Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Wealth inequality (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gianmarco
- Start date
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
To maintain some semblance of order. That’s really the only reason. A base level of stability.
quick-hands
Footballguy
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
To prevent society from destabilizing. Destabilization is bad. Ask Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
quick-hands
Footballguy
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
No. Why is that relevant? Plenty of things cause destabilization.
If you want a migration-based version, look at the Uighurs. Or Tibet.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
Not locally. The state tax rate is 5% on income over $5000. Im not sure how these guys are structured but it’s pretty.much that whether small schedule C or some time of PTE (pass through entity). Most farms aren’t going to be the size to be structured as something much larger than that.
Part of that issue is why we need to come up with some status for these workers to collect tax. They aren’t paying any and there isn’t any payroll tax being collected either in these situations. They are drops in the bucket individually but are needed offsets against the associated healthcare and education costs for them being here. I do realize by saying that we are going to have a higher food costs as a result. But we are paying for it in other ways or taking on debt for it because we have the associated costs either way we are just funding the debt to pay for it rather than taxing it at that level.
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski
Footballguy
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
What consequences do you refer to?
I don’t think condemning people to a life of poverty simply because they were unlucky in geographic nation of origin is moral.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
go to just about any country in the world and you don't get in without rules/regulations/checks/quota's and all that
of course, we're not talking about Ukrainian refugee's - we're talking about millions coming up from central American because their home countries have been run into the ground
matuski
Footballguy
Gifting one at the expense of another on the grounds of morality seems... morally questionable.
We all pay the cost of illegal immigration.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
how many million coming into the USA illegally would tilt us into destabilizing ?
is it immoral to close your front door if someone wants to just walk in and sleep in your house and eat your food and such? would Wal-mart care if someone walked into their distribution center and slept there and used their bathroom? would anyone in Congress let people camp in their backyards and live there?
no - its an insane concept to allow people illegally to come into the USA - to cross borders, break laws and cost US citizens billions of dollars every year
morality ? its immoral to support all the human/sex trafficking, drug running and the child abuse that happens by allowing illegals to come as they do
its sick man, sick
The Commish
Footballguy
Probably THE most arbitrary and random line I've ever seen drawn here on any subject...well done
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I see it as 3 phases:
1. Them leaving their homes and coming here.
2. How we handle them at the border
3. How we treat them after we let them in.
1. I have 0 clue how to stop this one. Provide aid to all the countries to our south? Improve our messaging and be clear about our process and expectations (this would require us to be consistent here)? Wage war on the cartels and smugglers?
2. This is where most of the battle is. Who do we let in, how do we process them all, etc? I am open to ideas, but am mostly of the opinion we are doing the wrong things when what we need are more facilities and lawyers/judges for this. We also need to make sure we are doing this as humanely as possible, which I feel we aren't. Along with what I believe Alex is getting at above, I think it's wrong and cruel to just dump them on the other side of the wall when that's not where they are from - in #1 , they are choosing (albeit under dire circumstances) to use smugglers/coyotes. We we do this, we are choosing to hand them over to these same people. Again, not sure what the answer to this is besides let them in or fly them home.
3. Piggybacking above, assuming we let them in some capacity, we have to act like we did - again, not plopping them in Mexico, etc. This is also where the huge backlog of cases comes into play - we need to be way quicker at processing and vetting the immigrants and then leaving them be in our system.
1. Them leaving their homes and coming here.
2. How we handle them at the border
3. How we treat them after we let them in.
1. I have 0 clue how to stop this one. Provide aid to all the countries to our south? Improve our messaging and be clear about our process and expectations (this would require us to be consistent here)? Wage war on the cartels and smugglers?
2. This is where most of the battle is. Who do we let in, how do we process them all, etc? I am open to ideas, but am mostly of the opinion we are doing the wrong things when what we need are more facilities and lawyers/judges for this. We also need to make sure we are doing this as humanely as possible, which I feel we aren't. Along with what I believe Alex is getting at above, I think it's wrong and cruel to just dump them on the other side of the wall when that's not where they are from - in #1 , they are choosing (albeit under dire circumstances) to use smugglers/coyotes. We we do this, we are choosing to hand them over to these same people. Again, not sure what the answer to this is besides let them in or fly them home.
3. Piggybacking above, assuming we let them in some capacity, we have to act like we did - again, not plopping them in Mexico, etc. This is also where the huge backlog of cases comes into play - we need to be way quicker at processing and vetting the immigrants and then leaving them be in our system.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
If folks knew you couldn't walk across the border they wouldn't come. This would have the ancillary effect of weakening the cartels, inhibiting drug running (less fentanyl on our streets), and dramatically decrease the amount of child rape happening by those trying to migrate.
