How should we help the super rich?

[Narz]

Again, the historical precedent would be the Civil War, where much of the southern planter class literally consumed itself in the bloodiest war in US history rather than accept a restriction on slavery in the territories

Seems a bit different than the targeted killing of all of the richest, most powerful people in the world.

Yes, after all, the natural superiority of some over others will be expressed no matter the social conditions - isn't that what you mean here?

I don't see how you're reading that (natural superiority) into what he's saying.

My read is more that the naturally greedy and ambitious are going to seek power regardless of what political beliefs are en vogue @ the moment (and ally themselves w whoever they need to)

 

[Farm Boy]

the trick is to change the system before discontent becomes so bad that someone good at fighting rather than good at ruling forces the end this way

the trick is also a trick because we haven't learned it yet

End? There is no end. Even while a lot of people meet one and then we stop thinking about them.

 

[Gorbles]

Try n read before making as ass of yourself next time.

Ah, so he's already given himself an out. You probably shouldn't be claiming it like he's already done the thing, because he hasn't done the thing. Nice little tax write-off though I'm sure.

What's funnier is you then post this:

My read is more that the naturally greedy and ambitious are going to seek power regardless of what political beliefs are en vogue @ the moment (and ally themselves w whoever they need to)

Which imo is absolutely true. And yet Buffett is one of those people, and here you are insulting people for not believing him as he amasses wealth he can't possibly spend

Ask yourself this: as he's not spending it now, he obviously doesn't need it, so why is he hoarding it until he dies?

 

[Hygro]

It was also down to central bank actions which, I would say, were not subject to meaningful democratic control.



This is kinda the point though, and linked to the graph of the rich people share of income. I would argue the underlying cause of both the return to pre-Depression levels of inequality and the change in voter behavior are ultimately caused by the concentration of power enjoyed by the capitalists, and afact liberals don't have a compelling answer to how that is going to be dealt with by working within the system.

Note that I'm not opposed to working within the system, I'm only arguing that working outside it is frequently necessary. And I think that, as @schlaufuchs was saying earlier in the thread, it's not that I want to see anyone dead, it's that I really do think that ultimately the kinds of changes I want to see are only likely to happen over the bodies of the rich and probably of a lot of their non-rich simps too.

It's not like we have no historical precedents. Think about what likely would have been required to "win the peace" after the American civil war.

Incidentally, US labor law is at best a mixed bag because while it does protect workers from some of the worst abuses (at least in theory, in practice it does little of this) it is also designed to allow the state to crack down directly on some of the more effective tactics available to organized labor.



Gotta disagree on this one. Rich people have unjust power over others through the structure of capitalism, independently of their participation or non-participation in parliamentary politics.

I often wonder what it would have taken to "win the peace" after reconstruction. I guess we all do, it is exactly this topic, but with particularities.

It would have taken another war, a different one. It would have taken the northern population to want that. It would have taken until there was an independent, dominant southern identity that was anti-racist.

But part of that isn't generalized. Literal slave owners turned soldiers living as Southern gentry turned terrorists? These were extremely interpersonally violent people, every step of that description. Some of them aren't just fighters but straight up warriors. So they obviously weren't going to quit.

They were going to fight-fight. Not everyone causing problems today is going to fight-fight. Even back then not everyone was down for a fight. John Brown didn't start the war attacking the heart of the problem, the South attacked the North stirring the hornet's nest, and they attacked the peace.

It would have taken a truly sustained effort.

That part is general. It takes a sustained effort. Any time we let off the gas, starting with the ballot box, we're making a mistake.


Also, to everyone: how rich are you imagining "The Rich"? What's the dividing line?

And remember kids, every time you don't vote, the racists win.

Again, incorrect. Like I said there's significant overlap but this is more of the "benefits one party and not the other". This line benefits the Republicans (in the US).

I am highlighting the ridiculousness of you are arguments, both parties are the same (lmao), enfranchisement but cynical is disenfranchisment (lmao).

Since you get the first one, maybe don't push that line of thinking.

Incorrect.

It's not just about being tired. I really don't think you're trying to understand the reasons, here. Plenty have been given. Do you think civil rights activists were "tired"? Are "tired"? Is that the lens to examine this discussion through?

you are not a disenfranchised civil rights activist. Awake

I don't think it is.

I can't, because you're suggesting a binary when I, sophie and I'm pretty sure Lexi are pointing out someone can vote and still look for answers outside of that system.

Well you read the above backward, now you're reading this backward. I am pointing out you can vote and look for more answers, but if you are eschewing the vote part you are making a grave error. schlaufuchs is taking a different position. You have 2/3s of our positions mixed up.

Incorrect.

