Current Events > Should we limit how much wealth an individual can have? Why/why not?

(+) Yeah! (+)

SpinKirby posted...

Speed limits are actively interpreted as guidelines, and even still we get crashes daily.
It's not a rule issue, it's a people issue.

Rules are created and enforced because people are stupid, selfish and immoral. Your point doesn't help because we can't exactly change the people.

Like I would fucking love it if all drugs were legal but they're not, because barry the heroin addict is going to get himself killed and the cartel want their money.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

No, cause it's wrong to take other people's money just because they have a lot of it

I mean, that's what higher tax brackets do broseph. Are you a "taxation is theft" type of person?

There's plenty of legal ways to avoid being taxed to death, and it's not like very poor people get taxed at the same rate.
---

No. Any way to limit the money would create someone with the power to control that money, which will always fall into corruption.
---

Yah, good luck telling this to pro athletes.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

No, cause it's wrong to take other people's money just because they have a lot of it

I mean, that's what higher tax brackets do broseph. Are you a "taxation is theft" type of person?

It is theft, dude
---

pinky0926 posted...

SpinKirby posted...

Speed limits are actively interpreted as guidelines, and even still we get crashes daily.
It's not a rule issue, it's a people issue.

Rules are created and enforced because people are stupid, selfish and immoral. Your point doesn't help because we can't exactly change the people.

Like I would fucking love it if all drugs were legal but they're not, because barry the heroin addict is going to get himself killed and the cartel want their money.

This is exactly what I mean.

Let's do an example.

Millionaire X can't own over 500 million at the end of year.
He knows this so, he buys 5 yachts at December for "Christmas". He sells them back randomly in the next year.

What exactly is accomplished here?

He's still "selfish", but this rule has done nothing about his attitude.
---

SpinKirby posted...

pinky0926 posted...

SpinKirby posted...

Speed limits are actively interpreted as guidelines, and even still we get crashes daily.
It's not a rule issue, it's a people issue.

Rules are created and enforced because people are stupid, selfish and immoral. Your point doesn't help because we can't exactly change the people.

Like I would fucking love it if all drugs were legal but they're not, because barry the heroin addict is going to get himself killed and the cartel want their money.

This is exactly what I mean.

Let's do an example.

Millionaire X can't own over 500 million at the end of year.
He knows this so, he buys 5 yachts at December for "Christmas". He sells them back randomly in the next year.

What exactly is accomplished here?

He's still "selfish", but this rule has done nothing about his attitude.

Wealth would include the value of the yachts, so this wouldn't work. Wealth confiscation shouldn't happen though, especially given the value of assets changes over time.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

SpinKirby posted...

pinky0926 posted...

SpinKirby posted...

Speed limits are actively interpreted as guidelines, and even still we get crashes daily.
It's not a rule issue, it's a people issue.

Rules are created and enforced because people are stupid, selfish and immoral. Your point doesn't help because we can't exactly change the people.

Like I would fucking love it if all drugs were legal but they're not, because barry the heroin addict is going to get himself killed and the cartel want their money.

This is exactly what I mean.

Let's do an example.

Millionaire X can't own over 500 million at the end of year.
He knows this so, he buys 5 yachts at December for "Christmas". He sells them back randomly in the next year.

What exactly is accomplished here?

He's still "selfish", but this rule has done nothing about his attitude.

Wealth would include the value of the yachts, so this wouldn't work. Wealth confiscation shouldn't happen though, especially given the value of assets changes over time.

Yeah, uh who exactly is going to take the time to appraise every single item someone owns unless they're in trouble. That includes properties and objects outside of the country. I doubt you could sell a 1 million dollar yacht for 80% of it's original price.

Even worse, they could resort to lavish, shitty "fuck income cap" parties monthly with all their other rich friends.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

How have you not yet learned the lesson? If the tax rate is too high, people and companies will succeed in avoiding the tax. Tax avoidance is legal. If you want tax revenue to be brought back (like how Apple just brought back billions), you need to offer an incentive. IE in the form of an actually reasonable tax rate.

