Are billionaires rich enough yet?

[Bomb#20]

I really liked this response!

While Derec often seems almost reasonable, many right-wingers cannot resist exaggeration and false dichotomy. Advocate a tax hike from 30% to 32% and the right-winger will retort that billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth.

Eat 2% more of each of them.

Oh, wait, that's not what he said, is it?

 

[Bomb#20]

Advocate a tax hike from 30% to 32% and the right-winger will retort that billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth.

So let me get this straight -- whereas Politesse may be advocating a 100% tax rate, that's not you. You only want to raise the rate from 30% to 32%? That's not because you get a thrill from thinking about 300 people richer than Carnegie, is it? I take it that's because you'd rather the rest of us get 32% of their next billions than 100% of nothing, right? You think "billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth" is a stupid argument because you're not trying to confiscate all their wealth, yes? So it's not because you think they don't serve humanity?

Well then, it sounds like you've answered your own thread title question.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Missing from the 2022 list is the surname Carnegie of course but there are also ZERO Rockefellers, zero Vanderbilts, nor any of the fabled wealthy families of yore. There was only one Rothschild, but that was Jeff Rothschild co-founder of Facebook who descends from a completely different family than the famous banking family that Controls the World™. No Hiltons, but Paris Hilton's old buddy Kim Kardashian is a billionaire as is her beau Kanye West.

The Forbes list doesn't contain the wealthy families of yore because they're no longer so wealthy. Even that level of wealth dissipates in a few generations. And it's no surprise the modern ones have more--the country is a lot bigger and there's a lot more international market. Don't look at constant dollars as your yardstick, look at % of GDP, for international companies look at the combined GDP of where they have substantial market penetration.

 

[Bomb#20]

The justification of the wealth was that it was in theory only, but Musk disproved that with his Twitter run.

According to whom is that the justification of the wealth?!?

The wealth is justified in two words, the two words authoritarians regard as the two most obscene words in the English language. This is your trigger warning. If IIDB is your safe space, don't click.

Show

"Consenting adults".

 

[Bomb#20]

At least Carnegie's empire was producing things of use and value. Twitter consumes much but produces frightfully little that is useful. The absurdity is so apparent as you note.

Of use and value to whom? The millions of people who choose to spend part of their lives writing and reading tweets every day evidently use and value what Twitter produces. And the companies that produce more conventional sorts of things and choose to spend part of their income from that production paying Twitter evidently use and value what Twitter produces. So what makes you a better judge than they are as to which things are "of use and value"?

 

[prideandfall]

If you risk your money on a speculative investment, should you not get to reap any rewards?

you can take this logic and apply it to civilization - if you risk your existence fostering the environment and opportunity to allow speculative investment in the first place, should you not reap any rewards?

 

[Bomb#20]

Can't we mention that monopolies have problems without someone telling us how bad communism is?

Can't we mention that narcissistic dictator-wannabes have problems without someone telling us how bad Trump is?

 

[Jayjay]

So if he buys his way back in, that will be sufficient proof of plutocracy?

Not sufficient, but it would be evidence towards that conclusion. Especially if he gets elected only with help of partisan courts and elections officials.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

*pokes her head up out of a swimming-pool of cabernet she has been swimming in*

Diana Allesandrini finds that the progressive tax tends to support economic stability:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sjoe.12410

Salvador Barios and his team found that countries that switched from a flat tax to a progressive tax experienced some modest positive effects on their economy:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00128775.2019.1671201

Another study found that Romania succeeded at making a modest reduction in their rate of poverty after implementing the progressive tax, having previously lived under a flat tax:

https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainability-11-06405/article_deploy/sustainability-11-06405.pdf?version=1573728308

*wing-shrugs* I tend to lean toward following the empirical evidence where it leads. While I can find some studies that contradict this perspective, I tend to find relatively more economic research that support the progressive tax than otherwise.

I don't mind billionaires being rich, but the progressive tax tends to be, overall, a good thing.

The billionaires might not like it, but that is their problem.

 

[Politesse]

Advocate a tax hike from 30% to 32% and the right-winger will retort that billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth.

So let me get this straight -- whereas Politesse may be advocating a 100% tax rate, that's not you. You only want to raise the rate from 30% to 32%? That's not because you get a thrill from thinking about 300 people richer than Carnegie, is it? I take it that's because you'd rather the rest of us get 32% of their next billions than 100% of nothing, right? You think "billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth" is a stupid argument because you're not trying to confiscate all their wealth, yes? So it's not because you think they don't serve humanity?

Well then, it sounds like you've answered your own thread title question.

I.. what?

No, I advocated figurative cannibalism. How you derived a specific, sensible tax policy from that I have no idea.

 

[Swammerdami]

*pokes her head up out of a swimming-pool of cabernet she has been swimming in*

Diana Allesandrini finds that the progressive tax tends to support economic stability:

Salvador Barios and his team found that countries that switched from a flat tax to a progressive tax experienced some modest positive effects on their economy:

*wing-shrugs* I tend to lean toward following the empirical evidence where it leads. While I can find some studies that contradict this perspective, I tend to find relatively more economic research that support the progressive tax than otherwise.

I don't mind billionaires being rich, but the progressive tax tends to be, overall, a good thing.

THIS is the key point. Reducing income and wealth inequality is appropriate NOT because of any issue of "morality"; the reasoning doesn't use words like "deserve" or "greed." Reducing income inequality is good because it makes for a better happier society.

There are other issues of course. It is dangerous to give a single individual like Rupert Murdoch or Elon Musk huge power over media. But again, this has nothing to do with morality, or character judgment on the billionaire.

The Forbes list doesn't contain the wealthy families of yore because they're no longer so wealthy. Even that level of wealth dissipates in a few generations. And it's no surprise the modern ones have more--the country is a lot bigger and there's a lot more international market. Don't look at constant dollars as your yardstick, look at % of GDP, for international companies look at the combined GDP of where they have substantial market penetration.

It is interesting to compare such lists over time. IIUC, John D. Rpckefeller is still in 1st place among Americans when his wealth is measured as a percent of American GDP. And until recently he was the most recently born of all the Top 10 names on that list. (Some such lists are shown at  List of richest Americans in history. With wealth in excess of 1% of U.S. GDP, Elon Musk now ranks #3 on that list I think.

One of the reasons for GDP increase is population increase. But that cuts both ways. If there are five times as many people now, should there be five times as many Warren Buffetts? But one focus of the discussion should be whether this wealth concentration is a good thing or a bad thing. Perhaps Elon Musk will mine the asteroids, while five Musks would never band together and achieve that!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As often, I wrote a long rambling OP and gave it a questionable title. I did really post because I find stories like that of the Ambani brothers to be interesting. And I was bemused that Josh Kushner — whom I'd never heard of — seems cut in the mold of his brother's father-in-law.

 

[Bomb#20]

Advocate a tax hike from 30% to 32% and the right-winger will retort that billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth.

So let me get this straight -- whereas Politesse may be advocating a 100% tax rate, that's not you. ...

I.. what?

No, I advocated figurative cannibalism. How you derived a specific, sensible tax policy from that I have no idea.

I derived it by taking for granted it was figurative -- that you weren't advocating going Hannibal Lecter on them with some fava beans and a nice Chianti -- and contemplating what real policy "Eat them." could serve as a metaphor for. So naturally a certain Aesop fable about villagers and a goose came to mind.

So (a) if a 100% tax rate isn't what you had in mind then what were you advocating that "Eat them." is a figurative description of?

And (b) if you regard the specific tax policy I derived from your post as "sensible", then what's your beef? Just take my statement as referring to your post #36 claim that a 100% tax rate is sensible instead of as referring to your post #6 "Eat them.", and my answer to Swammerdami remains unaffected.

 

[Politesse]

Taxation won't resolve wealth inequality. I do approve of taxing the very wealthy - it's absurd that the country with all the billionaires struggles to keep its schools open and its roads paved - but there is no magic button to press and end class oppression, or if there is, it certainly isn't a reform to the tax code.

 

[Swammerdami]

Advocate a tax hike from 30% to 32% and the right-winger will retort that billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth.

So let me get this straight -- whereas Politesse may be advocating a 100% tax rate, that's not you. You only want to raise the rate from 30% to 32%? That's not because you get a thrill from thinking about 300 people richer than Carnegie, is it? I take it that's because you'd rather the rest of us get 32% of their next billions than 100% of nothing, right? You think "billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth" is a stupid argument because you're not trying to confiscate all their wealth, yes? So it's not because you think they don't serve humanity?

Well then, it sounds like you've answered your own thread title question.

I'd be happy to respond to your response . . . if I understood it. You ask rhetorical questions, and tell me what does or doesn't thrill me, but don't offer clear opinions of your own.

Is it good or bad that one American has wealth exceeding 1% of the U.S. GDP? (A feat previously achieved, supposedly, only by J.D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt.) Or is it neither good nor bad, but just a FACT; much as we need not approve or disapprove of the Grand Canyon's bigness: it's just a fact.

 

[Bomb#20]

Taxation won't resolve wealth inequality. I do approve of taxing the very wealthy - it's absurd that the country with all the billionaires struggles to keep its schools open and its roads paved - but there is no magic button to press and end class oppression,

Are you suggesting being a billionaire makes a person an oppressor? Or is "class oppression" a guilt-by-association thing?

or if there is, it certainly isn't a reform to the tax code.

So is that what "Eat them." figuratively refers to? Getting the billionaires to sell you some rope, for instance?

 

[Politesse]

Are you suggesting being a billionaire makes a person an oppressor? Or is "class oppression" a guilt-by-association thing?

No, but oppression makes billionaires.

So is that what "Eat them." figuratively refers to? Getting the billionaires to sell you some rope, for instance?

It means I don't give a fuck about billionaires. They are a symptom of societal cancer.

 

[Bomb#20]

Advocate a tax hike from 30% to 32% and the right-winger will retort that billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth.

So let me get this straight -- whereas Politesse may be advocating a 100% tax rate, that's not you. You only want to raise the rate from 30% to 32%? That's not because you get a thrill from thinking about 300 people richer than Carnegie, is it? I take it that's because you'd rather the rest of us get 32% of their next billions than 100% of nothing, right? You think "billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth" is a stupid argument because you're not trying to confiscate all their wealth, yes? So it's not because you think they don't serve humanity?

Well then, it sounds like you've answered your own thread title question.

I'd be happy to respond to your response . . . if I understood it.

Well, what tax rate do you want for billionaires? Do you want 100% or more? If so, then why are you complaining when whomever you're labeling "the right-winger" retorts that billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth? That's a perfectly sensible retort to somebody who wants 100% taxation.

Contrariwise, if you want less than 100%, then apparently you like it when billionaires have an incentive to keep making more money because they'll end up with more than now even after you confiscate part of it. Which is to say, apparently you think billionaires are not rich enough yet -- not rich enough yet to finance all the stuff you'd like to accomplish with part of their money.

Is it good or bad that one American has wealth exceeding 1% of the U.S. GDP? (A feat previously achieved, supposedly, only by J.D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt.) Or is it neither good nor bad, but just a FACT; much as we need not approve or disapprove of the Grand Canyon's bigness: it's just a fact.

It's a bizarre question. It's like asking if it's good or bad that one Scot has over 3% of the world's book sales. Musk has wealth over 1% of GDP because people voluntarily gave it to him in return for services rendered, because they judged those services to be worth more to them than what they were paying.

So is it good or bad that one American has performed services for others that they appreciate more than $230 billion? Hmm, let me think. What would Kant say of the ethics of performing that much service for one's fellow man? He'd say, "What if everyone did that?" Well, if everyone performed over $230 billion of services for his fellow man, I think we'd be in pretty good shape.

Money is memory of favors not yet returned. To say it's bad for one person's wealth to exceed some amount is either to say it's bad for one person to do that much more for others than they have done for him, or else it's to say it's bad for people to remember the services others have done them and return the favors when they can. Both of those are moral insanity, on a level with saying it's wrong to write Harry Potter stories.

 

[DBT]

Workers help make things possible in terms of physical work, mining, construction, infrastructure, fabrication, delivery, service, etc, yet too often get little reward in relation to the wealth being generated by their input.

 

[Swammerdami]

Advocate a tax hike from 30% to 32% and the right-winger will retort that billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth.

So let me get this straight -- whereas Politesse may be advocating a 100% tax rate, that's not you. You only want to raise the rate from 30% to 32%? That's not because you get a thrill from thinking about 300 people richer than Carnegie, is it? I take it that's because you'd rather the rest of us get 32% of their next billions than 100% of nothing, right? You think "billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth" is a stupid argument because you're not trying to confiscate all their wealth, yes? So it's not because you think they don't serve humanity?

Well then, it sounds like you've answered your own thread title question.

I'd be happy to respond to your response . . . if I understood it.

Well, what tax rate do you want for billionaires? Do you want 100% or more? If so, then why are you complaining when whomever you're labeling "the right-winger" retorts that billionaires will stop serving humanity when you confiscate all their wealth? That's a perfectly sensible retort to somebody who wants 100% taxation.

You've imputed to me a view opposite to what I wrote or implied. You are either incapable of reading what I actually wrote, or are pretending to be.

Contrariwise, if you want less than 100%, then apparently you like it when billionaires have an incentive to keep making more money because they'll end up with more than now even after you confiscate part of it. Which is to say, apparently you think billionaires are not rich enough yet -- not rich enough yet to finance all the stuff you'd like to accomplish with part of their money.

If I don't want to confiscate all of Musk's new wealth, then I WANT him to be even richer. I can see why someone might consider that a tautology — if they were in a contest to see who could misconstrue best.

Oh, but then you qualify it. You think I only want Musk richer so there's more to confiscate when "I" get around to it!

@ Bomb#20 — Read your own writing back, and pretend that you're objective and trying to treat a fellow with respect. Replace "Bomb#20" in the quote-tags with "John Doe." Do you find John Doe's argument style appealing?

Money is memory of favors not yet returned.

This is a peculiar summary. Did you read about the favors Josh Kushner did to earn his money? If I win $100 in a poker game, what favor did I do the losers? Poker lessons?

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you suggesting being a billionaire makes a person an oppressor? Or is "class oppression" a guilt-by-association thing?

No, but oppression makes billionaires.

Since Mao's golden age of non-oppression ended, the amount of oppression in China must have been shooting through the roof.

It means I don't give ... about billionaires. They are a symptom of societal cancer.

Fred Phelps would no doubt say gays are a symptom of societal cancer. What makes you think you're a better societal oncologist than him?