The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Koldo]

The question is where did the boxes come from?

Taxes.

 

[Koldo]

That is not how our taxation system works. It is not coupled with the budget or programs. Hence $34 trillion in debt.

This is an interesting conversation to have: Do you disagree that the government ought to keep the debt in check?

 

[PureX]

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.

Wow, you really weren't trying very hard at all, were you.

Why would we "divvy up" the increased tax revenue among everyone else? Most of those people don't need it. Why not use it to create jobs upgrading infrastructure, teaching job skills, and raising people out of poverty so they can rejoin the rest of society economically?

As to setting the 100% threshold, that could very easily be determined. And to tell the truth it doesn't really matter what it is so long as it allows for a lifetime of very comfortable living, while denying the absurd, stupid, and dangerous excesses of having no limits. And your "realistic" suggestions are fine. We should implement those as well.

Also, I noted that you were completely unable to give any logical or just reason why any single human on this planet should be allowed to amass more than 30-50 million worth of personal wealth. Just as no one else on this thread has been able to do.

 

[PureX]

Well the US IRS says different.

The IRS does not give out anyone's tax information so it hasn't said anything about anything.

Do you think Warren Buffet was lying about his paying half the percentage of tax on his income than his secretary pays? Why would he lie about this? Especially when it points out that he is being treated unfairly BETTER than his secretary by our tax system?

And why are you calling him a liar in an attempt at justifying billionaires paying half the percentage in taxes on their income than the people that work for him? Why is it important to you that the billionaires don't pay their fair share of taxes?

Or is it that you just can't be corrected?

 

[Revoltingest]

The question is where did the boxes come from?

Alas, a cop saw the boxes, confiscated them,
& demolished them because they didn't
meet the building code.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Taxes.

Ok, then we are back to what is fair taxation and has nothing to do with how the taxes are spent. The question is should the top 1% pay for 40% of the boxes and the bottom 50% pay for 3% of the boxes or are those an unfair percentage?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

This is an interesting conversation to have: Do you disagree that the government ought to keep the debt in check?

No, I am appalled by the debt and we need to address it by first by not adding to it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The IRS does not give out anyone's tax information so it hasn't said anything about anything.

Does not need to it gives out total numbers as the document clearly says.

Do you think Warren Buffet was lying about his paying half the percentage of of tax on his income than his secretary pays? Why would he lie about this? Especially when it points out that he is being treated unfairly BETTER than his secretary by our tax system?

I have no idea. What I do know is what is documented by the IRS. Why focus on one person. If that is the case then don't get mad at Buffet, get mad at the tax code and politicians for not changing it.

And why are you calling him a liar in an attempt at justifying billionaires paying half the percentage in taxes on their income than the people that work for him? Why is it important to you that the billionaires don't pay their fair share of taxes?

I never called anyone a liar. That could be the case, I don;t know but I gave you the numbers from the IRS on who pays the most taxes. Why do you not believe them?

Or is it that you just can't be corrected?

You have focused on one person, why do you doubt the IRS numbers? That is what I am quoting I never brought up Buffet.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

My guess is that the capitalist owners of the stadium would have sent security guards to roust them out of there for trying to watch the game without paying for a ticket.

 

[Koldo]

Ok, then we are back to what is fair taxation and has nothing to do with how the taxes are spent. The question is should the top 1% pay for 40% of the boxes and the bottom 50% pay for 3% of the boxes or are those an unfair percentage?

Those numbers tell me absolutely nothing when it comes down to fairness.

Let me start with a baseline premise here:

It is unfair to be living in poverty, when the following conditions are simultaneously present:

1) There are rich people in your society.
2) You are either working at or looking for a full time job.
3) You have not made any particularly stupid financial decision (such as having 6 children or betting your house in a poker table).

 

[Koldo]

No, I am appalled by the debt and we need to address it by first by not adding to it.

Great. So you agree, by holding the notion that we ought to keep the debt in check, that taxing more entails being able to spend more, right?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Those numbers tell me absolutely nothing when it comes down to fairness.

Let me start with a baseline premise here:

It is unfair to be living in poverty, when the following conditions are simultaneously present:

1) There are rich people in your society.
2) You are either working at or looking for a full time job.
3) You have not made any particularly stupid financial decision (such as having 6 children or betting your house in a poker table).

No, the rich don't make people poor. There will always be a difference in wealth that may or may not be fair but if everyone plays by the same rules then it is a fair playing field. The wealthy have a moral obligation in my opinion to help people in need and they do to a great extent. But government to excessively and forcibly take their money is tyrannical and an assault on personal liberty. The top 1% voluntarily give 33% of all charity in the US according to the IRS. The rich cannot solve poverty in the US, that is a more complicated issue.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Great. So you agree, by holding the notion that we ought to keep the debt in check, that taxing more entails being able to spend more, right?

