Here's a good reason why we need a wealth tax

[NatMorton]

Would you agree that working a full time job and still being eligible for
government assistance is not where we should be as a nation?

Show me that person and I'll show you someone with job skill issues.

The "solution" is not to raise their wage by artificial means because disconnecting wages from their economic value is a sugar high, at best. That disconnect is what is not sustainable as capital always seeks its best return.

 

[NatMorton]

Another common misconception on the left is that poverty is nothing more than a lack of money. It's a bit more complicated than that.

 

[trouble13]

Actually, a bunch of us got together and decided we'd start by confiscating your wealth. Please liquidate what you have immediately, and we'll shortly be sending instructions on where to wire the proceeds.

Thanks.

You can have it. The government is gonna take care all my needs. Just don't touch my xbox or my weed. You can have the rest.

 

[The Mark]

Hmm... you seem to wish to sever the (capitalist?) linkage between personal productIon and personal consumption. Somewhat along the lines of: from each according to their ability (to pay more taxes), to each according to their need (for more public subsidies).

Only up to a point.
I think we can afford to provide basic needs for everyone, like water, food, and housing.
If necessary, of course.
That isn't sufficient for a comfortable life, but it's the basic requirement foundations.

If we manage that we can talk about providing health care, education, and all that stuff which is also necessary, but less foundational.

 

[Mason66]

A simplistic reduction.

'Simplistic' means reduced past the point something can be simplified, such that it is no longer viable.

The system is rigged for the rich, evidenced by the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor, and we are seeking to correct the system. Your model simply doesn't work because it is simplistic.

"The system is rigged for the rich".

Please tell me how the rigging works. Do you mean people that work and get paid have more advantages than somebody that doesn't? Is that the rigging you are talking about?

 

[SimpleTom]

What we really need is less spending.

if you work yourself into $30,000 in credit card debt you don't then go buy a Ferrari every year. You stop spending first.

This isn't really true.

The best answer depends on lot of things. The best solution to $30,000 in debt may well be $100,000 in debt. Certainly we can agree that someone with a lot of credit card debt should probably not buy a Ferrari every year, but that doesn't mean they should stop acquiring debt either.

Debt is a tool and like many other tools when used appropriately it has a lot of constructive capabilities. Just like many other tools when used inappropriately it can be destructive.

 

[CLAX1911]

This isn't really true.

The best answer depends on lot of things. The best solution to $30,000 in debt may well be $100,000 in debt. Certainly we can agree that someone with a lot of credit card debt should probably not buy a Ferrari every year, but that doesn't mean they should stop acquiring debt either.

so if more debt is good why shouldn't you buy a new Ferrari every year?

Debt is a tool and like many other tools when used appropriately it has a lot of constructive capabilities. Just like many other tools when used inappropriately it can be destructive.

At this point it's being used destructively maybe you don't care because you won't have to pay it back.

Perhaps you're simply self-centered

 

[NatMorton]

Human history is littered with the wreckage of economies that collapsed under the crushing weight of a single, critical flaw: the belief that with sufficient authority laced with good intent, civil servants can out think and out perform a market by mandating the "proper" value of things.

Hubris loses that battle every ... single ... time.

 

[The Mark]

Are you suggesting higher taxes to support these things (like public schools and child care) but only on the wealthiest, thus redistributing their wealth?

Thread is about a wealth tax. IMO the top tax bracket should be 90+% tax
That doesn't mean the lower tax brackets won't also be higher, but certainly below a threshold I don't have the information to quantify, we shouldn't be taxing.

Food not being discarded would be very good. I think some restaurants and grocery stores have changed procedures to make unused food available to hungry people, but safety guidelines seriously complicate the goal. I'm not sure I see any kind of link here to wealth redistribution.

I was asked what money from a wealth tax could be spent on, this was one of the things that occurred to me.
I think we have to build up an infrastructure and distribution system that distributes food which would be discarded to people who need it. Food safety requirements should be built into that. Some of the appearance and size standards we expect to see our fruit and vegetables have are arbitrary as hell. You could have a misshapen or undersized apple or some such which is perfectly edible yet won't make it into the grocery store shelf.
I'm not sure of specifics, but it seems possible to do something with the "unacceptable" produce.

Then, minimum wage involves legislatures, businesses adhering and adjusting (likely downward) their employee numbers and hours as needed to survive, customers absorbing resulting increases in prices, etc. Not sure I see a link here to wealth redistribution either.

I'm not convinced that a minimum wage increase will cause the harm some claim it will. Not sure there is one, but perhaps...

