ADVERTISEMENT

2/3+ of Americans favor 2% wealth tax!

We might wonder if some of the changes are improvements. I got a big kick out of the story that the last civil war veteran to graduate with an undergrad degree was the dean of the law school at the time. He had studied under a lawyer which was the practice of the era. Would law, or other professions, be damaged by returning to that?

While I presented Lincoln's quote, I am really arguing for equality and not supremacy. The investor is no more or less noble than the worker. The communist view that the worker reigns supreme and the opposite view that the capitalist reigns supreme are both wrong.

C'mon marv. Lincoln said capital is the fruit of labor. I disagree and claim that capital is the fruit of ideas, risk taking, and entrepreneurship. Digging a hole and then filling it up again is labor, but creates zero capital. If somebody has an idea of how to put the hole to economic use, capital might be created. Similarly, an idea of how to use the hole is worthless unless there is labor to dig the hole. If the guy with the idea borrows money to pay for the labor, there is still no capital. Capital creation takes more. I agree labor is a factor in creating value in capital. But to say capital "could never have existed if labor had not first existed" is flat dead wrong in my view.

I'd like to read your defense of Lincoln's views.
 
C'mon marv. Lincoln said capital is the fruit of labor. I disagree and claim that capital is the fruit of ideas, risk taking, and entrepreneurship. Digging a hole and then filling it up again is labor, but creates zero capital. If somebody has an idea of how to put the hole to economic use, capital might be created. Similarly, an idea of how to use the hole is worthless unless there is labor to dig the hole. If the guy with the idea borrows money to pay for the labor, there is still no capital. Capital creation takes more. I agree labor is a factor in creating value in capital. But to say capital "could never have existed if labor had not first existed" is flat dead wrong in my view.

I'd like to read your defense of Lincoln's views.

It cannot be flat dead wrong, people were working before money was invented. Someone hunted, someone gathered, someone watched the babies. The early gatherers required no investment except time, knowledge, and labor of their own making. Are you rewriting human history to create investors?
 
Let me ask this about the argument investors can lose money. Sears folded, did their workers get 100% of the pay due to them? When Penn Central folded, I know for a fact workers lost their retirement as it happened to my family. Workers are not guaranteed pay either.
 
It cannot be flat dead wrong, people were working before money was invented. Someone hunted, someone gathered, someone watched the babies. The early gatherers required no investment except time, knowledge, and labor of their own making. Are you rewriting human history to create investors?

Don't follow this argument. I don't argue that humans don't derrive benefits from labor. My challege to Lincoln is whether capital can exist in the absense of labor. I think it can. I think it's clear that not all labor produces capital.
 
Don't follow this argument. I don't argue that humans don't derrive benefits from labor. My challege to Lincoln is whether capital can exist in the absense of labor. I think it can. I think it's clear that not all labor produces capital.

Labor came first is part of the point, the other part is if NO ONE does labor, how do you eat?
 
So when the early bird gets the worm, that bird creates capital?

I am thinking that is Lincoln's point. Mine is more the two go hand-in-hand.

Let's use simple math, the transitive property. We here money = time. If I invest time in working for a company, since money = time, I am investing money in the success of the company. I am just paid out monthly/weekly/daily. Nevertheless, I am investing in its success.
 
I am thinking that is Lincoln's point. Mine is more the two go hand-in-hand.

Let's use simple math, the transitive property. We here money = time. If I invest time in working for a company, since money = time, I am investing money in the success of the company. I am just paid out monthly/weekly/daily. Nevertheless, I am investing in its success.

I agree. I don’t deny that labor contributes to capital. My beef with Lincoln is the notion that capital is the fruit of labor. If I can analogize to a plant. Capital is the fruit of the seed. Labor is the cultivation of the seed.
 
I agree. I don’t deny that labor contributes to capital. My beef with Lincoln is the notion that capital is the fruit of labor. If I can analogize to a plant. Capital is the fruit of the seed. Labor is the cultivation of the seed.

