|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 04 2016 05:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 05:09 Acrofales wrote:
Microsoft is a terrible example of that, Kwark, because they managed to obtain a virtual monopoly for a while not because there was no competition, but because they were both better and cheaper than them. So much cheaper that they managed to make their founder the richest man on Earth. I think perhaps they could have been cheaper still. That they won and still made such a vast fortune is evidence only of the failure of a truly efficient competitive market.
Yes, but his net gain per product sold and service rendered is probably still only pennies. So yes, he could be 50 billion or so poorer, and that would have saved the average American... $100 over the course of the history of Microsoft, so like a penny off your X-box, 3 pennies of Win 98, another off of Halo. He maybe could have paid employees more, but they already pay highly competitive wages and are rated as an excellent place to work. The reality is that Gates and Allen provided significantly more value to the public than any of them. And, more importantly, you have not provided a universal rule that would have capped their net worth at $1 billion while also not distorting the marketplace such that they (and future versions of them) would have been both able to and motivated to construct such a company.
On February 04 2016 04:56 Nyxisto wrote:
It don't see what's wrong with the basic idea of Georgism, which is to hand over natural resources to the public and utilize land value taxes to redistribute wealth. It's especially relevant today because it's pretty much the only form of wealth taxation that can't be easily avoided, and it's extremely under-utilized.
1) The easy one. Land value taxes simply decrease the value of land and incentivize investing in other forms of durable property. So they don't accomplish your goal very effectively at all.
2) The public does not know how to utilize resources effectively, particularly ones that require upfront investment to utilize. Even simple allocations such as water throughout California are hilariously mismanaged by the public resulting in an unnecessary drought/water shortage.
|
United States41995 Posts
On February 04 2016 05:20 Acrofales wrote:
Yeah. There's a load of those. However, it's not a Microsoft thing, it's an IT thing. Apple, Google and Oracle are no different at all.
Anyway, we're going off topic. I fall Kwark had wanted to say is that the market is inefficient, then whoop die doop, he could just have said that instead of bringing up silly stories about oil.
The problem isn't that the market is inefficient, it's that despite bwing inefficient it is still the best way we have come.up with so far to assign value to things. So criticism of the market is useless unless you have an alternative for assigning value; which, judging from his response to my god-king quip, Kwark doesn't have.
Aggressively high taxes on the superrich. Capitalism isn't a deity we worship, it's a tool we use to help distribute resources efficiently within society. We can recognize when the tool isn't working as it should and we can correct. We like it when it transfers wealth to people who create value but sometimes it breaks down and transfers a hugely disproportionate of wealth to people compared to the amount of value they created. In those situations the state should intervene to correct it.
This whole discussion started due to the claim of how 62 people are as rich as half the world's population. The reason I used the example of oil was to explain how capitalism can transfer wealth without transferring value. The Walton family mentioned above is another fair example. Their wealth vast wealth is built on millions of transfers of wealth beyond that which is needed for Walmart (and associated other companies) to operate and be profitable. I fail to see how it is necessary for the family of Sam Walton to have 200+b between them in order to motivate future individuals to be the family of Sam Walton.
|
On February 04 2016 05:27 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 04:56 Nyxisto wrote:
It don't see what's wrong with the basic idea of Georgism, which is to hand over natural resources to the public and utilize land value taxes to redistribute wealth. It's especially relevant today because it's pretty much the only form of wealth taxation that can't be easily avoided, and it's extremely under-utilized. 1) The easy one. Land value taxes simply decrease the value of land and incentivize investing in other forms of durable property. So they don't accomplish your goal very effectively at all. 2) The public does not know how to utilize resources effectively, particularly ones that require upfront investment to utilize. Even simple allocations such as water throughout California are hilariously mismanaged by the public resulting in an unnecessary drought/water shortage.
Land taxes only decrease the value of a land if you don't do anything productive with it, which is something that's beneficial to the public good and economic growth. Incentivizing people to use their land is a good idea. LVT also doesn't give the public control over the land, it socializes the profits to a certain degree.
Look up how many buildings are actually empty in the centers of NY, Berlin, London etc. It's completely ridiculous. They've basically become nothing but assets for insanely rich people instead of serving the purpose of being actually used productively.
|
House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) offered up a thinly veiled repudiation of the Tea Party and the 2016 Republican field in a Wednesday speech at the Heritage Action Conservative Policy Summit.
