Economics

[Whiskeyjack]

Honest question because I am an economic moron... but what would a purely conservative economy actually look like (+1 on your chart)? I ask becasue the chart seems to indicate the entire voting population prefers an economy that is at a minimum moderate to far left.

Low taxes, privatized social security, workers utterly dependent on the whims of their employers for survival, etc. Much of our politics is driven by conflict between two factions of our overclass:

In German a distinction has long been made between the Besitzbürgertum (propertied bourgeoisie) and the Bildungsbürgertum (educated bourgeoisie). The equivalents of these two groups exist in the U.S. today. They are distinct from the big-organization managers and important in American politics out of all proportion to their numbers. Lumping them together as “PMC” confuses matters. Let us call them the professional bourgeoisie and the small business bourgeoisie.

The professional bourgeoisie—made up of lawyers, doctors, professors, K-12 teachers, journalists, nonprofit workers, and many of the clergy—is concentrated in the teaching, helping, and research sectors. Their jobs often pay modestly but provide both status and a degree of personal autonomy that the frequently better-paid managerial functionaries in more hierarchical occupations do not possess.

The small business bourgeoisie consists of the owner-operators of small businesses and franchises, along with genuine contractors (as opposed to proletarian “gig workers”), both those who are self-employed and those who employ others.

The professionals are largely Democrats, and the small business owners are largely Republicans. Neither one of them is remotely interested in what's best for the underclass, who are largely located in the upper left quadrant. We still pay lip service to democracy, so efforts to privatize popular government benefits haven't been successful. Both both parties have had no trouble lowering taxes and gutting labor laws.

Most of our elites are functionally in the bottom right quadrant (regardless of their marketing), because once you've got money and power, you selfishly want as few taxes and regulations as possible because they limit your ability to consume.

 

[snoopdog]

Low taxes, privatized social security, workers utterly dependent on the whims of their employers for survival, etc. Much of our politics is driven by conflict between two factions of our overclass:



The professionals are largely Democrats, and the small business owners are largely Republicans. Neither one of them is remotely interested in what's best for the underclass, who are largely located in the upper left quadrant. We still pay lip service to democracy, so efforts to privatize popular government benefits haven't been successful. Both both parties have had no trouble lowering taxes and gutting labor laws.

Most of our elites are functionally in the bottom right quadrant (regardless of their marketing), because once you've got money and power, you selfishly want as few taxes and regulations as possible because they limit your ability to consume.

I am just curious about one thing from your conclusion.

The vast majority of income tax in America is paid by the top 20% of earners. The bottom 60%of earners pay 16% of total income tax. So it would seem that the high earners have failed to get what they want, the right to pay less/no taxes. And it seems they lost to the lower earners in America. That is, if your conclusion is accurate

As you probably know the top 1% over 24% of all income tax.

https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2019/

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The vast majority of income tax in America is paid by the top 25% of earners. The bottom 50% of earners barely pay any income tax. So it would seem that the high earners have failed to get what they want, the right to pay less/no taxes. And it seems they lost to the lower earners in America. That is, if your conclusion is accurate

The top quartile earns the vast majority of the income, so yes, they will unavoidably pay most of the income taxes. If you'd like to see the lower quintiles paying a larger share of income taxes, they'll need to start earning a proportionately larger share of the income first. You know who controls that? The top quintile (mostly the 1%). Henry Ford famously doubled the amount he was paying his factory workers in 1914 because he wanted them to be able to afford the cars they were making. Today's capitalists don't seem to understand what will happen when their greed continues to impoverish the average American consumer.

And income taxes are just one piece of the puzzle. There are excise and sales taxes, which are naturally regressive, meaning the bottom quartiles pay a much larger share than the top simply due to demographics. And there are wealth taxes, which are hilariously easy to avoid (take it from an estate planning attorney). The current individual estate tax exemption amount is $11.6m per individual, and over $23m for a couple. After discounts for lack of control and marketability, it's not hard to transfer $50m to one's kids estate tax free, after which the rest goes to whatever nonprofit agrees to give your kids a cushy no-show job.

Virtually all of our elites pay a much lower effective tax rate than the people who work for them.

