5 ms·

Redistribution can only get you so far. Creating new wealth is more sustainable.

by simianwords 3mo ago

jimnotgym 3mo ago
So why did we stop doing that in favour of winner takes all weath centralisation?
- aorloff 3mo ago
  Largely because enough American voters, contrary to all of the evidence, believed that Trump was going to grow a sense of duty, eviscerate corruption in Washington, deliver an economy that works for the working class, and not engage in any new wars. Charlie Brown, Lucy, football.
  - applicative 3mo ago
    What country are our boys occupying now?
    - pastel8739 3mo ago
      Are you suggesting that in fact we have not entered any new wars in recent history?
      - applicative 3mo ago
        We entered a war in Iraq a quarter century ago
        krapp 3mo ago
        We entered a war in Iran in February.
        jimnotgym 3mo ago
        At least the war in Iraq had a veneer of a pretext. Trump seems to be attacking Iran because Bibi asked him to
        krapp 3mo ago
        Someone must not have told Iran that Trump is the great peace president who ended all wars, united the Middle East and brought about world peace. They really need to get with the program or we'll have to win the war a few more times.
shimman 3mo ago
Number one expense for SMB is healthcare, providing a nationalized healthcare service would likely unlock trillions in value (imagine what Americans would do if they got $200-500 more per paycheck?). Instead we are forced to watch some of the wealthiest companies on the planet burn money for fun because apparently the government is "wasteful." What a crock of shit.
- irishcoffee 3mo ago
  How would nationalized healthcare get funded other than shifting that 200-500/check towards… nationalized healthcare?
  - Avicebron 3mo ago
    When you cut out the insurance middlemen and pharmaceutical companies driving up record profits at the expense of care you can get pretty far with less in taxes
    - daedrdev 3mo ago
      Insurance companies make like 2-4% hardly breaking the bank here. Pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money, but the US also funds most drug development which other countries freeload off of. US healthcare workers get a state enforced shortage to drive up their wages thanks to residency limits, but nobody ever wants to look at that. If you can't tell I am extremely pessimistic about the changes of universal healthcare improving on our current system. And to be clear it's universal, not unlimited.
      - Apocryphon 3mo ago
        Insurance companies basically are banks, in that while they make low profit margins they wield such vast amounts of capital, some of which they invest in, they might as well be financial service institutions. There's also other categories of entities (pharmacy benefit managers, wholesalers and distributors) that also get a cut. https://medium.com/@brian-curry-research/the-healthcare-maze-tracing-a-dollar-through-six-layers-of-middlemen-2abb718003a1 https://medium.com/@brian-curry-research/the-healthcare-maze...
boosturpud 3mo ago
> Redistribution can only get you so far. That "so far" being a middle class the envy of the rest of the world which the US threw away to create a new class of oligarch. "Back at the tail-end of that era, in the early 1960s, America’s richest faced a 91 percent tax rate on income in the top tax bracket." https://inequality.org/article/tax-the-rich-we-did-that-once/ https://inequality.org/article/tax-the-rich-we-did-that-once...
- simianwords 3mo ago
  Perhaps they realised it’s not a good policy? Like literally everywhere else in the world? No other country has 91% taxes and all those who tried dialled it back. India tried it and it was hilariously bad.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 3mo ago
    > Perhaps they realised it’s not a good policy? Citation needed that it's not a good policy. Parent comment explained why it was good, and your reply is "or perhaps it was actually bad". There's a simpler explanation as to why it was rolled back: the people with the most money and power didn't like it and wanted it gone, and worked over time to accomplish this.
    - simianwords 3mo ago
      so it could be two reasons 1. 90% tax is a net good for society but big bad capitalists colluded to reduce it in every country independently or 2. 90% is actually a bad policy and every country independently adopted against it including Nordic countries, China, India, USA you decide which one is more likely.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 3mo ago
        It's not "90% tax" it's 90% or similar tax rate at the highest band, which most people will never reach. Despite you showing your bias by phrasing option 1 to look childish, I think it's more or less what happened, actually. It doesn't take much "collusion", just greed and short-sighted self-interest from greedy, short-sighted self-interested people with influence to wield. And you till haven't cited how that 1) this definitely didn't happen and 2) high tax rates in the highest band is a bad idea.
inigyou 3mo ago
AI destroys wealth, so what is that?
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

