djmich
Footballguy
Don't buy their product? Seems like a straightforward market solution. Nothing forces you to use amazon or twitter, facebook, MS office, etc etc.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Wealth inequality (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gianmarco
- Start date
Bucsfan5493
Footballguy
If we aren’t going to take from the rich, what is your plan to get more money to poor people? Print more money? Raise the minimum wage? If you have another solution, I’m all ears for it.
djmich
Footballguy
Bucs, do you have a specific tax or other source of taking money from rich people you would implement and how much that would bring in?
What do you do if (and we know when) government allocates this income poorly and you still have poor people?
Not trolling, in general as I noted earlier I would be for some sort of additional tax on extreme wealth...just not sure it amount to much and not confident it solves anything in the long run.
What do you do if (and we know when) government allocates this income poorly and you still have poor people?
Not trolling, in general as I noted earlier I would be for some sort of additional tax on extreme wealth...just not sure it amount to much and not confident it solves anything in the long run.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I don't know if you made this specific argument, but the above would seem to go against a fairly recent talking point that Twitter and Facebook are monopolies and shouldn't be allowed to remove/silence those they believe violate their terms of service.
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
I didn't, but I believe they both exhibit "market hoarding" traits, not sure either I'd consider a monopoly or even duopoly. I haven't weighed into the argument of if they should be able to silence or not, I can see both sides to that argument and laws aside I think silencing of speech is bad for the country (in general I think discrimination is bad).
Rich Conway
Footballguy
A few quick searches show me that Gates has argued for treating capital gains like ordinary income and increases in the estate tax, which is about as close to a tax on existing wealth as one can get in our current tax structure.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/25/warren-buffett-and-bill-gates-the-rich-should-pay-higher-taxes.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/cartercoudriet/2019/10/15/billionaires-more-taxes-gates-buffett-bloomberg/?sh=7f1142767792
This next one seems to indicate that Gates had some reservations about a wealth tax, but the actual quotes are somewhat ambiguous. A lot of the article is worthless opining by random folks on what Gates meant.
https://medium.com/citizen-truth/philanthropist-bill-gates-nervous-about-wealth-tax-80ac233fd583
JAA
Footballguy
I guess ideologically we can disagree. When the agenda of the top 10% is simply to protect their 10%, not to truly make things better, I believe our true north is broken.
djmich
Footballguy
Actually you can get a lot closer on taxing existing wealth as proposed by Elizabeth Warren annual wealth tax.
This is sort of astray from the topic but before I hold up Bezos, Buffet, Gates as models of "hey im rich and take my money" I'd at least want to see them support the only real way that would impact them today...which as you note the one way it would impact Gates today he has reservations about.
So basically, tax all those people that haven't made their wealth yet...thats very heroic of them.
BTW, I think the capital gains idea is a good one to explore (wouldn't be great for me). Estate tax I'm a little more sketchy on but think its an area to look into.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Amazon the retailer and amazon the massive web hoster(twitter and facebook as well) should be treated very differently.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I understand the bolded. My point was that a wealth tax is a departure from our current, income-based tax structure. Such a proposal would get bogged down in Constitutional questions, among other issues. Off the top of my head, I think raising the rates on capital gains and estate taxes are about as close as one can get to taxing "wealth" within an income-based tax structure, although I could be missing something.
I would also point out that there is no "universal wealth tax proposal", much the same way there is no "universal BIG/UBI proposal", so it gets tough to discuss the nitty-gritty of what such proposals would entail. There can be a world of difference between two proposals even though both might fall in the realm of "wealth tax proposals". Without agreement on what a proposal is, it's tough to debate the specific pros and cons.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
JAA
Footballguy
Agree 1000%. Our current "income based" tax structure is being massively taken advantage of
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I have to remember this when people are complaining about Big Tech around here. We can just choose not to use those things?
djmich
Footballguy
Right, you are more aligned than you think, there are good reasons not to see power and income monopolizedI have to remember this when people are complaining about Big Tech around here. We can just choose not to use those things?
Sand
Footballguy
Quite the opposite. My life, at least, is better because of all three. I've used or bought products from all. What they provide has value and so it prospers.
Then we'd have massive inflation as prices rise to meet the excess cash in the system.
It's blatantly unconstitutional, i.e. a pipe dream. It's now simply something she can use as a talking point for as long as she's in office. It will never come true, she knows that, so she can safely talk about it forever. Capital gains taxes are really the only meaningful way to tax the truly wealthy.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
This is certainly debatable. I've read good arguments on both sides. I suspect that SCOTUS, given its current makeup, would rule such a tax unconstitutional, but that's not the same thing as "it's blatantly unconstitutional".
AAABatteries
Footballguy
No clue what that has to do with what I said. I never said my life isn’t better because of these companies and I’ve bought products from them all too. Taxing the #### out of them won’t make them or their replacement go away. The idea that innovation or services that would still enrich people would dry up is absurd. The statement “off the backs of all of us” should be taken at face value - meaning, without people paying them money they aren’t rich. There’s literally no argument to be had there.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I don’t personally even care if it was deemed unconstitutional - I’d be in favor of amending the constitution.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Relevant to earlier discussion: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/stocktons-basic-income-experiment-pays-off/618174/
In one of the least surprising developments ever, it turns out, UBI works!
In one of the least surprising developments ever, it turns out, UBI works!
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
I wouldn't go that far. I read that article yesterday and it struck me that this was a very small study (125 folks) and that the difference in employment was small (12% increase vs. 5% in the control group). There was no mention in here of statistical significance and it's likely that there isn't one due to the sample size and the low percentage changes. So, for now, I'd regard those results as purely anecdotal. Always be wary when a highly biased source (which the Atlantic certainly is) writes something like this with no discussion of statistics.Rich Conway said:
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I disagree on "highly biased source". That said, it's not like this is the only study showing UBI works. There are plenty of them over the years and the overall conclusion is undeniable.
Sand
Footballguy
The Swedish study was larger - 2000 people. It showed, again, very marginal results (78 days of employment for UBI, 72 days of employment for control). Finland has a similar sized study that was discontinued due to being a failure.
The question is very much open at this point.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
UBI has lots of benefits. Why is the only thing anybody ever talks about whether people keep working as much? Does it make people happier or healthier or more secure? Does it make them better parents and caregivers? Maybe those are the important things we need to look at. I don’t really care that much if McDonald’s has enough workers.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
We'd probably all be better off if McDonald's implemented more automation and we taxed McD's savings to pay for UBI. The food would likely be better and more consistent too.
One of my main drivers for UBI is that I believe the world is moving towards massive automation. Vast swaths of people will be unemployed, to levels beyond the Great Depression worldwide. UBI will be the ONLY way to resolve this without violent/lasting upheaval and massive pain and suffering. I'd rather live in one of the first countries to figure out how to do UBI right than one of the last.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
Ultimately a system like this needs to be self-sustaining. Any effort like this must end up with enough employment gains to turn net recipients into net contributors to keep the system going.
The rest are nice to have, but certainly not must have. Without sustainability it's destined to implode.
djmich
Footballguy
gianmarco
Footballguy
Lol... The guy looks Jewish? How so?
And, are you trying to suggest that the wealthiest people in this country AREN'T white males? That's your takeaway from that cartoon?
ETA -- Do a google search of the top 50 wealthiest people in the US. You'll actually see a list of the top 25, or so. All of them are white. All but like 4 or 5 are men (with the women pretty much being relatives or ex-wives of men from that list).
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
Ah, so as long as the stereotype has underlying data to support it that’s ok? What if the old man was wearing a kippah?
There have been many studies showing an association between increased neighborhood disadvantages and poorer health outcomes. If you consider the opposite (contrapositive), is this in play with COVID-19 vaccine distribution in Florida? Many of these wealthy neighborhoods also have lots of old money and old people, so the democrats need to make sure they don't overpay this.
https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1367822202188496900
https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1367822202188496900
Stealthycat
Footballguy
is that a surprise ?
the shutdowns & covid restrictions killed literally tens of thousands of small businesses and millions of jobs .......... everyone knew the consequences of that and if they didn't, they were not thinking/understanding the simplicity of it
here's something else - that 1.2 trillion infrastructure bill ? it'll make many Biden supporters richer - much richer
that's part of the political games that are played - the difference is Democrats/Biden talk this talk of being for the poor people and fighting wealth disparity etc .... its all lies to get votes. Really - how much wealth do you think Biden will acquire in the next 4 years?
As recently as November 2009, Joe Biden's net worth was less than $30,000, according to CBS, but life post-vice presidency has been quite lucrative for President Obama's former number two. When Biden released his financial disclosures in July of 2019, they showed that he and his wife Jill had earned more than $15 million in 2017 and 2018.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a31265187/joe-biden-net-worth/
massraider
Footballguy
He earned money in the private sector, when he had no position in politics?
Whoa, man.....you just blew my mind.
I was reading this article today and it just made me think - on both sides - we just can't stop electing rich aholes that only look out for themselves. Getting into politics in the USA is the easiest and biggest get rich quick scheme in the world
https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kb88z/dr-oz-has-company-meet-the-many-senate-gop-carpetbaggers
https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kb88z/dr-oz-has-company-meet-the-many-senate-gop-carpetbaggers
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Biden was never out of politics - and the connections made from being VP led to Biden being a many times over millionaire
Sand
Footballguy
You get what you enact. When you shut down small business and keep Walmart open guess where the money goes?
When you keep rates at ZIRP for forever (thank Obama for this one) what do you expect?
When you print money hand over fist and pass massive spending bills (thanks Biden and Trump!), causing real property inflation those with assets benefit - what else were you expecting?
At this point we can leave out the Trump tax cuts as they actually did much more for the middle and lower economic classes than has been trumpeted from the media and in here. IRS data there, so hopefully in Tim's green zone. I don't expect retractions from either, though. That would be silly to expect such.
massraider
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I think he is under the impression that this is really common ............ on the left.
Nugget
Footballguy
dawgtrails
Footballguy
There is way too much wealth being held by too many politiciansI think he is under the impression that this is really common ............ on the left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
Sand
Footballguy
If you have a concurrent analysis using the same IRS data that concludes something different please share it. Otherwise maybe lay off aspersions.
BTW, here is what was published. I don't see opinion in there. I see analysis and conclusions based on IRS data. You may disagree with those facts as presented, but you're going have to back it up with something. Table 1 shows a pretty clear trend to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
nope
but Democrats have repeated for the last few years how the rich are bad, gotta hammer them harder on their wealth, the inequality is horrible, continuing this privilege thing ... and the people shaking their heads yes yes yes and agreeing and thinking the Democrats are on their side? they're fooled - the Democrats are the very people they're talking about and they're not committing suicide FYI
Biden is an example as is his son Hunter
Nugget
Footballguy
You are fine. The first link you used linked to the opinion section of the The Hill. Using the same data from his table one, I'd tell a different story.
Average tax cut for someone making:
- $20-25K - $101.69
- $50-75K- $863.46
- $500K -$1M - $14,959.92
- $2M - 5M - $37,133.16
- $10M+ - $611,003.42
I'm not sure that I agree with the authors conclusion that the Trump Tax cut did much more for the middle and lower economic classes.
massraider
Footballguy
If you have some sort of gotcha moment from a former VP making money after he leaves office, rock on.
Sand
Footballguy
I'd prefer to use percentages than raw numbers, as those are more revealing as to what the effects were. Obviously a household making 50k isn't paying enough federal taxes to get a 37k reduction, etc. And, to be fair, I thought that tax cut should have eliminated the SS income threshold (180k?) so we could shore up that system.
I also believe the corporate tax should be zero, or close to (now that we have a global 15% floor that's what we should do). These are pass through entities and, in the end, individuals pay all taxes.
Nugget
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
A guy making 22k isn't paying much at all in federal taxes to begin with. Dipping below zero starts to create all kinds of perverse incentives, so really there's only so much blood to squeeze from that stone if you don't do that.
Nugget
Footballguy
Agreed. He was paying about $600 year, now he is paying $500 year. His savings was less than $10 per month. The guy who just saved $50K per month seems to have been advantaged more. The author wants to push a narrative that the $22K guy saving 16% is better off than the multi-millionaire saving less than 6%.
Sand
Footballguy
Also, if you look at the CAGR of the markets before and after the tax cut you won't find a whole lot there. The markets have been growing for a long time and continue to.
I'd put much more on Fed monetary policy when it comes to value of hard assets than this particular tax cut.
Similar threads
