Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 09-05-2019, 12:19 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
So, sounds like you've missed an opportunity. Oh well. That's capitalism. You have to take risks to succeed. Too bad you didn't recognise a situations where you could fulfil an opening in the market.
I found freelancers on sites that sound just like the one you tout. I'm not saying this is a bad idea - just one that has been done, unless they have something very new in this overcrowded market.
Suckers they've found.
  #202  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:25 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
You know there is also the old adage that goes "Stop digging your own hole"

The meme, as it is clear you do not even see how it applies, comes from the Simpsons as the most lame example of a reply to more educated subjects made by the kid of Chief Wiggum.
Hey, you finally answered a question. Congratulations and thank you. No I was not familiar with that Simpson's clip.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
So it is indeed referring to your lame attempt at trying to make hay about how the employees at Amazon make money, as pointed before that is not the issue, so your point about garbage is still a dumb one. The issue is that when they make money they are taxed based on their income, and the point made before still stands, when we talk about executives and CEOs it is clear that at some levels some are not paying what they should.
And now you're going back to vagaries and avoiding a discussion of the implications of a wealth tax. Is the liberal position that rich people should be forced to sell property or shares in order to pay a wealth tax on paper profits? If someone starts a business or invests in a business, and they're lucky enough for that business to be hugely successful such that their paper wealth crosses the "wealthy" threshold, should they be allowed to keep their stake in the business until they're ready to sell, or should they be forced to sell a portion of their stake in the business in order to pay a wealth tax? It's not a question about Jeff Bezos and Amazon. It's a question directly to the OP's subject on understanding the liberal position on wealth.
  #203  
Old 09-05-2019, 03:21 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
If you want an end to poverty, it’s going to depend, among other things, on globalisation, innovation, and investment, not wealth transference. Some of that innovation is being done by start-ups with young smart people who hope to become rich. Some is being done by mega-corporation with investors who are already rich and want to become richer. The investment is going to be done by people who believe there are profits to be made in emerging markets, or companies that can connect to global markers. Globalisation is going to provide the networks to connect the poor people who want to make their labour more productive and more exchangeable for goods and services with the corporations who are going to provide them with jobs, goods and services.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm reminded of Bill O'Reilly saying that he'd stop doing his job if he were taxed at a slightly higher rate. People are going to globalize and become richer regardless of whether or not we tax them at a higher marginal rate. Friendly reminder: the "Laffer Curve" is bullshit. Is there any actual evidence that, if people are taxed at a higher marginal rate, even a much higher marginal rate, that they will choose instead to make less money, just because they won't make quite as much more?

In reality, globalization will happen one way or another, because it's the best way to make lots of money. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that raising will lead to reduced globalization.

And that's just the top-level critique. It assumes that globalization will necessarily be good for those in developing countries, which is... absolutely not a given, and which you have not demonstrated or even argued here, AFAICT. I don't think that's a fair assumption, as recent evidence has been quite thoroughly mixed on that front:
The fear that the poor have in some instances been by-passed or actually hurt by globalization was highlighted by recent studies which point towards limited—if not a lack of—convergence among participating national economies and across regions as globalization has proceeded. The observed trend towards greater inequality in the world income distribution between countries and regions (when the latter are not weighed by population size) and within many developing countries has a close bearing on conditions affecting the world’s poor, as inequality acts as a filter between growth and poverty. In particular, inequality may affect growth and thereby poverty alleviation in the future.

The most recent estimate suggests the share of the population of the developing countries living below US$1 per day declined from 40% in 1981 to 21% in 2001. However, this progress on poverty reduction was mainly achieved by the substantial reduction of the poor in China (400 million fewer people were poor in China in 2001, compared to the estimate in 1981). Further, it is reported that the absolute number of the poor has fallen only in Asia and risen elsewhere and the total number of people living under US$2 per day actually increased worldwide. In particular, poverty has increased significantly in Africa in terms of poverty incidence as well as depth of poverty.

Though any trend in poverty and income inequality observed so far cannot be exclusively or even mainly attributed to the ‘globalization’ effect, as such, without rigorous analyses, these various estimates, even the most optimistic ones, can not dismiss the concerns raised that the globalization process may have had at least some adverse effects on poverty and income distribution. These concerns have generated a passionate debate worldwide as well as a powerful anti-globalization movement.
So yeah, I see two levels at which this argument is at best unproven, and at worst very wrong.

Quote:
Is a wealth tax of 1%-3% above $50 million going to stop the above from happening? No. What it will do is take money out of the system which will limit the investments and the money going into the R&D that produces the innovation.
Do we actually have a dearth of investment capital at the moment? Because last I checked, that's absolutely not the problem we have.
There are two main culprits [of secular stagnation]. The first is a savings glut. Americans are saving more and spending less partly because the rich now take home so much of the economy’s income — and the rich don’t spend as large a share of their income as the poor and middle class. The aging of society plays a role too, because people are saving for retirement.

The second big cause is an investment slump. Despite all the savings available to be invested, companies are holding back. Some have grown so large and monopoly-like that they don’t need to invest in new projects to make profits. Think about your internet provider: It may have terrible customer service, but you don’t have a lot of alternatives. The company doesn’t need to invest in new technology or employees to keep you as a customer.
(Bolding mine.)

So no, that's not the problem. It's not that companies don't have enough money to invest, it's that companies have all the money they need and just don't want to, because there's little to no incentive to do so.

In general, "private R&D" is a personal bugbear of mine, because there's actually some pretty significant examples of companies being privatized and then immediately getting rid of their R&D department, as well as some evidence that this applies across the economy.

But given all this, I'm not sure how relevant the example of Fiverr is. Would a wealth tax make investors more skittish? It might... But the problem still isn't "they don't have enough money to invest". They have plenty of money to invest! They just don't want to. And if that's why conservatives don't like wealth taxes... Well, I will say this is head and shoulders above most economic discussions I've had with conservatives on this board, so I have to commend you on that, but I don't think the conclusions you're reaching are valid.
  #204  
Old 09-05-2019, 04:48 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Z View Post
Redistribution is a compensating mechanism for the imposition of property rights on the natural world.

Property rights are beneficial to society and unjust at the same time. Think about any of the games we play. Chess, Monopoly, football. Unless the game is a historical simulation, a common feature is that everyone starts out even.

Real life is not like that, when societies have property rights.
A game of Monopoly is actually a pretty good example of why redistributive efforts are an absolute social good (which is not surprising, since the game was originally invented as a political teaching tool against rampant capitalism).
In a game of Monopoly, everyone starts with the same resources - as you note, this is fucked from the get go but bear with it. Past that point, through a combination of very little skill (because seriously, it's not like it's hard to figure out basic probabilities and which properties are valuable) and a lot of luck, a few players will rapidly snatch up the good real estate and start driving the others into bankrupcy with more and more efficiency as houses and hotels get put up, with pretty much zero chance for the lossing players to come back - they have fewer resources to buy or build to begin with, so naturally the top dogs will improve their money-making engine faster ; and they already had the more better statistical land to begin with. Which has a further snowball effect since they then take all the bankrupt players' shit, which helps them drive more people out of the game, etc. The theoretical endstate is that one person owns all the stuff in the game and everyone else is unhappy. The more common endstate is that someone will flip the fucking table at some point .

