If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules: - Don't post meaningless one-liners. - Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate. - Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand. - Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT.
Should be, lots of people are stopped from being doctors (contributing to harsh work and study conditions) based on ineffective barriers like how much debt they are willing to take on or how wealthy their parents were. Bernie is the best of the bad bunch imo but his policy ideas are not interchangeable with mine.
Again I have and do distinguish medical professionals from stock traders and they get their own distinct group.
Urologists aren't conspiring with Soros on the pound, they are simply well paid (less so than stock traders) to ignore the exploitation resulting from capitalism that allows the Georges, Jeffs, Marks, and so on to become oligarchs.
When does someone (an approximation is fine) cross from "rich" to "super rich" from your perspective? It'd also be helpful to know roughly where the end caps of "the middle class" are for you.
It's also helpful to know you weren't objecting to the "rich" part, just the "super"
EDIT: To show I'm not unreasonable or anything let me say I think it's fair to take a position that people should presume Bernie's policies will subtract spendable income from the rich and the super rich (personally I find the "super rich"/"oligarchs" part harder to believe but it's at least what he's saying he wants/his policy is somewhat reflective of).
How is unwillingness to take on debt a barrier to becoming a doctor? That's not an outside obstruction, it's the person not wanting it badly enough. I don't have sympathy for people who don't become doctors because they don't want to take on debt. The government will give you enough money for med school if that's what you want and if you have the academic record, and that's what I did...not saying it doesnt suck having a massive debt but that's how the system is at the moment.
Basically the whole country is well paid enough to ignore exploitation going on. This applies to middle class people as well. Even people on welfare continually vote for the same politicians who keep the status quo as long as they get their handouts. This concept doesnt apply to just rich doctors.
The "super rich" doctor, or anyone who earns a high income really, is the perfect target for these exploitative ploys. He's high enough above the general masses to satisfy their thirst for blood, while not so high that he can insulate his money from attack nearly as well as the way the real super rich can. By throwing him to the wolves, they truly rich can also divert attention from themselves. That whole "top 1%" thing is a perfect ploy. It equates your oligarch to a doctor.
I was under the impression that the super rich being discussed were the ones bernie often refers to. The ones who have enough wealth to control the politics and whatnot.
How is unwillingness to take on debt a barrier to becoming a doctor?
There are less capable people that don't have to take on debt to be a doctor. Making debt a barrier not all doctors face.
I don't have sympathy for people who don't become doctors because they don't want to take on debt.
Honestly that's what I expected.
What I would agree with you on is that it's easy for capitalism to push burdens onto those lower than someone else on the economic scale. This is just one of the times that includes "rich" people and they don't like it (Oligarchs pushing their burden onto the ""rich").
Also the massive variation within the top 1% is much of the problem and also is usually referenced as "the top tenth of one 1%" when distinguishing stock traders from oligarchs. I also agree it's an easy way to lump the rich with the super rich, I just think the problem is that too many rich people think they're going to be super rich one day and don't want all their work to be for nothing, even if that means perpetuating an exploitative system. I think it's less that people are paid well enough than it is they are convinced resistance is futile.
Until one day they aren't convinced and that historically ends poorly for mostly everyone.
Just because not all people have to take debt, doesnt mean that debt is an obstruction. Because the government WILL give you any funds you need if you have the qualifications.
If someone doesnt want to become a doctor because he doesn't want debt, that's his problem. the opportunity is there.
Increasing the tax burdern on working professionals to the benefit of everyone else isnt capitalism. That's marxist socialism. A certain class of individuals is being scapegoated with no benefits to themselves (oligarchs and classes lower than them benefit).
You honestly think small business owners, doctors, lawyers, accountants, day traders, etc think they are going to become super rich one day? I'd bet the farm that it's not the case. Let me know when you find a restaurant owner who thinks he's going to have a private jet one day.
People just want to be rewarded for their hard work and investment.
On May 11 2019 17:18 ggrrg wrote:
On May 09 2019 12:58 BerserkSword wrote: ...
I went to Bernie's advanced calculator, and filled it out with more details. Turns out I'd lose $16k if I made the same amount of money as I did in 2018 lol. So the amount I lose out on doubles because my income is non-wage lol.
Your comment actually raises a good point about the unfairness of the current taxation system. Since it takes into account only the income generated in a single year, exceptionally good years get punished really hard, which is a big hindrance to social mobility. It is especially punishing for people that are not on a wage, since the income fluctuations for them can be extreme. I happen to know mutliple cases of this in my social circle and to be honest I am unsure how this can be resolved in a fair manner. How do you "fairly" tax somebody whose income in the past years was: 70k, 200k, 700k, 60k, 50k or 10k, 12k, 15k, 25k, 120k?
On May 10 2019 07:37 BerserkSword wrote: ... I find it funny that people have no qualms about squeezing every last drop out of hard working people who sacrifice, and take risks, on the basis of grouping them with a completely different category of people. ...
There must be incentive to do things. ...
I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair...
And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without.
I wasnt referring to people with millions. I was talking about people like small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc who don't have millions and often have the widely varied incomes for a chunks of time that you pointed out.
My point is that Bernie's, and I'm sure any other hard leftist candidate's if there is another one, tax policy hits that group hard as hell.
I strongly disagree with your statement about incentives. It is not easy to make a million dollars. It involves significant risk/work in the vast majority of cases. pissing 90% away to the government is ludicrous
Would it be fair to presume you think the US is a (perhaps flawed) meritocracy?
Just fyi my perspective is that marxist socialism is superior to capitalism.
Bernie being the only one with both a chance of winning and a shot at agreeing with me on that makes him my preferred candidate of the bunch, even if I personally think he's too moderate.
I do not think the U.S. is a meritocracy. Not sure what it has to do with this discussion though.
And I am almost certain that Bernie doesnt agree with you regarding Marxism vs capitalism lol
In fact whenever I heard him address the issue of him calling himself a socialist, he makes it clear that he is a "democratic socialist" as opposed to any form of communism which is what the Average Joe fears.
On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: I'd just also point out there are a lot of kids that discover around 18 that they have terrible credit/can't get loans because their parents put bills or credit cards in their name. Additionally lots of kids end up taking charges for working parents because some time in juvie may be better than being a homeless orphan (excluding them from federal aid). I suppose most people would probably blame kids for their own pot charges and such that can eliminate them from potentially getting federal aid too.
The idea that there's a remotely level playing field or equitable path to economic prosperity (be it doctor, trader, etc...) is a hegemonic myth of the center-right imo.
I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be.
Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school.
I know Bernie doesn't agree, that's why I said a shot at it. I can't speak to your friends experience but $250k for nursing sounds like private loans. I also think you're misunderstanding what I mean by obstacle? Besides the point I've made about how parentage is out of the hands of a child and influences whether they even make it to applying to medical school or not (or need loans) it's clearly an obstacle and stress some doctors/professionals don't have to deal with.
I'm not arguing it's impossible to surmount, just that it's a barrier or obstacle not everyone faces. I don't know how you can possibly argue that two students, one with a massive debt and the other not that the one in debt doesn't face additional stress and hurdles to access that education compared to someone who's parents are paying for their full tuition?
