Page 3 of 6 [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Cap on wealth a person can earn/money they can control yay or nay?
Yes 25%  25%  [ 7 ]
No 61%  61%  [ 17 ]
Maybe 14%  14%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 28

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 33,669
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Nov 2020, 3:29 pm

Mountain Goat wrote:
The problem with that is why bother to prosper? That in itself will collapse large industries which employ people as they will rech a point where their owners will reach the cap and just give up.


Once they reach say the millionaire mark, how much more prosperity do they possibly need though?

Like, people will seriously just give up on everything because they can't have 10s of billions of dollars to themself? I guess I just cannot see thinking like that.


_________________
We won't go back.


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

22 Nov 2020, 3:55 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
The problem with that is why bother to prosper? That in itself will collapse large industries which employ people as they will rech a point where their owners will reach the cap and just give up.


Once they reach say the millionaire mark, how much more prosperity do they possibly need though?

Like, people will seriously just give up on everything because they can't have 10s of billions of dollars to themself? I guess I just cannot see thinking like that.


Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos do not have 10s of billions of dollars in hard cash. Their wealth is in stocks. If they sell large amounts of their stock holdings, the value will tank.

The only rightful owners of a company are the people who have invested in it or inherited it.


_________________
“He who controls the spice controls the universe.”


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

22 Nov 2020, 4:47 pm

Mountain Goat wrote:
Healthcare...
Some of the aaiting lists are because the system allows the private healthcare to have priority, thus under our system, the rich who can afford private healthcare can get to queuejump and be seen almost straight away.

A few years, when I looked up how much a NHS doctor earns, I couldn't believe it.

"If you’re a doctor starting your specialist training in 2020 your basic salary will be £38,694 to £49,036".

"If you’re working as a specialty doctor you’ll earn a basic salary of £41,158 to £76,751"
https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explor ... ay-doctors

1 dollar = 1.33 pound sterling

so UK doctor specialists make .... in US dollars ... $54,704 to $102, 078 / year. :D :D :D

It's so weird, so different than America.

Those wages are embarrassing for someone who spent 8+ in college.

One has to ask, can you really attract talented doctors to work there? I would think there would be huge brain drain, and you would be left with mediocre people or lazy, half-assers like me. :D


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


madbutnotmad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,678
Location: Jersey UK

22 Nov 2020, 5:14 pm

In principle, putting a cap on the amount of income is moral and good, but in practice.
it is unlikely to gain popularity and be voted in, especially among the people of government
who are generally self serving capitalist politicians (even in communist countries.

I have thought long and hard about such a subject, and personally i feel rather than cap wealth
(and kill individuals incentive to work hard for self gain).

I feel that enforcing a global policy of x % of profit sharing for all businesses.
This means that when business is bad and there is little profit, the businesses give little or no profit sharing, just basic wage.

However, when profit is high, even in such unusual circumstances that we presently face due to the corona virus.
then those who make the profit are forced by law to share x % of their profits equally among all staff, no matter as to how high or low they are in the country. All members of a company are then valued and considered an essential part of the country.

I also feel that this strategy is also effective at achieving several other objectives, including
increasing income tax overall, as if you increase the low to middle earners income, they are likely to pay a percentage to the tax man, in contrary to how most business owners pay tax, as many of the owners will simply get their accountant to write off extra income off to expenses or transfer their capital to a tax haven (such as the one that i live on), where they pay no tax on their income.

When you increase a low earner's income however, the low earner not only really appreciates the extra income, and thus gives them more incentive to work harder and be a good work mate, but they usually spend any extra, as most low earners don't really have that much disposable income, so any extra disposable income will get spent quick.

Increasing low earners disposable income if done across the board, helps promote spending which in turn helps businesses stay afloat and increase their profits, which in turn increases their income tax, but also keeps the economy buoyant and more importantly prevents the economy, whether local or global, from stagnating and going into crisis/ recession. as which happens when people stop spending! because they are scared about going into a recession!

The main downside of the concept of global profit sharing across the board, is that big corporations will make a percentage less profit, and thus will not be able to expand as quick, so progress in some areas will slow down.

Whether that is necessarily a bad thing, I think that is debatable. obviously, in certain areas, slowing down progress would be negative, such as in the areas of health science etc.