There is a huge amount to be gained by closing the border, including taking away the reason for people to try to migrate.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
Friendly reminder that economic migration is not a lawful asylum claim.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Like I said with Fair Warning - we fundamentally disagree on how open the borders are now, and if as a whole the country/1% want that. I agree with your premise though. In general, we have to understand how much of beacon of hope our country is and how terrible the conditions are where they are fleeing. I am not convinced they won't still come in large numbers. It's been posted that most of the drugs still come in via other avenues, so that part doesn't move the needle a ton for me.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I'd imagine it's a bit difficult to verify the reasons for asylum quickly and accurately.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
BP- What is your asylum claim?KarmaPolice said:
Immigrant - I suffered persecution or I have reasonable fear of future persecution in my home country of Honduras.
BP - You’re currently in Mexico file for asylum here.
There are no other rights to asylum other than persecution.
What Are The Laws For Seeking Asylum?
“A person requesting asylum must prove that they fled their homeland because of persecution associated with racial, religious, nationality, membership in a particular social organization or political persuasion. Statistically, you need to provide proof your political views have opposed the policies of your government.”
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
Nobody has an answer for what we do with them when automation does a majority of the manual labor in this country.
Nugget
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
In a couple of decades we'll be competing with other western nations for Third World immigrants of working age.
But if this Age of Magical Automation ever occurs, our country will be even richer overall and we'll have resources to spread the wealth around.
This assumes that Republicans won't enact a means test that restricts voting to the top five percent.
But if this Age of Magical Automation ever occurs, our country will be even richer overall and we'll have resources to spread the wealth around.
This assumes that Republicans won't enact a means test that restricts voting to the top five percent.
Sand
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
This question isnt unique to immigrants. Wed likely do with them what we do with citizens who are replaced by that same technology
MAC_32
Footballguy
I'm interested to see the eventual impact automation has on the accounting industry, but they'll always be a need. Can't rely on the robots to enforce checks & balances. There is a massive difference between a program reconciling data and saying there may be a problem with X, users actually applying intelligence to whatever is causing the robots to say look here, and decision makers actually acting on matters that result.
I'm also speaking from an internal perspective. When an outsider says accountant they're typically referring to tax accountants and I'll be surprised if automation does not negatively impact that niche. There is a significant difference between them and other jobs that fall under the accounting umbrella though. I've been through most of them, hated all but one (especially tax), and now love what I do. While some of those tax accountant like positions will likely go away they will be replaced by some other white collar niche that requires a similar skillset.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I think I sort of did, and you did as well. Yes, in general I am for BIG, and I think that is the way we should end up in the future. As I said in my posts the other day, IMO when we let them in we are admitting them to our system (again, this is not the people climbing over a wall - this is people who had an encounter as were let into the system) we need to consider them in this as well if they are paying taxes. Is it full? partial benefits for a couple years until they are fully citizens? Dunno there.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
So put them on the dole? A dole none of them paid into.
"you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state,"
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
You keep asking me questions that I just answered. At the point we let them in, they are in the same system that the rest of us our in. Like I and others have said, this is not exclusive to the immigrants coming in.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
So the answer is to let anyone enter who wants to and, start collecting the benefits Americans receive as soon as they arrive? Can you explain to me how that is remotely sustainable?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Refer to my post about the 3 stages of the problem. That is a stage 2 problem - who to let in and how many. IMO we don't do much as a whole about the problem because the 1% make too much money off them and it's a + for the country federally as people have linked. When that stops being the case, I suspect that we might handle the border differently. But once we let them in, in the scenario that they wouldn't have a job and just live off a BIG - they would be doing so just like any other person might be.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Yeah, not sure how it got to be a conversation about the border. Like in other threads, I'm sure it just started by a comment or two and then snowballed.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Because we can't figure out how to close the wealth gap without cratering the economy.
Honestly, more important to wealth inequality than immigration is increasing the power of organized labor to cover more industries and more types of workers.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
It's hard for me to fathom how too much immigration is a problem in a hot economy with full employment.
Nugget
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
I’m pretty sure immigration skews the wealth inequality data to look even more unequal…and I’m pretty sure that still nets out to be irrelevant to the discussion. Not that immigration isn’t a valid discussion, just not meaningful enough to this one.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Exactly, it does factor in, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to all the other ways the tippy top gets to keep getting richer faster.
djmich
Footballguy
Here's my primary thoughts on wealth inequality.
There are and always have been financial winners and losers. Some are born gifted. Some are born with wealth. Some are born in the right country. Some work harder. Some make intentional trade-offs. Some make mistakes. This is not something I am passionate about artificially impacting through government intervention, I don't think that's the governments job, particularly in a country where opportunity abounds. In addition, I think attempts to materially change it would be very likely to have unintended consequences and end up net negatives. Overall, I think the system "works" but should always be evaluated and tweaked.
I think overall we focus too much on wealth and not quality of life. If we tax the guy making $300k/yr more to help the teacher making $50k/yr...is the teacher also going to contribute some of their 16 weeks of vacation to society. $'s are easy to quantify, quality of life is not and we are obsessed with money, brands and materiality.
I don't have a strong interest in aggressively changing a system that overall works by proactively using government to improve the financial lives of people that are above the poverty line at the expense of other people that are above the poverty line. The key word being aggressively, this is not an absolute oh we shouldn't do programs, help create opportunity where it is effective and efficient, help people in despair or tax the rich another 1%.