My friend has both private and government loans lol.
I don't consider "stress" an obstacle to education. Every endeavor requires some degree investment/risk.
The bottom line is that if someone want the education and has the credentials to back it up, they get access.
Even in your scenario where all education is free, surely there would be some sort of entrance exam? You do realize that some parents would have their kids better prepped than others right? There is no way to make sure parenting is equal. Even genetics play a role. As for the specific scenario of various professional schools, the applicants are all adults, so parent influence on deciding to apply is irrelevant.
That's kind of the point I was making as well. If school is free there will either be entrance exams, or if not those (which is very unlikely) then failing classes will surely end in an end or suspension of said free schooling. I do still think it would be a better and more merit based system than what we currently have, but honestly I doubt it would be that much different. Taxes would likely have to go up to pay for this, and the people getting an education to get well paying jobs will likely be the ones paying the brunt of the raised taxes, while the super rich would just keep paying very low effective taxes due to all their write offs and other methods that the non super rich can't really have.
I like the idea of schooling being heavily subsidized, because it offers tremendous benefits to society in reduction of crime, innovation, people think about the future more, less discrimination, etc... But I do think it should cost something, so the potential student thinks about whether they actually want this, and would therefore also be more careful in choosing a degree that will make him money (and therefore contribute to society). In current US dollars, I think $25-$45k US dollars for a 4 year degree, and access to non-profit (low interest) student loans is a fair cost.
Wealthier people pay exponentially more taxes, because more income and more higher tax on the income. Don't just assume that writing things off is just some magic black box, and the US is working hard to cut off any ways to abuse it, from offshore companies, to simplifying the tax law. Wealthy people pay a lot of tax.
Initially I was against it, but I think that the right way to fight an income gap is through estate taxes. If someone with $100bil dies and has to give $40bil away, they're never cheated from their money, but it gives tons of money to the government, and doesn't create an endless cycle of the super rich getting to the top, and staying there for generations.
I think the money cost you are talking is similar to entrance exams or having to keep up good enough grades, just the latter 2 are costs in the form of having to put in work vs the straight up money cost, I think all work to achieve the same goal in some way. One thing I will disagree on though is about the well paying jobs being the beneficial ones to society. I mean they definitely are, but some of the low paying degrees are too. We still need artists and history majors, even if it's harder for people in those fields to make money. Although honestly every degree can make good money if the person applies themselves. I still have no idea what liberal arts is for though TBH.
But yeah, we only really need entertainers and artists because we have other people doing the other stuff we need such as engineering, science, being doctors, etc...
On May 12 2019 12:07 Bourgeois wrote: Late in replying to a post earlier, but for those who don't think Andrew Yang is relying on the fact that he is Asian, consider this: It fits the exact stereotype that Asians are computer nerds that his main policy relates to Asian nerd stuff. He's the
How is UBI Asian nerd stuff? They trialled it in Norway and had a referendum on it in Switzerland.
Yang is just offering a solution to the issue of AI and automation.It’s good to bring the discussion out but if gaming addict neets think it’ll make them happy they’re only fooling themselves.
How is unwillingness to take on debt a barrier to becoming a doctor? That's not an outside obstruction, it's the person not wanting it badly enough. I don't have sympathy for people who don't become doctors because they don't want to take on debt. The government will give you enough money for med school if that's what you want and if you have the academic record, and that's what I did...not saying it doesnt suck having a massive debt but that's how the system is at the moment.
Basically the whole country is well paid enough to ignore exploitation going on. This applies to middle class people as well. Even people on welfare continually vote for the same politicians who keep the status quo as long as they get their handouts. This concept doesnt apply to just rich doctors.
The "super rich" doctor, or anyone who earns a high income really, is the perfect target for these exploitative ploys. He's high enough above the general masses to satisfy their thirst for blood, while not so high that he can insulate his money from attack nearly as well as the way the real super rich can. By throwing him to the wolves, they truly rich can also divert attention from themselves. That whole "top 1%" thing is a perfect ploy. It equates your oligarch to a doctor.
I was under the impression that the super rich being discussed were the ones bernie often refers to. The ones who have enough wealth to control the politics and whatnot.
How is unwillingness to take on debt a barrier to becoming a doctor?
There are less capable people that don't have to take on debt to be a doctor. Making debt a barrier not all doctors face.
I don't have sympathy for people who don't become doctors because they don't want to take on debt.
Honestly that's what I expected.
What I would agree with you on is that it's easy for capitalism to push burdens onto those lower than someone else on the economic scale. This is just one of the times that includes "rich" people and they don't like it (Oligarchs pushing their burden onto the ""rich").
Also the massive variation within the top 1% is much of the problem and also is usually referenced as "the top tenth of one 1%" when distinguishing stock traders from oligarchs. I also agree it's an easy way to lump the rich with the super rich, I just think the problem is that too many rich people think they're going to be super rich one day and don't want all their work to be for nothing, even if that means perpetuating an exploitative system. I think it's less that people are paid well enough than it is they are convinced resistance is futile.
Until one day they aren't convinced and that historically ends poorly for mostly everyone.
Just because not all people have to take debt, doesnt mean that debt is an obstruction. Because the government WILL give you any funds you need if you have the qualifications.
If someone doesnt want to become a doctor because he doesn't want debt, that's his problem. the opportunity is there.
Increasing the tax burdern on working professionals to the benefit of everyone else isnt capitalism. That's marxist socialism. A certain class of individuals is being scapegoated with no benefits to themselves (oligarchs and classes lower than them benefit).
You honestly think small business owners, doctors, lawyers, accountants, day traders, etc think they are going to become super rich one day? I'd bet the farm that it's not the case. Let me know when you find a restaurant owner who thinks he's going to have a private jet one day.
People just want to be rewarded for their hard work and investment.
On May 11 2019 17:18 ggrrg wrote:
On May 09 2019 12:58 BerserkSword wrote: ...
I went to Bernie's advanced calculator, and filled it out with more details. Turns out I'd lose $16k if I made the same amount of money as I did in 2018 lol. So the amount I lose out on doubles because my income is non-wage lol.
Your comment actually raises a good point about the unfairness of the current taxation system. Since it takes into account only the income generated in a single year, exceptionally good years get punished really hard, which is a big hindrance to social mobility. It is especially punishing for people that are not on a wage, since the income fluctuations for them can be extreme. I happen to know mutliple cases of this in my social circle and to be honest I am unsure how this can be resolved in a fair manner. How do you "fairly" tax somebody whose income in the past years was: 70k, 200k, 700k, 60k, 50k or 10k, 12k, 15k, 25k, 120k?
On May 10 2019 07:37 BerserkSword wrote: ... I find it funny that people have no qualms about squeezing every last drop out of hard working people who sacrifice, and take risks, on the basis of grouping them with a completely different category of people. ...
There must be incentive to do things. ...
I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair...
And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without.
I wasnt referring to people with millions. I was talking about people like small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc who don't have millions and often have the widely varied incomes for a chunks of time that you pointed out.
My point is that Bernie's, and I'm sure any other hard leftist candidate's if there is another one, tax policy hits that group hard as hell.