A society where a small percentage of people own everything there is to own while a majority have to sit and sulk in silence while the "real people" are still having a ball playing the money game is not good. Or fun. Plus the winner is always a real asshole about it, too, haven't you noticed that ?
  #205  
Old 09-05-2019, 06:17 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I found freelancers on sites that sound just like the one you tout. I'm not saying this is a bad idea - just one that has been done, unless they have something very new in this overcrowded market.
Suckers they've found.
My belief is that there are lots of business tasks that should be outsourced that aren’t because they don’t fall under the current predominant outsourcing business model. Want an example from my world? Parallel testing and post-go-live testing of interfaces. During systems testing, I create reconciliation procedures to ensure that data from an incoming system is correct, and that I understand and can report on that data. Then I spend a couple of weeks before the interface goes live reconciling the feeds looking for anything I missed. After go-live, I spend a couplr more weeks doing the reconciliations on a daily basis. These are fairly mundane but necessary tasks that take maybe an hour a day that I’d like to offload. However, in the companies I’ve worked with, there’s no capability to hire someone for one hour a day for a few weeks to perform these tasks. Eventually, after the interface is bedded down, the reconciliation is automated. Hey, I’d like to outsource that automation too – in my ideal world I’ve just trained a part-time business analyst to work with a developer for a couple more weeks and all I have to do is check their work. But again, it’s currently difficult to hire a part-time developer for a couple of weeks. Hopefully, someday the gig economy will change that.

There’s obviously a lot more that goes when hiring someone to do a professional services task on a part-time basis than finding someone with skills, time, and willingness to do the task. Has Fiverr successfully overcome these additional barriers? I’ve no idea. Can they successfully internationalise their business network to encompass freelancers in emerging markets? Again, I’ve no idea. Is some other business already occupying this place in the market? I honestly haven’t looked into it that closely. However, I think there’s a business opportunity, Fiverr is a company that has recognised that opportunity, and if they succeed, it will be a positive. Especially if they are able to bring their business to developing markets in the third world. And if they succeed, I hope the company’s founders and investors get rich. As in over $50 million rich. If they succeed, they’ll probably hit that wealth point on paper before they’re ready to cash in on their shares. I don’t think the government should make them sell off their shares just because they’ve hit that paper wealth threshold.

Also note that when it comes to venture capitalists, they’ve likely already hit that $50 million threshold from prior successes before the IPO. Their ownership will be through funds, but they’ll have an ownership share of the fund and a ledger that indicates its balance sheet value. Which will shoot up when there’s an IPO. So at the first year-end after the IPO, they’ll be selling some of the fund’s shares in order to pay the wealth tax on that paper balance. As discussed previously, that’s a brake on investment.

Last edited by Wrenching Spanners; 09-05-2019 at 06:19 AM.
  #206  
Old 09-05-2019, 07:38 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Lemme get this right. The Rich pay politicians to create loopholes and favorable tax laws. The Rich use those loopholes and laws to become richer. Wealth disparity in our country grows wider every year, with a larger and larger piece of the pie going to the very wealthiest among us.

But we shouldn't blame the rich?

You just described a situation where the rich literally engineered our laws to enrich themselves, but they are blameless for using those very laws to enrich themselves?

The rich people don't 'pay' politicians. The politicians are in the position to do as they wish, they don't. Why don't they, I mean, it IS their job. They are failing/have failed, repeatedly, in their jobs, COLLECTIVELY. Lobbies have been around for ages, get rid of them.
Get rid of all money in politics and we solve most of our country's woes in one fell swoop. Now, how do we go about doing that?
  #207  
Old 09-05-2019, 07:44 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I was easily in the top 10%, and I could have paid more, so I'm fine with this.

I'm all for them having skin in the game, but I'd like to do it by reducing income inequality so they have more, not taking from those who can barely get by today.

Republican politicians are doing all they can to try to discourage these people from voting, so they are hardly listening to them. And lets be serious - do you think politicians listen more to those in areas the politicians hardly ever visit, or the lobbyists and fat cats who drop by with big checks for their reelection campaigns?
Voyager, IMO, Republicans give lip service to 'spending less' just like the Democrats give lip service to 'helping the poor'

Both are said to win votes. So they listen to both but at the end of the day, whomever is putting coin in their pocket is getting the nod.
  #208  
Old 09-05-2019, 07:59 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,547
The ACA helped millions of poor and middle class Americans get health insurance when they couldn't before. I know some of them personally. A flawed bill in many ways, but it was a godsend for many poor Americans.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #209  
Old 09-05-2019, 08:32 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
The rich people don't 'pay' politicians. The politicians are in the position to do as they wish, they don't. Why don't they, I mean, it IS their job. They are failing/have failed, repeatedly, in their jobs, COLLECTIVELY. Lobbies have been around for ages, get rid of them.
Get rid of all money in politics and we solve most of our country's woes in one fell swoop. Now, how do we go about doing that?
This is all nice, but in what way does this absolve the wealthy for using our broken system to enrich themselves? Maybe they could fix the system with the political power they have.
  #210  
Old 09-05-2019, 08:38 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
This is all nice, but in what way does this absolve the wealthy for using our broken system to enrich themselves? Maybe they could fix the system with the political power they have.
And clearly you expect the rich to fix the 'broken system' instead of the ones running it, the ones who actually create the laws, and the ones who write the laws.

This is a good overview into personal responsibility. The rich are not responsible for utilizing the tools they are given, to enrich themselves are be altruistic (and they are both)
The people creating, running and writing the laws are responsible.

It always amazes me when people refuse to accept responsibility for their direct actions and instead want to place blame on someone else, ANYONE else as long as it isn't them or theirs. Simply ridiculous

le sigh
  #211  
Old 09-05-2019, 08:51 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
And clearly you expect the rich to fix the 'broken system' instead of the ones running it, the ones who actually create the laws, and the ones who write the laws.
The part of the system that's broken is the part that lets the wealthy use their money to influence the laws that are written.

Are you seriously not getting this part? It's the part you yourself said happens. The rich use the broken system to influence the system, to keep it broken, so they can get richer. That's on them. Their personal responsibility is when they use their money to influence the laws in ways that benefit them.

Personal responsibility is the people in power being responsible for how they use that power. It isn't the people who have little power failing to wrest it from those who do.

Quote:
It always amazes me when people refuse to accept responsibility for their direct actions and instead want to place blame on someone else, ANYONE else as long as it isn't them or theirs. Simply ridiculous

le sigh
You got that right, someone here is refusing to let rich people accept responsibility for how they use their money.

Quote:
The rich are not responsible for utilizing the tools they are given

Last edited by Cheesesteak; 09-05-2019 at 08:52 AM. Reason: added final quote
  #212  
Old 09-05-2019, 09:02 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
The part of the system that's broken is the part that lets the wealthy use their money to influence the laws that are written.

Are you seriously not getting this part? It's the part you yourself said happens. The rich use the broken system to influence the system, to keep it broken, so they can get richer. That's on them. Their personal responsibility is when they use their money to influence the laws in ways that benefit them.

Personal responsibility is the people in power being responsible for how they use that power. It isn't the people who have little power failing to wrest it from those who do.

You got that right, someone here is refusing to let rich people accept responsibility for how they use their money.
No, it's still on the system that ALLOWS it. THEY created it, the rich people are USING it.

Which happened first?
  #213  
Old 09-05-2019, 09:16 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Hey, you finally answered a question. Congratulations and thank you. No I was not familiar with that Simpson's clip.



And now you're going back to vagaries and avoiding a discussion of the implications of a wealth tax. Is the liberal position that rich people should be forced to sell property or shares in order to pay a wealth tax on paper profits? If someone starts a business or invests in a business, and they're lucky enough for that business to be hugely successful such that their paper wealth crosses the "wealthy" threshold, should they be allowed to keep their stake in the business until they're ready to sell, or should they be forced to sell a portion of their stake in the business in order to pay a wealth tax? It's not a question about Jeff Bezos and Amazon. It's a question directly to the OP's subject on understanding the liberal position on wealth.
Vagaries? What is clear is that you go for muddling the waters, you do not like the OP and yet it is clear about what he means about the difference between the rich and the wealthy. I'm going for the same definitions as per the parameters from the OP.

Besides memes you are still grossly missing about how time gets into this too, the wealthy, as per the OP, are the ones that got to be wealthy thanks to life's lottery, as being born into wealth. Society's needs that grow when wealth stagnates thanks to the whims of wealthy people that hoard the riches of others can not be ignored.

https://fablesofaesop.com/the-miser-and-his-gold.html

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-05-2019 at 09:18 AM.
  #214  
Old 09-05-2019, 09:24 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
No, it's still on the system that ALLOWS it. THEY created it, the rich people are USING it.

Which happened first?
I'm gonna just assume for the sake of argument that the system happened first.

The people who created that system are all dead, and all the people currently working in the system are compromised by the system. The people who have the power to fix the system are the people who are granted power by the system.


As you said, and this is a direct quote, the rich people are USING it. What they are using it to do is their responsibility. They could use this power to do lots of things, it is their choice because they are the ones using the system.


Yea, we could dig up the Animal House quote "You fucked up, you trusted us." But, the thing is, that's a joke. It's a pathetic abdication of responsibility by a character we are not supposed to aspire to be.

So, the dead men who made our system gave power to rich people. If the rich abuse that power, they don't have the right to say we fucked up by giving them that power. They are responsible for their own choices regarding what to do with that power.
  #215  
Old 09-05-2019, 10:43 AM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 996
When a bribe happens, you don't just charge the guy that takes the bribe, you charge the guy that gives it as well.
  #216  
Old 09-05-2019, 12:52 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Vagaries? What is clear is that you go for muddling the waters, you do not like the OP and yet it is clear about what he means about the difference between the rich and the wealthy. I'm going for the same definitions as per the parameters from the OP.

Besides memes you are still grossly missing about how time gets into this too, the wealthy, as per the OP, are the ones that got to be wealthy thanks to life's lottery, as being born into wealth. Society's needs that grow when wealth stagnates thanks to the whims of wealthy people that hoard the riches of others can not be ignored.

https://fablesofaesop.com/the-miser-and-his-gold.html
So you think the OP is only talking about inherited wealth, and I'm trying to muddy the waters by discussing other aspects of a wealth tax?

Here’s the OP’s statement:
Quote:
The wealthy, by contrast, are the people who are executives at or own large businesses and make their money off the labor of the employees of those businesses.
So the wealthy include executives leading successful businesses, such as Robert Iger of Disney and owners of businesses, such as the Murrell family who own Five Guys.

I’m not ignoring this elaboration from the OP:
Quote:
People like the Walton family, the Koch brothers, and so on.
But if the OP’s only talking about family firms where ownership was passed on to the children, why is he talking about executives at large businesses and making a distinction between the executives and the owners?

What’s more, you’re the one who brought up Jeff Bezos, back in post #157. Before that, you cited a HuffPost article that stated the proposed wealth tax would apply to a Facebook founder, and didn’t make any distinction between inherited wealth and entrepreneurial wealth. If you think the thread should only be discussing “the ones that got to be wealthy thanks to life's lottery, as being born into wealth” you’ve got a funny way of going about it.

But hey, maybe I don't understand the liberal position on wealth. When I read the OP, it seemed the author's contention was that there are good rich people and bad rich people who he labelled the wealthy. The Democrats like the good rich people and the Republicans like the bad rich/wealthy people. Is that your position? I find the OP's contention ridiculous. Do you? Or if you think I got it wrong, then explain your interpretation of the OP's subject. What is the liberal position on wealth?

By the way, the miser wasn’t hoarding the wealth of others. But going by this thread, you getting something simple wrong isn’t really that surprising.
  #217  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:16 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I'm gonna just assume for the sake of argument that the system happened first.

The people who created that system are all dead, and all the people currently working in the system are compromised by the system. The people who have the power to fix the system are the people who are granted power by the system.


As you said, and this is a direct quote, the rich people are USING it. What they are using it to do is their responsibility. They could use this power to do lots of things, it is their choice because they are the ones using the system.


Yea, we could dig up the Animal House quote "You fucked up, you trusted us." But, the thing is, that's a joke. It's a pathetic abdication of responsibility by a character we are not supposed to aspire to be.

So, the dead men who made our system gave power to rich people. If the rich abuse that power, they don't have the right to say we fucked up by giving them that power. They are responsible for their own choices regarding what to do with that power.
Except those "dead people" are very much alive in almost every single one of the politicians alive today.
  #218  
Old 09-05-2019, 02:36 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Do you? Or if you think I got it wrong, then explain your interpretation of the OP's subject. What is the liberal position on wealth?
You will not find it by nutpicking.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking
Quote:
Nutpicking is the fallacious tactic of picking out and showcasing the nuttiest member(s) of a group as the best representative(s) of that group — hence, "picking the nut". It's cherry picking a poor representative of the group – almost a straw man – to use as ad hominem against the group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
By the way, the miser wasn’t hoarding the wealth of others. But going by this thread, you getting something simple wrong isn’t really that surprising.
Swing and a miss again, there is no affirmation on the fable about what you claim here. Some versions (also in the link) do point at the miser's gold being the result of selling his state (or fortune coming from dubious sources) and for sure, not giving any part to the government

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-05-2019 at 02:38 PM.
  #219  
Old 09-05-2019, 03:03 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Except those "dead people" are very much alive in almost every single one of the politicians alive today.
Still doesn't absolve the rich for their personal choices.
  #220  
Old 09-05-2019, 03:22 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
My belief is that there are lots of business tasks that should be outsourced that aren’t because they don’t fall under the current predominant outsourcing business model. Want an example from my world? Parallel testing and post-go-live testing of interfaces. During systems testing, I create reconciliation procedures to ensure that data from an incoming system is correct, and that I understand and can report on that data. Then I spend a couple of weeks before the interface goes live reconciling the feeds looking for anything I missed. After go-live, I spend a couplr more weeks doing the reconciliations on a daily basis. These are fairly mundane but necessary tasks that take maybe an hour a day that I’d like to offload. However, in the companies I’ve worked with, there’s no capability to hire someone for one hour a day for a few weeks to perform these tasks. Eventually, after the interface is bedded down, the reconciliation is automated. Hey, I’d like to outsource that automation too – in my ideal world I’ve just trained a part-time business analyst to work with a developer for a couple more weeks and all I have to do is check their work. But again, it’s currently difficult to hire a part-time developer for a couple of weeks. Hopefully, someday the gig economy will change that.


