the new economics. or maybe the same old same old?

[billy rubin]

hey commonwealth types- would you explain the new british PM to me?

i read that truss is cutting taxes on the rich

the shortfall will be covered by borrowing money

which will ultimately be paid for by taxes

which the rich will not pay, because their taxes are cut . . .

did i get this righr? is truss a secret american?

[Asmodean]

If you make a million pounds, and your taxes are cut from, say, 40% to 30%, you still pay as much in taxes as ten people making 30K a year earn.

That means that you contribute more to infrastructure, public education, national defence, science, welfare, foreign aid and a whole mess of other government expenses than ten other people.  Assuming that they too contribute a rough third of their paycheck brings it to 1:30. Is that somehow unfair on them rather than you?

Just what is a rich person's due for living in the same society as the rest, billy? What is a wealthy person's due? If you are not the one to give a straight answer, then who does get to make decisions regarding someone else's property without their consent?

[billy rubin]

i have a straight answer, asmo.

since 1989, the richest 1 percent of the people in my country increased their share of the national wealth  from 27 percent to 34 percent. families in the bottom 50 percent of the economy in my country now own 2 percent of the wealth. this is the result of trickle-down economics. here is how trickle-down works:

1 i have an extra dollar. i come across a poor person. i want to help them.

2 i seek out a rich person. i give them the dollar.

3 i now wait for the investment of my dollar to help out the poor person. helping the rich become richer is how i help the poor.

^^^this is the economics practiced in my country since ronald reagan. so far it has worked well, for the rich.

sure, the rich person you describe contribbutes, what, as much as ten other people in taxes . . . ? but he is extracting as much as a hundred other people from the shared economy. as i have said elsewhere, i am not concerned with taxes. taxes are not important to me.

i am concerned with the rich mining their wealth from the less rich. i do not consent to have my labor subsidizing the rich.

your observation regarding consent is a good one. when did i consent have my government run by representatives purchased by the rich? in 2010, the billionaires in america contributed $31,000,000 to the american election system.  in 2020, that number went up to $1,200,000,000. why did they increase their spending on politicians by 38 times? because they get a government whose policies are designed to benefit the rich at the expense of everybody else. the laws are written to benefit tbem, not the general public.

because you get what you pay for, in the american system of government. i do not consent to that. does my consent matter?

the issue is that the rich are buying the government they prefer, and using my labor to subsidize it. i do not consent to that relationship.

[Asmodean]

since 1989, the richest 1 percent of the people in my country increased their share of the national wealth  from 27 percent to 34 percent. families in the bottom 50 percent of the economy in my country now own 2 percent of the wealth. this is the result of trickle-down economics. here is how trickle-down works:

There is a problem to address before we even get to that meme of birds crapping on each other's heads; If a wealthy person increases his wealth - that's his business. It is, after all, his wealth. Not "ours." Not "the worse-offs'." His.

1 i have an extra dollar. i come across a poor person. i want to help them.

That is called charity, and has nothing to do with trickle-down economics. Trickle-down economics is just a supply-side theory, and has nothing to do with helping pretty-much any-one.

As an aside, I find that it often gets confused with just regular supply chains. For example, a food company hires a worker to produce... Pickled herring, let's say. The food chain then also charges that worker for the very herring he produced, should he wish to buy some. Thus, "those at the top" profit from both the labour and the business of "those at the bottom."

2 i seek out a rich person. i give them the dollar.

Still charity. Oh, I suppose you can call just giving money to a random dude a "gift." However, "institutionalised" gifting is charity. Trickle-down economics has little to do with giving people stuff. for example, a tax cut is not you giving me the money - it's you retracting your fingers from my honey pot slightly.

3 i now wait for the investment of my dollar to help out the poor person. helping the rich become richer is how i help the poor.

Yes, you see, this is different. Indeed, if you invest a dollar with a company that goes well, it may both increase in value and pay dividends, which will be yours to decide what to do with - help that poor person, for instance. Of course, if the company goes poorly, you are likely to be a dollar out of pocket for years and decades and possibly "for ever" on that particular stock.

Let's look at me for an example; my company is generally "safe" to invest in. It brings in around 2-4% of its turnover as profit, which amounts to some tens of milion dollars a year. However, sometimes, fuckups happen and we get involved in a project that ends up costing us a few years' revenue. That's when our owners step in and help, and they certainly notice it in their own stock price. A company in similar situation, but with "worse" owners may have gone belly-up and taken your investment with it.

^^^this is the economics practiced in my country since ronald reagan. so far it has worked well, for the rich.

