The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Koldo]

Everyone over a certain amount pays the same percentage of their income. How is this not fair?

Because fairness is not merely treating everyone equally, but rather treating the equals equally and the unequals unequally, in the exact measure of their inequalities.

 

[Koldo]

1% pays 40% of the taxes is significant.

One definition of significant is: of a noticeably or measurably large amount
In my opinion this meets the definition.

Context is key though.
You have said and I quote: "Then I don't advocate for changing the laws at least in the US. The rich pay a significant amount here."

The word 'significant' here doesn't mean merely a large quantity but also '(more than) enough', right? After all, if that wasn't the case, there would be no problem in taxing the rich for an even larger quantity. So I would like you to reconsider your answer with this in mind.

But since you did reply, here's my answer to your question: It is not a significant ammount because there are millions of americans living in poverty.

 

[Father Heathen]

How does that apply to me?

The top 1% own half of the world's wealth, and you're fine with paying more out of your pocket so that they can add some more yachts to their fleets. We live in the richest country in the world, yet we've people driven either into debt or into their graves by our predatory, privatized, for-profit healthcare system, and that's just one example of how everything is rigged against the middle and lower classes. We're being manipulated and exploited, and the willingness to roll with it is an example of that. That's precisely what enabled people like Epstein. That's why there's a tiered justice system that gives them leniency.

Do you think they had humble beginnings, starting from the ground up shining shoes? Most of the ultra-wealthy were born into privilege and affluence, having had power and influences from the beginning, and they've hoisted up the economic ladder long ago.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

Much of it is simple appeal of a form of hope for the truth a of certain mythology.

It is simply more exciting to believe that there are Titans walking among us - and that they are ultimately of the same substance as us and can conceivably be approached in some way and extend favor towards us.

To a degree it is a substitute to the belief in the existence of living saints and other forms of miracle-workers.

 

[exchemist]

Taking money from people simply because they have it is not just nor should it be supported by society.

Then you invite a static, stratified society with embedded wealth in a particular class, and a lot of resentful people who may disrupt the society. The US has, I believe, the highest proportion of its citizens in prison of any developed nation.

I recall being appalled, when I was renting during a job assignment in Houston TX, when our landlord proposed to erect 8ft tall railings around the lovely, period, wooden house, for security. Apparently he had done that to all his other properties and indeed such railings were springing up all over the rather nice Westmorland area we lived in. A lot of the more modern houses in Houston were built like fortresses, hideous and impregnable from the outside. I guess that's what you get with a society with huge wealth disparities and where everyone has guns.

What a contrast with my next assignment, in The Hague, in the Netherlands. I know which society I would prefer to live in, even if I have to pay rather more tax.

 

[Koldo]

Then you invite a static, stratified society with embedded wealth in a particular class, and a lot of resentful people who may disrupt the society. The US has, I believe, the highest proportion of its citizens in prison of any developed nation.

I recall being appalled, when I was renting during a job assignment in Houston TX, when our landlord proposed to erect 8ft tall railings around the lovely, period, wooden house, for security. Apparently he had done that to all his other properties and indeed such railings were springing up all over the rather nice Westmorland area we lived in. A lot of the more modern houses in Houston were built like fortresses, hideous and impregnable from the outside. I guess that's what you get with a society with huge wealth disparities and where everyone has guns.

What a contrast with my next assignment, in The Hague, in the Netherlands. I know which society I would prefer to live in, even if I have to pay rather more tax.

I would like to add that even though guns are not easily accessible here in Rio de Janeiro, we, by default, build walls around our houses. Even around the houses in gated communities.

 

[exchemist]

I would like to add that even though guns are not easily accessible here in Rio de Janeiro, we, by default, build walls around our houses. Even around the houses in gated communities.

Ah well in your society you too have enormous wealth disparities. So you have poor adherence to the rule of law, corruption etc. Just as would be expected.

 

[Firenze]

So no good evidence then. You believe what Trump says?

And when Trump said that in the debate with Hillary that is when I started to be swayed by him. He told the truth unlike Hillary, He exposed Hillary and her donors that they don't want to change the tax code because they benefit the most from it. He was a politician telling the truth.

Also notice that he said he paid taxes but he took the allowed deductions and write-offs. You would be dumb not to if you could.

So, am I supposed to believe Trump or not believe him? Trump is just one example of the people over the decades that have proudly claimed they either don’t pay taxes or pay very little. Trump the truth teller…. That’s so cute.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because fairness is not merely treating everyone equally, but rather treating the equals equally and the unequals unequally, in the exact measure of their inequalities.