Also note that when it comes to venture capitalists, they’ve likely already hit that $50 million threshold from prior successes before the IPO. Their ownership will be through funds, but they’ll have an ownership share of the fund and a ledger that indicates its balance sheet value. Which will shoot up when there’s an IPO. So at the first year-end after the IPO, they’ll be selling some of the fund’s shares in order to pay the wealth tax on that paper balance. As discussed previously, that’s a brake on investment.
I used to work for a database company. I don't know about your stuff, but letting an hour a day person somewhere have access to real data would make the execs quite a bit nervous. They didn't even let company data on the cloud - and they made and sold a cloud service, so it was not out of ignorance.

Since gig economy companies make more money the more they underpay their workers, if the execs make a fortune (which they might) all the more reason to return some of it to society.
  #221  
Old 09-05-2019, 03:24 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Voyager, IMO, Republicans give lip service to 'spending less' just like the Democrats give lip service to 'helping the poor'

Both are said to win votes. So they listen to both but at the end of the day, whomever is putting coin in their pocket is getting the nod.
I agree that Republicans only care about spending less when they aren't in power. But Democrats have helped the poor - not as much as they could, certainly but better than nothing.
And Republicans are not only giving lip service to limiting voting rights.
  #222  
Old 09-06-2019, 12:16 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
You will not find it by nutpicking.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking

Swing and a miss again, there is no affirmation on the fable about what you claim here. Some versions (also in the link) do point at the miser's gold being the result of selling his state (or fortune coming from dubious sources) and for sure, not giving any part to the government
So you’re still misinterpreting cites, still not standing behind your own cites, still spouting garbage pointless clichés and inanities, and still not answering questions directly related to the subject of the OP. Well at least your consistent.

Again: What is the liberal position on wealth?

Here, let me help you out. Liberals are concerned about the growing inequality between society’s top wealth-holders and bottom wealth-holders. They also dislike the fact that some rich people achieved their wealth through cronyism or corruption. Liberals are concerned that some people are actually the victims of capitalism; people who’ve lost their jobs due to technological change or international trade. They note that some people got rich from those changes. Liberals also recognise that there are inefficiencies in the tax system, and many of those inefficiencies are intentional; essentially they’re corrupt as they’re designed to make taxes less fair, not more.

A few liberal politicians have come along and declared that the solution to the above issues is a wealth tax. Many on the liberal bandwagon cheer and shout some version of “Right On!”. They become emotionally attached to the idea. And when people start asking questions about the details behind the wealth tax, and criticising the lack of thought behind it, the liberal response is an emotional one. The politicians cheered them up and the critics are reducing their cheer. The critics therefore are mean people who have no interest in solving the problems listed in the above paragraph.

For myself, I’m less concerned about inequality than the typical liberal. I think if a person creates a technological innovation that benefits society, or invests in an emerging market and their investment proves successful, they deserve to be rich. They’re not harming the poor. They’re actually benefiting society. My concern towards the the poor is that I want people to move out of poverty measured in absolute terms – not measured in relation to the rich. And the elimination of poverty is going to depend on innovation and investment – things spurred on by the rich. Should there be a safety net? Definitely. Should society be investing not only in corporations, but in itself through education and infrastructure? Absolutely. Fund that investment through income taxes. And if some rich person decides to cash in some of their shares or property, that’s income. Tax it. But if someone builds a company with a paper worth of $1 billion, should the government come along and tell them they have to sell a portion of the company worth $47.6 million to pay a wealth tax? No. If there are problems with the tax system, fix them. If there’s cronyism or corruption in government spending, stop it. If the government is underinvesting in society, either move spending from other areas into education and infrastructure, or raise taxes (but gradually, please). But soak the rich because it’s the “Right On!” thing to do? It isn’t.
  #223  
Old 09-06-2019, 01:27 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
You will not find it by nutpicking.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking




Swing and a miss again, there is no affirmation on the fable about what you claim here. Some versions (also in the link) do point at the miser's gold being the result of selling his state (or fortune coming from dubious sources) and for sure, not giving any part to the government
Nutpicking is legitimate when the nuts are polling in the top 5 of the Democratic Party. Warren and Sanders are both either pandering or are legitimately nutty with regards to many of their policies.
  #224  
Old 09-06-2019, 02:50 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Nutpicking is legitimate when the nuts are polling in the top 5 of the Democratic Party. Warren and Sanders are both either pandering or are legitimately nutty with regards to many of their policies.
And that only shows that you do not know about the sausage making in congress, virtually nothing extreme ends up coming out, or it will be different even if liberals get to become the majority, simply because... not all liberals think the same indeed. It is more likely that a lot of amendments will be applied to any new laws.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-06-2019 at 02:51 PM.
  #225  
Old 09-06-2019, 03:31 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
So you’re still misinterpreting cites, still not standing behind your own cites, still spouting garbage pointless clichés and inanities, and still not answering questions directly related to the subject of the OP. Well at least your consistent.

Again: What is the liberal position on wealth?

Here, let me help you out. Liberals are concerned about the growing inequality between society’s top wealth-holders and bottom wealth-holders. They also dislike the fact that some rich people achieved their wealth through cronyism or corruption. Liberals are concerned that some people are actually the victims of capitalism; people who’ve lost their jobs due to technological change or international trade. They note that some people got rich from those changes. Liberals also recognise that there are inefficiencies in the tax system, and many of those inefficiencies are intentional; essentially they’re corrupt as they’re designed to make taxes less fair, not more.
Well thanks for the help, but even if I agree with that it only follows that of course: there is nothing that would convince you otherwise of more moderated solutions since you do have all the answers /s

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
A few liberal politicians have come along and declared that the solution to the above issues is a wealth tax. Many on the liberal bandwagon cheer and shout some version of “Right On!”. They become emotionally attached to the idea. And when people start asking questions about the details behind the wealth tax, and criticising the lack of thought behind it, the liberal response is an emotional one. The politicians cheered them up and the critics are reducing their cheer. The critics therefore are mean people who have no interest in solving the problems listed in the above paragraph.
Well that point is a very naive one. You are ignoring that currently there are indeed mean and miser people controlling government.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
For myself, I’m less concerned about inequality than the typical liberal. I think if a person creates a technological innovation that benefits society, or invests in an emerging market and their investment proves successful, they deserve to be rich. They’re not harming the poor.
Nope, see the previous links. and this:

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/new...hip-48-percent
Quote:
Our research suggests that hardship would be even more prevalent without safety net programs, which have counteracted uneven economic growth over the past several decades. Work is an important element in families’ economic well-being, but having a job—particularly a low-wage job—often isn’t enough to keep families on solid footing. Most SNAP participants work, for example, and this research shows that these added resources lessen family struggles.