I understand this from a "they do it because they can" standpoint (much like moving manufacturing overseas where you can get the same amount of work done for cheap). I don't understand why it's supposedly a good thing for the world or the average consumer when a company or individual earning record profits can manipulate the rules or hold a country hostage if they don't get their way. Just for the sake of stockpiling money and padding personal finances to exorbitant amounts? How is it good for competition if you have all these juggernauts running around that don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else?

Like, Apple was given as an example. Why do we even want them doing business here? They want the wealthiest consumer market in the world to distribute their goods in, but they don't want to give back to that same market. It seems that companies like this would effectively bleed the country dry given enough time. Why not let another company or several companies take up the mantle and start producing similar goods? That has the added benefit of offering more choice at a lower cost to the consumer. Or would everyone just pull out completely and crash the economy?

Just trying to educate myself on the matter a little since I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. Would be interesting to have a Futurama style "what if" machine to see how some of these scenarios could play out.
---

SpinKirby posted...

This is exactly what I mean.

Let's do an example.

Millionaire X can't own over 500 million at the end of year.
He knows this so, he buys 5 yachts at December for "Christmas". He sells them back randomly in the next year.

What exactly is accomplished here?

He's still "selfish", but this rule has done nothing about his attitude.

If you're asking if I have a plan for wealth distribution I simply don't. I came here to discuss the philosophy side of things, and I just don't think any individual should have enough money that they can buy a country.
---

pinky0926 posted...

SpinKirby posted...

This is exactly what I mean.

Let's do an example.

Millionaire X can't own over 500 million at the end of year.
He knows this so, he buys 5 yachts at December for "Christmas". He sells them back randomly in the next year.

What exactly is accomplished here?

He's still "selfish", but this rule has done nothing about his attitude.

If you're asking if I have a plan for wealth distribution I simply don't. I came here to discuss the philosophy side of things, and I just don't think any individual should have enough money that they can buy a country.

Well, I don't think people should go on expensive vacations, because I don't have enough money to go on an expensive vacation on my own.
---

Ultima Dragon posted...

How is it good for competition if you have all these juggernauts running around that don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else?

It's not. It's terrible for competition.

Ultima Dragon posted...

Like, Apple was given as an example. Why do we even want them doing business here? They want the wealthiest consumer market in the world to distribute their goods in, but they don't want to give back to that same market. It seems that companies like this would effectively bleed the country dry given enough time. Why not let another company or several companies take up the mantle and start producing similar goods? That has the added benefit of offering more choice at a lower cost to the consumer. Or would everyone just pull out completely and crash the economy?

Why do we want them doing business here? Because they hire people. I don't get your latter point. There are other companies that produce similar goods to Apple - their competitors. The US government isn't restricting other companies from competing with Apple.

To the extent that Apple is getting favorable tax treatment, they should not get that special treatment. Other than that I don't see a problem.
---

Its a tough ethical issue. To some people, being a capitalist, growing a company and your wealth and using it to buy expensive things, you are helping to provide people all over the country/world with a livelihood they used to make/build those things, as well as your own employees. Therefore many thousands are having a better life because of you. You already did your part.

On the other hand, at a certain amount of money it brings declining returns on what difference it could possibly make to your life and your families life. Then you have counterproductive behaviours that come with extreme wealth like buying up all the land and using it to build luxury homes which will stand empty. I honestly do think if we're going to pay attention to ethics at all and we aren't total nihilists, there is some kind of moral imperative to share your personal wealth over a certain limit. To be fair, many do, in the form of foundations.
---

How would wealth redistribution even work? Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, etc, aren't Pablo Escobar. They don't have billions in cash sitting in a room somewhere. Most of their wealth is illiquid. Should Bezos be forced to hand out Amazon shares?
---

AlephZero posted...

How would wealth redistribution even work? Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, etc, aren't Pablo Escobar. They don't have billions in cash sitting in a room somewhere. Most of their wealth is illiquid. Should Bezos be forced to hand out Amazon shares?

