|
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. |
You don't need to be smart to invest. You do need a good banker, though.
|
On September 17 2013 02:08 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: and also apropos boblion's ridiculous snobbery, the other day I was smoking weed with these black kids behind a dumpster and one of them had a better head on his shoulders than any of my little bourgeois pissheads I've tutored. Wish I could have snatched that one away to philosophy land. Alas. You can keep that bullshit classism on your side of the atlantic, thanks very much
It is absolutly hilarious that you are allowed to shit on "rich people" and when someone tells you that "poor people" aren't exactly better you get upset (Kinda surprised that oneofthem didn't notice this too).
Also i don't think you know the true meaning of words btw. YOU are the epitome of "snobbery". You make fun of people because they go to B-school and you think you are awesome because you smoke weed and read shitty Adorno books lmao.
Alas people who can actually change the world aren't snobby potheads. Too bad Sam, keep trying tho.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 18 2013 00:14 Sbrubbles wrote:
You don't need to be smart to invest. You do need a good banker, though.
invest as in the decision maker, not necessarily the owner. so the point was that investing does produce some value at some part of the process, namely whoever decides what to invest in.
investment intelligence is very scalable though, so your smart banker does make it easier for millions of absentee investors.
|
On September 18 2013 00:28 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 02:08 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: and also apropos boblion's ridiculous snobbery, the other day I was smoking weed with these black kids behind a dumpster and one of them had a better head on his shoulders than any of my little bourgeois pissheads I've tutored. Wish I could have snatched that one away to philosophy land. Alas. You can keep that bullshit classism on your side of the atlantic, thanks very much It is absolutly hilarious that you are allowed to shit on "rich people" and when someone tell you that "poor people" aren't exactly better you get upset (Kinda surprised that oneofthem didn't notice this too). Also i don't think you know the true meaning of words btw. YOU are the epitome of "snobbery". You make fun of people because they go to B-school and you think you are awesome because you smoke weed and read shitty Adorno books lmao. Alas people who can actually change the world aren't snobby potheads. Too bad Sam, keep trying tho.
At least he actually engages in conversation with people, as opposed to swooping in at random moments to make some sort of proclamation of snobbery and then retreating. Based on your posts, it's clear that you don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to actually discussing things, so I guess a tip of the hat will have to do for now. Alas, it would appear that French stereotypes have their kernel of truth.
|
Stagnation for everyone![[image loading]](http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2013/09/blogs/free-exchange/fullscreen_capture_17092013_152105.jpg) + Show Spoiler +THE Census released new figures on income and poverty today. (You can see summary slides here.) They're both grim and unsurprising. In 2012 the real median household income in America was flat relative to 2011 and down considerably from the pre-recession level. The poverty rate remains stuck at 15%. Looking beneath the headline figures I found this chart particularly interesting. There's a very interesting story about inequality here. From the 1970s to the late 1990s inequality grew because the incomes of the rich were growing much faster than the incomes of those at the median and below—but incomes at the median and below were growing. Since the late 1990s, however, incomes across the income spectrum have stagnated and declined, from the 10th percentile right on up to the 95th. Indeed, if you look at the latest data on top incomes from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez you see that this trend applies, to some extent, even at the very top of the spectrum. The real incomes of the top 1%, 0.1%, and 0.01% were all below their 2000 level as of 2012. Now, that has a lot to do with the position in the business cycle. Top incomes were well above the 2000 level, then dropped precipitously during the crisis. The incomes of the top 0.01% plummetted 47% from 2007 to 2009, and have since risen 49%. There is good reason to believe that those at the top will soon attain new real income highs. Meanwhile the real incomes of the bottom 90% fell 12% from 2007 to 2009...then fell 2% from 2009 to 2012. Yet while no one is weeping for the very rich, it is interesting to note how different the past 12 years has been from the decades prior. The very rich didn't previously have any difficulty holding on to their gains; from 1975 to 2000 the real incomes of the top 0.01% rose (sit down for this) by 761%. (The equivalent figure for the bottom 90% is 13%.) It's a fascinating development. And it will be fascinating, and a little frightening, to see whether it continues. It is disconcerting enough when the income share of the superrich marches inexorably higher. When it does so amid an overall picture of income stagnation that is very bad news indeed.
Link
Article in spoilers. I don't know what definition of income the chart is based off of.
Edit: @Farv, see paragraph 3 of the article (the .01%). Also, Forbes 400 is mainly concerned with wealth, not income.
|
I'd like to see how that data interacts with what has been presented recently in Forbes as to the richest folks in the US.