 

[snoopdog]

Effective tax rate? Please differentiate the difference between Effective tax rate and Actual tax rate.

I ask because Your graph completely ignores income and focuses on the arbitrary wealth of the billionaires. I say arbitrary because the billionaires wealth is predicated on whatever value their share price is. And if you want to redistribute wealth, you will need to expropriate the businesses away from the people who started and built these companies. Which isn’t socialism but hardline communism.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Could we get a more informative term? "Hardline communism" would be the idea that no one owns anything beyond a few personal items (like clothes and toothbrushes etc --- see Ursula Leguin's The Dispossessed.) I find terms like hardline communism useless or actual detrimental to discussion in economic debates. Throwing that in here just confuses me as to any possible point being made.

 

[TorontoGold]

Effective tax rate? Please differentiate the difference between Effective tax rate and Actual tax rate.

I ask because Your graph completely ignores income and focuses on the arbitrary wealth of the billionaires. I say arbitrary because the billionaires wealth is predicated on whatever value their share price is. And if you want to redistribute wealth, you will need to expropriate the businesses away from the people who started and built these companies. Which isn’t socialism but hardline communism.

What you're looking for is effective vs marginal. Effective is tax paid on your entire taxable income, and marginal is on an additional dollar.

If a billionaire is too illiquid that they can't afford a minimal wealth tax on their "wealth" (however that may determined), that brings into question their actual wealth. Do you think Joe CEO of a Fortune 500 company gets a 1% of wealth tax will sell his holdings in his company to front the bill? Come on. Not to mention the private company billionaires that have access to more accounting/tax techniques to essentially have the company pay their personal liability. In the end, billionaires will still be rich and far above anyone else lol.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Effective tax rate? Please differentiate the difference between Effective tax rate and Actual tax rate.

Let me Google that for you. And here's an article on why Romney's effective tax rate was only 13.9% in 2010, despite being solidly in the top tax bracket (with a marginal rate of 35%) at the time.

The short answer is that a large portion of income for elites is taxed at the lower capital gains rate, and that the IRC is riddled with loopholes for owners of capital that schmucks with only a W-2 can't take advantage of.

I ask because Your graph completely ignores income and focuses on the arbitrary wealth of the billionaires. I say arbitrary because the billionaires wealth is predicated on whatever value their share price is. And if you want to redistribute wealth, you will need to expropriate the businesses away from the people who started and built these companies. Which isn’t socialism but hardline communism.

Again, let me Google this for you. I chose the other graph because it better conveys the reality of the disparity, but if you insist on pedantically focusing on income alone, here's another:

And another:

 

[snoopdog]

Let me Google that for you. And here's an article on why Romney's effective tax rate was only 13.9% in 2010, despite being solidly in the top tax bracket (with a marginal rate of 35%) at the time.

The short answer is that a large portion of income for elites is taxed at the lower capital gains rate, and that the IRC is riddled with loopholes for owners of capital that schmucks with only a W-2 can't take advantage of.



Again, let me Google this for you. I chose the other graph because it better conveys the reality of the disparity, but if you insist on pedantically focusing on income alone, here's another:

And another:

I asked hoping you would answer like you did.

The amount of tax paid by economic class in Income tax is almost (not quite) the same as Effective tax paid and this still doesn't not include homeowners tax, which is a tax on after tax income. So it's probably a push.

But let's chat about the Loopholes you cited shall we. So the question is, if all these "loopholes" exist, how on earth do the 1% pay 24.1% of all taxes. They have "Loopholes". So the next question is, are the 1% really stupid and not understand they don't have to pay taxes because of "Loopholes"? What's your theory on why the 1% still pay taxes, despite not having to, because of "Loopholes"?

 

[snoopdog]

Could we get a more informative term? "Hardline communism" would be the idea that no one owns anything beyond a few personal items (like clothes and toothbrushes etc --- see Ursula Leguin's The Dispossessed.) I find terms like hardline communism useless or actual detrimental to discussion in economic debates. Throwing that in here just confuses me as to any possible point being made.

