Elizabeth Warren Proposes "Wealth Tax" - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15163186
Unthinking Majority wrote:Retired people?


Retired people do not hire stockbrokers.

Stockbrokers are as universally necessary as cashiers.


No, this has already been disproven in this thread. Would you like me to repeat it?

As I said, I can checkout my own groceries at Walmart and order and pay for my own food at McDonalds at the self-checkouts. People can trade their own stocks using online brokers.


The ability to automate these jobs does not speak to their necessity.

Cashiers and stockbrokers both provide a service for people who want help doing this. This function is necessary whether they are done by people themselves using self-serve technology or by others providing the service for them. Trading stocks and giving financial advice requires far more education and skill than working a checkout, therefore brokers make more money.


Again, stockbrokers are not universally necessary while cashiers are.

Bezos employs over 1 million people with jobs. Of course he makes them money LOL. He doesn't have cashiers, but let's call them order fillers.


No, he does no work that profits the workers. The workers do the work and this profits the company, and the Bezos takes money from those profits. This is how most businesses work.

His company sells countless items from countless companies and he makes tons of people a TON of money. His company shipped millions of people items during COVID. His company helped keep the economy afloat while people could work and live from home without getting spreading COVID while shopping at retail. His ideas have been ridiculously valuable to the economy and to society.


Agin, he did not actually send any boxes out or buy or sell anything. The workers did. This then generates money, and then Bezos takes a cut without doing any work.

He's arguably the most economically valuable worker in the world and he's the richest man in the world to show for it.


No, he makes money without working. Other people work and he makes money off their work. This is common business practice. Have you never been employed?

Compare that to a person working the cash at Walmart. They provide a valuable service too (otherwise there would be no cashiers), but they're far less valuable than Bezos by orders of magnitude. Imagine how many masks and bottles of sanitizer Bezos' company sold during COVID. Of course, he can't do that without the 1 million people he employs who stock and ship the product, but they couldn't have shipped it without Bezos. The difference is there's only a small amount of people in his country who can do his job as good as he can, while there's a large % of people who can do a good job as an order filler.


Anyone can sit on their butt and collect money made by the work of others.

Even if there were only 1 doctor in a city that doctor's income would still be determined by supply and demand, if his wage were determined by the market and not government. He or his employer couldn't charge whatever they want, they could only charge as much as people have. Price and wage are determined by supply and demand in a market, this is basic economics.


Yes, it is basic economics.

In real life, economics are more than just basic. This is why economics classes go beyond simple supply and demand.

You're equating the value of the job function to the value of the employee. If virtually anyone can do a particular job the employee is of a low value when measured against other employees who are more highly skilled and in demand. Janitors have vital duties, but most people can do those duties and that's reflected in wage.


You keep ignoring my point.

Again, the subjective value we see as “wage” does not reflect empirically verifiable factors that show the actual worth. Since I have brought this up three times and you have not refuted it, I am going to assume that you concede this point.
#15163187
B0ycey wrote:Wow. If you can afford a stockbroker I would say you are not poor. But sure there are middle class earners who want to do something with their savings.

Stockbrokers aren't expensive at all. They work for banks. Most of them just take a very small % of your investments as payment. Literally every single person who has a dime to invest can afford a broker. A dime is too much, you can literally invest in penny stocks.

You are getting desperate. Your arguments are so weak you are now resorting to emotion. You think people need stocks to retire? How about state pension?

Do you know how pensions are funded? Do you know how pension contributions make money? Do you know why pensions are needed in the first place??? Because some people DON'T invest and save for retirement or use any brokerage, so the government has to steal money off everyone's paychecks and invest it in the markets because some people are too incompetent to take care of their own retirement incomes. Only the rich could retire without brokers.

People who buy bonds through a broker are literally funding your retirement pension.

As for companies, they can make a loan or sell shares. You don't need a broker to buy shares. Don't you know @colliric says there are being automated anyway not to mention Robin Fuckin' Hood.

How to you buy shares on the NYSE without a broker? Cashiers are also being automated. But we'll always need checkouts and brokers whether they are humans or robots. Both are vital to society, but one is more complicated than the other.
#15163188
Unthinking Majority wrote:Do you know how pensions are funded? Do you know how pension contributions make money? Do you know why pensions are needed in the first place??? Because some people DON'T invest and save for retirement or use any brokerage, so the government has to steal money off everyone's paychecks and invest it in the markets because some people are too incompetent to take care of their own retirement incomes. Only the rich could retire without brokers.


I don't see what that has to do with a state pension given that would be something the government pays you for retirement. Private pensions work off the stock market, but it doesn't mean it is necessary.

People who buy bonds through a broker are literally funding your retirement pension.


No they do not. You need to explain why you think that is the case given I cannot think of one. People buy bonds to basically give the government money to spend. As for the need for a middleman... eh lost again.


How to you buy shares on the NYSE without a broker?


Robin Hood perhaps.

Cashiers are also being automated. But we'll always need checkouts and brokers whether they are humans or robots. Both are vital to society, but one is more complicated than the other.


Like talking to a brick wall. Something tells me if shop floor workers disappeared tomorrow shelves will be empty and society would be broken. Doubt we would see much difference if all stockbrokers disappeared really. You'd just have to buy and sell your own stock.
#15163189
Pants-of-dog wrote:Retired people do not hire stockbrokers.

Retired people use stockbrokers a ton. People who save for retirement sell their investments to live off of when retired.

The ability to automate these jobs does not speak to their necessity.

So then you know that the economy can't function with brokers.

Again, stockbrokers are not universally necessary while cashiers are.

The economy can't function without brokers. How does a person buy stocks without a broker?

Agin, he did not actually send any boxes out or buy or sell anything. The workers did. This then generates money, and then Bezos takes a cut without doing any work.

You think Bezos does no work? HE'S THE CEO. He steers the entire ship. The whole thing functions properly because of his decisions. Companies thrive and fail because of the decisions of CEO's. They're the most important employees of any large company.

No, he makes money without working. Other people work and he makes money off their work. This is common business practice. Have you never been employed?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyone can sit on their butt and collect money made by the work of others.

Then you go try it and report back if it's so easy.

You have to go create a great idea that people want to give you money for, build the business, and then manage it so it grows and thrives. If you think Bezos does nothing you're very mistaken. Bezos is better at it than anyone else in the entire world.

In real life, economics are more than just basic. This is why economics classes go beyond simple supply and demand.

I'm not talking about economics, i'm specifically referring to wages and prices.

Again, the subjective value we see as “wage” does not reflect empirically verifiable factors that show the actual worth. Since I have brought this up three times and you have not refuted it, I am going to assume that you concede this point.


LOL. Wage is subjective? All of your points show why you have a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and why you're a Marxist.
#15163191
Unthinking Majority wrote:Retired people use stockbrokers a ton. People who save for retirement sell their investments to live off of when retired.


Please provide evidence for this claim.

When we look at the evidence, we will see.

The economy can't function without brokers. How does a person buy stocks without a broker?


Irrelevant.

The point was that stockbrokers are not universally necessary while cashiers are.

You think Bezos does no work?


Exactly.

Much like my employers did not do any work and yet made money off my work.

I'm not talking about economics, i'm specifically referring to wages and prices.


Yes, that does not change my point at all.

LOL. Wage is subjective? All of your points show why you have a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and why you're a Marxist.


Then it should be easy to show how I am wrong.

Please do so.
#15163199
Unthinking Majority wrote:If this were true then the logical thing to do would be start your own company so you never have to work again.


In an imaginary world where everyone has the investment capital and social capital to start their own business, this would be a valid point.

But in the real world, Bezos is making money off the work of others.

And these others are more necessary than Bezos or a hypothetical stockbroker.
#15163205
Pants-of-dog wrote:But in the real world, Bezos is making money off the work of others.

He profits from their labour yes, and his workers aren't making money from the work of Bezos and the other employees? Amazon employees are only able to earn wages because Bezos and other shareholders provide inventory and warehouses and trucks and contracts and an online platform for people to purchase things.

How is one not benefiting financially from the efforts of the other? If Bezos is "exploiting" his workers, how are his workers not "exploiting" Bezos by benefiting from his labour and the labour of all other employees to draw a wage?

An employment contract is a mutually beneficial and 100% voluntary business agreement between employer and employee. If one side didn't benefit that side wouldn't sign the contract.

And these others are more necessary than Bezos or a hypothetical stockbroker.

Bezos is more valuable to Amazon and the greater economy than any single one of his employees. If you want to compare the total value of 1 million Amazon employees to one man that's not a fair comparison, he can't do the work of 1 million people. If you want to compare on a person-to-person basis, Bezos wins because he's the only person where if he never worked there Amazon wouldn't exist at all. Everyone else has been replaceable.

As for who is "necessary", all employees at Amazon are necessary for it to function otherwise they wouldn't be employed. At a big grocery chain you need investors, a CEO, management, and HR, IT, lawyers, truck drivers, buyers, stock clerks, butchers, bakers, cashiers, janitors etc or else it can't function.

You have a Marxist victim/oppressor thing about owners vs employees. Stockbrokers are employees too.
#15163209
Pants-of-dog wrote:In an imaginary world where everyone has the investment capital and social capital to start their own business, this would be a valid point.

But in the real world, Bezos is making money off the work of others.

And these others are more necessary than Bezos or a hypothetical stockbroker.


POD

Most people cannot start a business-----------and if they do they often fail. People like Bezos, Gates, Jobs, Henry Ford, etc are rare and the exception---------- and because of them many put food on the table and have a roof above. I wish we had many more like them.
#15163212
Unthinking Majority wrote:He profits from their labour yes, and his workers aren't making money from the work of Bezos and the other employees? Amazon employees are only able to earn wages because Bezos and other shareholders provide inventory and warehouses and trucks and contracts and an online platform for people to purchase things.


Not really.

Amazon employees are able to earn wages because other Amazon employees or contractors provide inventory and warehouses and trucks and contracts and an online platform for people to purchase things.

Bezos does not actually do the work to provide these things. He has employees that do that.

How is one not benefiting financially from the efforts of the other? If Bezos is "exploiting" his workers, how are his workers not "exploiting" Bezos by benefiting from his labour and the labour of all other employees to draw a wage?

An employment contract is a mutually beneficial and 100% voluntary business agreement between employer and employee. If one side didn't benefit that side wouldn't sign the contract.


You seem to imagine that people are free to leave paying work and not work in a capitalist system. This is not the case.

Bezos is more valuable to Amazon and the greater economy than any single one of his employees. If you want to compare the total value of 1 million Amazon employees to one man that's not a fair comparison, he can't do the work of 1 million people.


He gets paid more than they do.

He literally gets paid more than one million. And he does not do the work of even one of them.

If you want to compare on a person-to-person basis, Bezos wins because he's the only person where if he never worked there Amazon wouldn't exist at all. Everyone else has been replaceable.

As for who is "necessary", all employees at Amazon are necessary for it to function otherwise they wouldn't be employed. At a big grocery chain you need investors, a CEO, management, and HR, IT, lawyers, truck drivers, buyers, stock clerks, butchers, bakers, cashiers, janitors etc or else it can't function.


No, these people are not all equally necessary. The people who actually do the physical work are the most necessary. As you go up the hierarchy, people tend to become less necessary.

You have a Marxist victim/oppressor thing about owners vs employees. Stockbrokers are employees too.


Believe what you want about me. It has no impact on the fact that I am correct.
#15163244
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Believe what you want about me. It has no impact on the fact that I am correct.


Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience.
Adam Smith

People like you are so dangerous. :| :|
#15163246
Julian658 wrote:
People like you are so dangerous.



Extreme income inequality leads to economic instability and social unrest.

Btw, Adam Smith expected society to find a way to deal with the damage caused by the 'creative destruction' of capitalism. You aren't using Smith, just a myth kooks have about him.
#15163248
late wrote:Extreme income inequality leads to economic instability and social unrest.

Btw, Adam Smith expected society to find a way to deal with the damage caused by the 'creative destruction' of capitalism. You aren't using Smith, just a myth kooks have about him.

Wealth inequality is a problem, no one denies the point.

The diagnosis is correct. The issue is how do we fix it:
1. Conservatives believe in hard work, individuality, and freedom to succeed. The idea that if a person works hard they somehow get a reward and at the same time they have the satisfaction of accomplishment.

2. Lefties believe in providing the basic for free and the idea of income redistribution. They firmly believe this will make people equal.

From experience we know that the two proposals do not work. Unless you find a socialist that claims socialism in the past was done wrong and that he or she will do it right this time. With regards to the right ---------------sadly not everybody is capable of succeeding with hard work. 10% of the population has practically no talent, not enough talent to even be accepted into the military. That 10% will always be a burden regarding the system.

Why do we have inequality? In every endeavor that humans participate a large portion of the wealth or recognition goes to a few at the top. Not everybody hits 700 homers plus in baseball and most golfers are not Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods. There are millions of music artists in Spotify and yet only a very tiny portion gets over 95% of the plays. The overwhelming majority remain in obscurity. Not everybody can become a Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or Steve Jobs. To get there is a rarity. IN any given high school there may be one Valedictorian that will likely have great success in life. Most others are average and 10% languish at the bottom.

Life is a bitch, there is no equality and this lack of equality will often lead to wealth inequality. Those at the top will have excessive wealth as this is how the system works in all areas where humans participate. And once a person gains some wealth the opportunities to make more money become endless.

The wealth inequality is a very serious problem that does not have an easy solution. You may say: Let's provide for the bottom of society, but you know quite well this will lead to a dystopia where people are nihilistic and lack a proper reason to even exist. Just look at Skid Row in LA, or the homeless in San Francisco and Seattle. The more they get stuff for free the more bizarre they become.

What a problem!
#15163265
Julian658 wrote:
Wealth inequality is a problem, no one denies the point.

The diagnosis is correct. The issue is how do we fix it



Actually, a lot of libertarian types, esp. those influenced by Buchanon's ideology do deny the problem.

We've done what you want, didn't work. In fact, economic mobility out of poverty has slowed to a crawl. You can look to other countries to see what actually works. Or you can read a good economist like Stiglitz.

Ain't rocket science.
#15163267
wat0n wrote:That's not particularly great, why didn't he include as many countries as possible as candidates for the synth control? And why doesn't he show what happened up to 2019, when the ISF was repealed? Where are the revenue estimates which also allow us to see if the tax is useful as a major revenue source as has been sold recently in the US? What happened to inequality? So far, I've never learned of any accounts saying the wealth tax was effective as a revenue source or as a device to reduce inequality.


The donor pool for the control consists of 13 OECD countries, i.e. those without wealth taxes from 1960 to 1992. It ends in 1992 because that's a 'reasonable limit on the span of possible prediction' (i.e. 10 years, the wealth tax was introduced in 1982). Revenue estimates and effects on inequality are not subject of the paper.

To me it seems methodologically sound, if not particulary insightful. The only other paper on the topic I've seen is the one from Pichet (2007), which quite frankly is a disaster, but seems to be the inspiration for the "abject failure" statements in some popular media.

wat0n wrote:Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if a wealth tax was better than a capital gains one. But that's a fairly low bar to consider, in all. And it's not, as far as I'm aware, being sold as a replacement of a capital gains tax.

If it replaced a capital gains tax, that could be different but it doesn't seem like that is in the books.


Not capital gains tax, but capital income tax. E.g. with a 5% return on wealth a 1% wealth tax is equivalent to a 20% capital income tax.

Of course capital income taxes are quite substantial almost everywhere (at the individual level it's often lumped together with labor income). The alternative to taxing capital income is taxing labor income, which isn't necessarily the better option.
#15163268
Rugoz wrote:The donor pool for the control consists of 13 OECD countries, i.e. those without wealth taxes from 1960 to 1992. It ends in 1992 because that's a 'reasonable limit on the span of possible prediction' (i.e. 10 years, the wealth tax was introduced in 1982). Revenue estimates and effects on inequality are not subject of the paper.

To me it seems methodologically sound, if not particulary insightful. The only other paper on the topic I've seen is the one from Pichet (2007), which quite frankly is a disaster, but seems to be the inspiration for the "abject failure" statements in some popular media.


And thus the paper doesn't allow us to have the full picture regarding wealth taxes. Also, it's questionable to assign the latter part of the series as a wealth tax effect when the tax was repealed in 1986 and then a different (lower and easier to enforce) tax was introduced in 1990, and it's also worth wondering if the largest effects are realized in the long run (i.e. after 10 years).

That's also why I'd consider adding more countries into the donor pool. He used the WDI database, so it was definitely possible (although the thesis would have taken a lot longer to do).

And yes, that other paper seems to be worse IIRC.

Rugoz wrote:Not capital gains tax, but capital income tax. E.g. with a 5% return on wealth a 1% wealth tax is equivalent to a 20% capital income tax.

Of course capital income taxes are quite substantial almost everywhere (at the individual level it's often lumped together with labor income). The alternative to taxing capital income is taxing labor income, which isn't necessarily the better option.


Normally, labor is less mobile than capital, so it would actually be a better policy to tax labor from that point of view. That's particularly true if it's easy to fight informal work. I wonder though if this will change with remote working, but for now at least it seems to be the more efficient option.

And indeed, normally income is taxed regardless of the source. That is, capital income taxes, capital gains taxes and wealth taxes mean governments are actually taxing capital at a higher rate than labor in practice.
#15163272
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not really.

Amazon employees are able to earn wages because other Amazon employees or contractors provide inventory and warehouses and trucks and contracts and an online platform for people to purchase things.

Bezos does not actually do the work to provide these things. He has employees that do that.

Who owns them? They're all using HIS things for free. He started the initial operation and manages the company at a macro level.

He literally gets paid more than one million. And he does not do the work of even one of them.

What's your evidence for this? He manages the entire company. Entrepreneurs work tirelessly, often much more than 40 hrs a week 9-to-5. If you think it's easy work to run a massive multi-national company employing a million people, you've obviously never ran any kind of company with more than a few employees nor been in management.

Believe what you want about me. It has no impact on the fact that I am correct.

Saying things doesn't make them facts.

https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Ressentiment

"Ressentiment is a profound sense of resentment, frustration, and hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, generated by a sense of weakness/inferiority and feelings of jealousy/envy in the face of the 'cause', that ultimately generates a rejecting/justifying 'value system' or morality that exists as a means of attacking or denying the perceived source of one's own sense of inferiority.

Ressentiment (as a term imported by many languages for its philosophical and psychological meaning only) is not to be considered interchangeable with the normal English word 'resentment', or the normal French word 'ressentiment'. While the normal words both speak to a feeling of frustration directed at a perceived source, neither speaks to the special relationship between a sense of inferiority and the creation of morality. Thus, the term 'Ressentiment' as used here always maintains a distinction.
"
#15163283
Julian658 wrote:I do not disagree with you, but I want to explain the concept of "lots of money creates more opportunities to make more money" even with people that are not greedy.

If I a person has one million dollars cash he or she can invest the money at a 8% return and have 2.2 million in 10 years if interest is compounded monthly. This is a very passive non-greedy way to make money.

This is called the Matthew Effect. Look it up.

If you save 500 a month for 30 years you end up with 750K assuming 8% interest. Many people sacrifice and do this. They are not necessarily bad people.


If you agree with me, why are you so against redistributing the wealth?

Not everyone can save 500 a month. Think about it. If the average male salary is $37K that is around 18 an hour. That is 720 a week. FICA will take out taxes so maybe 670 is the take home pay. Groceries could be 200 a week. So you have 470. You need to get gas, at $3 per gallon times half a tank of gas so maybe $30. You have 440 left. You might need to save the rest for expenses like utilities and rent. So how can a person on this kind of salary possibly save $500 a month? For those who can save 500 a month, they need to be making a lot more than $37K in a year. And this $37k is what men make in the service industry, for women it is more like $30k. I would like to know what you mean by "many people". Because from my calculations, if that is the average, then many are not able to save up very much per month. They have to spend and often go into the red, just to survive.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/avera ... rs-2060808

People in need deserve a little help. Like when small businesses are starting out, do they need financial help? Yes, so they take out loans from the bank. How many small businesses can get off the ground without loans? My guess is not very many. But if the small businesses do end up thriving for decades, it is thanks to the startup loan they received in the beginning. Small businesses make a difference. If the bank never helped them, they would never have been started in the first place.

You seem to think that those who are given money become "nihilistic". People need help. They are suffering and in pain. I fail to see how they can become "nihilistic."
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]