. Families have a tendency to die out over generations. The Roman Republican originally had 45 patrician families. By the time of Gaius Julius Caesar (who was from a patrician family), there were 15 IIRC; and 3. The ultimate form of wealth redistribution is war and revolution. Most long-lasting family wealth tends to be monarchies of some kind. Therea are a bunch of arguments you'll hear why taxing the rich more can't or shouldn't happen. They're all lies. 1. Capital flight. The rich will leave. Great. You lose the ability to sell to customers in our country then; 2. Taxing unrealized stock gains is impossible and/or unfair. We do this to property just fine. Companies produce tax statements of unrealized gains just fine; 3. The dreaded slippery slope arguments. "If they go after Bezos, next they'll come after me with my $42,000 a year job and 2011 Camry". A stable society and political climate is completely necessary for this wealth to exist. Having the wealthy pay for the society that makes their wealth possible while avoiding their heads ending up on pikes or in guillotines is entirely just, possible and moral.

doctorpangloss 2y ago
> 2. Taxing unrealized stock gains is impossible and/or unfair. We do this to property just fine. Companies produce tax statements of unrealized gains just fine. Wait till you find out what someone with a home nominally valued $2m in San Francisco pays on his property taxes compared to you.
dmitrygr 2y ago
You conveniently forgot to make an argument against your second point #3. That is understandable, since there is none. USA income tax started by attacking only those making over $3000 when median yearly pay was $670, but over time it grew to afflict everyone. It will expand and it will one day hurt you.. Everyone thinks that redistribution is great, because they look at the wallets of those better off and cannot wait to get a slice, forgetting that below them there are many looking at their wallets...
- jmyeet 2y ago
  No, that's just the slippery slope argument. My question for you is: why don't you vote in your interests? Instead, you're voting in Bezos's interests. You are not Jeff Bezos. You will never be Jeff Bezos. You will never benefit for the policies you seem to be defending. But no, it's "if Bezos has to pay 10% taxes, they migh tcome next for my $120,000". It's wild to me that the slippery slope argument manages to somehow trump arguments of both self-interest and morality.
  - claytongulick 2y ago
    > My question for you is: why don't you vote in your interests? Not the person you asked, but I can respond for myself. I honestly, truly believe that limiting the size and reach of government is voting in my own self interest. I'm completely uninterested in class warfare stuff. I admire very wealthy people, I hope to be one someday. Meanwhile, increasing the size, scope and power of the federal government has nothing but negative consequences for me and my family.
    - jmyeet 2y ago
      > I honestly, truly believe that limiting the size and reach of government is voting in my own self interest. I guess you don't like roads, bridges, courts, fire departments, GPS, the Internet, modern medicine or stable food prices then. This whole "limited government" fantasy is such a uniquely American delusion. It's crazy. It's propaganda sold to you by wealthy people who want to be able to poison your drinking water because it increases their personal wealth from $30 billion to $31 billion. It borders on libertarianism, which, if that's what you're talking about, is such an incredibly naive and ridiculous political philosophy. I am actually curious though: how exactly is big government creating "negative consequences for [you] and your family"?
      - claytongulick 2y ago
        > I guess you don't like roads, bridges, That's a pretty tired old straw-man you're dragging out. Like, because I believe in limited government I somehow hate bridges. You can do better. BTW, roads etc... account for about 6% of state budget, and states provide 3/4 of the total funding [1]. > ... libertarianism .. is such an incredibly naive and ridiculous political philosophy. Why? >how exactly is big government creating "negative consequences for [you] and your family"? - Censoring social media [2] - Driving up inflation and the cost of food [3] - Poisoning my kids with junk at school lunches [4] - Bankrupting the nation with debt [5] - Permits for everything! I can't add a railing to my front porch or remove a dead tree from my yard without permits. - Ruinous taxation That's hardly an exhaustive list, just some things that come to mind. [1] https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/26/zuckerberg-meta-white-house-pressure-00176399 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/26/zuckerberg-meta-whi... [3] https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/federal-spending-was-responsible-2022-spike-inflation-research-shows https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/federal-spendi... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2023/lunchables-school-lunch-ultraprocessed-foods/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2023/lunch... [5] https://www.usdebtclock.org/ https://www.usdebtclock.org/

by jmyeet 2y ago

doctorpangloss 2y ago

> 2. Taxing unrealized stock gains is impossible and/or unfair. We do this to property just fine. Companies produce tax statements of unrealized gains just fine. Wait till you find out what someone with a home nominally valued $2m in San Francisco pays on his property taxes compared to you.

dmitrygr 2y ago

You conveniently forgot to make an argument against your second point #3. That is understandable, since there is none. USA income tax started by attacking only those making over $3000 when median yearly pay was $670, but over time it grew to afflict everyone. It will expand and it will one day hurt you.. Everyone thinks that redistribution is great, because they look at the wallets of those better off and cannot wait to get a slice, forgetting that below them there are many looking at their wallets...

jmyeet 2y ago
No, that's just the slippery slope argument. My question for you is: why don't you vote in your interests? Instead, you're voting in Bezos's interests. You are not Jeff Bezos. You will never be Jeff Bezos. You will never benefit for the policies you seem to be defending. But no, it's "if Bezos has to pay 10% taxes, they migh tcome next for my $120,000". It's wild to me that the slippery slope argument manages to somehow trump arguments of both self-interest and morality.
- claytongulick 2y ago
  > My question for you is: why don't you vote in your interests? Not the person you asked, but I can respond for myself. I honestly, truly believe that limiting the size and reach of government is voting in my own self interest. I'm completely uninterested in class warfare stuff. I admire very wealthy people, I hope to be one someday. Meanwhile, increasing the size, scope and power of the federal government has nothing but negative consequences for me and my family.
  - jmyeet 2y ago
    > I honestly, truly believe that limiting the size and reach of government is voting in my own self interest. I guess you don't like roads, bridges, courts, fire departments, GPS, the Internet, modern medicine or stable food prices then. This whole "limited government" fantasy is such a uniquely American delusion. It's crazy. It's propaganda sold to you by wealthy people who want to be able to poison your drinking water because it increases their personal wealth from $30 billion to $31 billion. It borders on libertarianism, which, if that's what you're talking about, is such an incredibly naive and ridiculous political philosophy. I am actually curious though: how exactly is big government creating "negative consequences for [you] and your family"?
    - claytongulick 2y ago
      > I guess you don't like roads, bridges, That's a pretty tired old straw-man you're dragging out. Like, because I believe in limited government I somehow hate bridges. You can do better. BTW, roads etc... account for about 6% of state budget, and states provide 3/4 of the total funding [1]. > ... libertarianism .. is such an incredibly naive and ridiculous political philosophy. Why? >how exactly is big government creating "negative consequences for [you] and your family"? - Censoring social media [2] - Driving up inflation and the cost of food [3] - Poisoning my kids with junk at school lunches [4] - Bankrupting the nation with debt [5] - Permits for everything! I can't add a railing to my front porch or remove a dead tree from my yard without permits. - Ruinous taxation That's hardly an exhaustive list, just some things that come to mind. [1] https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/26/zuckerberg-meta-white-house-pressure-00176399 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/26/zuckerberg-meta-whi... [3] https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/federal-spending-was-responsible-2022-spike-inflation-research-shows https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/federal-spendi... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2023/lunchables-school-lunch-ultraprocessed-foods/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2023/lunch... [5] https://www.usdebtclock.org/ https://www.usdebtclock.org/