I used "Hardline" to describe the revolutionary aspect of converting over to a communist state. The Bourgeoisie will never happily subvert themselves to the change so they have to be dealt with. All conversions (maybe Cuba not so much) dealt with the Bourgeoisie very harshly. Prisons, death sentences, re-educational camps, expropriation of property and assets. So hardline was a descriptive to address the conversion not Communism as a theory.

But what is different today than 100 years ago is "Wealth". 100 years ago wealth was physical. It was land, forests, water, food. The lower classes had little access to Wealth and virtual no way to access it.

Today, wealth is intellectual. Bezos, Gates, Buffet......all men with over 100 billion of "ASSUMED" wealth don't actually own anything. Other than share certificates that put a random valuation on the shares, which change by the second. If Bezos, Gates or Buffet died today...so what. The shares would still be the shares and nothing would change. Who cares who owns the shares.
But wealth/money is always a very emotional talking point. And the left are using the wealth issue as flashpoint to try and convert society from capitalism to a far left form of Socialism.
But they are doing it dishonestly. It's like Whiskey Jack's graphs showing the "wealthy". The only reason why the wealthy are getting richer is because interest rates are at a record low and society has to pour money into the stock market driving up the share value of the FANG stocks making Bezos stock position arbitrarily more valuable. But it is pure illusion. Bezos could "suffer" an 80-100% drop in wealth overnight due to an accounting irregularity, competitor, change in US law, market correction.

Sure the US could take Bezos share position away from him and replace him as CEO with a Bureaucrat. But they won't. Unless of course the US goes Hardline Communist.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The amount of tax paid by economic class in Income tax is almost (not quite) the same as Effective tax paid and this still doesn't not include homeowners tax, which is a tax on after tax income. So it's probably a push.

Citation needed. For one obvious counter-example, check the article I linked about Romney's 2010 tax returns. He's orders of magnitude wealthier than Paul Ryan, and yet the latter, whose income is presumably mostly limited to his W-2, paid almost double the rate that Romney did. Similarly, Warren Buffet has been quite open about the fact that he pays a much lower tax than most of his employees.

But let's chat about the Loopholes you cited shall we. So the question is, if all these "loopholes" exist, how on earth do the 1% pay 24.1% of all taxes. They have "Loopholes". So the next question is, are the 1% really stupid and not understand they don't have to pay taxes because of "Loopholes"? What's your theory on why the 1% still pay taxes, despite not having to, because of "Loopholes"?

You're either: (1) very dim; (2) completely brain-washed by liberal economic propaganda; or (3) arguing in bad faith. But I'll try one more time in case it's (1). There are innumerable ways that a good CPA can minimize your taxes on capital assets and income which, combined with the lower capital gains rate, ensures that most of our elites pay lower rates than the people who work for them.

Our tax rates are progressive because the rich naturally spend a much smaller % of their income on necessities, so they have excesses that lower quintiles don't. Thus, it's a strong indication of serious injustice when people like Romney and Buffet are paying lower effective rates than their employees.

It's not possible to justly amass the sort of wealth Bezos has in the first place. The Feds could help remediate the situation by at least taxing him appropriately, but they're so thoroughly captured by his class they can't even be relied on to do that.

Consider the "Flat Tax," an idea long touted by cranks and libertarians which has never gained traction because it's obviously not fair to ask a poor person to pay the same rate as a billionaire. But even that inadequate policy is aspirational for us, because our wealthy are paying lower rates than most.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Today, wealth is intellectual. Bezos, Gates, Buffet......all men with over 100 billion of "ASSUMED" wealth don't actually own anything.

Of course! Bezos' $400m yacht is totally imaginary.

That must be comforting to all the Amazon warehouse workers slaving away in hellish conditions.

 

[GowerND11]

Of course! Bezos' $400m yacht is totally imaginary.

That must be comforting to all the Amazon warehouse workers slaving away in hellish conditions.

ThEy DoN't HaVe To WoRk ThErE. JuSt WoRk HaRdEr AnD tHeY cAn MoVe Up ThE LaDdEr

 

[TorontoGold]

ThEy DoN't HaVe To WoRk ThErE. JuSt WoRk HaRdEr AnD tHeY cAn MoVe Up ThE LaDdEr

iF I dEFeND bILLiOnAiReS MAybE THey'Ll sHARe ThiEr wEAlTH wiTH Me?!?