I don't care how they do it, just give me my money
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This would probably collapse the economy. Investment income is generated (by the average person) by taking income they already paid taxes on and deferring gratification by putting it to work in the stock market or in real estate or in business ventures. The deferred gratification + risk warrant a lower tax rate as an incentive to get people to keep doing it.

I disagree. It definitely wouldn't collapse the economy -- don't be silly. You can argue over whether or not its more or less effective, but I would argue that given most american households don't have any investments, and those that do are largely through 401k plans, this thinking makes no sense to me. Let people write off losses more generously if this is the real concern, letting them carry forward more and for longer

If the households that do own investments decide to stop investing, that would certainly collapse the economy.

If my investments were taxed at the same rate as my income, I'd be looking for a different country to live in because that'd represent an enormous increase in my tax rate. To the point where some other country would benefit from the substantial tax revenue I generate.

Ehh, I don't agree with that. They low rate for capital gains goes away so they decide to stop investing or move countries? They're still making money and creating wealth in some way and getting good investment on returns. Why would they stop?

I think having the special tax rules for different types of income is arbitrary.
---

emblem boy posted...

I think having the special tax rules for different types of income is arbitrary.

with capital gains you should at least only tax the after-inflation gains then.
---

@Godnorgosh
@Antifar
@Paper_Okami
@gunplagirl

What do you think, comrades?
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

emblem boy posted...

I think having the special tax rules for different types of income is arbitrary.

with capital gains you should at least only tax the after-inflation gains then.

After inflation gains? As in subtracting inflation from the total gains made? Is that so they still have the incentive to keep holding and investing the money in some way?
---

emblem boy posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

emblem boy posted...

I think having the special tax rules for different types of income is arbitrary.

with capital gains you should at least only tax the after-inflation gains then.

After inflation gains? As in subtracting inflation from the total gains made? Is that so they still have the incentive to keep holding and investing the money in some way?

Yes to the first question, and as for the second question, it's more to not penalize people for inflation.

If you have a stock worth $100, and inflation is 2% a year, and the stock goes up to $102 over the course of that year, your gain was completely canceled out by inflation. Would it be fair to tax someone on top of that? You could also use an example where inflation was 3% so you actually lost money after inflation. Then it would be even more penalizing to tax someone.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

emblem boy posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

emblem boy posted...

I think having the special tax rules for different types of income is arbitrary.

with capital gains you should at least only tax the after-inflation gains then.

After inflation gains? As in subtracting inflation from the total gains made? Is that so they still have the incentive to keep holding and investing the money in some way?

Yes to the first question, and as for the second question, it's more to not penalize people for inflation.

If you have a stock worth $100, and inflation is 2% a year, and the stock goes up to $102 over the course of that year, your gain was completely canceled out by inflation. Would it be fair to tax someone on top of that? You could also use an example where inflation was 3% so you actually lost money after inflation. Then it would be even more penalizing to tax someone.

Would this be the same for income at regular jobs and just any income period. If my company only gives me a 1% raise and inflation is 2%, doesn't the same idea hold? Let's just subtract inflation increases from all taxes then
---

I think the reason it is particularly important for capital gains is that the capital gains can be over periods of many years if not decades, which means that inflation rate can compound to very significant amounts. With one year it's less of an impact.

Still though I am not against the idea of making inflation tax deductible.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

No. First of all, it's morally wrong. Second, if someone has "too much money" there's no reason to believe that taking their excess and handing it over to the government will somehow result in a better outcome.

If one person owned 75% of the USA would that be a problem?
---

I want many of you to ask yourselves a simple question. Why is it any of your business at all how much money somebody else has? If somebody with a hundred million dollars suddenly only has 50, has your life been somehow improved?

emblem boy posted...

I think having the special tax rules for different types of income is arbitrary.

Investment income is taxed lower because it's money that's already been taxed in the first place and making it less attractive to invest money into our economy, do I have to explain why that's bad?
---

Fuparulez posted...

