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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ? 
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
When a bribe happens, you don’t just charge the guy that takes the bribe, you charge the guy that gives it as well.
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:
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:
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.
Except those “dead people” are very much alive in almost every single one of the politicians alive today.
You will not find it by 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
Still doesn’t absolve the rich for their personal choices.
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.