I strongly disagree with your statement about incentives. It is not easy to make a million dollars. It involves significant risk/work in the vast majority of cases. pissing 90% away to the government is ludicrous
Would it be fair to presume you think the US is a (perhaps flawed) meritocracy?
Just fyi my perspective is that marxist socialism is superior to capitalism.
Bernie being the only one with both a chance of winning and a shot at agreeing with me on that makes him my preferred candidate of the bunch, even if I personally think he's too moderate.
I do not think the U.S. is a meritocracy. Not sure what it has to do with this discussion though.
And I am almost certain that Bernie doesnt agree with you regarding Marxism vs capitalism lol
In fact whenever I heard him address the issue of him calling himself a socialist, he makes it clear that he is a "democratic socialist" as opposed to any form of communism which is what the Average Joe fears.
On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: I'd just also point out there are a lot of kids that discover around 18 that they have terrible credit/can't get loans because their parents put bills or credit cards in their name. Additionally lots of kids end up taking charges for working parents because some time in juvie may be better than being a homeless orphan (excluding them from federal aid). I suppose most people would probably blame kids for their own pot charges and such that can eliminate them from potentially getting federal aid too.
The idea that there's a remotely level playing field or equitable path to economic prosperity (be it doctor, trader, etc...) is a hegemonic myth of the center-right imo.
I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be.
Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school.
I know Bernie doesn't agree, that's why I said a shot at it. I can't speak to your friends experience but $250k for nursing sounds like private loans. I also think you're misunderstanding what I mean by obstacle? Besides the point I've made about how parentage is out of the hands of a child and influences whether they even make it to applying to medical school or not (or need loans) it's clearly an obstacle and stress some doctors/professionals don't have to deal with.
I'm not arguing it's impossible to surmount, just that it's a barrier or obstacle not everyone faces. I don't know how you can possibly argue that two students, one with a massive debt and the other not that the one in debt doesn't face additional stress and hurdles to access that education compared to someone who's parents are paying for their full tuition?
My friend has both private and government loans lol.
I don't consider "stress" an obstacle to education. Every endeavor requires some degree investment/risk.
The bottom line is that if someone want the education and has the credentials to back it up, they get access.
Even in your scenario where all education is free, surely there would be some sort of entrance exam? You do realize that some parents would have their kids better prepped than others right? There is no way to make sure parenting is equal. Even genetics play a role. As for the specific scenario of various professional schools, the applicants are all adults, so parent influence on deciding to apply is irrelevant.
That's kind of the point I was making as well. If school is free there will either be entrance exams, or if not those (which is very unlikely) then failing classes will surely end in an end or suspension of said free schooling. I do still think it would be a better and more merit based system than what we currently have, but honestly I doubt it would be that much different. Taxes would likely have to go up to pay for this, and the people getting an education to get well paying jobs will likely be the ones paying the brunt of the raised taxes, while the super rich would just keep paying very low effective taxes due to all their write offs and other methods that the non super rich can't really have.
I like the idea of schooling being heavily subsidized, because it offers tremendous benefits to society in reduction of crime, innovation, people think about the future more, less discrimination, etc... But I do think it should cost something, so the potential student thinks about whether they actually want this, and would therefore also be more careful in choosing a degree that will make him money (and therefore contribute to society). In current US dollars, I think $25-$45k US dollars for a 4 year degree, and access to non-profit (low interest) student loans is a fair cost.
Wealthier people pay exponentially more taxes, because more income and more higher tax on the income. Don't just assume that writing things off is just some magic black box, and the US is working hard to cut off any ways to abuse it, from offshore companies, to simplifying the tax law. Wealthy people pay a lot of tax.
Initially I was against it, but I think that the right way to fight an income gap is through estate taxes. If someone with $100bil dies and has to give $40bil away, they're never cheated from their money, but it gives tons of money to the government, and doesn't create an endless cycle of the super rich getting to the top, and staying there for generations.
I think the money cost you are talking is similar to entrance exams or having to keep up good enough grades, just the latter 2 are costs in the form of having to put in work vs the straight up money cost, I think all work to achieve the same goal in some way. One thing I will disagree on though is about the well paying jobs being the beneficial ones to society. I mean they definitely are, but some of the low paying degrees are too. We still need artists and history majors, even if it's harder for people in those fields to make money. Although honestly every degree can make good money if the person applies themselves. I still have no idea what liberal arts is for though TBH.
But yeah, we only really need entertainers and artists because we have other people doing the other stuff we need such as engineering, science, being doctors, etc...
For the Starbucks baristas of course. I kid, and well, maybe if we only had STEM and business people, human society would be function like a computer program. The foundation of liberal arts is philosophy, and philosophy is religion, spirituality, ethics, manners... Science doesn't tell us what human civilization should look like, we do. Maybe it's not the best degree to get a job, but maybe it teaches you something about yourself. And at the end of the day, I don't use computational fluid dynamics in my every day life, it's the problem solving I use, I'm sure there's some bits of usefulness in 13th century literature too. And let me tell you, the last person I'd want as a tour guide is someone with a PhD in theoretical physics.
As to your post more directly, mixed opinions on the effectiveness of entrance exams, I don't think it's as effective as imposing a manageable cost. If it's free, parents will push their kids more to do things they don't want to do, and I think we're a little too nice as a society, and we will feel bad after they get rejected and file an appeal, while money takes the emotion out of it a bit. Combining the time investment with money investment is the best though, and the time investment is 4 years after all, an entrance exam and application is nothing to that.
I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair...
And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without.
I wasnt referring to people with millions. I was talking about people like small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc who don't have millions and often have the widely varied incomes for a chunks of time that you pointed out.
My point is that Bernie's, and I'm sure any other hard leftist candidate's if there is another one, tax policy hits that group hard as hell.
I see the issue here. It seems to me that the options should not be limited to taxing everyone a whole lot more and accepting the status quo with taxing the rich disproportionately less. Bernie does have the appeal of wanting to reform (or at least claiming so) the most despicable flaws of the US, such as its health care and higher education system, but I guess if I were living in the US, the impact on my personal income would be a top priority when voting as well.
I strongly disagree with your statement about incentives. It is not easy to make a million dollars. It involves significant risk/work in the vast majority of cases. pissing 90% away to the government is ludicrous
Yes, making a million is no easy taks by any means and normally involves a whole lot of sacrifices. However, this is generally not the case when making your 50th or 100th million. I do not think that "pissing away" 90% of the income one makes above say 20 million is particularly harmful to people's drive to make more money.
I keep hearing that about technological innovation, but I fail to see how it relates to the matter at hand. Do you think just because somebody will "lose" 65% or whatever of his income to the state anyway, that person will not still strive to increase his overall income to increase his available money?
At a certain point, I think yes.
Put it another way- sure 50% is semi-arbitrary, but so is any number. How far would you push it? 75%? 90%? Because I think at a certain point, you would stop trying. Or do you think there is no limit to how far you could push that upper tax bracket number before people would stop? Or if there is a limit, what do you think it is?
If I have to make $4000 to increase my income by $2000, that's rough, but I might do it. But if I have to make $4000 to increase my income by $1000... I don't know that I would bother. And if I had to make $4000 in order to increase my income by $400... ain't happening.
