|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States24757 Posts
On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:On July 20 2024 13:58 KT_Elwood wrote:
The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way.
That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine.Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. They actually are it is called math.
It's mathematical, and you could say it's applied math, but learning math does not mean you understand finance, budgeting, credit card specific applications, etc. You do need to learn math in order to learn the other stuff, but to say students are learning the other stuff because they learn math is misguided.
Although some schools actually do cover some of those topics, but I think it's fair to say more could be done overall.
|
On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:
Also can people please stop using phrase "redistribution of wealth" and call it for what it is: "Stealing"
Does this also apply to policies which redistribute wealth to the rich?
|
On July 21 2024 04:12 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:On July 20 2024 13:58 KT_Elwood wrote:
The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way.
That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine.Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. They actually are it is called math. It's mathematical, and you could say it's applied math, but learning math does not mean you understand finance, budgeting, credit card specific applications, etc. You do need to learn math in order to learn the other stuff, but to say students are learning the other stuff because they learn math is misguided. Although some schools actually do cover some of those topics, but I think it's fair to say more could be done overall.
I am not saying that students learning other stuff because they learn math. I am saying that math itself is plenty enough (I am talking about household budget, not running hedge fund, bank or being economist).
For home budgeting you dont need to understand finance(s? not sure which will be proper?) do you?
You have this amount of money - regular expenses, then decide what you want to do with the rest. As for the credit cards application, you read the agreement if you have any questions 15 minutes on google is plenty enough.
Edit:
On July 21 2024 04:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:
Also can people please stop using phrase "redistribution of wealth" and call it for what it is: "Stealing"
Does this also apply to policies which redistribute wealth to the rich?
I dont see a difference.
|
Northern Ireland26359 Posts
On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:On July 20 2024 13:58 KT_Elwood wrote:
The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way.
That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine.Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. They actually are it is called math. Show nested quote +On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 04:21 KobraKay wrote:On July 20 2024 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 03:07 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 20 2024 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does that sound problematic for them or you? For them, I'd say. I can try to adjust my expectations but Swedish IT industry suffers a bit because of it. Talented developers who want more money have to leave Swedish IT market. People who are ok with their salary ceiling here have less incentives to improve/grow. As soon as the pandemic made remote jobs much more popular and available, the average competence in the company I work at dropped pretty significantly - many best devs got another job somewhere else, often abroad (they didn't move). Where I'm from we used to joke about Swedish software developers - while good ones are as good as any, the average ones were far worse than our average. Sometimes we couldn't understand how this or that guy even got this job. I might be wrong but now I think this is because there are not many incentives for them to put in a lot of effort to improve - they're ok with what they have and they don't think the reward for extra effort is worth it. Seems the "suffering" is worth it and their society is better off, else you'd be making plans to go back to where they made fun of people like you/your coworkers. How is it better for society when the best and brightest move elsewhere because of it? Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job. Moreover, zero said they arent going back because their wife likes the city. That is a very important piece of it that is completely detached of that payment structure. So im not really following your conclusion. It sounds like Zero, their wife, and Swedes in general have realized there's more to being happy and fulfilled than just maximizing "productivity" (especially "productivity" measured by profit sans externalities) and monetary remuneration while embracing the society developed concurrently with that general concept. Also worth noting the "best and brightest" didn't leave Sweden. You didnt address actually important part: "Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job." Which is actually brutally correct and is exactly what socialism leads to. It is also one of the reasons for saying: "Only people who never lived in socialism want socialism" Regarding topic of inheritance tax mentioned earlier in this thread, I am sorry but I didnt work my a.. off my entire life so government can reap the fruits of my work, I did it so my kids have better start in life. So if any inheritance will be set which i am not a fan of I'll simply move for my last few years to a country with more reasonable government and sort the issue there. Also can people please stop using phrase "redistribution of wealth" and call it for what it is: "Stealing"
Stealing what? Even if you’re some go-getting entrepreneur, every employee you’re using to expand your empire was likely educated on the government dime
Most inheritance taxes I’ve ever encountered don’t remotely wipe out your wealth anyway, the kids who have wealthy parents still have a huge leg up over their peers who do not. You can still pass on plenty of it, just not all of it.