No, I don't agree. Our spending is not linked to our revenue. We spend what we want and borrow the money to cover what tax revenue does not cover. It is insanity. We may borrow less but I am not confident that any more tax revenue will actually solve the poverty problem, there is a 80 year track record of this. Blame the politicians not the rich for poverty.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Capitalist indoctrination is still better than socialist
indoctrination. The former has history as supporting
evidence of superior results, thus making it explicable.
The latter can only say "But this time it'll work!".
This is a symptom of magical thinking, ie, hope that
somehow in some unknown way, it will succeed
despite a lack of evidence.

The Chinese version of socialism with a mixed economy is certainly working.
It has industralsed and. modernized and become the second most advanced and wealthy country in the world in double quick time.
It has the most advanced infrastructure and the cleanest and safest cities in the world.
This is because it has the most democratic with the distributed power, local and regional government and mayoral system anywhere.
It's administrative system is unequalled. It has eradicated extreme poverty and homelessness in the past thirty years. It's highly competitive examination and education education system produces more highly qualified graduates and post graduates than north America and Europe combined.

It has a modern hitec health service that is both inexpensive and covers the entire population.
In most scientific technical and industrial fields, it is either catching up with, or has overtaken the Usa.

It has not wasted is money on constant wars and military adventures.

However it has easily the second most advanced military in the world. With an ongoing

military and naval manufacturing capacity far in excess of the USA.


Not bad for a mere socialist country. Àmericans may not like it but it is reality

 

[Koldo]

No, the rich don't make people poor.

When did I say that rich people, by default, make others poor?

There will always be a difference in wealth that may or may not be fair but if everyone plays by the same rules then it is a fair playing field. The wealthy have a moral obligation in my opinion to help people in need and they do to a great extent. But government to excessively and forcibly take their money is tyrannical and an assault on personal liberty. The top 1% voluntarily give 33% of all charity in the US according to the IRS. The rich cannot solve poverty in the US, that is a more complicated issue.

Perhaps this is the heart of the issue.
You frame this as a game where everyone is playing by certain rules in a playing field. But I don't think of our lives as a game. Therefore, I see no merit in thinking on terms of game rules to determine what is fair.

 

[Koldo]

No, I don't agree. Our spending is not linked to our revenue.

Because your government doesn't actually hold the notion it must keep the debt in check. If it did, however, increasing the taxes would entail being able to increase the spending.

We spend what we want and borrow the money to cover what tax revenue does not cover. It is insanity. We may borrow less but I am not confident that any more tax revenue will actually solve the poverty problem, there is a 80 year track record of this. Blame the politicians not the rich for poverty.

Sure, because paying low wages when they could afford higher wages is not their responsibility. Got it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

When did I say that rich people, by default, make others poor?

If you didn't say that ok.

Perhaps this is the heart of the issue.
You frame this as a game where everyone is playing by certain rules in a playing field. But I don't think of our lives as a game. Therefore, I see no merit in thinking on terms of game rules to determine what is fair.

So where did I say life is a game? We have laws in society that we follow, some do and some don't. How is that a game?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because your government doesn't actually hold the notion it must keep the debt in check. If it did, however, increasing the taxes would entail being able to increase the spending.

Ok, but increasing spending is not the entire issue. Where we spend the money is. We could eliminate poverty in the US by helping people that need it to get out of poverty but we spend it on other things we really don't need. I reject the idea that taking more money from people will solve the poverty problem in the US.

Sure, because paying low wages when they could afford higher wages is not their responsibility. Got it.

Where did I say this? Companies can pay whatever wage they want as long as it is lawful and people can decide if they want to work for that wage or not. Some companies do pay their people well voluntarily such as Buccee's, the Texas minimum wage is $7.25, they pay $18 to starts many positions.

 

[Koldo]

If you didn't say that ok.

So where did I say life is a game? We have laws in society that we follow, some do and some don't. How is that a game?

I bolded the part I was talking about, but here it goes: "There will always be a difference in wealth that may or may not be fair but if everyone plays by the same rules then it is a fair playing field".

 

[Koldo]

Ok, but increasing spending is not the entire issue. Where we spend the money is. We could eliminate poverty in the US by helping people that need it to get out of poverty but we spend it on other things we really don't need. I reject the idea that taking more money from people will solve the poverty problem in the US.

Merely increasing the taxes obviously wouldn't solve the poverty by itself. There is no dispute over this. It certainly depends on how the government is spending the money. To what extent it is possible to make do with the current taxes is an interesting conversation to have. Do you have the numbers?

Where did I say this? Companies can pay whatever wage they want as long as it is lawful and people can decide if they want to work for that wage or not. Some companies do pay their people well voluntarily such as Buccee's, the Texas minimum wage is $7.25, they pay $18 to starts many positions.

Therefore, if a rich person can afford to pay higher wages, but pay wages so low that the employees are living in poverty, this rich person is responsible for poverty to some extent.