Think about Lincoln's life. He grew up living In the hinterland surviving by what they could hunter/gather. Homesteading was an option.to a fair number of Americans, capital did not exist,
 
C'mon marv. Lincoln said capital is the fruit of labor. I disagree and claim that capital is the fruit of ideas, risk taking, and entrepreneurship. Digging a hole and then filling it up again is labor, but creates zero capital. If somebody has an idea of how to put the hole to economic use, capital might be created. Similarly, an idea of how to use the hole is worthless unless there is labor to dig the hole. If the guy with the idea borrows money to pay for the labor, there is still no capital. Capital creation takes more. I agree labor is a factor in creating value in capital. But to say capital "could never have existed if labor had not first existed" is flat dead wrong in my view.

I'd like to read your defense of Lincoln's views.
Name an idea that Adam(or anyone for that matter) could have turned into capital, without labor? Without labor, your definition of capital is always "unrealized" capital. Like the difference between potential and kinetic energy.

Note: Like MtM, I'm not arguing labor is more important. I'm arguing Lincoln was right.
 
Name an idea that Adam(or anyone for that matter) could have turned into capital, without labor? Without labor, your definition of capital is always "unrealized" capital. Like the difference between potential and kinetic energy.

Note: Like MtM, I'm not arguing labor is more important. I'm arguing Lincoln was right.

Google’s first definition of capital:

In economics, capital consists of assets that can enhance one's power to perform economically useful work.
An asset can be the product of one’s mind. This would include intellectual property and has positive balance sheet value. it’s part of the capital of business.

I don’t think energy is an apt analogy. Energy really can’t exist in he abstract. It must be converted to motion or heat or something.

I’d suggest that even Zork, the caveman’s stock of clubs that he trades for food, is capital. Sure the stockpile of clubs is the result of Zork’s labor, but the idea of trading clubs for food has intrinsic value before a single club is made, and would also be capital.
 
Google’s first definition of capital:

In economics, capital consists of assets that can enhance one's power to perform economically useful work.
An asset can be the product of one’s mind. This would include intellectual property and has positive balance sheet value. it’s part of the capital of business.

I don’t think energy is an apt analogy. Energy really can’t exist in he abstract. It must be converted to motion or heat or something.

I’d suggest that even Zork, the caveman’s stock of clubs that he trades for food, is capital. Sure the stockpile of clubs is the result of Zork’s labor, but the idea of trading clubs for food has intrinsic value before a single club is made, and would also be capital.

What you are suggesting goes back to a point I was trying to make earlier. It might be that labor is capital. I am investing my time and knowledge into a company. Both of those things have value. Labor is capital.
 
What you are suggesting goes back to a point I was trying to make earlier. It might be that labor is capital. I am investing my time and knowledge into a company. Both of those things have value. Labor is capital.

I don’t disagree with that. But ones labor is their own capital, not someone else’s. For professionals, the law recognizes that and values it. They call it good will Anybody’s labor skills and willingness to apply them translates to income and is an asset.
 
I don’t disagree with that. But ones labor is their own capital, not someone else’s. For professionals, the law recognizes that and values it. They call it good will Anybody’s labor skills and willingness to apply them translates to income and is an asset.

The problem as we now do it, it is very hard for labor to get ahead. That median household income is $60,000 and change. Now raise a child or two on that, and save for the future, it gets very tricky very fast. There seems a certain likelihood that it is a bit easier for the investor.

There is risk in investing, but many times when a business fails employees are not paid for time worked. So there is some risk. Especially if one is paid monthly, PR paid no weekly a week behind.

I guess we could pass a law requiring interest. If I am paid on the 1st for the previous month, I should get 30 days interest for that first day's investment, 29 for the 2nd, etc. But that seems like a lot of accounting. Let's just treat all our investing the same for tax purposes.


Let us think through all the capital gains. You have been hanging onto your Picasso for several years now, when you sell it that will be taxed at the lower capital gains rate. It probably has not created jobs. Why are we taxing you less on that sale than we tax a worker? Granted, a very high end worker like an MLB star,, but a worker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
The problem as we now do it, it is very hard for labor to get ahead. That median household income is $60,000 and change. Now raise a child or two on that, and save for the future, it gets very tricky very fast. There seems a certain likelihood that it is a bit easier for the investor.