I've had some interests in the United States up until the current presidency, and yet somehow, I have never given a rich person money - not to help the poor, nor for any other reason. (The bank bailout was before my time, financially speaking, but that would be an example of such an act) I have, however, paid the rich and the wealthy for goods and services which I want and they have/produce. That is neither trickle-down nor charity - that's commerce.

sure, the rich person you describe contribbutes, what, as much as ten other people in taxes . . . ? but he is extracting as much as a hundred other people from the shared economy. as i have said elsewhere, i am not concerned with taxes. taxes are not important to me.

The moment I pay Samsung for that there TV *point,* my money becomes their money, and their TV becomes my TV. Then they pay a VAT to the government - that is shared economy.

Unless you are specifically talking about bailouts, which shared economy is it that, say, Mr. Bezos is plundering for coin?

i am concerned with the rich mining their wealth from the less rich. i do not consent to have my labor subsidizing the rich.

I want that TV though, and I am prepared to pay for it. Similarly, I need food on occasion, and am prepared to pay for that, too. I expect someone to make a profit from those transactions, just as I make a profit by selling my time and effort to my employer. I do not dip into some "shared economy," though I do pay into one. Broadly the same goes for the guy making ten times what I do. We both get to pay for our own damned dentist.

your observation regarding consent is a good one.

I know. It's the little black heart and what passes for soul of my beef. Specifically, the exclusivity of consent over matters of personal/private property.

when did i consent have my government run by representatives purchased by the rich?

When you partook in the democratic process. If you have never voted or always voted blank, you did not. If you stopped voting or started voting blank because of that, you do not.

in 2010, the billionaires in america contributed $31,000,000 to the american election system.  in 2020, that number went up to $1,200,000,000. why did they increase their spending on politicians by 38 times?

Same as my example above. They "wanted that TV and were prepared to pay for it."

because they get a government whose policies are designed to benefit the rich at the expense of everybody else. the laws are written to benefit tbem, not the general public.

Do those laws equally apply to the general public? And by that, I don't mean, broadly speaking, if the general public can buy a judge - I'm asking whether there are laws that apply specifically to people above a certain financial threshhold, which do not apply to people below that threshhold, that favour those to whom they apply? (Remember, tax laws do not favour people - they are all invariably about "we" taking something from "I.")

because you get what you pay for, in the american system of government. i do not consent to that. does my consent matter?

I am not too familiar with the finer intricacies of your election system, but broadly speaking, if there is a lower threshhold of legitimacy, then it certainly does. (As in, if the election is void, provided "only a few" people show up to vote or if the majority votes blanK) If not - perhaps not.

the issue is that the rich are buying the government they prefer, and using my labor to subsidize it. i do not consent to that relationship.

How are they using your labour to subsidise it? If you mean that they use the money you pay for their products and services on politics - do as I do. Buy from someone else. I have successfully dumpled Gillette, Goodyear and Games Workshop for some blissfully-silent competitors. A benefit of there generally being plenty of fish in the sea. And hey,. if domestic doesn't work - buy foreign.

If you mean that they are using your actual labour, then my message is even simpler; don't work for free then.

[Icarus]

We AMericans believe that we have the duty to bitch about matters of compensation and the absence of fairness in the tax system.

  As a former business owner, I am familiar with the profit motive. I am aware of the rampant greed motive as well.  I never practiced the greed part of business ownership. We had an unwritten profit sharing system that failed to make me rich and it did not make the employees over prosperous either. 

The deal that Billy and most of the rest of we working slobs resent, is the division of profit from the big time manufacturers, big Pharma, brokers and such.  Imagine that a skilled worker makes 45k. Also imagine that his or her boss is making 13,500,000. That is a representative pair of figures for much of our system. 

To make matters even more unfair, many of the multimillion dollar bosses pay almost NO federal taxes at all. One of our mega buck business managers, Waren Buffet, has famously said, that the tax system in unfair. He said that he pays less in taxes than his secretary does.

We have a large number of Tax Accountants in the U.S.  The most prosperous, shrewd, and devious of those accountants work for highly compensated people.  Their job is to see that those highly compensated individuals pay little or no taxes. Those accountants are damned good at what they do. Their clients are cleverly immunized from paying their fair share.

   

[Tom62]

The idea that people with a high income don't pay any taxes is a lie and has been debunked time and time again. The wealthiest people pay the most. The top 10% earners pay the largest part of the total income taxes (source: https://www.thebalancemoney.com/breakdown-of-who-pays-most-taxes-4178924).

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The idea that people with a high income don't pay any taxes is a lie and has been debunked time and time again. The wealthiest people pay the most. The top 10% earners pay the largest part of the total income taxes (source: https://www.thebalancemoney.com/breakdown-of-who-pays-most-taxes-4178924).

