Let's Debate Inequality

[Heyo]

Karl Marx never participated in capitalism. He was an ivory tower intellectual.

I'm more of an ivory tower intellectual, so Marx speaks to me. His analysis of the functions of capitalism are deeply thought out and spot on. (At least they were at the time, and most of the theoretical stuff is still true today. And his faulty conclusions don't take away from the analysis.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you want the government to implement something to limit wealth?

I'd like to see the kind of progressive taxation we saw in the mid-20th century reinstated.

No, liberty and freedom don't include government taking or limiting your wealth above taxation needed to implement government.

Liberty and freedom are only part of the equation and can and should be limited when such limits benefit society, hence speed limits and minimum drinking ages.

That is immoral.

You and I have different values. I consider the current tax laws immoral.

That is not the case unless unions are involved.

My words: "History and common sense contradict you. Ever since the class wars of the Reagan era, the wealthy have been getting wealthier on the backs of the middle class. More for them meant less for you and me. The less they pay staff, the greater their profits and the poorer the staff."

The middle class has been shrinking for decades. The rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer. During that time, unions were weakened, minimum wage stagnated, workplace benefits have decreased, and two income families and people with multiple jobs have become commoner:

"America's middle class, traditionally considered the backbone of the nation and its economic engine, has been shrinking for the past 50 years, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. A study based on government data released by the Washington-based nonpartisan fact tank in late May found that the share of Americans living in middle-class households dropped from 61 percent in 1971 to 51 percent in 2023. During the same time, the share of Americans living in lower income households rose from 27 percent to 30 percent, while that of individuals living in upper income households rose from 11 percent to 19 percent." source

 

[muhammad_isa]

"The top income tax rate reached above 90% from 1944 through 1963, peaking in 1944, when top taxpayers paid an income tax rate of 94% on their taxable income."

That is immoral. Unless you think the ends justify the means.

Right .. the problem was/is how to make a tax on wealth, when people will hide it, placing it in foreign
bank accounts and investments. The same goes on through legal loopholes in company law.

Income tax was/is a way to get around these problems .. it is FAR from ideal .. but that is the problem
with the global nature of our world .. and its Capitalist ideology, that conspires to hide money.

 

[PureX]

I'm glad you feel capable of speaking for all capitalists.



Here is 50 companies who say otherwise.

https://www.housingfinance.com/management-operations/top-50-affordable-housing-developers-of-2022_o

Sure, they all want to build affordable housing so long as they can bilk the government doing it. California has spent billions on their homeless problem and almost none of that money ever got to the homeless, or ever actually built anyone a home. It all went to political cronies and phony development companies. They'll put an electric toilet in a $1200 Home Depot shed and sell it to the city as a "tiny home for the homeless" for $40,000 a piece. Because greed is the way of life in this country. They'll screw anyone they can for as much as they can get, and they'll consider it "just good business".

 

[sayak83]

I'd like to see the kind of progressive taxation we saw in the mid-20th century reinstated.

Liberty and freedom are only part of the equation and can and should be limited when such limits benefit society, hence speed limits and minimum drinking ages.

You and I have different values. I consider the current tax laws immoral.

My words: "History and common sense contradict you. Ever since the class wars of the Reagan era, the wealthy have been getting wealthier on the backs of the middle class. More for them meant less for you and me. The less they pay staff, the greater their profits and the poorer the staff."

The middle class has been shrinking for decades. The rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer. During that time, unions were weakened, minimum wage stagnated, workplace benefits have decreased, and two income families and people with multiple jobs have become commoner:

"America's middle class, traditionally considered the backbone of the nation and its economic engine, has been shrinking for the past 50 years, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. A study based on government data released by the Washington-based nonpartisan fact tank in late May found that the share of Americans living in middle-class households dropped from 61 percent in 1971 to 51 percent in 2023. During the same time, the share of Americans living in lower income households rose from 27 percent to 30 percent, while that of individuals living in upper income households rose from 11 percent to 19 percent." source

I agree. One of the most important types of freedom is economic freedom. Poverty itself is a terrible form of slavery. Thus a system that is making people poorer is not a system that is enhancing freedom, no matter the rhetoric.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The middle class has been shrinking for decades. The rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer. During that time, unions were weakened, minimum wage stagnated, workplace benefits have decreased, and two income families and people with multiple jobs have become commoner:

I agree .. wow, that's rare.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I'd like to see the kind of progressive taxation we saw in the mid-20th century reinstated.

Ok,

Liberty and freedom are only part of the equation and can and should be limited when such limits benefit society, hence speed limits and minimum drinking ages.