Seriously, as Whiskey has noted numerous times, as CPA myself if you generate the majority of your income through employment you'll always pay a higher rate than if it's generated through investments (ie. paying yourself a dividend, rental incomes). It's not rocket science.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

ThEy DoN't HaVe To WoRk ThErE. JuSt WoRk HaRdEr AnD tHeY cAn MoVe Up ThE LaDdEr

Sir, SIR! They consented to work under such conditions and for an agreed upon wage, so the arrangement is presumably just. They could have chosen to starve and get evicted from their shitty apartments instead! No one is being coerced here.

 

[snoopdog]

Of course! Bezos' $400m yacht is totally imaginary.

That must be comforting to all the Amazon warehouse workers slaving away in hellish conditions.

Until everyone can be CEO of Amazon for a day it is "unfair". No strike "unfair" and let's go with your word HELLISH.

If you start a company and build it to be one of the most successful companies in history of the planet, you should be forced to give it away, and let a Government Bureaucrat run it. This will ensure all the employees will be experiencing Nirvana during their 8 hour shift. Sure the drive home is HELLISH, but you can't have it all.

But here is something you don't know Whisky. Bezo's doesn't own Amazon, he is just a shareholder like you and me. (yes...... you own Amazon stock either directly or indirectly).

But what he did create was a company that has over a half million employees, all getting paid reasonably well, getting healthcare and dental and paying taxes to provide the services you want all Americans to have. Sure, your jealous and don't want him to have a yacht, but that is just your insecurity. But if you somehow manage to build a $1.6 trillion company and pay a half million people good wages and provide health and dental, then I suppose you can have a say in what kind of Yacht Bezos is allowed to buy.

 

[snoopdog]

Citation needed. For one obvious counter-example, check the article I linked about Romney's 2010 tax returns. He's orders of magnitude wealthier than Paul Ryan, and yet the latter, whose income is presumably mostly limited to his W-2, paid almost double the rate that Romney did. Similarly, Warren Buffet has been quite open about the fact that he pays a much lower tax than most of his employees.



You're either: (1) very dim; (2) completely brain-washed by liberal economic propaganda; or (3) arguing in bad faith. But I'll try one more time in case it's (1). There are innumerable ways that a good CPA can minimize your taxes on capital assets and income which, combined with the lower capital gains rate, ensures that most of our elites pay lower rates than the people who work for them.

Our tax rates are progressive because the rich naturally spend a much smaller % of their income on necessities, so they have excesses that lower quintiles don't. Thus, it's a strong indication of serious injustice when people like Romney and Buffet are paying lower effective rates than their employees.

It's not possible to justly amass the sort of wealth Bezos has in the first place. The Feds could help remediate the situation by at least taxing him appropriately, but they're so thoroughly captured by his class they can't even be relied on to do that.

Consider the "Flat Tax," an idea long touted by cranks and libertarians which has never gained traction because it's obviously not fair to ask a poor person to pay the same rate as a billionaire. But even that inadequate policy is aspirational for us, because our wealthy are paying lower rates than most.

You provided it. It was the link titled...Here let me google it for you.

 

[TorontoGold]

Until everyone can be CEO of Amazon for a day it is "unfair". No strike "unfair" and let's go with your word HELLISH.

If you start a company and build it to be one of the most successful companies in history of the planet, you should be forced to give it away, and let a Government Bureaucrat run it. This will ensure all the employees will be experiencing Nirvana during their 8 hour shift. Sure the drive home is HELLISH, but you can't have it all.

But here is something you don't know Whisky. Bezo's doesn't own Amazon, he is just a shareholder like you and me. (yes...... you own Amazon stock either directly or indirectly).

But what he did create was a company that has over a half million employees, all getting paid reasonably well, getting healthcare and dental and paying taxes to provide the services you want all Americans to have. Sure, your jealous and don't want him to have a yacht, but that is just your insecurity. But if you somehow manage to build a $1.6 trillion company and pay a half million people good wages and provide health and dental, then I suppose you can have a say in what kind of Yacht Bezos is allowed to buy.

