Sweden is broken? That's news to me. Why isn't this in the media?
What broke Sweden? Real estate bust exposes big divide
191–200 of 687 posts
Re: What broke Sweden? Real estate bust exposes big divide
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it could be simple, but the most important reason that it is not simple is because the rich control the system.
It really isn't that simple, because again, no one really can say how it is so simple, merely that it is, somehow. Economists also talk about this point often, and they also can't agree, generally speaking, on how to, or even if to, reduce the inequality gap. The best solutions I've seen are land value taxes, inheritance and estate taxes, and taxes on loans backed by stock; and among the worst are unrealized capital…
The simplest solution is a wealth tax. Once you reach a certain amount of wealth, you are taxed for it. So for instance you might be taxed 50% of your wealth above $1 billion, annually. You might be taxed 25% of your wealth above $100 million (up to the next cutoff, so a billion in this hypothetical). You might be taxed 10% of your wealth above $10 million but below the next cutoff, and so on.
We could even take this further and make it illegal to have too much money. But like all laws, what ultimately matters is enforcement. Currently the IRS doesn't even make much attempt to go after the rich for tax evasion, so writing stricter laws is irrelevant if we don't enforce the laws we already have.
I'm not saying this is perfect but it is a simple solution that directly addresses the issue of wealth inequality.
Re: What broke Sweden? Real estate bust exposes big divide
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it could be simple, but the most important reason that it is not simple is because the rich control the system.
It really isn't that simple, because again, no one really can say how it is so simple, merely that it is, somehow. Economists also talk about this point often, and they also can't agree, generally speaking, on how to, or even if to, reduce the inequality gap. The best solutions I've seen are land value taxes, inheritance and estate taxes, and taxes on loans backed by stock; and among the worst are unrealized capital…
And pretty-much any of those taxes would help the situation, so long as ultimately they boil down to the rich paying more per year than their profit margins and therefore shrinking inequality (redistributed to the people).
This problem isn't complicated because it's intellectually challenging. This problem is complicated because the balance of power is overwhelmingly favorable to the rich, and they have many means to both disrupt the conversation in intellectual circles and to block any political means of making these necessary changes.
See economist Richard D. Wolff for extremely simple answers to the above problem. Ultimately it is simply the math of value flows. Current system? Inherently concentrates at the top. Adjust taxes (any of them!!) to reverse that.
Re: What broke Sweden? Real estate bust exposes big divide
#194The Sweden story sounds so much like the SF story. Area doesn’t building housing, leading to a massive increase in house prices and a destruction of class mobility as the rich get richer (as their houses get more valuable) and the poor get poorer (as they pay more to rent the same living space). The growing wealth inequality leads to all sorts of other dysfunction including increased crime, worsening services, etc. a…
> the rich get richer (...) and the poor get poorer It's always the same story. Can't we just make the economy more fair by saying that the wealth gap must at least be smaller than some value or else the rich will pay (taxes) to make it so?
Yes! But it requires a wealth tax (or equivalent) higher than the rich's profit margins, and requires enforcement in all major jurisdictions. This is effectively impossible due to the sheer amount of power these folks have to prevent it. Simple.
Re: What broke Sweden? Real estate bust exposes big divide
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really isn't that simple, because again, no one really can say how it is so simple, merely that it is, somehow. Economists also talk about this point often, and they also can't agree, generally speaking, on how to, or even if to, reduce the inequality gap. The best solutions I've seen are land value taxes, inheritance and estate taxes, and taxes on loans backed by stock; and among the worst are unrealized capital…
The simplest solution is a wealth tax. Once you reach a certain amount of wealth, you are taxed for it. So for instance you might be taxed 50% of your wealth above $1 billion, annually. You might be taxed 25% of your wealth above $100 million (up to the next cutoff, so a billion in this hypothetical). You might be taxed 10% of your wealth above $10 million but below the next cutoff, and so on. We could even take this…
What is wealth? How do you define it? How can you tax it? If it's in stocks, what does it mean to tax it? If I own a company worth X billion, does that mean I have to sell my shares to withdraw enough cash to pay my taxes, thereby tanking the value of my own company? If I pay a lot in a downturn but my company does better in a boom, will I get refunded the extra tax I paid?
It's not as simple as "make it illegal to have above X amount of money" because it's not really even money at that point, no one has X billion in cash lying around, it's tied to some physical asset. This is just one problem to your statement, there are many others.
Re: What broke Sweden? Real estate bust exposes big divide
#196The Sweden story sounds so much like the SF story. Area doesn’t building housing, leading to a massive increase in house prices and a destruction of class mobility as the rich get richer (as their houses get more valuable) and the poor get poorer (as they pay more to rent the same living space). The growing wealth inequality leads to all sorts of other dysfunction including increased crime, worsening services, etc. a…
> the rich get richer (...) and the poor get poorer It's always the same story. Can't we just make the economy more fair by saying that the wealth gap must at least be smaller than some value or else the rich will pay (taxes) to make it so?