Empty houses (owned by whom presently?). Certainly, you can't be suggesting that government begin confiscating property from its rightful owner and "choosing" which homeless people and how many can simply move into that house and do with it as they please?

If a home (house or apartment) is empty, and there's a homeless person nearby, it seems perfectly reasonable to me for taxes to go into paying for rent or purchase of that home and setting up the homeless person in that place so they can get started in "normal" life again.
I recall hearing somewhere that some areas in Canada are considering laws that require property be in use, to try and counter international investors purchasing real estate and leaving it empty while it's value increases.
It seems inherently wrong for housing that is not in use and available to co-exist in the same area as homeless people.
So yes, if in the end it comes down to either confiscation or the status quo, confiscation is the better option IMO. You need to have that threat available to get the rental or purchase options accepted.

 

[weaver2]

.......Our friends on the left really need to get past this idea that companies exist to create jobs for other people. Businesses have only two real obligations: 1) obey the law 2) increase shareholder/owner value. That's it.

Business, like everything else that wants their government to be a democracy and and their economy to be capitalistic has another obligation besides making money and obeying the law. They have to act reasonably ethically. If business or government, military, research/education or any other endeavor consistently acts unethically it destroys the honesty, transparency, trust and culture that that make both democracy and capitalism possible.

We are in an era where business has not be honest or transparent for about 50 years. They have paid for legislators to make legislation that keeps their taxes and the restrictions on how they gain wealth unfairly low and they have transferred most of the wealth of the working class to themselves. They are currently employing the many financial techniques they bought from the legislatures to transfer wealth out of the middle class. The transfer is not as easy as the transfer of working class wealth but it is happening.

Without a working class that can sustain family life and with a decimated middle class, democracy and capitalism will be replaced with something else.

 

[The Mark]

You don't get the latter without giving up the former.

Safe in the arms of Big Brother is no place you want to be.

IMO there's a vast difference between the government setting up an infrastructure and organization to provide for the needs of people who can't currently provide those needs for themselves.
And a government controlling what people do.

There are certainly potential control methods that involve withholding those needs in exchange for something, but those are things we can set up an organization to avoid. And punish individuals who try to do it.

 

[The Mark]

And you believe you did not earn what you have but rather it was just a matter of chance, yes?

Some of it was, for sure.
I was lucky enough to have family and knowledge resources to draw on when I needed to.

 

[NatMorton]

Thread is about a wealth tax. IMO the top tax bracket should be 90+% tax

This is stunning. Do you really think there would be much money in that bracket left to tax?

 

[The Mark]

This is stunning. Do you really think there would be much money in that bracket left to tax?

I assume some wouldn't bother trying to increase their income beyond that point.

 

[ttwtt78640]

i don't agree with a flat tax. i would maintain the progressive rates.

There is no reason that two taxpayers with the same gross income should owe different amounts of federal income tax. One very bad thing about progressive (bracket) rates is that identical tax deductions, credits and exclusions are worth more to those with higher incomes - those who need those tax ‘breaks’ (loopholes?) least get the most value (larger tax reductions) from them.

 

[gbg3]

gbg3:

Just to clarify, I got the impression from reading your reply that you think I am in favour of wealth taxes. To be clear, I am not in favour of wealth taxes except in very limited scopes like municipal property taxes.

Evilroddy, I didn't get that impression. Really, all that happened was your mention of the poor and disadvantaged who are unwilling to work hard or at all prompted me to think about and then discuss the topic of money transfer not having even close to equal impact on the economy. I think some feel it doesn't really matter if you transfer money from one individual to another - as if the money will work in society/the economy in an equal fashion. I just wanted to point out how what one does with money makes a huge difference. If we transfer wealth from the innovative job creators to people highly unlikely to do anything with it beyond just buy personal needs or wants, we've potentially hurt the living conditions of many who would work at those jobs created by the job creators and we've likely only helped the living conditions of someone who certainly might not have what it takes (or even the desire) to create a business, create jobs, or even create a better living situation for their subsequent generations. Sadly, there is a good sized subset of the poor who don't want to achieve or put money to work in effective "get ahead" ways. Some would use money wisely, obtain better training/jobs, and benefit the futures of their children but what about those who are unwilling to work hard or at all.

 

[gbg3]

The "willing poor" or the "determinedly unemployed" are very tough nuts to crack. First-off, they should not be receiving large sums of money from the state if they are unwilling to work. In such a case they should be limited to a subsistence level of state supplied income from state coffers. This income will be contingent on working for the state in simple manual labour programmes like cleaning up litter and planting trees.