Bill Gates is the richest American for the 20th year in a row and has reclaimed the title of world’s richest person from Mexico’s Carlos Slim with a net worth of $72 billion. Warren Buffett, again number two, was the year’s biggest dollar gainer, having added $12.5 billion to his fortune. Facebook’s hot stock pumped up Mark Zuckerberg’s fortune by $9.6 billion and put him back into the top 20 after missing the top cut last year; Carl Icahn lost his battle to stop Dell DELL +0.11% from going private but he had a great year and moves back in the top 20 for the first time since 2008. The biggest percentage gainer was Workday’s David Duffield, whose fortune more than tripled to $6.4 billion, and just behind him in terms of percentage jumps was the entrepreneur Elon Musk, now worth $6.7 billion and ranked 61st.
Five years after the financial crisis sent the fortunes of many in the U.S. and around the world tumbling, the wealthiest as a group have finally gained back all that they lost. The 400 wealthiest Americans are worth just over $2 trillion, roughly equivalent to the GDP of Russia. That is a gain of $300 billion from a year ago, and more than double a decade ago. The average net worth of list members is a staggering $5 billion, $800 million more than a year ago and also a record. The minimum net worth needed to make the 400 list was $1.3 billion. The last time it was that high was in 2007 and 2008, before property and stock market values began sliding. Because the bar is so high, 61 American billionaires didn’t make the cut.
2013 Forbes 400 Richest.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the american economy is technologically innovative and free enough to partially obscure the value of squatting on the most valuable companies merely by having the most money and powerful connections to buy up those stakes. however, in a more 'traditional' country, say italy, top companies that have some degree of monopoly power are controlled by the same circle of people. smaller guys don't have any say. this is quite obviously a problem for both efficiency and just distribution (rent seeking).
i'm sure similar structures exist in any capitalist country, because empire building is a genetic habit.
|
On September 18 2013 00:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Stagnation for everyone+ Show Spoiler +THE Census released new figures on income and poverty today. (You can see summary slides here.) They're both grim and unsurprising. In 2012 the real median household income in America was flat relative to 2011 and down considerably from the pre-recession level. The poverty rate remains stuck at 15%. Looking beneath the headline figures I found this chart particularly interesting. There's a very interesting story about inequality here. From the 1970s to the late 1990s inequality grew because the incomes of the rich were growing much faster than the incomes of those at the median and below—but incomes at the median and below were growing. Since the late 1990s, however, incomes across the income spectrum have stagnated and declined, from the 10th percentile right on up to the 95th. Indeed, if you look at the latest data on top incomes from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez you see that this trend applies, to some extent, even at the very top of the spectrum. The real incomes of the top 1%, 0.1%, and 0.01% were all below their 2000 level as of 2012. Now, that has a lot to do with the position in the business cycle. Top incomes were well above the 2000 level, then dropped precipitously during the crisis. The incomes of the top 0.01% plummetted 47% from 2007 to 2009, and have since risen 49%. There is good reason to believe that those at the top will soon attain new real income highs. Meanwhile the real incomes of the bottom 90% fell 12% from 2007 to 2009...then fell 2% from 2009 to 2012. Yet while no one is weeping for the very rich, it is interesting to note how different the past 12 years has been from the decades prior. The very rich didn't previously have any difficulty holding on to their gains; from 1975 to 2000 the real incomes of the top 0.01% rose (sit down for this) by 761%. (The equivalent figure for the bottom 90% is 13%.) It's a fascinating development. And it will be fascinating, and a little frightening, to see whether it continues. It is disconcerting enough when the income share of the superrich marches inexorably higher. When it does so amid an overall picture of income stagnation that is very bad news indeed. LinkArticle in spoilers. I don't know what definition of income the chart is based off of. Edit: @Farv, see paragraph 3 of the article (the .01%). Also, Forbes 400 is mainly concerned with wealth, not income.