Sure, but they don't pay as big a percentage of their wealth as the average middle class worker. Even Warren Buffett recognized that. A true graduated income tax and a small tax on net worth for the richest of the rich is fair. They would not be so rich if they lived in a third-world country. They are not so rich just because of their intelligence or hard work. They simply benefit more from the system, so they should pay a larger percentage.

[Dark Lightning]

I think that a consideration that is missing is that, in general, except for inherited wealth, vast quantities of money are made by people using a vast quantity of labor, that is now like it was before unions, in large part- vastly underpaid. I personally think that people in that category should both pay their workers more, and pay more taxes. Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos come to mind. I know that Microsoft has to pay their technical people big money, but by the same token Gates gives away a lot of it. I am of the mind that a model that doesn't enrich an individual so that they are obscenely wealthy should be used. Sure, without some specific guidance, Microsoft (for instance) may not have succeeded to the level it has.

[Asmodean]

The deal that Billy and most of the rest of we working slobs resent, is the division of profit from the big time manufacturers, big Pharma, brokers and such.  Imagine that a skilled worker makes 45k. Also imagine that his or her boss is making 13,500,000. That is a representative pair of figures for much of our system.

I'm pretty sure that the difference between my wage and that of our CEO is orders of magnitude. So what? I'm perfectly free to sell my services for more elsewhere, also where the boss does not make as much (They have tried to recruit my ass for years, in fact) question is though, why would I? My personal economy is in the black, I am liked and appreciated though I bitch about the lack of both because I want some work-related shinies that the company is not prepared to buy, I'm in a pretty safe position when it comes to economic crises and such like, I'm suitably challenged and rarely bored with my job, so... What do I care what someone else makes and why they stay or go then?

To make matters even more unfair, many of the multimillion dollar bosses pay almost NO federal taxes at all. One of our mega buck business managers, Waren Buffet, has famously said, that the tax system in unfair. He said that he pays less in taxes than his secretary does.

Sounds like a problem with your income tax - not with Mr. Buffet's income. An income tax as your rent for living in a society where somebody occasionally shovels snow from the driveway and mows the lawn, metaphorically speaking, is not a bad idea. I am, however, very much against taxing assets. Some of those are really difficult to convert into money in order to pay said asset tax. Now, once converted to money, they become income, which... Yeah. Taxable.

We have a large number of Tax Accountants in the U.S.  The most prosperous, shrewd, and devious of those accountants work for highly compensated people.  Their job is to see that those highly compensated individuals pay little or no taxes. Those accountants are damned good at what they do. Their clients are cleverly immunized from paying their fair share.

I'm back to my question; what is fair? By what standard? Is it fair that I, being neither particularly rich nor particularly wealthy, pay more to keep the society going than five lifelong welfare recepients? If it is, how and to whom?

I think that a consideration that is missing is that, in general, except for inherited wealth, vast quantities of money are made by people using a vast quantity of labor, that is now like it was before unions, in large part- vastly underpaid.

From experience, I am not unionized and somehow not underpaid, so apparently, it can be done.

If nobody is willing to buy your time for what you want for it, then entrepreneurship is an option. Manage to sell product and stay in business at your own price, and maybe you will get into position where you try to buy someone else's labour on the cheap.

I personally think that people in that category should both pay their workers more, and pay more taxes.

Let's say that my business turns a profit of 5% yearly. That means that for every 1000 dollars getting through the churn, after all is said and done and everyone is paid, the company is left with 50 bucks for income and asset tax, development of its business and dividends to the owners and shareholders. Let's say it's a larger company, and it makes 5% on a billion dollar turnover. That's 50 million. Not bad. Assuming 1000 employees, that's enough to give each a bonus of 50K. No income would mean no income tax. However, then you have nothing with which to pay asset taxes, develop the business, pay those you need to pay or, for that matter, invest for a "rainy day."

Where does the balance lie? How much of that 50M income should be taken in taxes? How much of a pay hike should the workers get?

Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos come to mind. I know that Microsoft has to pay their technical people big money, but by the same token Gates gives away a lot of it. I am of the mind that a model that doesn't enrich an individual so that they are obscenely wealthy should be used. Sure, without some specific guidance, Microsoft (for instance) may not have succeeded to the level it has.

A model can hardly enrich anybody unless they are selling it. For all his flaws, Bezos has created an empire. As long as it's his, or at the very least, as long as he has a major interest in it, I see absolutely no issue with him profiting like an absolute maniac off its success. If anybody doesn't like the way he runs his company, they are perfectly free to take their business elsewhere. If enough people do, he'll probably do a rethink.