Economic inequality has risen markedly, putting additional strain on low-income families, whose real wages have largely stagnated as the cost of basic needs, such as housing and health care, have risen substantially. Thus, despite economic growth, many economic forces still work against families, which underscores the need to reduce poverty and material hardship.

Efforts to restrict access to or reduce funding for the safety net, which can lead to Americans losing SNAP or Medicaid benefits, could exacerbate hunger and people’s inability to afford medical care. These restrictions are often proposed as a means to address the federal deficit, but the safety net’s role in reducing hunger and hardship demonstrates the risks of these proposals. These risks are not just borne by today’s struggling families; because these families include children, the risks affect tomorrow’s adults.
* There is really no need to guess who are making more efforts to restrict access or reduce funding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
They’re actually benefiting society.
In a grossly insufficient way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
My concern towards the the poor is that I want people to move out of poverty measured in absolute terms – not measured in relation to the rich. And the elimination of poverty is going to depend on innovation and investment – things spurred on by the rich. Should there be a safety net? Definitely. Should society be investing not only in corporations, but in itself through education and infrastructure? Absolutely. Fund that investment through income taxes. And if some rich person decides to cash in some of their shares or property, that’s income. Tax it. But if someone builds a company with a paper worth of $1 billion, should the government come along and tell them they have to sell a portion of the company worth $47.6 million to pay a wealth tax? No. If there are problems with the tax system, fix them. If there’s cronyism or corruption in government spending, stop it. If the government is underinvesting in society, either move spending from other areas into education and infrastructure, or raise taxes (but gradually, please). But soak the rich because it’s the “Right On!” thing to do? It isn’t.
IMHO it will not be needed to be taxed if they had not funded the policies and politicians that benefit them also, nice racket in that they manage to find also people that will support them even if they are conning them about the "suffering" of the wealthy if that takes place.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...for_Prosperity

https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC%3F

https://democracyjournal.org/magazin...s-the-economy/
  #226  
Old 09-06-2019, 06:45 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Thank you for engaging in the debate. While taking shots at the opposition is entertaining, this is supposed to be Great Debates, so let's get on with it.

Wrenching Spanners:
Quote:
Liberals are concerned about the growing inequality between society’s top wealth-holders and bottom wealth-holders. They also dislike the fact that some rich people achieved their wealth through cronyism or corruption. Liberals are concerned that some people are actually the victims of capitalism; people who’ve lost their jobs due to technological change or international trade. They note that some people got rich from those changes. Liberals also recognise that there are inefficiencies in the tax system, and many of those inefficiencies are intentional; essentially they’re corrupt as they’re designed to make taxes less fair, not more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Well thanks for the help, but even if I agree with that it only follows that of course: there is nothing that would convince you otherwise of more moderated solutions since you do have all the answers /s
What are your moderate solutions to the above problems? I believe you've mentioned carrying forward unrealised liabilities on inherited assets to the beneficiaries. That seems like an entirely reasonable proposal. I'd probably support the idea that shares in companies publicly traded on an exchange should be subject to income taxes upon inheritance. I'd like to see exemptions for family owned companies, but I think if a company has gone public, they've ceased to be family owned. I've got a similar opinion about property, especially farms, which are, of course, businesses.

Wrenching Spanners:
Quote:
A few liberal politicians have come along and declared that the solution to the above issues is a wealth tax. Many on the liberal bandwagon cheer and shout some version of “Right On!”. They become emotionally attached to the idea. And when people start asking questions about the details behind the wealth tax, and criticising the lack of thought behind it, the liberal response is an emotional one. The politicians cheered them up and the critics are reducing their cheer. The critics therefore are mean people who have no interest in solving the problems listed in the above paragraph.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Well that point is a very naive one. You are ignoring that currently there are indeed mean and miser people controlling government.
Your first post has the headline "LEST WE FORGET THE HORRORS: A CATALOG OF TRUMP’S WORST CRUELTIES, COLLUSIONS, CORRUPTIONS, AND CRIMES." Your second post has the headline "Party of relentless bad faith: How Republican lies and hypocrisy hit an all-time high". My contention is that liberals are supporting the idea of a wealth tax based on emotional factors, rather than economic reasoning. I believe your two cites support that contention.

Wrenching Spanners:
Quote:
For myself, I’m less concerned about inequality than the typical liberal. I think if a person creates a technological innovation that benefits society, or invests in an emerging market and their investment proves successful, they deserve to be rich. They’re not harming the poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Nope, see the previous links. and this:

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/new...hip-48-percent
Quote:
Our research suggests that hardship would be even more prevalent without safety net programs, which have counteracted uneven economic growth over the past several decades. Work is an important element in families’ economic well-being, but having a job—particularly a low-wage job—often isn’t enough to keep families on solid footing. Most SNAP participants work, for example, and this research shows that these added resources lessen family struggles.

Economic inequality has risen markedly, putting additional strain on low-income families, whose real wages have largely stagnated as the cost of basic needs, such as housing and health care, have risen substantially. Thus, despite economic growth, many economic forces still work against families, which underscores the need to reduce poverty and material hardship.

Efforts to restrict access to or reduce funding for the safety net, which can lead to Americans losing SNAP or Medicaid benefits, could exacerbate hunger and people’s inability to afford medical care. These restrictions are often proposed as a means to address the federal deficit, but the safety net’s role in reducing hunger and hardship demonstrates the risks of these proposals. These risks are not just borne by today’s struggling families; because these families include children, the risks affect tomorrow’s adults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
* There is really no need to guess ho are making more efforts to restrict access or reduce funding.
It's a fair point to look at the macroeconomic effects of prosperity and conclude that one of those effects is inflation, which has an adverse effect on minimum wage and low income workers. Therefore, both minimum wages and the safety net should pay attention to inflation. If the minimum wage in the US is below the poverty line for a single, full-time, not in training, worker in normal circumstances, then the minimum wage should be raised. The same applies to couples sharing a residence and having the traditional two kids. However, there's a big difference between inflation and income inequality. If inflation is flat, and someone worth $1 billion becomes worth $2 billion, how does that hurt the poor?
I think if a person creates a technological innovation that benefits society, or invests in an emerging market and their investment proves successful, they deserve to be rich. They’re not harming the poor. They’re actually benefiting society.

