The Problem With Taxing the Rich

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,956
385
88
Country
USA
Shareholders are the only beneficiaries of the excess profit that a corporate tax targets.
Excess profit is not a fixed amount. The incentive of a corporation is just to pay dividends enough to please shareholders, and use remaining profit for reinvestment into operations. Your trying to push up that line where people are happy to invest, which pulls away from funds that would be spent improving the company.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,020
3,107
118
Shareholders are the only beneficiaries of the excess profit that a corporate tax targets.
True. But if you tax profits, they try to make bigger profit margins to continue paying dividends, so they squeeze workers and/or increase prices for customers, thereby meaning the tax is effectively passed on to them.

There are studies showing who benefits from corporation tax cuts. Shareholders are the largest beneficiaries, but workers and customers also benefit.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
11,608
1,067
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Excess profit is not a fixed amount. The incentive of a corporation is just to pay dividends enough to please shareholders, and use remaining profit for reinvestment into operations.
Used to be that way, yeah. Then companies started paying CEOs and other "corner-office" executives in stock. Now all the incentive is to push stocks as high as possible at the expense of the long-term wellbeing of those companies. The execs get golden parachutes; the regular workers get pink slips.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,641
1,342
118
Country
United Kingdom
True. But if you tax profits, they try to make bigger profit margins to continue paying dividends, so they squeeze workers and/or increase prices for customers, thereby meaning the tax is effectively passed on to them.

There are studies showing who benefits from corporation tax cuts. Shareholders are the largest beneficiaries, but workers and customers also benefit.
I'm coming around to the idea of a statutory link between the lowest earner's wage and the highest earner's wage in a company. It seems the only way to bypass employers' overriding willingness to enrich themselves and shaft the rest.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,762
655
118
I'm coming around to the idea of a statutory link between the lowest earner's wage and the highest earner's wage in a company. It seems the only way to bypass employers' overriding willingness to enrich themselves and shaft the rest.
You mean you want everything to be subcontracted? That might not be what you said, but it's what certain people will hear.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,641
1,342
118
Country
United Kingdom
You mean you want everything to be subcontracted? That might not be what you said, but it's what certain people will hear.
Absolutely not. I want increased employment regulation to limit wage disparity.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,799
1,137
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I totally agree with that. The only problem is that unfortunately it are mostly the cities where the jobs and economic opportunities are. The one silver lining with covid is that it has shown so much can be done remotely and that it isn't needed for everyone to flock into the same space.
Yeah, so we might start to see populations spreading out more since now we can see that remote can work for a lot of jobs and if that happens then the high housing costs will kinda resolve themselves as long as high speed internet is available. Of course its always possible the old guard will try and insist we have to have everyone in the office, but I have been hearing that a lot of businesses are realizing they could save a lot of money on office space.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,799
1,137
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Supply is often kept artificially low by city officials not giving building permits because of home owner lobby groups or investors using real estate as a tax deductible deposit. None of which is in the interest of the public. Should the only people able to afford this inflated rent be people whose corporate overlord paid for the lease? And is it even desirable to push every low to mid income out of a city(ie teachers, police officers, nurses etc that can't rely on remote working)? Or have a huge homeless problem?
You are making a key mistake here. Those are in the interests of the public, because those groups are still members of the public. But just because they are members of the public doesn't mean other members are at odds with their desires. City officials not giving building permits because of lobby groups is how government should work, if you want it to work different then you need to support a lobby that will work towards your goals. There is a group down here trying to deal with the homeless problem, although I really get the feeling they just want to have the police kick out the homeless instead of actually dealing with the issue since one of their talking points is being against the city putting porta johns around the homeless camps so they have somewhere to go to the bathroom.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,799
1,137
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Used to be that way, yeah. Then companies started paying CEOs and other "corner-office" executives in stock. Now all the incentive is to push stocks as high as possible at the expense of the long-term wellbeing of those companies. The execs get golden parachutes; the regular workers get pink slips.
Didn't that come about because of a tax or regulation put on CEO compensation so all the big players just moved to doing stock options?
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
2,926
315
88
Yeah, so we might start to see populations spreading out more since now we can see that remote can work for a lot of jobs and if that happens then the high housing costs will kinda resolve themselves as long as high speed internet is available. Of course its always possible the old guard will try and insist we have to have everyone in the office, but I have been hearing that a lot of businesses are realizing they could save a lot of money on office space.
It's not just housing it's also productivity loss because of congestion. Lots of companies are also seeing the value in attracting people through remote work they otherwise can't reach. There is enormous untapped potential.

