Let's Debate Inequality

[Nakosis]

Increase minimum wage.

Ensure money generated from taxes is spent on incentives for 'poorer' people to find their way out of poverty. Things like education, incentives for work, more assistance for single parent families.

Policies left of centre, like Denmark for example, share the wealth

About 87% of Denmark's tax revenue goes to public benefit vs about 54% for the US.
Poverty rate of Denmark is .03%. Poverty rate of the US is about 11.50%.

Perhaps it would be better to focus on what the government is actually spending its money on vs how much the already rich are making.

 

[PureX]

Then it is not the same as it is now. You will kill the incentive to start new businesses

Change requires change. People will still want to start businesses because they will still want to profit from it, and to be the progenitor. Power and greed are not the only motives for starting a business. There are other rewards. Some people like the challenge. Some like the respect. Some see it as answering a social need. And we could actually teach our young ones to think more along these lines than just getting rich and and being Mr. Big.

Yeah; competition will be lessened because few people would be willing to start a business; thus killing the economy.

Competition would be lessened because we would all see how absurdly wasteful it is.

 

[Heyo]

The problem with taxing estates after we're dead is that it does nothing to thwart the corruption caused by allowing people to pile up great sums of money while alive. And they will simply use it to end the estate tax. As they already have done.

It would at least stop the accumulation of generational wealth. Add a federally paid for school system and you have a basis for equal chances.

 

[Heyo]

What do you think that would do to the shareholders that invested in the stock based on how the company was ran by the original owner?

Little to nothing. Bigger companies aren't run by owners, but by CEOs. And if you look at owner run companies, what does it do to the shareholders when the owner dies and the heirs take over?

 

[Heyo]

Have you already inherited an estate or are you planning on doing so in the future? Do you have kids and are you planning to leave them anything if you do have some?

Neither. Which makes me unbiased in that question.

And I see the hypocrisy in all the conservatives and libertarians who talk loud about personal responsibility and equality of chance when I bring up the idea. They are floundering and try to bring up bull**** arguments (see @Kfox above) to defend their privilege.

 

[Watchmen]

And let the government distribute money and build things.

After they demonstrate responsibility and efficiency.

 

[Kathryn]

Neither. Which makes me unbiased in that question.

And I see the hypocrisy in all the conservatives and libertarians who talk loud about personal responsibility and equality of chance when I bring up the idea. They are floundering and try to bring up bull**** arguments (see @Kfox above) to defend their privilege.

LOL it doesn't make you unbiased.

 

[Watchmen]

Grown ups understand that this is what governments are supposed to do. And that if the government is really so bad at it, that we all have a responsibility to fix it. Not whine and cry like toddlers and pretend we could survive without it.

Who said anything about surviving without it? There was discussion about increasing taxes. Why increase when the government is inefficient with what it’s already receiving? We should demand better from government before they demand more from us. That’s not whining. That’s being responsible.

 

[Koldo]

After they demonstrate responsibility and efficiency.

What's the alternative if they don't?

 

[Heyo]

What's the alternative if they don't?

Elect a better one.
And take away some of the responsibilities. Put projects which cost more than, say, $1,000,000 on a ballot to democratically decide if they should be done, like Switzerland does it.

 

[wellwisher]

And you missed my point. The government is terrible at distributing money and building things and getting things done. Why should I give my money to someone demonstrably incapable of using it wisely and efficiently?

Because of the National Debt, and the interest on the debt, Government gives us about a -20% rate of return on each tax dollar collected, before there is further waste due to government top heavy and redundant inefficiency.

Federal spending on interest payments is forecast to hit $870 billion this year — exceeding the $822 billion that the nation will spend on defense in 2024, according to a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. This year's outlay for interest payments represents a 32% increase from last year's $659 billion in interest expense.

U.S. interest payments on its debt are set to exceed defense spending. Should we be worried?

