|
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 |
On July 21 2024 13:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 12:55 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 12:26 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2024 12:10 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:56 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2024 11:50 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:22 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2024 11:11 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 09:44 KwarK wrote: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)
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. Oh really? Why??? and for what exactly? Invasion of Iraq? As I said she made herself (havent heard anything questioning it), it is option open to everyone, why exactly she/ her kids should be punished for standing out? Seems to me you have more in common with GH than you would like to admit. I believe that the government uses money for things other than invading Iraq. Most governments don't invade Iraq most years and most governments that do invade Iraq in a given year don't use most of their tax revenue to do so. I know you think you're making some kind of point by bringing up Iraq but trust me, you're not. Kids inheriting half a billion rather than a billion doesn't seem like the harshest of punishments. Especially when the alternative is taking half the paycheck of someone living paycheck to paycheck.Also GH and I are very in common. We're both fully committed members of the imaginary revolution. I genuinely don't think you know what is going on. Bolded - of course they do, they use them for things like this also: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/17/how-the-michelle-mone-scandal-unfolded-200m-of-ppe-contracts-denials-and-a-government-lawsuitSimilar case happened in UK, meanwhile I drive here on asphalt street which feels like forest path. Italic - It seems like it is for a parent? would you be happy paying 50% taxes on your income? (if you are and dont meet requirements you can donate the difference to charity, you know). Bolded 2 - I dont think you do. I am pretty sure GH understand that his revolution would require using second amendment to its fullest extent, but he also knows that this is not his selling point. Edit: On July 21 2024 11:36 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2024 11:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:07 Fleetfeet wrote: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. 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. Bolded: Thats part of it, but also she earned this money by herself, so everyone who didn't should quite frankly FO rather than say "I want piece of it myself", or deploy them as I would like to. Wanna redistribute money? earn them and then redistribute, dont take them from people who earned them. Far as I know there are no laws preventing people from making fortune for writing, being entrepreneur, or a movie actor and many others. Do that and then spread your wealth, nobody stops you. This is one of the most childish posts I’ve read in a while. The idea that if you want to be a billionaire you should go out there and earn a billion is nonsense. It’s not jealousy or greed that leads people to want the government to tax the rich, it’s that the rich have the money. Money can’t be separated from the social context that includes taxation, the idea that they would keep all of it was never on the table. bolded - WTF?? Go pick up some extra shifts at work, maybe get a second job. With overtime you’ll be at a billion in no time. Oh come on Kwark, I expected better. You do have valid points eg: On July 21 2024 04:37 KwarK wrote:
Your moving plan doesn’t work. The IRS thought of that.
but the above is not up to your standards. Must admit somewhat disapointed  . But you don’t have valid points. You have the existence of the Iraq war, a bumpy road, and JK Rowling. That is not enough for a debate. You are not pulling your weight here. Oh please, you stick to particular examples knowing that I cant be bothered to list every single failed policy. Also seems to me that self made millionaire would be somewhat of a good example when it comes to inheriting wealth? Frankly it seems like you dont want to continue discussion because you know I am right. What would warrant debate about inheritance tax according to you? ( I mean something better than self made millionaire?). I mean you earned your money, you paid taxes on it, why your kids should be paying for it? No, actually you don't want to continue the discussion with me because you know I'm right.
Well this is fun  .
As it happens you didnt provide anything you can be right about? All you did was challenging my points ( fair game and always welcome) without providing fair counterpoint. I must admit it is rather disappointing I like your posts and I like you shrewd style (kind of reminds me of better times on internet), but it would feel better if you made some kind of point?
|
United States41962 Posts
On July 21 2024 13:44 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 13:15 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2024 12:55 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 12:26 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2024 12:10 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:56 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2024 11:50 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:22 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2024 11:11 Razyda wrote: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. Oh really? Why??? and for what exactly? Invasion of Iraq? As I said she made herself (havent heard anything questioning it), it is option open to everyone, why exactly she/ her kids should be punished for standing out? Seems to me you have more in common with GH than you would like to admit. I believe that the government uses money for things other than invading Iraq. Most governments don't invade Iraq most years and most governments that do invade Iraq in a given year don't use most of their tax revenue to do so. I know you think you're making some kind of point by bringing up Iraq but trust me, you're not. Kids inheriting half a billion rather than a billion doesn't seem like the harshest of punishments. Especially when the alternative is taking half the paycheck of someone living paycheck to paycheck.Also GH and I are very in common. We're both fully committed members of the imaginary revolution. I genuinely don't think you know what is going on. Bolded - of course they do, they use them for things like this also: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/17/how-the-michelle-mone-scandal-unfolded-200m-of-ppe-contracts-denials-and-a-government-lawsuitSimilar case happened in UK, meanwhile I drive here on asphalt street which feels like forest path. Italic - It seems like it is for a parent? would you be happy paying 50% taxes on your income? (if you are and dont meet requirements you can donate the difference to charity, you know). Bolded 2 - I dont think you do. I am pretty sure GH understand that his revolution would require using second amendment to its fullest extent, but he also knows that this is not his selling point. Edit: On July 21 2024 11:36 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2024 11:26 Razyda wrote: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.