You needed to be explained the differences between effective/actual/marginal tax rates, and have the nerve to be condescending.....ok bud.

Forced to give it away? The most progressive wealth taxes I've seen are at 1% of total wealth.

Also, as someone who's actually done tax planning for a billionaire, if you think Mr.Billionaire is paying their own tax liability then you're truly out to lunch. They'll have the company pay for it and take a corresponding loan from the company in which they pay back their company over a number of years so the actual cash impact is minimized.

 

[snoopdog]

iF I dEFeND bILLiOnAiReS MAybE THey'Ll sHARe ThiEr wEAlTH wiTH Me?!?

Seriously, as Whiskey has noted numerous times, as CPA myself if you generate the majority of your income through employment you'll always pay a higher rate than if it's generated through investments (ie. paying yourself a dividend, rental incomes). It's not rocket science.

As a CPA, you should know that Capital Gains are in the tax act and used to incent investors and not some scheme the rich have designed to steal from the poor. Even the Scandinavian countries have favorable tax rates on Capital Gains.

 

[snoopdog]

You needed to be explained the differences between effective/actual/marginal tax rates, and have the nerve to be condescending.....ok bud.

Forced to give it away? The most progressive wealth taxes I've seen are at 1% of total wealth.

Also, as someone who's actually done tax planning for a billionaire, if you think Mr.Billionaire is paying their own tax liability then you're truly out to lunch. They'll have the company pay for it and take a corresponding loan from the company in which they pay back their company over a number of years so the actual cash impact is minimized.

Toronto....the 1% Pay 24.1% of all taxes in the US. That is a fact....not theoretical. So I am being condescending because you and Whisky are squirming like hell to avoid this reality, by using effective/actual/marginal/whimsical as a means to try and explain/obfuscate that they somehow don't!!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If you start a company and build it to be one of the most successful companies in history of the planet, you should be forced to give it away, and let a Government Bureaucrat run it.

I'm not a communist, but it's amusing to see the out-dated binaries your ideology forces onto other people. Strength is perfected in service, and no one generates that kind of wealth without a lot of help. And cards on the table here: (1) no society can last long that allows that kind of power to be hoarded for private purposes (it's like legalized banditry); and (2) Amazon is obviously a dangerous monopoly, and ought to be broken up just like Standard Oil was.

But what he did create was a company that has over a half million employees, all getting paid reasonably well, getting healthcare and dental and paying taxes to provide the services you want all Americans to have.

He also put a ton of people out of business, and is continuing to do so. What of the small business owners who had to shutter because they can't compete with Amazon's scale? Should they go work in one his warehouses where you have to wear an electronic device that times how long you spend in the bathroom? And is it really possible that you enjoy the taste of boot this much, or are you just defending this system from a far more secure position than the millions who are still being brutalized by it?

Sure, your jealous and don't want him to have a yacht, but that is just your insecurity.

Ha! Projection much? I already own more than is good for my immortal soul, and am trying to give more every year. But I'm still much less than I should be given the advantages I had growing up, and I could use your prayers.

But if you somehow manage to build a $1.6 trillion company and pay a half million people good wages and provide health and dental, then I suppose you can have a say in what kind of Yacht Bezos is allowed to buy.

He definitely doesn't provide "good wages and... [benefits]" for most of his employees. He can keep the yacht if he wants, but he'll have to account for how he managed his incredible wealth in the hereafter, and I wouldn't want to have to explain to Christus Rex why I could afford a $400m pleasure vessel but I couldn't manage to treat my warehouse workers humanely. "B-b-but the free market determined their wages, not me!" FOH.

You provided it. It was the link titled...Here let me google it for you.

This is like meeting a Japanese officer who's been holed up on an island for decades, unaware that the Emperor surrendured long ago. The USSR fell 30+ years ago, and the PRC isn't meaningfully "communist" anymore. Good luck with your boot-licking LARP, though. I doubt you're wealthy enough to benefit from it personally, so hopefully someone is paying you for this anachronistic pose you insist on holding.