The tax revenues in 2023 was $4.44 trillion. If you divide 870/4440=0.20. This -20% grew from the past year because interest rates went up to; Federal Reserve, to help correct for the inflation, caused by the New Government Green energy money pit and targeting cheap fossil fuel. Two bonehead blunders. With the national already debt so high, why start a new money pit? Politicians cashing in.

If the boneheads had not been able to borrow, and we had that extra $870 billion surplus, we would be in a sweet place. It is not a revenue problem but a spending problem that needs correcting. I think each Political party; membership, should be taxed based on their parties pet agencies and government money pits that their elected leaders create. Most of the money pits come from the DNC. Dems should have to pay more taxes. The RNC gets a tax break down to just what they commit.

The DNC also gave their pet Agencies too much power to make laws, which is Unconstitutional. Only Congress can make laws. So what has happened is the Agencies, trying to grow themselves, became more intrusive in the free market. That also drives inflation with the cost trickling down to the consumers; middle class. That also needs correcting, which the Supreme Court did.

This change for the Agencies needs to be reinforced by down sizing, so they cannot loophole again. More paper work is how union create more jobs. That leads to more busy bodies. If we add DEI, with watered down talent, they leads to bullies and waste. If you cannot fire anyone, then people stop trying and that add to the costs. They are no longer public servant, but see themselves as overlords with the tax payers their slaves. The tax rate are the slavery rates, since a slave works and does not getting paid. The tax payer slavery is based on their tax rate. Since slavery is illegal the Gov needs to show that the each tax payer gets what they pay.

 

[Koldo]

Elect a better one.

Sure, but what do you do in the mean time? I am saying that even if the government is inefficient, there is no better alternative than keeping contributing towards it.

And take away some of the responsibilities. Put projects which cost more than, say, $1,000,000 on a ballot to democratically decide if they should be done, like Switzerland does it.

I don't think that would work here in Brazil. Too much stuff has a cost above that.

 

[Watchmen]

What's the alternative if they don't?

Vote them out until those who will fix the problem come along.

 

[sayak83]

And you missed my point. The government is terrible at distributing money and building things and getting things done. Why should I give my money to someone demonstrably incapable of using it wisely and efficiently?

And you missed my point. The only thing the govt has to do is to give money to the account of poor families (just like a tax refund, except this is not a refund for any tax ) through a calculation based on income levels. The current tax and tax refund system itself can be tweaked to do this.

 

[sayak83]

Change requires change. People will still want to start businesses because they will still want to profit from it, and to be the progenitor. Power and greed are not the only motives for starting a business. There are other rewards. Some people like the challenge. Some like the respect. Some See it as answering a social need. And we could actually teach our young ones to think more along these lines that just getting rich and and being in charge.

Competition would be lesser because we would see how wasteful it is.

I have to say that I find your ideas of human motivations quite detached from reality. People start businesses to get rich. There can be no drive towards excellence without competition and rewards for better ng ahead in competition. This can be seen in sports very clearly, but also in arts and in every human field. In science too, competition makes people strive towards excellence and reward is recognition and also better positions in University, bigger grants etc.
Your second and more serious problem of govt monopolising all production and distribution is that would inevitably lead to corruption and autocracy. All politicians seek power. All power now is concentrated at the hands of the govt. It can then disburse it in whatever way it wants to create a crony network at all and every level of society. People will be appointed soley based on how much support for the reigning politicians they can deliver by hook or crook. All checks and balances will be gone just like that. That is why pure socialism has always been a disaster.

 

[icehorse]

I have to say that I find your ideas of human motivations quite detached from reality. People start businesses to get rich. There can be no drive towards excellence without competition and rewards for better ng ahead in competition. This can be seen in sports very clearly, but also in arts and in every human field. In science too, competition makes people strive towards excellence and reward is recognition and also better positions in University, bigger grants etc.

Motivation science is more nuanced than that.

First off, it's almost certainly the case that a lot of businesses are started by emotionally unhealthy people. Narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths and so on. So let's set that group aside for now.