I think there's something really nasty any time more than half your money you earn goes to the government who didn't earn it. I'm all for progressive taxes. I think the Canadian progressive tax is wonderful. But I can only go so far down that path.
I wouldn't presume to know what the ideal taxation level is. But to answer your questions: I do believe that the tax ceiling can be increased well above 80% without people deciding to act differently than they do now thinking that it would not be worth it. As long as the high tax rates only come into effect for very high incomes I do not think that you will ever encounter the situation that somebody would just refuse to make more money because of the high taxes. I can see how somebody that is cleaning toilets or performing surgeries would not want to add another 20 hours to his work week for a couple hundred dollars more per month. But above certain income levels any increases to said income do not stem from an increase in hours spent doing manual labor or sacrificing all your free time. A simplified example would be: keeping the tax rates as they currently are but adding a linearly progressive taxation for the next 10 millions until it caps out at say 85%. I very much doubt that you will see any change in behaviour or drive in the population if this were to be implemented.
What I find outright perverse with the current taxation systems in the West is that they brutalize the middle class while allowing the top of the 1% to accumulate wealth beyond any reason. I am not advocating for raising taxes across the board. If possible I would like to see the tax burden shifted away from low and middle income house holds. Not sure how feasible that is but at the very least I'd like to see a higher taxation on very high incomes to achieve some semblance of social equality.
On May 11 2019 03:53 RvB wrote: The actual problem with making university free is that it's highly regressive. University students in general will belong to the upper middle class in the future. There's no reason why they have to be subsidized. If you want to help the poor get into higher education there are other ways.
This is totally dependant on the courses people choose to do.There is no guarantee that a university degree will assure even a middle class lifestyle anymore.
Larger numbers of students doing free gender studies and art history degrees at the expense of the taxpayer is something that should turn people off the idea of free university.Some courses offer more benefit to society than other courses, fact.
This does not strike me as an argument against free education but as an argument against offering a ridiculous amount of bullshit studies.
On May 12 2019 12:32 BerserkSword wrote:
I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be.
Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school.
250k in student loans sounds absolutely brutal. How does one ever pay this back? Especially with a degree from a nursing school... Imposing the blight of life long debt on education for a vital function in society sounds like a horrible idea to me.
I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair...
And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without.
I wasnt referring to people with millions. I was talking about people like small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc who don't have millions and often have the widely varied incomes for a chunks of time that you pointed out.
My point is that Bernie's, and I'm sure any other hard leftist candidate's if there is another one, tax policy hits that group hard as hell.
I see the issue here. It seems to me that the options should not be limited to taxing everyone a whole lot more and accepting the status quo with taxing the rich disproportionately less. Bernie does have the appeal of wanting to reform (or at least claiming so) the most despicable flaws of the US, such as its health care and higher education system, but I guess if I were living in the US, the impact on my personal income would be a top priority when voting as well.
I strongly disagree with your statement about incentives. It is not easy to make a million dollars. It involves significant risk/work in the vast majority of cases. pissing 90% away to the government is ludicrous
Yes, making a million is no easy taks by any means and normally involves a whole lot of sacrifices. However, this is generally not the case when making your 50th or 100th million. I do not think that "pissing away" 90% of the income one makes above say 20 million is particularly harmful to people's drive to make more money.
I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be.
Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school.
250k in student loans sounds absolutely brutal. How does one ever pay this back? Especially with a degree from a nursing school... Imposing the blight of life long debt on education for a vital function in society sounds like a horrible idea to me.
Every candidate says he/she wants to reform the healthcare. The problem is who has the best reform? I sure as hell don't think it's Bernie lol. The only think I like about Bernie is that he wants to attack the military industrial complex. And as much as I strongly disagree with Bernie's healthcare policies, America is without a doubt rich enough to pay for any medical policy, no matter how inefficient it is, if the money is siphoned from the our ridiculously bloated military. Basically, I want significantly less government spending, but if I had to choose betting massive government spending on military and healthcare, I'd choose healthcare every time.
I honestly think Bernie's healthcare and higher education policies are terrible though. I don't want America to turn into some European country. I don't believe in EU's model. I believe it is unsustainable and I want America to sustain itself.
Regarding that 90% tax rate, I respect your opinion, but the facts say otherwise. People who make that much money already flee to tax havens at current tax rates which are nowhere near 90%. Whether if it's NYC millionaires escaping NYC's ridiculous tax rates by moving to florida or north carolina, or American billionaires using overseas tax havens. People who earn several million a year in income are usually the most financially savvy people in the world who value returns. There is n o way they will accept the abysmal returns that come with a 90% tax rate lol.
as for 250k loans, it is brutal indeed. Nurses can make six figures in the U.S. , but most people take years to pay it off. America is a country built on the debt system as it is. Keep in mind the average nurse doesnt accure that much debt...my friend just has bad habits (i mentioned he served time in prison, that should tell you). He took out more than he needed - I just brought it up to give an example to greenhorizons of how someone with a terrible record could get loans. I myself had 250k debt after the interest that was accrued during my 4 years of med school (and it was a federal loan too, so I couldnt even file for bankruptcy if i had to lol). It made me miserable lol
With your proposal of 85% for all income over 50 million per year, my Fermi approximation is that the government would receive around $3 trillion more. Currently the US GDP is $19.5 trillion, and all tax currently is 33% of GDP (close to my utopian world of 30%). So you'd get less than an additional 50% in tax revenue, which is good, no doubt... Is that going to make lives that much better for everyone though, versus say having the economy grow at 2% more per year long term and letting wealthy people have their money? Not to mention the spiral of hard to predict effects like industry leaving the US, not having the US at the forefront of technology, etc. The thinking is too short term, the amount of money isn't going to revolutionize people's lives, the current money could simply be allocated differently. If this money was going to change everyone's life at the expense of a few thousand people, I could see your argument. Taxing rich people at say 5% is a problem, sure, because percentage wise, you could tax them at 20%, their income doesn't take a huge hit, but you have 4x the tax income. But once you're taxing people at 30-40%, the percentage you're raising your tax income by as a country doesn't change much. And remember, the US already has a 37% tax bracket only for federal taxes (over 300k) When you add the roughly 7% state taxes, and average 7% sales taxes, these numbers start to get crazy quickly. Now tack on some property taxes on that wealth, some carbon taxes on maintaining and operating that wealth, and whatever other miscellaneous stuff, and you start to see in theory it's high as is.
I'm not an expert in tax law, but I think taking a closer look at what can be written off, how capital gains are taxed, and things like this is more productive. I know in Alberta for example, you were able to deduct buying bus passes from your income, and that really pissed me off. The poor people didn't know about it, so the only people who knew were the educated who probably spent some money on their tax accountant, and had good organization to keep their receipts and such. A more socially sound solution would have been to take the cost of the transit pass down a bit, and not make it something that can be deducted from income. This is just one example that maybe doesn't apply to the US, but is trying to demonstrate how sometimes the law isn't great with those things. That said, from what I read, in the US, the middle class doesn't really pay that much tax, and the tax to GDP ratio is good. Potentially the extra income from simplifying the tax law and preventing these write offs could offset some minor drops in taxes for middle class people, but in my eyes, it's about optimization, not a rebuild.