In a call to unite conservatives, Ryan said, “We win when we have an ideas contest. We lose when we have a personality contest. We can’t fall into the progressives’ trap of acting like angry reactionaries.”
The speaker accused President Barack Obama of trying to “distract” the American electorate into voting for a Democrat, and urged conservative politicians to focus on achievable goals that are important to their base.
“We can’t promise that we can repeal Obamacare when a guy with the last name Obama is president. All that does is set us up for failure . . . and disappointment . . . and recriminations,” Ryan pleaded.
He continued: “When voices in the conservative movement demand things that they know we can’t achieve with a Democrat in the White House, all that does is depress our base and in turn help Democrats stay in the White House. We can’t do that anymore."
In a clear nod to the 2016 race, Ryan also insisted the Republican Party needs to be “inclusive” and propose positive policy ideas rather than preying on voters’ anger. GOP frontrunners Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) have both made forceful calls to deport undocumented immigrants and surveil Muslim Americans at mosques.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 04 2016 05:27 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 05:11 KwarK wrote:On February 04 2016 05:09 Acrofales wrote:
Microsoft is a terrible example of that, Kwark, because they managed to obtain a virtual monopoly for a while not because there was no competition, but because they were both better and cheaper than them. So much cheaper that they managed to make their founder the richest man on Earth. I think perhaps they could have been cheaper still. That they won and still made such a vast fortune is evidence only of the failure of a truly efficient competitive market. Yes, but his net gain per product sold and service rendered is probably still only pennies. So yes, he could be 50 billion or so poorer, and that would have saved the average American... $100 over the course of the history of Microsoft, so like a penny off your X-box, 3 pennies of Win 98, another off of Halo. He maybe could have paid employees more, but they already pay highly competitive wages and are rated as an excellent place to work. The reality is that Gates and Allen provided significantly more value to the public than any of them. And, more importantly, you have not provided a universal rule that would have capped their net worth at $1 billion while also not distorting the marketplace such that they (and future versions of them) would have been both able to and motivated to construct such a company. Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 04:56 Nyxisto wrote:
It don't see what's wrong with the basic idea of Georgism, which is to hand over natural resources to the public and utilize land value taxes to redistribute wealth. It's especially relevant today because it's pretty much the only form of wealth taxation that can't be easily avoided, and it's extremely under-utilized. 1) The easy one. Land value taxes simply decrease the value of land and incentivize investing in other forms of durable property. So they don't accomplish your goal very effectively at all.
there is already property tax but on the value of the house etc improvements on the land. a land tax at low rates is just shifting the tax burden around.
a really high land tax would have more impact on property value but land is pretty essential, so there will still be economic activity upon the land. difference is land would not be scooped up and basically allow people to speculate on the future economic activity in a region. it would lead to less steep rise in real estate price in cities like new york and london.
|
I fail to see how it is necessary for the family of Sam Walton to have 200+b between them in order to motivate future individuals to be the family of Sam Walton.
That seems a sensible place to start.
|
Aggressive taxing of the rich is something I agree with. In fact, I think capital gains should be taxed at somewhere around 60% and any inheritance above 10 million or so should go to the state.
Of course there are millions of tax structures to get around that kind of thing, but the general idea of progressive taxation is something I absolutely agree with.
|
On February 04 2016 05:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) offered up a thinly veiled repudiation of the Tea Party and the 2016 Republican field in a Wednesday speech at the Heritage Action Conservative Policy Summit.
In a call to unite conservatives, Ryan said, “We win when we have an ideas contest. We lose when we have a personality contest. We can’t fall into the progressives’ trap of acting like angry reactionaries.”
The speaker accused President Barack Obama of trying to “distract” the American electorate into voting for a Democrat, and urged conservative politicians to focus on achievable goals that are important to their base.
“We can’t promise that we can repeal Obamacare when a guy with the last name Obama is president. All that does is set us up for failure . . . and disappointment . . . and recriminations,” Ryan pleaded.
He continued: “When voices in the conservative movement demand things that they know we can’t achieve with a Democrat in the White House, all that does is depress our base and in turn help Democrats stay in the White House. We can’t do that anymore."
In a clear nod to the 2016 race, Ryan also insisted the Republican Party needs to be “inclusive” and propose positive policy ideas rather than preying on voters’ anger. GOP frontrunners Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) have both made forceful calls to deport undocumented immigrants and surveil Muslim Americans at mosques. Source
You know things are bad when Paul Ryan sounds almost reasonable.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 04 2016 05:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 05:20 Acrofales wrote:
Yeah. There's a load of those. However, it's not a Microsoft thing, it's an IT thing. Apple, Google and Oracle are no different at all.
Anyway, we're going off topic. I fall Kwark had wanted to say is that the market is inefficient, then whoop die doop, he could just have said that instead of bringing up silly stories about oil.
The problem isn't that the market is inefficient, it's that despite bwing inefficient it is still the best way we have come.up with so far to assign value to things. So criticism of the market is useless unless you have an alternative for assigning value; which, judging from his response to my god-king quip, Kwark doesn't have. Aggressively high taxes on the superrich. Capitalism isn't a deity we worship, it's a tool we use to help distribute resources efficiently within society. We can recognize when the tool isn't working as it should and we can correct. We like it when it transfers wealth to people who create value but sometimes it breaks down and transfers a hugely disproportionate of wealth to people compared to the amount of value they created. In those situations the state should intervene to correct it. This whole discussion started due to the claim of how 62 people are as rich as half the world's population. The reason I used the example of oil was to explain how capitalism can transfer wealth without transferring value. The Walton family mentioned above is another fair example. Their wealth vast wealth is built on millions of transfers of wealth beyond that which is needed for Walmart (and associated other companies) to operate and be profitable. I fail to see how it is necessary for the family of Sam Walton to have 200+b between them in order to motivate future individuals to be the family of Sam Walton. in the case of wal mart i don't think it should survive at all. looking at a given retail volume, wal mart basically is the asian carp of the system and drive out smaller fish without the logistics and literally fascist labor 'management innovations'.
but as far as whether wal mart needs to be competing as hard to survive, it and cost reliant businesses do gain a huge amount from small advantage in cost and price. so i would separate wal mart's profits, which is due to its size and market share, and whether it can compete when faced with higher cost.
|
On February 04 2016 05:32 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 05:27 cLutZ wrote:On February 04 2016 04:56 Nyxisto wrote:
It don't see what's wrong with the basic idea of Georgism, which is to hand over natural resources to the public and utilize land value taxes to redistribute wealth. It's especially relevant today because it's pretty much the only form of wealth taxation that can't be easily avoided, and it's extremely under-utilized. 1) The easy one. Land value taxes simply decrease the value of land and incentivize investing in other forms of durable property. So they don't accomplish your goal very effectively at all. 2) The public does not know how to utilize resources effectively, particularly ones that require upfront investment to utilize. Even simple allocations such as water throughout California are hilariously mismanaged by the public resulting in an unnecessary drought/water shortage. Land taxes only decrease the value of a land if you don't do anything productive with it, which is something that's beneficial to the public good and economic growth. Incentivizing people to use their land is a good idea. LVT also doesn't give the public control over the land, it socializes the profits to a certain degree. Look up how many buildings are actually empty in the centers of NY, Berlin, London etc. It's completely ridiculous. They've basically become nothing but assets for insanely rich people instead of serving the purpose of being actually used productively.
Sure, but that just results in a change in the value of property, aka a capital loss for the owners of the now, higher taxed land. In the future, people will simply buy something else to preserve their money, they bought that property because it was a good deal (which includes the cost of taxes).
As for the socializing of the profits from natural resources, we already do that in a lot of areas, like offshore drilling. The permitting process for that is fairly inefficient. Logging used to be done that way and it was extremely inefficient, now logging companies own their land mostly and the process is much more sustainable.
|
United States41995 Posts
I don't get why more people aren't really into the idea of estate taxes. I mean sure, extra taxes aren't fun but if we assume that the government only wants so much money to do its plans then an increase in estate taxes can be countered by a decrease in income taxes or sales taxes. I would much rather forfeit a large share of money that I did nothing to work for or earn beyond a lottery of birth than forfeit money out of my paycheck. People bitch about double taxation but it's not, you're not taxing the dead guy, you're taxing the living guy who is receiving the windfall he didn't do shit for.
Incidentally it is estate taxes that killed off the British aristocracy. It turns out that each generation wasn't actually composed of the noblest, most virtuous, intelligent and hard working people within Britain, they were just rich because they owned all the land being farmed in the area and leeched off the work of the farmers. Once you force them to work for a living to maintain that level of wealth they break down fast.
|
On February 04 2016 05:43 cLutZ wrote:
Sure, but that just results in a change in the value of property, aka a capital loss for the owners of the now, higher taxed land. In the future, people will simply buy something else to preserve their money, they bought that property because it was a good deal (which includes the cost of taxes).