There is risk in investing, but many times when a business fails employees are not paid for time worked. So there is some risk. Especially if one is paid monthly, PR paid no weekly a week behind.

I guess we could pass a law requiring interest. If I am paid on the 1st for the previous month, I should get 30 days interest for that first day's investment, 29 for the 2nd, etc. But that seems like a lot of accounting. Let's just treat all our investing the same for tax purposes.


Let us think through all the capital gains. You have been hanging onto your Picasso for several years now, when you sell it that will be taxed at the lower capital gains rate. It probably has not created jobs. Why are we taxing you less on that sale than we tax a worker? Granted, a very high end worker like an MLB star,, but a worker.

this gets back to my fist post in this thread. Exactly what problem are you trying to solve with more capital gains taxes? How would more capital gains taxes address said problem?
 
Google’s first definition of capital:

In economics, capital consists of assets that can enhance one's power to perform economically useful work.
An asset can be the product of one’s mind. This would include intellectual property and has positive balance sheet value. it’s part of the capital of business.

I don’t think energy is an apt analogy. Energy really can’t exist in he abstract. It must be converted to motion or heat or something.

I’d suggest that even Zork, the caveman’s stock of clubs that he trades for food, is capital. Sure the stockpile of clubs is the result of Zork’s labor, but the idea of trading clubs for food has intrinsic value before a single club is made, and would also be capital.
Google it again. That was from Wikipedia, and it wasn't a definition. Try Oxford or Merriam-Webster. Your definition is obviously different from Lincoln's, or anyone else's.

Even with your definition, capital is worthless without labor. Sure an idea can have value. You can patent ideas. You can sale ideas. But it only has value because the buyer assumes labor will allow it to be realized. Unless the clubs are ultimately produced, Zork's idea is worthless.
 
Even with your definition, capital is worthless without labor. Sure an idea can have value. You can patent ideas. You can sale ideas. But it only has value because the buyer assumes labor will allow it to be realized. Unless the clubs are ultimately produced, Zork's idea is worthless.

Then what exactly does the buyer of the idea buy?
 
What is the problem a wealth tax is intended to solve? If it's to help lower and middle income folks move up the social-economic ladder, I'm not buying it. While a theoretical case can be made that wealth-tax-funded transfer payments to the lower and middle income people can improve lives, that case doesn't support the notion that lower and middle income people will get higher paychecks. Microsoft and Gates have made gobs and gobs of money, and increased their capital accounts several times over by outsourcing tech jobs overseas and by lobbying for and taking advantage of lenient H1(b) immigration programs for tech workers to come here. If Gates is serious about attacking the evils of income and wealth maldistribution, the way forward is not with new and more taxes. The way forward is to increase employment and good jobs here. That means stop depressing compensation and depressing job growth by taking employment opportunities overseas.
You are not taking into account the utility of the tax code. The problem we have now is an imbalance of investment to consumption. And this imbalance has been growing since 1980.

The best President of your lifetime(your words) had a 92% top tax rate, and a very progressive tax schedule beneath it. That had several ramifications. It made individuals weigh the allocation of every next dollar earned. Once income got to a certain level, the earner had to decide whether to keep $.08 and forego $.92 in the form of taxes. IOW, they could spend it(consume), or forfeit 92% of it to the government. So, excessive wealth was forced into consumption: by the private sector, in the form of wages and capital improvements, or by government in the form of infrastructure(wages for roads, schools, and bridges.)

Fast forward to '86. Now for every dollar of excessive wealth, an earner could keep $.80 and only forfeit $.20. And instead of the highest bracket being in the millions, it was reduced to $200k. So the guy making $1M/year was taxed at the same rate as the guy making $200k/year. Do that for 40 years and you can quickly see how investments could outpace consumption.

Some quick points:

1. Think about what happens to the Velocity of the dollar when investments increase and consumption lags. And remember that every time a dollar changes hands, it has the opportunity to be taxed. It's possible for the same dollar to be taxed multiple times. Think about our debt.