Bolded: Thats part of it, but also she earned this money by herself, so everyone who didn't should quite frankly FO rather than say "I want piece of it myself", or deploy them as I would like to. Wanna redistribute money? earn them and then redistribute, dont take them from people who earned them. Far as I know there are no laws preventing people from making fortune for writing, being entrepreneur, or a movie actor and many others. Do that and then spread your wealth, nobody stops you. This is one of the most childish posts I’ve read in a while. The idea that if you want to be a billionaire you should go out there and earn a billion is nonsense. It’s not jealousy or greed that leads people to want the government to tax the rich, it’s that the rich have the money. Money can’t be separated from the social context that includes taxation, the idea that they would keep all of it was never on the table. bolded - WTF?? Go pick up some extra shifts at work, maybe get a second job. With overtime you’ll be at a billion in no time. Oh come on Kwark, I expected better. You do have valid points eg: On July 21 2024 04:37 KwarK wrote:
Your moving plan doesn’t work. The IRS thought of that.
but the above is not up to your standards. Must admit somewhat disapointed . But you don’t have valid points. You have the existence of the Iraq war, a bumpy road, and JK Rowling. That is not enough for a debate. You are not pulling your weight here. Oh please, you stick to particular examples knowing that I cant be bothered to list every single failed policy. Also seems to me that self made millionaire would be somewhat of a good example when it comes to inheriting wealth? Frankly it seems like you dont want to continue discussion because you know I am right. What would warrant debate about inheritance tax according to you? ( I mean something better than self made millionaire?). I mean you earned your money, you paid taxes on it, why your kids should be paying for it? No, actually you don't want to continue the discussion with me because you know I'm right. Well this is fun . As it happens you didnt provide anything you can be right about? All you did was challenging my points ( fair game and always welcome) without providing fair counterpoint. I must admit it is rather disappointing I like your posts and I like you shrewd style (kind of reminds me of better times on internet), but it would feel better if you made some kind of point?
Look, if you don't want to continue this discussion because you know deep down that I'm right then simply stop. Otherwise it seems like you don't want to continue frankly.
|
United States41962 Posts
On July 21 2024 11:26 Razyda wrote:
Wanna redistribute money? earn them and then redistribute, dont take them from people who earned them. Spread your wealth, nobody stops you.
The sheer hypocrisy of your post is staggering. If you genuinely believe that the government takes too little of your pay in income taxes and too much from the children of billionaires in inheritance taxes then absolutely nothing is stopping you from simply taking half your income post tax and giving it to those unfairly taxed billionaires.
Spread your wealth, nobody stops you.
But of course you don't wish to do that, you won't share your own money. No, you're only interested in stealing. You want lowered taxes on estates in the billions and higher taxes on working men like me. You want to take money away from me and my family to give to some trust fund kid.
You're basically a thief! And it's your fault that the road is bumpy.
|
“Taxes are stealing” is like saying “abortion is murder.” Maybe kinda a little bit but not really. We already have a word that perfectly explains what taxes are: taxes. Everybody here understands that word. Declaring it to be a different word isn’t really an argument.
|
On July 21 2024 16:23 BlackJack wrote:
“Taxes are stealing” is like saying “abortion is murder.” Maybe kinda a little bit but not really. We already have a word that perfectly explains what taxes are: taxes. Everybody here understands that word. Declaring it to be a different word isn’t really an argument.
Hmm...
He didn't say 'taxes are stealing' though. He said 'redistribution of wealth is theft.'
That's more than just taxes. That's about 90% of domestic government policy. Almost everything a government does will have the effect of redistributing wealth, and every democratic government that does anything like this will have had a mandate to do so from the population.
|
Northern Ireland23772 Posts
On July 21 2024 13:10 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 12:55 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 11:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:07 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 21 2024 10:59 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 09:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 08:51 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 08:26 Razyda wrote: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. 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-schemePeople 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: On July 21 2024 07:48 KwarK wrote: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.
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. 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? 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. 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) 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. 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. Bolded: Thats part of it, but also she earned this money by herself, so everyone who didn't should quite frankly FO rather than say "I want piece of it myself", or deploy them as I would like to. Wanna redistribute money? earn them and then redistribute, dont take them from people who earned them. Far as I know there are no laws preventing people from making fortune for writing, being entrepreneur, or a movie actor and many others. Do that and then spread your wealth, nobody stops you. How did she earn it by herself? Oh please thats not even hard question. She wrote the books (like had an idea which resonated with lots of people and made them buy it) then everyone involved paid actual taxes!! there wasn't an situation when parliament decided that people involved in Rowling work dont pay taxes. Every single person involved made money out of it and government took its share by taxing those people
Sure, she had an idea that resonated. Could she have realised said idea without editors, marketing of said book, various filmmaking specialists? Or indeed having functioning economies in various markets so people have discretionary income to purchase Harry Potter wares?