100% agreement from me!

 

[NatMorton]

Business, like everything else that wants their government to be a democracy and and their economy to be capitalistic has another obligation besides making money and obeying the law. They have to act reasonably ethically. If business or government, military, research/education or any other endeavor consistently acts unethically it destroys the honesty, transparency, trust and culture that that make both democracy and capitalism possible.

We are in an era where business has not be honest or transparent for about 50 years. They have paid for legislators to make legislation that keeps their taxes and the restrictions on how they gain wealth unfairly low and they have transferred most of the wealth of the working class to themselves. They are currently employing the many financial techniques they bought from the legislatures to transfer wealth out of the middle class. The transfer is not as easy as the transfer of working class wealth but it is happening.

Without a working class that can sustain family life and with a decimated middle class, democracy and capitalism will be replaced with something else.

You are conflating much here. A few clarifying statements:

1. Where "ethical" behavior is not a legal obligation, no, a business has absolutely no obligation to be "ethical" by your standard or mine. It may be smart business to be ethical, but that is their decision, not yours.
   
   
2. Business is vastly more transparent today than in years past. We know far more about Bezos's and Amazon's dealings than, say, Rockefeller's and Standard Oil's. Any assertion to the contrary is nonsense.
   
   
3. These businesses may have "paid for legislators," but that is first and foremost a problem with the legislators, not the businesses who lobby them. If a candidate says to Boeing "Hey, donate to my campaign and I'll fight for pandemic related tax breaks for the travel industry" I would argue Boeing almost has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to do that. We -- the voters -- are first and foremost to blame for sending to Washington people who can be bought.
   
   
4. "They are currently employing the many financial techniques they bought from the legislatures to transfer wealth out of the middle class" this is Marxist gibberish. No such transfer is taking place. Bezos getting wealthier is not making you poorer.
   
   
5. "Without a working class that can sustain family life ..." we have no shortage of that. Materially, the average American is far better off than he or she was 50 years ago, and certainly so than 100 years ago.

 

[NatMorton]

IMO there's a vast difference between the government setting up an infrastructure and organization to provide for the needs of people who can't currently provide those needs for themselves.

We have more than an ample safety net. Came across this one just recently:

Nationwide, our study found that the wage‐equivalent value of benefits for a mother and two children ranged from a high of $60,590 in Hawaii to a low of $11,150 in Idaho. In 33 states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than an $8‐an‐hour job. In 12 states and DC, the welfare package is more generous than a $15‐an‐hour job.

When Welfare Pays Better than Work

Congress and state legislatures should consider strengthening work requirements in welfare programs, removing exemptions and narrowing the definition of work.

www.cato.org

What we don't need is to expand the percentage of those among us financially dependent on the government -- i.e. those who live under an excessive level of government control.

 

[NatMorton]

Some of it was, for sure.
I was lucky enough to have family and knowledge resources to draw on when I needed to.

Far more often than not, success comes from hard work and a willingness to plan for the future (as opposed to living for the moment). That sentiment doesn't make a great sound bite, but I suspect you realize it's true as well I.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Only up to a point.
I think we can afford to provide basic needs for everyone, like water, food, and housing.
If necessary, of course.
That isn't sufficient for a comfortable life, but it's the basic requirement foundations.

If we manage that we can talk about providing health care, education, and all that stuff which is also necessary, but less foundational.

Who, exactly, is not in need of food, shelter, clothing and basic utility services? How much are you proposing that the (federal?) government spend (annually or monthly) to provide everyone (or every household) those “basic requirements”?

 

[NatMorton]

I assume some wouldn't bother trying to increase their income beyond that point.

No, their income would leave these shores. Income and wealth are mobile, and confiscatory tax rates are not.

 

[gbg3]

Second, they should be required to forfeit their right to raise their own children, who should be fostered or adopted by people who would give those kids better opportunities to succeed later in the kids' lives.

Dang, I really get your point and your thinking, but this feels too strong and too harsh. In some cases it could be much better for the child but, if the child isn't in an abusive situation and there is a lot of love present, it seems harsh to separate a child from their loving (albeit loser/lazy/unproductive) parent.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I assume some wouldn't bother trying to increase their income beyond that point.

Yes they would, just not in such a highly taxed country, state or city. The rich are extremely mobile (and not stupid) as many have discovered when such ridiculous tax rates were implemented.

 

[gbg3]

disconnecting wages from their economic value is a sugar high, at best

Boy, I like this! That's an excellent way of describing it!