91–100 of 462 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea is that just having money does no one any good. You want to spend it on stuff. Further, having an estate tax caps that accumulation at the end of your life. There may be people who truly don't spend any money, but that would be the minority.
[deleted]
>High levels of inequality are a problem—messing up economic incentives, tilting democracies in favor of powerful interests, and undercutting the ideal that all people are created equal. I agree with generally all of Gates' thoughts here, but there are two actors to consider when discussing how to address problems associated with inequality - the government, and those who own capital. There is an implicit assumption…
>The other option is to limit the power the government has to control the flow of wealth. That's one of the core ideologies UNDERLYING the great shift in wealth from poor to rich: that politics should have no say in wealth allocation. What that ultimately means is that the rules of wealth allocation are decided by the wealthy without democratic oversight. Hence here we are.
Please provide evidence or reasoning to back up why you think this causes money to flow from the poor to the rich.
I must say Bill Gates, in his post Microsoft avatar, continues to surprise me constantly. This is a refreshingly candid and sanguine review of Piketty's book from someone who was a ruthless capitalist not so long ago. Gates rightly (and self-servingly) also points out that Piketty does not consider philanthropy as a means to correct some of capitalism's imbalances. Here's a few of Gates' conclusions: > Piketty is rig…
The problem with any consumption tax is that wealthier people spend a smaller percentage of their income on needs compared to lower classes. If you make it progressive, they will just buy their most expensive items overseas and never (or hide?) the import and avoid the tax. Anytime you try to regulate, there will be people making big money trying to find workarounds. Anyway, taxing in this way imposes a moral judgeme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Seems like a very small amount of evidence to base such a large idea on. I acknowledge this. Keep in mind though that in economics it is extremely difficult to comprehensively analyze all the data relevant to your stated hypothesis. Gates points out several areas where Piketty's data falls short, and the amount of data Piketty collected and analyzed for his book is considered one of the strongest points of his thesi…
I think some of Gates criticisms fall in the arm chair category of criticisms on this, honestly. (And to be fair, I know mine do.) I have no desire to silence any of them, and I am excited about seeing them debated. But, I am fairly skeptical about how good they are. I am genuinely interested in any discussions on this. Though, I will probably duck out of it soon, as it is beyond me. Please keep it going. Regarding t…
Mine as well, and neither of us have time to compile the data that Piketty has done. Appreciate your thoughtful criticisms.
I must say Bill Gates, in his post Microsoft avatar, continues to surprise me constantly. This is a refreshingly candid and sanguine review of Piketty's book from someone who was a ruthless capitalist not so long ago. Gates rightly (and self-servingly) also points out that Piketty does not consider philanthropy as a means to correct some of capitalism's imbalances. Here's a few of Gates' conclusions: > Piketty is rig…
As a third-generation American, I find the estate tax, even in its current form, extremely offensive, because it strives to reset every generation to zero instead of letting families establish themselves over time by building on the sacrifice and efforts of the parents.
The current level of taxation, even though it's been recently, "graciously" increased, greatly extends the runway for families to achieve true financial independence. Currently, $5.3M and above estates fall under the 40% tax. That's far too small of an estate and far too large of a tax.
People will say, "wow five million dollars, that's a lot!" Not really. Three heirs take home a million each - pay off a house and student loan debt for their families - god forbid they don't have something like outstanding medical bills - and sock away a partial retirement fund with the rest. Not enough to quit working and start their own business, or invest in anything riskier than an index fund.
You might say that's not a bad deal. It's certainly better than nothing. But this, "oh, it's just a lottery" attitude is nonsense. If your parents started with nothing and are leaving you $5M, chances are you watched them bust their asses for forty years, and only got to see them a couple hours a day - at times, if at all. That doesn't sound like much of a lottery ticket to me.
To top it all off, it's a double tax. That money has already been taxed, as far as the family as a unit is concerned. And wiping the slates clean every generation greatly reduces the ability of a family to weather multi-decade economic cycles. I hate to have climbed on my soapbox, but a statement like that only makes sense if you consider the family a method of perpetuating a shared set of values over hundreds of years - and if you can't, I find that sad.
I must say Bill Gates, in his post Microsoft avatar, continues to surprise me constantly. This is a refreshingly candid and sanguine review of Piketty's book from someone who was a ruthless capitalist not so long ago. Gates rightly (and self-servingly) also points out that Piketty does not consider philanthropy as a means to correct some of capitalism's imbalances. Here's a few of Gates' conclusions: > Piketty is rig…
The problem with differentiating between the "good investor" and the "lavish lifestyle guy" is that the good investor is actually the one that you (rather, Piketty) need to be most worried about. People worried about inequality aren't (just) worried about the morality of consumption -- a fat cat sitting atop a mountain of cash drinking champagne and eating caviar while the peasants starve. They're worried about maint…
I'd go the other way in fact, if you are interested in redistributing wealth, you should encourage rich people to blow money on labor-intensive consumables. Using legal or social pressure to keep the rich from buying luxuries seems counterproductive to me.
I must say Bill Gates, in his post Microsoft avatar, continues to surprise me constantly. This is a refreshingly candid and sanguine review of Piketty's book from someone who was a ruthless capitalist not so long ago. Gates rightly (and self-servingly) also points out that Piketty does not consider philanthropy as a means to correct some of capitalism's imbalances. Here's a few of Gates' conclusions: > Piketty is rig…
I'm no supply-side economist, or advocate of Brave New World consumerism, but I believe that taxing the purchase of actual consumer products would not have a positive effect on the economy of the country. I believe a healthy economy is an active one. An incentive to remove money from active circulation (hoarding) could have long-term negative repercussions. And a country where the government encourages the average pe…
I must say Bill Gates, in his post Microsoft avatar, continues to surprise me constantly. This is a refreshingly candid and sanguine review of Piketty's book from someone who was a ruthless capitalist not so long ago. Gates rightly (and self-servingly) also points out that Piketty does not consider philanthropy as a means to correct some of capitalism's imbalances. Here's a few of Gates' conclusions: > Piketty is rig…
The problem with differentiating between the "good investor" and the "lavish lifestyle guy" is that the good investor is actually the one that you (rather, Piketty) need to be most worried about. People worried about inequality aren't (just) worried about the morality of consumption -- a fat cat sitting atop a mountain of cash drinking champagne and eating caviar while the peasants starve. They're worried about maint…
What should we do about them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a very small amount of evidence to base such a large idea on. You could probably form the same argument against the more modern consumption taxes. Since for many this translates to a sales tax, and not the early excise taxes that are covered under the same category. (Right?) Though, your argument falls more heavily on the mistake Gates seems to have also made. The type of wealth that the book refers to as…
>This is somewhat important, because much of what would have been the "old money" in the US was effectively disrupted by massive technology changes. This is the point I am trying to make...if this old money had been reinvesting in technology over the past 150 years, it might have been possible to maintain it. Fortunately in the US, the mechanisms were not in place for the government to help these rentiers maintain th…
I don't know US history well enough to know who else other than Carnegie was in a position to retain wealth generated by technology 150 years ago.
I must say Bill Gates, in his post Microsoft avatar, continues to surprise me constantly. This is a refreshingly candid and sanguine review of Piketty's book from someone who was a ruthless capitalist not so long ago. Gates rightly (and self-servingly) also points out that Piketty does not consider philanthropy as a means to correct some of capitalism's imbalances. Here's a few of Gates' conclusions: > Piketty is rig…
The problem with Piketty (like with Marx) was not their analysis which I find conventional (in todays perspective). The problem with Pikettys book is his solutions. If only he had stayed away from that it would have had much bigger impact IMHO.