Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

All of this. And, if I'm going to get upset, it's going to be over the few at the very top that game the system with much more significant effects that cost us so much more than millions at the b

Haven’t you heard that if we tax the extremely wealthy at a much higher rate that people will stop trying to get rich?  I think we are just stuck with 400 people having more than 150M - nothing can be

I just want to add that, so far, this has been one of the better threads here in the PSF. I've already learned a good bit from some of you, appreciating the other perspective, and from the vast majori

1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

Always easy to give away someone else's money.  Whether its taxes or payroll or whatever.   If a loophole exists, it exists. 

The only individual "loophole" that I've seen that gets me a bit :hot: is carried interest, particularly as used by the hedge fund guys.  They make an absolute killing and pay very, very little.  It's the only one that truly seems unfair on its face.

On the corporate side the practice of hiding income in Ireland is something that needs a bit of straightening out, as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2021 at 7:42 AM, stlrams said:
On 2/20/2021 at 10:50 PM, Bucsfan5493 said:

What % of people do we actually expect to abuse the system like that? I don’t think it would be that significant of a number.

I honestly don’t know anyone like your brother. How is he getting all of that for free? 

His income is zero so he qualifies for public housing, food stamps, subsidized electric and oil programs, state health program, Obama phone program etc...  I know numerous people like him that are taking advantage of the system.  I think the more you offer, the more people will game the system.  

My belief is that there will always be people like this.  We cannot allow a small fraction of individuals define how we progress as a civilization.

My advice?  Unless you want to swap places with him because you envy his life, let it go.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JAA said:

We need to stop socializing losses but then privatizing profits.

That door has swung the other way, as well.  Obama abrogated bondholder's rights in favor of union pensions during the financial crisis (mostly with automakers).  Right now we've decided to abrogate landlord's contractual rights and privatize losses for the benefit of the government.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rich Conway said:

This isn't an easy or straightforward question to answer, in part because there is no single UBI proposal.  That is, my "proposed UBI plan" is different than fatguy's proposed UBI plan or IvanK's proposed UBI plan or thousands of others.

That said, I don't have all the numbers, but some quick research shows me:

  • Social Security is estimated to be $1.15T in fiscal year 2021.
  • Other federal welfare programs (not including SS or Medicare) appear to come to $375B, and incude SNAP, TANF, Child Tax Credit, EITC, Housing Assistance, and federal unemployment payments, as well as a few other programs.
  • I believe that unemployment and welfare are mainly state-level programs, which makes them harder to track.  The second link below shows a figure of $2070 per capita spent on "public welfare" for the entire US in 2017, which would work out to $660B for 330M people.
  • That same link also shows a figure of $2619 per capita spent on "all other", some of which might fall under the UBI replacement bucket, but hard to say.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/state-and-local-general-expenditures-capita

Figure the above comes to about $2.2T, give or take.  If we do some very rough assumptions on what UBI might cost:

  • Say $1000 per month per adult, at 255M adults = ~$3T
  • Say $500 per month per child, at 75M children = ~$450B
  • Figure a total of about $3.5T annually
  • $3.5T - $2.2B currently spent on "programs that would be replaced" equals about $1.3T in additional funding needed

There are some other savings hidden in the tax code that would likely go away with most UBI proposals, likely in the hundreds of billions, but these are harder to calculate quickly.

Again, as noted above, there is no single UBI proposal, so those numbers ($1000/month/adult, $500/month/child) are just some that I've seen thrown around in the past.  Obviously, at 330M citizens, changing the numbers can change the total pretty quickly.  For example, my numbers above come to about $3.5T, yet switching from $12K per year per adult to $10K or $15K would change the total to ~$3T or $4.25T, respectively.

Thanks for the work.  I did read after posting that one estimate had it 3.9t which is close to your figures.  Regarding social security, people receive more that 12k per year so would people on ss get less?  Think you would phase out UBI for high income households/individuals.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we all first admit there is a problem with wealth inequality?  I mean, is there anyone who believes this isn't a problem to solve?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JAA said:

My belief is that there will always be people like this.  We cannot allow a small fraction of individuals define how we progress as a civilization.

My advice?  Unless you want to swap places with him because you envy his life, let it go.

