US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
People become rich within a society. Very few rich people can swap their nationality and expect to earn the same, or even close to it. People become rich by owning a company, or by being part of a profession that is highly regulated/inaccessible, either of which isn't easily transferable. A law degree in Germany or passing the bar in New York won't get you a job as lawyer in England (Or Malta, China, Brazil etc.), being approved to trade in the City holds little sway in Shanghai...
Some high earners can easily move about, but it's far from everyone, and those that we're really talking about when talking about billions can't. Their companies are reliant on owners/bosses who respect (at least on the surface) the laws of the societies they operate in.
All that said I think 50-65 % should be enough. It isn't really a question of morality, but a question of whether the society will really be better at investing the other 35-50 % than those who created the wealth/inherited it.
Housing in the US is a different topic though. The US could easily pay for housing for all of it's citizens if it were satisfied with being twice as potent as the next military force on earth.
Some high earners can easily move about, but it's far from everyone, and those that we're really talking about when talking about billions can't. Their companies are reliant on owners/bosses who respect (at least on the surface) the laws of the societies they operate in.
All that said I think 50-65 % should be enough. It isn't really a question of morality, but a question of whether the society will really be better at investing the other 35-50 % than those who created the wealth/inherited it.
Housing in the US is a different topic though. The US could easily pay for housing for all of it's citizens if it were satisfied with being twice as potent as the next military force on earth.
Agree with most of this, particularly the military spending, the US spending more than the next 20+ countries put together is plain ludicrous, especially since all but 2 are allies (until Trump anyway)
Taxes are already fairly progressive with the top 1% paying about 40% of the revenue. (This is pre-Trump so it might be a bit different as of this year).
That's an incomplete picture on taxes though as it leaves out two very important elements.
First, sales tax tends to be regressive:
https://itep.org/whopays/Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy said:
Then we have the discrepancy in earned income (wage and salary earners) and unearned income (dividends, investment income, corporate settlements, etc). So the result is thing like this, where Mitt Romney's 42 million is taxed at a rate of wage/salary earners who make 50K a year:
So the de facto tax rate on the super rich is actually far lower than gets repeated by most conservative sources. The actual tax burden when all forms of taken are into account is much more on the hourly/salary earners than anyone else.
So really the super rich are not paying 35% of their real income in taxes as gets frequently cited. Sure the rich doctors and lawyers pay that much but the Kochs, Mercers, Soros, Glazers, John Henrys and Stan Kroenkes of the world are most likely paying around what Romney was (IE less than most of us working blokes!) Someone making tens of millions of income a year should never be paying equal or less taxes toanyone making less than a million. That is far too unfair and the incentive schemes are all sub-optimal for an efficient society.
Exactly what I've been saying
That's an incomplete picture on taxes though as it leaves out two very important elements.
First, sales tax tends to be regressive:
https://itep.org/whopays/
Then we have the discrepancy in earned income (wage and salary earners) and unearned income (dividends, investment income, corporate settlements, etc). So the result is thing like this, where Mitt Romney's 42 million is taxed at a rate of wage/salary earners who make 50K a year:
So the de facto tax rate on the super rich is actually far lower than gets repeated by most conservative sources. The actual tax burden when all forms of taken are into account is much more on the hourly/salary earners than anyone else.
So really the super rich are not paying 35% of their real income in taxes as gets frequently cited. Sure the rich doctors and lawyers pay that much but the Kochs, Mercers, Soros, Glazers, John Henrys and Stan Kroenkes of the world are most likely paying around what Romney was (IE less than most of us working blokes!)
Sales taxes are just at the state level aren't they ?
State, County, City
Then those can't be affected by national policy, nor can they be appropriated for federal programs. Each state, county, or city has to set their own policy depending on local conditions and anyone who doesn't agree has the right to move elsewhere. At a federal level, they still appear fairly progressive.
Slightly tangential but Apple needed Silicon Valley more than the Valley ever needed Apple.
If Jobs had founded Apple along Route 128 in Mass. for instance they would be nothing more than a quaint memory like Apollo Computers
Unearned income is Federal and has a massive effect as the Romney example I linked illustrates
Also when looking at overall impact of tax policy locals must be considered as well
I'm sure local has to be considered, but it has no affect on national tax policy since each fragmented locality can modify their tax rates as needed. Since there isn't one cohesive local tax policy across each municipality/county/state etc. its hard to make an argument that non-federal taxes at local levels can be applied to the progressiveness (or lack thereof) of federal taxes.
It's a cycle though, the number of top companies in Silicon Valley also helps attract talent there.
Regardless, my main point still stands, the super rich pay far less in taxes than even the 35% cap on earned income as the Romney chart shows - so even if you want to look at only federal taxes the system is not actually progressive in reality because of the unearned-earned difference and how that benefits the super rich over high income wage earners and poor working class blokes making 40-50K alike who end up paying more in taxes than Romney on his 42 million.
Oh it was just some anti-Apple banter - like how they would have gone bankrupt if not for Microsoft investing 150m to save them out of fear of another anti-trust issue
They are losing demographics each cycle and have to rely on things like gerrymandering, Trumpian demagoguery, and Russian bots/trolls to remain viable. Also, whites will be the minority by the 2040s so bad for the Repubs.
Same for Phil Knight, Walton heirs, McDonald's corp, etc.