Can you explain what you mean? I don't understand this sentence.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Context is key though.
You have said and I quote: "Then I don't advocate for changing the laws at least in the US. The rich pay a significant amount here."

The word 'significant' here doesn't mean merely a large quantity but also '(more than) enough', right? After all, if that wasn't the case, there would be no problem in taxing the rich for an even larger quantity. So I would like you to reconsider your answer with this in mind.

But since you did reply, here's my answer to your question: It is not a significant ammount because there are millions of americans living in poverty.

How is taking more money from the wealthy going to alleviate that? Do you live in the US?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The top 1% own half of the world's wealth, and you're fine with paying more out of your pocket so that they can add some more yachts to their fleets.

No, show me that taxing the wealthy more makes my taxes go down. Do you live in the US? That is not how our system works.

We live in the richest country in the world, yet we've people driven either into debt or into their graves by our predatory, privatized, for-profit healthcare system, and that's just one example of how everything is rigged against the middle and lower classes. We're being manipulated and exploited, and the willingness to roll with it is an example of that. That's precisely what enabled people like Epstein. That's why there's a tiered justice system that gives them leniency.

If everything is rigged then why do people with nothing become wealthy. Many do.

Do you think they had humble beginnings, starting from the ground up shining shoes? Most of the ultra-wealthy were born into privilege and affluence, having had power and influences from the beginning, and they've hoisted up the economic ladder long ago.

This is just envy or sour grapes in my opinion. You have not shown how taking money from the wealthy will alleviate our problems in society.

Do you have a net worth over $95k? If so, you are in the top 10% of the people in the world as far as wealth. Maybe the world needs to come and take more of your money to alleviate poverty worldwide. To bein the top 50% worldwide you only need a net worth of $5,000. So lets take your money and leave you with $5,000, you will still be in the top 50%. Is that fair?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Then you invite a static, stratified society with embedded wealth in a particular class, and a lot of resentful people who may disrupt the society. The US has, I believe, the highest proportion of its citizens in prison of any developed nation.

Can you correlate that to the wealthy?

I recall being appalled, when I was renting during a job assignment in Houston TX, when our landlord proposed to erect 8ft tall railings around the lovely, period, wooden house, for security. Apparently he had done that to all his other properties and indeed such railings were springing up all over the rather nice Westmorland area we lived in. A lot of the more modern houses in Houston were built like fortresses, hideous and impregnable from the outside. I guess that's what you get with a society with huge wealth disparities and where everyone has guns.

How do the wealthy promote crime? People commit crimes because they choose to, has nothing to do with anyone else.

What a contrast with my next assignment, in The Hague, in the Netherlands. I know which society I would prefer to live in, even if I have to pay rather more tax.

Good for you, hope you enjoy it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So, am I supposed to believe Trump or not believe him? Trump is just one example of the people over the decades that have proudly claimed they either don’t pay taxes or pay very little. Trump the truth teller…. That’s so cute.

So what, he is only doing what he is allowed to do as he pointed out in this clip I posted. Make the politicians fix the tax code, don't blame trump for using the tax code legally. The politicians won't fix it because they benefit from the tax code too. That was his point and he is right.

 

[Koldo]

Can you explain what you mean? I don't understand this sentence.

Here is a picture to illustrate:

In the left, everyone is being treated equally by being granted one box. In the right, they are all being treated unequally, in accordance to their needs. It is only in the right where all of them get to watch the game and that's where fairness resides.

 

[Koldo]

How is taking more money from the wealthy going to alleviate that?

By redirecting that money towards goods and services that will reduce poverty.

Do you live in the US?

Nope.

 

[exchemist]

Can you correlate that to the wealthy?

How do the wealthy promote crime? People commit crimes because they choose to, has nothing to do with anyone else.

Good for you, hope you enjoy it.

I did. Though the weather isn't great in The Hague, it must be admitted - wetter than London. I grew to like the Dutch and their modest style of living.

But sadly it looks to me as if you may now be starting to deliberately misunderstand what I am saying, in which case that's probably as far as we are going to get with this topic.

 

[Firenze]

So what, he is only doing what he is allowed to do as he pointed out in this clip I posted. Make the politicians fix the tax code, don't blame trump for using the tax code legally. The politicians won't fix it because they benefit from the tax code too. That was his point and he is right.

You actually think everyone uses the tax code legally. Ay caramba….

