61–70 of 587 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"To solve all this, it's pretty simple," I feel if it was simple it would be fixed?
Things can be simple to fix but actually getting people to implement the fix won't be there are incentives against it. They are two different problems.
To solve all this, it's pretty simple, and the U.S. actually used to do it: heavily tax the super rich. Heavy taxation and then appropriate use of those funds for education, R&D funding, infrastructure, etc. is actual trickle-down economics. And mega corporations should be heavily taxed instead of holding the country economically hostage. They jumpstart their companies off of government funding and R&D and then act a…
California has the highest income tax at 13.3%, the highest federal tax rate is 37%.
That makes the top income tax rate 50%.
To solve all this, it's pretty simple, and the U.S. actually used to do it: heavily tax the super rich. Heavy taxation and then appropriate use of those funds for education, R&D funding, infrastructure, etc. is actual trickle-down economics. And mega corporations should be heavily taxed instead of holding the country economically hostage. They jumpstart their companies off of government funding and R&D and then act a…
"To solve all this, it's pretty simple," I feel if it was simple it would be fixed?
This combines with the observation that intelligence is normally distributed, so the rich people are more likely to be average people that got lucky, because there's more of them than smart people with a good strategy. It also applies in the opposite direction, there's more unlucky average people than true failures.
That doesn't seem to follow, unless intelligence and ability to make money are mostly uncorrelated, which I think is a very strong claim that needs to be substantiated.
> However, talent was definitely not sufficient because the most talented individuals were rarely the most successful. In general, mediocre-but-lucky people were much more successful than more-talented-but-unlucky individuals. The most successful agents tended to be those who were only slightly above average in talent but with a lot of luck in their lives.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-rol...
To solve all this, it's pretty simple, and the U.S. actually used to do it: heavily tax the super rich. Heavy taxation and then appropriate use of those funds for education, R&D funding, infrastructure, etc. is actual trickle-down economics. And mega corporations should be heavily taxed instead of holding the country economically hostage. They jumpstart their companies off of government funding and R&D and then act a…
>Look, I think it would be better if you had an economic system in which we didn’t have billionaires—but the productivity that billionaires have generated was still there, and that money was more equitably distributed. But, really, there hasn’t been a system that has had equity in its distribution and the productivity that capitalism has had. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
http://archive.today/2021.04.25-160837/https://www.newyorker...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I've noticed consistently, is when politicians talk about "taxing the wealthy", they almost always follow that with "earning more than $xxxk a year". This is conflating wealth with income. Being within this tax bracket myself, I do not deny that I am biased, but I do hope this bullshit gets called out hard whenever someone brings up yet another underhanded measure to milk us (typical SFBay SWE) above and be…
As a practical matter, it is very difficult to tax wealth (and even harder to do it fairly.) I don't think the issue is lack of will but lack of plan that actually works in the face of assets with unclear value and/or difficult to liquidate. And this doesn't just affect the ultra rich but people like SWE too. How much is the stock you have in the non-public company you work at really worth? SWE are probably one of th…
That means rich people can accumulate generational wealth without ever even paying capital gains taxes. And during one's lifetime, one can get liquidity out of assets by borrowing against them without selling them.
The rule also seems strange from an outside perspective. Either the book value of assets should be kept the same when inheriting (I believe Germany does this), or the book value should be changed to current market value but the difference be taxed as gains (I believe Canada does this).
>Look, I think it would be better if you had an economic system in which we didn’t have billionaires—but the productivity that billionaires have generated was still there, and that money was more equitably distributed. But, really, there hasn’t been a system that has had equity in its distribution and the productivity that capitalism has had. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
http://archive.today/2021.04.25-160837/https://www.newyorker...