I’ve come to grips with my brother a long time ago.  I’m just presenting a real life example of people’s attitudes and life decisions when presented with either work or not.  My concern is this group will grow if given money without strings and we can/should expect a large increase in migration.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JAA said:

Can we all first admit there is a problem with wealth inequality?  I mean, is there anyone who believes this isn't a problem to solve?

Doesn’t every country have it except maybe communist countries?  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sand said:

It's a superb blog, BTW - he has great posts on how to pay zero fed taxes on 100k-ish a year (legally).  Totally worth reading.

I'll check it out.

But, there's an example of what I mean by "loophole". I know it's written as code, it's legal, and I don't begrudge anyone taking advantage of it. 

But it shouldn't exist.

And, as an example to what I was getting at before. Assume individual A was able to acquire wealth and now has it setup where this is literally his only income and can make $100K and owe zero taxes. He does no other work and assume no other income. It's perfectly legal.

Some find that "morally" better than a low/no income individual who receives assistance, doesn't work, and doesn't pay taxes because it's legal. I do not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JAA said:

Can we all first admit there is a problem with wealth inequality?  I mean, is there anyone who believes this isn't a problem to solve?

I think we have agreed on that.  The problem is the Golden Rule applies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

I'll check it out.

But, there's an example of what I mean by "loophole". I know it's written as code, it's legal, and I don't begrudge anyone taking advantage of it. 

But it shouldn't exist.

And, as an example to what I was getting at before. Assume individual A was able to acquire wealth and now has it setup where this is literally his only income and can make $100K and owe zero taxes. He does no other work and assume no other income. It's perfectly legal.

Some find that "morally" better than a low/no income individual who receives assistance, doesn't work, and doesn't pay taxes because it's legal. I do not. 

You can say FW feels that way instead of some, I don’t mind.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, stlrams said:
11 minutes ago, JAA said:

Can we all first admit there is a problem with wealth inequality?  I mean, is there anyone who believes this isn't a problem to solve?

Doesn’t every country have it except maybe communist countries?  

But do we want to fix it?  Now?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FairWarning said:

You can say FW feels that way instead of some, I don’t mind.  

I honestly wasn't pointing that at you. You are certainly not alone in that opinion. And I'm not saying it's wrong either. It's a valid mindset. I just disagree with it. 

Plus, we are probably closer in thinking on this than opposite. Just as I hope you aren't confusing my position with being ok with citizens just not working and receiving assistance, I would assume, maybe incorrectly, but still, that you would likely prefer that kind of "loophole" not exist in the first place that allows an individual to make that kind of income tax-free. 

It's just on a spectrum of HOW we feel about both of those that moves us further apart even though we likely both have the same position in whether they should are purely wrong or right.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sand said:

The only individual "loophole" that I've seen that gets me a bit :hot: is carried interest, particularly as used by the hedge fund guys.  They make an absolute killing and pay very, very little.  It's the only one that truly seems unfair on its face.

On the corporate side the practice of hiding income in Ireland is something that needs a bit of straightening out, as well.

The idea of "straightening out" corporate offshoring of profits is something that sounds great on its face, but is wildly difficult to implement.

The TCJA, aka "Trump tax cuts" turned this world on its head by implementing GILTI/FDII, BEAT, Transition Tax, and other provisions.  The intent was there (though I'd argue as a tax practitioner the execution was totally botched), but all it has done is lead to new tax planning strategies.  If a company has a substantial presence in <country X> and much of their value is tied to their IP.....who's to say where they're resident? 

It's a diplomatic very slippery slope for the US government to attempt to impose taxes on a foreign registered company....not to say there's not an argument there, but other countries don't take too kindly to the intrusive IRS trying to collect on their businesses.  Hell, even Canada - probably America's #1 worldwide ally - has even effectively said that they'll have nothing to do with policing or collecting taxes on US citizens living in Canada; they basically told the US government to pound sand.  That's a slightly different argument than the corporate offshoring, but an illustration of how sovereign countries react when the US tries to grab a piece of the pie.  The US holds a ton of financial weight internationally (just look at how FATCA changed the worldwide banking landscape), but there are certain lines even the mighty US can't cross.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steve Tasker said:

The idea of "straightening out" corporate offshoring of profits is something that sounds great on its face, but is wildly difficult to implement.