Sure, there is going to be a rather large difference in terms of how income and wealth are counted, but I'd still like to see how many wealth building strategies employed by those at the very top of the spectrum actively avoid being counted as "income" and whether or not there is anything we can do to reel that sort of unmonitored behavior in. I find that the Economist often likes to be overly sure of their data and its significance.
|
On September 18 2013 01:02 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 00:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Stagnation for everyone+ Show Spoiler +THE Census released new figures on income and poverty today. (You can see summary slides here.) They're both grim and unsurprising. In 2012 the real median household income in America was flat relative to 2011 and down considerably from the pre-recession level. The poverty rate remains stuck at 15%. Looking beneath the headline figures I found this chart particularly interesting. There's a very interesting story about inequality here. From the 1970s to the late 1990s inequality grew because the incomes of the rich were growing much faster than the incomes of those at the median and below—but incomes at the median and below were growing. Since the late 1990s, however, incomes across the income spectrum have stagnated and declined, from the 10th percentile right on up to the 95th. Indeed, if you look at the latest data on top incomes from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez you see that this trend applies, to some extent, even at the very top of the spectrum. The real incomes of the top 1%, 0.1%, and 0.01% were all below their 2000 level as of 2012. Now, that has a lot to do with the position in the business cycle. Top incomes were well above the 2000 level, then dropped precipitously during the crisis. The incomes of the top 0.01% plummetted 47% from 2007 to 2009, and have since risen 49%. There is good reason to believe that those at the top will soon attain new real income highs. Meanwhile the real incomes of the bottom 90% fell 12% from 2007 to 2009...then fell 2% from 2009 to 2012. Yet while no one is weeping for the very rich, it is interesting to note how different the past 12 years has been from the decades prior. The very rich didn't previously have any difficulty holding on to their gains; from 1975 to 2000 the real incomes of the top 0.01% rose (sit down for this) by 761%. (The equivalent figure for the bottom 90% is 13%.) It's a fascinating development. And it will be fascinating, and a little frightening, to see whether it continues. It is disconcerting enough when the income share of the superrich marches inexorably higher. When it does so amid an overall picture of income stagnation that is very bad news indeed. LinkArticle in spoilers. I don't know what definition of income the chart is based off of. Edit: @Farv, see paragraph 3 of the article (the .01%). Also, Forbes 400 is mainly concerned with wealth, not income. Sure, there is going to be a rather large difference in terms of how income and wealth are counted, but I'd still like to see how many wealth building strategies employed by those at the very top of the spectrum actively avoid being counted as "income" and whether or not there is anything we can do to reel that sort of unmonitored behavior in. I find that the Economist often likes to be overly sure of their data and its significance.
Well wealth and income are two different things so I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you talking about tax evasion? I know we've been working with opaque foreign bankers like the Swiss to cough up better disclosure.
Unrealized capital gains are generally not counted as income. Does that sound like something you are thinking of?
|
On September 18 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 01:02 farvacola wrote:On September 18 2013 00:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Stagnation for everyone+ Show Spoiler +THE Census released new figures on income and poverty today. (You can see summary slides here.) They're both grim and unsurprising. In 2012 the real median household income in America was flat relative to 2011 and down considerably from the pre-recession level. The poverty rate remains stuck at 15%. Looking beneath the headline figures I found this chart particularly interesting. There's a very interesting story about inequality here. From the 1970s to the late 1990s inequality grew because the incomes of the rich were growing much faster than the incomes of those at the median and below—but incomes at the median and below were growing. Since the late 1990s, however, incomes across the income spectrum have stagnated and declined, from the 10th percentile right on up to the 95th. Indeed, if you look at the latest data on top incomes from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez you see that this trend applies, to some extent, even at the very top of the spectrum. The real incomes of the top 1%, 0.1%, and 0.01% were all below their 2000 level as of 2012. Now, that has a lot to do with the position in the business cycle. Top incomes were well above the 2000 level, then dropped precipitously during the crisis. The incomes of the top 0.01% plummetted 47% from 2007 to 2009, and have since risen 49%. There is good reason to believe that those at the top will soon attain new real income highs. Meanwhile the real incomes of the bottom 90% fell 12% from 2007 to 2009...then fell 2% from 2009 to 2012. Yet while no one is weeping for the very rich, it is interesting to note how different the past 12 years has been from the decades prior. The very rich didn't previously have any difficulty holding on to their gains; from 1975 to 2000 the real incomes of the top 0.01% rose (sit down for this) by 761%. (The equivalent figure for the bottom 90% is 13%.) It's a fascinating development. And it will be fascinating, and a little frightening, to see whether it continues. It is disconcerting enough when the income share of the superrich marches inexorably higher. When it does so amid an overall picture of income stagnation that is very bad news indeed. LinkArticle in spoilers. I don't know what definition of income the chart is based off of. Edit: @Farv, see paragraph 3 of the article (the .01%). Also, Forbes 400 is mainly concerned with wealth, not income. Sure, there is going to be a rather large difference in terms of how income and wealth are counted, but I'd still like to see how many wealth building strategies employed by those at the very top of the spectrum actively avoid being counted as "income" and whether or not there is anything we can do to reel that sort of unmonitored behavior in. I find that the Economist often likes to be overly sure of their data and its significance. Well wealth and income are two different things so I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you talking about tax evasion? I know we've been working with opaque foreign bankers like the Swiss to cough up better disclosure. Unrealized capital gains are generally not counted as income. Does that sound like something you are thinking of?