Regular taxation takes far more proportionally of earnings of the poor than wealth taxes do from the rich. Should we just get rid of taxation entirely?
|
United States43675 Posts
On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:On July 20 2024 13:58 KT_Elwood wrote:
The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way.
That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine.Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. They actually are it is called math. Show nested quote +On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 04:21 KobraKay wrote:On July 20 2024 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 03:07 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 20 2024 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does that sound problematic for them or you? For them, I'd say. I can try to adjust my expectations but Swedish IT industry suffers a bit because of it. Talented developers who want more money have to leave Swedish IT market. People who are ok with their salary ceiling here have less incentives to improve/grow. As soon as the pandemic made remote jobs much more popular and available, the average competence in the company I work at dropped pretty significantly - many best devs got another job somewhere else, often abroad (they didn't move). Where I'm from we used to joke about Swedish software developers - while good ones are as good as any, the average ones were far worse than our average. Sometimes we couldn't understand how this or that guy even got this job. I might be wrong but now I think this is because there are not many incentives for them to put in a lot of effort to improve - they're ok with what they have and they don't think the reward for extra effort is worth it. Seems the "suffering" is worth it and their society is better off, else you'd be making plans to go back to where they made fun of people like you/your coworkers. How is it better for society when the best and brightest move elsewhere because of it? Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job. Moreover, zero said they arent going back because their wife likes the city. That is a very important piece of it that is completely detached of that payment structure. So im not really following your conclusion. It sounds like Zero, their wife, and Swedes in general have realized there's more to being happy and fulfilled than just maximizing "productivity" (especially "productivity" measured by profit sans externalities) and monetary remuneration while embracing the society developed concurrently with that general concept. Also worth noting the "best and brightest" didn't leave Sweden. You didnt address actually important part: "Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job." Which is actually brutally correct and is exactly what socialism leads to. It is also one of the reasons for saying: "Only people who never lived in socialism want socialism" Regarding topic of inheritance tax mentioned earlier in this thread, I am sorry but I didnt work my a.. off my entire life so government can reap the fruits of my work, I did it so my kids have better start in life. So if any inheritance will be set which i am not a fan of I'll simply move for my last few years to a country with more reasonable government and sort the issue there. Also can people please stop using phrase "redistribution of wealth" and call it for what it is: "Stealing"
Your moving plan doesn’t work. The IRS thought of that.
Also taxes over your dead body are far preferable to taxes while you’re alive.
Also the government needs money, they have to tax something. They can either tax your kid’s income, taking away some of his hard earned paycheck and disincentivizing being a productive member of society, or they can tax the unearned airdropped windfall. One is clearly better.
Taxes work to encourage things that are tax advantaged, like saving for retirement, and discourage things that are social harms, like alcohol consumption. Inheritance taxes are a way better plan than income taxes.
|
On July 21 2024 04:32 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:On July 20 2024 13:58 KT_Elwood wrote:
The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way.
That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine.Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. They actually are it is called math. On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 04:21 KobraKay wrote:On July 20 2024 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 03:07 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 20 2024 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does that sound problematic for them or you? For them, I'd say. I can try to adjust my expectations but Swedish IT industry suffers a bit because of it. Talented developers who want more money have to leave Swedish IT market. People who are ok with their salary ceiling here have less incentives to improve/grow. As soon as the pandemic made remote jobs much more popular and available, the average competence in the company I work at dropped pretty significantly - many best devs got another job somewhere else, often abroad (they didn't move). Where I'm from we used to joke about Swedish software developers - while good ones are as good as any, the average ones were far worse than our average. Sometimes we couldn't understand how this or that guy even got this job. I might be wrong but now I think this is because there are not many incentives for them to put in a lot of effort to improve - they're ok with what they have and they don't think the reward for extra effort is worth it. Seems the "suffering" is worth it and their society is better off, else you'd be making plans to go back to where they made fun of people like you/your coworkers. How is it better for society when the best and brightest move elsewhere because of it? Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job. Moreover, zero said they arent going back because their wife likes the city. That is a very important piece of it that is completely detached of that payment structure. So im not really following your conclusion. It sounds like Zero, their wife, and Swedes in general have realized there's more to being happy and fulfilled than just maximizing "productivity" (especially "productivity" measured by profit sans externalities) and monetary remuneration while embracing the society developed concurrently with that general concept. Also worth noting the "best and brightest" didn't leave Sweden. You didnt address actually important part: "Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job." Which is actually brutally correct and is exactly what socialism leads to. It is also one of the reasons for saying: "Only people who never lived in socialism want socialism" Regarding topic of inheritance tax mentioned earlier in this thread, I am sorry but I didnt work my a.. off my entire life so government can reap the fruits of my work, I did it so my kids have better start in life. So if any inheritance will be set which i am not a fan of I'll simply move for my last few years to a country with more reasonable government and sort the issue there. Also can people please stop using phrase "redistribution of wealth" and call it for what it is: "Stealing" Stealing what? Even if you’re some go-getting entrepreneur, every employee you’re using to expand your empire was likely educated on the government dime Most inheritance taxes I’ve ever encountered don’t remotely wipe out your wealth anyway, the kids who have wealthy parents still have a huge leg up over their peers who do not. You can still pass on plenty of it, just not all of it.
