Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rents would increase everywhere the next year to capture all that new cash.
Then construction would increase, causing rents to fall.
Constructions cannot increase indefinitely. Land is a limited resources.
To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors
601–610 of 694 posts
Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors
#602Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something underlies the value of bitcoin (proof of work), gold (rarity, utility, beauty, portability), cigarettes (addiction). Think through what underlies the value of fiat currencies like the US dollar. I'm with the chartalists [0]/Modern Monetary Theorists [1], believing that a government's ability to tax is the anchor for the currency's value. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism [1] https://en.wikipedia.…
Have barely scanned these articles, but even if I agreed that tax collection is what gives currency most of their circulatory value, thats no reason to have taxes, let alone making them higher.
Something's got to circulate. There's not enough bitcoin+gold+barter-able commodities to go around, so fiat currency is necessary to the economy as it stands. If you agree that taxes give currency most of its circulatory value, you have to figure out what else would give it value if taxes were taken away.
Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors
#603Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are returns to capital earned? Certainly it's not easy getting outsize returns reliably, but the idea that the return is earned in a way that scales with the amount invested sounds very dubious to me.
The original capital was. The returns are already taxed. Are you proposing that returns are taxed at some other different rate? At some point the market won't be attractive enough.
The returns to capital (capital gains specifically) are taxed at a much lower rate than income, and they're not taxed at all until they're realized, which means they can be timed to offset losses. Then the government is effectively handing out a subsidy to people with lots of capital, even more so than the lower tax rate.
"The market" not attractive enough - there's nowhere to put your money other than "the market" (including bonds, commodities, real estate etc.) unless you keep it in currency, and that's even more susceptible to government takings.
Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors
#604Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it is the way it is set. It is a very long discussion, but the extremely simplified version should be: if there is a cost to run the state, split the cost equally to the voting citizens and ask them to pay. The state is not the owner (full or share) of the citizen to raise a percentage of the income as tax, one vote means one tax (in dollars) - that is equal rights and equal burden. The "rich people can afford to…
There are a lot of ways of configuring tax, democracy and economy. What you are writing here is an assertion, not an argument. You don't present evidence, or hint at why what you propose would be a good idea. Can you explain what good effects the system you are proposing would have?
The essential good effect: it is fair.
Anything else is not, exactly for the reason I described: equal rights and equal burden. Otherwise the state is just a way to implement Marxism: take from the ones who have an give to the ones who need. Robin Hood was a thief.
Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't seek to eliminate wealth; that's a terrible policy IMO. Moderating its growth and concentration only slightly is far less disruptive or fraught with unintended/unknowable consequences. An annual wealth tax of 10% would wipe out most wealth concentrations within 50 years. I think such a level is absurdly too high, though. Looking at Switzerland as an example, I think 0.25% to maybe as much as 1% range is far m…
In the Netherlands there is about 30% tax on financial returns and an additional 1.2% tax on assets (wealth) above a certain threshold.
The 1.2% tax on assets is the 30% tax on financial returns. It's just that at some point the government was like: "math is hard, let's go shopping^w^w assume the average return in 4%".
Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors
#606Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
I am a multimillionaire. Came here with a negative net worth, by way of skilled immigration. Born and raised in the USSR. Don't bother trying to convince me about the virtues of socialism. Unlike you, I actually lived it.
Lots of pre-1917 Russians weren't fond of socialism or any form of wealth redistribution. They have lost all their wealth and their lives as well.
Some levels of inequality are healthy and motivating, extreme social inequality with large groups of population feeling left behind by the social system is undermining stability and a recipe for revolution.
Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors
#607Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Also, the Randian superman does not exist and is a juvenile fantasy." I am not a follower or a fan of Ayn Rand but I really don't see any other category within which to place: Steve Jobs, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Elon Musk ... perhaps even Donald Trump ? George Lucas ? They seem to fit the archetype ...
Are they actually super? Do you really think they would have amounted to anything if they happened to grow up in poverty or with a poor education?
Would Superman have amounted to anything if he hadn't been from Krypton, and if his father hadn't been a scientist who was able to put him on a spaceship and send him to Earth?
Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors
#608The underlying cause of this whole issue is the changes in tax policy instated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, previously income was taxed at higher rates unless deductions were utilized which forced those earnings back into the economy creating jobs funding research, etc.. As it's become easier to retain more earnings there's little incentive not to optimize an entire corporation solely with the purpose of generating…
It looks like the Soviet Union lost the Cold War on economic grounds, but won it overall by turning Americans to socialism.
Soviet Union lost Cold War due to being overspent to death in arms race by Reagan and his Star Wars programs. They had decided to drop the towel and re-group rather then reverse to pre-1956 economic levels.
However the neoliberalism, deregulation and privatization (good ideas in itself) started by Reagan-Thatcher-IMF swung the pendulum too far after 40 years.
No one is suggesting collectivization of farms, central planning, high defense spending at the expense of low consumption = Soviet style socialism/war communism. Rather something close to New Deal - Eisenhower era 'socialism' with stronger labour force participation, more state regulation and taking on new monopolies (Google?).
Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors
#609Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the other direction though, there is inherent right (IMO). I have the right, in my pursuit of happiness, to make allocations of my lawfully earned money to my current needs, to my retirement savings, to my children's clothing and education, and other such pursuits and accounts as I see fit. There is harm to the donor to abolishing inheritance. I don't want to live in a world where "I farm this land, just as my fat…
Sure but if we're going to live in the land of inheritance then we need to toss the ideas that "anybody can make it" or "I earned this." >I don't want to live in a world where "I farm this land, just as my father, his father, and his father for 5 generations has done." is not possible. Why not? A man works hard to support himself but allowing four generations of free-riders seems like a pretty bad idea. It strikes me…
I don't know how much time you've spent on family farms, but from what I've seen, I'd not describe them as "free-riders" on the land or on past generations.
Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors
#610Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've asserted several times in this thread that there are devastating consequences to the estate tax but never explain what those might be. Care to enlighten?
The idea of inheritance taxes are that once you are dead, you don't care about paying taxes. However, leaving wealth for your children is a huge economic incentive. As Friedman puts it: "People go to an irrational length to provide their kids a better life than they will ever get". If you could effectively put 100% tax on inheritance(which you can't in practice), it means your utility of leaving wealth around becomes…
Yeah I'm totally okay with that, a certain point society has to serve its people and not just the abstract view of growth at all costs. Consumption is good for the economy and inheritance taxes are necessary to provide equality of opportunity.