Sure. In essence, I'm speaking to wealth accumulation strategies, be they offshore banking or capital gains chicanery among others, that seek to avoid the counts of conventional measures such as income levels. It's clear that once one gets to a certain level of wealth, it becomes much, much easier for them to hold onto it through means unavailable to those with less. It is this top-heavy trend in capital agglomeration that plays a large role in the widening inequality gap methinks, so when the Economist puts out this big article on why income data shows a similarity in misfortunate shared across many levels, it seems a bit disingenuous. Sure, when looking solely at income, a measure that is proven to be rather malleable and perhaps misleading, even the rich have faced a downturn. I want to know what is going on in and around "income" that has allowed many at the top to insulate themselves in a way that others cannot.
|
On September 18 2013 01:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 01:02 farvacola wrote:On September 18 2013 00:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Stagnation for everyone+ Show Spoiler +THE Census released new figures on income and poverty today. (You can see summary slides here.) They're both grim and unsurprising. In 2012 the real median household income in America was flat relative to 2011 and down considerably from the pre-recession level. The poverty rate remains stuck at 15%. Looking beneath the headline figures I found this chart particularly interesting. There's a very interesting story about inequality here. From the 1970s to the late 1990s inequality grew because the incomes of the rich were growing much faster than the incomes of those at the median and below—but incomes at the median and below were growing. Since the late 1990s, however, incomes across the income spectrum have stagnated and declined, from the 10th percentile right on up to the 95th. Indeed, if you look at the latest data on top incomes from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez you see that this trend applies, to some extent, even at the very top of the spectrum. The real incomes of the top 1%, 0.1%, and 0.01% were all below their 2000 level as of 2012. Now, that has a lot to do with the position in the business cycle. Top incomes were well above the 2000 level, then dropped precipitously during the crisis. The incomes of the top 0.01% plummetted 47% from 2007 to 2009, and have since risen 49%. There is good reason to believe that those at the top will soon attain new real income highs. Meanwhile the real incomes of the bottom 90% fell 12% from 2007 to 2009...then fell 2% from 2009 to 2012. Yet while no one is weeping for the very rich, it is interesting to note how different the past 12 years has been from the decades prior. The very rich didn't previously have any difficulty holding on to their gains; from 1975 to 2000 the real incomes of the top 0.01% rose (sit down for this) by 761%. (The equivalent figure for the bottom 90% is 13%.) It's a fascinating development. And it will be fascinating, and a little frightening, to see whether it continues. It is disconcerting enough when the income share of the superrich marches inexorably higher. When it does so amid an overall picture of income stagnation that is very bad news indeed. LinkArticle in spoilers. I don't know what definition of income the chart is based off of. Edit: @Farv, see paragraph 3 of the article (the .01%). Also, Forbes 400 is mainly concerned with wealth, not income. Sure, there is going to be a rather large difference in terms of how income and wealth are counted, but I'd still like to see how many wealth building strategies employed by those at the very top of the spectrum actively avoid being counted as "income" and whether or not there is anything we can do to reel that sort of unmonitored behavior in. I find that the Economist often likes to be overly sure of their data and its significance. Well wealth and income are two different things so I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you talking about tax evasion? I know we've been working with opaque foreign bankers like the Swiss to cough up better disclosure. Unrealized capital gains are generally not counted as income. Does that sound like something you are thinking of? Sure. In essence, I'm speaking to wealth accumulation strategies, be they offshore banking or capital gains chicanery among others, that seek to avoid the counts of conventional measures such as income levels. It's clear that once one gets to a certain level of wealth, it becomes much, much easier for them to hold onto it through means unavailable to those with less. It is this top-heavy trend in capital agglomeration that plays a large role in the widening inequality gap methinks, so when the Economist puts out this big article on why income data shows a similarity in misfortunate shared across many levels, it seems a bit disingenuous. Sure, when looking solely at income, a measure that is proven to be rather malleable and perhaps misleading, even the rich have faced a downturn. I want to know what is going on in and around "income" that has allowed many at the top to insulate themselves in a way that others cannot.