However, in other areas of life, it probably wouldn't have that much affect. I mean, personally, i could live without having tomorrows technology today, if it meant that the entire world benefited from this, but especially the lower earners, who generally get a crappy deal too.

But also think of how much extra tax income the various governments will get, which will make managing human society a great deal easier.

I think that globally applied profit sharing really would help address some of the inequalities that the human race has had to put up with for many centuries, while at the same time protecting the worlds economy from suffering from crisis after crisis (which inevitably results in many people dying).

I feel profit sharing of this type would be the way ahead, in order to save the future.

It would just need someone to then work out a way to solve the global inequalities that exist in terms of value of property etc. As there still is massive inequality of the value of land, services and goods from one country to another/

Hopefully one day the human race will grow up enough or event technology that will make capitalism obsolete.
For example, imagine if someone invented machines as seen on star trek that can make anything out of practically nothing.

Then owning stuff would have less value / worth, and the human race could get rid of their obsessive materialism as well as attributing ownership of material objects to a superior value.

I wish... if only... but i guess the human race first need to get past their religious and political indifferences.



domineekee
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,254
Location: UK

22 Nov 2020, 5:32 pm

Support absolutely, I find it obscene that some flaunt their excessive wealth while others lack basic necessities.



kitesandtrainsandcats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2016
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,496
Location: Missouri

22 Nov 2020, 5:45 pm

Mountain Goat wrote:
There is another issue with capping, or highly taxing the rich. In general the rich bring in more tax into the country then many poor do put together as the rich earn more. If one taxes the rich higher or if one caps what they can earn, one risks loosing the rich to other countries who will not oeanalize them so much, and the more rich one looses the poorer ones country becomes where the poorer people have to be taxed more to compensate. So one need to keep the rich just as much as one needs everyone else, as everyone is valueable.


That brings this related but different thing to mind, https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xp ... story.html

Quote:
Boat-builders fight to stay afloat as luxury tax pulls down sales
Tom BowmanTHE BALTIMORE SUN

Washington -- Last year, some 220 workers built boats at Pearson Yachts Corp. in Portsmouth, R.I. This year, there are 50 workers left.

On Maryland's Eastern Shore, Harrison Yacht Sales in Graysonville has trimmed its 95 employees to eight.

Those job cuts are among an estimated 19,000 blue-collar marine jobs lost throughout the nation this year. The culprit, boat industry officials say: a 10-percent federal "luxury tax" that went into effect in January on new pleasure boats that cost more than $100,000.

Created to hit the blue-blazer crowd, the tax has instead slammed into the blue-collar worker like a summer squall, zTC according to boatyard owners and officials who track the 450,000-worker industry.

Sales of boats that cost more than $100,000 fell by 56 percent one month after the tax went into effect, according to the National Marine Manufacturers Association. Some boatyard owners, who report no sales this year, have been forced to lay off workers or declare bankruptcy.

That turmoil has sparked a reaction by members of Congress from coastal states such as Louisiana and Maryland, which have lost marine jobs. This week, at a Senate subcommittee hearing, legislators will begin the struggle to repeal the tax that has hurt people like Dave Harrison.

Mr. Harrison, owner of Harrison Yacht, said the small number of workers he has left sell less-expensive boats. "Sales over $100,000 have stopped," said Mr. Harrison, who last year sold $1.8 million in yachts that would have been subject to the new federal tax. "To date, we have yet to collect $1 in luxury tax."


_________________
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011


kitesandtrainsandcats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2016
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,496
Location: Missouri

22 Nov 2020, 5:48 pm

See also: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xp ... story.html

Quote:
A soak-the-rich tax torpedoed working people
Mike RoykoTHE BALTIMORE EVENING SUN

IT SEEMED LIKE a smart idea to congressmen at the time. In fact, it's always a clever political move, although not very original: Soak the rich. Let fat cats pay more tax because they can afford it.

And what better symbol of self-indulgent wealth than The Yacht? Yeah, look at those rich swells, in their fancy yachting whites, lounging in a harbor, guzzling gin and tonic while decent, hard-working folk can't afford a rowboat.

Nobody ever lost an election by boldly standing up to rich and pampered yachtsmen.

So Congress last year showed its concern for the middle class by enacting a special 10 percent tax on certain luxury items, including boats that cost more than $100,000.

They were in such a hurry to grandstand that they didn't bother to hold hearings, get opinions from the boating industry or talk to economists.