Oh, I agree.  No doubt it's hiding from the taxman, though.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

And, as an example to what I was getting at before. Assume individual A was able to acquire wealth and now has it setup where this is literally his only income and can make $100K and owe zero taxes. He does no other work and assume no other income. It's perfectly legal.

Some find that "morally" better than a low/no income individual who receives assistance, doesn't work, and doesn't pay taxes because it's legal. I do not. 

On the first this is setup this way generally to allow for a low tax load on retirees. Whether that's good or not is up to the individual.

On the second I'm always split.  I don't mind paying for a lot of things, but as someone who has worked 50-60 hrs/week for the last 20 years I get a bit jealous of the thought of just laying in the trough of government assistance and reclaiming my time.  It irks me, though I fully understand that separating out those who choose not to rise up from those that have fallen and need help rising back up is impossible.  I love a good redemption story, those who have managed to recover from a fall - that's what the safety net is supposed to do and I happily contribute my taxes and charity to those efforts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

I honestly wasn't pointing that at you. You are certainly not alone in that opinion. And I'm not saying it's wrong either. It's a valid mindset. I just disagree with it. 

Plus, we are probably closer in thinking on this than opposite. Just as I hope you aren't confusing my position with being ok with citizens just not working and receiving assistance, I would assume, maybe incorrectly, but still, that you would likely prefer that kind of "loophole" not exist in the first place that allows an individual to make that kind of income tax-free. 

It's just on a spectrum of HOW we feel about both of those that moves us further apart even though we likely both have the same position in whether they should are purely wrong or right.

I'm a independent distributor.  I deal with people of all walks of life, the richer people are some of the most miserable people around.  They are usually the hardest to get paid from also.   The way the system is, they "earned" that right not to work for their money, it works for them.   Nothing you or I can do will faze them.  Now the other side - the overwhelming majority who are able to work do not want to be poor, pride does kick in - but  I have seen a seismic shift in attitudes that the government owes them since the rise of Bernie.  This has increased even more since the feds kicked in the extra unemployment money last year, and extended it this year.  Almost every account I have is looking for help, yet people will just sit it out now and wait for the additional unemployment.   If you are caught in the middle of the system (probably 99% of the board is) the view will never change, but we are losing more and more by the day.

I've been on record for upping the SS tax a little, and also eliminating the ceiling.  It would help greatly if our elected officials kept their hands out of that money also.   Obviously there are many other moves we need to do to eliminate the gap some, I don't know if a UGI is it, I know a $15/hour min wage isn't the answer through without major tweaks.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FairWarning said:

How about now?  Numbers are going down, yet the jobs are are going unfilled.  

Yeah my brother in law who won't return to work because he's making more off the expanded unemployment is also sure that Covid is a hoax and these people are really dying of something else.  I wish I were making this up, I'm not.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

Yeah my brother in law who won't return to work because he's making more off the expanded unemployment is also sure that Covid is a hoax and these people are really dying of something else.  I wish I were making this up, I'm not.

I have a friend who says he wont go back until the virus is gone.  He is big on the shared income stuff as no one skill should be valued higher than another.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to add that, so far, this has been one of the better threads here in the PSF. I've already learned a good bit from some of you, appreciating the other perspective, and from the vast majority of posts, it's been a respectful discussion without attacking others or making it about one side vs another (ignoring the usual suspects with their laughing emojis that add nothing, of course).

It's one of those things where we can almost all agree is an issue (wealth inequality) and then it's a matter of finding the best solution. 

ETA -- And I apologize for even bringing up the Trump example as it wasn't a good one and potentially could have sent this sideways. Thanks to those who didn't go that way with it. It truly wasn't meant as a dig on him or any of his supporters. 

Edited by gianmarco
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

I have a friend who says he wont go back until the virus is gone.  He is big on the shared income stuff as no one skill should be valued higher than another.  

If I contribute 3mph to a 100mph fastball can I get 3% of Verlander's contract?  