2. How could a large corporation justify paying extreme salaries to it's management if 92% of the additional salary was going to the government? Once it was only 20%, management had much more incentive to increase profits by outsourcing/using guest workers vs increasing wages/employment. Manufacturing jobs peaked in 1979. You posted an article that said Disney replaced its staff with guest workers in ~1990, IIRC.

https://images.app.goo.gl/xS6ay9U6g7sVFTA17

xS6ay9U6g7sVFTA17


3. Also think about SS. We have increased wealth disparity by increasing top salaries which are capped, while also suppressing wages by outsourcing. That's not a recipe for sustainability, even if we didn't have a wave in population/age distribution.
 
You are not taking into account the utility of the tax code. The problem we have now is an imbalance of investment to consumption. And this imbalance has been growing since 1980.

The best President of your lifetime(your words) had a 92% top tax rate, and a very progressive tax schedule beneath it. That had several ramifications. It made individuals weigh the allocation of every next dollar earned. Once income got to a certain level, the earner had to decide whether to keep $.08 and forego $.92 in the form of taxes. IOW, they could spend it(consume), or forfeit 92% of it to the government. So, excessive wealth was forced into consumption: by the private sector, in the form of wages and capital improvements, or by government in the form of infrastructure(wages for roads, schools, and bridges.)

Fast forward to '86. Now for every dollar of excessive wealth, an earner could keep $.80 and only forfeit $.20. And instead of the highest bracket being in the millions, it was reduced to $200k. So the guy making $1M/year was taxed at the same rate as the guy making $200k/year. Do that for 40 years and you can quickly see how investments could outpace consumption.

Some quick points:

1. Think about what happens to the Velocity of the dollar when investments increase and consumption lags. And remember that every time a dollar changes hands, it has the opportunity to be taxed. It's possible for the same dollar to be taxed multiple times. Think about our debt.

2. How could a large corporation justify paying extreme salaries to it's management if 92% of the additional salary was going to the government? Once it was only 20%, management had much more incentive to increase profits by outsourcing/using guest workers vs increasing wages/employment. Manufacturing jobs peaked in 1979. You posted an article that said Disney replaced its staff with guest workers in ~1990, IIRC.

https://images.app.goo.gl/xS6ay9U6g7sVFTA17

xS6ay9U6g7sVFTA17


3. Also think about SS. We have increased wealth disparity by increasing top salaries which are capped, while also suppressing wages by outsourcing. That's not a recipe for sustainability, even if we didn't have a wave in population/age distribution.

That 92% rate was accompanied by a robust tax avoidance system through shelters and other set offs against ordinary income. The ‘86 reforms eliminated these shelters and set-offs. The result was short term convulsions in the investment real estate industry, but once that worked itself out, I think we have a more sane tax system and real estate market.

I won’t defend the obscene incomes of the paper shufflers who don’t produce goods or services. So if you want take away those tax benefits, like carried interest, have at it. But I think we are being short sighted if we use the tax code to restrict those organizations that produce goods and services for the ordinary people, not to mention employing those same people.

I’m not sure what role money velocity plays in this point, but one way to slow down velocity is to increase capital gains taxes. At the very least, lower capital gains taxes will encourage all kinds of new construction and rejuvenation of properties.

Don’t get me wrong. I think income maldistribution is an issue. But I think income follows better educations and better social conditions. The solution to the problem lies in fixing the problems with addictions, poor education, and broken families and communities. Monkeying around with the tax code might make some feel better. I have no doubt some schadenfreude is behind the statistic in the OP, but I think the case for taxing the rich more will raise lower incomes is weak.

Finally, I think the larger problem is lack of economic mobility. If the 60k median income is an issue, the way forward is to increase mobility so people are not stuck with lower incomes.
 
this gets back to my fist post in this thread. Exactly what problem are you trying to solve with more capital gains taxes? How would more capital gains taxes address said problem?

There is an unfair advantage to buying a Picasso painting over working. We need to eliminate that. Recall during the Reagan years the ink spilled on "marriage penalty" ? Let us call this a work penalty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
You are not taking into account the utility of the tax code. The problem we have now is an imbalance of investment to consumption. And this imbalance has been growing since 1980.

