Wealth! How much is enough?

[Patine]

A cap on inheritence is good. The problem comes with the excess. there is usually an excess. Say, I die with $20 million estate and two kids. each get $3 million leaving $14 million. What happens to that money or those assets? Must it be donated? Taxed? Granted to the government? Assets are often not very liquid and can be a problem to turn into cash. If you are going to cap the amount that can be inherited, you need a path for the excess estate to follow. Dispersing a large estate can be both troublesome and expensive.

To my mind the only way to 'force' ppl to stay under the 3mil limit would be to send the remainder to taxes/forfeiture. Presumably ppl would see that as undesirable and create an estate plan that divested the decedent of the excess. It's not like the limit would be a surprise, ppl would just have to plan accordingly. Like if you want a 20mil house, you'd be aware in advance that you can't leave it to your children so plans for the house on your death would just be part of the process of buying/building the house. Just leave it up to ppl to plan what to do with the excess and if they drop the ball then the government gets it . . .

I think rapid and uncontrolled inflation and the flimsy and fickle fiat value of modern currency with no solid base is a big part of the problem, too. It's very difficult to say that one wants a cap on wealth when the money itself rapidly loses it's value and purchasing power in a downward spiral.

 

[cardgame]

This is a huge problem, but less for tax reasons than employment reasons. State sales taxes are usually charged and paid to states by out of state companies. So when you buy from Amazon rather than your local mall, your state still gets the sales tax. The problem is that all of the service workers and small retail businesses have cut back or closed and those employees have no money to spend. Local economies are drying up.
I agree completely. The rich are still getting richer and the bottom half of the nation suffer more. The stock market is not the economy. We are conservative investors and the stock portion of our portfolio is up 15% ytd; the bond portion about 4%. It was a great year. A windfall and totally unexpected given the way things started in the first half. My goal is preserve capital and throw off some income to add to our SS checks.

Well, both, considering Amazon doesn't pay federal taxes.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm more worried about how little is enough.
If there weren't children living in poverty and OAPs scared to turn the heating on in winter in a rich country then the desire of the rich for an even bigger share of the pie would matter a lot less.

 

[elmurcis]

Enough is when you can build rockets or dream plane. Anybody else is just well supported

 

[Lexicus]

I believe that the question was about Jeff Bezos buying election races and not anything about adding to the economy. BTW, Amazon hired over 100,000 people in 2020 and now has almost a million employees. If their average wage with benefits is $25,000 per year ( a guess), how much have they added to the economy in terms of worker wages?

Avoiding the actual point, I see. If you don't believe the billionaires added over $600 billion in new value to the economy over the past year, then you concede that they are somehow able to extract (economically) unearned rent in order to make that much money. Which actually is evidence of the thing Patine was talking about.

Gardening is fun and nice and for me not self-actualizing.

The point of the quote isn't gardening but "his own hands to move, not the hands of others to command." It's an echo of Abraham Lincoln's "as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master." As succinct a summary as exists (in English) of the egalitarian ethic.

But one the ones who own the industries we needed to function during the crisis certainly weren't hurting us.

Using their market power and political lobbying to extract rent is actually hurting us tho? Like how many people are facing eviction at the moment? Time to dispense with the fantasy that this isn't directly related to the billionaires getting richer.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

As an example Amazon would have never gotten as big as it is without a monetary incentive.

What an interesting way to spell tax dodging.

I mean, that wasn't the only part of their strategy but tax avoidance was a major part of their growth strategy for the first ~decade of their rise. It seems trivial but the lack of taxation online sales (and their major lobbying efforts to keep it that way and their way of shuffling offices around to take maximum advantage of this) gave them a huge edge over brick-and-mortar businesses.


I think in general though that there is a major problem with the extent that tax dodging has been allowed such that many major corporations pay basically nothing, while those smaller entities without the resources to hire entire building-floors worth of lawyers have to pony up. Even putting aside the argument of how much taxation is appropriate, there is a huge problem of big businesses paying basically nothing (or even getting rebates!).

Then there is the issue of corporations getting these massive tax breaks and funneling billions of dollars in profits to their owners while their workers have no benefits, rock-bottom wages, schedules that change on a daily basis and miserable working conditions. It's a massive social failing that the Walton family continues to pull in tens and hundreds of millions of dollars while the average worker at Wal Mart is on food stamps (and they even put instructions on how to get social assistance up in the break room). Then there's the Sackler family that pulled in similar sums while their company pushed oxycontin on the population and then were allowed to raid the company coffers ahead of any settlement.

CDPR actions for example - worth it or not ? Will they'll be a success or a total failure , "the jury" is still unsure , are You ?