For reference, at UK average wages it takes 3.4 million citizens to collectively earn a billion quid. Which equates to 10% of the UK’s entire current working population. And given how things are right now that sure as fuck isn’t all wealth, much will be swallowed up by actual living expenses. Not especially relevant to this discussion, but an illuminating stat nonetheless.
Pretty obscene no?
We may just fundamentally disagree, there’s wealth and there’s wealth. You don’t get to be a billionaire without a hell of a lot of people helping you on the way, but yet you’re the billionaire, the almost sole beneficiary of this largesse.
As I outlined before, JK Rowling wrote the first Harry Potter book while being subsidised by the British taxpayer.
Indeed, her trans politics aside Rowling has always been pretty decent in acknowledging this, in advocating for various safety nets etc etc.
|
On July 21 2024 13:10 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 12:55 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 11:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:07 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 21 2024 10:59 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 09:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 08:51 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 08:26 Razyda wrote: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. 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-schemePeople 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: On July 21 2024 07:48 KwarK wrote: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.
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. 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? 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. 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) 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. 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. Bolded: Thats part of it, but also she earned this money by herself, so everyone who didn't should quite frankly FO rather than say "I want piece of it myself", or deploy them as I would like to. Wanna redistribute money? earn them and then redistribute, dont take them from people who earned them. Far as I know there are no laws preventing people from making fortune for writing, being entrepreneur, or a movie actor and many others. Do that and then spread your wealth, nobody stops you. How did she earn it by herself? Oh please thats not even hard question. She wrote the books (like had an idea which resonated with lots of people and made them buy it) then everyone involved paid actual taxes!! there wasn't an situation when parliament decided that people involved in Rowling work dont pay taxes. Every single person involved made money out of it and government took its share by taxing those people
She wrote those books in a world where they were published, advertised and turned into a movie franchise by other people. They were translated by people. And in a world where millions of people went to bookstores and cinemas to pay money for that content. Money that is printed by the government, in fact by multiple different governments with people ensuring that we don't print too much (ahem) or too little, and many people regulating different markets that all together ensure that JK Rowling receives GBPs when someone in Japan buys the Japanese translation of her book with Japanese Yen. Her being part of this very complex society is what allowed her books to thrive and her to make money with them. Jeff Bezos is even less of a self-made man. And I'm all for Jeff Bezos and JK Rowling to keep the money they made. I just don't see a case for why the Bezos dynasty should become a thing. And I really doubt Jeff Bezos would've decided Amazon was fine after his first billion if he didn't have kids to inherit his fortune...
|
On July 21 2024 17:56 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 13:10 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 12:55 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 11:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:07 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 21 2024 10:59 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 09:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 08:51 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 08:26 Razyda wrote: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. 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-schemePeople 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: 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. 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? 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. 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) 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. 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. Bolded: Thats part of it, but also she earned this money by herself, so everyone who didn't should quite frankly FO rather than say "I want piece of it myself", or deploy them as I would like to. Wanna redistribute money? earn them and then redistribute, dont take them from people who earned them. Far as I know there are no laws preventing people from making fortune for writing, being entrepreneur, or a movie actor and many others. Do that and then spread your wealth, nobody stops you. How did she earn it by herself? Oh please thats not even hard question. She wrote the books (like had an idea which resonated with lots of people and made them buy it) then everyone involved paid actual taxes!! there wasn't an situation when parliament decided that people involved in Rowling work dont pay taxes. Every single person involved made money out of it and government took its share by taxing those people Sure, she had an idea that resonated. Could she have realised said idea without editors, marketing of said book, various filmmaking specialists? Or indeed having functioning economies in various markets so people have discretionary income to purchase Harry Potter wares? For reference, at UK average wages it takes 3.4 million citizens to collectively earn a billion quid. Which equates to 10% of the UK’s entire current working population. And given how things are right now that sure as fuck isn’t all wealth, much will be swallowed up by actual living expenses. Not especially relevant to this discussion, but an illuminating stat nonetheless. Pretty obscene no?
For a thought experiment you could change it from JK Rowling to some of the top creators on OnlyFans. Maybe not billionaires but they could make tens of millions of dollars. They also don't need marketers, filmmakers, publishers, people to cut down trees to turn into paper so books can be made, etc. They could do it with just a cell phone in selfie mode pointed at their vag. If a million guys want to pay $15 a month for pictures of their vag should they not be entitled to it just because it's an obscene amount of money? Who exactly are they exploiting to make their money? People that think the lion's share of this money should be taken from them sound like the ones doing the exploiting, and doing it worse than an unscrupulous street pimp.