The best President of your lifetime(your words) had a 92% top tax rate, and a very progressive tax schedule beneath it. That had several ramifications. It made individuals weigh the allocation of every next dollar earned. Once income got to a certain level, the earner had to decide whether to keep $.08 and forego $.92 in the form of taxes. IOW, they could spend it(consume), or forfeit 92% of it to the government. So, excessive wealth was forced into consumption: by the private sector, in the form of wages and capital improvements, or by government in the form of infrastructure(wages for roads, schools, and bridges.)

Fast forward to '86. Now for every dollar of excessive wealth, an earner could keep $.80 and only forfeit $.20. And instead of the highest bracket being in the millions, it was reduced to $200k. So the guy making $1M/year was taxed at the same rate as the guy making $200k/year. Do that for 40 years and you can quickly see how investments could outpace consumption.

Some quick points:

1. Think about what happens to the Velocity of the dollar when investments increase and consumption lags. And remember that every time a dollar changes hands, it has the opportunity to be taxed. It's possible for the same dollar to be taxed multiple times. Think about our debt.

2. How could a large corporation justify paying extreme salaries to it's management if 92% of the additional salary was going to the government? Once it was only 20%, management had much more incentive to increase profits by outsourcing/using guest workers vs increasing wages/employment. Manufacturing jobs peaked in 1979. You posted an article that said Disney replaced its staff with guest workers in ~1990, IIRC.

https://images.app.goo.gl/xS6ay9U6g7sVFTA17

xS6ay9U6g7sVFTA17


3. Also think about SS. We have increased wealth disparity by increasing top salaries which are capped, while also suppressing wages by outsourcing. That's not a recipe for sustainability, even if we didn't have a wave in population/age distribution.
The effective tax rate was no where near that 92%. The effective tax rates now and then are only a few percentage points different. I’m about to jump in the car and drive to Louisville or I look it up and link them.
 
Yes, but as I said, I lose my time forever. There is no getting back the 40 hours I spent working. In my example, both A and B may love fishing more than anything in the world. The investor can easily fish from sunup to sundown almost every day. That isn't possible for the worker. Not assuming the worker wishes to keep his job. The investor gets to do the items that pleases them, the worker gets to do what their boss tells them to do. The worker is literally trading in a significant part of their life for their money. One thing is true, I see my coworkers more than I do my family. That is the trade off. I would gladly accept the risk of losing money. Heck, I lost a ton of money (in my world) from my retirement accounts in 2008.

It is said you are paid for what you know, that is a lie. I've never met anyone who is called in to do a brain dump and then is sent home with their salary. You are paid to give up part of your life to the company so the investor can live without giving up part of their life.
Buf if you go fishing every day and don't work then you don't lose anything. Of course you don't gain anything either. The investors goes fishing every day and he gambles to a certain extent with with money and he may gain something but he can come home a lot poorer. In other words if you win a 5 million dollar lottery and decide to quit your job and fish every day you have several choices. 1) You can stuff the money in a mattress and end up losing money because of inflation 2) Invest in really safe things (CDs, government bonds,etc) where you aren't gambling and pay ordinary taxes on the gain or 3) you can invest in companies but you might lose a lot of money (look at the 40%(approximate) loss of the S&P 500 in 2008). In 2008 you would have lost 2 million dollars and guess what.... you're only allowed to deduct $3,000 (I believe) from you taxes with the rest carrying over to the next year.

"It is said you are paid for what you know, that is a lie. I've never met anyone who is called in to do a brain dump and then is sent home with their salary. You are paid to give up part of your life to the company so the investor can live without giving up part of theirs"
To me that is a general term that is true. A lawyer, doctor, etc makes more money because of what they know. I worked with a guy that did exactly what I did but he had a PhD(but not in the area that he was working in) and I know he made a lot more money than I did because of his education. You are paid to work for a company so they can exist in most cases. An investor MAY make money if he buys stock in that company but there is no guarantee.
 