Wrenching Spanners:
Quote:
I think if a person creates a technological innovation that benefits society, or invests in an emerging market and their investment proves successful, they deserve to be rich. They’re not harming the poor. They’re actually benefiting society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster;21845434/
In a grossly insufficient way.
Read up on the use of mobile phones in Africa. For that matter, although it's hardly a new thing, do you think the Internet is helping the poor in America? There have been anecdotes of people, not necessarily poor people, gaining employment through advice on this message board. My personal belief is that people having access to free, easily accessed information about the job market,and indeed many markets including groceries, utilities, home repairs, public transport, and may others is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners
Quote:
My concern towards the the poor is that I want people to move out of poverty measured in absolute terms – not measured in relation to the rich. And the elimination of poverty is going to depend on innovation and investment – things spurred on by the rich. Should there be a safety net? Definitely. Should society be investing not only in corporations, but in itself through education and infrastructure? Absolutely. Fund that investment through income taxes. And if some rich person decides to cash in some of their shares or property, that’s income. Tax it. But if someone builds a company with a paper worth of $1 billion, should the government come along and tell them they have to sell a portion of the company worth $47.6 million to pay a wealth tax? No. If there are problems with the tax system, fix them. If there’s cronyism or corruption in government spending, stop it. If the government is underinvesting in society, either move spending from other areas into education and infrastructure, or raise taxes (but gradually, please). But soak the rich because it’s the “Right On!” thing to do? It isn’t.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster;21845434/
IMHO it will not be needed to be taxed if they had not funded the policies and politicians that benefit them also, nice racket in that they manage to find also people that will support them even if they are conning them about the "suffering" of the wealthy if that takes place.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...for_Prosperity

https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC%3F

https://democracyjournal.org/magazin...s-the-economy/
So you've posted three left-wing links as cites that, sorry if I'm not understanding your point, conservatives are "conning the liberals about the "suffering" of the wealthy if that takes place." The quick review of your cites is that the Koch brothers are bad people, and there may a need for US election campaign funding reforming.

I don't disagree with the idea that there is a need for lobbying reform in the US Congress. You seem to believe that all conservatives disagree with the idea of lobbying reform. You also seem to believe that all conservatives who disagree with the idea of a US wealth tax are Koch brother supporters. I'm not sure if that's your actual belief, but if it is, I disagree with it.
  #227  
Old 09-07-2019, 07:35 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Read up on the use of mobile phones in Africa. For that matter, although it's hardly a new thing, do you think the Internet is helping the poor in America? There have been anecdotes of people, not necessarily poor people, gaining employment through advice on this message board. My personal belief is that people having access to free, easily accessed information about the job market,and indeed many markets including groceries, utilities, home repairs, public transport, and may others is a good thing.
Of course it is a good thing, so good that it came from the government, if it had been coming from the Bell Telephone company they would had stopped many innovators in their tracts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
So you've posted three left-wing links as cites that, sorry if I'm not understanding your point, conservatives are "conning the liberals about the "suffering" of the wealthy if that takes place." The quick review of your cites is that the Koch brothers are bad people, and there may a need for US election campaign funding reforming.

I don't disagree with the idea that there is a need for lobbying reform in the US Congress. You seem to believe that all conservatives disagree with the idea of lobbying reform. You also seem to believe that all conservatives who disagree with the idea of a US wealth tax are Koch brother supporters. I'm not sure if that's your actual belief, but if it is, I disagree with it.
And that is ok, although one has to notice that you fall for the shooting the messenger fallacy; I mean, if the object is to understand the liberal position, then those cites are relevant. It is not just the wealthy Kochs the ones that thanks to their economic power are also manipulating discussions like this one in government organizations.
  #228  
Old 09-08-2019, 12:41 AM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Whether you earned it or inherited, there ought to be some limit on how rich you can be. We will always have a socioeconomic pyramid -- but the top and the bottom have been, and could be again, a lot closer together than they are now.
  #229  
Old 09-08-2019, 01:27 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
Whether you earned it or inherited, there ought to be some limit on how rich you can be.
Why? Suppose some guy in Estonia is an Elon Musk style entrepreneur and has Einstein-like insights into nuclear fusion and figures out how to make fusion generators practical. It's a far-fetched hypothetical, but what limit should be placed on that person's future wealth? I'm thinking that a solution to climate change and worldwide cheap energy should be worth at least $1 trillion. What limit would you place on the wealth of someone who achieved such a remarkable breakthrough?

Some people are rich because they inherited their wealth. Everybody who's rich is so because they've been lucky enough to have circumstances favour them at one time or another. But most people who are rich are hard working, talented people who are at the top of their professions and figured out how to run their businesses better than their competitors. Often, their success is because they've had an innovative idea that and were the first person to ever market that idea. I want to live in a world that rewards innovation, and one where tremendously transformative innovation is rewarded tremendously.
  #230  
Old 09-08-2019, 01:30 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Of course it is a good thing, so good that it came from the government, if it had been coming from the Bell Telephone company they would had stopped many innovators in their tracts.
And a lot of the poor get their internet from libraries - run by the government.
  #231  
Old 09-08-2019, 02:44 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners:
Quote:
Read up on the use of mobile phones in Africa. For that matter, although it's hardly a new thing, do you think the Internet is helping the poor in America? There have been anecdotes of people, not necessarily poor people, gaining employment through advice on this message board. My personal belief is that people having access to free, easily accessed information about the job market, and indeed many markets including groceries, utilities, home repairs, public transport, and may others is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Of course it is a good thing, so good that it came from the government, if it had been coming from the Bell Telephone company they would had stopped many innovators in their tracts.
I realise you’re talking about the Internet, but it’s amusing that the first sentence of the paragraph you’re disputing concerns mobile phones. From Wikipedia:
Quote:
The advances in mobile telephony have been traced in successive "generations", starting with the early zeroth-generation (0G) services, such as Bell System's Mobile Telephone Service and its successor, the Improved Mobile Telephone Service. These 0G systems were not cellular, supported few simultaneous calls, and were very expensive.

The first handheld cellular mobile phone was demonstrated by John F. Mitchel and Martin Cooper of Motorola in 1973, using a handset weighing 2 kilograms (4.4 lb).
The reason I’m discussing mobile phones is that that technology, driven by corporations led by rich executives and owners, is transforming Africa, leading to increased progress and prosperity:

Quote:
Around one-tenth of Africa's land mass is covered by mobile-internet services — a higher proportion pro rata area than in India. Mobile development has enabled Africans to 'leapfrog' poor landline infrastructure, which has been a brake on progress. Many Africans get their first internet experience on a mobile rather than a desktop computer, using services that revolutionise commerce, farming and healthcare. Almost 18 million Kenyans use their mobiles as a bank account to deposit or transfer money and pay their accounts.
http://www.uhy.com/the-worlds-fastes...-middle-class/

So yes, I do believe that innovation and investment is bringing people out of poverty, and those innovators and investors should be rewarded, not penalised.

As to the Internet, when was the last time there was government led innovation to the Internet? I like bbc.co.uk. They’re quasi-governmental, but they’re hardly innovative. There are lots of government websites. I’ve never noticed any of them bringing something new to the Internet. What I have noticed is the government websites adopting practices started on corporate websites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
And that is ok, although one has to notice that you fall for the shooting the messenger fallacy; I mean, if the object is to understand the liberal position, then those cites are relevant. It is not just the wealthy Kochs the ones that thanks to their economic power are also manipulating discussions like this one in government organizations.
The fallacy is that you’re failing to actually make a point. You’re throwing around cites and leaving it to people on the other side of the debate to try and guess your position. What is the liberal position expressed in the above quote? That the wealthy have too much influence in government? If that is the issue, what’s your proposed solution to that issue? Is it the wealth tax that you brought up back in post #149? Going back to the OP, do you believe people with entrenched wealth “should be the ones who are "punished" by paying a larger share in taxes, whether of their income or wealth”? How do liberals distinguish between entrenched wealth and entrepreneurial wealth?
  #232  
Old 09-08-2019, 03:56 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
<snip>
Replying to your post as a whole:

Global poverty is falling, except in sub-Saharan Africa. Even there, it’s expected to fall somewhat in the next decade.
Quick graph from the World Bank:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/understanding-poverty

The global middle class is rising. Indeed as of 2018, more people are middle class or rich than are vulnerable or poor. By 2030, there are expected to be twice as many.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/futur...-or-wealthier/

The primary drivers of the rising global middle class are investment and technology. Here’s a good discussion on the rising economies in Africa:
http://www.uhy.com/the-worlds-fastes...-middle-class/

Most business owners have the majority of their wealth in their businesses.
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/bank...rk-their-cash/
Some choose to diversify, and when they do, they should and generally do pay capital gains taxes on the portion of the business that they sell.

The savings glut you’re referring to is within businesses and investment funds, not in rich people’s personal wealth. It’s based around concerns about the global business cycle facing a downturn, the need for funds to maintain liquidity, and concerns that equities, especially in the US stock market, are overpriced. Here’s the head of the Bank of England discussing the liquidity risk of funds, which also ties into the other two risk areas:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...sset-managers/

If you’re concerned that there’s a lack of research and development or investment within the global corporate market, read up on FinTech. It’s an area with huge amounts of innovation and investment. It’s a widespread area of technology, but it includes subareas such as banking via mobile phones, microinvestment, and web-based equity exchanges, all of which would benefit the lower-middle-class and upwards in impoverished countries. And as those people become better off, they’ll create the opportunities for the people in severe poverty to rise out of poverty as described in the UHY article above. For an overview of FinTech, here’s Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_technology
  #233  
Old 09-08-2019, 12:41 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Why? Suppose some guy in Estonia is an Elon Musk style entrepreneur and has Einstein-like insights into nuclear fusion and figures out how to make fusion generators practical. It's a far-fetched hypothetical, but what limit should be placed on that person's future wealth?
I have read (but have no cite -- unless this counts) that studies show wealth doesn't make you any happier once you've passed the point where you no longer have day-to-day financial stress.

In terms of motivation to achieve -- which is the only factor to consider, if we're thinking in terms of the social benefits of individual achievement -- the prospect of becoming a billionaire is probably no more powerful than the prospect of becoming a millionaire.

The problem -- and it is a problem, see Democracy in Chains, by Nancy MacLean -- is that billionaires have political influence far out of proportion to their numbers in society.

Last edited by kirkrapine; 09-08-2019 at 12:45 PM.
  #234  
Old 09-08-2019, 11:28 PM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
I have read (but have no cite -- unless this counts) that studies show wealth doesn't make you any happier once you've passed the point where you no longer have day-to-day financial stress.
Manslow's pyramid. There are three types of exceptions: those who suffer from pathological anxiety (there's people who have died rich while living hand-to-mouth because they were terrified of spending too much), those who are so bad at finances that they'd manage to have financial stress if they inherited Jeff Bezos' fortune, and those for whom the chase of more, more, more is a pathological need.

Heck, people like me, who are above average financially and refuse to live worse lives in order to make more money, get bombarded with the message that we're wrong. We're wrong in refusing to chase for more, we're wrong in how we organize our companies (I'm a one-person multinational company, sucks to be the economist who tries to analyze me)... I'm part of that fraction who are good at giving that message the finger, but I've got coworkers who are always chasing a penny more and I get stressed just from listening to them on the phone.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 09-08-2019 at 11:31 PM.
  #235  
Old 09-08-2019, 11:44 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Heck, people like me, who are above average financially and refuse to live worse lives in order to make more money, get bombarded with the message that we're wrong.
How are you so bombarded? Serious question. Is it just a general cultural zeitgeist thing, that you could get from your penny-seeking subordinates/coworkers, or is somebody actively trying to send you that message?

Last edited by kirkrapine; 09-08-2019 at 11:44 PM.
  #236  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:18 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
So yes, I do believe that innovation and investment is bringing people out of poverty, and those innovators and investors should be rewarded, not penalised.
That really has very little to do with the tax situation in the USA, or what had taken place in the USA if a monopoly like the Bell one had been allowed to remain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
As to the Internet, when was the last time there was government led innovation to the Internet? I like bbc.co.uk. They’re quasi-governmental, but they’re hardly innovative. There are lots of government websites. I’ve never noticed any of them bringing something new to the Internet. What I have noticed is the government websites adopting practices started on corporate websites.
You have the history backwards there, it was thanks to government efforts that we got the Internet itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
The fallacy is that you’re failing to actually make a point. You’re throwing around cites and leaving it to people on the other side of the debate to try and guess your position. What is the liberal position expressed in the above quote? That the wealthy have too much influence in government? If that is the issue, what’s your proposed solution to that issue?
There is a method here, first I do want to see what kind of conservative you are. And one main point I made was that you are trying to get an official liberal position when in reality there is really none, and I want to make special notice at your tactic that really sounds as if nothing will satisfy you. One will have to agree to disagree on your attempt at finding an official "liberal position" this is a case were the process of government will give us the proposal to work and discuss and maybe, just maybe to pass it in congress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Is it the wealth tax that you brought up back in post #149? Going back to the OP, do you believe people with entrenched wealth “should be the ones who are "punished" by paying a larger share in taxes, whether of their income or wealth”? How do liberals distinguish between entrenched wealth and entrepreneurial wealth?
Read the OP again, as I noted I do not agree 100% with it, but that are the parameters for the discussion here.
  #237  
Old 09-09-2019, 10:34 AM
Balthisar is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Southeast Michigan, USA
Posts: 11,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
How are you so bombarded? Serious question. Is it just a general cultural zeitgeist thing, that you could get from your penny-seeking subordinates/coworkers, or is somebody actively trying to send you that message?
I get it from work, family, and friends. Work, because it's cultural, right; after all, you're of course you want to be a director some day.

Family and friends are a bit different, in particular, the ones with lower income. The difference between my brother's income and mine is about 100% I'd guess. For some, a 10% pay raise would mean the opportunity to see even more Detroit Tigers games or attend even more Prowlers' hockey games. This would make him and his wife a lot more comfortable.

When I tell him I could spend a weekend working at a plant in Chicago and gross an absurd amount of "bonus" money, and that I don't want to do it, I'm just crazy. You see, I don't spend money on sports, cabins up north, boats, etc., and I max out my savings (401(k), Roth for wife and me, 529 for little one), and have very little left over for things he things are fun. If only I'd spend my weekends working, I could have as much fun as he has!