Well income at the top is very volatile, so I'm not sure what you mean by "insulate themselves". If you mean that they're able to stay wealthy, that's partly a reflection of the fact that they tend to save the vast majority of their income. That saving allows them to offset investment losses and preserve wealth.
Beyond household economics of saving and spending, the ability for the rich to preserve wealth isn't superior as far as I've seen. For example, offshore banking can be used as a tax deferment, but that's no more generous than a middle class retirement account's tax deferment.
Since it just crossed my mind I'm also going to point out that income is often presented in real, inflation adjusted terms. Wealth usually isn't. So there's some disparity when looking at the numbers because of that.
|
On September 18 2013 01:02 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 00:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Stagnation for everyone+ Show Spoiler +THE Census released new figures on income and poverty today. (You can see summary slides here.) They're both grim and unsurprising. In 2012 the real median household income in America was flat relative to 2011 and down considerably from the pre-recession level. The poverty rate remains stuck at 15%. Looking beneath the headline figures I found this chart particularly interesting. There's a very interesting story about inequality here. From the 1970s to the late 1990s inequality grew because the incomes of the rich were growing much faster than the incomes of those at the median and below—but incomes at the median and below were growing. Since the late 1990s, however, incomes across the income spectrum have stagnated and declined, from the 10th percentile right on up to the 95th. Indeed, if you look at the latest data on top incomes from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez you see that this trend applies, to some extent, even at the very top of the spectrum. The real incomes of the top 1%, 0.1%, and 0.01% were all below their 2000 level as of 2012. Now, that has a lot to do with the position in the business cycle. Top incomes were well above the 2000 level, then dropped precipitously during the crisis. The incomes of the top 0.01% plummetted 47% from 2007 to 2009, and have since risen 49%. There is good reason to believe that those at the top will soon attain new real income highs. Meanwhile the real incomes of the bottom 90% fell 12% from 2007 to 2009...then fell 2% from 2009 to 2012. Yet while no one is weeping for the very rich, it is interesting to note how different the past 12 years has been from the decades prior. The very rich didn't previously have any difficulty holding on to their gains; from 1975 to 2000 the real incomes of the top 0.01% rose (sit down for this) by 761%. (The equivalent figure for the bottom 90% is 13%.) It's a fascinating development. And it will be fascinating, and a little frightening, to see whether it continues. It is disconcerting enough when the income share of the superrich marches inexorably higher. When it does so amid an overall picture of income stagnation that is very bad news indeed. LinkArticle in spoilers. I don't know what definition of income the chart is based off of. Edit: @Farv, see paragraph 3 of the article (the .01%). Also, Forbes 400 is mainly concerned with wealth, not income. Sure, there is going to be a rather large difference in terms of how income and wealth are counted, but I'd still like to see how many wealth building strategies employed by those at the very top of the spectrum actively avoid being counted as "income" and whether or not there is anything we can do to reel that sort of unmonitored behavior in. I find that the Economist often likes to be overly sure of their data and its significance.
Modern economy of wealth based itself around using new indicator and showing the gap / inefficience of the old ones.
For exemple, Piketty's work on high revenue showed that the way we used to study inequalities (through decile) was not precise enough to see the vast change in France's distribution of wealth.
What it means is that a study of wealth today should always look at the top 1% and even the top 0.1% of the income ladder. In the same "genre", it is very interesting to study the structure of the income in the different decile. In France (I don't know for the US) the last 5% has a completly different structure of income in comparaison to the rest of the distribution. For the entire distribution, as you go up the ladder, the % of income from labor also go up.
For the last 5% it is not the case : they gain less revenu from labor, in comparaison to the 90-95%, and more from patrimony (and everybody knows patrimony is always under evaluated). This makes some people argue that we are witnessing the "return of the rentier".