There is an unfair advantage to buying a Picasso painting over working. We need to eliminate that. Recall during the Reagan years the ink spilled on "marriage penalty" ? Let us call this a work penalty.

Why do we “need” to eliminate the Picasso advantage? Once again, I am not clear on the problem you are trying to solve here. If you think taxing collectibles will solve maldistribution of income, I think you are mistaken.

Do you really want to call paying taxes a penalty? Of course there is a work penalty. That ship sailed more than 100 years ago. The marriage penalty isn’t analogous because the Picasso owner and worker are not similarly situated.
 
That 92% rate was accompanied by a robust tax avoidance system through shelters and other set offs against ordinary income. The ‘86 reforms eliminated these shelters and set-offs. The result was short term convulsions in the investment real estate industry, but once that worked itself out, I think we have a more sane tax system and real estate market.

I won’t defend the obscene incomes of the paper shufflers who don’t produce goods or services. So if you want take away those tax benefits, like carried interest, have at it. But I think we are being short sighted if we use the tax code to restrict those organizations that produce goods and services for the ordinary people, not to mention employing those same people.

I’m not sure what role money velocity plays in this point, but one way to slow down velocity is to increase capital gains taxes. At the very least, lower capital gains taxes will encourage all kinds of new construction and rejuvenation of properties.

Don’t get me wrong. I think income maldistribution is an issue. But I think income follows better educations and better social conditions. The solution to the problem lies in fixing the problems with addictions, poor education, and broken families and communities. Monkeying around with the tax code might make some feel better. I have no doubt some schadenfreude is behind the statistic in the OP, but I think the case for taxing the rich more will raise lower incomes is weak.

Finally, I think the larger problem is lack of economic mobility. If the 60k median income is an issue, the way forward is to increase mobility so people are not stuck with lower incomes.

The effective tax rate was no where near that 92%. The effective tax rates now and then are only a few percentage points different. I’m about to jump in the car and drive to Louisville or I look it up and link them.
Safe travels, Aloha.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

I think this is the link you are searching for. However, all of their bullet points confirm what I'm saying. By bullet point:

1. Not many Americans reached the top bracket because income disparity was held in check.

2. They're simply stating that the tax code was more progressive, so income was taxed at lower levels on the way up.

3. They say there is less income reported because of avoidance. Either people were cheating, or they were finding ways to spend their money to avoid taxes, i.e. consumption.

What seems to be lost, is the argument over effective rates is from the perspective of collected revenues by our government. Even though it was six percent higher back then, that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying there were far greater consequences resulting from the changes in our tax code. Why did manufacturing peak in 1979? Why did income disparity start to rapidly increase in 1987? And obviously I'm arguing wealth disparity arose from top earners keeping more money every time they passed "Go" for forty plus years. How do you, or anyone else, explain it? We have people who literally make a billion dollars a year and pay a less effective rate than their secretary. Why wasn't that happening in the 50's?

Ultimately, I'm not arguing for a return to those levels. I don't think increasing income rates alone will reverse all the damage that has been done. I do expect Reagan Republicans to man up and admit the role that their tax policies played in our society. As I've stated before, if Reaganomics worked so well, why is today's GOP trying to MAGA, like it was in the 50's?

Edit to add: We have an investment to consumption problem and adding brackets to the top would ultimately help that situation, along with some sort of capital gains being incorporated into regular income, or at least made progressive, like ordinary income. Maybe capital gains needs it's own schedule.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hoosboot
Safe travels, Aloha.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

I think this is the link you are searching for. However, all of their bullet points confirm what I'm saying. By bullet point:

1. Not many Americans reached the top bracket because income disparity was held in check.

2. They're simply stating that the tax code was more progressive, so income was taxed at lower levels on the way up.

3. They say there is less income reported because of avoidance. Either people were cheating, or they were finding ways to spend their money to avoid taxes, i.e. consumption.

What seems to be lost, is the argument over effective rates is from the perspective of collected revenues by our government. Even though it was six percent higher back then, that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying there were far greater consequences resulting from the changes in our tax code. Why did manufacturing peak in 1979? Why did income disparity start to rapidly increase in 1987? And obviously I'm arguing wealth disparity arose from top earners keeping more money every time they passed "Go" for forty plus years. How do you, or anyone else, explain it? We have people who literally make a billion dollars a year and pay a less effective rate than their secretary. Why wasn't that happening in the 50's?