|
On July 21 2024 18:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 17:56 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 13:10 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 12:55 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 11:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:07 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 21 2024 10:59 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 09:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 08:51 WombaT wrote: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-schemePeople 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? 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. 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) 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. 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. Bolded: Thats part of it, but also she earned this money by herself, so everyone who didn't should quite frankly FO rather than say "I want piece of it myself", or deploy them as I would like to. Wanna redistribute money? earn them and then redistribute, dont take them from people who earned them. Far as I know there are no laws preventing people from making fortune for writing, being entrepreneur, or a movie actor and many others. Do that and then spread your wealth, nobody stops you. How did she earn it by herself? Oh please thats not even hard question. She wrote the books (like had an idea which resonated with lots of people and made them buy it) then everyone involved paid actual taxes!! there wasn't an situation when parliament decided that people involved in Rowling work dont pay taxes. Every single person involved made money out of it and government took its share by taxing those people Sure, she had an idea that resonated. Could she have realised said idea without editors, marketing of said book, various filmmaking specialists? Or indeed having functioning economies in various markets so people have discretionary income to purchase Harry Potter wares? For reference, at UK average wages it takes 3.4 million citizens to collectively earn a billion quid. Which equates to 10% of the UK’s entire current working population. And given how things are right now that sure as fuck isn’t all wealth, much will be swallowed up by actual living expenses. Not especially relevant to this discussion, but an illuminating stat nonetheless. Pretty obscene no? For a thought experiment you could change it from JK Rowling to some of the top creators on OnlyFans. Maybe not billionaires but they could make tens of millions of dollars. They also don't need marketers, filmmakers, publishers, people to cut down trees to turn into paper so books can be made, etc. They could do it with just a cell phone in selfie mode pointed at their vag. If a million guys want to pay $15 a month for pictures of their vag should they not be entitled to it just because it's an obscene amount of money? Who exactly are they exploiting to make their money? People that think the lion's share of this money should be taken from them sound like the ones doing the exploiting, and doing it worse than an unscrupulous street pimp.
I can't believe you think top creators on OnlyFans of all places are the epitome of self-made. They literally rely on a third party platform and its recommendation algorithms, which have come under some serious scrutiny for being quite bad and biased.
And, again, I don't think OnlyFans creators should be exempt of income tax, and if they pay their taxes and still come out as a billionaire, I see zero reason for their children to inherit all of it.
Edit: and while we're on the topic of OnlyFans, lol, you think OnlyFans keeping a hefty percentage of all payments is okay, but the government taking their cut is "exploitative and worse than street pimps". I am flabbergasted, lol.
|
On July 21 2024 18:54 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 18:09 BlackJack wrote:On July 21 2024 17:56 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 13:10 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 12:55 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 11:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:07 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 21 2024 10:59 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 09:26 Razyda wrote: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. 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) 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. 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. Bolded: Thats part of it, but also she earned this money by herself, so everyone who didn't should quite frankly FO rather than say "I want piece of it myself", or deploy them as I would like to. Wanna redistribute money? earn them and then redistribute, dont take them from people who earned them. Far as I know there are no laws preventing people from making fortune for writing, being entrepreneur, or a movie actor and many others. Do that and then spread your wealth, nobody stops you. How did she earn it by herself? Oh please thats not even hard question. She wrote the books (like had an idea which resonated with lots of people and made them buy it) then everyone involved paid actual taxes!! there wasn't an situation when parliament decided that people involved in Rowling work dont pay taxes. Every single person involved made money out of it and government took its share by taxing those people Sure, she had an idea that resonated. Could she have realised said idea without editors, marketing of said book, various filmmaking specialists? Or indeed having functioning economies in various markets so people have discretionary income to purchase Harry Potter wares? For reference, at UK average wages it takes 3.4 million citizens to collectively earn a billion quid. Which equates to 10% of the UK’s entire current working population. And given how things are right now that sure as fuck isn’t all wealth, much will be swallowed up by actual living expenses. Not especially relevant to this discussion, but an illuminating stat nonetheless. Pretty obscene no? For a thought experiment you could change it from JK Rowling to some of the top creators on OnlyFans. Maybe not billionaires but they could make tens of millions of dollars. They also don't need marketers, filmmakers, publishers, people to cut down trees to turn into paper so books can be made, etc. They could do it with just a cell phone in selfie mode pointed at their vag. If a million guys want to pay $15 a month for pictures of their vag should they not be entitled to it just because it's an obscene amount of money? Who exactly are they exploiting to make their money? People that think the lion's share of this money should be taken from them sound like the ones doing the exploiting, and doing it worse than an unscrupulous street pimp. I can't believe you think top creators on OnlyFans of all places are the epitome of self-made. They literally rely on a third party platform and its recommendation algorithms, which have come under some serious scrutiny for being quite bad and biased. And, again, I don't think OnlyFans creators should be exempt of income tax, and if they pay their taxes and still come out as a billionaire, I see zero reason for their children to inherit all of it. Edit: and while we're on the topic of OnlyFans, lol, you think OnlyFans keeping a hefty percentage of all payments is okay, but the government taking their cut is "exploitative and worse than street pimps". I am flabbergasted, lol.
