Support NeoGAF

[felipeko]

These guys are earning the vast majority of their money through ownership of stock and other high risk investments. Why would anyone engage in high risk investments if what they earn is simply going to be stripped clean by the government who has shown time and time again it is incapable of responsibly spending money?

"Eh, I would love to invest $8 million dollars into this fascinating start up, but what I would make even if the company went big will be eaten up the government. On the flip side if things crash then all $8 million would be lost, definitely not worth it."

I don't know.. Why should i work 8 hours a day if people who don't work can earn multiple times what i earn by "high risk investments"?

I would find it really fair that people who have $8 million to spare, would have a harder time earning more money by investing than me, who is working.

And if they don't want to invest, fine, let's all watch the inflation eat up their money. That would be great.

Also, i'd find it better for this money to go back to the government to spend irresponsibly, than by rich people who will never ever spend this money, and will just keep hoarding more.

 

[sant]

I don't know.. Why should i work 8 hours a day if people who don't work can earn multiple times what i earn by "high risk investments"?

I would find it really fair that people who have $8 million to spare, would have a harder time earning more money investing than me, who is working.

For a lot of people who earned their way into those high income jobs (not talking about inheritors here) 8 hours a day is nothing.

Also, i'd find it better for this money to go back to the government to spend irresponsibly, than by rich people who will never ever spend this money, and will just keep hoarding more.

The money is spent. You think you would be typing on the computer you were on if someone didn't give the all the companies involved with the creating it seed money to get started? Or buying their debt or equity to raise capital when they needed it? The money isn't sitting in some fallout style vault somewhere.

And if they don't want to invest, fine, let's all watch the inflation eat up their money. That would be great.

Then the financial system collapses and we're all fucked. If companies can't get access to capital we all go down.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Then corruption goes inward and the government is accountable to no one. You think cutting down rich people solves the problem?

What better things? When the government needs to build a bridge they issue bonds. Who do you think buys these bonds? When a company issues debt or equity to raise capital who do you think purchases these instruments? Taxing people 70% at $2MM is ridiculous.

It disincentives (admittedly not completely) people from going out there and starting their own business or working for higher income jobs.

For the record I am not against the estate tax (since its only fair that it is treated as income) but your crazy tax rates.

We've had tax rates at or above 70% before and had an incredibly healthy economy.

 

[muu]

The grand delusion that young, poor Americans have is that by somehow taxing these people more, that money will wind up in their hands (or the hands of their peers).

That money will merely be diverted to other corporations and rich people that are more deeply embedded into Congress. It just a redistribution at the top, with maybe some trickle down to the poor if they are in proximity of those select people. ARRA was proof of that.

All of this strikes me as pure envy or people playing off of other's envy. This proven flawed idea that money buys happiness and those that have more (than they could ever want) need to share it. Thus creating more 'happiness' or contentment. Not only that, but you expect the very same corrupt organization that allowed this system to exist to then distribute that money in a fair manner. hahaha

Always makes me think what some of these kids will do if they're suddenly entrusted with millions or something. There was a thread on FW that was pretty much that scenario, though we didn't really see what his hipster sister's response was to the fact that she just became an instant millionaire.

 

[ToxicAdam]

We've had tax rates at or above 70% before and had an incredibly healthy economy.

You mean that time when the entire world was decimated and recovering from WWII and we were completely unscathed selling our goods to help them rebuild?

But even that fortune through others misery was short-lived. We had a recession in the late 50's, which in turn caused JFK to seek a reduction in taxes to help goose the economy back into life.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Whenever taxes come up, I instantly know who had trouble with math in elementary school.

 

[Eusis]

You mean that time when the entire world was decimated and recovering from WWII and we were completely unscathed selling our goods to help them rebuild?

Wasn't that also when we used the funds to build the highway system? Not that example necessarily helps since the only modern alternative I can think of is heavily ramping up online infrastructure... which might actually be a good enough reason given it's a big reason Google even got into the cable game in the first place, but it probably isn't "tax them 90%" worthy in and of itself either.

 

[Husker86]

45% $800,000 = $440,000 left
60% $2,000,000 = $800,000 left
70% $4,000,000 = $1,200,000 left
80% $8,000,000 = $1,600,000 left
90% $16,000,000 = $1,600,000 left

You want people to work for an +$4 million dollar increase for such meager <$400k in earnings?

