4 ms·

If the US government is 30 trillion dollars in debt someone is 30 trillion dollars in credit. The money doesn't disappear. Now the problem is (in the context o

by samiv 1y ago

If the US government is 30 trillion dollars in debt someone is 30 trillion dollars in credit. The money doesn't disappear. Now the problem is (in the context of United States) that the number #1 and #2 creditors are People's Republic of China and Japan. So the US cannot tax those entities. But they can tax domestic creditors and wealthy individuals. "Let's tax Zuckerberg half of his wealth, that's roughly 2% of the US budget. That's a lot, but you can only do that once, maybe twice. You can certainly tax the wealthiest enough to fund quite a bit and if you pick the right things you can do a lot of good. It's just not enough to reshape society, which seems to be what most think would happen." No, the point is that you can do it over and over again. Once you put that money into the economy it will flow all around it and most of the money will end up in the same place again. I.e in the bank account of Zuckerberg and it can be taxed again.

logicchains 1y ago
>Once you put that money into the economy it will flow all around it and most of the money will end up in the same place again. I.e in the bank account of Zuckerberg and it can be taxed again. Money is not value, it's a proxy for value. By taxing capital and using it on handouts, you're essentially burning that value; it's like a farmer eating all their seeds rather than saving some for the next year's crop.
- samiv 1y ago
  "By taxing capital and using it on handouts, you're essentially burning that value; " If you tax the money from Zuckerber and give it out as "handouts" as you say, what do you think happens to the money? You think it just disappears? What happens that every $ that is given out to people who need it will use the money to buy things they need, their food, energy, their utilities etc. This consumption and the flow of money is exactly what lubricates the economic machinery and creates new growth. When people have money to spend there are new things and services to build and sell! If you deprive people from money, how do you create business when nobody can afford to buy whatever it is that you're making? Henry Ford already knew this that if people don't have money to buy his cars he has no business!
mrweasel 1y ago
If we stick to Zuckerberg or Musk, a lot of their money isn't real, you can't really tax it directly. They'd have to offload a crazy amount of assets, including stocks. They'd lose a lot of their value if you had to sell it all of at once. It's only real in the sense that they can use it as securities for loans or purchasing other assets. I'm not an economist, but it sounds like that would slow down the wealth generation of the riches people, and that would mean less taxable wealth next year. You may be right. I still think address the increasingly egotistic and damaging behaviour would be better.
- diggan 1y ago
  > I still think address the increasingly egotistic and damaging behaviour would be better. If not by taxes, then how? Social pressure doesn't seem like it's working anymore, because individuals could just ignore that and still proceed like everything is normal. Genuinely curious about alternative solutions that doesn't involve taxation, since everyone seems to be so tax-avoidant.
  - mrweasel 1y ago
    Regulations and extremely high fines for breaking those regulation. In worst case, lose the right run a business in the future. The EU is getting closer to real fines, in terms of how large they need to be. The idea of using X% of turnover is good, but 4% isn't high enough. In the case of companies like Amazon, force them to negotiate with unions. How many Meta or Amazon size companies do you think the US government would need to shutdown for the industry to take notice? My guess is about two. Just close it down and let the shareholders take the lose. That way shareholders of other companies will insist that rules are followed. The government can sell of the assets and make some money that way.
    - diggan 1y ago
      > Regulations and extremely high fines for breaking those regulation So say Musk gets convicted of "egotistic behavior", however that works, and he's hit with an extremely high fine. How is he supposed to be able to pay that fine without having to "offload a crazy amount of assets, including stocks", which according to you would be the problem? Seems while the approaches are different, you'd still be in the same boat as if it was just taxed from the beginning, except you don't involve the judicial.

by samiv 1y ago

logicchains 1y ago

>Once you put that money into the economy it will flow all around it and most of the money will end up in the same place again. I.e in the bank account of Zuckerberg and it can be taxed again. Money is not value, it's a proxy for value. By taxing capital and using it on handouts, you're essentially burning that value; it's like a farmer eating all their seeds rather than saving some for the next year's crop.

samiv 1y ago
"By taxing capital and using it on handouts, you're essentially burning that value; " If you tax the money from Zuckerber and give it out as "handouts" as you say, what do you think happens to the money? You think it just disappears? What happens that every $ that is given out to people who need it will use the money to buy things they need, their food, energy, their utilities etc. This consumption and the flow of money is exactly what lubricates the economic machinery and creates new growth. When people have money to spend there are new things and services to build and sell! If you deprive people from money, how do you create business when nobody can afford to buy whatever it is that you're making? Henry Ford already knew this that if people don't have money to buy his cars he has no business!

mrweasel 1y ago

If we stick to Zuckerberg or Musk, a lot of their money isn't real, you can't really tax it directly. They'd have to offload a crazy amount of assets, including stocks. They'd lose a lot of their value if you had to sell it all of at once. It's only real in the sense that they can use it as securities for loans or purchasing other assets. I'm not an economist, but it sounds like that would slow down the wealth generation of the riches people, and that would mean less taxable wealth next year. You may be right. I still think address the increasingly egotistic and damaging behaviour would be better.

diggan 1y ago
> I still think address the increasingly egotistic and damaging behaviour would be better. If not by taxes, then how? Social pressure doesn't seem like it's working anymore, because individuals could just ignore that and still proceed like everything is normal. Genuinely curious about alternative solutions that doesn't involve taxation, since everyone seems to be so tax-avoidant.
- mrweasel 1y ago
  Regulations and extremely high fines for breaking those regulation. In worst case, lose the right run a business in the future. The EU is getting closer to real fines, in terms of how large they need to be. The idea of using X% of turnover is good, but 4% isn't high enough. In the case of companies like Amazon, force them to negotiate with unions. How many Meta or Amazon size companies do you think the US government would need to shutdown for the industry to take notice? My guess is about two. Just close it down and let the shareholders take the lose. That way shareholders of other companies will insist that rules are followed. The government can sell of the assets and make some money that way.
  - diggan 1y ago
    > Regulations and extremely high fines for breaking those regulation So say Musk gets convicted of "egotistic behavior", however that works, and he's hit with an extremely high fine. How is he supposed to be able to pay that fine without having to "offload a crazy amount of assets, including stocks", which according to you would be the problem? Seems while the approaches are different, you'd still be in the same boat as if it was just taxed from the beginning, except you don't involve the judicial.