 

[snoopdog]

I'm not a communist, but it's amusing to see the out-dated binaries your ideology forces onto other people. Strength is perfected in service, and no one generates that kind of wealth without a lot of help. And cards on the table here: (1) no society can last long that allows that kind of power to be hoarded for private purposes (it's like legalized banditry); and (2) Amazon is obviously a dangerous monopoly, and ought to be broken up just like Standard Oil was.



He also put a ton of people out of business, and is continuing to do so. What of the small business owners who had to shutter because they can't compete with Amazon's scale? Should they go work in one his warehouses where you have to wear an electronic device that times how long you spend in the bathroom? And is it really possible that you enjoy the taste of boot this much, or are you just defending this system from a far more secure position than the millions who are still being brutalized by it?



Ha! Projection much? I already own more than is good for my immortal soul, and am trying to give more every year. But I'm still much less than I should be given the advantages I had growing up, and I could use your prayers.



He definitely doesn't provide "good wages and... [benefits]" for most of his employees. He can keep the yacht if he wants, but he'll have to account for how he managed his incredible wealth in the hereafter, and I wouldn't want to have to explain to Christus Rex why I could afford a $400m pleasure vessel but I couldn't manage to treat my warehouse workers humanely. "B-b-but the free market determined their wages, not me!" FOH.



This is like meeting a Japanese officer who's been holed up on an island for decades, unaware that the Emperor surrendured long ago. The USSR fell 30+ years ago, and the PRC isn't meaningfully "communist" anymore. Good luck with your boot-licking LARP, though. I doubt you're wealthy enough to benefit from it personally, so hopefully someone is paying you for this anachronistic pose you insist on holding.

Wow that is a lot of words. Honestly I don't know what any of it really means but my guess is....daddy was really successful, but a giant prick and you resent the living hell out of him. Ergo anyone who is successful is just like daddy and should be shamed and admonished, because that is all they really deserve. And to further fuel your resentment, you have been bequeathed a very comfortable lifestyle, (which by the way you will never give up) and suffer daily because it was handed to you and you did absolutely zilch to earn it. Now you spend a lot of time on message boards, which is where you learned the term "bootlicker" and now feel compelled, nay, morally driven to use it to anybody who doesn't agree with you.

How did I do?

 

[Luckylucci]

I'm generally for lower taxes because I think people should have more control over what they do with their money but that's for another conversation. However, I do think there needs to be an additional tax (admittedly unsure what that would look like) on the super uber rich of America. And, I think there needs to be a tax on companies that are automating away jobs. Andrew Yang had some good ideas on that.

 

[NDBoiler]

If you want what others have, that is jealousy.

If you want what others have, but don’t have it yourself, and therefore do not want others to have it either, that is envy.

I’m not sure where this discussion is going, but I think that this should be a consideration too.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Wow that is a lot of words. Honestly I don't know what any of it really means but my guess is....daddy was really successful, but a giant prick and you resent the living hell out of him. Ergo anyone who is successful is just like daddy and should be shamed and admonished, because that is all they really deserve. And to further fuel your resentment, you have been bequeathed a very comfortable lifestyle, (which by the way you will never give up) and suffer daily because it was handed to you and you did absolutely zilch to earn it. Now you spend a lot of time on message boards, which is where you learned the term "bootlicker" and now feel compelled, nay, morally driven to use it to anybody who doesn't agree with you.

How did I do?

Not even close. My wife was raised by a single mother and grew up in relative poverty. My parents are middle class. All of them made significant sacrifices for us to receive good Catholic educations, but neither of us have received any sort of material benefit from them otherwise. My mother-in-law lives with us now, along with my four kids, and I'll likely continue supporting her for the rest of my life.

I could go on (or attempt to psychoanalyze you in return), but it wouldn't be charitable to do so. The point is that you assume no one could have a problem with the extreme income and wealth inequality in this country without either being envious of the rich or having guilt for being born into privilege. Neither of those descriptions applies to me. Everything I have, even those things that I "merited" through hard work and intelligence, is ultimately a gift from God for which I will have to account. We live in the richest and most powerful empire the world has ever seen, and yet millions of our fellow citizens barely scrape by, only a single medical emergency away from eviction and/or bankruptcy. You're apparently comfortable assuming that most people get their just desserts in this earthly life. I can't square that with Catholic tradition.