Investment income is taxed lower because it's money that's already been taxed in the first place and making it less attractive to invest money into our economy, do I have to explain why that's bad?

But I mean, the income invested isn't what's taxed. It's the realized gains that are taxed.

If we're going to go down the hole of if something is double taxation or not, there are probably better examples.
---

emblem boy posted...

Fuparulez posted...

Investment income is taxed lower because it's money that's already been taxed in the first place and making it less attractive to invest money into our economy, do I have to explain why that's bad?

But I mean, the income invested isn't what's taxed. It's the realized gains that are taxed.

If we're going to go down the hole of if something is double taxation or not, there are probably better examples.

Dividends received are distributions of earnings that are already taxed
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

emblem boy posted...

Fuparulez posted...

Investment income is taxed lower because it's money that's already been taxed in the first place and making it less attractive to invest money into our economy, do I have to explain why that's bad?

But I mean, the income invested isn't what's taxed. It's the realized gains that are taxed.

If we're going to go down the hole of if something is double taxation or not, there are probably better examples.

Dividends received are distributions of earnings that are already taxed

Do you mean taxed on the corporation side?
---

emblem boy posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

emblem boy posted...

Fuparulez posted...

Investment income is taxed lower because it's money that's already been taxed in the first place and making it less attractive to invest money into our economy, do I have to explain why that's bad?

But I mean, the income invested isn't what's taxed. It's the realized gains that are taxed.

If we're going to go down the hole of if something is double taxation or not, there are probably better examples.

Dividends received are distributions of earnings that are already taxed

Do you mean taxed on the corporation side?

Yes
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

emblem boy posted...

Fuparulez posted...

Investment income is taxed lower because it's money that's already been taxed in the first place and making it less attractive to invest money into our economy, do I have to explain why that's bad?

But I mean, the income invested isn't what's taxed. It's the realized gains that are taxed.

If we're going to go down the hole of if something is double taxation or not, there are probably better examples.

Dividends received are distributions of earnings that are already taxed

But that's what happens when you move income from one entity to another, unless it's a passthrough entity.
---

Just do a little more research into the Laffer curve and set tax rates appropriately.

Boom, done.
---

Musourenka posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

emblem boy posted...

Fuparulez posted...

Investment income is taxed lower because it's money that's already been taxed in the first place and making it less attractive to invest money into our economy, do I have to explain why that's bad?

But I mean, the income invested isn't what's taxed. It's the realized gains that are taxed.

If we're going to go down the hole of if something is double taxation or not, there are probably better examples.

Dividends received are distributions of earnings that are already taxed

But that's what happens when you move income from one entity to another, unless it's a passthrough entity.

I know, just saying it's double taxation
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

emblem boy posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

emblem boy posted...

Fuparulez posted...

Investment income is taxed lower because it's money that's already been taxed in the first place and making it less attractive to invest money into our economy, do I have to explain why that's bad?

But I mean, the income invested isn't what's taxed. It's the realized gains that are taxed.

If we're going to go down the hole of if something is double taxation or not, there are probably better examples.

Dividends received are distributions of earnings that are already taxed

Do you mean taxed on the corporation side?

Yes

I guess the question is, do we care if it's the person that's taxed or the money itself when it comes to income.

Consumption taxes like sales taxes is a different question I guess
---

so eliminate corporate income taxes

raise capital gains and dividends taxes
---

Balrog0 posted...

so eliminate corporate income taxes

raise capital gains and dividends taxes

do you earn any money from capital gains or dividends?
---

No, I dont want that tax for a few reasons.

1. I disagree for all the same reasons I disagree with a progressive income tax.

2. The mega rich would get around it anyway, even if that means investing in real estate in Singapore to stay under the limit. Anything is better than giving the money away.

3. It would probably require a whole new bureaucratic layer of enforcement and monitoring by the IRS. Stock market fluctuations would have people going over and under the limit.
---