Like, maybe you can split a semantic hair and claim they don't lobby in the conventional, as it is defined in the US sense, but like Lexi said they use their wealth and general leverage afforded to them by their wealth to affect policy. Happens all the time.

Or are you only including networths above a billion in your definition?

 

[Farm Boy]

Also, to everyone: how rich are you imagining "The Rich"? What's the dividing line?

Six figures household is extraordinarily comfortable. Enough to make Solomon blush.

 

[El_Machinae]

The line that I find most convenient when defining excess wealth is with regards to the idle income that it generates. Eventually, idle income allows you to live comfortably without working. I think anything below that is okay, as long as other institutional structures aren't broken, because it's the actual long-term goal.

And then there is a level of excess wealth where your wealth grows despite your consumption. And then the final tier, the destructive tier, where your wealth grows faster than the economy even after it provides for your lifestyle.

You do have to unpack market risk from some of that calculation, because some income is generated by taking on market risk. But there is the opposite thereof, where a safe portfolio can lead to those returns. And the system is broken.

That is where everything breaks down. When Buffett donates into a system that allows that type of accumulation, then he will provide temporary relief to people. Wealth compounds however, which means that eventually the wealth that he donated will be owned by the people who won't donate.

Of course, there can still be benefit from the donation itself. And those benefits can be real. There was some philosophy that convinced him to take on the giving pledge, so there is a way to convince people memetically. I wouldn't be surprised if it correlated with a tolerance for higher tax rates as well. Unfortunately, there is just enough theory crafting out there that convinces people that wealth accumulation causes the total pie to grow faster.

It's where the psyops comes in, to just break down those memes

 

[Gorbles]

I am highlighting the ridiculousness of you are arguments

I don't think you understand the arguments, which leads us to:

you are not a disenfranchised civil rights activist. Awake

I'm not saying that I am.

I think you've convinced yourself of a point I didn't make and I'm unsuccessfully trying to argue against that. You don't seem to want to understand where I'm coming from, which leads to these silly things like "awake" and whatnot. You want a gotcha, or something that's easy to tear down, feel free. But I'm bowing out here, because I think you can do better, and currently you're not. It's a waste of both our times, however unintentionally this is happening.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, after all, the natural superiority of some over others will be expressed no matter the social conditions - isn't that what you mean here?

No, superiority is the wrong word. People are not the same and those that are smart, ambitious, somewhat charismatic and who can muster resources will find ways to collect more resources and the the attributes of local, regional or national wealth. Those efforts may or may not be at the expense of others. As one scales up the accumulation, the likelihood of inflicting pain on others goes up. People find it difficult to set aside their own wants nd desires such that it is a net benefit to others. Humans are more individual than they are collective. Egalitarian, utopian societies typically fail when scaled or their charismatic leaders die; or we see them corrupted by the egos of leadership. The question remains: given our human nature how can we increase the prosperity of the many and the very poorest in a quick and efficient manner?

 

[Narz]

Which imo is absolutely true. And yet Buffett is one of those people, and here you are insulting people for not believing him

I don't think Buffett is one of those people. He's just a good investor.

I was thinking of people like Stalin or Kamala Harris who would gravitate to power over others regardless of what party or philosophy they'd have to claim allegiance to.

 

[Hygro]

I don't think you understand the arguments, which leads us to:

I'm not saying that I am.

I think you've convinced yourself of a point I didn't make and I'm unsuccessfully trying to argue against that. You don't seem to want to understand where I'm coming from, which leads to these silly things like "awake" and whatnot. You want a gotcha, or something that's easy to tear down, feel free. But I'm bowing out here, because I think you can do better, and currently you're not. It's a waste of both our times, however unintentionally this is happening.

It's tough when you're reading things literally backward and ascribing peoples' positions incorrectly.

There are 3 of the 4 of us in you, me, Lexicus, and Schlaufuchs in this discussion on voting / other-than-voting. However, you have shifted my position to "voting is sufficient" and Sophie's to "voting is additionally important". Her's is "as a pragmatist, voting doesn't matter." You think you two share a position, but actually, you disagree. Meanwhile, you and I agree that not voting is voting for the racists. However, I'm not the cool one so...

You were saying legislation was not enough to deal with income inequality and we need something faster. No acknowledgment on that when I show that legislation and government moved that issue faster than anything! Only "Hygro you're hyperfocusing on this detail". Same with your America comment, you're keeping it on America but asking me not to. What? Come on dude. You're moving goalposts and accusing me of not addressing them.

Your argument is that Twitter is a good example that the rich are above the law, ergo, the law doesn't work. We established that the Twitter scenario is only happening because of the law. The next step is to discuss that all lawsuits and legal ramifications of fighting Twitter 2.0 is going to take time, murder happens in an instant, murder investigations and trials happen in due time. I guess I should have spelled that out? It's just so obvious it doesn't need saying, you can't use an active crime scene on proof the prosecution can't act.

On the issue of enfranchisement, what do you think I don't understand? We can get there, we almost always do. You're my favorite frenemy on CFC because we can get into the specifics because we're already so damn similar and I know you're good faith.

And how much money is the cutoff for "the rich" as it pertains to this conversation? This is a crucial question.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And how much money is the cutoff for "the rich" as it pertains to this conversation? This is a crucial question.

An important question most ignore. If $11 million in assets puts one in the top 1%, that could be a place to begin. Personally, I'd start higher.

 

[Hygro]

How much higher?

So far we got Farm Boy saying $100,000, 82nd percentile. It's true, that amount of money is comfortable. Hardly gives access to power but it allows movement where others don't have so much.

El Mach has tiers, categorically. I will trie to give it numbers. Say if your consumption was 200k (that's an insane lifestyle for pure consumption) and your money grew above growth, so if growth on good years is 3% after yours is 4% after inflation after consumption. You're a big mclarge huge whale so your can't get huge gains off passive moves, so say the classic 7% interest. Normal years for us millennials are 2% inflation. 5% investment growth so 1% of your principal is consumption to leave 4%. $20,000,0000

I would say to fit the level required to validate the arguments that all rich people are lobbying and actually in the way of your political freedoms by virtue of existing is much higher than that.

Because at lower numbers, I reiterate that most rich people aren't lobbying, most rich people aren't doing jack other than being workaholics selling products that don't need particularly special political consideration.

 

[Birdjaguar]

How much higher?

To succeed I think one will need a process that begins at a level most people see as rich beyond their dreams and then work it down over time. I'd start at an asset level (how measured?) of $50 million for some definition of "household". Over that the assets are taxed annually at a rate that will surpass the potential return. Once the systems are in place and working for those not very many people, the cut off could be lowered. This does not address what happens to all those assets that are over a person's threshold which is a very different question.

One estimate says that there are ~110,000 individuals in the US with a net worth of $50 million or more.

 

[sophie]

“Voting doesn’t matter,” was never my position

 

[El_Machinae]

To succeed I think one will need a process that begins at a level most people see as rich beyond their dreams and then work it down over time. I'd start at an asset level (how measured?) of $50 million for some definition of "household". Over that the assets are taxed annually at a rate that will surpass the potential return. Once the systems are in place and working for those not very many people, the cut off could be lowered. This does not address what happens to all those assets that are over a person's threshold which is a very different question.

One estimate says that there are ~110,000 individuals in the US with a net worth of $50 million or more.

It's good to have a higher number, because that's where all the fruit is. It's hard to calculate what will happen with a wealth tax because market cap wealth is so dependent upon so many moving factors when calculating its total ... which doesn't reflect its actual sale value except for marginal sales.

I think the system balances if you just tax so that 'safe' returns are less than the growth rate. I don't know how to do that in practice, except maybe tax returns against an average benchmark to bring down the average.

 

[bernie14]

Heh.

Anyway tax cuts have been overdone. How abouth throwing poor people into volcanoes? Will that work?

Didn't work for xenu

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Put them on the Hoarders tv show and tell them they have a problem and should dispose of their excess wealth.

 

[cardgame]

Clearly the super elites have a lot of issues. How should we help them so they can be better people & make better decisions?

Simply relieve them of their burden of wealth so that nothing is holding them back

 

[Lexicus]

No, superiority is the wrong word.

That one's on me, I forgot it's currently in fashion to say "genetic diversity" to mean "genetic superiority"

 

[El_Machinae]

Because at lower numbers, I reiterate that most rich people aren't lobbying, most rich people aren't doing jack other than being workaholics selling products that don't need particularly special political consideration.

From the capitalist perspective, it's very hard to figure out. A lot of us have retirement systems that depend on capital markets. We're interested in protecting our nest egg. And I can't imagine what it would be like in, say, Norway.

But I don't come at this from an anti-capitalist perspective, but more from the perspective at how wealth creation and distribution systems can throw out of tizzy after iteration.

My formula breaks down, because I fall back to using GDP as one of the metrics. And we all know that GDP is fundamentally a terrible metric for anything other than headlines. I think more ideally we would use real wage growth or even real welfare growth.

We have a breakdown due to wealth hoarding right now, but everything will change as Automation-Induced Unemployment kicks in. So I would hate to create the wrong metric that we then stick to.

But even using my formula still works, because it can measure a runaway effect. If your idle wealth is growing less quickly than the economy, then you just get a better lifestyle from year to year. But you don't own a larger percentage of the economy that you are no longer contributing to other than with your savings. But once your wealth is growing faster than the economy, the pie available for everybody else's shrinking. And again, it needs to exclude market risk. Actual market risk.