If you want what others have, that is jealousy.

If you want what others have, but don’t have it yourself, and therefore do not want others to have it either, that is envy.

I’m not sure where this discussion is going, but I think that this should be a consideration too.

St. Basil the Great:

“When someone steals another's clothes, we call them a thief. Should we not give the same name to one who could clothe the naked and does not? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat unused in your closet belongs to the one who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the one who has no shoes; the money which you hoard up belongs to the poor.”

Matthew 19:21

Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven; then come and follow me.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I'm generally for lower taxes because I think people should have more control over what they do with their money but that's for another conversation. However, I do think there needs to be an additional tax (admittedly unsure what that would look like) on the super uber rich of America. And, I think there needs to be a tax on companies that are automating away jobs. Andrew Yang had some good ideas on that.

I'd be ok with a tax scaled off your gross income that cannot be included in your AGI. Or a threshold level that no matter what you write off or deduct or depreciate or harbor off shore, you cannot pay less than that.

Anything is better than the current system and having a supposed billionaire pay $750 in taxes.

 

[snoopdog]

Not even close. My wife was raised by a single mother and grew up in relative poverty. My parents are middle class. All of them made significant sacrifices for us to receive good Catholic educations, but neither of us have any sort of material benefit from them otherwise. My mother-in-law lives with us now, along with my four kids, and I'll likely continue supporting her for the rest of my life.

I could go on (or attempt to psychoanalyze you in return), but it wouldn't be charitable to do so. The point is that you assume no one could have a problem with the extreme income and wealth inequality in this country without either being envious of the rich or having guilt for being born into privilege. Neither of those descriptions applies to me. Everything I have, even those things that I "merited" through hard work and intelligence, is ultimately a gift from God for which I will have to account. We live in the richest and most powerful empire the world has ever seen, and yet millions of our fellow citizens barely scrape by, only a single medical emergency away from eviction and/or bankruptcy. You're apparently comfortable assuming that most people gets their just desserts in this earthly life. I can't square that with Catholic tradition.



St. Basil the Great:



Matthew 19:21

All good, except for your regular use of the word "Bootlicker".

This is a term used pretty much exclusively by " internet revolutionaries' intent on radically changing the economic direction of western countries.

Since you invoke Catholicism, maybe it's the new Pope's divergence from Religion to be both a Economic and Climate activist that has you so fire up and full of Revolutionary fire.

 

[tussin]

I can't square that with Catholic tradition.

Your quotes (idk how to quote a quote) imply a moral obligation to redistribute once wealth is accumulated. Most Catholics would agree with that. I don't think you've done a good job justifying why the process of accumulating massive wealth is in itself immoral.

Broadly, I think this entire thing has less to do with stagnant wages from immoral employers and more to do with out of control costs. Real wages (in terms of 2020 purchasing power) have remained stagnate. This is bad, but at a high level it tells me that the average wage-earner should be able to enjoy the same lifestyle that they enjoyed 50 years ago assuming that costs are increasing at the same rate of wages (a 4.2% CAGR over the 50+ years in that chart).

Of course, this isn't true because costs have risen astronomically for a variety of reasons. The free market guy in me thinks government-backed student loans is a potential cause for out-of-control higher education costs. Healthcare... I'm not smart enough to figure that one out. But I think a third cause is that there is now a societal expectation for two-income households despite the fact that Millennials are choosing not to get married.

 

[NDBoiler]

Not even close. My wife was raised by a single mother and grew up in relative poverty. My parents are middle class. All of them made significant sacrifices for us to receive good Catholic educations, but neither of us have received any sort of material benefit from them otherwise. My mother-in-law lives with us now, along with my four kids, and I'll likely continue supporting her for the rest of my life.