If they had, they might have been told what would happen. And they wouldn't be feeling as stupid as they are right now.

It didn't occur to them that somebody considering a $300,000 boat might say: "Let's see, in this state I have to add about $20,000 in sales tax. Now they want me to pay another $20,000 in federal taxes? So that's $40,000 more. And since I'm going to finance the deal, I'm also going to be paying interest on that $40,000. Hey, forget it. I'll buy a good used boat instead, or maybe I'll just charter one."

It seems that a lot of potential boat buyers thought that way. Which shouldn't have been a surprise.

...

Quote:
And how much revenue has the boat tax brought to the federal government? Economists aren't sure, but they say it's possible that the cost of collecting it is wiping out what is being collected.

That means Congress came up with a tax that loses money, has wiped out thousands of jobs and deprives the Treasury of millions in income tax dollars. Not to mention the misery that comes with being tossed out of work or losing a business.


_________________
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011


kitesandtrainsandcats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2016
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,496
Location: Missouri

22 Nov 2020, 5:55 pm

since I like to have 3 references to a thing, 1 last, and I shall begin with its end,

Quote:
Chalk this up as a costly, painful example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and vow that it will never happen again.


https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xp ... story.html

Quote:
... Congress' adoption of the tax in 1990 shows the dangers of a tax philosophy tilted too strongly in the direction of "soak the rich." Yes, rich people should pay a fair share of taxes, but taxing them too harshly can -- and did -- backfire, with harmful consequences for many non-rich people.

The tax amounted to 10 percent of the cost of any new boats selling for more than $100,000. It was so exorbitant, and so unfair, that many yacht buyers just stopped buying.

The result: Only a modest amount of tax dollars were collected. Meanwhile, the boat industry sank as if scuttled, putting thousands of middle-income employees out of work.

Nationally, yacht sales dipped from 7,500 in 1990 to 3,500 in 1992. There were 30,000 jobs lost nationwide, 8,000 in South Florida, where one in every four of America's boats is built.

President Clinton and members of Congress who agreed on a compromise deficit reduction bill deserve credit for repealing the luxury tax at the same time. Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr., R-Fort Lauderdale, introduced the first bill to repeal the tax and was a leader in the repeal campaign.

Repeal is one thing; rebuilding the shipwrecked boat building industry is something else. Marine industry officials predict a slow recovery, with many boat building companies unlikely to reopen, despite demand for larger boats.

The luxury tax didn't soak the rich; it just made them sweat enough to choose the easy way to avoid paying it. They didn't buy a new boat. That, in turn, doused a lot of boat builders and their employees.

Chalk this up as a costly, painful example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and vow that it will never happen again.


NOTE that;

Quote:
The luxury tax didn't soak the rich; it just made them sweat enough to choose the easy way to avoid paying it. They didn't buy a new boat.


Edit; read also, https://coastprivate.com/tax-and-its-ef ... -industry/

Quote:
Potential boat buyers, unwilling to pay the extra tax, could make the simple decision to not buy a boat. They had other alternatives, they could go on more holidays, buy a country home, or just cross the border and buy a luxury yacht in another country.

But the workers who form the backbone of the boating industry had no other alternative. When the buyers suddenly stopped buying boats, the industry’s income stopped with it. Suddenly distributors, supplier factories, maintenance shipyards and every other boating related company were forced to lay off their staff, and the industry suffered massive unemployment.

As for the government, instead of earning more tax revenue, earned almost one tenth of what it used to earn when tax rates were lower. Furthermore, government had to cover the extensive costs of welfare for those unemployed in the ensuing financial crisis.


_________________
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011


Starlight2001
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 16 May 2020
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 63
Location: Round Rock, Texas

22 Nov 2020, 6:21 pm

Sweetleaf, just from this thread I can tell you're one of my favorite people on this site. So few people are willing to even consider the things you've talked about, even though they're good ideas. What most people (at least most Americans) see as radical left is actually pretty close to the center. I don't think most of the world has seen radical left yet. Capitalism is unsustainable and we need people like you to help come up with something to replace it.



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

22 Nov 2020, 6:36 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
I mean once a person has multiple millions what more could they possibly need to 'better' themselves.


I think is a misconception. That once you're above a certain amount of wealth there is no difference.