 

15 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

ETA -- And I apologize for even bringing up the Trump example as it wasn't a good one and potentially could have sent this sideways. Thanks to those who didn't go that way with it. It truly wasn't meant as a dig on him or any of his supporters. 

It brought up some good discussion of why real estate investing can work so well.  You can show lots of paper losses, but still end up rich.  Most folks misunderstand that part of DJT's business and the conclusions from all those losses (some are on purpose to lower tax liability - all legal, BTW).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sand said:

If I contribute 3mph to a 100mph fastball can I get 3% of Verlander's contract?  

 

It brought up some good discussion of why real estate investing can work so well.  You can show lots of paper losses, but still end up rich.  Most folks misunderstand that part of DJT's business and the conclusions from all those losses (some are on purpose to lower tax liability - all legal, BTW).

No, but you can see his wife here from time to time.  Her uncle is HoR Fred Upton and does come back home whenever possible.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

No, but you can see his wife here from time to time.  Her uncle is HoR Fred Upton and does come back home whenever possible.

Yoga pants thread is back?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sand said:

If I contribute 3mph to a 100mph fastball can I get 3% of Verlander's contract?  

 

It brought up some good discussion of why real estate investing can work so well.  You can show lots of paper losses, but still end up rich.  Most folks misunderstand that part of DJT's business and the conclusions from all those losses (some are on purpose to lower tax liability - all legal, BTW).

This is something that should be understood by everyone before they are allowed to post in the Trump tax thread.....it would save from a lot of misguided posting and ranting. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JAA said:

Can we all first admit there is a problem with wealth inequality?  I mean, is there anyone who believes this isn't a problem to solve?

In general?  No.   To the extent that it exists in the US now?  Yes.  

It's not wrong in principle to have people making so much more than others, but what we have in our country now has gone way too far in the other direction.  GM's post about the top .1% having the wealth of the bottom 90% is nuts.   I am not going to pretend to have the answers to how to fix it, but my first instinct is that we have have to look at the way people accumulate the wealth - so looking harder at capital gains, inheritance, home/property ownership, etc.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sand said:

If I contribute 3mph to a 100mph fastball can I get 3% of Verlander's contract?  

 

It brought up some good discussion of why real estate investing can work so well.  You can show lots of paper losses, but still end up rich.  Most folks misunderstand that part of DJT's business and the conclusions from all those losses (some are on purpose to lower tax liability - all legal, BTW).

Generally people shouldn't be criticized for taking legal deductions. However, when you are passing questionable tax policies that help yourself, you should be open to criticism. 

 

Additionally, the policies should always be a valid point for criticism. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Do you....not want to be communist?:violin:

I’m a fan of capitalism...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Commish said:

We can just print more :shrug:

At some point and maybe not in our lifetime, our deficit will cripple this country.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

Based on?

Based on either inflation or other countries not taking anymore us debt or requesting payment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stlrams said:

Based on either inflation or other countries not taking anymore us debt or requesting payment. 

Thanks.  Should be pointed out, we don't live under the rules of the gold standard anymore.  We are confidence based like it or not.  I don't think any of this matters anymore.  Or at least doesn't have the influence it once did.  If confidence gets shaken, we're done.  It's a house of cards....has been for 20+ years.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Commish said:

Thanks.  Should be pointed out, we don't live under the rules of the gold standard anymore.  We are confidence based like it or not.  I don't think any of this matters anymore.  Or at least doesn't have the influence it once did.  If confidence gets shaken, we're done.  It's a house of cards....has been for 20+ years.  

If inflation shoots up we can absolutely effect ourselves substantially.  And inflation, as measured by the 10 year, has started to rise at a pretty good clip.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sand said:

If inflation shoots up we can absolutely effect ourselves substantially.  And inflation, as measured by the 10 year, has started to rise at a pretty good clip.

You mean it's "up" to where it's been off and on over the last 5ish years, yes?  With all the QE ( :hophead: ) and money printing we'll be fine...if not, we'll print more money.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Commish said:

You mean it's "up" to where it's been off and on over the last 5ish years, yes?  With all the QE ( :hophead: ) and money printing we'll be fine...if not, we'll print more money.

Rates skyrocketing today.  Nervous yet?  :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 7:50 PM, KarmaPolice said:

In general?  No.   To the extent that it exists in the US now?  Yes.  

