Billionaires Blast off

[bilby]

Bezos is donating $200M to the Smithsonian, so it’s not like he’s only spending his fortune on himself. I don’t understand all the hate for these rocket flights. We don’t know who it will inspire or what technological advancements may come. What should he do, ride around the Mediterranean on a super yacht doing very unsavory things like some other super rich folks who have been in the news lately?

No, he - like everyone else, shouldn't be super rich at all.

Nobody has done enough in their lives to deserve such wealth. Nobody.

OK, maybe Stanislav Petrov. Maybe. And he never got any wealth in return for his genuinely meritorious actions.

Fuck them all. If you've got, let's say, 500x median income for your nation or more, you should pay 100% tax on all further income. We can hand out a trophy with "You won capitalism" on it or something. Maybe put up a statue of them for the pigeons to crap on. But nobody in the history of the world has done enough with their lives to earn more than $16M in today's dollars.

He created that wealth. Why shouldn't he be allowed to have it?

He created some of that wealth. He used infrastructure, labour, and direct cash assistance from the state to do this. Why should he be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

 

[DBT]

Yes
You can't really tell. Sometimes the marketing requires the entrepreneur to appear egotistical

and the means with which to achieve their goals.

Yes, but that is good. Even if you are a little person when they achieve their goals, your life also gets incrementally better too. Technology advancements for the average person to travel from NYC to Sydney in 2 hours flight time.

That the 'little person' benefits to some degree doesn't alter the fact that excessive wealth concentration into the hands of a small percentage of the world's population is beneficial to society in the long term. The Billionaire Entrepeneur did not build an empire without the aid of workers on every level, designers, builders, fabricators, factory workers, etc, and it is those on lower end of the scale that are not getting their market share of the wealth they help to generate.

The the degree of wealth concentration that we have had in recent times is not sustainable.

 

[Canard DuJour]

He created that wealth. Why shouldn't he be allowed to have it?

He created some of that wealth. He used infrastructure, labour, and direct cash assistance from the state to do this. Why should he be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

And no one's choosing to give him anything. They're choosing the convenience of on-line shopping/retail minus the inconvenience of setting up multiple accounts on multiple platforms. Bezos is the beneficiary of network effects (buyers and sellers attract each other to the biggest platform etc) and of having got in early.

If it hadn't been him, it'd have been someone else, who'd be no more deserving of such obscene accumulation. It's an artefact of the market, not some god-like attribute of the individual.

 

[Swammerdami]

No, he - like everyone else, shouldn't be super rich at all.

Nobody has done enough in their lives to deserve such wealth. Nobody.

He created that wealth. Why shouldn't he be allowed to have it?

I don't think this philosophical question has easy answers.

A doe creates a fawn, but the tiger eats it.
Bees create honey, which is then harvested by man.
Peasants create wheat and corn, which the landowner takes and sells for himself.
And citizens of a state earn money, part of which king or country taxes.
This is all part of natural order.

I am a centrist who wants to please both sides. Tax a huge amount of wealth from Bezos, Gates and Buffett. But also leave them huge amounts for themselves!

When I consulted for a patent-happy company we were given lectures on patent law. One facet of patent law (visible in the U.S. Constitution itself) should remind us that high earnings are a privilege, not a right:

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Yes, copyrights and patents are explicitly issued "to promote progress" for society, and not as a "reward." A similar principle may be applied more generally.

 

[Harry Bosch]

He created that wealth. Why shouldn't he be allowed to have it?

He created some of that wealth. He used infrastructure, labour, and direct cash assistance from the state to do this. Why should he be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

What gives you the right to want to take some of it, or most of it?

 

[Jarhyn]

He created that wealth. Why shouldn't he be allowed to have it?

He created some of that wealth. He used infrastructure, labour, and direct cash assistance from the state to do this. Why should he be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

What gives you the right to want to take some of it, or most of it?

Because he, and I, and everyone else contributes to the infrastructure, labor, and cash assistance from the state to do it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What gives you the right to want to take some of it, or most of it?

Because he, and I, and everyone else contributes to the infrastructure, labor, and cash assistance from the state to do it.

That's an interesting answer. Of course states have the right. Oregon has had an estate tax for many years. There are other states with the same right. There are many states (including Oregon) with a stiff property tax. There are also state taxes on business assets, gross sales, and etc. My point was more that there is no right for the federal government to tax wealth.

 

[Canard DuJour]

And because every dollar in circulation was issued by, or under license by, govt on the explicit condition that govt, given democratic mandate, may tax them.

If you or Bezos don't like it, you're free to try using some other medium of exchange.

You won't find any other medium of exchange as useful or universally accepted (try insisting on gold) precisely because the govt taxes dollars, which i) maintains demand for dollars (since everyone must acquire them to settle tax liability), and ii) maintains their value by regulating the quantity in circulation.