Redistribution can only get you so far. Creating new wealth is more sustainable.

jimnotgym 3mo ago

So why did we stop doing that in favour of winner takes all weath centralisation?

aorloff 3mo ago
Largely because enough American voters, contrary to all of the evidence, believed that Trump was going to grow a sense of duty, eviscerate corruption in Washington, deliver an economy that works for the working class, and not engage in any new wars. Charlie Brown, Lucy, football.
- applicative 3mo ago
  What country are our boys occupying now?
  - pastel8739 3mo ago
    Are you suggesting that in fact we have not entered any new wars in recent history?
    - applicative 3mo ago
      We entered a war in Iraq a quarter century ago
      - krapp 3mo ago
        We entered a war in Iran in February.
        jimnotgym 3mo ago
        At least the war in Iraq had a veneer of a pretext. Trump seems to be attacking Iran because Bibi asked him to
        krapp 3mo ago
        Someone must not have told Iran that Trump is the great peace president who ended all wars, united the Middle East and brought about world peace. They really need to get with the program or we'll have to win the war a few more times.

shimman 3mo ago

Number one expense for SMB is healthcare, providing a nationalized healthcare service would likely unlock trillions in value (imagine what Americans would do if they got $200-500 more per paycheck?). Instead we are forced to watch some of the wealthiest companies on the planet burn money for fun because apparently the government is "wasteful." What a crock of shit.

irishcoffee 3mo ago
How would nationalized healthcare get funded other than shifting that 200-500/check towards… nationalized healthcare?
- Avicebron 3mo ago
  When you cut out the insurance middlemen and pharmaceutical companies driving up record profits at the expense of care you can get pretty far with less in taxes
  - daedrdev 3mo ago
    Insurance companies make like 2-4% hardly breaking the bank here. Pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money, but the US also funds most drug development which other countries freeload off of. US healthcare workers get a state enforced shortage to drive up their wages thanks to residency limits, but nobody ever wants to look at that. If you can't tell I am extremely pessimistic about the changes of universal healthcare improving on our current system. And to be clear it's universal, not unlimited.
    - Apocryphon 3mo ago
      Insurance companies basically are banks, in that while they make low profit margins they wield such vast amounts of capital, some of which they invest in, they might as well be financial service institutions. There's also other categories of entities (pharmacy benefit managers, wholesalers and distributors) that also get a cut. https://medium.com/@brian-curry-research/the-healthcare-maze-tracing-a-dollar-through-six-layers-of-middlemen-2abb718003a1 https://medium.com/@brian-curry-research/the-healthcare-maze...

boosturpud 3mo ago

> Redistribution can only get you so far. That "so far" being a middle class the envy of the rest of the world which the US threw away to create a new class of oligarch. "Back at the tail-end of that era, in the early 1960s, America’s richest faced a 91 percent tax rate on income in the top tax bracket." https://inequality.org/article/tax-the-rich-we-did-that-once/ https://inequality.org/article/tax-the-rich-we-did-that-once...

simianwords 3mo ago
Perhaps they realised it’s not a good policy? Like literally everywhere else in the world? No other country has 91% taxes and all those who tried dialled it back. India tried it and it was hilariously bad.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3mo ago
  > Perhaps they realised it’s not a good policy? Citation needed that it's not a good policy. Parent comment explained why it was good, and your reply is "or perhaps it was actually bad". There's a simpler explanation as to why it was rolled back: the people with the most money and power didn't like it and wanted it gone, and worked over time to accomplish this.
  - simianwords 3mo ago
    so it could be two reasons 1. 90% tax is a net good for society but big bad capitalists colluded to reduce it in every country independently or 2. 90% is actually a bad policy and every country independently adopted against it including Nordic countries, China, India, USA you decide which one is more likely.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 3mo ago
      It's not "90% tax" it's 90% or similar tax rate at the highest band, which most people will never reach. Despite you showing your bias by phrasing option 1 to look childish, I think it's more or less what happened, actually. It doesn't take much "collusion", just greed and short-sighted self-interest from greedy, short-sighted self-interested people with influence to wield. And you till haven't cited how that 1) this definitely didn't happen and 2) high tax rates in the highest band is a bad idea.

inigyou 3mo ago

AI destroys wealth, so what is that?

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]