Well then they should go buy something else, if they're not doing anything with it that's their loss. It's completely perverted to treat a city, which is a real place where people are supposed to work and life as some kind of bank-deposit box. It doesn't really matter if capital flows out of a city if the capital is only virtual and doesn't actually produce any kind of real benefit.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/planners-must-take-back-control-of-london
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 04 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
I don't get why more people aren't really into the idea of estate taxes. I mean sure, extra taxes aren't fun but if we assume that the government only wants so much money to do its plans then an increase in estate taxes can be countered by a decrease in income taxes or sales taxes. I would much rather forfeit a large share of money that I did nothing to work for or earn beyond a lottery of birth than forfeit money out of my paycheck. People bitch about double taxation but it's not, you're not taxing the dead guy, you're taxing the living guy who is receiving the windfall he didn't do shit for.
Incidentally it is estate taxes that killed off the British aristocracy. It turns out that each generation wasn't actually composed of the noblest, most virtuous, intelligent and hard working people within Britain, they were just rich because they owned all the land being farmed in the area and leeched off the work of the farmers. Once you force them to work for a living to maintain that level of wealth they break down fast.
people see wealth along the property rights framework, so all of 'your thing' is equivalent. but practically many estates are in the form of ownership of businesses and so on and taxing that would impose a sizeable liquidity burden. if you want to dispossess the idle heir from the 'estate', there is the problem of who is to manage it.
|
On February 04 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
I don't get why more people aren't really into the idea of estate taxes. I mean sure, extra taxes aren't fun but if we assume that the government only wants so much money to do its plans then an increase in estate taxes can be countered by a decrease in income taxes or sales taxes. I would much rather forfeit a large share of money that I did nothing to work for or earn beyond a lottery of birth than forfeit money out of my paycheck. People bitch about double taxation but it's not, you're not taxing the dead guy, you're taxing the living guy who is receiving the windfall he didn't do shit for.
Incidentally it is estate taxes that killed off the British aristocracy. It turns out that each generation wasn't actually composed of the noblest, most virtuous, intelligent and hard working people within Britain, they were just rich because they owned all the land being farmed in the area and leeched off the work of the farmers. Once you force them to work for a living to maintain that level of wealth they break down fast.
Because Americans are still convinced they are the next millionaire waiting to happen and don't want to tax their future selves.
|
United States41995 Posts
On February 04 2016 05:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
I don't get why more people aren't really into the idea of estate taxes. I mean sure, extra taxes aren't fun but if we assume that the government only wants so much money to do its plans then an increase in estate taxes can be countered by a decrease in income taxes or sales taxes. I would much rather forfeit a large share of money that I did nothing to work for or earn beyond a lottery of birth than forfeit money out of my paycheck. People bitch about double taxation but it's not, you're not taxing the dead guy, you're taxing the living guy who is receiving the windfall he didn't do shit for.
Incidentally it is estate taxes that killed off the British aristocracy. It turns out that each generation wasn't actually composed of the noblest, most virtuous, intelligent and hard working people within Britain, they were just rich because they owned all the land being farmed in the area and leeched off the work of the farmers. Once you force them to work for a living to maintain that level of wealth they break down fast. Because Americans are still convinced they are the next millionaire waiting to happen and don't want to tax their future selves.
Even so, they'd be taxing themselves beyond the grave in exchange for a tax cut now. It's literally "fuck you, you can pry your taxes out of my cold dead hands".
An increased estate tax offset by a revenue neutral reduction in income taxes is a great deal from my perspective, even though I am likely to get hit by the estate tax. If your plan to make a million bucks involves hard work and bootstraps then it's awesome. It's only if your entire plan is "well my parents were rich so I guess I'm set" that you oppose it.
|
On February 04 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
I don't get why more people aren't really into the idea of estate taxes. I mean sure, extra taxes aren't fun but if we assume that the government only wants so much money to do its plans then an increase in estate taxes can be countered by a decrease in income taxes or sales taxes. I would much rather forfeit a large share of money that I did nothing to work for or earn beyond a lottery of birth than forfeit money out of my paycheck. People bitch about double taxation but it's not, you're not taxing the dead guy, you're taxing the living guy who is receiving the windfall he didn't do shit for.
Incidentally it is estate taxes that killed off the British aristocracy. It turns out that each generation wasn't actually composed of the noblest, most virtuous, intelligent and hard working people within Britain, they were just rich because they owned all the land being farmed in the area and leeched off the work of the farmers. Once you force them to work for a living to maintain that level of wealth they break down fast.