 

[Harry Bosch]

And because every dollar in circulation was issued by, or under license by, govt on the explicit condition that govt, given democratic mandate, may tax them.

If you or Bezos don't like it, you're free to try using some other medium of exchange.

You won't find any other medium of exchange as useful or universally accepted (try insisting on gold) precisely because the govt taxes dollars, which i) maintains demand for dollars (since everyone must acquire them to settle tax liability), and ii) maintains their value by regulating the quantity in circulation.

Oh, I'm very comfortable with a federal tax on income. The government is allowed to do this. In fact, I think that it's a little low...

 

[ZiprHead]

There are also state taxes on business assets, gross sales, and etc. My point was more that there is no right for the federal government to tax wealth.

No right? How so?

 

[Bomb#20]

There are also state taxes on business assets, gross sales, and etc. My point was more that there is no right for the federal government to tax wealth.

No right? How so?

Article I, section 9: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

(Consequently, there was also no right for the federal government to tax income until the 16th Amendment was ratified.)

 

[Bomb#20]

No, he - like everyone else, shouldn't be super rich at all.

Nobody has done enough in their lives to deserve such wealth. Nobody. ... But nobody in the history of the world has done enough with their lives to earn more than $16M in today's dollars.

He created that wealth. Why shouldn't he be allowed to have it?

He created some of that wealth. He used infrastructure, labour, and direct cash assistance from the state to do this. Why should he be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

Which wealth are you calling "that wealth"? His 16,000,001st dollar? His $2 billion share of Amazon's profit? The $1.8 trillion that Amazon is worth? The many trillions of dollars that Amazon added to the economy's gross in order to have netted $1.8 trillion? Bezos created some of all of those wealths. He used infrastructure, labor, and direct cash assistance from various states to do this, and that's a good reason he shouldn't be allowed to keep all or even most of the many trillions; and in point of fact, he isn't allowed to keep all or even most of the many trillions. You are talking as though the fact that he used infrastructure, labor, and direct cash assistance from various states to help him create the trillions and trillions of dollars in wealth he helped create is a good reason not to let him keep all or most of his 16,000,001st dollar. Where is the logic in that?

Let's turn it around. Bezos used infrastructure, labor, and direct cash assistance from the state to create that 16,000,001st dollar, sure; same as every other dollar he earned. So let's suppose we decide $16 million is enough for him and the state gets the entire 16,000,001st dollar. Well, the state provided the infrastructure and direct cash assistance to create some of that wealth, sure; but it used Bezos and labor to do this. Why should the state be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

 

[laughing dog]

He created some of that wealth. He used infrastructure, labour, and direct cash assistance from the state to do this. Why should he be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

Which wealth are you calling "that wealth"? His 16,000,001st dollar? His $2 billion share of Amazon's profit? The $1.8 trillion that Amazon is worth? The many trillions of dollars that Amazon added to the economy's gross in order to have netted $1.8 trillion? Bezos created some of all of those wealths. He used infrastructure, labor, and direct cash assistance from various states to do this, and that's a good reason he shouldn't be allowed to keep all or even most of the many trillions; and in point of fact, he isn't allowed to keep all or even most of the many trillions. You are talking as though the fact that he used infrastructure, labor, and direct cash assistance from various states to help him create the trillions and trillions of dollars in wealth he helped create is a good reason not to let him keep all or most of his 16,000,001st dollar. Where is the logic in that?

Let's turn it around. Bezos used infrastructure, labor, and direct cash assistance from the state to create that 16,000,001st dollar, sure; same as every other dollar he earned. So let's suppose we decide $16 million is enough for him and the state gets the entire 16,000,001st dollar. Well, the state provided the infrastructure and direct cash assistance to create some of that wealth, sure; but it used Bezos and labor to do this. Why should the state be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

One could just easily ask what gives Mr. Bezos the right to keep all (or part of) what he creates?

 

[Harry Bosch]

He created some of that wealth. He used infrastructure, labour, and direct cash assistance from the state to do this. Why should he be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

Which wealth are you calling "that wealth"? His 16,000,001st dollar? His $2 billion share of Amazon's profit? The $1.8 trillion that Amazon is worth? The many trillions of dollars that Amazon added to the economy's gross in order to have netted $1.8 trillion? Bezos created some of all of those wealths. He used infrastructure, labor, and direct cash assistance from various states to do this, and that's a good reason he shouldn't be allowed to keep all or even most of the many trillions; and in point of fact, he isn't allowed to keep all or even most of the many trillions. You are talking as though the fact that he used infrastructure, labor, and direct cash assistance from various states to help him create the trillions and trillions of dollars in wealth he helped create is a good reason not to let him keep all or most of his 16,000,001st dollar. Where is the logic in that?