I could go on (or attempt to psychoanalyze you in return), but it wouldn't be charitable to do so. The point is that you assume no one could have a problem with the extreme income and wealth inequality in this country without either being envious of the rich or having guilt for being born into privilege. Neither of those descriptions applies to me. Everything I have, even those things that I "merited" through hard work and intelligence, is ultimately a gift from God for which I will have to account. We live in the richest and most powerful empire the world has ever seen, and yet millions of our fellow citizens barely scrape by, only a single medical emergency away from eviction and/or bankruptcy. You're apparently comfortable assuming that most people get their just desserts in this earthly life. I can't square that with Catholic tradition.



St. Basil the Great:



Matthew 19:21

Galatians 5:26
Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

John 8:7
He that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone.

I get where you’re coming from Whisky. Would it be more equitable for society in general for there to be higher taxes on the most wealthy? Sure, it’s a reasonable argument that many have made on here, and there’s reports of many ultra wealthy publicly proclaiming that they’d be willing to pay more. But I think it’s a bit misguided to focus the ire on those who have been very successful and have done so in a lawful manner. Instead, why not petition your Congressional representatives? They are the ones who can make a truly impactful decision about it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Since you invoke Catholicism, maybe it's the new Pope's divergence from Religion to be both a Economic and Climate activist that has you so fire up and full of Revolutionary fire.

There's nothing in Fratelli Tutti that can't be found in the encyclicals of his two predecessors. But if I'm being asked to choose between the GOP and the Vicar of Christ, I think you know which side I'm erring on.

Your quotes (idk how to quote a quote) imply a moral obligation to redistribute once wealth is accumulated. Most Catholics would agree with that. I don't think you've done a good job justifying why the process of accumulating massive wealth is in itself immoral.

Every form of power one can have--a father over his children, a king over his subject, a president over the citizenry, a CEO over his business, etc.--carries a moral obligation to utilize that authority for the best interests of those governed. That includes the requirement to pay a living wage capable of supporting a family, and most US businesses have been aggressively shedding that obligation in the name of "shareholder value". You won't find a single billionaire who's not standing on the backs of people like brutalized warehouse workers in American or Foxconn slaves in Shenzhen factories.

Broadly, I think this entire thing has less to do with stagnant wages from immoral employers and more to do with out of control costs. Real wages (in terms of 2020 purchasing power) have remained stagnate. This is bad, but at a high level it tells me that the average wage-earner should be able to enjoy the same lifestyle that they enjoyed 50 years ago assuming that costs are increasing at the same rate of wages (a 4.2% CAGR over the 50+ years in that chart).

A lot of it is due to American businesses putting shareholders over employees. 70 years ago you could start working for a corporation straight out of high school, marry young, buy your first house in your early 20s, immediately start a family, enjoy good benefits and job security for 40 years, and then retire with a nice watch and a pension. All of that disappeared because American elites chose to enrich themselves at the expense of workers.

But I think a third cause is that there is now a societal expectation for two-income households despite the fact that Millennials are choosing not to get married.

And who does that expectation benefit? Shareholders and the top quintile. You're not wrong about the proximate causes, but the frustration is that our system makes it so easy to just shrug it off as an inexplicable force of nature. "The prices of housing, education and healthcare have skyrocketed. No one knows why. Oh well." All of this is the direct result of elite decision-making that profited themselves at the expense of their employees. And it's still going on!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I get where you’re coming from Whisky. Would it be more equitable for society in general for there to be higher taxes on the most wealthy? Sure, it’s a reasonable argument that many have made on here, and there’s reports of many ultra wealthy publicly proclaiming that they’d be willing to pay more. But I think it’s a bit misguided to focus the ire on those who have been very successful and have done so in a lawful manner. Instead, why not petition your Congressional representatives? They are the ones who can make a truly impactful decision about it.

An unjust law is no law at all. Just because these people legalized their banditry doesn't make it any more defensible. And a big reason why our politics is so polarized and depressing right now is that the people capable of actually changing the status quo recognize no obligation to their employees or their fellow Americans. If they want to stiff their Central American housekeeper from her already paltry wages, they can and will because she has no recourse against them. If they want to goose their quarterly projections, they'll go ahead and off-shore that factory job to Shenzhen, regardless of it's impact on jobs here. "It's my money, and I'll do whatever I want with it."

That's why we get nothing but idpol from our politicians these days. The real power is untouchable, so all they can offer is distraction.