|
United States41971 Posts
I've explained my taxation plan before but I'll repeat it. I want to create a wall between personal money and corporate money and operate a tariff on money crossing it. Companies, banks, any business entity can earn as much as they like and never have to worry about paying tax on it but it can only spend it on more business stuff. Makes that end of the equation incredibly simple. They can transfer it between each other (paying business expenses, suppliers and so forth) freely (as long as it doesn't leave the country). But that money doesn't mean anything, it can't be used to the benefit of any individual, no actual person is making money yet, it's just numbers at that point. Where you go after it is where the government already goes after income tax at the moment, the point at which money is paid by the business to an individual. You put in place a system of progressive taxation on all payments made by an entity on the business side of the wall to an individual on the other side, be it salary, interest on money, dividends, sale of stock, whatever. All money has to eventually cross that wall to be spent, it's no good to the people who own it on the other side, so you take a cut as they cash it out. That lets you do away with corporate tax, capital gains, sales tax (which is a flat rate tax that disproportionately hurts the poor) and all the rest of it. It also solves the hypocrisy where corporations have the resources and incentives to invest in finding tax holes that save them money but waste money overall (if I burn $4 to avoid paying a $5 debt to my friend we're collectively poorer overall) but poorer individuals pay their full obligation. The government has no real qualms about bullying an individual over a failure to pay taxes, it's much harder to arrest a corporation. The only real issues I see with that system are hoarding of personal wealth (solved by an inheritance tax) and how to deal with money disappearing and returning from abroad. You'd need multinationals to set up a national company to operate in the US but that's not exactly difficult.
The progressive rate would hit the rich a hell of a lot harder than they're being hit now.
|
On September 18 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:
I've explained my taxation plan before but I'll repeat it. I want to create a wall between personal money and corporate money and operate a tariff on money crossing it. Companies, banks, any business entity can earn as much as they like and never have to worry about paying tax on it but it can only spend it on more business stuff. Makes that end of the equation incredibly simple. They can transfer it between each other (paying business expenses, suppliers and so forth) freely (as long as it doesn't leave the country). But that money doesn't mean anything, it can't be used to the benefit of any individual, no actual person is making money yet, it's just numbers at that point. Where you go after it is where the government already goes after income tax at the moment, the point at which money is paid by the business to an individual. You put in place a system of progressive taxation on all payments made by an entity on the business side of the wall to an individual on the other side, be it salary, interest on money, dividends, sale of stock, whatever. All money has to eventually cross that wall to be spent, it's no good to the people who own it on the other side, so you take a cut as they cash it out. That lets you do away with corporate tax, capital gains, sales tax (which is a flat rate tax that disproportionately hurts the poor) and all the rest of it. It also solves the hypocrisy where corporations have the resources and incentives to invest in finding tax holes that save them money but waste money overall (if I burn $4 to avoid paying a $5 debt to my friend we're collectively poorer overall) but poorer individuals pay their full obligation. The government has no real qualms about bullying an individual over a failure to pay taxes, it's much harder to arrest a corporation. The only real issues I see with that system are hoarding of personal wealth (solved by an inheritance tax) and how to deal with money disappearing and returning from abroad. You'd need multinationals to set up a national company to operate in the US but that's not exactly difficult.
The progressive rate would hit the rich a hell of a lot harder than they're being hit now.
Couldn't the wealthy then just avoid taxes by ordering the corporation to retain cash and generate any cash they needed for consumption by borrowing against the value of their assets?
|
On September 18 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:
I've explained my taxation plan before but I'll repeat it. I want to create a wall between personal money and corporate money and operate a tariff on money crossing it. Companies, banks, any business entity can earn as much as they like and never have to worry about paying tax on it but it can only spend it on more business stuff. Makes that end of the equation incredibly simple. They can transfer it between each other (paying business expenses, suppliers and so forth) freely (as long as it doesn't leave the country). But that money doesn't mean anything, it can't be used to the benefit of any individual, no actual person is making money yet, it's just numbers at that point. Where you go after it is where the government already goes after income tax at the moment, the point at which money is paid by the business to an individual. You put in place a system of progressive taxation on all payments made by an entity on the business side of the wall to an individual on the other side, be it salary, interest on money, dividends, sale of stock, whatever. All money has to eventually cross that wall to be spent, it's no good to the people who own it on the other side, so you take a cut as they cash it out. That lets you do away with corporate tax, capital gains, sales tax (which is a flat rate tax that disproportionately hurts the poor) and all the rest of it. It also solves the hypocrisy where corporations have the resources and incentives to invest in finding tax holes that save them money but waste money overall (if I burn $4 to avoid paying a $5 debt to my friend we're collectively poorer overall) but poorer individuals pay their full obligation. The government has no real qualms about bullying an individual over a failure to pay taxes, it's much harder to arrest a corporation. The only real issues I see with that system are hoarding of personal wealth (solved by an inheritance tax) and how to deal with money disappearing and returning from abroad. You'd need multinationals to set up a national company to operate in the US but that's not exactly difficult.