I don't think the results ever justify the burnout model of productivity, whether it's CD Projekt Red or SpaceX. It's another failing of our society that such practices have once again become common and are definitely entrenched in some sectors.

I believe that the question was about Jeff Bezos buying election races and not anything about adding to the economy. BTW, Amazon hired over 100,000 people in 2020 and now has almost a million employees. If their average wage with benefits is $25,000 per year ( a guess), how much have they added to the economy in terms of worker wages?

Not enough given that's not a livable wage and Jeff Bezos is continuing to add billions and billions to his net worth which do piss all for the rest of society. There's rich, then there's 'I am the state' rich. At this rate he and others like him will accumulate so much they will be able to begin capturing parts of the state apparatus itself. This was previously the purview of industry (regulatory capture) but pretty soon it'll be the purview of individuals.

This is a huge problem, but less for tax reasons than employment reasons. State sales taxes are usually charged and paid to states by out of state companies. So when you buy from Amazon rather than your local mall, your state still gets the sales tax. The problem is that all of the service workers and small retail businesses have cut back or closed and those employees have no money to spend. Local economies are drying up.

Well, both, considering Amazon doesn't pay federal taxes.

Yeah not only the federal taxes but as I said above, they also took massive advantage of a lack of clarity on state taxes to drive local competition under. It's wasn't just a happy accident that they benefited from this - it was a central part of their growth strategy and something they actively exploited and worked to maintain for as long as they could.

--------

Enough is when you can build rockets or dream plane. Anybody else is just well supported

A funny related joke is that the fastest way to become a millionaire is to start as a billionaire and then found a rocket company. There are some industries that are so capital intensive that we should think first before trying to cap wealth accumulation at an arbitrary number. Though at the same time, the vast majority of people who accumulate those amounts of wealth have 0 intention of starting any new capital intensive businesses or really doing anything productive with it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think rapid and uncontrolled inflation and the flimsy and fickle fiat value of modern currency with no solid base is a big part of the problem, too. It's very difficult to say that one wants a cap on wealth when the money itself rapidly loses it's value and purchasing power in a downward spiral.

When was the most recent "rapid and uncontrolled inflation" that devalued the purchasing power of the wealthy?

Well, both, considering Amazon doesn't pay federal taxes.

Corporate taxes are a mess that needs to be fixed. Until then, we have to live with what we have.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Avoiding the actual point, I see. If you don't believe the billionaires added over $600 billion in new value to the economy over the past year, then you concede that they are somehow able to extract (economically) unearned rent in order to make that much money. Which actually is evidence of the thing Patine was talking about.

The actual point was about Bezos buying election results. I do not know what your point is.

What are you measuring?
Are you talking personal billionaire contributions to the economy or their corporate contributions?
What do you see as the source of the new found wealth of the billionaires in 2020?
Are you complaining that the billionaires got richer without having to work (or contribute) for their new wealth? That is nothing new. Everyone wants passive growth in assets, but its the richest that get it most easily. All homeowners expect it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Lexicus Did you choose a cap level in the poll? The poll is not public, so would you share it?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I picked $100m. Won't defend that either way other than to say I do believe people should be able to get rich but at some point enough is enough.

 

[stinkubus]

A cap on inheritence is good. The problem comes with the excess. there is usually an excess. Say, I die with $20 million estate and two kids. each get $3 million leaving $14 million. What happens to that money or those assets? Must it be donated? Taxed? Granted to the government? Assets are often not very liquid and can be a problem to turn into cash. If you are going to cap the amount that can be inherited, you need a path for the excess estate to follow. Dispersing a large estate can be both troublesome and expensive.

We transfer control and ownership of large enterprises through the bankruptcy and the probate courts. There' are existing models. The only reason it would need to be expensive would be administrative sabotage because any serious bill wouldn't have enough exemptions to build a cottage industry around contesting them.

There are existing legal mechanisms for most left wing goals. The trick is winning enough elections in a row to get your lawyers and judges in the right places.

 

[Birdjaguar]

We transfer control and ownership of large enterprises through the bankruptcy and the probate courts. There' are existing models. The only reason it would need to be expensive would be administrative sabotage because any serious bill wouldn't have enough exemptions to build a cottage industry around contesting them.

There are existing legal mechanisms for most left wing goals. The trick is winning enough elections in a row to get your lawyers and judges in the right places.

An estate is not like a corporation. A typical large estate involves: multiple houses, furniture, household furnishings, bank accounts, clothing, cars, boats, stocks and bonds, jewelry, paintings, trusts, real estate holdings, etc. $20, 40, 60 million or more of all that stuff can be a huge mess to deal with. It can take years.

 

[Lexicus]

What do you see as the source of the new found wealth of the billionaires in 2020?

The answer is literally in the sentence you quote right there

@Lexicus Did you choose a cap level in the poll? The poll is not public, so would you share it?

I picked $5m arbitrarily. I don't believe hard caps on the monetary value of assets are a particularly good idea though.

 

[Birdjaguar]

We transfer control and ownership of large enterprises through the bankruptcy and the probate courts. There' are existing models. The only reason it would need to be expensive would be administrative sabotage because any serious bill wouldn't have enough exemptions to build a cottage industry around contesting them. There are existing legal mechanisms for most left wing goals. The trick is winning enough elections in a row to get your lawyers and judges in the right places.

The answer is literally in the sentence you quote right there

The 2020 growth of the wealth of the richest was not connected to anything in stinkbus' post. And, what is above is unrelated to whether or not the billionaires contributed $600 billion to the economy. You've lost me completely on what it is you are actually talking about. Sorry. You should just ask a straight question rather than refer to ambiguous posts by others.

I picked $5m arbitrarily. I don't believe hard caps on the monetary value of assets are a particularly good idea though.

How do you reconcile your socialistic values of social and economic equality with unlimited asset accumulation by the richest people.

 

[Lexicus]

How do you reconcile your socialistic values of social and economic equality with unlimited asset accumulation by the richest people.

Not favoring hard caps =/= unlimited accumulation

The 2020 growth of the wealth of the richest was not connected to anything in stinkbus' post. And, what is above is unrelated to whether or not the billionaires contributed $600 billion to the economy. You've lost me completely on what it is you are actually talking about. Sorry. You should just ask a straight question rather than refer to ambiguous posts by others.

It was connected to stinkubus' post, but we'll just move past that for now.

Current economic theory says that if the billionaires made $600 billion, it's because they added that amount in value to the economy. Similarly, Amazon workers make $25,000 per year because that's their marginal contribution to the economy.

I did ask a straight question, incidentally. "Do you believe the billionaires contributed $600 billion in value to the economy this year?" is a straight question. It's you who refuses to give a straight answer.

 

[Patine]

When was the most recent "rapid and uncontrolled inflation" that devalued the purchasing power of the wealthy?

When was the last stated and enforced hard wealth cap?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not favoring hard caps =/= unlimited accumulation

It was connected to stinkubus' post, but we'll just move past that for now.

Current economic theory says that if the billionaires made $600 billion, it's because they added that amount in value to the economy. Similarly, Amazon workers make $25,000 per year because that's their marginal contribution to the economy.

I did ask a straight question, incidentally. "Do you believe the billionaires contributed $600 billion in value to the economy this year?" is a straight question. It's you who refuses to give a straight answer.

And in answer to your question (when you asked it above) I asked you these questions:

1. What are you measuring?
2. Are you talking personal billionaire contributions to the economy or their corporate contributions?
3. What do you see as the source of the new found wealth of the billionaires in 2020?
4. Are you complaining that the billionaires got richer without having to work (or contribute) for their new wealth? That is nothing new. Everyone wants passive growth in assets, but its the richest that get it most easily. All homeowners expect it.

I was looking for a bit of clarity so I could answer your question.
OK. That being said, I'll move on.
Current economic theory must be wrong. I know how much my assets increased so far this year. Call it 10x. I also know about how much I contributed to the economy: 2x. Little guys like me and big guys who own billions saw increases in asset value without doing any thing. As I said up thread it was a windfall. If I had to identify a cause, I would chalk it up to investor demand to own more stocks. I do not know how economic theory accounts for that demand. It is a paper wealth that can disappear tomorrow, unless I cash it out and take profits now. that would generate federal taxes. So, I do not believe that the billionaire class contributed $600 billion to the economy in 2020. But if they did spend money on stocks or invest in VC efforts or buy a new island or a $30 million house, they did contribute something to the GDP.

Now, Amazon hiring 100,000 workers at some rate is a direct contribution to GDP as it puts both all new money and increased money into the economy. Whatever the exact amount per employee is, one can always complain that it is not enough, but not being enough to suit your thinking or the effort to make society fairer, do not change the fact that it is a real action that will likely improve the lives of those people hired.

 

[Lexicus]

Current economic theory must be wrong.

good

 

[Birdjaguar]

When was the last stated and enforced hard wealth cap?

I do not believe that the US has ever had one, but I do believe that we know all about inflation rates for the past 100 years or so.

 

[Patine]

I do not believe that the US has ever had one, but I do believe that we know all about inflation rates for the past 100 years or so.

But my point dealt with inflation and a wealth cap coterminously - at least in the hypothetical the point is made. Separating the two concepts inherently distorts any response made upon that premise, and doesn't quite answer the question.