US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4287

On July 20 2024 03:07 ZeroByte13 wrote:
[quote]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.

On July 20 2024 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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.

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.

On July 20 2024 04:21 KobraKay wrote:
[quote]

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.

On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:
[quote]

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.

On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]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.

On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote:
[quote]

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.

On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]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.

On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:
[quote]

They actually are it is called math.

[quote]

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"

On July 21 2024 04:08 Razyda wrote:
[quote]

They actually are it is called math.

[quote]

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"

On July 21 2024 04:32 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
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?

On July 21 2024 04:32 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
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?

On July 21 2024 04:44 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
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 )

On July 21 2024 04:44 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
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 )

On July 21 2024 06:11 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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.

On July 21 2024 06:11 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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.

On July 21 2024 07:38 Razyda wrote:
[quote]

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.

On July 21 2024 07:38 Razyda wrote:
[quote]

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.

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.

On July 21 2024 07:48 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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.

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.

On July 21 2024 07:48 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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.

On July 21 2024 08:26 Razyda wrote:
[quote]

Issue with big cut off is inflation and while you can argue that it may be changed in line with inflation, this is for example what happened in UK (it is about personal tax allowance not inheritance but illustrates the problem rather well):

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/what-a-drag-the-impact-of-the-frozen-personal-allowance-on-those-with-lower-incomes/#:~:text=the tax burden.-,The effect of freezing the Personal Tax Allowance is to,per cent in 2027/28.

In short, freezing tax allowance till 2028 in reality increased tax, due to inflation.

Italic - why do you think people accumulate money? While I cant speak for all, my guess is that majority want to provide they children with comfortable life.

Also while inheritance tax sounds good and gives "stick it to the rich" kind of vibe, it wouldnt actually hit the people you think it would, as presumably their accounts are run by people who very well know what they are doing and would probably even manage to get them tax return. There is a reason why Amazon UK didnt pay a dime of corporation tax 2 years in a row.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/01/amazon-uk-services-main-division-pay-no-corporation-tax-for-second-year-in-row-tax-credit-government-super-deduction-scheme
People hit by it would middle/ upper middle class. It wouldnt ensure that absurdly rich people arent rich anymore, it would ensure that no more people get absurdly rich.

Edit:

[quote]

Again you dont understand. It was reply to specific claim about owning something to government for educating employees. Not about taxes, but against having some sort of additional liability, because your employees are educated.

Edit2: @Kwark Just remembered to ask, as thought kinda amused me. After news about Trump shooting, was your first thought to check if GH posted something on TL, after prodding him on not doing anything revolutionary?

On July 21 2024 08:26 Razyda wrote:
[quote]

Issue with big cut off is inflation and while you can argue that it may be changed in line with inflation, this is for example what happened in UK (it is about personal tax allowance not inheritance but illustrates the problem rather well):

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/what-a-drag-the-impact-of-the-frozen-personal-allowance-on-those-with-lower-incomes/#:~:text=the tax burden.-,The effect of freezing the Personal Tax Allowance is to,per cent in 2027/28.

In short, freezing tax allowance till 2028 in reality increased tax, due to inflation.

Italic - why do you think people accumulate money? While I cant speak for all, my guess is that majority want to provide they children with comfortable life.

Also while inheritance tax sounds good and gives "stick it to the rich" kind of vibe, it wouldnt actually hit the people you think it would, as presumably their accounts are run by people who very well know what they are doing and would probably even manage to get them tax return. There is a reason why Amazon UK didnt pay a dime of corporation tax 2 years in a row.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/01/amazon-uk-services-main-division-pay-no-corporation-tax-for-second-year-in-row-tax-credit-government-super-deduction-scheme
People hit by it would middle/ upper middle class. It wouldnt ensure that absurdly rich people arent rich anymore, it would ensure that no more people get absurdly rich.

Edit:

[quote]

Again you dont understand. It was reply to specific claim about owning something to government for educating employees. Not about taxes, but against having some sort of additional liability, because your employees are educated.

Edit2: @Kwark Just remembered to ask, as thought kinda amused me. After news about Trump shooting, was your first thought to check if GH posted something on TL, after prodding him on not doing anything revolutionary?

On July 21 2024 08:51 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Well no the central point is the self-made billionaire type is basically a myth, because one cannot get to such a status without a workforce, which is educated on the public dime.

Never mind the consumer base, some of which may only have liquidity due to various government programs, be those targeted tax breaks, benefits (welfare) etc.

On July 21 2024 04:44 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
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 )

On July 21 2024 06:11 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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.

On July 21 2024 08:51 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Well no the central point is the self-made billionaire type is basically a myth, because one cannot get to such a status without a workforce, which is educated on the public dime.

Never mind the consumer base, some of which may only have liquidity due to various government programs, be those targeted tax breaks, benefits (welfare) etc.

On July 21 2024 09:26 Razyda wrote:
[quote]

Which doesnt matter because entrepreneur is part of public so it was his money to which funded this education.

Also while self made billionaire is basically a myth, what you have against family made billionaires? Lets take JK Rowling (lets disregard her views which may be considered controversial) far as I know she made herself rich purely by herself, should she be robbed of possibility to pass her money to her children? should government really be allowed to take all her money except, like Drone suggested, 5kk per child? Lets say you won lottery, how happy would it make you, that your kids get 5kk each, and with rest government would establish department to correct use of toothpicks? (because that what would happen, it wouldnt go to the poor)

On July 21 2024 07:38 Razyda wrote:
[quote]

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.