Regular taxation takes far more proportionally of earnings of the poor than wealth taxes do from the rich. Should we just get rid of taxation entirely?
Bolded - There is no such thing as government dime, it seems like some people dont understand that, government doesn't earn money. It is taxpayers money and so if you pay taxes you can and should call it even.
Italic- pass this wealth enough times and it is wiped away, besides my money are already taxed plenty arent they?
Income tax, investment tax, vat and after all those they are going to be taxed again after i die (they obviously will, but it depends how much)
Bolded2 - if it were possible I am all for it  (TBH I think vast majority of the population would love that, may be good idea for the referendum )
|
United States24757 Posts
On July 21 2024 04:26 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 04:12 micronesia wrote:On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:On July 20 2024 13:58 KT_Elwood wrote:
The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way.
That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine.Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. They actually are it is called math. It's mathematical, and you could say it's applied math, but learning math does not mean you understand finance, budgeting, credit card specific applications, etc. You do need to learn math in order to learn the other stuff, but to say students are learning the other stuff because they learn math is misguided. Although some schools actually do cover some of those topics, but I think it's fair to say more could be done overall. I am not saying that students learning other stuff because they learn math. I am saying that math itself is plenty enough (I am talking about household budget, not running hedge fund, bank or being economist). For home budgeting you dont need to understand finance(s? not sure which will be proper?) do you? You have this amount of money - regular expenses, then decide what you want to do with the rest. As for the credit cards application, you read the agreement if you have any questions 15 minutes on google is plenty enough.
Quite a few decades of evidence show us that studying math in K-12 does not apparently result in financial literacy, especially in the context of modern society's rules and norms. How to apply the math to real life, especially in these money-related areas, is not as trivial as you make it out to be. It doesn't require a phd in the subject, but it does require some exploration that most people won't do unless guided, and K-12 is the best place to start that.
|
Northern Ireland26359 Posts
On July 21 2024 04:44 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 04:32 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:On July 20 2024 13:58 KT_Elwood wrote:
The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way.
That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine.Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. They actually are it is called math. On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 04:21 KobraKay wrote:On July 20 2024 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 03:07 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 20 2024 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does that sound problematic for them or you? For them, I'd say. I can try to adjust my expectations but Swedish IT industry suffers a bit because of it. Talented developers who want more money have to leave Swedish IT market. People who are ok with their salary ceiling here have less incentives to improve/grow. As soon as the pandemic made remote jobs much more popular and available, the average competence in the company I work at dropped pretty significantly - many best devs got another job somewhere else, often abroad (they didn't move). Where I'm from we used to joke about Swedish software developers - while good ones are as good as any, the average ones were far worse than our average. Sometimes we couldn't understand how this or that guy even got this job. I might be wrong but now I think this is because there are not many incentives for them to put in a lot of effort to improve - they're ok with what they have and they don't think the reward for extra effort is worth it. Seems the "suffering" is worth it and their society is better off, else you'd be making plans to go back to where they made fun of people like you/your coworkers. How is it better for society when the best and brightest move elsewhere because of it? Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job. Moreover, zero said they arent going back because their wife likes the city. That is a very important piece of it that is completely detached of that payment structure. So im not really following your conclusion. It sounds like Zero, their wife, and Swedes in general have realized there's more to being happy and fulfilled than just maximizing "productivity" (especially "productivity" measured by profit sans externalities) and monetary remuneration while embracing the society developed concurrently with that general concept. Also worth noting the "best and brightest" didn't leave Sweden. You didnt address actually important part: "Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job." Which is actually brutally correct and is exactly what socialism leads to. It is also one of the reasons for saying: "Only people who never lived in socialism want socialism" Regarding topic of inheritance tax mentioned earlier in this thread, I am sorry but I didnt work my a.. off my entire life so government can reap the fruits of my work, I did it so my kids have better start in life. So if any inheritance will be set which i am not a fan of I'll simply move for my last few years to a country with more reasonable government and sort the issue there. Also can people please stop using phrase "redistribution of wealth" and call it for what it is: "Stealing" Stealing what? Even if you’re some go-getting entrepreneur, every employee you’re using to expand your empire was likely educated on the government dime Most inheritance taxes I’ve ever encountered don’t remotely wipe out your wealth anyway, the kids who have wealthy parents still have a huge leg up over their peers who do not. You can still pass on plenty of it, just not all of it.