The progressive rate would hit the rich a hell of a lot harder than they're being hit now. Couldn't the wealthy then just avoid taxes by ordering the corporation to retain cash and generate any cash they needed for consumption by borrowing against the value of their assets?
Wouldn't that just postpone the tax payments to whenever they sell the assets to cover their loan payment? I don't see the avoiding taxes part of the equation.
|
On September 18 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:
I've explained my taxation plan before but I'll repeat it. I want to create a wall between personal money and corporate money and operate a tariff on money crossing it. Companies, banks, any business entity can earn as much as they like and never have to worry about paying tax on it but it can only spend it on more business stuff. Makes that end of the equation incredibly simple. They can transfer it between each other (paying business expenses, suppliers and so forth) freely (as long as it doesn't leave the country). But that money doesn't mean anything, it can't be used to the benefit of any individual, no actual person is making money yet, it's just numbers at that point. Where you go after it is where the government already goes after income tax at the moment, the point at which money is paid by the business to an individual. You put in place a system of progressive taxation on all payments made by an entity on the business side of the wall to an individual on the other side, be it salary, interest on money, dividends, sale of stock, whatever. All money has to eventually cross that wall to be spent, it's no good to the people who own it on the other side, so you take a cut as they cash it out. That lets you do away with corporate tax, capital gains, sales tax (which is a flat rate tax that disproportionately hurts the poor) and all the rest of it. It also solves the hypocrisy where corporations have the resources and incentives to invest in finding tax holes that save them money but waste money overall (if I burn $4 to avoid paying a $5 debt to my friend we're collectively poorer overall) but poorer individuals pay their full obligation. The government has no real qualms about bullying an individual over a failure to pay taxes, it's much harder to arrest a corporation. The only real issues I see with that system are hoarding of personal wealth (solved by an inheritance tax) and how to deal with money disappearing and returning from abroad. You'd need multinationals to set up a national company to operate in the US but that's not exactly difficult.
The progressive rate would hit the rich a hell of a lot harder than they're being hit now.
Yeah I would actually vote for that kind of taxation plan. The main problem is reforming fiscality is a clusterfuck.
|
On September 18 2013 02:41 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:
I've explained my taxation plan before but I'll repeat it. I want to create a wall between personal money and corporate money and operate a tariff on money crossing it. Companies, banks, any business entity can earn as much as they like and never have to worry about paying tax on it but it can only spend it on more business stuff. Makes that end of the equation incredibly simple. They can transfer it between each other (paying business expenses, suppliers and so forth) freely (as long as it doesn't leave the country). But that money doesn't mean anything, it can't be used to the benefit of any individual, no actual person is making money yet, it's just numbers at that point. Where you go after it is where the government already goes after income tax at the moment, the point at which money is paid by the business to an individual. You put in place a system of progressive taxation on all payments made by an entity on the business side of the wall to an individual on the other side, be it salary, interest on money, dividends, sale of stock, whatever. All money has to eventually cross that wall to be spent, it's no good to the people who own it on the other side, so you take a cut as they cash it out. That lets you do away with corporate tax, capital gains, sales tax (which is a flat rate tax that disproportionately hurts the poor) and all the rest of it. It also solves the hypocrisy where corporations have the resources and incentives to invest in finding tax holes that save them money but waste money overall (if I burn $4 to avoid paying a $5 debt to my friend we're collectively poorer overall) but poorer individuals pay their full obligation. The government has no real qualms about bullying an individual over a failure to pay taxes, it's much harder to arrest a corporation. The only real issues I see with that system are hoarding of personal wealth (solved by an inheritance tax) and how to deal with money disappearing and returning from abroad. You'd need multinationals to set up a national company to operate in the US but that's not exactly difficult.
The progressive rate would hit the rich a hell of a lot harder than they're being hit now. Couldn't the wealthy then just avoid taxes by ordering the corporation to retain cash and generate any cash they needed for consumption by borrowing against the value of their assets? Wouldn't that just postpone the tax payments to whenever they sell the assets to cover their loan payment? I don't see the avoiding taxes part of the equation.
