|
Haha nice
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
a 50% wealth tax on billionaires would make a big dent in that problem and eliminate over time a good portion of the federal debt. At the very least Congress/IRS needs to implement a new tax category for the ultra wealthy. The top bracket has a floor of $518k and 37% marginal tax rate. So for anything below that you are paying 35% or less in taxes (typically less, because effective tax rates almost never reach the marginal rates). Let's assume for a second, they make a 50% bracket and the floor is $100 mil. You'd have to go from making $518k to 100 mil in order for that to even kick in...and let's be honest, at that point the majority of the +100 mil crowd would never end up paying that because most of their earnings are in investments as opposed to salaried income. So really a progressive structure needs to start being applied to investments as well. But at a base level, the same issue still stands that poor people basically get screwed on a regular basis, middle class people are mostly swept up in their own issues of not being poor, and the millionaire/billionaire set are just in a different universe entirely..
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
Outrail posted:On the flip side would the net increase to human happiness outweigh the misery if everyone was allowed to take a bat to a monster like Reverse utility monsters that everyone gets off from torturing are an example of why confusing or conflating enjoyment or even "happiness" with flourishing is ... Problematic
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
BRB, starting a cult based on BDSM utilitarianism. Our goal is to reach cosmic enlightenment by maximizing utility by matching every sub with their dom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
Oxphocker posted:a 50% wealth tax on billionaires would make a big dent in that problem and eliminate over time a good portion of the federal debt. At the very least Congress/IRS needs to implement a new tax category for the ultra wealthy. The top bracket has a floor of $518k and 37% marginal tax rate. So for anything below that you are paying 35% or less in taxes (typically less, because effective tax rates almost never reach the marginal rates). Let's assume for a second, they make a 50% bracket and the floor is $100 mil. You'd have to go from making $518k to 100 mil in order for that to even kick in...and let's be honest, at that point the majority of the +100 mil crowd would never end up paying that because most of their earnings are in investments as opposed to salaried income. So really a progressive structure needs to start being applied to investments as well. But at a base level, the same issue still stands that poor people basically get screwed on a regular basis, middle class people are mostly swept up in their own issues of not being poor, and the millionaire/billionaire set are just in a different universe entirely.. Investment income, primarily in the form of interest and dividends, is taxed at ordinary rates (that is, 37% for the wealthy). What you are trying to say is that we should end preferential rates for long-term capital gains, which are 20% at the top bracket. This is the primary mechanism by which Jeff Bezos pays less tax than a school teacher making $50,000 topping out at the 22% marginal rate. They also pay 3.8% net investment income tax. This would also have the benefit of ending the carried interest loophole, whereby private equity ghouls pay themselves with capital gains income rather than salary. Long story short: tax capital gains like ordinary income, or even create a new bracket for $1 million+ taxing them like 50% capital gains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
How about every year at tax time we publically execute the wealthiest 0.5%? Between estate tax and the sudden frenzy of charitable donations trickle down economics might actually work as unintended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 06:41
|
|
|
That might be a bit extreme. With roughly 1.5 millions public executions all scheduled around the same time in the US alone, even the most diehard fan would be hard pressed to watch even a tiny fraction of them all. It would dilute the impact and lend credence to the myth that the extremely rich are also somehow treated unfairly. Make it 0.0005% and I’ll support the proposal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 07:10
|
|
|
Why execute them? Strip them of all their wealth and then make a TV show where we can watch them scramble to try to survive. I want to watch Elon Musk talk back to his manager at burger king, get fired and then cry when he realizes he has to choose between food and rent. Execution is too kind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 07:33
|
|
|
The cruelty isn't the point. Who gives a poo poo about human garbage? The point is they're gone and people know that behavior isn't worth emulating.ranbo das posted:I want to watch Elon Musk talk back to his manager at burger king, get fired and then cry when he realizes he has to choose between food and rent. I do agree that would be prime entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 07:42
|
|
|
Just put them in a gulch somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 08:41
|
|
|
Just put them.in a loving singlewide in AZ and deny them water rights. It's trivial to make the guillotine look like the preferable option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 08:47
|
|
|
How long would it take to burn through the top 0.0005% year after year until you have to start executing people that aren't actually obscenely rich? Like at what point does the Powerball winner get the thrill of winning $200,000,000 and then get executed the next tax season? That lottery curse is a sonofabitch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 10:26
|
|
|
Inspector 34 posted:How long would it take to burn through the top 0.0005% year after year until you have to start executing people that aren't actually obscenely rich? Like at what point does the Powerball winner get the thrill of winning $200,000,000 and then get executed the next tax season? That lottery curse is a sonofabitch. Assuming this policy would have to be worldwide to avoid the rich to evade death by emigrating, the powerball winner would be already executed within the first year. There’s really not very many ultra rich people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 10:47
|
|
|
zedprime posted:BRB, starting a cult based on BDSM utilitarianism. Our goal is to reach cosmic enlightenment by maximizing utility by matching every sub with their dom. There was a French philosopher who kind of proposed that: https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/get-thee-to-a-phalanstery-or-how-fourier-can-still-teach-us-to-make-lemonade/ quote:Fourier believed that there were 810 different personality types, so each phalanstery should be comprised of 1,620 inhabitants — one personality type of each sex. He also said that when social harmony was achieved, the Aurora Borealis would turn the oceans into lemonade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 10:51
|
|
|
SerialKilldeer posted:He also said that when social harmony was achieved, the Aurora Borealis would turn the oceans into lemonade. Isn’t that the plot of Neon Genesis Evangelion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 11:54
|
|
TinTower posted:Isn’t that the plot of Neon Genesis Evangelion? thats kool aid, not lemonade.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 11:58
|
|
|
Thought it was weird that the mole children had blue hair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 12:04
|
|
|
My library ebook app recommended Change Your Brain, Change Your Life to me and I wasn't prepared for any of it, and there's some supremely bad graphs and diagrams inside  (Mark Zuck simply Has More Brain Than You, peasant)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 12:38
|
|
|
Healthy brains are smooth, got it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 12:52
|
|
|
Dude spends an entire chapter trying to sell you on getting a SPECT scan at his private clinic for what appears to be purposes any other doctor would not recommend it for
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 12:57
|
|
|
SerialKilldeer posted:Healthy brains are smooth, got it. Potus brain is smooth as a macadamia and yet he's is arguably richer and more successful than us mooks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
SerialKilldeer posted:
That is not the transformation I expected when applying Fourier's theory to waves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:Investment income, primarily in the form of interest and dividends, is taxed at ordinary rates (that is, 37% for the wealthy). What you are trying to say is that we should end preferential rates for long-term capital gains, which are 20% at the top bracket. This is the primary mechanism by which Jeff Bezos pays less tax than a school teacher making $50,000 topping out at the 22% marginal rate. They also pay 3.8% net investment income tax. Just progressively tax wealth. 0.1% above $1m, 1% above $10m, 5% above $100m, 10% above $1b. Make it effectively impossible for anyone to stay a billionaire. How much cap gains has Bezos ever actually realized? AreWeDrunkYet has a new favorite as of 17:57 on Dec 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
I don't think I'll ever understand the desire for the oceans to be something potable and delicious it's still going to be full of weird sea creatures and garbage and ships
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
gently caress sorry edited
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Just progressively tax wealth. 0.1% above $1m, 1% above $10m, 5% above $100m, 10% above $1b. Make it effectively impossible for anyone to stay a billionaire. Yeah you'd have to change that to like 1%:$1mil, 5%:$10mil, 10%:$100mil, 15%:$1bil in order to even really start making a dent in some of these cases. It's not so much the 1mil and 10mil cases... but the 100mil and up crowd that they are going to earn that amount back in less than a year with the rate that inequality is going on. It's really hard for most people to even conceptualize wealth above $1bil...
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
Buttchocks posted:That is not the transformation I expected when applying Fourier's theory to waves. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
The hard part is wealth above a certain point isn't even really able to be realized or liquidated. It's just a high score of how many pieces of capital have your name etched on them. When you talk about Bezos net worth, you're talking about weird poo poo like how much business a cinder block can enable for 30 years This should help bridge why progressive tax rates are such an existential crisis for capitalists: if that capital is subject for possession by the state, well that's socialism!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
How about above a net worth of 50 million you start to lose basic protections under the law. Over a 500 million you start to lose human rights. Anyone with a net worth of over a billion isn't considered a living thing and can be hunted for sport.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
zedprime posted:The hard part is wealth above a certain point isn't even really able to be realized or liquidated. It's just a high score of how many pieces of capital have your name etched on them. When you talk about Bezos net worth, you're talking about weird poo poo like how much business a cinder block can enable for 30 years If we're going socialism, let's go socialism rather than de facto having the government take over every big company: rather than tax Bezos' wealth (which is hard because it's all in stock), just force him to give some of it back to the workers at the company every year. Honestly, this makes a lot of sense in general: some percentage (let's say 5%) of all stocks should be repossessed every year (or heck, do a small percentage weekly/daily, probably the best option) and given to the workers. "Entrepeneurs" who start companies will still be able to make tons of money, but as the company grows control naturally transitions to the workers. If the owner wants to maintain control, they can buy the stock back from the workers at a fair market price, thus ensuring that the company's profits are actually fairly distributed to the workers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:
Utilitarians are just deontologists who have one commandment: Number Go Up
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
Are we? You can do it consequentially as well. Deontologist/consequentialist seems entirely a matter of whether you update your model based on the results or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Are we? You can do it consequentially as well. Deontologist/consequentialist seems entirely a matter of whether you update your model based on the results or not. The literal opposite interpretation of the same idea is what led me to think of myself as a deontologist. Namely that consequentialism takes on a fantastically egotistical perspective that you can predict the future, and a good set of life rules to follow should be informed by the kinds of predictable patterns you can foresee. I'm never going to know if today's the day I accidentally hit someone with my car. But I know very clearly that speeding and not using my signal puts people at risk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
Oxphocker posted:Yeah you'd have to change that to like 1%:$1mil, 5%:$10mil, 10%:$100mil, 15%:$1bil in order to even really start making a dent in some of these cases. It's not so much the 1mil and 10mil cases... but the 100mil and up crowd that they are going to earn that amount back in less than a year with the rate that inequality is going on. It's really hard for most people to even conceptualize wealth above $1bil... If a billionaire is taxed on 10% of their wealth annually and still manages to come out ahead ... I'm comfortable with that. That's not going to be sustainable in the long run or across generations either way, no one is staying a billionaire for long at that rate. zedprime posted:The hard part is wealth above a certain point isn't even really able to be realized or liquidated. It's just a high score of how many pieces of capital have your name etched on them. When you talk about Bezos net worth, you're talking about weird poo poo like how much business a cinder block can enable for 30 years Too bad, they can sell some shares to pay their tax bill. AreWeDrunkYet has a new favorite as of 22:08 on Dec 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:The literal opposite interpretation of the same idea is what led me to think of myself as a deontologist. Namely that consequentialism takes on a fantastically egotistical perspective that you can predict the future, and a good set of life rules to follow should be informed by the kinds of predictable patterns you can foresee. Granted I hate philosophy and apparently have zero grasp of it but I always associate deontology with "these are the rules and if you follow them, regardless of the outcome, you are Doing It Properly and A Good Person" i.e like hardcore religious prescriptivism or whatever. Whereas consequentialism is when you look at the outcome of your actions and if the outcome is consistently poo poo you start to wonder "maybe the rules aren't very good, maybe I'm being a bit of a twat by sticking to them when they don't seem to help any" Necessarily any use of your brain will lead you to trying to formulate methods which you think will achieve particular results, but I always thought deontological ethics was when you placed the emphasis on the rules as they are (for whatever reason, because you thought of them, because they're traditional, because they're god's rules) while consequentialism was when you played the emphasis on the outcomes. I suppose a major difference might be that deontological ethics offers you personal insurance against ethical culpability because as long as you follow the rules you are doing the right thing, whereas consequentialism puts it on you to adjust your working if you can see a suboptimal outcome. It is possible to do the best you can and still commit error and for it to be your fault. OwlFancier has a new favorite as of 22:30 on Dec 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
Karia posted:If we're going socialism, let's go socialism rather than de facto having the government take over every big company: rather than tax Bezos' wealth (which is hard because it's all in stock), just force him to give some of it back to the workers at the company every year. Honestly, this makes a lot of sense in general: some percentage (let's say 5%) of all stocks should be repossessed every year (or heck, do a small percentage weekly/daily, probably the best option) and given to the workers. "Entrepeneurs" who start companies will still be able to make tons of money, but as the company grows control naturally transitions to the workers. If the owner wants to maintain control, they can buy the stock back from the workers at a fair market price, thus ensuring that the company's profits are actually fairly distributed to the workers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds The Swedish version, of course, instead of giving the stocks straight to the workers, put them into huge funds that were under the control of the unions (whom else). Each employee fund's share was capped at 8% of a company (there were five funds in total). It was a hugely debated and divisive issue in the 70's. I think the union thing seems to have contributed to them being slightly unpopular. When political control shifted to conservative/liberal in the 90's, the funds were abolished and redistributed among the pension funds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If a billionaire is taxed on 10% of their wealth annually and still manages to come out ahead ... I'm comfortable with that. That's not going to be sustainable in the long run or across generations either way, no one is staying a billionaire for long at that rate. This is where it gets complicated in practice, because no billionaire with an accountant is going to personally own much besides a number of holding companies, which own the actual stock and/or other holding companies and so on with a lot of funny stuff. This means that you have to tax the assets of the companies, which seems simple for holding companies, but what about companies that have a lot of assets but comparably little revenue or profit? Say, a store that has a lot of expensive goods in stock but makes comparably few sales. Or a manufacturer with a lot of expensive machines. Those can't reasonably be liquidated to pay taxes. And because of the chains of holding companies, it can be very difficult to assess where the valuable assets are and whether they are necessary for operating the business or just a clever way to hide profits. If course, with some clever accountants on the right side something could be done I'm sure. But then there's the lack of will politically...
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If a billionaire is taxed on 10% of their wealth annually and still manages to come out ahead ... I'm comfortable with that. That's not going to be sustainable in the long run or across generations either way, no one is staying a billionaire for long at that rate. This doesn't even need to lean left or right (although it'd get panned as commie because of the state taking ownership of capital) because as master of their own capital policy, the polity can manage it as their own, give it out to people, or give it out to banks depending on prevailing economic conditions and policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
BonHair posted:This is where it gets complicated in practice, because no billionaire with an accountant is going to personally own much besides a number of holding companies, which own the actual stock and/or other holding companies and so on with a lot of funny stuff. This means that you have to tax the assets of the companies, which seems simple for holding companies, but what about companies that have a lot of assets but comparably little revenue or profit? Say, a store that has a lot of expensive goods in stock but makes comparably few sales. Or a manufacturer with a lot of expensive machines. Those can't reasonably be liquidated to pay taxes. And because of the chains of holding companies, it can be very difficult to assess where the valuable assets are and whether they are necessary for operating the business or just a clever way to hide profits. If a company or individual has revenue or assets over $X they must pay for government appointed accountant(s) to complete an audit to avoid paying a additional 10% tax on revenue. Any company or individual who prefers to pay an additional 10% tax on revenue than have an audit is immediately flagged as suspicious as gently caress and subject to a full audit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 05:29
|
|