Ultimately, I'm not arguing for a return to those levels. I don't think increasing income rates alone will reverse all the damage that has been done. I do expect Reagan Republicans to man up and admit the role that their tax policies played in our society. As I've stated before, if Reaganomics worked so well, why is today's GOP trying to MAGA, like it was in the 50's?

Edit to add: We have an investment to consumption problem and adding brackets to the top would ultimately help that situation, along with some sort of capital gains being incorporated into regular income, or at least made progressive, like ordinary income. Maybe capital gains needs it's own schedule.

if you allow govt to be bought, 100% chance it will be.

and it was.

don't over think this, it isn't rocket science.

those at the top who control how the revenues from business get divided up between all those involved who created the revenues, will and do keep as much for themselves as they can until forced otherwise.

in the past there were two entities that could force otherwise, unions and govt.

unions did so though collective bargaining, govt through taxation and min wage.

ownership solved all the "sharing the wealth collectively produced" problems by buying the govt, which allowed them to do away with unions, avoid the taxation, and halt min wage gains. (and other labor pool manipulation, such as offshoring and importing low wage labor).

so now, not only do they keep a disproportionate share because they can, but also use their indirect control of the Fed to print money on the country's Visa card, and plow all the borrowed money, directly or indirectly, into the market benefiting only the ownership/investment class through market prices manipulated through flooding the market with the borrowed/printed money.

then the gains from the manipulated market also get plowed back into the market in a vicious cycle where the money never so much as ever touches the working classes hands.

when the rule makers, ie the govt, make all the rules to benefit one side, this is what we get and will always get.

only way to reverse the trend is for the non investor class to retake what has been effectively a complete takeover of our govt on everything economic by the moneyed interests, because they control all the money and are allowed to buy the rule makers with it.

the unalterable algorithm of capitalism the force works no other way, nor can it, absent an equal or greater counter force pushing back.

translation, only the working class taking back enough say in the rules, can reverse the trend.

if i get to make all the rules, i can beat Tiger Woods in golf and Lebron in bball.

rules matter.. one side is making all the rules.. thus the other side has no chance.
 
Last edited:
Why do we “need” to eliminate the Picasso advantage? Once again, I am not clear on the problem you are trying to solve here. If you think taxing collectibles will solve maldistribution of income, I think you are mistaken.

Do you really want to call paying taxes a penalty? Of course there is a work penalty. That ship sailed more than 100 years ago. The marriage penalty isn’t analogous because the Picasso owner and worker are not similarly situated.

The problem is we favor investing over working. We do, you are not even debating that. Workers are mot inferior, do you debate that? So why favor investors.
 
Buf if you go fishing every day and don't work then you don't lose anything. Of course you don't gain anything either. The investors goes fishing every day and he gambles to a certain extent with with money and he may gain something but he can come home a lot poorer. In other words if you win a 5 million dollar lottery and decide to quit your job and fish every day you have several choices. 1) You can stuff the money in a mattress and end up losing money because of inflation 2) Invest in really safe things (CDs, government bonds,etc) where you aren't gambling and pay ordinary taxes on the gain or 3) you can invest in companies but you might lose a lot of money (look at the 40%(approximate) loss of the S&P 500 in 2008). In 2008 you would have lost 2 million dollars and guess what.... you're only allowed to deduct $3,000 (I believe) from you taxes with the rest carrying over to the next year.

"It is said you are paid for what you know, that is a lie. I've never met anyone who is called in to do a brain dump and then is sent home with their salary. You are paid to give up part of your life to the company so the investor can live without giving up part of theirs"
To me that is a general term that is true. A lawyer, doctor, etc makes more money because of what they know. I worked with a guy that did exactly what I did but he had a PhD(but not in the area that he was working in) and I know he made a lot more money than I did because of his education. You are paid to work for a company so they can exist in most cases. An investor MAY make money if he buys stock in that company but there is no guarantee.

