The Problem With Taxing the Rich

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
Stock don't have a value, stock have a current single sale price.
Which for publicly traded stocks is considered its value. Everything is valued by its sale price. The fact there is a transparent price makes publicly traded stocks easier to be valued than any other goods. Private equity is quite different. There the value has to be estimated, just like for the rest.

If Bezo decided to sell every single share he had tomorrow he probably wouldn't even make half of his stocks value.
True, but he could reasonably sell shares every year to pay himself a cash salary of a couple (dozens?) of millions meaning he can still get a huge amount of value out of his stocks.

Also if you introduce a wealth tax that apply to stock held, then stock become a lot less appealing to hold, it's illiquid and you can't enjoy it like a piece of art/house while holding it.This means price will crash and investor will ask for more dividend and share buyback to hold it, which will decrease the amount of money company will spend toward other things, like RnD and salary.
Publicly traded stocks are actually often considered liquid, especially from very large companies. And yes they would become less appealing. I personally would propose a progressive taxation on wealth. The idea here is to tax the very rich at every angle so they are left with less. If you tax almost all their sources of income more in the end all these sources of revenue retain the same relative attractiveness.

Wealth tax are also famous for creating weird incentive, like the window tax causing people to board up window. It turn out it's really hard to properly value things people own, and the more exception and loophole you create the more people will take advantages of those creating all kinds of distortion.
All taxes incentivies using sometimes weird loopholes... The goal would be to fix them over time.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118
It's not glory-tripping...
Yes, it is. The real reason these guys need to get into space is that it's the only place big enough for their egos.

I have no objection to "visionaries", less so when they are people who beggar their own to fulfill their visions. The pyramids are amazing too: just don't think too hard about the slaves who laboured on them. They probably got more generous toilet breaks than Amazon workers do, too.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,141
5,849
118
Country
United Kingdom
Obviously Bezos isn't a saint but his ambitions about converting lunar ice into energy with the artemis program and off planet heavy industry are definitely for the better of mankind.
I imagine his sole consideration is monetising it, and he'd happily restrict mankind's access to that technology if it meant he could squeeze more out of it. It's how he treats his existing business.

Come to think of it, a handy way of avoiding some of these problems is to just make businesses owned by their workers. Don't need to value Bezo's ownership of Amazon if he doesn't own (more than a democratic share of) Amazon.
I mean, that'd be ideal for me, yeah. But pretty much everyone-- whether they're socialists or not-- should have some interest in equitable tax reform.

You would probably get better results from just funding the IRS more so they could actually go after wealthy tax cheats. And change the law so ignorance isn't as much of a get out of fraud free card.
I think most money is lost to avoidance, not evasion.

The pyramids are amazing too: just don't think too hard about the slaves who laboured on them.
Obligatory comment that the consensus of Egyptologists today is that the pyramids were not constructed by slaves. Labourers performing a tremendously difficult job, yeah, but probably relatively well-paid.

There were slaves in ancient Egypt at various times, of course. Just probably not those labourers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bluegate

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
The thing they do anyway?
Precisely. Increasing taxation and Minimum Wage on companies is just an excuse to increase prices, not the actual cause. Particularly Minimum Wage, since the very brief loss from having to pay their workers more would be, by an insightful company at least, more than made up for by the fact that people who do Minimum Wage jobs would actually have money to spend and thus significantly increased business. But no, if Minimum Wage is increased they'll simply jack up to the price of everything instead rendering the wage increase moot, and probably by much more than would be required to make up the difference anyway making the wage increase actually end up detrimental. As for taxes it's a twofer, they'll use that as an excuse to jack up prices and then use whatever loophole they can find to avoid having to pay them anyway.

In the end, these companies need not just taxation and wage increases but laws to stop them from just jacking up prices in response and to keep them from pulling up roots and throwing their money into tax shelters. We need changes on a worldwide level, that's the problem. The issue is not the amount of the wages or the taxes but the exploitation that these people have been getting away with for decades with little to nothing being done to to stop them. Why would there be? Politicians and world leaders across the planet are being paid off to ensure that this happens and stays that way, if not get worse.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,487
3,437
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I think most money is lost to avoidance, not evasion.
Well here the IRS is underfunded enough that they have a much easier time auditing the poor then they do the rich.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,678
3,588
118
Obligatory comment that the consensus of Egyptologists today is that the pyramids were not constructed by slaves. Labourers performing a tremendously difficult job, yeah, but probably relatively well-paid.
Especially the majority of them who were seasonal workers, and between planting and harvesting otherwise wouldn't have a job. The state provided employment for lots of people with their pyramid building projects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluegate

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,701
2,881
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Precisely. Increasing taxation and Minimum Wage on companies is just an excuse to increase prices, not the actual cause. Particularly Minimum Wage, since the very brief loss from having to pay their workers more would be, by an insightful company at least, more than made up for by the fact that people who do Minimum Wage jobs would actually have money to spend and thus significantly increased business. But no, if Minimum Wage is increased they'll simply jack up to the price of everything instead rendering the wage increase moot, and probably by much more than would be required to make up the difference anyway making the wage increase actually end up detrimental. As for taxes it's a twofer, they'll use that as an excuse to jack up prices and then use whatever loophole they can find to avoid having to pay them anyway.