Regular taxation takes far more proportionally of earnings of the poor than wealth taxes do from the rich. Should we just get rid of taxation entirely? Bolded - There is no such thing as government dime, it seems like some people dont understand that, government doesn't earn money. It is taxpayers money and so if you pay taxes you can and should call it even. Italic- pass this wealth enough times and it is wiped away, besides my money are already taxed plenty arent they? Income tax, investment tax, vat and after all those they are going to be taxed again after i die (they obviously will, but it depends how much) Bolded2 - if it were possible I am all for it (TBH I think vast majority of the population would love that, may be good idea for the referendum )
I’m sure the population would, and then said same population would bitch if the state didn’t deliver certain services they need funded via taxation.
|
On July 21 2024 04:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:On July 20 2024 13:58 KT_Elwood wrote:
The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way.
That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine.Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. They actually are it is called math. On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 04:21 KobraKay wrote:On July 20 2024 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 03:07 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 20 2024 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does that sound problematic for them or you? For them, I'd say. I can try to adjust my expectations but Swedish IT industry suffers a bit because of it. Talented developers who want more money have to leave Swedish IT market. People who are ok with their salary ceiling here have less incentives to improve/grow. As soon as the pandemic made remote jobs much more popular and available, the average competence in the company I work at dropped pretty significantly - many best devs got another job somewhere else, often abroad (they didn't move). Where I'm from we used to joke about Swedish software developers - while good ones are as good as any, the average ones were far worse than our average. Sometimes we couldn't understand how this or that guy even got this job. I might be wrong but now I think this is because there are not many incentives for them to put in a lot of effort to improve - they're ok with what they have and they don't think the reward for extra effort is worth it. Seems the "suffering" is worth it and their society is better off, else you'd be making plans to go back to where they made fun of people like you/your coworkers. How is it better for society when the best and brightest move elsewhere because of it? Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job. Moreover, zero said they arent going back because their wife likes the city. That is a very important piece of it that is completely detached of that payment structure. So im not really following your conclusion. It sounds like Zero, their wife, and Swedes in general have realized there's more to being happy and fulfilled than just maximizing "productivity" (especially "productivity" measured by profit sans externalities) and monetary remuneration while embracing the society developed concurrently with that general concept. Also worth noting the "best and brightest" didn't leave Sweden. You didnt address actually important part: "Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job." Which is actually brutally correct and is exactly what socialism leads to. It is also one of the reasons for saying: "Only people who never lived in socialism want socialism" Regarding topic of inheritance tax mentioned earlier in this thread, I am sorry but I didnt work my a.. off my entire life so government can reap the fruits of my work, I did it so my kids have better start in life. So if any inheritance will be set which i am not a fan of I'll simply move for my last few years to a country with more reasonable government and sort the issue there. Also can people please stop using phrase "redistribution of wealth" and call it for what it is: "Stealing" Your moving plan doesn’t work. The IRS thought of that.Also taxes over your dead body are far preferable to taxes while you’re alive.Also the government needs money, they have to tax something. They can either tax your kid’s income, taking away some of his hard earned paycheck and disincentivizing being a productive member of society, or they can tax the unearned airdropped windfall. One is clearly better.Taxes work to encourage things that are tax advantaged, like saving for retirement, and discourage things that are social harms, like alcohol consumption. Inheritance taxes are a way better plan than income taxes.
bolded - I wouldnt go "давай" on that, would go through bunch of accountants, also probably bunch of cash/gold and such.