I very much am ok with Bezos, Musk, Gates and the like being uber wealthy and I think the villanization of them is distasteful, they have created a ton and through that have also contributed to society enormously. I also think villanization of the poor is distasteful as well.
All that said, data like top 1% owning 40% and top 5% owning nearly 70% is eye popping and concerning and "in theory" wish it was less concentrated. As I've mentioned before I do think changes to taxation to ensure the top 1% or 5% are getting taxed appropriately (not being able to carry untaxed wealth in perpetuity) are very reasonable. Execution is a challenge but I'd pursue it. Maybe some higher rates on incomes like $100M+. Maaaaaybe a very small wealth tax like half a percent. Beyond that I struggle with actions that I'd be comfortable with.
There are and always have been financial winners and losers. Some are born gifted. Some are born with wealth. Some are born in the right country. Some work harder. Some make intentional trade-offs. Some make mistakes. This is not something I am passionate about artificially impacting through government intervention, I don't think that's the governments job, particularly in a country where opportunity abounds. In addition, I think attempts to materially change it would be very likely to have unintended consequences and end up net negatives. Overall, I think the system "works" but should always be evaluated and tweaked.
I think overall we focus too much on wealth and not quality of life. If we tax the guy making $300k/yr more to help the teacher making $50k/yr...is the teacher also going to contribute some of their 16 weeks of vacation to society. $'s are easy to quantify, quality of life is not and we are obsessed with money, brands and materiality.
I don't have a strong interest in aggressively changing a system that overall works by proactively using government to improve the financial lives of people that are above the poverty line at the expense of other people that are above the poverty line. The key word being aggressively, this is not an absolute oh we shouldn't do programs, help create opportunity where it is effective and efficient, help people in despair or tax the rich another 1%.
I very much am ok with Bezos, Musk, Gates and the like being uber wealthy and I think the villanization of them is distasteful, they have created a ton and through that have also contributed to society enormously. I also think villanization of the poor is distasteful as well.
All that said, data like top 1% owning 40% and top 5% owning nearly 70% is eye popping and concerning and "in theory" wish it was less concentrated. As I've mentioned before I do think changes to taxation to ensure the top 1% or 5% are getting taxed appropriately (not being able to carry untaxed wealth in perpetuity) are very reasonable. Execution is a challenge but I'd pursue it. Maybe some higher rates on incomes like $100M+. Maaaaaybe a very small wealth tax like half a percent. Beyond that I struggle with actions that I'd be comfortable with.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Because those in power profit by the minions being distracted with a subject that divides politically and we've proven to them over and over again the politically motivated are easily distracted with talking about what they think about immigration with no intention on listening to a differing opinion.
Tl;Dr we are suckers
The Commish
Footballguy
A good number of one trick ponies? Assuming the question isn't rhetorical.
ETA: A more serious (and likely answer) is elections are coming up so it makes total sense to start focusing on the border again. It's as predictable is the rising and setting of the sun.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
how did they do that ? tell the entire story if you're going to tell part of it
if you're suggesting revamping tax codes, start hitting then you'll have to also hit the 57% of U.S. households paid no federal income taxes for 2021
make those poor people pay in too - let be fair right ?
richer people pay the bulk of income taxes - fact
they also pay the bulk of property taxes across this nation - fact
keep pushing the wealthy - they will continue to use IRS tax codes/exemptions etc and get the best out of their money - don't fault them for that.
Are you a flat tax supporter ? how do you propose being "fair" without targeting successful people ?
The General
Footballguy
That article explains how they did it.
This isn’t a good system.
I don’t know the answer but a system that allows this isn’t it:
“No one among the 25 wealthiest avoided as much tax as Buffett. That’s perhaps surprising, given his public stance as an advocate of higher taxes for the rich. According to Forbes, his riches rose $24.3 billion between 2014 and 2018. Over those years, the data shows, Buffett reported paying $23.7 million in taxes.
That works out to a true tax rate of 0.1 percent, or less than 10 cents for every $100 he added to his wealth”
supermike80
Footballguy
Ok but here's the question. And it's a serious one. We are talking about wealth gain yes? Most of that was earned through capital gains and those are not taxed till utilized right? I'm only bringing this up because I am cool with a capital gains tax break for everyone. The fact that the Bezos and Buffets of the world get a bigger benefit for this doesn't affect me much as long as I get it too.
The General
Footballguy
I don’t know how this is addressed but this greatly plays into this inequality / expansion of the have nots. In the cases of the top .1% (or whatever that number is) the gap grows exponentially because of this.
They can leverage this wealth to accumulate more and more.
I generally think we have the best system, warts and all, but this is an exploit in our system.
supermike80
Footballguy
Yeah but....While I get that, I also applaud those that can utilize this system. And I think we all should.
Now if you wanna start discussing limiting capital gains exemptions to a certain $$ amount I would be willing to hear the pros and cons but right now the system exists for everyone.
Similar threads