When we're talking about why emotionally healthy people start businesses, "getting rich" is actually a fairly fragile and poor motivator. Healthy people want to pursue being excellent at things and becoming excellent at things. One manifestation of this is what's known as being in the "flow state". The flow state can happen to anyone who's labored to become good at a difficult, open-ended activity. It can be cooking or painting or chess or programming or playing a musical instrument or making a business successful.

Motivation scientists call this form of motivation, "intrinsic", and it's the most robust and compelling type of motivation for emotionally healthy people. (Animals as well, fwiw.)

==

So any economic system that ignores intrinsic motivation is doomed to fail. Whatever solutions we cook up MUST find ways to reward invention and innovation. The good news is that these rewards don't have to be as ridiculous as the kinds of rewards that the 1% are experiencing these days. In the 50s, many super successful people were paying taxes well over 70% and were quite happy.

==

We also have to find economic solutions that don't depend on the myth of endless growth, but that's a different topic.

 

[Watchmen]

And you missed my point. The only thing the govt has to do is to give money to the account of poor families (just like a tax refund, except this is not a refund for any tax ) through a calculation based on income levels. The current tax and tax refund system itself can be tweaked to do this.

Government is already setup to provide aid to those in need. Do you think government does a good job administering this?

 

[PureX]

It would at least stop the accumulation of generational wealth.

Again, it's failed 'whack-a-mole'. By not addressing the real problem, it simply finds a new way to achieve it's corrupt ends.

Add a federally paid for school system and you have a basis for equal chances.

No you won't. The rich will control the means of production, meaning all the career opportunities.

 

[PureX]

Who said anything about surviving without it? There was discussion about increasing taxes. Why increase when the government is inefficient with what it’s already receiving? We should demand better from government before they demand more from us. That’s not whining. That’s being responsible.

Yes, we should. But we also need taxation to re-appropriate the wealth to whom and to where it's needed. We NEED to stop individuals and corporate entities from accumulating huge piles of wealth that they will then use to corrupt the government to their own advantage. The wildly skewed accumulation of wealth and the corruption of government go hand in hand. Yes, we need to tax the rich far more than we are. But we also need to make sure the government spends that tax money back into the general economy, and NOT back into the pockets of the wealthy elites they took it from.

 

[PureX]

I have to say that I find your ideas of human motivations quite detached from reality. People start businesses to get rich.

People start businesses for a lot of reasons besides "getting rich". And socialism does not stop anyone from getting rich. It stops them from getting rich at the expense of everyone else involved in the business enterprise.

There can be no drive towards excellence without competition and rewards for better ng ahead in competition.

Yeah, that's the big lie the capitalists have been telling forever. But the truth is that competition is insanely wasteful and aims to create "winners" and "losers". Whereas mutual cooperation is far more efficient and intelligent and aims to increase everyone's well-being collectively.

This can be seen in sports very clearly, but also in arts and in every human field. In science too, competition makes people strive towards excellence and reward is recognition and also better positions in University, bigger grants etc.

As an artist I can assure that artists are not competing with each other. The capitalists that exploit their work for profit will happily pit them against each other, but the artists are not. People that strive for excellence will do so in whatever pursuit they are engaged in, because it's in their nature. Not because they want to outdo someone else. Or just to get rich.

Your second and more serious problem of govt monopolising all production and distribution is that would inevitably lead to corruption and autocracy

Catastrophizing is the second big lie the capitalists are constantly telling us. As if the only alternative to capitalist greed running amok is a totalitarianism dictatorship. It's not. Socialism is not a dictatorship of any kind.

All politicians seek power. All power now is concentrated at the hands of the govt.

Most power is concentrated in the hands of the capitalists. The politicians are just their paid toadies. But this is the third big lie the capitalists keep telling us over and over and over ... that it's the government that constantly screwing us, NEVER the capitalists. When it fact it is always the capitalists.

It can then disburse it in whatever way it wants to create a crony network at all and every level of society. People will be appointed soley based on how much support for the reigning politicians they can deliver by hook or crook. All checks and balances will be gone just like that. That is why pure socialism has always been a disaster.

Exactly as their capitalist overlords want them to do.