So you’re arguing that onlyfans models rely on the platform algorithms for their success but the percentage only fans keeps is unfair? Only fans keeps 20%. Some people here would be happy if the government took 60%-100%. I don’t think it’s unfair to say the latter is more similar to a street pimp than the former.
|
On July 21 2024 19:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 18:54 Acrofales wrote:On July 21 2024 18:09 BlackJack wrote:On July 21 2024 17:56 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 13:10 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 12:55 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 11:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:07 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 21 2024 10:59 WombaT wrote: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)
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. 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. Bolded: Thats part of it, but also she earned this money by herself, so everyone who didn't should quite frankly FO rather than say "I want piece of it myself", or deploy them as I would like to. Wanna redistribute money? earn them and then redistribute, dont take them from people who earned them. Far as I know there are no laws preventing people from making fortune for writing, being entrepreneur, or a movie actor and many others. Do that and then spread your wealth, nobody stops you. How did she earn it by herself? Oh please thats not even hard question. She wrote the books (like had an idea which resonated with lots of people and made them buy it) then everyone involved paid actual taxes!! there wasn't an situation when parliament decided that people involved in Rowling work dont pay taxes. Every single person involved made money out of it and government took its share by taxing those people Sure, she had an idea that resonated. Could she have realised said idea without editors, marketing of said book, various filmmaking specialists? Or indeed having functioning economies in various markets so people have discretionary income to purchase Harry Potter wares? For reference, at UK average wages it takes 3.4 million citizens to collectively earn a billion quid. Which equates to 10% of the UK’s entire current working population. And given how things are right now that sure as fuck isn’t all wealth, much will be swallowed up by actual living expenses. Not especially relevant to this discussion, but an illuminating stat nonetheless. Pretty obscene no? For a thought experiment you could change it from JK Rowling to some of the top creators on OnlyFans. Maybe not billionaires but they could make tens of millions of dollars. They also don't need marketers, filmmakers, publishers, people to cut down trees to turn into paper so books can be made, etc. They could do it with just a cell phone in selfie mode pointed at their vag. If a million guys want to pay $15 a month for pictures of their vag should they not be entitled to it just because it's an obscene amount of money? Who exactly are they exploiting to make their money? People that think the lion's share of this money should be taken from them sound like the ones doing the exploiting, and doing it worse than an unscrupulous street pimp. I can't believe you think top creators on OnlyFans of all places are the epitome of self-made. They literally rely on a third party platform and its recommendation algorithms, which have come under some serious scrutiny for being quite bad and biased. And, again, I don't think OnlyFans creators should be exempt of income tax, and if they pay their taxes and still come out as a billionaire, I see zero reason for their children to inherit all of it. Edit: and while we're on the topic of OnlyFans, lol, you think OnlyFans keeping a hefty percentage of all payments is okay, but the government taking their cut is "exploitative and worse than street pimps". I am flabbergasted, lol. So you’re arguing that onlyfans models rely on the platform algorithms for their success but the percentage only fans keeps is unfair? Only fans keeps 20%. Some people here would be happy if the government took 60%-100%. I don’t think it’s unfair to say the latter is more similar to a street pimp than the former.
I think you're confused. I didn't bring up OnlyFans as an example of self-made people. I'm not judging OnlyFans business model or their creators.
Nobody here has argued for a 100% income tax. In fact, I suspect most people here would be quite happy with a lower income tax for about 99% of OnlyFans creators.
The discussion was about inheritance tax, which by definition doesn't tax the person who earned the money because they are dead.
|
On July 21 2024 19:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 19:13 BlackJack wrote:On July 21 2024 18:54 Acrofales wrote:On July 21 2024 18:09 BlackJack wrote:On July 21 2024 17:56 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 13:10 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 12:55 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 11:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:07 Fleetfeet wrote: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. 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. Bolded: Thats part of it, but also she earned this money by herself, so everyone who didn't should quite frankly FO rather than say "I want piece of it myself", or deploy them as I would like to. Wanna redistribute money? earn them and then redistribute, dont take them from people who earned them. Far as I know there are no laws preventing people from making fortune for writing, being entrepreneur, or a movie actor and many others. Do that and then spread your wealth, nobody stops you. How did she earn it by herself? Oh please thats not even hard question. She wrote the books (like had an idea which resonated with lots of people and made them buy it) then everyone involved paid actual taxes!! there wasn't an situation when parliament decided that people involved in Rowling work dont pay taxes. Every single person involved made money out of it and government took its share by taxing those people Sure, she had an idea that resonated. Could she have realised said idea without editors, marketing of said book, various filmmaking specialists? Or indeed having functioning economies in various markets so people have discretionary income to purchase Harry Potter wares? For reference, at UK average wages it takes 3.4 million citizens to collectively earn a billion quid. Which equates to 10% of the UK’s entire current working population. And given how things are right now that sure as fuck isn’t all wealth, much will be swallowed up by actual living expenses. Not especially relevant to this discussion, but an illuminating stat nonetheless. Pretty obscene no? For a thought experiment you could change it from JK Rowling to some of the top creators on OnlyFans. Maybe not billionaires but they could make tens of millions of dollars. They also don't need marketers, filmmakers, publishers, people to cut down trees to turn into paper so books can be made, etc. They could do it with just a cell phone in selfie mode pointed at their vag. If a million guys want to pay $15 a month for pictures of their vag should they not be entitled to it just because it's an obscene amount of money? Who exactly are they exploiting to make their money? People that think the lion's share of this money should be taken from them sound like the ones doing the exploiting, and doing it worse than an unscrupulous street pimp. I can't believe you think top creators on OnlyFans of all places are the epitome of self-made. They literally rely on a third party platform and its recommendation algorithms, which have come under some serious scrutiny for being quite bad and biased. And, again, I don't think OnlyFans creators should be exempt of income tax, and if they pay their taxes and still come out as a billionaire, I see zero reason for their children to inherit all of it. Edit: and while we're on the topic of OnlyFans, lol, you think OnlyFans keeping a hefty percentage of all payments is okay, but the government taking their cut is "exploitative and worse than street pimps". I am flabbergasted, lol. So you’re arguing that onlyfans models rely on the platform algorithms for their success but the percentage only fans keeps is unfair? Only fans keeps 20%. Some people here would be happy if the government took 60%-100%. I don’t think it’s unfair to say the latter is more similar to a street pimp than the former. I think you're confused. I didn't bring up OnlyFans as an example of self-made people. I'm not judging OnlyFans business model or their creators. Nobody here has argued for a 100% income tax. In fact, I suspect most people here would be quite happy with a lower income tax for about 99% of OnlyFans creators. The discussion was about inheritance tax, which by definition doesn't tax the person who earned the money because they are dead.
There’s several discussions happening simultaneously. My thought experiment was a counter to wombats claim that to create tremendous wealthy you need a publicly educated workforce to contribute to your effort. Creating a million pictures of your genitals to sell doesn’t require a workforce, it can actually be done by one person.
|
On July 21 2024 19:57 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 19:31 Acrofales wrote:On July 21 2024 19:13 BlackJack wrote:On July 21 2024 18:54 Acrofales wrote:On July 21 2024 18:09 BlackJack wrote:On July 21 2024 17:56 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 13:10 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 12:55 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 11:26 Razyda wrote: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.
Bolded: Thats part of it, but also she earned this money by herself, so everyone who didn't should quite frankly FO rather than say "I want piece of it myself", or deploy them as I would like to. Wanna redistribute money? earn them and then redistribute, dont take them from people who earned them. Far as I know there are no laws preventing people from making fortune for writing, being entrepreneur, or a movie actor and many others. Do that and then spread your wealth, nobody stops you. How did she earn it by herself? Oh please thats not even hard question. She wrote the books (like had an idea which resonated with lots of people and made them buy it) then everyone involved paid actual taxes!! there wasn't an situation when parliament decided that people involved in Rowling work dont pay taxes. Every single person involved made money out of it and government took its share by taxing those people Sure, she had an idea that resonated. Could she have realised said idea without editors, marketing of said book, various filmmaking specialists? Or indeed having functioning economies in various markets so people have discretionary income to purchase Harry Potter wares? For reference, at UK average wages it takes 3.4 million citizens to collectively earn a billion quid. Which equates to 10% of the UK’s entire current working population. And given how things are right now that sure as fuck isn’t all wealth, much will be swallowed up by actual living expenses. Not especially relevant to this discussion, but an illuminating stat nonetheless. Pretty obscene no? For a thought experiment you could change it from JK Rowling to some of the top creators on OnlyFans. Maybe not billionaires but they could make tens of millions of dollars. They also don't need marketers, filmmakers, publishers, people to cut down trees to turn into paper so books can be made, etc. They could do it with just a cell phone in selfie mode pointed at their vag. If a million guys want to pay $15 a month for pictures of their vag should they not be entitled to it just because it's an obscene amount of money? Who exactly are they exploiting to make their money? People that think the lion's share of this money should be taken from them sound like the ones doing the exploiting, and doing it worse than an unscrupulous street pimp. I can't believe you think top creators on OnlyFans of all places are the epitome of self-made. They literally rely on a third party platform and its recommendation algorithms, which have come under some serious scrutiny for being quite bad and biased. And, again, I don't think OnlyFans creators should be exempt of income tax, and if they pay their taxes and still come out as a billionaire, I see zero reason for their children to inherit all of it. Edit: and while we're on the topic of OnlyFans, lol, you think OnlyFans keeping a hefty percentage of all payments is okay, but the government taking their cut is "exploitative and worse than street pimps". I am flabbergasted, lol. So you’re arguing that onlyfans models rely on the platform algorithms for their success but the percentage only fans keeps is unfair? Only fans keeps 20%. Some people here would be happy if the government took 60%-100%. I don’t think it’s unfair to say the latter is more similar to a street pimp than the former. I think you're confused. I didn't bring up OnlyFans as an example of self-made people. I'm not judging OnlyFans business model or their creators. Nobody here has argued for a 100% income tax. In fact, I suspect most people here would be quite happy with a lower income tax for about 99% of OnlyFans creators. The discussion was about inheritance tax, which by definition doesn't tax the person who earned the money because they are dead. There’s several discussions happening simultaneously. My thought experiment was a counter to wombats claim that to create tremendous wealthy you need a publicly educated workforce to contribute to your effort. Creating a million pictures of your genitals to sell doesn’t require a workforce, it can actually be done by one person.
