131–140 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You sound very upset. Not really, but what's the purpose of this particular reply other than to try to wind me up?
You’re avoiding answering the question.
> What is a "living salary"?
> If I'm a single mom with 3 kids, is the "living salary" the same as a single 20 year old who lives at home?
Your diversion with focusing on a new totally unfruitful topic is not my problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tax people who can afford to be taxed. The alternative is hardly going to work. Tax harmful externalities and rent-seeking. The alternative is unjust and illiberal.
You didn’t address anything here.
The ultra-wealthy's what? Their wealth is held offshore, their income is more than offset. You want to tax yachts? They'll buy jets. Taxing the symptom is playing tax law whack-a-mole (and the mole is rich and the hammer is limp, and the mole pays the hammer's mortgage). Tax the cause. Their rent-collecting mechanisms are much more immobile and difficult to hide.
> and they still get to be ultra-wealthy afterward.
Not a justification.
> We already do it
Doesn't mean it's right.
> the discussion is only “how much?”
It's not right to presume we can take from someone just because they can afford it. The only policy that makes sense to me is to reclaim the portion of the public good that is privatized via rent seeking. If someone got ultra wealthy by their blood, sweat, and tears, as long as they did so without collecting rent or causing negative externalities, I don't care if they can buy and sell Andromeda.
> and what to do with the money.
The reasonable thing to do with the money is to offset negative externalities (pollution, climate change, illiteracy, etc.) and equally redistribute the rest (citizen's dividend).
> (Incidentally - the rich have been winning this argument for a long time, as their effective taxes fall and fall and fall.)
The only way to reverse this trend without massive deadweight loss is a tax on land rent.
> On the other hand, proving that a specific piece of income is “economic rent” - I think that’s intractable and only produces loss on both sides. It’s a fight to the death for the accused, a hill they’ll die on. The idea is appealing at a surface level but I can’t see any way forward with it.
I disagree. The simplest form of economic rent is that on nature. A tax on the unimproved value of land, and a carbon tax are simple, straightforward examples anti-rent, anti-externality measures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taxing the ultra-wealthy is possible, and they still get to be ultra-wealthy afterward. We already do it, the discussion is only “how much?” and what to do with the money. That’s a tractable problem. (Incidentally - the rich have been winning this argument for a long time, as their effective taxes fall and fall and fall.) On the other hand, proving that a specific piece of income is “economic rent” - I think that’s i…
> Tax people who can afford to be taxed. The alternative is hardly going to work. Tax harmful externalities and rent-seeking. The alternative is unjust and illiberal.
Declaring the clearest and most effective ways of solving it as "unjust" because they clash with your particular ideology perpetuates a vastly worse injustice—one that costs millions of lives, rather than merely feeling wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent-seeking might not be the only problem. Worker exploitation is also a serious issue on my list. How on earth can someone defend not paying a living salary for a full time job? Add to that that the legal framework (talking about the USA) is seriously skewed to favor employers and disadvantages workers and any attempts to unionize. This has to stop.
Money is a public good as well. Money taken out of circulation is bad for the economy and drives a big chunk of economic problems in society. It's easy to tax so the valuation argument doesn't even make sense. There are companies with $100 billion or more in their bank accounts. That's a million paychecks that didn't happen. Isn't it weird how it is possible to prevent other people from working by simply withholding…
What dries up money circulation is not any one company's hoarding, but the banks' willingness to lend as a whole, and the economy's desire to borrow and spend as a whole.
Recommended reading: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quantitative easing swaps bank reserves for high grade bonds. How is that remotely equivalent to the forced liquidation and distribution of equity?
I'm talking about the hypothetical scenario where swapping $200bn worth of equity will generate $200bn worth of cash without disturbance to the market. Obviously, this couldn't be less true and the market will collapse even before the selling starts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tax people who can afford to be taxed. The alternative is hardly going to work. Tax harmful externalities and rent-seeking. The alternative is unjust and illiberal.
The current inequality is massively unjust. Declaring the clearest and most effective ways of solving it as "unjust" because they clash with your particular ideology perpetuates a vastly worse injustice—one that costs millions of lives, rather than merely feeling wrong.
If you have a minute, just browse the "Economic properties" section of the wiki page on Georgism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#Economic_properties
1 thousand seconds = 16.6 minutes
1 million seconds = 11 days, 13 hours
1 billion seconds = 32 years
1 trillion seconds = 31,688 years
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re avoiding answering the question.
I've answered both your original questions multiple times: > What is a "living salary"? > If I'm a single mom with 3 kids, is the "living salary" the same as a single 20 year old who lives at home? Your diversion with focusing on a new totally unfruitful topic is not my problem.
That’s a yes/no question. Not sure why you’re struggling to answer it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. That was a rather arrogant stab of jealousy. Big piles of concentrated wealth sometimes gets spent on important projects that governments (ie. normal people) won't or can't do.
Let's just pray that our feudal overlords invests wisely!
They're not feudal lords. We own our own property, not Bezos. He has almost no power over us. If nobody told you he was so rich, you wouldn't even know. That's how little it matters beyond jealousy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuinely curious question. How do you guys pull xkcd comics just like that? Do You save interesting comics for future use or do you remember the comic and google it to find it?
Some I remember generally. A very few I recall directly ("Duty Calls" is 386, as in the Intle chip.) "Money" made an impression at the time. I DDG'd "xkcd money" to pull the URL. Other times I just suspect that there's a relevant xkcd and try some keywords.