I agree that governments job is to implement limits where necessary and protecting our nation and our rights. Taxing at immoral rates is not a function of government.

You and I have different values. I consider the current tax laws immoral.

My words: "History and common sense contradict you. Ever since the class wars of the Reagan era, the wealthy have been getting wealthier on the backs of the middle class. More for them meant less for you and me. The less they pay staff, the greater their profits and the poorer the staff."

The middle class has been shrinking for decades. The rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer. During that time, unions were weakened, minimum wage stagnated, workplace benefits have decreased, and two income families and people with multiple jobs have become commoner:

"America's middle class, traditionally considered the backbone of the nation and its economic engine, has been shrinking for the past 50 years, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. A study based on government data released by the Washington-based nonpartisan fact tank in late May found that the share of Americans living in middle-class households dropped from 61 percent in 1971 to 51 percent in 2023. During the same time, the share of Americans living in lower income households rose from 27 percent to 30 percent, while that of individuals living in upper income households rose from 11 percent to 19 percent." source

How do you attribute this to our tax laws?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

"The top income tax rate reached above 90% from 1944 through 1963, peaking in 1944, when top taxpayers paid an income tax rate of 94% on their taxable income."



Right .. the problem was/is how to make a tax on wealth, when people will hide it, placing it in foreign
bank accounts and investments. The same goes on through legal loopholes in company law.

Income tax was/is a way to get around these problems .. it is FAR from ideal .. but that is the problem
with the global nature of our world .. and its Capitalist ideology, that conspires to hide money.

It is their money, you don't have a right to it above reasonable taxation. Taxing wealth at 94% above a certain income is immoral. Why would anyone strive to make that money if it will almost all be taken away?

 

[Nakosis]

Sure, they all want to build affordable housing so long as they can bilk the government doing it. California has spent billions on their homeless problem and almost none of that money ever got to the homeless, or ever actually built anyone a home. It all went to political cronies and phony development companies. They'll put an electric toilet in a $1200 Home Depot shed and sell it to the city as a "tiny home for the homeless" for $40,000 a piece. Because greed is the way of life in this country. They'll screw anyone they can for as much as they can get, and they'll consider it "just good business".

That's what relying on the government gets you.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm more of an ivory tower intellectual, so Marx speaks to me. His analysis of the functions of capitalism are deeply thought out and spot on. (At least they were at the time, and most of the theoretical stuff is still true today. And his faulty conclusions don't take away from the analysis.)

Well, we'll have to disagree there as practical experience says otherwise.

 

[PureX]

That's what relying on the government gets you.

So a thief cheats and robs the government and you think it's the government's fault.

This is the kind of moral poison capitalism fosters in the minds and hearts of everyone it touches. Because it has to insist that greed is not the problem. When greed is exactly the problem.

 

[Koldo]

A politician.

Ah. So all the very rich people are somehow politicians then.

I'm not against reasonable taxation.



Then it would have to be reasonable.

Great. What do you think is reasonable taxation and how did you reach this conclusion?

 

[Nakosis]

Ah. So all the very rich people are somehow politicians then.

You were asking about power. Seeking power requires delving into politics yes.

Great. What do you think is reasonable taxation and how did you reach this conclusion?

One that doesn't overburden the economy and provides for the public interest.

How did I reach this conclusion? Logic and rational thinking. It is best to balance both interests.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is their money, you don't have a right to it above reasonable taxation..

I haven't argued otherwise .. I was just commenting on how it is difficult to base a system of
"reasonable taxation" on a person's wealth due to the global nature of the modern world .. and so
govts. have targeted income tax.

I don't agree with it .. but then you probably wouldn't agree with my solution, which requires
tightening up financial regulation either.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I haven't argued otherwise .. I was just commenting on how it is difficult to base a system of
"reasonable taxation" on a person's wealth due to the global nature of the modern world .. and so
govts. have targeted income tax.

I don't agree with it .. but then you probably wouldn't agree with my solution, which requires
tightening up financial regulation either.

Depends on what regulations. I am for reasonable regulation and reasonable taxes. I do think taxing a person's income is immoral but that ship has sailed.

 

[Heyo]

Great. What do you think is reasonable taxation and how did you reach this conclusion?

Not directed at me, but I'll through my opinion in as a point of discussion.
I'll skip the 100% estate tax, as that wasn't received that well.