Of course it requires a publicly educated workforce. Someone from the North Sentinel Island can't do that. You need to use gadgets, and infrastructure and knowledge that millions of people contributed to.
|
It still requires the internet and ability of billions of people to use it.
Nobody would pay for these pictures if these people couldn't use the internet, and the internet infrastructure is vast and expensive to build / maintain.
|
On July 20 2024 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2024 00:28 KwarK wrote:On July 20 2024 00:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 00:04 KwarK wrote:On July 20 2024 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
The general concept of reducing the concentration of wealth by distributing it to the workers that generated it is good. The mechanisms to do that get a little trickier, particularly when you want to preserve capitalism.
My $0.02 is that no business needs profit. They need revenues in excess of various costs, but profit can always just be turned into wages, assets, development, etc. Profit is compensation for risk. If you’re not going to be compensated for risk then it is better to liquidate the business entirely and take the known value of the assets than to run the business and risk those values declining. Sounds like the start of a case for a risk wage, not a reason profit is necessary to me. On July 20 2024 00:08 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 20 2024 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
The general concept of reducing the concentration of wealth by distributing it to the workers that generated it is good. The mechanisms to do that get a little trickier, particularly when you want to preserve capitalism.
My $0.02 is that no business needs profit. They need revenues in excess of various costs, but profit can always just be turned into wages, assets, development, etc. Inevitably money ends up in the hands of the extremely wealthy. There's no way around it in the current system. Any redistribution of wealth immediately starts trickling up, and obviously when it gets in the hands of rich it all gets hidden in various worldwide low tax economies. Hence the bit about the mechanisms being a little trickier (I was being sardonic) when you're trying to preserve capitalism. And who would be in charge of setting the risk wage? And in charge of paying it? The worker-owners.
I want to revisit this. I’d imagine one of the things KwarK is accusing you of not thinking through is that unless the worker-owned company doesn’t hire more workers, the worker-owners who weren’t involved in starting the company will be at least partially responsible for setting the risk wage for the worker-owners who did start the company. Since these later arrivals won’t benefit at all from the risk wage, what’s their incentive to not just vote away the risk wage completely?
IMO a more fair solution would be to just increase the wage of the capital-investing workers by X amount until the inflation-adjusted value of the said capital is paid off, then go back to equal wages for everyone or whatever the voted wage structure is.
|
United States41962 Posts
On July 21 2024 22:08 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2024 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 00:28 KwarK wrote:On July 20 2024 00:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2024 00:04 KwarK wrote:On July 20 2024 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
The general concept of reducing the concentration of wealth by distributing it to the workers that generated it is good. The mechanisms to do that get a little trickier, particularly when you want to preserve capitalism.
My $0.02 is that no business needs profit. They need revenues in excess of various costs, but profit can always just be turned into wages, assets, development, etc. Profit is compensation for risk. If you’re not going to be compensated for risk then it is better to liquidate the business entirely and take the known value of the assets than to run the business and risk those values declining. Sounds like the start of a case for a risk wage, not a reason profit is necessary to me. On July 20 2024 00:08 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 20 2024 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
The general concept of reducing the concentration of wealth by distributing it to the workers that generated it is good. The mechanisms to do that get a little trickier, particularly when you want to preserve capitalism.
My $0.02 is that no business needs profit. They need revenues in excess of various costs, but profit can always just be turned into wages, assets, development, etc. Inevitably money ends up in the hands of the extremely wealthy. There's no way around it in the current system. Any redistribution of wealth immediately starts trickling up, and obviously when it gets in the hands of rich it all gets hidden in various worldwide low tax economies. Hence the bit about the mechanisms being a little trickier (I was being sardonic) when you're trying to preserve capitalism. And who would be in charge of setting the risk wage? And in charge of paying it? The worker-owners. I want to revisit this. I’d imagine one of the things KwarK is accusing you of not thinking through is that unless the worker-owned company doesn’t hire more workers, the worker-owners who weren’t involved in starting the company will be at least partially responsible for setting the risk wage for the worker-owners who did start the company. Since these later arrivals won’t benefit at all from the risk wage, what’s their incentive to not just vote away the risk wage completely? IMO a more fair solution would be to just increase the wage of the capital-investing workers by X amount until the inflation-adjusted value of the said capital is paid off, then go back to equal wages for everyone or whatever the voted wage structure is.
His idea was just entirely chaotic and combined multiple incompatible models. A business relies on a degree of risk to succeed. This might be individuals making sacrifices (putting in long hours on a project at the expense of recreation/family), personal economic risk (if the business fails they’ll be exposed to hardship), indirect economic risk to capital etc.