You are making a key mistake here. Those are in the interests of the public, because those groups are still members of the public. But just because they are members of the public doesn't mean other members are at odds with their desires. City officials not giving building permits because of lobby groups is how government should work, if you want it to work different then you need to support a lobby that will work towards your goals. There is a group down here trying to deal with the homeless problem, although I really get the feeling they just want to have the police kick out the homeless instead of actually dealing with the issue since one of their talking points is being against the city putting porta johns around the homeless camps so they have somewhere to go to the bathroom.
I don't know about that. It's not a level playing field. When one voice is heard and the other is trampled then government isn't acting in the interest of the public. They are acting in the interest of those with the biggest wallet. The homeless ofcourse have no voice at all and aren't politically interesting. There is a saying that you can determine a country's degree of civilization by the way it treats it's prisoners and homeless.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,799
1,137
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I don't know about that. It's not a level playing field. When one voice is heard and the other is trampled then government isn't acting in the interest of the public. They are acting in the interest of those with the biggest wallet. The homeless ofcourse have no voice at all and aren't politically interesting. There is a saying that you can determine a country's degree of civilization by the way it treats it's prisoners and homeless.
The biggest wallet doesn't matter as much as which group has the most members, more money certainly helps especially when you reach certain levels of it but till then, more members tends to be more important.

Actually the homeless do have voices, there are advocates in the homeless community and there are groups that help them spread their voice and advocate for their interests, but you also have groups like home owners and such who aren't really against homeless as much as they just want them to be further away out of sight. Short answer, shits complicated.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
2,926
315
88
The biggest wallet doesn't matter as much as which group has the most members, more money certainly helps especially when you reach certain levels of it but till then, more members tends to be more important.

Actually the homeless do have voices, there are advocates in the homeless community and there are groups that help them spread their voice and advocate for their interests, but you also have groups like home owners and such who aren't really against homeless as much as they just want them to be further away out of sight. Short answer, shits complicated.
The homeless come in high numbers(a sad fact in itself) but they aren't organized and other than some do-gooder their voices aren't heard. No politician will fear losing an election because they lost the support of the homeless. More than any other group in society the homeless are at the mercy of others. That a growing amount of people doesn't have access to a basic human right in one of the richest countries in the world is just a complete failure of government.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,799
1,137
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
The homeless come in high numbers(a sad fact in itself) but they aren't organized and other than some do-gooder their voices aren't heard. No politician will fear losing an election because they lost the support of the homeless. More than any other group in society the homeless are at the mercy of others. That a growing amount of people doesn't have access to a basic human right in one of the richest countries in the world is just a complete failure of government.
Not actually true, homeless can still vote despite some places trying to make that as hard as possible. They certainly aren't on the forefront of most politicians as a group to pander too but they are still there.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,935
447
88
Country
USA
I could handle a tax increase if I thought I was getting value for my money. Many Western countries have big government. And they pay for it. It isn't about redistribution but about everyone accepting some efficiencies that big government could bring to certain sections of an economy (ie Medicaid for All) and paying for it.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,799
1,137
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,846
1,413
118
Country
United States of America
Oh yeah, cause its not like he has sought a tax increase for the super rich or anything, oh wait.
That article literally says he publicly opposes a wealth tax and instead wants a change to the (easily avoidable) capital gains tax.

His rhetoric about taxing the wealthy is public relations bullshit.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,020
3,107
118
The thing they do anyway?
Bar the odd scam, broadly companies are very good at passing cost-saving on to customers, because cheaper products sell more and make the company more successful. They have always squeezed workers - in that Karl Marx was spot on.

I think I am increasingly unhappy with this drive to cheapness, at least in the sense that the costs of production don't include certain costs they should: basically, environmental damage. I think we need to learn to pay more for things that degrade the planet the we live on, to own and consume less. I think our societies make a lot of low-quality crap they really don't need to, and a lot of it is also too short-lived and disposable. Sadly, I also think we will probably need to experience the woes of severe environmental degradation and the human, social and economic costs associated with it before the world at large learns.