 

[siti]

So far not one of you lovers of capitalism has posed one single logical reason why any individual human on the planet deserves to possess more than about 30 million dollars. They cannot possibly have earned that much providing any products or services to other Human beings. So it’s nearly all parasitically derived wealth. And no one needs any more then 30 million to live out a very safe and comfortable life. So why should we let people pile up more then that? Especially when they use it to pile up more, and more, and more, with no limit to their greed? And especially when they can control the lives of so many other people with these big piles of money. And not in a good way. No one is being served by this kind of idiocy. And yet listen to them cry and wail at the suggestion of a 100% tax on personal wealth above 30 - 50 million. Why?

They have no reason. It’s just a blind reaction. And I’d love to know what’s driving it. But I don’t think they know, themselves. It’s automatic, or visceral.

So first off...just to be clear, I am no capitalist...far from it.

My objection to a 100% tax on wealth above a certain level is nothing to do with any deeply held emotions and neither is it anything to do with being bamboozled by "capitalist indoctrination". If anything I suspect that its proponents of this 100% wealth tax that are motivated by their inner feelings rather than their intellect...as is evidenced by emotive words like "greed", "parasitically", "idiocy" and using terms like "cry" and "wail" in response to reasoned replies to their impassioned outbursts.

All that out of the way...I just can't see how the imposition of a 100% tax on wealth above a certain level could possibly work in practice.

First, somebody has to decide at what level this kicks in. I suggested (in another thread) it might be a certain multiple of per capita GDP or perhaps a multiple of the average or maybe even minimum wage...something like that...there were no takers, there were no alternatives offered except arbitrary figures plucked from thin air that ranged from $10 million to $1 billion. You have now added a range of $30-50million...but who decides this?

Second, if you apply such a tax, say, in the US, in year 1 and it netted an average tax revenue of $1bn each from of the 1000 richest people...then you divvy that up between the 72 million who earn so little they pay no income tax...they'd get about $14k each...a nice little windfall but not exactly setting them up for a life of financial wealth (or even security)...but then what happens in year 2? Where does the tax revenue come from when you have already taxed excessive wealth at 100% in year 1? On top of that, what effect might the sudden transfer of a trillion dollars from the investment portfolios of the super wealthy to the consumer spending of the relatively poor have on the economy? And if it is applied unilaterally, what is to stop the rich from simply moving their wealth to where it isn't applied? When the French govt imposed a top rate of income (not wealth) tax of 75% a few years ago, Bernard Arnault just moved to Belgium.

So that - 100% wealth tax - is simply not workable.

That said, I agree that it is objectionable for the super rich to pay a lower rate of taxes than the rest of us.

Here are some ideas that I think are more realistic:

1. Close as many loopholes as possible - especially for the super-wealthy.
2. Make some tax breaks (such as travel/vehicle/depreciation of assets for example) unavailable to people/corporations whose wealth/income/profits exceed certain levels*.
3. Increase Capital Gains Tax - maybe to the same rate as income tax
4. Increase the top rate of income tax and CGT
5. Introduce a wealth tax at, say, 2 or 3% per annum for people whose accumulated wealth exceeds a certain level*.
6. Unions fighting for across the board flat rate pay rises x thousand dollars for everyone rather than % increases that obviously favor the highest earners most and benefit the lower paid least.

But...and here's the rub...none of any of that (including the proposed 100% wealth tax) would change the system from being fundamentally capitalist to being fundamentally socialist, it just shifts the proceeds of a fundamentally capitalist economy around a bit.

And psychologically speaking, I think that's where the "problem" (in this, almost all political, economic and even religious discussions here and in real life) rests...its binary thinking...its the idea that if someone disagrees with me there must be something wrong with them...and that's why the title of @Heyo 's thread answers itself...the reason for the success of this so-called "capitalist indoctrination" is that it has fooled "both sides" into believing that there are only two sides! And no amount of reasoned argument is going to budge either of them.

* limits should be determined by a reasonable assessment of data - perhaps some multiple of average income, average wealth etc. which means they would change with "the market" - as it were.

 

[Heyo]

Not what I am talking about. I have agreed that taxation is needed. But taxation needs to be fair and just. In the US it is. I gave the statistics on how much the rich pay, they are paying their fair share and more. This is what I am talking about.

I thought we had cleared that up, that your numbers are bogus in that they don't include capital gains?

 

[Heyo]

Where is your evidence for this claim?

You don't need evidence, just a minute to think and a calculator. How much is the net worth of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos et al? How long are they in Business? What was the amount they started on? Then calculate how much they made yearly and how many taxes they would have paid, if they paid taxes. Compare to the numbers in the IRS document.