Traditionally within the capitalist model this risk is compensated with the prospect of profits. Exactly how risky a given business is and how much capital should be assigned to it in order to achieve how much return is the essence of capitalism, that’s inseparable from it, that’s the stock market, the valuation of ownership stakes, the trading of them, the drawing up of partnership agreements, and so forth. Profits are ringfenced and then allocated out to owners based on the agreement that outlines it according to their contributions. There’s no alternative method to assigning risk to a project. Within capitalism people simply bid on the opportunity, the correct reward for risk is the lowest amount of reward someone is willing to accept to take the risk. It’s not perfect but it allows people the opportunity to choose their own risk tolerance. If someone wants to start a restaurant and work 100 hour weeks to make it succeed they can risk that, they’re free to, nobody is compelling them. State run entities are bad at assessing risk, the personal beliefs of bureaucrats are overweighted in importance and the risks being taken are not their own, they are playing with other people’s money and time. Every state run space program famously got it wrong on the risks and rewards of reusable rockets, for example.
GH wishes to keep all of the things that you get from that without keeping the mechanism. It’s just nonsense. You can’t just say the words “risk wage” and handwave over the fact that there’s no such thing in his economic model.
That’s why I said that he hadn’t thought it through, to which he responded “no u”, promptly killing the exchange. It’s a running problem with GH’s imaginary revolution, they really can’t explain how anything else is going to work. They know that they don’t like capitalism and they definitely don’t like incrementally improving capitalism but they can’t explain how it works and they can’t explain what will take it’s place.
|
Northern Ireland23772 Posts
On July 21 2024 18:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2024 17:56 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 13:10 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 12:55 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 11:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 11:07 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 21 2024 10:59 WombaT wrote:On July 21 2024 09:26 Razyda wrote:On July 21 2024 08:51 WombaT wrote: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-schemePeople 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? 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. 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) 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. 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. Bolded: Thats part of it, but also she earned this money by herself, so everyone who didn't should quite frankly FO rather than say "I want piece of it myself", or deploy them as I would like to. Wanna redistribute money? earn them and then redistribute, dont take them from people who earned them. Far as I know there are no laws preventing people from making fortune for writing, being entrepreneur, or a movie actor and many others. Do that and then spread your wealth, nobody stops you. How did she earn it by herself? Oh please thats not even hard question. She wrote the books (like had an idea which resonated with lots of people and made them buy it) then everyone involved paid actual taxes!! there wasn't an situation when parliament decided that people involved in Rowling work dont pay taxes. Every single person involved made money out of it and government took its share by taxing those people Sure, she had an idea that resonated. Could she have realised said idea without editors, marketing of said book, various filmmaking specialists? Or indeed having functioning economies in various markets so people have discretionary income to purchase Harry Potter wares? For reference, at UK average wages it takes 3.4 million citizens to collectively earn a billion quid. Which equates to 10% of the UK’s entire current working population. And given how things are right now that sure as fuck isn’t all wealth, much will be swallowed up by actual living expenses. Not especially relevant to this discussion, but an illuminating stat nonetheless. Pretty obscene no? For a thought experiment you could change it from JK Rowling to some of the top creators on OnlyFans. Maybe not billionaires but they could make tens of millions of dollars. They also don't need marketers, filmmakers, publishers, people to cut down trees to turn into paper so books can be made, etc. They could do it with just a cell phone in selfie mode pointed at their vag. If a million guys want to pay $15 a month for pictures of their vag should they not be entitled to it just because it's an obscene amount of money? Who exactly are they exploiting to make their money? People that think the lion's share of this money should be taken from them sound like the ones doing the exploiting, and doing it worse than an unscrupulous street pimp.
The socially maladjusted perhaps? I mean obviously not your average subscriber. The type for whom ‘Lonelyfans’ would be a more apt name for the platform.
That minor quibble, along with what Acro pointed out, I mean while there’s certainly a link of sorts, I think (rightfully) pointing out that a JK Rowling didn’t, or couldn’t have achieved her success alone, it doesn’t necessarily follow that one wants to take all her money.
|
United States41962 Posts
Then whose money should we take? The argument for a cut in one form of taxation is necessarily an argument for an increase in another unless accompanied by a balanced spending cut proposal. The argument that JK’s heirs are taxed too highly on their billions is implicitly an argument that working people aren’t taxed enough on their daily grind.
|
Norway28554 Posts
Yeah. When I argue for inheritance tax that does not mean i want an overall increase in the tax burden. Maybe i want to fund income tax cuts for people making less than 70k. Either way it is very difficult to see a form of taxation that is better targeted - it only hits people who didn't do anything to earn the money, and it only targets excessive wealth.
|
United States24569 Posts
I haven't studied the economics of inheritance tax closely (or any other types of economics, really), but it seems like a very large inheritance tax would push wealthy old people toward spending most of their money to derive some benefit rather than letting most of it fall into the hands of the government (assuming they didn't just use loopholes to bypass all the taxes). Which is better for the nation as a whole, rich people spending most of their wealth before they die, or rich people turning over most of their wealth to the government as taxes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
