111–120 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now, there is a guy in a garage founding the next billion dollar company, doing something we all will wish we thought of.
Maybe it is a sun room. I hope it is a sun room since I am in one right now and I want to be that person!
> You would think, after having been on the side of labor in its fight with capital for almost two centuries, that the far left would be happy that labor has finally prevailed. PG does make a reasonable point here. Capital is much less of a barrier than in the past for starting a business. A small group of people with no outside investment can do a lot of damage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now, there is a guy in a garage founding the next billion dollar company, doing something we all will wish we thought of.
Partly helped by guys having it easier fundraising.
The part everyone always glosses over is: If the rich are taxed more, will the government equitably distribute that money to the middle class? Defense contractors make hundreds of millions of dollars from government funds. We just assumed that tax money will go to the middle class but it's also likely to go to another rich person.
The part everyone always glosses over is: If the rich are taxed more, will the government equitably distribute that money to the middle class? Defense contractors make hundreds of millions of dollars from government funds. We just assumed that tax money will go to the middle class but it's also likely to go to another rich person.
and then those salaries get taxed again
and then they pay for government meteorologists
and then those salaries get taxed again
and then they pay for construction
Government spending is a fantastic deal because they automatically get a huge discount in the form of being able to tax what they give you.
That's why privatization is theoretically far below optimal.
After all, when there's a big fuckin' hole in the road at least you can call someone, which wouldn't be true if Google were building roads.
"Paul paints a rosy picture but doesn't mention that incomes for lower and middle-class families have fallen since the 80s." Doesn't look like it: median income in 2019 was $44K, in 2001 it was $31K. That's adjusted for inflation. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States I don't like it when the facts look wrong after two minutes' googling.
Dam, I didn't know the 80s started in 2001. Or is it just that that's the chart you can find with "two minutes' googling" and so that has to be good enough because that's the amount of effort it takes to find something that vaguely seems to satisfy your confirmation bias? Okay, though, let's just look at the chart you link. Let's assume that "inflation adjusted dollars" tracks purchasing power parity perfectly over t…
to me, you are doing the nitpicking. picking 2001 was generous, the growth is far greater if you look back to the 80s.
Noahopinion has a very recent interesting article on wealth and taxation. It makes me mad because it contradicts a lot of cherished ideas I have about the rich and taxation, but probably makes sense in this conversation: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/theres-not-that-much-wealth-in...
Wealth is unelected power, a bug. It’s reasonable to say there should be limits on wealth, considering most wealthy people were lucky (either by birth or “right place right time”) but attempt to post rationalize it as anything else. Would you want someone who won a lottery ticket to have power over your life at scale? Because that’s what excess wealth is, a power dynamic powered by a suboptimal system masquerading as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A statement like this probably needs a source or two to first show it is true (wealth taxes actually are causing rich people to flee) second, show that they actually do take their spend/invest/hire money with them and finally that it is harmful that that happens. Leaving creates a vacuum and if the rich really are leaving then it would be a big vacuum that clearly can't be filled with someone else that is rich since…
Jeff Bezos famously left the state just before the Washington's new cap gains tax targeted at him was set to go into effect. I know other people with 8 figure fortunes who left, too. I didn't know it was controversial that spending a lot of money in a local economy makes it more prosperous, and when a big spender leaves, the local economy goes down. The Rust Belt is an example of the latter.
Do these people really spend a lot of money in the local economy? Realistically, even assuming they pay a couple dozen people $100k/year for service and indulge daily in 3 $500 meals, what will be the actual influence on the local economy?
> The Rust Belt is an example of the latter.
The Rust Belt is an example of what happens when the state allows companies to leave, build their gadgets for a tenth of the price across the Pacific, then sell them back home without serious tariffs; not an example of what happens when Mr. Studebaker or Mrs. Bethlehem Steel leave for Florida.
> Wealth inequality is just a radical left fairy tale to villainize the hard-working 1%. The problem with that mindset is that we know how it's going to end up: it's not only the 0.1% or 1% that are going to suffer the wealth tax. It's the 30%. At first the "tax on billionaire" was supposed to be that: a tax on billionaires. But then there are already publications explaining how "taxing anyone who has more than a mil…
I live in a country with wealth tax (Norway), and I'm a bit conflicted on it. On one side, it is effectively the only real tax a many in the "ownership class" are paying - relative to their wealth. On the other side, it is a really problematic tax for entrepreneurs. It is downright horrible for startups and scaleups - critical funds that should be used to grow your company, has to be given out in dividends to founder…