Italic - dunno, I dont spend much myself, so as long as taxes are reasonable I dont have much problem with them, however I dont know how my kids will do by themselves once I am gone, hence goal is to leave them as secure as possible.
Bolded 2 - and inheritance will help against consequences of first option, as for second option: What do you mean unearned?? I am earned/ing them, they are also already taxed.
|
On July 21 2024 04:26 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 04:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:
Also can people please stop using phrase "redistribution of wealth" and call it for what it is: "Stealing"
Does this also apply to policies which redistribute wealth to the rich? I dont see a difference.
Okay.
So every time the government adjusts its tax rate, that is stealing.
Do you have any idea just how many government policies every year redistribute wealth in some form or another? This redistribution of wealth is not an unintentional consequence of legislation, it is the entire point.
Is government theft?
|
I hate the idea of taxation being theft but massive inheritance tax sounds unfair to me. It makes the state look like a jackal waiting to pounce on your wealth once you're no longer able to protect it. The goal should be to tax those disproportionately rich people adequately when they're alive instead of targeting the results of their success in a dysfunctional system.
|
United States43675 Posts
On July 21 2024 04:44 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 04:32 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:On July 20 2024 13:58 KT_Elwood wrote:
The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way.
That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine.Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. They actually are it is called math. On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 04:21 KobraKay wrote:On July 20 2024 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 03:07 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 20 2024 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does that sound problematic for them or you? For them, I'd say. I can try to adjust my expectations but Swedish IT industry suffers a bit because of it. Talented developers who want more money have to leave Swedish IT market. People who are ok with their salary ceiling here have less incentives to improve/grow. As soon as the pandemic made remote jobs much more popular and available, the average competence in the company I work at dropped pretty significantly - many best devs got another job somewhere else, often abroad (they didn't move). Where I'm from we used to joke about Swedish software developers - while good ones are as good as any, the average ones were far worse than our average. Sometimes we couldn't understand how this or that guy even got this job. I might be wrong but now I think this is because there are not many incentives for them to put in a lot of effort to improve - they're ok with what they have and they don't think the reward for extra effort is worth it. Seems the "suffering" is worth it and their society is better off, else you'd be making plans to go back to where they made fun of people like you/your coworkers. How is it better for society when the best and brightest move elsewhere because of it? Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job. Moreover, zero said they arent going back because their wife likes the city. That is a very important piece of it that is completely detached of that payment structure. So im not really following your conclusion. It sounds like Zero, their wife, and Swedes in general have realized there's more to being happy and fulfilled than just maximizing "productivity" (especially "productivity" measured by profit sans externalities) and monetary remuneration while embracing the society developed concurrently with that general concept. Also worth noting the "best and brightest" didn't leave Sweden. You didnt address actually important part: "Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job." Which is actually brutally correct and is exactly what socialism leads to. It is also one of the reasons for saying: "Only people who never lived in socialism want socialism" Regarding topic of inheritance tax mentioned earlier in this thread, I am sorry but I didnt work my a.. off my entire life so government can reap the fruits of my work, I did it so my kids have better start in life. So if any inheritance will be set which i am not a fan of I'll simply move for my last few years to a country with more reasonable government and sort the issue there. Also can people please stop using phrase "redistribution of wealth" and call it for what it is: "Stealing" Stealing what? Even if you’re some go-getting entrepreneur, every employee you’re using to expand your empire was likely educated on the government dime Most inheritance taxes I’ve ever encountered don’t remotely wipe out your wealth anyway, the kids who have wealthy parents still have a huge leg up over their peers who do not. You can still pass on plenty of it, just not all of it.
Regular taxation takes far more proportionally of earnings of the poor than wealth taxes do from the rich. Should we just get rid of taxation entirely? Bolded - There is no such thing as government dime, it seems like some people dont understand that, government doesn't earn money. It is taxpayers money and so if you pay taxes you can and should call it even. Italic- pass this wealth enough times and it is wiped away, besides my money are already taxed plenty arent they? Income tax, investment tax, vat and after all those they are going to be taxed again after i die (they obviously will, but it depends how much) Bolded2 - if it were possible I am all for it (TBH I think vast majority of the population would love that, may be good idea for the referendum )
You’re a few layers below in understanding, not above. It’s not that other people don’t understand that government money is taken from people. It’s you that don’t understand that the money itself is inseparable from the idea of government.
|
Norway28761 Posts
Firstly pretty much everyone who argues for inheritance taxes also argues for a big cutoff. Even the plan suggested by the Communist party of Norway would let you inherit a million dollars untaxed.