A just taxation system should have the following features:
1. No tax brackets. That is an ancient system that was necessary when taxes were calculated with an abacus. We have computers today which can handle complex functions. The progression curve should be continuous.
2. No wealth tax. There are good arguments for it, but I think we can let the rich retain their wealth, when we can make them pay a fair income tax.
3. No differentiation of kind of income. I'd rather have a higher tax on non-work income, but I'm content with equality. Maybe we can have work as a deductible investment.
4. The curve should have an upper limit of 100% (which would only be reached when only 1 person is paying taxes).
5. The zero point should be so that who is just getting by, without need or riches, pays $0 in taxes.
6. Left of the zero point are negative taxes, indicating government assistance. The curve below 0 may be different to the one above 0 but must connect to form a continuous function.
7. Corporations should pay the taxes on dividends directly to the IRS, in the name of the shareholder. (Preventing tax fraud.)
8. Closing of loopholes (see #7). There should be a comprehensive list of deductibles which prevents "creative" interpretations.

I could think of more, but this will do as a starting point.

 

[Koldo]

You were asking about power. Seeking power requires delving into politics yes.

Not necessarily. Money is power too.

One that doesn't overburden the economy and provides for the public interest.

How did I reach this conclusion? Logic and rational thinking. It is best to balance both interests.

Which translates into roughly what numbers for income taxes?

 

[muhammad_isa]

2. No wealth tax. There are good arguments for it, but I think we can let the rich retain their wealth, when we can make them pay a fair income tax..

I don't see how that makes sense.
Most income tax is collected from people who are employed.

The richer self-employed become, the more they are able to evade it, by employing accountants etc.

 

[Kfox]

It's not about the people. It's about a system that encourages, enables, and rewards this behavior at every turn. And I am not just talking about California's homeless problem. There are thousands of dead and dying towns all across the United States because the capitalists decided they could make ore money exploiting foreign labor.

Is this the fault of the capitalists? Or the politicians that citizens of the community else in office that make it difficult and costly to do business in the community? Are you sure there is not a lot more going on here than greedy capitalists refusing to give people jobs and services?

And because the capitalists use human necessity to create monopolies that they then use to price gouge everyone for everything they need to live.

Then don’t patronage their business! If Joe the capitalist opens a store in your community, nobody is forcing you to go there to buy his stuff, just pretend he isn’t there! Better yet, why don’t YOU open a business, and show everybody how it should be done!

To the point where most Americans are living on the edge of economic catastrophe.

Most businesses are surviving on the edge of economic catastrophe.

And the fact that you don't and won't see this happening all around you is indicative of how thoroughly this corrupt system has poisoned the minds and hearts of the nation.

So your complaint is capitalists open business in your community, and you don’t like how they pay people, or how they run their business? First of all, capitalists have no obligation to open a business and provide jobs, or services to your community; hopefully if they do it it will be beneficial to them and the community. But if it is not beneficial to them, they have every right to close it down and go somewhere else. Second; what are YOU doing? Are you providing jobs and services to the community? Or are you just sittin’ back and complaining about other people who at least tried! Why don’t you try walking a mile in their shoes before judging them as greedy and corrupt; let’s see if you can do a better job.

 

[anotherneil]

In a different context, what I am proposing is a something like a "wealth concentration tax". That is create statistical distribution based on income and have an extra taxation imposed when a person is 5 or 8 sigma away from the mean wealth value. This is because highly unequal distribution of wealth is a socio-economic and political problem in its own right. We want many affluent people and not a few hyper-affluent people and many poor people. In a sense it is similar to anti-monopoly laws.

I take it that you only mean higher taxes on the 5 to 8 sigma on the wealthy extreme, not the poor extreme, or do you mean doing away with taxes for the poor extreme? I'm ok with the 5 to 8 sigma extreme poor not having to pay taxes because of their position on this statistical income distribution, but I personally don't care for the idea of taxing the 5 to 8 sigma on the wealthy extreme anymore than beyond that 35% to 37% marginal tax rate.

The reason I don't care for it is because it could stifle the benefits & advantages of a free market system. When someone is able to legally achieve reaching the 5 to 8 sigma range of the top wealthiest, they did so because they know how to navigate the economy in such a way that improved it; they're the ones who are the best at finding the best industry, goods, and services to invest in and support, that made them that degree of wealth for them & this includes creating more jobs for everyone else.

They should only be rewarded, not punished, for making the economy better; their reward is that high degree of wealth, and I want them to keep it so they can use it to continue to decide what's best for the economy. They demonstrated that they know what they're doing by getting there.

If they lose that skill, or someone better than them in some way comes along, then that means that the economy automatically took that investment money from them to go to someone else or somewhere else to improve the economy.