Workers are moot immune to losing money. On a larger scale, Sears is an example. On,a smaller scale, you have never seen news stories of workers showing up to a restaurant and finding a closed sign and being told There is no money to pay tjjem?
 
if you allow govt to be bought, 100% chance it will be.

and it was.

don't over think this, it isn't rocket science.

those at the top who control how the revenues from business get divided up between all those involved who created the revenues, will and do keep as much for themselves as they can until forced otherwise.

in the past there were two entities that could force otherwise, unions and govt.

unions did so though collective bargaining, govt through taxation and min wage.

ownership solved all the "sharing the wealth collectively produced" problems by buying the govt, which allowed them to do away with unions, avoid the taxation, and halt min wage gains. (and other labor pool manipulation, such as offshoring and importing low wage labor).

so now, not only do they keep a disproportionate share because they can, but also use their indirect control of the Fed to print money on the country's Visa card, and plow all the borrowed money, directly or indirectly, into the market benefiting only the ownership/investment class through market prices manipulated through flooding the market with the borrowed/printed money.

then the gains from the manipulated market also get plowed back into the market in a vicious cycle where the money never so much as ever touches the working classes hands.

when the rule makers, ie the govt, make all the rules to benefit one side, this is what we get and will always get.

only way to reverse the trend is for the non investor class to retake what has been effectively a complete takeover of our govt on everything economic by the moneyed interests, because they control all the money and are allowed to buy the rule makers with it.

the unalterable algorithm of capitalism the force works no other way, nor can it, absent an equal or greater counter force pushing back.

translation, only the working class taking back enough say in the rules, can reverse the trend.

if i get to make all the rules, i can beat Tiger Woods in golf and Lebron in bball.

rules matter.. one side is making all the rules.. thus the other side has no chance.
Why?
 
You lie Aloha!

You have always claimed that IGW's posts have been incomprehensible. Now you are engaging him in such a big question?
Didn’t read it. One of the WC’s great mysteries is why he would post in such a ridiculously nonsensical way.
 
The problem is we favor investing over working. We do, you are not even debating that. Workers are mot inferior, do you debate that? So why favor investors.

By in large, I don’t think taxes are a matter of favoritism. Most of the time taxes are levied based upon factors if predictability of revenue, ease of collection, and least disruption to commerce. I agree tax exemptions are often based upon favoring certain people and activities. Sometimes those are based on sound policy and other times it is based upon lobbying. As far as I am concerned, capital gains is not even an income tax, It’s a tax on capital appreciation. And when we consider deprecated assets and the recapture rules, we have different considerations. My point is who we tax and what we tax is based upon a plethora of considerations that can’t be summed up with a word like “favoritism”.

I support efforts to simplify the whole shebang. But that might be impossible considering all the interests who want protection.
 
Workers are moot immune to losing money. On a larger scale, Sears is an example. On,a smaller scale, you have never seen news stories of workers showing up to a restaurant and finding a closed sign and being told There is no money to pay tjjem?
Of course I've heard of things like that. However in the end a lot of people(I personally know quite a few) consider it risky to put their money in the stock market so you have to reward them some way to get them to invest in companies. Now I'd go along with a cap on the amount of capital gain that is taxed at a lower rate but I will always believe that we as a country should encourage people to invest so they might have a more secure future.

I believe that you would see a lot of money leave this country if you started taxing capital gains as normal income because there are other countries where there is no or low taxes on capital gains.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
However in the end a lot of people(I personally know quite a few) consider it risky to put their money in the stock market so you have to reward them some way to get them to invest in companies.

of course you do.

so much safer under the mattress.

or on the coffee table.

or fireplace hearth.

or stored in boxes.

the closet or buried in the back yard is always popular.

or wherever.


th
 
Last edited:
This isn't Abe's 1800s here. I think times are just a bit different, don't you? Look at the world's largest companies, for example.

Besides, Lincoln was simply home-schooled and/or self-taught. Not that relatable to today's complex world.

Good to know that we won't be hearing any "wisdom of the founders" posts from you. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT