Is there a 'correct' standard of income most legitimate to critique accumulation of wealth and support redistribution?

[Inuhanyou]

Granted, i'm coming at this from a specific place on the political spectrum but i'd like to get opinions on this.

From what i've seen, it seems to be the case that regardless of the position on the societal ladder or income scale, its always a taboo to talk about the true impact of class conflict and wealth redistribution.

People like Warren buffet make the case for higher taxes on the wealthy for example to fund different programs such as single payer healthcare and he's sort of eye rolled across the room.

Spoiler

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw9FkoyTjWU [/youtube]

People like Disney's heiress support higher taxes are is actively attacked on television for her stance.

Spoiler

And of course we have people like Ray Dalio who is one of the biggest hedge fund managers in the world calling for wealth distribution and is also openly attacked for it.

Spoiler

In all of these cases, the basic same prevalent theme as a rebuttal. "If you want to give away your money so much, why don't you donate it to charity"?

This has a direct connection to the prevalent attitude at the World Economic forum where they primarily talk about philanthropy as a solution to the problems of global societies rather than government support and reinvestment, which was called out by Rutger Bregman

Spoiler

And of course, the working poor and middle class largely have no voice in the situation the situation always comes down to politicians in the US negotiating over how much to cut or means test the benefits and economic programs they desperately need in times of crisis.

So the prevailing wisdom seems to be, demonize poor people because they are jealous of rich people. Demonize well off people because they are hypocrites for supporting wealth redistribution?

Its just a fact that no person advocating for wealth redistribution hates wealth, but rather is advocating the fair redistribution of it back to the people who most desperately need it instead of hoarding it and using it to cheat our broken capitalist system.

Its become almost a meme for how the poor have been ignored by the media and upper tier of society in regards to priorities and daily struggles of the lower classes. And how capital is prioritized at large.



So i ask you Era, is there a legitimate range in the income ladder, a legitimate societal position where one can talk about these issues without being strawmanned or criticized?

 

[Cilidra]

I do think social democracy where the basic needs are guarantied by the government and progressive taxation is a really good solutions. Having things like universal healthcare, wellfare for unemployed or basic income, a responsible government that keep abusive business and none sustainable environmental practice and free or small usage fee education along with a progressive taxation system that limits taxation evasion can greatly decrease social inequalities. A capitalism system keep in check is probably still the best system long term.

 

[Another Castle]

Wealth hoarding contributes nothing positive to society. Cap it, tax it, boom- capitalism is saved if that's what you so desire.

 

[Deleted member 50969]

The human element will block any decent tax proposals sent our way.

 

[SugarNoodles]

It's kind of hilarious the way Americans react to theoretical taxes. A few months ago my friend was talking to someone she knows who makes maybe a bit above 100k a year.

My friend goes "I think that if you make more than 1 billion dollars in a year, everything beyond that first billion dollars should be taxed at 100%" and her friend reacts with the utmost indignation to the mere idea.


People who will never come close to making even 1/1000 of 1 billion dollars in a year will stand on desks and beat their chests for their right to keep the money that THEY theoretically earned past that initial billion in some parallel universe.

It is utterly bizarre.

 

[The Fabled Englishman]

I'm not sure what your question is really getting at. No, it shouldn't matter what social position you happen to be in when debating with someone who is intent on arguing in bad faith. If someone is arguing from the point of view of the social position of their opponent, they aren't addressing the core of the argument itself, clearly.

The question of wealth distribution is one of ideology. Supply-side economics is heavily entrenched in conservative thinking and is difficult to falsify because it's formed the backbone of American economic dogma for the better part of the past three decades.

 

[TeaberryShark]

Billionaires shouldn't exist, period. Hoarding that much wealth is a sickness and a blight on humanity as a whole. We all made that wealth not one single individual. This is my opinion of course, feel free to shame me for it. 😂

 

[Inuhanyou]

I'm not sure what your question is really getting at .

Click to shrink...

I'm saying, is there any merit to the arguments of people who shit on those who advocate for wealth and power redistribution? IE is someone rich saying concentration of wealth is a problem and someone poor saying concentration of wealth is a problem any different in the eyes of people who like to strawman about these ideas?

I say so because social democratic leftists have been painted not just by the right wing, but even centrists in many cases as being hypocritical if they are apart of the capitalist system yet argue that it is skewed in a biased manner.

Is this a real debate we are having or is it really just about people trying to deflect away from the points being made by character assassinating those who would make them?

 

[MisterHero]

It would probably be a case by case argument based on who suggests it and whether they already share their money and power.

If a billionaire changes how ordinary people live through scientific progress, lead in charities and social causes, sure I'll agree with them.

If they own private jets, yachts and submarines and tell me that I'm being wasteful or that there should be a limit to what I can own, they can screw off

 

[Inuhanyou]

It would probably be a case by case argument based on who suggests it and whether they already share their money and power.

If a billionaire changes how ordinary people live through scientific progress, lead in charities and social causes, sure I'll agree with them.

If they own private jets, yachts and submarines and tell me that I'm being wasteful or that there should be a limit to what I can own, they can screw off

Click to shrink...

If its a rich person leading the way attacking the concept of redistribution, i think it doesnt matter what kind of good work they do. The subject becomes tricky when its someone who has wealth advocating for greatest scrutiny of people of their own stripe, which is why i kind of brought this subject up. Its a hard conversation to have

 

[kamineko]

yes, for sure

EDIT, wait. Is it fair to have these arguments, or is it fair to dismiss these arguments. I think we should be having these arguments

 

[samoyed]

Your legitimacy doesn't depend upon your income range or position, but your integrity. It's uniquely harder for the billionaire class to display convincing integrity because, well, they contribute overwhelmingly to the problem of inequality even if they don't intend to. It's baked into the billionaire class.

 

[Ogodei]

This is a Gandhi-esque "first they ignore you... and then you win" kind of situation. Wealth redistribution was completely outside of mainstream thought before, say, Piketty, (although Buffet's been on his "tax the rich more" bent for at least the last decade).

You know how the alt-right always gets shit for mainstreaming terrible ideas by just getting them repeated enough? It also works for good ideas. Just like how all of a sudden a few presidential candidates are talking openly about Reparations, which is something I *never* thought I'd hear an American politician talk about (in my mind, it's the number one thing, even above Affirmative Action, to kick any latent racial resentment a white person has into absolute overdrive).

Point being, it doesn't matter that these people are being attacked for what they're suggesting. What matters is whether the political will to change things can be mustered.

 

[Earthstrike]

It's kind of hilarious the way Americans react to theoretical taxes. A few months ago my friend was talking to someone she knows who makes maybe a bit above 100k a year.

My friend goes "I think that if you make more than 1 billion dollars in a year, everything beyond that first billion dollars should be taxed at 100%" and her friend reacts with the utmost indignation to the mere idea.


People who will never come close to making even 1/1000 of 1 billion dollars in a year will stand on desks and beat their chests for their right to keep the money that THEY theoretically earned past that initial billion in some parallel universe.

It is utterly bizarre.

Click to shrink...

The example was kind of stupid. Taxing anything at 100% doesn't make sense.

 

[samoyed]

The example was kind of stupid. Taxing anything at 100% doesn't make sense.

Click to shrink...

Why not?

 

[spam musubi]

OP, while I agree with you, I don't think the way you've framed it is conducive to discussion. You are making a statement, and passive-aggressively framing it as a question. You're stating your opinion as the starting point, then expecting people to prove you wrong, but you don't actually want to be proven wrong. I don't know what you want from this thread. People are just going to agree with you or make minor nitpicks and then the thread will die.

 

[Earthstrike]

Why not?

Click to shrink...

There is zero incentive to continue generating an income at that point. I mean, I have to bring up the idea of the laffer curve, since conservatives use(d) it to idiotically claim we can't raise taxes, but we know that peak is around 95%. Obviously 100% is non-viable.

 

[samoyed]

There is zero incentive to continue generating an income at that point.

Click to shrink...

Why is this a bad thing?

And no one is generating an income of over $1 billion anyway. The only way for you to generate $1 billion a year is if you own stock whose value appreciates $1b a year. The real problem of it is taxing stocks that are not capital gains.

 

[SugarNoodles]

There is zero incentive to continue generating an income at that point. I mean, I have to bring up the idea of the laffer curve, since conservatives use(d) it to idiotically claim we can't raise taxes, but we know that peak is around 95%. Obviously 100% is non-viable.

Click to shrink...

God fucking forbid people do things with something other than monetary income as their incentive jesus fucking christ.

 

[Earthstrike]

Why is this a bad thing?

And no one is generating an income of over $1 billion anyway. The only way for you to generate $1 billion a year is if you own stock whose value appreciates $1b a year. The real problem of it is taxing stocks that are not capital gains.

Click to shrink...

It's theoretically a bad thing as an economy is the sum of all the economic actions the people within it take, so if you are deincentivizing some non-zero percentage of activity within it you are not administering the economy optimally.

God fucking forbid people do things with something other than monetary income as their incentive jesus fucking christ.

Click to shrink...

Does it have to be a choice? Does everyone have to have the same incentive?

 

[samoyed]

It's theoretically a bad thing as an economy is the sum of all the economic actions the people within it take, so if you are deincentivizing some non-zero percentage of activity within it you are not administering the economy optimally.

Click to shrink...

An optimal economy is not necessarily an equitable economy, I'll trade some efficiency for more equality with a 100% tax, thanks.

"Why not both?"

Have you seen the inequality in this country? Do you know how much of it is driven by the pursuit of efficiency? In my estimation it's: all of it.

 

[BossAttack]

No, because their counter-arguments aren't based on logic.

Rich person calls for wealth redistribution.
Response: Well, of course you could afford it. You'd still be a billionaire if you gave away half your wealth. Go donate to charity.

Poor-Middle class person calls for wealth redistribution.
Response: Stop asking for a hand out you lazy bum. Work harder.

 

[Inuhanyou]

OP, while I agree with you, I don't think the way you've framed it is conducive to discussion. You are making a statement, and passive-aggressively framing it as a question. You're stating your opinion as the starting point, then expecting people to prove you wrong, but you don't actually want to be proven wrong. I don't know what you want from this thread. People are just going to agree with you or make minor nitpicks and then the thread will die.

Click to shrink...

While your right, i wasnt really operating from a objective view, i was musing on things i had seen from elsewhere and stating my personal view on it while asking for others thoughts

 

[Earthstrike]

An optimal economy is not necessarily an equitable economy, I'll trade some efficiency for more equality with a 100% tax, thanks.

"Why not both?"

Have you seen the inequality in this country? Do you know how much of it is driven by the pursuit of efficiency? In my estimation it's: all of it.

Click to shrink...

You can't redistribute what you don't collect.

 

[samoyed]

You can't redistribute what you don't collect.

Click to shrink...

We don't redistribute what we do collect.

More seriously, for the billionaires of the country/world, they derive most of their wealth from their assets and the appreciation of those assets. However, they cannot actually directly control the market price of those assets. A 100% tax on wealth past a certain point (say, $1b) will enable the government to just literally reach in and redistribute some of that juicy Amazon stock Bezos has and there's nothing he can do about it so long as he continues to maintain Amazon. The idea that he would intentionally sabotage Amazon's growth to make sure his net worth never breeches the $1billion mark I suggested is absurd. For one, it seems impossible. Two, it leaves him open him to competition from competitors who're not trying to play tax avoidance by gaming their net worth. Three, because of two, there comes to be a soft-cap on the amount of corporate influence any individual can achieve in their lifetime. So long as corporate influence can translate to political and social influence, this is a Good Thing because it deconsolidates political, economic and social power.

 

[TaterTots]

We should determine what is "wealthy" first. When people go around claiming someone that makes $100k per year is rich, you realize its not so black and white. That person could have 5 kids or something. Multi billionaire's on the other hand...the fuck you need that much money for?

 

[Boiled Goose]

The uber wealthy are definitely too wealthy.

Estate tax should be like 98 percent for highest bracket.

 

[Arebours]

worker cooperatives!

 

[duckroll]

Socialism is good and the concept of wealth is unnecessary. Everyone who contributes to society deserves to be able to live at a comfortable level where they don't have to worry about health, education, and injury making their life a financial hell.

We should determine what is "wealthy" first. When people go around claiming someone that makes $100k per year is rich, you realize its not so black and white. That person could have 5 kids or something. Multi billionaire's on the other hand...the fuck you need that much money for?

Click to shrink...

Wealth should not be a concept of measurement against something else but against personal circumstances.

 

[Earthstrike]

We don't redistribute what we do collect.

More seriously, for the billionaires of the country/world, they derive most of their wealth from their assets and the appreciation of those assets. However, they cannot actually directly control the market price of those assets. A 100% tax on wealth past a certain point (say, $1b) will enable the government to just literally reach in and redistribute some of that juicy Amazon stock Bezos has and there's nothing he can do about it so long as he continues to maintain Amazon. The idea that he would intentionally sabotage Amazon's growth to make sure his net worth never breeches the $1billion mark I suggested is absurd. For one, it seems impossible. Two, it leaves him open him to competition from competitors who're not trying to play tax avoidance by gaming their net worth. Three, because of two, there comes to be a soft-cap on the amount of corporate influence any individual can achieve in their lifetime. So long as corporate influence can translate to political and social influence, this is a Good Thing because it deconsolidates political, economic and social power.

Click to shrink...

I never made the bolded argument. Not sure why you are trying to strawman this.

 

[samoyed]

I never made the bolded argument. Not sure why you are trying to strawman this.

Click to shrink...

You said and I quote:

Taxing anything at 100% doesn't make sense.

Click to shrink...

Then when pressed you said:

There is zero incentive to continue generating an income at that point.

Click to shrink...

However I would (and did) argue some forms of wealth can grow without being incentivized to, and that the bulk of billionaire "wealth", is not actually in salaried income, but owned assets. So, taxing these assets past a certain threshold at 100% would make perfect sense, because incentive doesn't come into it at any point.

I'm sorry for being overly pedantic but if you said "taxing income at 100% is a bad idea because it would disincentivize income growth and create less taxable income in the long run", I would have no problem with it because it's theoretically true.

But you didn't, you said "taxing anything at 100% doesn't make sense". You implied that all wealth growth is incentivized and this is inaccurate as far as I can tell.

 

[Earthstrike]

this:

There is zero incentive to continue generating an income at that point.

Click to shrink...

does not translate into this:

The idea that he would intentionally sabotage Amazon's growth to make sure his net worth never breeches the $1billion mark I suggested is absurd.

Click to shrink...

You are doing the conservative argument technique where you you attempt to put words in my mouth merely because you feel Jeff Bezos intentionally sabotaging his own company is somehow a logical extrapolation from my claims.

 

[samoyed]

You are doing the conservative argument technique where you you attempt to put words in my mouth merely because you feel Jeff Bezos intentionally sabotaging his own company is somehow a logical extrapolation from my claims.

Click to shrink...

Explain to me how Bezos would avoid "generating an income" past $1b then, I'm really curious. I gave it some thought and decided its impossible.

 

[Earthstrike]

Explain to me how Bezos would avoid "generating an income" past $1b then, I'm really curious. I gave it some thought and decided its impossible.

Click to shrink...

Why do you think this is the point of the argument? Your statement seems to imply that so long as that government collects money off a "100% of something" tax the tax is therefore justified. I never held that a 100% tax wouldn't generate revenue.

 

[samoyed]

I never held that a 100% tax wouldn't generate revenue.

Click to shrink...

How am I supposed to interpret this then?

You can't redistribute what you don't collect.

Click to shrink...

I took it to mean "you won't see income above $1b if you've removed the incentive for it, so you'll never tax it at 100% and you won't be able to redistribute what isn't there". Is this or is this not what you implied?

 

[Earthstrike]

How am I supposed to interpret this then?


I took it to mean "you won't see income above $1b if you've removed the incentive for it, so you'll never tax it at 100% and you won't be able to redistribute what isn't there". Is this or is this not what you implied?

Click to shrink...

I understand and do see how someone can reasonably take my statement that way. My opposition to the idea of a marginal tax rate hitting 100% comes from other ideas concerning economics and what it means to administrate an economy well. I'll be honest. It feels like our conversation is adversarial in nature when I don't think it should be. If you have a genuine interest in why I think what I do, maybe we could chat on discord or something, as typing out the background and nature of my economic ideas is a lot.

 

[baron doggystyle von woof]

I mean it's really not that hard. A lot of European countries have social healthcare and education and still have a shit ton of millionaires and even billionaires.

And the irony is that "regular" Americans do actually already pay high taxes, but they get nothing in it for return.

You need to tax the rich more and eventually think about taxing the automation.

 

[samoyed]

I understand and do see how someone can reasonably take my statement that way. My opposition to the idea of a marginal tax rate hitting 100% comes from other ideas concerning economics and what it means to administrate an economy well. I'll be honest. It feels like our conversation is adversarial in nature when I don't think it should be. If you have a genuine interest in why I think what I do, maybe we could chat on discord or something, as typing out the background and nature of my economic ideas is a lot.

Click to shrink...

No need, I'll take it as said and just disengage.

 

[gigaslash]

I don't know why each instance of redistribution that's usually discussed is the redistribution between the private individuals instead of redistribution between the public and the private. Personally I'll never support tax increases as a means of addressing inequality in a world where the US already spend nearly 750 billion a year on its military (and many other states do the same, albeit usually on a magnitude lower that the US). Redistribute wealth from wasteful military spending to your population first, and then we can discuss what else needs to be done.

 

[samoyed]

That military spending is buoyed by lobbyists who act on behalf of the "military industrial complex" which is dominated by private individuals. Challenging military spending is ultimately challenging private power and private wealth.

 

[FranktheRabbit]

God fucking forbid people do things with something other than monetary income as their incentive jesus fucking christ.

Click to shrink...

You have a much rosier view of human nature than I do. I'm not sure where all these selfless people who are willing to work for free after earning "enough money" are at, but I'd sure like to meet them and shake their hands.

Don't get me wrong, people who pursue the almighty dollar so that they can live an excessive lifestyle, especially when they do so at the expense of others (e.g. big pharma, pollution-generating businesses, gun manufacturers, divisive/ sensationalist journalism) are obscene. But a 100% tax rate is just silly. I can't think of anyone who would intentionally earn enough to fall into that tax bracket.

Even for the scant few people who do donate their time, they tend to do so at not-for-profit charities, not at for-profit businesses. A 100% tax rate just doesn't make any sense.

 

[makingmusic476]

So the prevailing wisdom seems to be, demonize poor people because they are jealous of rich people. Demonize well off people because they are hypocrites for supporting wealth redistribution?

Click to shrink...

Thoughts on Russell Brand notwithstanding:

 

[SugarNoodles]

You have a much rosier view of human nature than I do. I'm not sure where all these selfless people who are willing to work for free after earning "enough money" are at, but I'd sure like to meet them and shake their hands.

Don't get me wrong, people who pursue the almighty dollar so that they can live an excessive lifestyle, especially when they do so at the expense of others (e.g. big pharma, pollution-generating businesses, gun manufacturers, divisive/ sensationalist journalism) are obscene. But a 100% tax rate is just silly. I can't think of anyone who would intentionally earn enough to fall into that tax bracket.

Even for the scant few people who do donate their time, they tend to do so at not-for-profit charities, not at for-profit businesses. A 100% tax rate just doesn't make any sense.

Click to shrink...

Tell me one bad thing that would result from Jeff Bezos not wanting to work.

 

[samoyed]

As I said earlier, there is little you can do to not fall into the $1b bracket in terms of wealth past a certain point of personal wealth because you don't control the value of your assets (the market does). No one has a salaried income of $1b, it is a completely pointless conjecture. All the billionaires of the world have their wealth tied up in assets and capital.

Also it can be 100% or 99% or 95% or whatever ratio is comfortable with you that's over 70%. The point is that in our current system, billionaires existing contributes to inequality and a podunk increase of 1% or 2% on tax rate is not going to change that.

 

[FranktheRabbit]

Tell me one bad thing that would result from Jeff Bezos not wanting to work.

Click to shrink...

Ha! Good point.

Sure, if you want to decentivize billionaires from coming up with new ways to nickel and dime you, an income cap (in the form of a 100% tax bracket) isn't a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, there are so many ways to avoid declaring income (through financial devices that delay the recognition of income, paper corporations used to hide personal wealth, and tax deductions which were lobbied for by the wealthy and enacted into law by the GOP) that it probably wouldn't matter.

. . . But I like the sentiment.

 

[fargodog]

I do think social democracy where the basic needs are guarantied by the government and progressive taxation is a really good solutions. Having things like universal healthcare, wellfare for unemployed or basic income, a responsible government that keep abusive business and none sustainable environmental practice and free or small usage fee education along with a progressive taxation system that limits taxation evasion can greatly decrease social inequalities. A capitalism system keep in check is probably still the best system long term.

Click to shrink...

I generally agree with this, though add that reasonable and correct measures should be in place to ensure workers are treated fairly and that companies behave responsibility. Capitalism should operate in a manner that increases the quality of life and the opportunities for the people within the system, and not for the sole process of accruing profit for an upper layer of investors.

One thing modern day capitalism needs to find solutions for however is how to navigate the inherent rise and fall. Constant growth is impossible, and planning to only grow only leads to tremendously damaging cost cutting measures when you don't.

 

[SugarNoodles]

Ha! Good point.

Sure, if you want to decentivize billionaires from coming up with new ways to nickel and dime you, an income cap (in the form of a 100% tax bracket) isn't a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, there are so many ways to avoid declaring income (through financial devices that delay the recognition of income, paper corporations used to hide personal wealth, and tax deductions which were lobbied for by the wealthy and enacted into law by the GOP) that it probably wouldn't matter.

. . . But I like the sentiment.

Click to shrink...

You're right, which is why we need to talk about wealth tax and not strictly tax in terms of income.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I don't know why each instance of redistribution that's usually discussed is the redistribution between the private individuals instead of redistribution between the public and the private. Personally I'll never support tax increases as a means of addressing inequality in a world where the US already spend nearly 750 billion a year on its military (and many other states do the same, albeit usually on a magnitude lower that the US). Redistribute wealth from wasteful military spending to your population first, and then we can discuss what else needs to be done.

Click to shrink...

I mean, that would go hand in hand with redistribution of wealth. Reprioritizing our national budget in its entirety(IE everything we spend currently) along with more progressive taxation re-geared back towards the top, going higher as a percentage in increments(and of course more nuanced marginal tax rates as well). Getting rid of loopholes, strengthening ultra rich specific safeguards such as estate taxes and such.