These guys are earning the vast majority of their money through ownership of stock and other high risk investments. Why would anyone engage in high risk investments if what they earn is simply going to be stripped clean by the government who has shown time and time again it is incapable of responsibly spending money?

"Eh, I would love to invest $8 million dollars into this fascinating start up, but what I would make even if the company went big will be eaten up the government. On the flip side if things crash then all $8 million would be lost, definitely not worth it."

So to answer his question, No, you don't understand tax brackets.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Wasn't that also when we used the funds to build the highway system? .

That was when the interstate system was started. It took decades and decades (and more and more continued funding) to build what we have now.

 

[Manabanana]

Govt allows it because it's mostly made up of the rich elite themselves sure, but they're still dependant on voters. So the real question is why do non elite voters not vote against it?

Well where do non elite voters get most of their information from? And who controls that?

Because voters don't vote on policy. It's a representative republic, the only choice voters have is picking a representative. Winning an election is expensive, so representatives sorta necessarily have a lot of money.

I really, really hope this is a big topic during next year's election.

 

[BlindRage]

I heard before some crazy statistic.. Like 98% of the countries wealth is divided among 1% of the population?

Some things will never change.

 

[Manabanana]

45% $800,000 = $440,000 left
60% $2,000,000 = $800,000 left
70% $4,000,000 = $1,200,000 left
80% $8,000,000 = $1,600,000 left
90% $16,000,000 = $1,600,000 left

Since no one has said it yet, the tax is applied to only the portion above the threshold.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Since no one has said it yet, the tax is applied to only the portion above the threshold.

shhhhhh

thats 2 hard to do

 

[RumblingRosco]

Since no one has said it yet, the tax is applied to only the portion above the threshold.

I already smugly raised my nose at him, what more do you want from me!?

I heard before some crazy statistic.. Like 98% of the countries wealth is divided among 1% of the population?

Some things will never change.

It's not that bad, but the top 1% has about 40% of the wealth according to this random video I just found.

 

[BlindRage]

I already smugly raised my nose at him, what more do you want from me!?



It's not that bad, but the top 1% has about 40% of the wealth according to this random video I just found.

Yeah that's the video some friend showed me. That's still crazy.

That thread on fat wallet is a pretty interesting read too, hahah. What I would give to inherit that much.

Edit: The average worker needs to work more than a month, to make what a CEO makes in an hour... Nuts.

 

[RDreamer]

45% $800,000 = $440,000 left
60% $2,000,000 = $800,000 left
70% $4,000,000 = $1,200,000 left
80% $8,000,000 = $1,600,000 left
90% $16,000,000 = $1,600,000 left

You want people to work for an +$4 million dollar increase for such meager <$400k in earnings?

These guys are earning the vast majority of their money through ownership of stock and other high risk investments. Why would anyone engage in high risk investments if what they earn is simply going to be stripped clean by the government who has shown time and time again it is incapable of responsibly spending money?

"Eh, I would love to invest $8 million dollars into this fascinating start up, but what I would make even if the company went big will be eaten up the government. On the flip side if things crash then all $8 million would be lost, definitely not worth it."

Yeah, uh... you don't understand how tax brackets work.

Now let's explain:

We'll use $4,000,000 as an example.

First, you'll be taxed 10% on anything earned before $8,925. So, $892 is paid in taxes here.

Next you'll be taxed 15% on what's between $8,926 and $36,250. $4,098.75 is paid in taxes here.

Next you'll be taxed 25% on what's between $36,251 and $87,850. So, $12,899.75 is paid here.

Next you're taxed 28% on what's between $87,851 and $183,250. So, $26,711.72 is paid here.

Next you're taxed 33% on what's between $183,251 and $398,350. So, $70,982.67 is paid here.

Next, you're taxed 35% on what's between $398,351 and $400,000. So, that's just $1,649 here.

Next, you're taxed 39.6% for what's over $400,001. In my example, though, its from $400,001 to $800,000. So, that's $158,400 here.

And in my example you'd pay 45% on what's between $800,001 and $2,000,000. That's $540,000 here.

Next, in my example you'd pay 60% on what's between $2,000,001 and $4,000,000. That's 1,200,000 here.

Since you're at $4 million, you don't hit that next bracket, since it's only on the dollars that go over.

So, at $4 million dollars it isn't 1.2 million left. It's 2 million.

Without my added brackets, you have 2.5 million left. So, I took out another half million from someone making 4 in a year. Oh noes.

 

[Eusis]

It's not that bad, but the top 1% has about 40% of the wealth according to this random video I just found.

That's why at some point you DO have to say enough's enough even when playing within the rules: just because it's legal doesn't mean it's FAIR, and as such the system needs to be addressed to try to deal with that. I imagine if it was 10% of the wealth or something it'd be shocking but acceptable, but 40%, and most of it is doing nothing... Frankly, it'd probably be less offensive if they really were buying new yachts or bankrolling vanity projects with that money instead, at least someone'd be getting it. Admittedly you don't get rich by throwing money at every little whim you have, but there probably is a balance to be struck.

 

[woolley]

The only people to blame here is the government and their god awful tax system. I'm trying to learn it now and its just an overly complicated mess.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Boomers. Riding the pony till it quits breathing and then leaving for another corral.

 

[Drek]

The only people to blame here is the government and their god awful tax system. I'm trying to learn it now and its just an overly complicated mess.

A government staffed by people who only have their jobs thanks to wealthy benefactors. Funny how hat works, huh?

The grand delusion that young, poor Americans have is that by somehow taxing these people more, that money will wind up in their hands (or the hands of their peers).

That money will merely be diverted to other corporations and rich people that are more deeply embedded into Congress. It just a redistribution at the top, with maybe some trickle down to the poor if they are in proximity of those select people. ARRA was proof of that.

All of this strikes me as pure envy or people playing off of other's envy. This proven flawed idea that money buys happiness and those that have more (than they could ever want) need to share it. Thus creating more 'happiness' or contentment. Not only that, but you expect the very same corrupt organization that allowed this system to exist to then distribute that money in a fair manner. hahaha

You sure do like building straw men.

FYI, for the kind of taxation change people are suggesting to occur it would require significant governmental overhauls, the kinds that could quite easily result in a more effective use of government tax dollars.

Those tax dollars, when applied correctly, do in fact raise the national standard of living (and if you do it really well even the international standard for many neighboring countries).

The linchpin to the current wealth hoarding scheme is our election system being built around an unfettered and unregulated marketing campaign for every candidate. This makes all candidates exceptionally beholden to rich benefactors and lobbyists working on behalf of massive corporations.

If starting today there was a low fixed cap on all political spending for a candidate coupled with publicly available venues for debate between all candidates we'd go a long ways towards fixing the current economic issues. If you take it one step further and make consorting with lobbyists and taking political contributions outside that very tight cap a felony with mandatory jail time you'd make for some dramatic changes in short order.

Campaign finance reform is where you need to start if you want a better government in any capacity, short of you personally having the wealth to buy a few political offices yourself.

 

[empty vessel]

You mean that time when the entire world was decimated and recovering from WWII and we were completely unscathed selling our goods to help them rebuild?

But even that fortune through others misery was short-lived. We had a recession in the late 50's, which in turn caused JFK to seek a reduction in taxes to help goose the economy back into life.

Hi tax rates on high incomes is never economically problematic, nor would cutting them ever be meaningfully economically stimulating.

And the engine of the American economy in the postwar period was not its export trade.

 

[ToxicAdam]

You sure do like building straw men.

FYI, for the kind of taxation change people are suggesting to occur it would require significant governmental overhauls, the kinds that could quite easily result in a more effective use of government tax dollars.

Ok, so your imaginary government would be magically effective also. I'll just have to take your word for it.

It shouldn't be too hard, right? That's what massive organizations historically are known for .. their efficiency and effectiveness. Especially when there is no accountability or culpability for failure.

And the engine of the American economy in the postwar period was not its export trade

It sure didn't hurt, did it? We've never had such a favorable trade imbalance since for which to measure against.

The main engine was all the cheap, young exploitable labor. Alongside a sizeable portion of the populace that was still treated like second class citizens (women and minorities) not worthy of basic human rights.

 

[Enron]

Not gonna hate. I'd loophole the shit out of that, too if I were in their place.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

While Walmart employees make minimum wage with no benefits. Disgusting. All that money for themselves when they could buy all their employees nation wide a home times 10. Ugh.. ..

 

[Batman]

Not gonna hate. I'd loophole the shit out of that, too if I were in their place.

People only hate wealthy people until they become one of them. It's just jealousy, look at what happened the past election with Romney. If they inherited money from a family member and sat on their behinds collecting money for doing nothing they wouldn't be hating other wealthy people as they do now.

 

[Azih]

That's what massive organizations historically are known for .. their efficiency and effectiveness. Especially when there is no accountability or culpability for failure.

Your Medicare and Medicaid is pretty efficient. Canadian Universal Healthcare if more efficient than American healthcare.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Your Medicare and Medicaid is pretty efficient.

50 billion in bad payments in 2011 according to a House investigation.


http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/09/27/How-Medicare-Wastes-Almost-50-Billion-a-Year


That being said, I don't think all waste is bad. Some is actually good for an economy as long as people are working to correct it.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Ok, so your imaginary government would be magically effective also. I'll just have to take your word for it.

It shouldn't be too hard, right? That's what massive organizations historically are known for .. their efficiency and effectiveness. Especially when there is no accountability or culpability for failure.

You know what's massively more efficient than 401k's? Social Security. You know where the growth of spending is slower than private insurance? Medicare. Some big organizations are efficient and effective (Social Security / Amazon). Some big organizations have issues (The Pentagon / Comcast).

Plus, there is far more accountability for the government. I can vote out the government. I can't vote out my health care provider, especially ifi t's employer provided or my cable company, since they likely have a monopoly.

It sure didn't hurt, did it? We've never had such a favorable trade imbalance since for which to measure against.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/the-europe-in-rubble-excuse/?_r=0

First, the economic boom (with a recession or two in between) basically lasted form 1947 to 1973. Far after GDP in European countries had covered. In addition, yeah, we had no compeition. We also had nobody to trade with. Export or importing had no real effect on the economy throughout most of the 50's and 60's because there were no countries to trade a lot with.

The main engine was all the cheap, young exploitable labor. Alongside a sizeable portion of the populace that was still treated like second class citizens (women and minorities) not worthy of basic human rights.

The North and West Coast's were far from perfect places in the 50's and 60's, but the only place where minorities had no rights were the South. Plus, the existence of women fully in the workforce has not destroyed the welfare state in Scandinavia or France, so I don't get that excuse.

The truth is, in the aftermath of the 70's economic downturn, we made a choice to let corporations and the rich do whatever they want.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

People only hate wealthy people until they become one of them. It's just jealousy, look at what happened the past election with Romney. If they inherited money from a family member and sat on their behinds collecting money for doing nothing they wouldn't be hating other wealthy people as they do now.

You are NOT Batman.

 

[empty vessel]

The main engine was all the cheap, young exploitable labor. Alongside a sizeable portion of the populace that was still treated like second class citizens (women and minorities) not worthy of basic human rights.

Cheap, young exploitable labor is what we have now. Workers in the postwar era had more bargaining power than at any other time in American history. That's how factory workers came to be able to own homes and cars, i.e., live a middle class life. You have a bizzaro world understanding of economic history, I'm afraid. The reality is that the government's enormous spending during the war created unrivaled economic prosperity (and increased egalitarianism) for several decades thereafter.

Here's something interesting and somewhat relevant: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/08/mobilization-and-money.html

 

[AnotherNils]

You are NOT Batman.

When bad posters own good nicks.

 

[legacyzero]

I have pretty much stopped shopping there since the beginning of this year. Buy local.

 

[Neo C.]

It's disturbing to see people defending the super rich. No matter what your political stances are, people should realize how dangerous the ongoing increase of inequality is. If you care about the future of your kids, you should do whatever it needs to create more (financial) equality.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

When bad posters own good nicks.

Not sure if this is supporting my post or if it's another instigation for a pending NilsWar...

At the risk of being too meta and off topic, seeing a poster called Batman rave about the wonders of guns rustles my nerd jimmies hardcore. Batman does not use guns, it's only like his number one rule.

Back on topic I really liked that TED video someone posted in a related topic this week that argued more inequality is bad for every tier of the population. Higher infant mortality for the super rich in more unequal countries and stuff like that.

 

[AnotherNils]

Not sure if this is supporting my post or if it's another instigation for a pending NilsWar...

I thought that might be misconstrued after I posted it. Supporting your post.

Spoiler

NilsWar sounds like a sad post-apocalyptic event

 

[Takamura-San]

500k annual salary cap. No person needs more than that.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Solving the tax inequality for the super rich would be nothing more than a slap on the wrist, as much as I want it to happen.

It is literally telling the employee (the US government) to set aside more resources (collect more taxes) from the boss (the ultra-wealthy) in the US government account. From there, unless some real changes happen in the way our government is run, the resources will only be diverted very selectively, mostly by the bidding of the boss.

We should be attacking the boss more directly in the way they make money, or perhaps firing the employee and starting fresh.

 

[Anonumos]

In pharmacy school and they actually have an entire course dedicated to showing us how to do stuff like this. I sat in there and I couldn't believe half the stuff they were saying.




I got an A

 

[Takuan]

500k annual salary cap. No person needs more than that.

Says the guy not making anywhere close to 500K a year.

 

[empty vessel]

Solving the tax inequality for the super rich would be nothing more than a slap on the wrist, as much as I want it to happen.

It is literally telling the employee (the US government) to set aside more resources (collect more taxes) from the boss (the ultra-wealthy) in the US government account. From there, unless some real changes happen in the way our government is run, the resources will only be diverted very selectively, mostly by the bidding of the boss.

We should be attacking the boss more directly in the way they make money, or perhaps firing the employee and starting fresh.

I think you underestimate how much the boss needs his money to be the boss. When the employee (US government) takes it away, the boss loses relative control over the employee and the customers (us) gain relative control over the employee. That, in fact, is the best way to make "real changes in the way our government is run."

 

[devilhawk]

Screw you David Glass. Buy us a damn second baseman.

Spoiler

I realize he isn't a Walton, just was the pres/ceo

 

[Stet]

Ok so instead of 20 to my friend, I give 20 billion to my kids whats the difference?

Apart from the laughably obvious, even if there were some free way of tracking everyone who lent someone money, the taxation on 100 million 20 dollar loans would come out to less than the taxation on a single 20 billion dollar estate.

 

[Sanky Panky]

I think you underestimate how much the boss needs his money to be the boss. When the employee (US government) takes it away, the boss loses relative control over the employee and the customers (us) gain relative control over the employee. That, in fact, is the best way to make "real changes in the way our government is run."

I would love for that to happen, but unfortunately the boss is the one that hires the employee (even though we the customers are under the illusion that we do). The boss directs the employee, so until that dynamic is broken, taking away from the boss won't likely promote happiness for the customers. Even taking away 40% of the boss' money still leaves him with much more weight than the rest of us.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ok so instead of 20 to my friend, I give 20 billion to my kids whats the difference?

For the same reason we have tax brackets. We don't charge income tax on people making 5k a year. There are some transactions we say "thats small enough that we don't care about it"

 

[empty vessel]

I would love for that to happen, but unfortunately the boss is the one that hires the employee (even though we the customers are under the illusion that we do). The boss directs the employee, so until that dynamic is broken, taking away from the boss won't likely promote happiness for the customers. Even taking away 40% of the boss' money still leaves him with much more weight than the rest of us.

I think we can do much better than 40%. Obviously, this is a disagreement about strategy, but I continue to think you underestimate how powerful of a weapon taxation is. There is a reason the boss focuses on it above almost all other things. And rich people will always have more political weight than the rest of us. But taking away their political slush funds via taxation will indeed significantly impair their political power.

Step 1: high tax rates on high incomes.
Step 2: campaign finance reform.
Step 3. democracy.

 

[Whitechocolatekrispies]

To be honest if you have two people in a country.

Person A is worth 1000x more than Person B. However the cost to government of Person A is the same as Person B. However despite paying much lower taxes, Person A will still be paying 10-100x more amount of money than what Person B is paying.

Then you can factor in Person A provides far more in taxes on goods they purchase. Will provide jobs for Person B and his class. Person A will use far less government aid money, send their children to private schools, use private hospitals etc etc.


It sucks, that people with so much money can keep so much of that money. But it's not straight up unfair.

 

[Timedog]

Nope, let's put a laser focus on what poor people are doing instead.

Step 1: high tax rates on high incomes.
Step 2: campaign finance reform.
Step 3. democracy.

BOOM