The Waltons make hundreds of millions annually from Wal-Mart dividends alone. Wal-Mart has destroyed small business owners, manufacturers, suppliers, etc. and are notorious for mass production of cheap goods overseas. They nearly crippled the pickle farming industry at one point by forcing Vlasic to sell at a cheap cost - because they could.
People like the Waltons and ilk ultimately affect government policies with dark money and lobbying, some for good and some for bad/greed/twisted ideologies.
One caveat on Romney's taxation - it was based on income, interest received, etc. These items are taxed at different rates non-comparable to wages, from what little I understand of tax laws. Blame politics for creating such ridiculous laws so the Walton heirs, Romney, and ilk can net 75-85% of dividend, interest, and other forms of income.
On the Romney tax issue... notice how a left-center publication differs from a right-center publication in how much tax he paid.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/charle...-not-13-in-federal-income-taxes/#6c60c6397eff
On the Romney tax issue... notice how a left-center publication differs from a right-center publication in how much tax he paid.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/charle...-not-13-in-federal-income-taxes/#6c60c6397eff
It's also not realistic. I equate it to the country adopting Japanese as their native language. We need to be fighting the battles that can be won in this feck hole and not bullshit that would only make yourself happy.
Spot on. Anyone with any sort of money market accounts, pension funds, 401k, mutual fund, etc is going to have some sort of exposure to stocks like Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Netflix etc.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...rillion-market-value-impact-401-ks/608903002/
Last edited:
A $500an hour tax lawyer disagrees with you. I'm all for a high tax rate but you're going to the extreme. I do agree with you on the billionaire bullshit. Some are deserving like Elon Musk and Bill Gates but dodgy cnuts like Betsy DeVos and Sheldon Adelson should not be allowed anywhere near that level of wealth.
So... today in 'not the onion' headlines:
- 'President Trump Announces Space Force'
- 'Kim Jong Un Approval Rating Higher Than Pelosi's Among Republicans'
Who is that?
Microsoft says it’s ‘dismayed’ by child separations after criticism over ICE contract
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/18/17476262/microsoft-ice-criticism-contract
Also no one is deserving of billions and billions of dollars.
yes nothing dodgy about overstating your business numbers ala musk or suppressing competition ala bill gates, true saints of business ethics
It's very worrying. The quickest the GOP base can shift away from basic political norms(Democracy) and what seems to be a very common belief in conspiracy theories makes the party prime for fascism.
If they lose in November it will wake the GOP up a bit. If they don't lose then it will empower them to do as they please even more than now.
It's almost like the deplorables are going to loudly applaud if Trump declares himself emperor.
Michael Cohn
, I hear he is a very talented man.I didn't say they were saints. I also have issues with the Gates investment in Waste Management who are liars. I agree that no one is deserving of billions but its inevitable you can reach those financial gains when you are head of a behemoth like Microsoft. It doesn't annoy me as much as a hedge fund guy or someone running what is basically a ponzu scheme
Dont be naive to think that by reaching those heights you dont do some unethical number manipulation or borderline criminal business practice. We must remember who the bad guys are. Only Maddoff went to jail after the biggest financial crisis since the depression and everyone on wall street knew he was a crook.
Elon Musk's company can launch a rocket in to space and then land it on a platform, that is fecking huge and maybe a reason why that orange dick head wants a space force.
Bill Gates and Microsoft's practices where brutal at the start of the commercial IT industry and I certainly didn't agree with them but that company and the innovation of Gates launched us to where we are know. He is also doing fantastic things to shake off that earlier and justified reputation.
Let's not be holier than thou when it comes people that in the long run benefit society instead of destroying it.
hence "deserving" is a load of shit, these twats need a good kicking and to lose every cent they have
Microsoft didn't innovate much, they just marked it better than IMB who did innovate it, and windows fecking sucks anyway
Last edited:
Space is one aspect of Pentagon's old full spectrum dominance vision. The private space sector is growing with increasing pace. There are ~20 000 small sat launches planned over the next decade. Both communication and surveillance missions and other yet unknown applications. Of course this has been expected.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, however, US defense spending is misleading. A very large part of the military budget is not arming and training soldiers, or procuring weapons. Moreover, the US gets a lot less for its dollar, than the Chinese or Russians do with their currencies. Defense spending is a massive racket, and there are enormous overhead costs (over seas military bases etc) that no other countries have to that extent.
The real gap is much smaller, still massive, but much smaller. There is a lot of fat that could be cut.
Wall Street tumbles, Dow erases 2018 gains as trade worries worsen
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/wall-street-tumbles-dow-erases-2018-gains-trade-worries-worsen/
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/wall-street-tumbles-dow-erases-2018-gains-trade-worries-worsen/
Still, increasing the spending on what is already the most powerful military in the history of the planet is just a complete waste of tax dollars.
Agree, don't disagree.
Same nutters that spent eight years bitching and moaning that Obama was going to cancel the election and anoint himself king.
Also, and perhaps there's more to it than what I'm typing, Gates (and a few others) will be giving away something like 99% of his fortune unlike other uber wealthy that hide their obscene wealth in various tax shelters to pass it along to their heirs.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/status/1009325231004004352
Kind of figured he would soon reach peak exasperation and renounce his ‘R’ designation, happened a couple of hours ago. Bravo to him. I have always enjoyed listening to him and reading his missives.
Kind of figured he would soon reach peak exasperation and renounce his ‘R’ designation, happened a couple of hours ago. Bravo to him. I have always enjoyed listening to him and reading his missives.
That’s the start of an 8 part tweet that ends with...