Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
If you want to go by results you need look no further than China.. however the USA has an inbuilt aversion to socialism and mixed economies.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination
- Thread starter Heyo
- Start date
If you want to go by results you need look no further than China.. however the USA has an inbuilt aversion to socialism and mixed economies.
PureX
Veteran Member
Not to mention a near total inability to understand and recognize what socialism actually is, as opposed to the endless litany of criminal dictatorships that the capitalists constantly protray it as being so they can claim the only choice is capitalism or a living hell.
siti
Well-Known Member
Well then, let's play pretend together...you pretend there is an answer...and (for the umpteenth time of asking) please tell us what the answer is...what is the exact number of dollars at which reasonable and morally justifiable accumulation of wealth suddenly crosses the line and becomes excessive, selfish and greedy?
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
There probably is no figure that indicates when wealth becomes excessive, it is more likely a movable feast.
However it can probably be best indicated as a proportion of the average income of the lowest quartile.
There are however two factors to consider, total wealth, and total annual income.
Total wealth is generally not taxed except in terms of death duties. While income from all sources is often very difficult to establish..
However lifestyle and possessions are usually giveaways as to the availability of disposable income.compared to disclosed income.
The founder of Huawei is extremely wealthy, however he only holds. Less than 5% of the company shares. The remainder he has given to his employees. These are held in beneficial trust by their union.
This is not unlike the John Lewis partnership in the UK. a long established partnership of employees, established prior to the death of the founder of the company.
When it comes to spying, my position is that
I no nothing about who is doing what where.
This is one area where what government tells
us really should be manipulative, & dishonest
when necessary.
That's just for foreign spying. Domestic spying
benefits from the light of day. Go Wikileaks!
China has a robust market economy, but it' &
business owners are still "managed" when The
Party sees fit to interfere. It's a holdover from
the government back when rigid socialism
dogged their economy.
Looking at results, I'll take the far greater liberty
we have here. Also, their economy is a horrible
place for most workers. I've done low level
grunt work here, & prefer it to Chinese work
culture.
PureX
Veteran Member
We need to limit the accumulation of assets as well, because these confer control. If we take away the accumulated monetary wealth of billionaires, they will just spend it accumulating assets instead because their greed has no point of satiation. And all those assets give them control over the lives of others which they will then use to gain more assets and more control.
The real problem here is not the accumulation of wealth itself, it's the boundless greed that drives it, coupled with the control that wealth gives the greedy accumulator over the lives and well being of others. Because this is a recipe for doing great harm to many for the boundless greed of a few.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Using YouTube as a weathervane rater than a source of truth.
It would seem far more American people report on that their life and work in China as being safer and happier and less restricted than in America.. and about the almost total lack of homelessness and poverty in the country. This is in contrast to the situation only 20 years ago.
They also report on the excellent and affordable health facilities available to everyone.
It's true that the Chinese both study and work extremely hard, but are not subject to the extremely long hours of Japan. and other eastern countries.
Unlike America they also have statuary annual holidays and benefits. However there still are some administrative complications caused by differences between where you are registered, and where you actually live and work, though these seem to be being slowly addressed, especially regarding children's education.
Ask @Audie what liberty is like in China.
Perhaps you feel comfortable in an environment
where political speech is severely limited &
prosecuted. I wouldn't.
Audie
Veteran Member
Going by comments on life in China, Id say most
have quite unrealistic ideas.
Re limited speech, regard the American campus
siti
Well-Known Member
That's my point.
OK, so what proportion then? I'm guessing the average income of the lowest quartile would be very approximately around the US$20K mark in the US and Europe, considerably less in other parts of the world...so what proportion of $20K would be considered excessive?
And the point of this discussion (side topic of the current thread and subject of another that seems to have died a natural death) is that "excessive" wealth should be taxed (at 100% mind you)...and (the more on topic discussion) that the only reason we don't all agree to this is because we have all (except apparently a rather small number of exceptionally insightful RF posters) have been "inexplicably" duped by a deliberate program of "capitalist indoctrination" into believing that excessive wealth is a good thing.
So far, as far as I can tell, the only "inexplicable" aspect is what exactly supporters of this 100% excessive wealth tax mean by "excessive" wealth - except that having it is, according to them, "selfish", "greedy" and manipulative to the point of exercising complete control over the entire population.
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
If income was limited to 1000 times what a lower quartile worker earned. It would be far less than what top earners take home today. If it were limited to say 250 times. Prices of luxury and high end products would fall accordingly. I would arrange taxation on a sliding scale such that the 100% figure would be reached at that point. I would also tax wealth on an annual basis so as to arrive at an increase of not more than the annual income. I would tax this separately to the annual income.
I would tax death duty on all assets over the value over their annual taxable income averaged for the past five years prior to death, and on a sliding scale up to a maximum of the average asset value of the top quartile of taxpayers. But not including the home property where they had lived for the previous 5 years. This would be way below the top earners assets today.
siti
Well-Known Member
So effectively you are proposing limiting income (not wealth) to somewhere between about $5million to $20million (based on your 250-1000 multiplier and my estimated $20K average lower quartile income) - anything above that would be subject to 100% income tax...right?
I don't think that would affect a very large number of people and it doesn't limit the accumulation of wealth per se, except of course that the very highest income earners would have somewhat less to invest...neither, as far as I can see, would it have a huge impact on closing the "wealth gap"...would it?
And as for such a measure causing the prices of "luxury and high end products" to fall...I can't see how that works at all...and even if it did work, how exactly does lowering the price of a Bugatti help to alleviate the financial distress of the poor?
Heyo
Veteran Member
It seems that for Europe the factor lies at around 60 and in the US it's around 300. (That are the numbers, off the back of my head, for the difference between the average payment and a CEO salary.)
But that is salary, not income. With a pay-check of $10 million, you'd still have to work 100 years for your first billion.
(So much for some real data points.)
To find an objective point of "excessive" income is impossible (except for fringe cases), as there are no objective criteria. But I think we can establish some intersubjective margins. The objective fringe point, I was referring to above, is when a single entity gets 100% of the GDP. Then that entity would be rightfully taxed at 100%. Also, objective is, that what is average income or below, can't be excessive.
Still leaves a wide margin. We know from experience that the measurable productivity of the top performer vs. the bottom performer in any given group is about a factor of 10. Factor in that some jobs need higher qualification and are inherently more productive, and a factor of 100 seems in the right order of magnitude. (It's also nicely placed between the 60 and 300 for CEO salary.)
That's where I would put the "excessive" mark for income. (And I mean income, not salary. I.e. every $ that shows up in black on your account.)
From these cornerstones, I'd let mathematicians construct a formula for progressive income tax. The limit is 100% at 100% GDP, the turning point (taxes go over 50%) would be at 100 times the average income.
Note that the above is for income, not wealth. But I think we could make a similar argument for wealth. But age would have to be a factor, as wealth can be accumulated. I'm against taxing rightfully earned wealth, but I think it would be OK to factor in wealth into the income tax. I.e. if you already have excessive wealth, and still get excessive income, there could be a (low) addition to your income tax.
I'd also be OK with no income tax when the inheritance tax was 100%. It's like paying all your taxes when you're dead and don't need the wealth anyway.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Millionaires are no longer the super rich. We are now in the age of multi billionaires
My figure of 250x20,000 = 5 million , of which there are are very many in the world.
30 years of earning at that rate would only give a lifetime earning of 150 million these figures are a fraction of today's earning by the super rich. Where the top 2% account for 90% of the world's wealth.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
It might surprise many people that there are eight minor parties in China
Talking politics is not illegal. In China but organising against the CCP certainly would be asking for trouble.
PureX
Veteran Member
How about we poll the American people and ask them how much money they feel one person would need to live their whole adult life in comfort and safely and with a reasonable degree of superfluous spending money. And let's say they come up with the figure of 20 million dollars as their average response. So we double that amount to include the majority of outliers in the poll, and we set that as our limit on personal wealth. We can accumulate 40 million dollars, but no more. We can continue to chase after more money if we want, but we can't keep it. And we can't own assets beyond that amount.
Can anyone explain to why we should allow any one person to accumulate more than this? And do so without presuming greed to be a virtue?
Can anyone explain to why we should allow any one person to accumulate more than this? And do so without presuming greed to be a virtue?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
At what age should people be able to drive? At what age should they be able to consent to sex? At what age should they be able to drink alcoholic beverages? How big should the income tax be for someone that earned 1 million in a year? How many years should a criminal spend in jail?
There are laws for all those and they all rely, some more than others, on highly arbitrary decisions. Setting an arbitrary line is nothing new.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
If I take away food stamps from someone and replace it with money, in what significant way has the situation of that person changed?
Following the law is not necessarily ethical nor moral. Depending on the law, it might actually be immoral to follow it. A very simple example is owning a slave back when it was legal to do so. Were the slave owners responsible for slavery? If I am following your rationale correctly, you would say they were not because they were acting in accordance to the law.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Then there is nothing unfair about putting a limit on how much wealth someone can amass.