In the end, these companies need not just taxation and wage increases but laws to stop them from just jacking up prices in response and to keep them from pulling up roots and throwing their money into tax shelters. We need changes on a worldwide level, that's the problem. The issue is not the amount of the wages or the taxes but the exploitation that these people have been getting away with for decades with little to nothing being done to to stop them. Why would there be? Politicians and world leaders across the planet are being paid off to ensure that this happens and stays that way, if not get worse.
Look, I’m fine with paying an extra dollar or two IF it goes to the worker. The problem is that not a certain thing even under higher minimum wage laws.

Then you think about reverse minimum wage laws. The business will just earn more money, prices will still rise and the worker gets less money. It doesn’t matter which way minimum wage goes, the business wins
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
Look, I’m fine with paying an extra dollar or two IF it goes to the worker. The problem is that not a certain thing even under higher minimum wage laws.

Then you think about reverse minimum wage laws. The business will just earn more money, prices will still rise and the worker gets less money. It doesn’t matter which way minimum wage goes, the business wins
The fact is the business wins because ultimately they decide all laws and regulations against them, and that's not a situation that results in anything resembling a fair market. What laws and regulations we DO have were pushed for by businesses in order to put the squeeze on each other, and in particular to screw over the little businesses that crop up in order to create a massive barrier of entry.

The problem is that businesses are short sighted and only concerned with immediate profit. Increase the Minimum Wage and people have more money to spend so they go out and spend it which results in greater profits. Up to a point at least, once the Minimum Wage reaches the point where people regularly start saving money rather than spending money it sees diminished returns for them, but they still have no reason to raise their prices beyond short sighted greed.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,119
1,874
118
Country
USA
Okay, let me suggest the names of some billionaires who have openly called on the government to tax the ultra-rich more: Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates. Why is it that the billionaires who most want to share are those most hated by the right wing, even as they complain that billionaires control them?

Why is the right still handing billionaires massive tax cuts, if they think billionaires feather their own nests and manipulate government to their own ends? (Why did they elect a billionaire who directed government business to his own companies so he could directly profit from taxpayer's money?)
The Right typically offers tax cuts to the rich. The Left sells loop holes, which they prefer. They're about control more so than the Right. That's how you end up with people like Buffet paying a lower tax rate than his secretary: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...lower-tax-rate-than-his-secretary/ar-BB19pHOl

Look at what happened between Trump and Biden. Trump's policies over-saw record breaking employment numbers and rising wages for people regardless of race. Biden is back to creating a tribelized racial spoils system... which they can control. People just willy nilly start earning more money and they don't have to follow government orders. Give people a tax cut and they have more spending money? Same thing. Create conditional tax loopholes and government run spoil systems? They get to have strings attached.
 
Last edited:

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,119
1,874
118
Country
USA
"record breaking employment numbers" just means that population grew.
You don't think high employment numbers made upward pressure on wages? Also, record low unemployment numbers. Just population growth?



What's True
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the country's unemployment rate dropped to 3.5% in fall 2019 — the lowest rate in about 50 years, since December 1969.



 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,301
3,117
118
Country
United States of America
You don't think high employment numbers made upward pressure on wages?
No, not substantially. And not with a labor force participation rate in the low 60s.

Also, record low unemployment numbers. Just population growth?
What's True
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the country's unemployment rate dropped to 3.5% in fall 2019 — the lowest rate in about 50 years, since December 1969.
The words "... in about 50 years..." indicates that a record was not broken. The only record-breaking figure is the absolute number of employed, which is basically just population growth.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,119
1,874
118
Country
USA
No, not substantially. And not with a labor force participation rate in the low 60s.



The words "... in about 50 years..." indicates that a record was not broken. The only record-breaking figure is the absolute number of employed, which is basically just population growth.
Well, the record of the last 49 years was broken. But I think you are back to the, "Trump's economy was not great." track again. A change back from the , "sure the economy was great, but it was a BHO economy that Trump just continued."
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,141
5,849
118
Country
United Kingdom
A change back from the , "sure the economy was great, but it was a BHO economy that Trump just continued."
So, you believe its attributable specifically and solely to Trump?

In Trump's first three years, 6.4 million jobs were added. In Obama's last 3 years, 7 million jobs were added. How do you account for this if you don't believe Trump was merely offering continuation of an existing trend?
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,119
1,874
118
Country
USA
So, you believe its attributable specifically and solely to Trump?
In Trump's first three years, 6.4 million jobs were added. In Obama's last 3 years, 7 million jobs were added. How do you account for this if you don't believe Trump was merely offering continuation of an existing trend?
Diminishing returns. Like going from 720p to 1080p. Obama inherited a horrible economy. He did an OK job with it so by the time Trump took over, lot less room for growth. But it happened when the predictions were he would crash the economy.

Trump was about deregulating and cutting taxes. These are things that improve an economy. They are things I don’t think a POTUS Hillary would have done.

This sort of thing:

https://nypost.com/2021/01/26/biden-reverses-trump-policy-on-racial-training-patriotic-education/
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,141
5,849
118
Country
United Kingdom
Diminishing returns. Like going from 720p to 1080p. Obama inherited a horrible economy. He did an OK job with it so by the time Trump took over, lot less room for growth. But it happened when the predictions were he would crash the economy.
So... you consider 7 million jobs added "an OK job", but 6.4 million jobs added to be record-breakingly spectacular? Just trying to get all of this straight.


Trump was about deregulating and cutting taxes. These are things that improve an economy.
Well, that's the right-wing line, anyway; the line sold by the huge corporations and super-rich who benefitted by far the most from those actions.

That's nothing that could even remotely be described as "tribalised racial spoils" by any sensible person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh