Wealth! How much is enough?

[AdamCrock]

You absolutely can do, not sad but it is true

Nice logic , I buy it ! The problem is that the most of humans don't think as we do .... sad, but true ....

 

[El_Machinae]

No problem.

I'd start a ratcheting income tax once someone has about $7 million in liquid assets. I don't really have a 'ceiling' on how much wealth someone should be able to own, because wealth is too ephemeral unless it's been converted into currency. But, once it's converted into currency, we have income. I have no problem with wealth increasing in value, the main concern is when the wealth is trickling upwards. And, more importantly, when the income from that wealth is trickling upwards.

I don't have good math on what that ratcheting number would be. I'd tie it to the growth in median income. Ideally, we'd want the average wealth growth at the top to be slightly less than that of the working middle, but we'd not want to stymie opportunities of true wealth creation. That would be expressed as an income tax, though.

 

[AdamCrock]

No problem.

I'd start a ratcheting income tax once someone has about $7 million in liquid assets. I don't really have a 'ceiling' on how much wealth someone should be able to own, because wealth is too ephemeral unless it's been converted into currency. But, once it's converted into currency, we have income. I have no problem with wealth increasing in value, the main concern is when the wealth is trickling upwards. And, more importantly, when the income from that wealth is trickling upwards.

I don't have good math on what that ratcheting number would be. I'd tie it to the growth in median income. Ideally, we'd want the average wealth growth at the top to be slightly less than that of the working middle, but we'd not want to stymie opportunities of true wealth creation. That would be expressed as an income tax, though.

Gentleman , we are so blinded by this "wealth" of the body and worldly possessions, but at the risk of sounding like a total nut I say we have completely ignored the spiritual world and wealth ... even the poll is only expressed in "worldly dollars" , what happened to our spiritual nature ? "is it dead yet ? ...." quoting some horror movie.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Owning 10 $30 million homes around the world and a few million acres of land probably doesn't' produce any personal income, just expense. Jay Leon's many many cars would fall into the the same category. having those non producing assets may create income for others, but that is a different story.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Everyone, and every profit-generating organized endeavour, should pay taxes in a roughly equal proportionate scheme comparable to what they make. Without exception. A charity, religious group, philanthropic NGO's, and other normally tax-exempt groups should have to be able to prove, without loopholes, cooking the books, or an automatic assumption by using such a label, that they're not actually making meaningful profits to keep tax-exempt status. Loopholes as a whole in this regard should all be closed.

Hm. I remember arguments back in the early days of Lyin' Brian's GST, when some of his faithful sycophants seriously insisted that yes, 12-year-old babysitters should charge GST in addition to what the parents would normally pay, and remit that to the government. Ditto the kids and teenagers earning a little extra spending money mowing lawns, raking leaves, and shoveling snow. And of course everyone who ever held a garage sale should do the same.

I also remember the time when I was selling at one of the community swap/craft fairs, and a little girl - maybe about 6 or 7 - picked up one of my needlepoint items that cost $2 and asked if there was GST on top of it. I told her no, I don't collect GST (it's not mandatory unless you make over $30,000 - and I was definitely in no danger of making that much per year from my craft sales). It was a bit depressing to realize that kids her age had to consider such things in a venue like that.

So I guess under your rationale, if a homeless person finds a toonie on the sidewalk, he should be taxed on it?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Gentleman , we are so blinded by this "wealth" of the body and worldly possessions, but at the risk of sounding like a total nut I say we have completely ignored the spiritual world and wealth ... even the poll is only expressed in "worldly dollars" , what happened to our spiritual nature ? "is it dead yet ? ...." quoting some horror movie.

I'd let God handle that end of things. The inequality of material wealth causes actual hardship in the daily life of many millions.

 

[El_Machinae]

Owning 10 $30 million homes around the world and a few million acres of land probably doesn't' produce any personal income, just expense. Jay Leon's many many cars would fall into the the same category. having those non producing assets may create income for others, but that is a different story.

Yeah, and the problem there would be hoarding, I think. Land just has to be different from financial assets. Houses have property tax and any government would really have to tax property at some fair rate. Luckily, land is really easy to put a wealth tax on.

 

[AdamCrock]

I'd let God handle that end of things. The inequality of material wealth causes actual hardship in the daily life of many millions.

People are better and worse but it is "noble" when those who are better help their brothers and sisters who are worse , there is no nobility by blood - it is all incest and depravity - says I - because I feel it so. Why I can feel it should be like this I cannot tell, some people call it higher power , I call it common sense. What's the point of being stinking rich if Your ugly butt is there at the *pointy* top alone ? .... some people might take pleasure from that , by imho that's sick

 

[Colonel]

Upper limits would cease a massive portion of the economy as it would desensitize creating industry. As an example Amazon would have never gotten as big as it is without a monetary incentive. I'm all for taxing the super wealthy as rates equivalent to the 1950s but to seize assets once they go over a certain net value would drive all of the innovators, inventors, and entrepreneurs to simply aim for the mark you've set as the upper limit and go no further. Lets say for instance you had set the max limit at $100 million when Amazon was simply an online book store, what would the net effect on the US GDP be if they had simply stopped with solely being a bookstore? How much wealth outside of Amazon is tied to the existence of Amazon as it is now? This is the extreme side of socialist idealism... capping net value would stifle the economy back to an early industrialized state, innovations like mass solar panels, space travel, etc all were predicated on the idea of a free market allowing people to strive for the unattainable. Setting a cap would destroy that motivation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Lets say for instance you had set the max limit at $100 million when Amazon was simply an online book store, what would the net effect on the US GDP be if they had simply stopped with solely being a bookstore? How much wealth outside of Amazon is tied to the existence of Amazon as it is now?

Why would the shareholders of Amazon have been satisfied with a $100 million company?

But I honestly do have a hard time figuring out what would happen. Imagine that Bezos had $100 million of Amazon shares, plus a controlling interest. What happens next? Well, if he stops working on the growth model, his wealth plummets, since a lot of that $100 million valuation priced in future growth potential. So, he has to work just to keep his $100 million of liquid wealth. But then he decides to grow the company. Well, he'd have to either sell off some of his wealth or have it taxed away. So, he'd sell it off. But, no idea what he'd buy with the proceeds. Something that didn't significantly increase his paper-wealth, even if it improved his perceived quality of life. This is an example of where there could easily be actual Trickle Down benefits.

 

[cardgame]

Upper limits would cease a massive portion of the economy as it would desensitize creating industry. As an example Amazon would have never gotten as big as it is without a monetary incentive. I'm all for taxing the super wealthy as rates equivalent to the 1950s but to seize assets once they go over a certain net value would drive all of the innovators, inventors, and entrepreneurs to simply aim for the mark you've set as the upper limit and go no further. Lets say for instance you had set the max limit at $100 million when Amazon was simply an online book store, what would the net effect on the US GDP be if they had simply stopped with solely being a bookstore? How much wealth outside of Amazon is tied to the existence of Amazon as it is now? This is the extreme side of socialist idealism... capping net value would stifle the economy back to an early industrialized state, innovations like mass solar panels, space travel, etc all were predicated on the idea of a free market allowing people to strive for the unattainable. Setting a cap would destroy that motivation.

Maybe that motivation needs to be stopped. Doesn't the Bible have something to say about greed of money being the root of all evil? I don't think you can get as big and wealthy as Amazon without doing evil things, like... oh yeah, killing your employees.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10077750/amazon-warehouses-ambulance/

Ambulances called to Amazon warehouses once every two days last year as workers collapsed

They realized it was a bit silly, so instead of calling ambulances three times a week, they set up their own medical units!

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/02/amazon-warehouse-workers-safety-cyber-monday/

HOW AMAZON’S ON-SITE EMERGENCY CARE ENDANGERS THE WAREHOUSE WORKERS IT’S SUPPOSED TO PROTECT
OSHA investigations found that Amcare clinic staffers violated Amazon’s own rules as well as government regulations.

oh noooooooooo, who could have seen that coming?

 

[Zardnaar]

Wherever you draw the last be so nothing like a 50% inheritence tax over XYZ and taxes could be high on the super wealthy assets.

Tax breaks would be for new invention me "for the public good" or for wages.

So yeah if you discover how to cure cancer have a few billion. If you're investing in land, sticks, finance etc tax time.

You still have incentive to innovate, get rich, etc might even be able to become a billionaire.

 

[Patine]

Hm. I remember arguments back in the early days of Lyin' Brian's GST, when some of his faithful sycophants seriously insisted that yes, 12-year-old babysitters should charge GST in addition to what the parents would normally pay, and remit that to the government. Ditto the kids and teenagers earning a little extra spending money mowing lawns, raking leaves, and shoveling snow. And of course everyone who ever held a garage sale should do the same.

I also remember the time when I was selling at one of the community swap/craft fairs, and a little girl - maybe about 6 or 7 - picked up one of my needlepoint items that cost $2 and asked if there was GST on top of it. I told her no, I don't collect GST (it's not mandatory unless you make over $30,000 - and I was definitely in no danger of making that much per year from my craft sales). It was a bit depressing to realize that kids her age had to consider such things in a venue like that.

So I guess under your rationale, if a homeless person finds a toonie on the sidewalk, he should be taxed on it?

Perhaps better to be "licensed, registered, and, definitely, incorporated," profit-earning ventures. I admit I did leave somewhat open to that heartless interpretation, when I didn't mean to.

 

[amadeus]

What’s the goal of the policy?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Perhaps better to be "licensed, registered, and, definitely, incorporated," profit-earning ventures. I admit I did leave somewhat open to that heartless interpretation, when I didn't mean to.

Fair enough. There are lots of times when people arguing policies don't think of the really small-potatoes situations and how they impact really low-income people.

 

[AdamCrock]

Really-low income potatoes are here to take their vengeance - it's how the bloody red revolution started , don't give us that again .....

 

[AdamCrock]

and above all do not say "let them eat cake" ......

 

[AdamCrock]

And by "red revolution" I understand - "The October revolution"

 

[Patine]

And by "red revolution" I understand - "The October revolution"

In the grand world of politics as a whole, the Republican Party of the United States is in a very rare minority of right-wing political parties that use a, "hot colour," as their party colour, along with, say, the BJP in India (saffron), the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and all about 11 to 13 national affiliates of the Libertarians International - almost all in Anglosphere and German-speaking countries (yellow), and the former Alliance for the Future of Austria and National Party of South Africa (orange) and Rhodesian Front (pink), as other good examples of this highly uncommon phenomenon.. The vast majority of right-wing parties use a, "cool colour," or even a non-colour.

 

[Synobun]

IMHO the graded tax is good as long as it does not impede the development of "crucial" or "home" industries. I'm in favor of lower taxes on self employed vs. the corporations so there's a "but" in it

I would be very interested in knowing what the highest income someone has had while fully self-employed. At some point, the numbers demand at least forming a business and outsourcing accounting, and it's a very short step from there to outright employing people so you can spend less time working, or at least less time on the productivity drains.