4 ms·

The top 1% aren't sitting on a pile of gold in a dragon's den, their wealth is mostly invested. The amount of money Jeff Bezos owns in houses and boats is small

The top 1% aren't sitting on a pile of gold in a dragon's den, their wealth is mostly invested. The amount of money Jeff Bezos owns in houses and boats is small in comparison to the amount of his wealth that is represented by stock in amazon; that money in amazon's hands is absolutely cycling through the economy.

surgical_fire 1y ago
> small in comparison to the amount of his wealth that is represented by stock in amazon That wealth should also be taxed. What makes stock ownership somehow holy that should be protected from taxation? We should stop conflating what a company generates as a consequence of their activity with the glorified gambling of the stock market.
- eru 1y ago
  Stock ownership isn't protected from taxation: there's capital gains tax to be paid (in many countries). > We should stop conflating what a company generates as a consequence of their activity with the glorified gambling of the stock market. Well, that might be a valid point for some people, but it's pointless for Zuckerberg or Bezos or Bill Gates or even Musk: those guys have been mostly holding their companies' stocks for ages. They don't buy and sell all the time. No 'glorified gambling the stock market' there. In any case, I brought up stock ownership as a concrete example of wealth that doesn't just site 'idle' in a vault somewhere. It's a claim on a productive enterprise that is only worth something because it serves customers and employs people etc.
KittenInABox 1y ago
Jeff Bezos can spend 50 million dollars on his wedding. Since that's a small amount of money compared to the amount of his stock in amazon, I think Jeff can actually afford to have his taxes raised on whatever he has on hand.
kaibee 1y ago
Look, its pretty simple. Here's a microcosm example: There is a German ship-builder that exclusively builds luxury yachts. They have ~2,000 highly skilled craftsmen, engineers, etc. This company only exists because wealth is concentrated enough to support a market for it. That company consumes about 4 million skilled-labor-hours a year to provide this service. This means that skilled-labor-hours are more scarce/expensive for _everyone_, because the on any given year, there are only so many skilled-labor hours that exist. These labor hours require about three decades of investment from society to produce (public education/childcare/etc). Bezos may not buy a super-yacht every year, but as a class, the super rich consume an insane labor hours.
- buttercraft 1y ago
  "Consume" labor hours? What does that even mean? Those laborers get paid, and then they spend the money they get. That money is circulating through the economy.
  - kaibee 1y ago
    > "Consume" labor hours? What does that even mean? Those laborers get paid, and then they spend the money they get. That money is circulating through the economy. Money isn't stuff. Yes, those craftsmen get paid, but when one of them has something he needs done, some service provided, or some physical resource, he ends up paying more for the labor, because he is competing in the same labor market as everyone else. Don't you think spending the working time of 4 million labor hours a year, building megayachts, is perhaps not the most productive/ROI generating activity for society at large? You could for example, with ~4 million skilled labor hours a year, build a lot of housing. You could build factories that provide for the needs the people. Hell, you could just give people time-off to, y'know, live and enjoy life (and perhaps, uh, have _children_, which the current system seems to be very efficient at disincentivizing).
    - buttercraft 1y ago
      > he ends up paying more for the labor, because he is competing in the same labor market as everyone else You'll have to explain that more. Ship builders aren't competing with plumbers. >Don't you think spending the working time of 4 million labor hours a year, building megayachts, is perhaps not the most productive/ROI generating activity for society at large Well, that's a drop in the bucket. But you could apply this reasoning to any form of luxury goods. Where do you draw the line? Nice clothes? Fancy watches? Sports cars? Five-star restaurants? Are any of these "the most productive/ROI generating activity for society at large?" Who decides what goods and services are worthy? > and perhaps, uh, have _children_ You think people are having fewer children because luxury yachts are being built?

surgical_fire 1y ago

> small in comparison to the amount of his wealth that is represented by stock in amazon That wealth should also be taxed. What makes stock ownership somehow holy that should be protected from taxation? We should stop conflating what a company generates as a consequence of their activity with the glorified gambling of the stock market.

eru 1y ago
Stock ownership isn't protected from taxation: there's capital gains tax to be paid (in many countries). > We should stop conflating what a company generates as a consequence of their activity with the glorified gambling of the stock market. Well, that might be a valid point for some people, but it's pointless for Zuckerberg or Bezos or Bill Gates or even Musk: those guys have been mostly holding their companies' stocks for ages. They don't buy and sell all the time. No 'glorified gambling the stock market' there. In any case, I brought up stock ownership as a concrete example of wealth that doesn't just site 'idle' in a vault somewhere. It's a claim on a productive enterprise that is only worth something because it serves customers and employs people etc.

KittenInABox 1y ago

Jeff Bezos can spend 50 million dollars on his wedding. Since that's a small amount of money compared to the amount of his stock in amazon, I think Jeff can actually afford to have his taxes raised on whatever he has on hand.

kaibee 1y ago

Look, its pretty simple. Here's a microcosm example: There is a German ship-builder that exclusively builds luxury yachts. They have ~2,000 highly skilled craftsmen, engineers, etc. This company only exists because wealth is concentrated enough to support a market for it. That company consumes about 4 million skilled-labor-hours a year to provide this service. This means that skilled-labor-hours are more scarce/expensive for _everyone_, because the on any given year, there are only so many skilled-labor hours that exist. These labor hours require about three decades of investment from society to produce (public education/childcare/etc). Bezos may not buy a super-yacht every year, but as a class, the super rich consume an insane labor hours.

buttercraft 1y ago
"Consume" labor hours? What does that even mean? Those laborers get paid, and then they spend the money they get. That money is circulating through the economy.
- kaibee 1y ago
  > "Consume" labor hours? What does that even mean? Those laborers get paid, and then they spend the money they get. That money is circulating through the economy. Money isn't stuff. Yes, those craftsmen get paid, but when one of them has something he needs done, some service provided, or some physical resource, he ends up paying more for the labor, because he is competing in the same labor market as everyone else. Don't you think spending the working time of 4 million labor hours a year, building megayachts, is perhaps not the most productive/ROI generating activity for society at large? You could for example, with ~4 million skilled labor hours a year, build a lot of housing. You could build factories that provide for the needs the people. Hell, you could just give people time-off to, y'know, live and enjoy life (and perhaps, uh, have _children_, which the current system seems to be very efficient at disincentivizing).
  - buttercraft 1y ago
    > he ends up paying more for the labor, because he is competing in the same labor market as everyone else You'll have to explain that more. Ship builders aren't competing with plumbers. >Don't you think spending the working time of 4 million labor hours a year, building megayachts, is perhaps not the most productive/ROI generating activity for society at large Well, that's a drop in the bucket. But you could apply this reasoning to any form of luxury goods. Where do you draw the line? Nice clothes? Fancy watches? Sports cars? Five-star restaurants? Are any of these "the most productive/ROI generating activity for society at large?" Who decides what goods and services are worthy? > and perhaps, uh, have _children_ You think people are having fewer children because luxury yachts are being built?