It's not wrong in principle to have people making so much more than others, but what we have in our country now has gone way too far in the other direction.  GM's post about the top .1% having the wealth of the bottom 90% is nuts.   I am not going to pretend to have the answers to how to fix it, but my first instinct is that we have have to look at the way people accumulate the wealth - so looking harder at capital gains, inheritance, home/property ownership, etc.. 

Good post.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 6:50 PM, KarmaPolice said:

In general?  No.   To the extent that it exists in the US now?  Yes.  

It's not wrong in principle to have people making so much more than others, but what we have in our country now has gone way too far in the other direction.  GM's post about the top .1% having the wealth of the bottom 90% is nuts.   I am not going to pretend to have the answers to how to fix it, but my first instinct is that we have have to look at the way people accumulate the wealth - so looking harder at capital gains, inheritance, home/property ownership, etc.. 

Sure - look at the very top of the list.  They are the ones that really skew the numbers up.

Bezos - Amazon employs 575,000 people.

Gates - Microsoft employs 165,000 people.

Buffett - Berkshire employs 400,000 people.

Personally I wish we had 10 Microsofts.  While we'd have to endure 10 mega rich people we'd have another couple million really good paying jobs out there.  (I also have a problem with taxing the snot out of the fruits of their intellectual endeavors - if you squeeze these guys you're essentially confiscating their business creation from them.)

If you want to squeeze the rich, be careful what you ask for.  You may not get the desired result.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 3:30 PM, Sand said:

That door has swung the other way, as well.  Obama abrogated bondholder's rights in favor of union pensions during the financial crisis (mostly with automakers).  Right now we've decided to abrogate landlord's contractual rights and privatize losses for the benefit of the government.

father in law lost over a 100 grand on GM preferred stock when Obama gave 1st dibs to the union on the bailout, which if not mistaken the first takers of the bailout should have been the preferred stockholders, but you know the deal, beholden to the union so screw what is right.   I may be wrong but that is how it went according to my FIL.

He is still fuming as it was union contracts that put GM in the hole although I will say that management gave them the benefits that doomed GM.  so everyone was complicate.  Will never buy a GM product.  You notice Ford didn't go belly up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sand said:

Sure - look at the very top of the list.  They are the ones that really skew the numbers up.

Bezos - Amazon employs 575,000 people.

Gates - Microsoft employs 165,000 people.

Buffett - Berkshire employs 400,000 people.

Personally I wish we had 10 Microsofts.  While we'd have to endure 10 mega rich people we'd have another couple million really good paying jobs out there.  (I also have a problem with taxing the snot out of the fruits of their intellectual endeavors - if you squeeze these guys you're essentially confiscating their business creation from them.)

If you want to squeeze the rich, be careful what you ask for.  You may not get the desired result.

Can I agree with this and at the same time think marginal rates on some number, call it $10M/yr or $50M/yr can go up say from 37% to 45%.  Also, not sure how much the problem is more the exemptions / tax havens vs rates.

Not sure how much that solves but I think there is more balancing there that can be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, shadrap said:

father in law lost over a 100 grand on GM preferred stock when Obama gave 1st dibs to the union on the bailout, which if not mistaken the first takers of the bailout should have been the preferred stockholders, but you know the deal, beholden to the union so screw what is right.   I may be wrong but that is how it went according to my FIL.

It is and it was blatantly illegal.  But it went that way anyway.  I'd have been incredibly steamed, as well.

11 minutes ago, djmich said:

Can I agree with this and at the same time think marginal rates on some number, call it $10M/yr or $50M/yr can go up say from 37% to 45%.  Also, not sure how much the problem is more the exemptions / tax havens vs rates.

Not sure how much that solves but I think there is more balancing there that can be done.

I don't think taxing income any more is going to do much.  Rich people can legally hide income.  Capital gains taxes are where the money is and should be graded a bit more on the high end.  I don't agree with boosting them to 45%, but if we graded them up to 30% at the top end that may be ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shadrap said:

father in law lost over a 100 grand on GM preferred stock when Obama gave 1st dibs to the union on the bailout, which if not mistaken the first takers of the bailout should have been the preferred stockholders, but you know the deal, beholden to the union so screw what is right.   I may be wrong but that is how it went according to my FIL.