Secondly for every capitalist with a professed love for the self made man (and I never see people argue for capitalism because they profess a love for aristocracies), inheritance taxes (with a high cutoff) should be the least objectionable form of taxation there is. I'm honestly supportive, in theory, of 100% above say, $5 million. And if this makes people accumulate less because then they have no reason to accumulate more, that's a benefit, not a loss.
*I'm not running for office but if I were, I'd look at how to best balance the desire for an aggressive inheritance tax with family run companies because I can see how those have some appeal. But looking at a list of the 30 richest Norwegians under 30 years, a group with between $50 million and $2.6 billion, not one of them is remotely self made, they all inherited their wealth. I really can't see the benefit.
|
And if this makes people accumulate less because then they have no reason to accumulate more, that's a benefit, not a loss.
Do you consider that a radical opinion or something most of non far-right people believe?
|
On July 21 2024 06:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Firstly pretty much everyone who argues for inheritance taxes also argues for a big cutoff. Even the plan suggested by the Communist party of Norway would let you inherit a million dollars untaxed.
Secondly for every capitalist with a professed love for the self made man (and I never see people argue for capitalism because they profess a love for aristocracies), inheritance taxes (with a high cutoff) should be the least objectionable form of taxation there is. I'm honestly supportive, in theory, of 100% above say, $5 million. And if this makes people accumulate less because then they have no reason to accumulate more, that's a benefit, not a loss.
*I'm not running for office but if I were, I'd look at how to best balance the desire for an aggressive inheritance tax with family run companies because I can see how those have some appeal. But looking at a list of the 30 richest Norwegians under 30 years, a group with between $50 million and $2.6 billion, not one of them is remotely self made, they all inherited their wealth. I really can't see the benefit.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/19/the-myth-of-meritocracy-who-really-gets-what-they-deserve
This is a fantastic article about meritocracy which is tangentially related to this conversation.
One the main points is that over time, due almost solely to inheritance, generations of wealthy families can concentrate more and more wealth and power, and end up in a position to be able to influence those who make the rules around inheritance, and meritocracy dies as a result. You end up with incapable people in positions of massive wealth, power and influence while the more capable masses struggle to live.
You only have to look at the presidential race in the US.
|
Northern Ireland26359 Posts
On July 21 2024 06:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Firstly pretty much everyone who argues for inheritance taxes also argues for a big cutoff. Even the plan suggested by the Communist party of Norway would let you inherit a million dollars untaxed.
Secondly for every capitalist with a professed love for the self made man (and I never see people argue for capitalism because they profess a love for aristocracies), inheritance taxes (with a high cutoff) should be the least objectionable form of taxation there is. I'm honestly supportive, in theory, of 100% above say, $5 million. And if this makes people accumulate less because then they have no reason to accumulate more, that's a benefit, not a loss.
*I'm not running for office but if I were, I'd look at how to best balance the desire for an aggressive inheritance tax with family run companies because I can see how those have some appeal. But looking at a list of the 30 richest Norwegians under 30 years, a group with between $50 million and $2.6 billion, not one of them is remotely self made, they all inherited their wealth. I really can't see the benefit.
Indeed, even with relatively stringent cutoffs, almost nobody on this website, if indeed anyone would actually be subject to a wealth tax.
And we have some really smart, really skilled professionals quite far up the hierarchy of their chosen fields.
The kind of wealth that relatively milquetoast proposals around the globe even put forward as a windfall wealth tax isn’t even a tax on the 1%, it’s even less still.
|
Northern Ireland26359 Posts
On July 21 2024 06:29 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +And if this makes people accumulate less because then they have no reason to accumulate more, that's a benefit, not a loss. Do you consider that a radical opinion or something most of non far-right people believe?
If x rich person is continually reinvesting into their companies, growing them, hiring more people etc then I’d imagine many people are largely OK with that.
If they’re just accumulating wealth, registering holdings in tax havens (as many in the UK do) and that wealth doesn’t recirculate, then I’d imagine no.
|
On July 21 2024 07:21 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 06:29 Sent. wrote:And if this makes people accumulate less because then they have no reason to accumulate more, that's a benefit, not a loss. Do you consider that a radical opinion or something most of non far-right people believe? If x rich person is continually reinvesting into their companies, growing them, hiring more people etc then I’d imagine many people are largely OK with that. If they’re just accumulating wealth, registering holdings in tax havens (as many in the UK do) and that wealth doesn’t recirculate, then I’d imagine no.
It doesn't work like his. You get/stay turborich by having lots of money and reinvesting whenever possible. Hoarding money is something you do only when there are no other options, like when the market is crashing and you need to wait the bad times out.
|
On July 21 2024 06:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 04:44 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 04:32 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:On July 20 2024 13:58 KT_Elwood wrote:
The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way.
That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine.Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. They actually are it is called math. On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 04:21 KobraKay wrote:On July 20 2024 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 03:07 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 20 2024 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does that sound problematic for them or you? For them, I'd say. I can try to adjust my expectations but Swedish IT industry suffers a bit because of it. Talented developers who want more money have to leave Swedish IT market. People who are ok with their salary ceiling here have less incentives to improve/grow. As soon as the pandemic made remote jobs much more popular and available, the average competence in the company I work at dropped pretty significantly - many best devs got another job somewhere else, often abroad (they didn't move). Where I'm from we used to joke about Swedish software developers - while good ones are as good as any, the average ones were far worse than our average. Sometimes we couldn't understand how this or that guy even got this job. I might be wrong but now I think this is because there are not many incentives for them to put in a lot of effort to improve - they're ok with what they have and they don't think the reward for extra effort is worth it. Seems the "suffering" is worth it and their society is better off, else you'd be making plans to go back to where they made fun of people like you/your coworkers. How is it better for society when the best and brightest move elsewhere because of it? Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job. Moreover, zero said they arent going back because their wife likes the city. That is a very important piece of it that is completely detached of that payment structure. So im not really following your conclusion. It sounds like Zero, their wife, and Swedes in general have realized there's more to being happy and fulfilled than just maximizing "productivity" (especially "productivity" measured by profit sans externalities) and monetary remuneration while embracing the society developed concurrently with that general concept. Also worth noting the "best and brightest" didn't leave Sweden. You didnt address actually important part: "Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job." Which is actually brutally correct and is exactly what socialism leads to. It is also one of the reasons for saying: "Only people who never lived in socialism want socialism" Regarding topic of inheritance tax mentioned earlier in this thread, I am sorry but I didnt work my a.. off my entire life so government can reap the fruits of my work, I did it so my kids have better start in life. So if any inheritance will be set which i am not a fan of I'll simply move for my last few years to a country with more reasonable government and sort the issue there. Also can people please stop using phrase "redistribution of wealth" and call it for what it is: "Stealing" Stealing what? Even if you’re some go-getting entrepreneur, every employee you’re using to expand your empire was likely educated on the government dime Most inheritance taxes I’ve ever encountered don’t remotely wipe out your wealth anyway, the kids who have wealthy parents still have a huge leg up over their peers who do not. You can still pass on plenty of it, just not all of it.
Regular taxation takes far more proportionally of earnings of the poor than wealth taxes do from the rich. Should we just get rid of taxation entirely? Bolded - There is no such thing as government dime, it seems like some people dont understand that, government doesn't earn money. It is taxpayers money and so if you pay taxes you can and should call it even. Italic- pass this wealth enough times and it is wiped away, besides my money are already taxed plenty arent they? Income tax, investment tax, vat and after all those they are going to be taxed again after i die (they obviously will, but it depends how much) Bolded2 - if it were possible I am all for it (TBH I think vast majority of the population would love that, may be good idea for the referendum ) You’re a few layers below in understanding, not above. It’s not that other people don’t understand that government money is taken from people. It’s you that don’t understand that the money itself is inseparable from the idea of government.
I think you misunderstood. It was response to part of the Wombat post where he seems to suggest that entrepreneur own something to government because it provided education for his employees. The money for education came from, so to speak, pot to which aforementioned entrepreneur contributed and still contributes hence there is no debt. If the money used for education were taken directly from governments pockets (eg from ministers salary or such) he would have a point, as it is he doesnt.
|
United States43675 Posts
On July 21 2024 07:38 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 06:11 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2024 04:44 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 04:32 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:On July 20 2024 13:58 KT_Elwood wrote:
The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way.
That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine.Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. They actually are it is called math. On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 04:21 KobraKay wrote:On July 20 2024 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 03:07 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 20 2024 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does that sound problematic for them or you? For them, I'd say. I can try to adjust my expectations but Swedish IT industry suffers a bit because of it. Talented developers who want more money have to leave Swedish IT market. People who are ok with their salary ceiling here have less incentives to improve/grow. As soon as the pandemic made remote jobs much more popular and available, the average competence in the company I work at dropped pretty significantly - many best devs got another job somewhere else, often abroad (they didn't move). Where I'm from we used to joke about Swedish software developers - while good ones are as good as any, the average ones were far worse than our average. Sometimes we couldn't understand how this or that guy even got this job. I might be wrong but now I think this is because there are not many incentives for them to put in a lot of effort to improve - they're ok with what they have and they don't think the reward for extra effort is worth it. Seems the "suffering" is worth it and their society is better off, else you'd be making plans to go back to where they made fun of people like you/your coworkers. How is it better for society when the best and brightest move elsewhere because of it? Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job. Moreover, zero said they arent going back because their wife likes the city. That is a very important piece of it that is completely detached of that payment structure. So im not really following your conclusion. It sounds like Zero, their wife, and Swedes in general have realized there's more to being happy and fulfilled than just maximizing "productivity" (especially "productivity" measured by profit sans externalities) and monetary remuneration while embracing the society developed concurrently with that general concept. Also worth noting the "best and brightest" didn't leave Sweden. You didnt address actually important part: "Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job." Which is actually brutally correct and is exactly what socialism leads to. It is also one of the reasons for saying: "Only people who never lived in socialism want socialism" Regarding topic of inheritance tax mentioned earlier in this thread, I am sorry but I didnt work my a.. off my entire life so government can reap the fruits of my work, I did it so my kids have better start in life. So if any inheritance will be set which i am not a fan of I'll simply move for my last few years to a country with more reasonable government and sort the issue there. Also can people please stop using phrase "redistribution of wealth" and call it for what it is: "Stealing" Stealing what? Even if you’re some go-getting entrepreneur, every employee you’re using to expand your empire was likely educated on the government dime Most inheritance taxes I’ve ever encountered don’t remotely wipe out your wealth anyway, the kids who have wealthy parents still have a huge leg up over their peers who do not. You can still pass on plenty of it, just not all of it.
Regular taxation takes far more proportionally of earnings of the poor than wealth taxes do from the rich. Should we just get rid of taxation entirely? Bolded - There is no such thing as government dime, it seems like some people dont understand that, government doesn't earn money. It is taxpayers money and so if you pay taxes you can and should call it even. Italic- pass this wealth enough times and it is wiped away, besides my money are already taxed plenty arent they? Income tax, investment tax, vat and after all those they are going to be taxed again after i die (they obviously will, but it depends how much) Bolded2 - if it were possible I am all for it (TBH I think vast majority of the population would love that, may be good idea for the referendum ) You’re a few layers below in understanding, not above. It’s not that other people don’t understand that government money is taken from people. It’s you that don’t understand that the money itself is inseparable from the idea of government. I think you misunderstood. It was response to part of the Wombat post where he seems to suggest that entrepreneur own something to government because it provided education for his employees. The money for education came from, so to speak, pot to which aforementioned entrepreneur contributed and still contributes hence there is no debt. If the money used for education were taken directly from governments pockets (eg from ministers salary or such) he would have a point, as it is he doesnt.
They rely on the existence of a society. You can't separate the accumulation of wealth from the social framework it takes place within. If we were hunter gatherers and you foraged 10 mushrooms only to have me demand 5 of them from you then it would make sense to consider that theft. If we operate in a hugely complicated social network, I get 10 money and the state demands 5 then it's a lot less clear. 10 mushrooms is what I earned in the first scenario because I literally foraged 10 of them. 10 money is no less arbitrary than 5 money and neither of them can be connected to the labour I performed in any meaningful way. I can't separate the paycheck I get from a day on which I elect to "work from home" from the framework that allows me to do that and I can't resort to the labour theory of value to insist that I earned everything through my hard work because I didn't do any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