The perk of being a multi-billionaire is being able to fund your passion projects without convincing other people. Say you think alternative energy research is important for fighting climate change. Bill Gates can easily pledge 2 billion dollars to alternative energy research, because he made a fortune off microsoft. If his wealth was capped at say 50 million, he could give maybe 2 million himself and then would have to convince 2 million other people to give 1000 dollars each.

Similarly Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are passionate about space travel. They're investing large portions of their fortunes into developing space travel technologies. Mark Zuckerberg has invested a lot in trying to improve education, the most visible being his 100 million dollar gift to the Newark school district.

The point is there's lots of things that if you're passionate about them, you need the vast sums of wealth to do. You can't fund a space travel company on multiple millions. You can't fund a major alternative energy initiative on multiple millions. You can with multiple billions.

All this is a bit of an aside from the main topic, but maybe it help explains "what could they possibly need the money for?"


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 33,669
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Nov 2020, 9:18 pm

Starlight2001 wrote:
Sweetleaf, just from this thread I can tell you're one of my favorite people on this site. So few people are willing to even consider the things you've talked about, even though they're good ideas. What most people (at least most Americans) see as radical left is actually pretty close to the center. I don't think most of the world has seen radical left yet. Capitalism is unsustainable and we need people like you to help come up with something to replace it.


well thank you...and yeah does seem what a lot of people think so radical is actually more centristic. I mean I voted for Biden and I follow the Biden subreddit...and they have various flairs you can put up of this or that for biden, but no option of 'socialists for biden.' So like even the 'left' party tries to distance it's self from socialism or actual further left ideas. In some ways, not saying that alone proves it, but it is just an example like there is too much attempt at appeasing the other side which seems to slow down actual progress.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 33,669
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Nov 2020, 9:25 pm

Antrax wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I mean once a person has multiple millions what more could they possibly need to 'better' themselves.


I think is a misconception. That once you're above a certain amount of wealth there is no difference.

The perk of being a multi-billionaire is being able to fund your passion projects without convincing other people. Say you think alternative energy research is important for fighting climate change. Bill Gates can easily pledge 2 billion dollars to alternative energy research, because he made a fortune off microsoft. If his wealth was capped at say 50 million, he could give maybe 2 million himself and then would have to convince 2 million other people to give 1000 dollars each.

Similarly Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are passionate about space travel. They're investing large portions of their fortunes into developing space travel technologies. Mark Zuckerberg has invested a lot in trying to improve education, the most visible being his 100 million dollar gift to the Newark school district.

The point is there's lots of things that if you're passionate about them, you need the vast sums of wealth to do. You can't fund a space travel company on multiple millions. You can't fund a major alternative energy initiative on multiple millions. You can with multiple billions.

All this is a bit of an aside from the main topic, but maybe it help explains "what could they possibly need the money for?"


That is something to think about, like I would not want a system that prevents people from things like advancing technology and stuff like that. So there would have to be a way for things like that to continue but yeah to be fair I am not sure how to address that aspect exactly.


_________________
We won't go back.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,203
Location: Australia

22 Nov 2020, 9:27 pm

Stifling incentive is never a good idea.
Look what happened to the U.S.S.R. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Glory to Ukraine.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

23 Nov 2020, 1:11 am

Pepe wrote:
Stifling incentive is never a good idea.
Look what happened to the U.S.S.R. 8)


The bigger issue for the USSR was their centrally planned economy was horribly inefficient. It's not like you couldn't rise to positions of wealth and power in the USSR, although the avenues for doing that were not as numerous as in the US.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,019
Location: Stendec

23 Nov 2020, 7:26 am

While we're at it, let's put a cap on the size of one's house/apartment, how many pairs of shoes they own, how much food they eat, how many friends they have, how many changes of clothing they own, where they can go, and how much education they can have.

Yes, let's make this a REAL totalitarian state, make everyone slaves to the state, and no one will ever again feel sorry for themselves for not being as wealthy as their neighbors, because everyone will be as poor as everyone else.

:roll: Yes, that was sarcasm.


_________________
 
• Veritas Illuminata • Semper Illuminans •


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

23 Nov 2020, 7:34 am

I personally wouldn't mind.

And the lengths some people will go to to defend the ultra wealthy boggles my mind. In any case, our current version of capitalism isn't sustainable, and I fear too many people are going to learn that the hard way when it's far too late.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)