@Berserk
I 100% agree with you that the EU has it all wrong right now, especially a country like France. Man, you guys are so lucky that there was so many smart people coming into the country hundreds of years ago that built such a strong foundation. I mean really, just look at France and it's trajectory, and then look back at the US. You guys are really well off all things considered, yes, there's negatives too, and I'm biased since I came from Slovakia and so I have a lot of European immigrant friends, so they'll be biased because they came here... But man, please don't head in the same direction. Go move to Norway, Germany, France, or even the UK for 3 years, and see how you like it, from everything I know, I think you have a case of the grass is greener on the side. Directed at ggrrg and the others, not you Berserk.
I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair...
And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without.
I wasnt referring to people with millions. I was talking about people like small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc who don't have millions and often have the widely varied incomes for a chunks of time that you pointed out.
My point is that Bernie's, and I'm sure any other hard leftist candidate's if there is another one, tax policy hits that group hard as hell.
I see the issue here. It seems to me that the options should not be limited to taxing everyone a whole lot more and accepting the status quo with taxing the rich disproportionately less. Bernie does have the appeal of wanting to reform (or at least claiming so) the most despicable flaws of the US, such as its health care and higher education system, but I guess if I were living in the US, the impact on my personal income would be a top priority when voting as well.
I strongly disagree with your statement about incentives. It is not easy to make a million dollars. It involves significant risk/work in the vast majority of cases. pissing 90% away to the government is ludicrous
Yes, making a million is no easy taks by any means and normally involves a whole lot of sacrifices. However, this is generally not the case when making your 50th or 100th million. I do not think that "pissing away" 90% of the income one makes above say 20 million is particularly harmful to people's drive to make more money.
On May 12 2019 12:32 BerserkSword wrote:
I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be.
Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school.
250k in student loans sounds absolutely brutal. How does one ever pay this back? Especially with a degree from a nursing school... Imposing the blight of life long debt on education for a vital function in society sounds like a horrible idea to me.
Every candidate says he/she wants to reform the healthcare. The problem is who has the best reform? I sure as hell don't think it's Bernie lol. The only think I like about Bernie is that he wants to attack the military industrial complex. And as much as I strongly disagree with Bernie's healthcare policies, America is without a doubt rich enough to pay for any medical policy, no matter how inefficient it is, if the money is siphoned from the our ridiculously bloated military. Basically, I want significantly less government spending, but if I had to choose betting massive government spending on military and healthcare, I'd choose healthcare every time.
I honestly think Bernie's healthcare and higher education policies are terrible though. I don't want America to turn into some European country. I don't believe in EU's model. I believe it is unsustainable and I want America to sustain itself.
Regarding that 90% tax rate, I respect your opinion, but the facts say otherwise. People who make that much money already flee to tax havens at current tax rates which are nowhere near 90%. Whether if it's NYC millionaires escaping NYC's ridiculous tax rates by moving to florida or north carolina, or American billionaires using overseas tax havens. People who earn several million a year in income are usually the most financially savvy people in the world who value returns. There is n o way they will accept the abysmal returns that come with a 90% tax rate lol.
as for 250k loans, it is brutal indeed. Nurses can make six figures in the U.S. , but most people take years to pay it off. America is a country built on the debt system as it is. Keep in mind the average nurse doesnt accure that much debt...my friend just has bad habits (i mentioned he served time in prison, that should tell you). He took out more than he needed - I just brought it up to give an example to greenhorizons of how someone with a terrible record could get loans. I myself had 250k debt after the interest that was accrued during my 4 years of med school (and it was a federal loan too, so I couldnt even file for bankruptcy if i had to lol). It made me miserable lol
This is pretty interesting to me: why do you not believe in the EU model specifically, when it provably works? More people have access to treatment in EU than in the US and the results are statistically better - the mortality from many conditions is simply larger in US than in EU, just look it up. For the money spent, the US system is the less efficient way of treating people on the whole planet! I guess the US model is in the strict sense more sustainable, because if treatment options grow more expensive, you just let more people die instead, thus conserving the economical viability of the system, but is that really what you want?
We have some parties (generally considered fringe lunatics and scoring 1-2%) that basically want to americanize the health care in Czech Republic, but the counter-argument is almost comically easy to make: the US system clearly fails. My friends who lived in the US moved back to home mainly because they couldn't stand the risk of getting sick there. The whole thing is completely out of bounds, with prices inflated by orders of magnitude, enormous expenses even for insured patients and millions of people without access to any useful insurance. A major accident or god forbid a serious disease can financially ruin 90% of the population for life, a simple hospital visit runs you 5-figure sums, that you can't even get to know beforehand to make an informed decision. How is that better than ... anything?
There are less capable people that don't have to take on debt to be a doctor. Making debt a barrier not all doctors face.
[quote]
Honestly that's what I expected.
What I would agree with you on is that it's easy for capitalism to push burdens onto those lower than someone else on the economic scale. This is just one of the times that includes "rich" people and they don't like it (Oligarchs pushing their burden onto the ""rich").
Also the massive variation within the top 1% is much of the problem and also is usually referenced as "the top tenth of one 1%" when distinguishing stock traders from oligarchs. I also agree it's an easy way to lump the rich with the super rich, I just think the problem is that too many rich people think they're going to be super rich one day and don't want all their work to be for nothing, even if that means perpetuating an exploitative system. I think it's less that people are paid well enough than it is they are convinced resistance is futile.
Until one day they aren't convinced and that historically ends poorly for mostly everyone.
Just because not all people have to take debt, doesnt mean that debt is an obstruction. Because the government WILL give you any funds you need if you have the qualifications.
If someone doesnt want to become a doctor because he doesn't want debt, that's his problem. the opportunity is there.
Increasing the tax burdern on working professionals to the benefit of everyone else isnt capitalism. That's marxist socialism. A certain class of individuals is being scapegoated with no benefits to themselves (oligarchs and classes lower than them benefit).
You honestly think small business owners, doctors, lawyers, accountants, day traders, etc think they are going to become super rich one day? I'd bet the farm that it's not the case. Let me know when you find a restaurant owner who thinks he's going to have a private jet one day.
People just want to be rewarded for their hard work and investment.
On May 11 2019 17:18 ggrrg wrote:
[quote]
Your comment actually raises a good point about the unfairness of the current taxation system. Since it takes into account only the income generated in a single year, exceptionally good years get punished really hard, which is a big hindrance to social mobility. It is especially punishing for people that are not on a wage, since the income fluctuations for them can be extreme. I happen to know mutliple cases of this in my social circle and to be honest I am unsure how this can be resolved in a fair manner. How do you "fairly" tax somebody whose income in the past years was: 70k, 200k, 700k, 60k, 50k or 10k, 12k, 15k, 25k, 120k?
[quote]
I'd say that squeezing out another million from somebody who already has a whole lot of millions to live with is not particularly unfair...
And as far as incentives go - I'd argue that even if the top effective tax rate was 90%, people would still have the incentive to try and earn another million more, because living with another 100k/year is a whole lot better than without.
I wasnt referring to people with millions. I was talking about people like small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc who don't have millions and often have the widely varied incomes for a chunks of time that you pointed out.
My point is that Bernie's, and I'm sure any other hard leftist candidate's if there is another one, tax policy hits that group hard as hell.
I strongly disagree with your statement about incentives. It is not easy to make a million dollars. It involves significant risk/work in the vast majority of cases. pissing 90% away to the government is ludicrous
Would it be fair to presume you think the US is a (perhaps flawed) meritocracy?
Just fyi my perspective is that marxist socialism is superior to capitalism.
Bernie being the only one with both a chance of winning and a shot at agreeing with me on that makes him my preferred candidate of the bunch, even if I personally think he's too moderate.
I do not think the U.S. is a meritocracy. Not sure what it has to do with this discussion though.
And I am almost certain that Bernie doesnt agree with you regarding Marxism vs capitalism lol
In fact whenever I heard him address the issue of him calling himself a socialist, he makes it clear that he is a "democratic socialist" as opposed to any form of communism which is what the Average Joe fears.
On May 12 2019 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: I'd just also point out there are a lot of kids that discover around 18 that they have terrible credit/can't get loans because their parents put bills or credit cards in their name. Additionally lots of kids end up taking charges for working parents because some time in juvie may be better than being a homeless orphan (excluding them from federal aid). I suppose most people would probably blame kids for their own pot charges and such that can eliminate them from potentially getting federal aid too.
The idea that there's a remotely level playing field or equitable path to economic prosperity (be it doctor, trader, etc...) is a hegemonic myth of the center-right imo.
I don't think the playing field is level. All I said was that not wanting to take on debt is an obstacle unless someone makes it out to be.
Also if you get accepted to medical school, and I'm assuming other professional schools like law school, dental school, pharmacy school, etc, it's borderline impossible not to get a loan. There was a guy in my med school class who had a record and received loans. One of my friends served time in prison for some serious crimes as an adult (not juvie) and got 250k student loans and is currently in nursing school.
I know Bernie doesn't agree, that's why I said a shot at it. I can't speak to your friends experience but $250k for nursing sounds like private loans. I also think you're misunderstanding what I mean by obstacle? Besides the point I've made about how parentage is out of the hands of a child and influences whether they even make it to applying to medical school or not (or need loans) it's clearly an obstacle and stress some doctors/professionals don't have to deal with.
I'm not arguing it's impossible to surmount, just that it's a barrier or obstacle not everyone faces. I don't know how you can possibly argue that two students, one with a massive debt and the other not that the one in debt doesn't face additional stress and hurdles to access that education compared to someone who's parents are paying for their full tuition?
My friend has both private and government loans lol.
I don't consider "stress" an obstacle to education. Every endeavor requires some degree investment/risk.
The bottom line is that if someone want the education and has the credentials to back it up, they get access.
Even in your scenario where all education is free, surely there would be some sort of entrance exam? You do realize that some parents would have their kids better prepped than others right? There is no way to make sure parenting is equal. Even genetics play a role. As for the specific scenario of various professional schools, the applicants are all adults, so parent influence on deciding to apply is irrelevant.
That's kind of the point I was making as well. If school is free there will either be entrance exams, or if not those (which is very unlikely) then failing classes will surely end in an end or suspension of said free schooling. I do still think it would be a better and more merit based system than what we currently have, but honestly I doubt it would be that much different. Taxes would likely have to go up to pay for this, and the people getting an education to get well paying jobs will likely be the ones paying the brunt of the raised taxes, while the super rich would just keep paying very low effective taxes due to all their write offs and other methods that the non super rich can't really have.
I like the idea of schooling being heavily subsidized, because it offers tremendous benefits to society in reduction of crime, innovation, people think about the future more, less discrimination, etc... But I do think it should cost something, so the potential student thinks about whether they actually want this, and would therefore also be more careful in choosing a degree that will make him money (and therefore contribute to society). In current US dollars, I think $25-$45k US dollars for a 4 year degree, and access to non-profit (low interest) student loans is a fair cost.
Wealthier people pay exponentially more taxes, because more income and more higher tax on the income. Don't just assume that writing things off is just some magic black box, and the US is working hard to cut off any ways to abuse it, from offshore companies, to simplifying the tax law. Wealthy people pay a lot of tax.
Initially I was against it, but I think that the right way to fight an income gap is through estate taxes. If someone with $100bil dies and has to give $40bil away, they're never cheated from their money, but it gives tons of money to the government, and doesn't create an endless cycle of the super rich getting to the top, and staying there for generations.
I think the money cost you are talking is similar to entrance exams or having to keep up good enough grades, just the latter 2 are costs in the form of having to put in work vs the straight up money cost, I think all work to achieve the same goal in some way. One thing I will disagree on though is about the well paying jobs being the beneficial ones to society. I mean they definitely are, but some of the low paying degrees are too. We still need artists and history majors, even if it's harder for people in those fields to make money. Although honestly every degree can make good money if the person applies themselves. I still have no idea what liberal arts is for though TBH.
But yeah, we only really need entertainers and artists because we have other people doing the other stuff we need such as engineering, science, being doctors, etc...
For the Starbucks baristas of course. I kid, and well, maybe if we only had STEM and business people, human society would be function like a computer program. The foundation of liberal arts is philosophy, and philosophy is religion, spirituality, ethics, manners... Science doesn't tell us what human civilization should look like, we do. Maybe it's not the best degree to get a job, but maybe it teaches you something about yourself. And at the end of the day, I don't use computational fluid dynamics in my every day life, it's the problem solving I use, I'm sure there's some bits of usefulness in 13th century literature too. And let me tell you, the last person I'd want as a tour guide is someone with a PhD in theoretical physics.
Not that it adds much to discussion but as someone with degree in philosophy i have to point out that philosophy is actually mother of sciences - math, physics, chemistry etc. and have much more in common with them than with so called liberal arts. Philosophy is critical thinking about the world and religion, art, spirituality etc. predate critical thinking. People created gods, art etc. before they started critically thinking about what they actually do.
I've always viewed philosophy as the mother of all fields, metaphysics, epistemology, and logic being the emphasis on the STEM fields, meanwhile ethics, social/political, and aesthetics being covered more by the arts. Of course, plenty of overlap and not black and white.
I keep hearing that about technological innovation, but I fail to see how it relates to the matter at hand. Do you think just because somebody will "lose" 65% or whatever of his income to the state anyway, that person will not still strive to increase his overall income to increase his available money?
At a certain point, I think yes.
Put it another way- sure 50% is semi-arbitrary, but so is any number. How far would you push it? 75%? 90%? Because I think at a certain point, you would stop trying. Or do you think there is no limit to how far you could push that upper tax bracket number before people would stop? Or if there is a limit, what do you think it is?
If I have to make $4000 to increase my income by $2000, that's rough, but I might do it. But if I have to make $4000 to increase my income by $1000... I don't know that I would bother. And if I had to make $4000 in order to increase my income by $400... ain't happening.
I think there's something really nasty any time more than half your money you earn goes to the government who didn't earn it. I'm all for progressive taxes. I think the Canadian progressive tax is wonderful. But I can only go so far down that path.