Let's turn it around. Bezos used infrastructure, labor, and direct cash assistance from the state to create that 16,000,001st dollar, sure; same as every other dollar he earned. So let's suppose we decide $16 million is enough for him and the state gets the entire 16,000,001st dollar. Well, the state provided the infrastructure and direct cash assistance to create some of that wealth, sure; but it used Bezos and labor to do this. Why should the state be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

One could just easily ask what gives Mr. Bezos the right to keep all (or part of) what he creates?

Well, there are a few provisions in the constitution and in common law that address this. But the clearest one is in the 5th amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

 

[laughing dog]

One could just easily ask what gives Mr. Bezos the right to keep all (or part of) what he creates?

Well, there are a few provisions in the constitution and in common law that address this. But the clearest one is in the 5th amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

First, constitutional rights can be altered. Second, just compensation is a nebulous term. What is the just compensation for having a functioning legal system, police protection, etcc....?

My point is that talking about "rights" requires more precise language. For example, are we
1) talking about actual constitutional rights or potential constitutional rights or moral rights,
2) taking the status quo as the basis for discussion, or
3) considering the ideal situation?

When one asks "Why should the state be allowed to ____"?, that presupposes a particular status quo from which a deviation must be justified. But what is that status quo and why must be accepted?

 

[DBT]

Yes
You can't really tell. Sometimes the marketing requires the entrepreneur to appear egotistical

and the means with which to achieve their goals.

Yes, but that is good. Even if you are a little person when they achieve their goals, your life also gets incrementally better too. Technology advancements for the average person to travel from NYC to Sydney in 2 hours flight time.

That the 'little person' benefits to some degree doesn't alter the fact that excessive wealth concentration into the hands of a small percentage of the world's population is beneficial to society in the long term. The Billionaire Entrepeneur did not build an empire without the aid of workers on every level, designers, builders, fabricators, factory workers, etc, and it is those on lower end of the scale that are not getting their market share of the wealth they help to generate.

The the degree of wealth concentration that we have had in recent times is not sustainable.

Typo; I meant to say that a high degree wealth concentration is not beneficial for society.

 

[ZiprHead]

There are also state taxes on business assets, gross sales, and etc. My point was more that there is no right for the federal government to tax wealth.

No right? How so?

Article I, section 9: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

(Consequently, there was also no right for the federal government to tax income until the 16th Amendment was ratified.)

Could you explain why that precludes a wealth tax?

 

[bilby]

He created that wealth. Why shouldn't he be allowed to have it?

He created some of that wealth. He used infrastructure, labour, and direct cash assistance from the state to do this. Why should he be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

What gives you the right to want to take some of it, or most of it?

I have no such right, and no such wish.

Society has that right, and it derives from the fact that society, through the provision of infrastructure, security, liquidity, and direct investment of cash, has been his partner in every element of his work. He was never working alone, and has no right to stiff his partner and keep all the benefits of their efforts to himself.

People are expected to pay for those societal efforts. And we call such payments 'taxes'.

 

[bilby]

What gives you the right to want to take some of it, or most of it?

Because he, and I, and everyone else contributes to the infrastructure, labor, and cash assistance from the state to do it.

That's an interesting answer. Of course states have the right. Oregon has had an estate tax for many years. There are other states with the same right. There are many states (including Oregon) with a stiff property tax. There are also state taxes on business assets, gross sales, and etc. My point was more that there is no right for the federal government to tax wealth.

Divided by a common language. He said the state, not the State. His response includes federal government and local governments for that matter.

#ThisIsTheInternetNotAmerica

 

[Harry Bosch]

One could just easily ask what gives Mr. Bezos the right to keep all (or part of) what he creates?

Well, there are a few provisions in the constitution and in common law that address this. But the clearest one is in the 5th amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

First, constitutional rights can be altered. Second, just compensation is a nebulous term. What is the just compensation for having a functioning legal system, police protection, etcc....?

My point is that talking about "rights" requires more precise language. For example, are we
1) talking about actual constitutional rights or potential constitutional rights or moral rights,
2) taking the status quo as the basis for discussion, or
3) considering the ideal situation?

When one asks "Why should the state be allowed to ____"?, that presupposes a particular status quo from which a deviation must be justified. But what is that status quo and why must be accepted?

Well, I don't disagree with you. But I'm just not a fan of wealth taxes. There is no doubt in my mind that taxes need to go up at some point. But wealth taxes aren't the best imo. They are inefficient. How the hell do you measure your wealth each year? We're all going to have to appraise our house each year? Not to complicated to find the value of your public stocks (but it would still take some work); but people would avoid going public anymore. This would be bad for society. Secondly, how would you value non-public stock? I could tell you that I have private stock. We debate it's value all the time. It's a moving target.

Another issue: you'd be creating anther incentive for the entrepreneur to move his company to another country. These large publicly traded companies pay far more than the average job.

Really, all wealth is taxed. It's taxed when it's converted to cash. There is some unfairness here, but then tighten up the wealth taxes. Problem solved.