US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4288

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 10:59 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
She wouldn’t be a billionaire without various distribution networks, film workers of various kinds etc.

Indeed, rather famously she wrote the first Harry Potter book while on welfare as a single mother.

One could quite easily make the argument that she owes the state for enabling her success, and should help fund it so the next JK Rowling can have the opportunities she did.

Also I don’t think people in here by and large are advocating seizing all of the wealthy’s money, just some reasonable portion of it.

On July 21 2024 09:44 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Gotta take money from someone. Is it better to take half of the billion JK is passing to her kids or half the paychecks of a bunch of working people.

On July 21 2024 11:07 Fleetfeet wrote:
[quote]

Yeah, but the question is how much "help fund it" is fair. Obviously she will have paid taxes in some capacity, and presumably more than your average person. We can all agree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, because we're the many and they're the few. It's easy for us to vote that JK gives half a billion dollars to us because of what side we're on.

What I think Razyda is trying to point to is that the money wouldn't go to 'us' and we're naive to think it would.

I don't know that such an argument is particularly strong, and I'd argue in favour of some kind of inheritance cap and if the best argument against it is that the whole system is too corrupt for it to mean anything then... I dunno, that just feels defeatist.

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 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 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 10:59 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
She wouldn’t be a billionaire without various distribution networks, film workers of various kinds etc.

Indeed, rather famously she wrote the first Harry Potter book while on welfare as a single mother.

One could quite easily make the argument that she owes the state for enabling her success, and should help fund it so the next JK Rowling can have the opportunities she did.

Also I don’t think people in here by and large are advocating seizing all of the wealthy’s money, just some reasonable portion of it.

On July 21 2024 11:07 Fleetfeet wrote:
[quote]

Yeah, but the question is how much "help fund it" is fair. Obviously she will have paid taxes in some capacity, and presumably more than your average person. We can all agree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, because we're the many and they're the few. It's easy for us to vote that JK gives half a billion dollars to us because of what side we're on.

What I think Razyda is trying to point to is that the money wouldn't go to 'us' and we're naive to think it would.

I don't know that such an argument is particularly strong, and I'd argue in favour of some kind of inheritance cap and if the best argument against it is that the whole system is too corrupt for it to mean anything then... I dunno, that just feels defeatist.

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?