There should literally be a 95% tax on any income above about a few million per year. Your framing here is dishonest, discussion of raising tax brackets tends to concern income above a certain very high treshold; responding by considering the plight of the middle class is misdirection. Very high income and/or wealth has nothing to do with innovation or contribution to society, if there is a causation at all it is likely the reverse: that very wealthy individuals have a negative effect on society and should ideally have their wealth stripped from them. By and large these people make their money from passive income such as 1. inheritance, 2. dividends. Taxation is one method of achieving the goal of redistribution.
It's a good thing if people are disincentivized from making more than a million or two per year anyway, that's not a 'bug' of a system of extremely high taxation levels for absurdly high income makers, it's a feature. I know that for CEOs and the top income earners, they're not making the most money out of 'salary' but other sources, but for simplicity, let's just pretend that all income is the same. (I know that you can't do this when designing policy, but you can for a philosophical thought experiment aimed at discovering 'what is right and just').
Amazon employs 566,000 people. In 2017, those people had a median salary of $28000. In 2018, Jeff Bezos made $84 billion. That translates to him having made $148409 per employee. I mean, this mostly stems from stocks, which means it fluctuates, which means that sometimes Bezos' income will look significantly lower. But even if you choose the worst time of 2018 to calculate his income, the day he lost $11 billion, you're left with him making $87500 per minute for the entire year. Even the most generous estimates (to him) estimates would leave Jeff Bezos making more than $50000 per employee while those employees had a median salary below $30k for full time work. (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-jeff-bezos-makes-per-minute-2018-12?r=US&IR=T for some of these numbers).
I think this is absolutely abhorrent. It's abhorrent from a moral point of view (nobody deserves a million times more than any other human being), and it's hugely damaging to the social fabric. Society would be far better off if those 566000 people each made $20000 more and Bezos made $11 billion less. If Bezos, or other CEOs knew that they were only gonna get 10% of income above a certain threshold (I'm honestly down for 0%), then from my perspective, what that would lead to would be that workers of the company would be compensated in a fundamentally much more fair and just manner.
If you wanna argue that a doctor should make 3x a nurse, then I disagree with you, I think something like 1.5x-2x is more fair, but I don't really mind or care if someone thinks 3x is more appropriate. From the doctors I know, they're all very well off and none of them are lamenting their situation, so it doesn't seem like it's a social group with a particularly big set of problems. The nurses I know are mostly fine too though. But when people are targeting the ultra-rich, they're not talking about doctors, they're not talking about some people with longer hours, more education, more responsibility making 3x what other people make. They're talking about bosses making more than 100 times average workers. And my honest opinion is that that shit is an absolute perversion. There's nothing fair or just about that, it's just a stupid society rewarding greed in a way that is hugely damaging to the people living in said society.
On May 12 2019 12:07 Bourgeois wrote: Late in replying to a post earlier, but for those who don't think Andrew Yang is relying on the fact that he is Asian, consider this: It fits the exact stereotype that Asians are computer nerds that his main policy relates to Asian nerd stuff. He's the
How is UBI Asian nerd stuff? They trialled it in Norway and had a referendum on it in Switzerland.
Yang is just offering a solution to the issue of AI and automation.It’s good to bring the discussion out but if gaming addict neets think it’ll make them happy they’re only fooling themselves.
I think you are talking about Canada. Or Finland. Who knows, everything is so far north it is hard to know which country is which.
On May 12 2019 12:07 Bourgeois wrote: Late in replying to a post earlier, but for those who don't think Andrew Yang is relying on the fact that he is Asian, consider this: It fits the exact stereotype that Asians are computer nerds that his main policy relates to Asian nerd stuff. He's the
How is UBI Asian nerd stuff? They trialled it in Norway and had a referendum on it in Switzerland.
Yang is just offering a solution to the issue of AI and automation.It’s good to bring the discussion out but if gaming addict neets think it’ll make them happy they’re only fooling themselves.
I think you are talking about Canada. Or Finland. Who knows, everything is so far north it is hard to know which country is which.
On May 12 2019 21:47 Liquid`Drone wrote: It's a good thing if people are disincentivized from making more than a million or two per year anyway, that's not a 'bug' of a system of extremely high taxation levels for absurdly high income makers, it's a feature. I know that for CEOs and the top income earners, they're not making the most money out of 'salary' but other sources, but for simplicity, let's just pretend that all income is the same. (I know that you can't do this when designing policy, but you can for a philosophical thought experiment aimed at discovering 'what is right and just').
Amazon employs 566,000 people. In 2017, those people had a median salary of $28000. In 2018, Jeff Bezos made $84 billion. That translates to him having made $148409 per employee. I mean, this mostly stems from stocks, which means it fluctuates, which means that sometimes Bezos' income will look significantly lower. But even if you choose the worst time of 2018 to calculate his income, the day he lost $11 billion, you're left with him making $87500 per minute for the entire year. Even the most generous estimates (to him) estimates would leave Jeff Bezos making more than $50000 per employee while those employees had a median salary below $30k for full time work. (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-jeff-bezos-makes-per-minute-2018-12?r=US&IR=T for some of these numbers).
I think this is absolutely abhorrent. It's abhorrent from a moral point of view (nobody deserves a million times more than any other human being), and it's hugely damaging to the social fabric. Society would be far better off if those 566000 people each made $20000 more and Bezos made $11 billion less. If Bezos, or other CEOs knew that they were only gonna get 10% of income above a certain threshold (I'm honestly down for 0%), then from my perspective, what that would lead to would be that workers of the company would be compensated in a fundamentally much more fair and just manner.
If you wanna argue that a doctor should make 3x a nurse, then I disagree with you, I think something like 1.5x-2x is more fair, but I don't really mind or care if someone thinks 3x is more appropriate. From the doctors I know, they're all very well off and none of them are lamenting their situation, so it doesn't seem like it's a social group with a particularly big set of problems. The nurses I know are mostly fine too though. But when people are targeting the ultra-rich, they're not talking about doctors, they're not talking about some people with longer hours, more education, more responsibility making 3x what other people make. They're talking about bosses making more than 100 times average workers. And my honest opinion is that that shit is an absolute perversion. There's nothing fair or just about that, it's just a stupid society rewarding greed in a way that is hugely damaging to the people living in said society.
Nothing wrong with that statement. But why does the government feel it should be the one to tax and take the money to distribute as they see fit. I believe there are better ways to make it fair while still letting him earn money.
On May 12 2019 21:47 Liquid`Drone wrote: It's a good thing if people are disincentivized from making more than a million or two per year anyway, that's not a 'bug' of a system of extremely high taxation levels for absurdly high income makers, it's a feature. I know that for CEOs and the top income earners, they're not making the most money out of 'salary' but other sources, but for simplicity, let's just pretend that all income is the same. (I know that you can't do this when designing policy, but you can for a philosophical thought experiment aimed at discovering 'what is right and just').
Amazon employs 566,000 people. In 2017, those people had a median salary of $28000. In 2018, Jeff Bezos made $84 billion. That translates to him having made $148409 per employee. I mean, this mostly stems from stocks, which means it fluctuates, which means that sometimes Bezos' income will look significantly lower. But even if you choose the worst time of 2018 to calculate his income, the day he lost $11 billion, you're left with him making $87500 per minute for the entire year. Even the most generous estimates (to him) estimates would leave Jeff Bezos making more than $50000 per employee while those employees had a median salary below $30k for full time work. (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-jeff-bezos-makes-per-minute-2018-12?r=US&IR=T for some of these numbers).