Yes, there is the plight of the warehouse worker, however, it's the kind of job where it is pretty much do it for pennies or be replaced with a robot who will do it for pennies - 24 hours a day, with no holidays and progressively fewer sick days as the generations of warehouse robotics go by. (The calculation is actually that of enterprise cost, which I will go into if any-one is at all not-bored with this, but personally, I find such matters interesting, so... I'm game)

[Tank]

Personally I'd rather see a richer person taxed to the point where they have to buy two slightly smaller his/her brand new Mercs/BMWs/Jags than see a person have so little expendable income that they can't afford to run any form of second hand car and thus earn a living at all. 

[Asmodean]

Personally I'd rather see a richer person taxed to the point where they have to buy two slightly smaller his/her brand new Mercs/BMWs/Jags than see a person have so little expendable income that they can't afford to run any form of second hand car and thus earn a living at all.

Are you up to examining that statement?

For instance, assuming that both started roughly in similar conditions (middle-ish class, normal-ish schools, etc) why should the person who succeeded at life now carry the person who didn't, unless he specifically contributed to the latter's downfall? (It is worth noting that I don't fully disagree that he should - I may answer my own question later on)

[Tank]

Personally I'd rather see a richer person taxed to the point where they have to buy two slightly smaller his/her brand new Mercs/BMWs/Jags than see a person have so little expendable income that they can't afford to run any form of second hand car and thus earn a living at all.

Are you up to examining that statement?

For instance, assuming that both started roughly in similar conditions (middle-ish class, normal-ish schools, etc) why should the person who succeeded at life now carry the person who didn't, unless he specifically contributed to the latter's downfall? (It is worth noting that I don't fully disagree that he should - I may answer my own question later on)

And at the end of the day lives and people are not typical they are all unique consequences of birth and upbringing. We all live together in a society and if you want to live in one with dirt poor people you can look down on that's your choice (I don't think you do). Me I'd rather sleep at night knowing that all the people around me have a roof over their head, physical security and aren't starving.

[Asmodean]

Ah. A social argument. As implied, I do not disagree. I do demand more, however, and there is a way.

Given that I accept your reason as valid, I look at it as an investment (also broadening the horizons, as you already did)

Why should I carry an alcoholic through rehab? For a chance that after said rehab, he shall be a net gain to the society and thereby me, eventually paying back my investment with interest in form of his own taxes and VATs and whatnots, thus possibly even reducing my own tax burden.

Now replace "alcoholic" with any non-permanent condition and "rehab" with any non-lifelong subsidies, and you cover a whole spectrum of people - those fallen on hard times due to layoffs, those who had too much fun and too little progress at school, those who happen to get sick at an inopportune moment, etc.

I think the society paying for physical stuff people don't have is a bit... Dangerous, bordering on wasted resources, like, say, housing the homeless rather than providing them with the means of housing themselves. This applies to money as well - for instance, as unemployed, your work should be finding a job, and for that work, you should get a daily wage, which just happens to be the unemployment benefits, and which is absolutely predicated on you doing the work. (Note that I'm not talking about emergency aid here)

The question though is, "how?" Well, we could flat-tax everybody with an income 50-some percent and see how that goes. Probably the least unfair tax model, but somewhat bottom- and middle-burdensome. Oh, it's burdensome on the top as well, don't get me wrong, but not to the point where said top would suffer from the lack of monetary resources.

OR we could do some sort of a (necessary-) evil progressive tax system, where we "spare" the worst-off from much of a regular median-like person's tax burden, but pass the bill on to the rich and the wealthy because "they can afford it" As a (hopefully) short aside, yes, they can afford it, but so fucking what? It's theirs to afford - or not... [The Asmo keeps on ranting about this while finishing the reply]

OR we could go full communist and form a good old-fashioned committee to plan and distribute all our resources, foregoing such bourgeois concepts as "yours" and "mine," thus killing much of the incentive to create and/or do better and stagnate and eventually rot... There is another rant coming. Must. Resist.

Or maybe there is a better option? Personally, I think we won't out-compete a middle ground, and therefore my proposal is social investment. You invest into something that is worth it - divest from what isn't. Then it's just a matter of safety net for the special cases (For instance, you fell off a building a day before your first job and are now a quad - what happens?) Personally, I think such a net may well be be both insurance-like (conditional) and profit-driven.

Will that result in a world where I don't have to walk through a small army of heroin addicts on the way to my second-most-favourite café? Probably not. But then, neither will anything else, if we are honest, so why not build the best we can while annoying as few as possible?