He is still fuming as it was union contracts that put GM in the hole although I will say that management gave them the benefits that doomed GM.  so everyone was complicate.  Will never buy a GM product.  You notice Ford didn't go belly up.

Ford never took the money, and they could have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sand said:

Sure - look at the very top of the list.  They are the ones that really skew the numbers up.

Bezos - Amazon employs 575,000 people.

Gates - Microsoft employs 165,000 people.

Buffett - Berkshire employs 400,000 people.

Personally I wish we had 10 Microsofts.  While we'd have to endure 10 mega rich people we'd have another couple million really good paying jobs out there.  (I also have a problem with taxing the snot out of the fruits of their intellectual endeavors - if you squeeze these guys you're essentially confiscating their business creation from them.)

If you want to squeeze the rich, be careful what you ask for.  You may not get the desired result.

Not really sure what that has to do with my post.   I get that those companies employ a ton of people, and I am not sure how you got the bolded from my post either.   

I guess I don't subscribe to the "tax them a little more, and they won't bother to start any companies" idea either.  

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Not really sure what that has to do with my post.   I get that those companies employ a ton of people, and I am not sure how you got the bolded from my post either.   

I guess I don't subscribe to the "tax them a little more, and they won't bother to start any companies" idea either.  

 

You wondered how rich people accumulated wealth.  I answered and then expounded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sand said:

You wondered how rich people accumulated wealth.  I answered and then expounded.

I didn't wonder how they did.  I said to address the problem, we needed to look at they ways they do accumulate wealth, and right after the bolded listed a couple things.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sand said:

Sure - look at the very top of the list.  They are the ones that really skew the numbers up.

Bezos - Amazon employs 575,000 people.

Gates - Microsoft employs 165,000 people.

Buffett - Berkshire employs 400,000 people.

Personally I wish we had 10 Microsofts.  While we'd have to endure 10 mega rich people we'd have another couple million really good paying jobs out there.  (I also have a problem with taxing the snot out of the fruits of their intellectual endeavors - if you squeeze these guys you're essentially confiscating their business creation from them.)

If you want to squeeze the rich, be careful what you ask for.  You may not get the desired result.

I have zero problem with it.  They get rich off the backs of all of us.  Squeeze them enough and you'll eventually get the result you want (or at least the result I want).

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sand said:

Sure - look at the very top of the list.  They are the ones that really skew the numbers up.

Bezos - Amazon employs 575,000 people.

Gates - Microsoft employs 165,000 people.

Buffett - Berkshire employs 400,000 people.

Personally I wish we had 10 Microsofts.  While we'd have to endure 10 mega rich people we'd have another couple million really good paying jobs out there.  (I also have a problem with taxing the snot out of the fruits of their intellectual endeavors - if you squeeze these guys you're essentially confiscating their business creation from them.)

If you want to squeeze the rich, be careful what you ask for.  You may not get the desired result.

It's interesting that at least 2 of your 3 examples (I'm not sure of Bezos's politics) openly advocate for much higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 4:46 PM, JAA said:

Can we all first admit there is a problem with wealth inequality?  I mean, is there anyone who believes this isn't a problem to solve?

This becomes a semantics debate. I dont think wealth inequality is a problem. I think lots of things that can lead to wealth inequality can be a problem. But ultimately the income floor is the real problem. If the bottom 90% of earners all received 500% raises tomorrow, but the top 10% got 1000% that would be inequality, but it would be awesome for everybody. 

The whole concept of focusing on the amount of money the upper echelon has just seems completely ridiculous. We dont have to take their money to robin hood it. 

Now people will say that they just lump all those problems that need fixing into a big general dumpster of "wealth inequality" and that is why I say it becomes a semantics debate. If people want to use that term, i cant stop them of course, but it just seems to me that the only reason to use that term would be to focus on taking away from the rich rather than actually working to help the poor. 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rich Conway said:

It's interesting that at least 2 of your 3 examples (I'm not sure of Bezos's politics) openly advocate for much higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy.

Are they arguing for a meaningful tax on their existing wealth?

Edited by djmich
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...