> Can't we just make the economy more fair by...
No.
When people say they want fairness, they are being disingenuous. They want a lot of the fair that benefits them and a little bit of the fair that makes their life worse.
That's not what fair means. Would you want fair if it made your life a lot worse? The only honest answer is no :)
Thus, we have what we have.
Re: What broke Sweden? Real estate bust exposes big divide
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simplest solution is a wealth tax. Once you reach a certain amount of wealth, you are taxed for it. So for instance you might be taxed 50% of your wealth above $1 billion, annually. You might be taxed 25% of your wealth above $100 million (up to the next cutoff, so a billion in this hypothetical). You might be taxed 10% of your wealth above $10 million but below the next cutoff, and so on. We could even take this…
What is wealth? How do you define it? How can you tax it? If it's in stocks, what does it mean to tax it? If I own a company worth X billion, does that mean I have to sell my shares to withdraw enough cash to pay my taxes, thereby tanking the value of my own company? If I pay a lot in a downturn but my company does better in a boom, will I get refunded the extra tax I paid? It's not as simple as "make it illegal to h…
This is what the IRS is for. It's one of the only government organizations that actually makes more money than is put into it. So we'd just give them more money and resources to do their job, which would include wealth evaluation. And to answer your "gotcha" question you do get taxed on stocks in this scenario.
If you want to nitpick that every solution isn't as simple as fizzbuzz then there's no real point having a discussion. There are plenty of other tax alternatives that are also quite simple, you just seem to be unhappy with anything that isn't perfect.
Re: What broke Sweden? Real estate bust exposes big divide
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about Ireland, but in the US the home ownership rate is higher than it was at any point in the 20th century. So however bad the situation is it doesn't seem to actually prevent people from buying a house.
In the 90s, I didn't know anyone in their 20s, who didn't have a roommate(or two!), or were married. No one I knew, could afford an entire apartment to themselves! I find it weird that people complain about not being able to rent their own entire apartment, but are in their 20s. It wasn't a thing 30 years ago! As one advances in their career, eg in their 30s, then income tends to rise, due to experience, and better p…
In the 90s I didn’t have a house, I was in diapers.
In my experience growing up, everyone I knew could afford to buy a house on a single salary when 28-30, so that’s what I expect for myself.
Anything other than that is a regression.
Re: What broke Sweden? Real estate bust exposes big divide
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is wealth? How do you define it? How can you tax it? If it's in stocks, what does it mean to tax it? If I own a company worth X billion, does that mean I have to sell my shares to withdraw enough cash to pay my taxes, thereby tanking the value of my own company? If I pay a lot in a downturn but my company does better in a boom, will I get refunded the extra tax I paid? It's not as simple as "make it illegal to h…
This is what the IRS is for. It's one of the only government organizations that actually makes more money than is put into it. So we'd just give them more money and resources to do their job, which would include wealth evaluation. And to answer your "gotcha" question you do get taxed on stocks in this scenario. If you want to nitpick that every solution isn't as simple as fizzbuzz then there's no real point having a…
> If you want to nitpick that every solution isn't as simple as fizzbuzz then there's no real point having a discussion.
No, that's the entire point of having the discussion. If the solution can't answer even these types of questions, then there's no point having the discussion, because it breaks down even upon initial examination.
> This is what the IRS is for. It's one of the only government organizations that actually makes more money than is put into it. So we'd just give them more money and resources to do their job, which would include wealth evaluation.
Sure, I agree in giving more money to the IRS, indeed that's happened recently, but even they are not going to tax unrealized capital gains.
Re: What broke Sweden? Real estate bust exposes big divide
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what the IRS is for. It's one of the only government organizations that actually makes more money than is put into it. So we'd just give them more money and resources to do their job, which would include wealth evaluation. And to answer your "gotcha" question you do get taxed on stocks in this scenario. If you want to nitpick that every solution isn't as simple as fizzbuzz then there's no real point having a…
> If you want to nitpick that every solution isn't as simple as fizzbuzz then there's no real point having a discussion. No, that's the entire point of having the discussion. If the solution can't answer even these types of questions, then there's no point having the discussion, because it breaks down even upon initial examination. > This is what the IRS is for. It's one of the only government organizations that actu…
> but even they are not going to tax unrealized capital gains
You are completely missing the point of the conversation you started. Everything we're discussing is a hypothetical. In this scenario, they would tax that and everything else.
Anyway, I don't think that you're arguing in good faith and I'm moving on with my day. Cheers.