Joke's on me if I die before retirement, though.
  #238  
Old 09-09-2019, 01:10 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthisar View Post
I get it from work, family, and friends. Work, because it's cultural, right; after all, you're of course you want to be a director some day.
I never got this message. I was an acting second level manager at one point, and decided that spending my entire day on budgets and meetings and not research would be hell, and turned it down, and I never got any grief for it. I also decided that I'd rather have a happy marriage than a promotion, and never got any grief from that either. Stuff I worked really hard at, like conference work, I did because I enjoyed it.
I'm sure I could have had some more money in the bank, but I have plenty to live on for the rest of my life, so I don't regret any of my choices.
  #239  
Old 09-10-2019, 07:58 PM
Balthisar is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Southeast Michigan, USA
Posts: 11,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I never got this message. I was an acting second level manager at one point, and decided that spending my entire day on budgets and meetings and not research would be hell, and turned it down, and I never got any grief for it.
Oh, I don't mean grief from the people who would promote me. I mean grief from my peers, who think I'm an absolute idiot for not pursuing more.
  #240  
Old 09-11-2019, 07:12 AM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
How are you so bombarded? Serious question. Is it just a general cultural zeitgeist thing, that you could get from your penny-seeking subordinates/coworkers, or is somebody actively trying to send you that message?
The pink (economic) section of newspapers, service providers, the penny-seekers and even my own country's Treasury.

The penny-seekers are easy to understand and also easy to ignore, but open the economic section and you get economists (many of whom have never worked outside of academia, much less owned a company/been self-employed) telling the self-employed that we should instead be creating large companies so we'd give jobs to more people; more economists (and the reporters who report on them) telling us the many ways in which we're doing our jobs wrong; banks, property owners and other service providers telling us that we're not reliable(1) or denying us services or requiring higher payments/securities than if we were third-party employed, therefore requiring us to have higher amounts of available cash than other people; the Treasury has right now a campaign against any self-employed claiming that they earn less than an amount X because some civil servant has decided it's "impossible" that someone will be self-employed and make that little (2); it's relatives who don't know what the fuck they're talking about sticking their nose where it doesn't belong (3)…

That, on top of the general social crap.




1: several banks refused to give me a mortgage for being self-employed. I've been refused rentals (on one particularly memorable occasion, by the bank which holds that mortgage on which I've never missed a payment) or been required absurd deposits for being self-employed. When I tried to get third-party insurance in Spain I couldn't, because no company providing the type of services I do has ever been sued and insurance companies treat this as "unknown data, therefore unreliable" rather than "hooray, all these man-hours of work and not a blip, gimme your money here's your policy": I finally found an agent who got me insurance from the UK.

2: while it doesn't affect me (I'm on a regional Treasury), many self-employed people are part time workers, specially lots of women. Many female-owned businesses (boutiques, hairdressers, clothing repairs…) are partnerships, with each self-employed partner working part-time; in fact, the ability to work part-time is one of the biggest incentives for those women to become self-employed, because no civil servant from the Treasury is going to take the kids to school and Grandma to the doctor, but hey, anybody who's making less than an engineer's entry-level salary and who is self-employed is clearly lying, and anybody who chooses to work part-time to contribute to the family's pockets while still being able to taxi relatives to and fro is clearly doing it wrong. The del part is because the attack started on anybody who claimed less than a certain amount but for some time seemed to be on track to become a general audit of every single self-employed person under the general Treasury (the current political problems and the screams from the self-employed appear to have stalled it; note that due to a legal requirement, every CEO in Spain counts as self-employed).

3: 1.Bro and 1.SiL finally stopped worrying about my finances (which deserves a long string of snorts) when 2.Bro The Comptroller (International) growled "I've seen Nava's income tax and it's fine. Any other questions?"
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 09-11-2019 at 07:16 AM.
  #241  
Old 09-11-2019, 06:11 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners
Quote:
So yes, I do believe that innovation and investment is bringing people out of poverty, and those innovators and investors should be rewarded, not penalised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
That really has very little to do with the tax situation in the USA, or what had taken place in the USA if a monopoly like the Bell one had been allowed to remain.
So the liberal position on wealth is that monopolies are bad? Hey, that’s great. Speaking as a conservative who believes in the role of competition in the economy, I endorse that position.

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners
Quote:
As to the Internet, when was the last time there was government led innovation to the Internet? I like bbc.co.uk. They’re quasi-governmental, but they’re hardly innovative. There are lots of government websites. I’ve never noticed any of them bringing something new to the Internet. What I have noticed is the government websites adopting practices started on corporate websites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
You have the history backwards there, it was thanks to government efforts that we got the Internet itself.
I’m very sure that history starts in the past and moves towards the future. “When was the last time there was government led innovation to the Internet?” is a question about the recent past and not the historical past. A question you haven’t answered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
There is a method here, first I do want to see what kind of conservative you are.
Unlike you, I’ve actually declared a position, a conservative one, towards wealth. See post #140:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners
Quote:
• People should be allowed to keep the majority of the income they earn.
• Wealth, which is different than income as noted above, should not be taxed.
• Unrealised gains should not be taxed.
• Some people are good at, and enjoy, making money. Absent other information about wrongdoing, there is nothing inherently wrong with these people.
• The creation of new wealth is chiefly through innovation and not exploitation.
• Corporations should be taxed on their domestic income* and not on revenue.

I define myself as a conservative, or at least centre-right, and I believe in the principles behind each of those statements.
<snip>
*For global corporations, it probably is necessary for governments to take a restrictive definition of domestic income. For example, licensing software or intellectual property from Barbados in order to avoid taxes should be restricted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
And one main point I made was that you are trying to get an official liberal position when in reality there is really none, and I want to make special notice at your tactic that really sounds as if nothing will satisfy you. One will have to agree to disagree on your attempt at finding an official "liberal position" this is a case were the process of government will give us the proposal to work and discuss and maybe, just maybe to pass it in congress.
So your position on “Do conservatives genuinely not understand the liberal position on wealth?” is that, regarding that position: “an official liberal position when in reality there is really none”.

So, conservatives are expected to understand a liberal position that doesn’t actually exist? One that will be defined in the future, but one that is based on current US liberal rhetoric that the rich/wealthy are bad? But not all the rich/wealthy, only the ones that the liberals denounce, which are the only ones that the conservatives like.

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners
Quote:
Is it the wealth tax that you brought up back in post #149? Going back to the OP, do you believe people with entrenched wealth “should be the ones who are "punished" by paying a larger share in taxes, whether of their income or wealth”? How do liberals distinguish between entrenched wealth and entrepreneurial wealth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Read the OP again, as I noted I do not agree 100% with it, but that are the parameters for the discussion here.
I’ve read the OP again. Twice above, in the question about entrenched wealth and the paragraph above the quote, I’ve stated my interpretations of it. Didn’t you, in post #218 refer to the OP’s idea as “the nuttiest member(s) of a group” and “a poor representative of the group”? What percentage of the OP do you back?

My belief is that the conservative understanding of the “the liberal position on wealth” is that the “the liberal position on wealth?” is based on biased perceptions and sloganeering and emotional reactions and not based on sound reasoning or detailed review of the implications of their ideas. The inability of you and the other liberal participants in this debate to dispute that understanding indicates that the conservative understanding is correct.

Last edited by Wrenching Spanners; 09-11-2019 at 06:14 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017