Frank Luntz
|
On February 04 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
I don't get why more people aren't really into the idea of estate taxes. I mean sure, extra taxes aren't fun but if we assume that the government only wants so much money to do its plans then an increase in estate taxes can be countered by a decrease in income taxes or sales taxes. I would much rather forfeit a large share of money that I did nothing to work for or earn beyond a lottery of birth than forfeit money out of my paycheck. People bitch about double taxation but it's not, you're not taxing the dead guy, you're taxing the living guy who is receiving the windfall he didn't do shit for.
Incidentally it is estate taxes that killed off the British aristocracy. It turns out that each generation wasn't actually composed of the noblest, most virtuous, intelligent and hard working people within Britain, they were just rich because they owned all the land being farmed in the area and leeched off the work of the farmers. Once you force them to work for a living to maintain that level of wealth they break down fast.
I like this quote:
Grant me thirty years of equal division of inheritances and a free press, and I will provide you with a republic.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
Especially since Alexis was someone who thought Socialism was a dirty word.
But even he could recognize the plain reality of modern Royalty existing outside the realm of government.
It seems critically, dare I say, un-American that people should be born as billionaires. It's disgusting that the Republicans have shot down every attempt an instituting even the most generous of inheritance/estate taxes.
It really shows where their priorities lie.
|
On February 04 2016 05:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 05:43 cLutZ wrote:
Sure, but that just results in a change in the value of property, aka a capital loss for the owners of the now, higher taxed land. In the future, people will simply buy something else to preserve their money, they bought that property because it was a good deal (which includes the cost of taxes).
Well then they should go buy something else, if they're not doing anything with it that's their loss. It's completely perverted to treat a city, which is a real place where people are supposed to work and life as some kind of bank-deposit box. It doesn't really matter if capital flows out of a city if the capital is only virtual and doesn't actually produce any kind of real benefit. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/planners-must-take-back-control-of-london
Look, I don't mind your social argument, I am just explaining that your proposal wouldn't do what you think (aside from freeing up some space for workers to live), and tangentially explaining that the reason they invest that way is because that is what the government has incentivized them to do (through taxes and other policies). So, you are basically saying "the government was wrong, we should incentivize them to keep money in other ways." Which is mostly correct, downtown lofts should not be a great investment, but governments like it because (as you said) its really easy to tax and control real estate.
On February 04 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
I don't get why more people aren't really into the idea of estate taxes. I mean sure, extra taxes aren't fun but if we assume that the government only wants so much money to do its plans then an increase in estate taxes can be countered by a decrease in income taxes or sales taxes. I would much rather forfeit a large share of money that I did nothing to work for or earn beyond a lottery of birth than forfeit money out of my paycheck. People bitch about double taxation but it's not, you're not taxing the dead guy, you're taxing the living guy who is receiving the windfall he didn't do shit for.
Incidentally it is estate taxes that killed off the British aristocracy. It turns out that each generation wasn't actually composed of the noblest, most virtuous, intelligent and hard working people within Britain, they were just rich because they owned all the land being farmed in the area and leeched off the work of the farmers. Once you force them to work for a living to maintain that level of wealth they break down fast.
1) You cannot seriously maintain that, "the government only wants so much money to do its plans". So offsets are a dubious proposition.
2) Distortions. This may be hard to believe, but a huge % of our economic activity is altruistic in the sense that it is not done on behalf of oneself, but solely for the purpose of providing for your heirs or establishing a legacy. Someone working after age 60 or 70 and if its not because they are living paycheck to paycheck its probably "for the grandkids". I have a client who's gotten 5 patents after the age of 70, and he was over the $5million limit way before that, and these patents are probably going to be worth a few million more. And its all for the grandkids.
Just like the oil guy, you are ignoring that the mere existence of the children is the reason the wealth was even created.
|
^ Yes. Why work at all if I have to give my little Johnny a mere 10 million dollar inheritance instead of 2 billion. I'll just become a vegatable.
No, I'm sorry, this logic sucks. Sad that people are compelled to make such stretches of imagination for the most pampered people on Earth.
|
To get slightly specific, make some chunk of the dead guy's wealth exempt from estate taxes based on his average income (figure out some way to define this, probably want to go with plain old W2) * 10 (or some number) years, then the remainder taxed at like 90%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