You couldn't postpone forever, just until you die. Even if you don't consider that an outright avoidance, there's still a tax benefit to the deferment.
|
United States41971 Posts
On September 18 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:
I've explained my taxation plan before but I'll repeat it. I want to create a wall between personal money and corporate money and operate a tariff on money crossing it. Companies, banks, any business entity can earn as much as they like and never have to worry about paying tax on it but it can only spend it on more business stuff. Makes that end of the equation incredibly simple. They can transfer it between each other (paying business expenses, suppliers and so forth) freely (as long as it doesn't leave the country). But that money doesn't mean anything, it can't be used to the benefit of any individual, no actual person is making money yet, it's just numbers at that point. Where you go after it is where the government already goes after income tax at the moment, the point at which money is paid by the business to an individual. You put in place a system of progressive taxation on all payments made by an entity on the business side of the wall to an individual on the other side, be it salary, interest on money, dividends, sale of stock, whatever. All money has to eventually cross that wall to be spent, it's no good to the people who own it on the other side, so you take a cut as they cash it out. That lets you do away with corporate tax, capital gains, sales tax (which is a flat rate tax that disproportionately hurts the poor) and all the rest of it. It also solves the hypocrisy where corporations have the resources and incentives to invest in finding tax holes that save them money but waste money overall (if I burn $4 to avoid paying a $5 debt to my friend we're collectively poorer overall) but poorer individuals pay their full obligation. The government has no real qualms about bullying an individual over a failure to pay taxes, it's much harder to arrest a corporation. The only real issues I see with that system are hoarding of personal wealth (solved by an inheritance tax) and how to deal with money disappearing and returning from abroad. You'd need multinationals to set up a national company to operate in the US but that's not exactly difficult.
The progressive rate would hit the rich a hell of a lot harder than they're being hit now. Couldn't the wealthy then just avoid taxes by ordering the corporation to retain cash and generate any cash they needed for consumption by borrowing against the value of their assets?
They can borrow against it if they like but at some point that debt will need to be paid by them at which point they'll still need to cash out from it. You cannot borrow against assets indefinitely without an income.
|
United States41971 Posts
On September 18 2013 02:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 02:41 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 18 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:
I've explained my taxation plan before but I'll repeat it. I want to create a wall between personal money and corporate money and operate a tariff on money crossing it. Companies, banks, any business entity can earn as much as they like and never have to worry about paying tax on it but it can only spend it on more business stuff. Makes that end of the equation incredibly simple. They can transfer it between each other (paying business expenses, suppliers and so forth) freely (as long as it doesn't leave the country). But that money doesn't mean anything, it can't be used to the benefit of any individual, no actual person is making money yet, it's just numbers at that point. Where you go after it is where the government already goes after income tax at the moment, the point at which money is paid by the business to an individual. You put in place a system of progressive taxation on all payments made by an entity on the business side of the wall to an individual on the other side, be it salary, interest on money, dividends, sale of stock, whatever. All money has to eventually cross that wall to be spent, it's no good to the people who own it on the other side, so you take a cut as they cash it out. That lets you do away with corporate tax, capital gains, sales tax (which is a flat rate tax that disproportionately hurts the poor) and all the rest of it. It also solves the hypocrisy where corporations have the resources and incentives to invest in finding tax holes that save them money but waste money overall (if I burn $4 to avoid paying a $5 debt to my friend we're collectively poorer overall) but poorer individuals pay their full obligation. The government has no real qualms about bullying an individual over a failure to pay taxes, it's much harder to arrest a corporation. The only real issues I see with that system are hoarding of personal wealth (solved by an inheritance tax) and how to deal with money disappearing and returning from abroad. You'd need multinationals to set up a national company to operate in the US but that's not exactly difficult.
The progressive rate would hit the rich a hell of a lot harder than they're being hit now. Couldn't the wealthy then just avoid taxes by ordering the corporation to retain cash and generate any cash they needed for consumption by borrowing against the value of their assets? Wouldn't that just postpone the tax payments to whenever they sell the assets to cover their loan payment? I don't see the avoiding taxes part of the equation. You couldn't postpone forever, just until you die. Even if you don't consider that an outright avoidance, there's still a tax benefit to the deferment.
The plan relies upon someone stupid enough to loan all the rich people enough money to fund their rich lifestyle for their entire lives while never demanding repayment.
|
On September 18 2013 02:09 WhiteDog wrote:
For the last 5% it is not the case : they gain less revenu from labor, in comparaison to the 90-95%, and more from patrimony (and everybody knows patrimony is always under evaluated). This makes some people argue that we are witnessing the "return of the rentier".
but when sam talks about new feudalism it is crazy hyperbole 
poor poor sam
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