I think this is absolutely abhorrent. It's abhorrent from a moral point of view (nobody deserves a million times more than any other human being), and it's hugely damaging to the social fabric. Society would be far better off if those 566000 people each made $20000 more and Bezos made $11 billion less. If Bezos, or other CEOs knew that they were only gonna get 10% of income above a certain threshold (I'm honestly down for 0%), then from my perspective, what that would lead to would be that workers of the company would be compensated in a fundamentally much more fair and just manner.
If you wanna argue that a doctor should make 3x a nurse, then I disagree with you, I think something like 1.5x-2x is more fair, but I don't really mind or care if someone thinks 3x is more appropriate. From the doctors I know, they're all very well off and none of them are lamenting their situation, so it doesn't seem like it's a social group with a particularly big set of problems. The nurses I know are mostly fine too though. But when people are targeting the ultra-rich, they're not talking about doctors, they're not talking about some people with longer hours, more education, more responsibility making 3x what other people make. They're talking about bosses making more than 100 times average workers. And my honest opinion is that that shit is an absolute perversion. There's nothing fair or just about that, it's just a stupid society rewarding greed in a way that is hugely damaging to the people living in said society.
Nothing wrong with that statement. But why does the government feel it should be the one to tax and take the money to distribute as they see fit. I believe there are better ways to make it fair while still letting him earn money.
What alternative exists to the government taking up the responsibility of taxation and investment in the commons? The United States federal government is one of the only democratically accountable organizations with sufficient bargaining power to check private wealth that exists in the world. Despite the corporate capture of the government, which is more or less inherent in its design, it still has some democratic legitimancy and is sometimes able to pass reforms that have popular support. Corruption is more endemic at state and municipal levels than in the federal government (many exceptions exist obviously). And any suggestion such as voluntary taxation or fully privatized infrastructure is a libertarian fantasy that's failed every time it has been tried in the real world.
Well drone what do you propose - with high taxes you instead give the money to be redistributed by few Individuals. That's why communism has never worked and never will - it relies on redistribution of wealth by a few individuals instead of the power of the market, it's always been a disaster sooner or later.
You need these psychopathic overachievers to drive ideas and companies, the vast wealth incentives them to do so, thrust them into crap like communism where everyone is "equal" but really isn't at all and they'll get into power abuse instead
On May 12 2019 21:47 Liquid`Drone wrote: It's a good thing if people are disincentivized from making more than a million or two per year anyway, that's not a 'bug' of a system of extremely high taxation levels for absurdly high income makers, it's a feature. I know that for CEOs and the top income earners, they're not making the most money out of 'salary' but other sources, but for simplicity, let's just pretend that all income is the same. (I know that you can't do this when designing policy, but you can for a philosophical thought experiment aimed at discovering 'what is right and just').
Amazon employs 566,000 people. In 2017, those people had a median salary of $28000. In 2018, Jeff Bezos made $84 billion. That translates to him having made $148409 per employee. I mean, this mostly stems from stocks, which means it fluctuates, which means that sometimes Bezos' income will look significantly lower. But even if you choose the worst time of 2018 to calculate his income, the day he lost $11 billion, you're left with him making $87500 per minute for the entire year. Even the most generous estimates (to him) estimates would leave Jeff Bezos making more than $50000 per employee while those employees had a median salary below $30k for full time work. (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-jeff-bezos-makes-per-minute-2018-12?r=US&IR=T for some of these numbers).
I think this is absolutely abhorrent. It's abhorrent from a moral point of view (nobody deserves a million times more than any other human being), and it's hugely damaging to the social fabric. Society would be far better off if those 566000 people each made $20000 more and Bezos made $11 billion less. If Bezos, or other CEOs knew that they were only gonna get 10% of income above a certain threshold (I'm honestly down for 0%), then from my perspective, what that would lead to would be that workers of the company would be compensated in a fundamentally much more fair and just manner.
If you wanna argue that a doctor should make 3x a nurse, then I disagree with you, I think something like 1.5x-2x is more fair, but I don't really mind or care if someone thinks 3x is more appropriate. From the doctors I know, they're all very well off and none of them are lamenting their situation, so it doesn't seem like it's a social group with a particularly big set of problems. The nurses I know are mostly fine too though. But when people are targeting the ultra-rich, they're not talking about doctors, they're not talking about some people with longer hours, more education, more responsibility making 3x what other people make. They're talking about bosses making more than 100 times average workers. And my honest opinion is that that shit is an absolute perversion. There's nothing fair or just about that, it's just a stupid society rewarding greed in a way that is hugely damaging to the people living in said society.
Nothing wrong with that statement. But why does the government feel it should be the one to tax and take the money to distribute as they see fit. I believe there are better ways to make it fair while still letting him earn money.
What alternative exists to the government taking up the responsibility of taxation and investment in the commons? The United States federal government is one of the only democratically accountable organizations with sufficient bargaining power to check private wealth that exists in the world. Despite the corporate capture of the government, which is more or less inherent in its design, it still has some democratic legitimancy and is sometimes able to pass reforms that have popular support. Corruption is more endemic at state and municipal levels than in the federal government (many exceptions exist obviously). And any suggestion such as voluntary taxation or fully privatized infrastructure is a libertarian fantasy that's failed every time it has been tried in the real world.
I understand your point and it is a reasoned argument among many which is why its tough to pick the right one. As someone who is against raising the income tax, I would be totally on board with excluding tax exemptions from the highest tax bracket. Wouldn't it be great if we at least knew that the wealthiest bracket was paying 100% of what is owed. Then we wouldn't need to gripe about tax returns being public and we would get more money from them.
On May 12 2019 12:07 Bourgeois wrote: Late in replying to a post earlier, but for those who don't think Andrew Yang is relying on the fact that he is Asian, consider this: It fits the exact stereotype that Asians are computer nerds that his main policy relates to Asian nerd stuff. He's the
How is UBI Asian nerd stuff? They trialled it in Norway and had a referendum on it in Switzerland.
Yang is just offering a solution to the issue of AI and automation.It’s good to bring the discussion out but if gaming addict neets think it’ll make them happy they’re only fooling themselves.
I think you are talking about Canada. Or Finland. Who knows, everything is so far north it is hard to know which country is which.
Eh, barely. I like most of what Andrew Yang says about UBI, but it makes me cringe when he says Alaska has been doing it for years as any sort of argument for it being "successful". There are no meaningful Alaskan results, because the amount isn't substantial. Alaska has been paying people like a thousand bucks per year, a far cry from the $1,000+ per month Yang (and most UBI advocates) promote. A thousand dollars every 365 days isn't even remotely close to a basic income... it's basically a week and a half of the championed $15/hour minimum wage goal, or 3 weeks at a $7.50 40-hour work week.
On May 14 2019 02:53 Bourgeois wrote: Just saw Tim Ryan on Bill Maher. Does this guy even believe in himself? If he can't handle a TV host, he can't handle a debate against Trump:
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/O9uCPBt.jpg)
