Billionaires Blast off

[DBT]

Government is supposed to represent the people, the citizens of the nation.

And they can't represent them unless they have a monopoly on space? Huh?

NASA, space research, etc, has benefited the nation and the world. NASA does not prevent others from competing, uses private contractors, suppliers, etc. Besos, Musk, et al, are happy to take gov/tax payer funding to the tune of billions, which hardly makes it a NASA monopoly.

The point here is a matter of taking care of the top end while letting the battlers languish.

 

[DBT]

Was the meme meant to be taken literally, or just convey the meaning that the super rich are not paying their share of tax?

I do not know what the author had in mind; I have to go by the actual words used.
Btw, whether they are "not paying their [fair] share of tax" is very subjective. What would be a fair share?

Buffett says that his class are not paying their due.

And what Buffett says is gospel?
We can debate how much they should be paying, but unless they are breaking the law, they are "paying their due", i.e. paying what they owe the government according to tax laws.

Buffett was pointing out that his (and those in his class) percentage of tax is lower than that of the average worker, who earns a tiny fraction of Buffett's income. Do you think this is fair and equatable?

 

[Derec]

BOTH sides of this "debate" are espousing positions that are much too extreme — and therefore wrong. Perhaps y'all should consult eye doctors to find out why you cannot perceive shades of gray.

Some posters (like bilby and DBT), but I think most of us can see nuance.

The right-wing's obsession with AOC is laughable.

1. I am not on the right.
2. I am not obsessed with AOC. If you want to see obsession, look at lpetrich!

I brought her up due to her strong (and ultimately successful) opposition to Amazon's HQ2.

(Fingers getting tired? How could you pass up the opportunity to mention she was a bartender? )

It wasn't relevant to the point I was making. It will be somewhat relevant now, so thanks for bringing it up, so I don't have to.

She was awarded her B.A. cum laude, so "idiot" is rather an exaggeration.

I do not know how she managed it. Maybe her advisor took the "cum" too literally ...
I kid, although you never know. Just look at our esteemed Veep and aptly named Willie Brown.

No, I called her an idiot because despite having a BA degree in Economics from a great school she has very limited understanding of economics. For example, she believes that the government can spend tens of trillions on things like her "Green" New Deal without causing inflation.

And also, as you have mentioned, despite her great education she only worked as a bartender.

There are Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who appear to be much stupider than AOC.

Granted. You'd be hard pressed to find somebody more brain dead than Sheila Jackson Lee ...

A point in favor of the right, I guess, is that many of the stupidest-seeming GOP Congresscritters are only pretending to believe their stupidest ideas.

As opposed to Dems who sincerely believe that AK47s weigh as much as 10 moving boxes and fire .50 caliber bullets, there are two Vietnams living side by side or that the island of Guam might capsize.

But what is startling — and completely backwards — is the idea that AOC has "orders of magnitude" more power than a billionaire. Bezos and the progressives dueled recently in a quest to unionize a Bezos workplace. Did AOC win that vote? By "orders of magnitude"?

AOC is part of a body that has legislative powers. That is much more powerful than a guy who has a lot of Amazon shares but no government authority.
That was my point. Employees of Amazon voting against an union does not really pertain here.
As a counterpoint see also the HQ2 that was supposed to be built in Queens but failed due to opposition by AOC.

Charles Koch gets away with much pollution due to his purchased political influence. Has AOC reduced that at all?

Can you be more specific about the purchased influence and the change in pollution laws that you attribute to it?

AOC does indeed have much political power; how much is moot. I wish she were as powerful as a billionaire.

I stand by my claim that she is much more powerful, by the virtue of her being part of the federal legislature. She has legislative powers, she has subpoena powers, and she has powers over the federal budget. A billionaire, not even Bezos, has none of these powers.

 

[Bomb#20]

Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

It's not like it's a gift. The government is buying something for all that money: a future in which we can phase out internal combustion engines in cars. The benefits of that will be shared by all mankind. If the public want that but don't want to subsidize it, their representatives could provide it by enacting a carbon tax and waiting five times as long. You want rush delivery, you have to pay for it.

Commercial space companies have received $7.2 billion in government investment since 2000
Early public money can provide a big boost for private space businesses

(public money could lend a yuuuuge boost to my private lifestyle too)

To be clear, I do think that a public/private partnership could be viable and beneficial to both parties but It looks heavily tilted toward the benefit of the private party.

For comparison purposes, the original Space Shuttle cost $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. Assuming we think manned spaceflight is worth having, looks to me like the public got a huge bargain. (Contrariwise, if manned spaceflight isn't worth having, the problem is pro-manned-spaceflight congressthings themselves; it isn't the surprisingly efficient way they're spending the budget they shouldn't have in the first place.)

 

[Bomb#20]

[stupid meme]

... We can debate about what the tax system should be and how much taxes billionaires should pay and on what.
But to pretend (like Warren and other leftists do) that billionaires pay no taxes is very ignorant.

Nobody is saying that they don't pay any tax.

You literally just watched ZiprHead say that they don't pay any tax.

View attachment 34761

 

[lpetrich]

1. I am not on the right.

Then what are your biggest disagreements with the right wing?

I brought her up due to her strong (and ultimately successful) opposition to Amazon's HQ2.

AOC credits local activists for this triumph, and I see no reason to think otherwise.

No, I called her an idiot because despite having a BA degree in Economics from a great school she has very limited understanding of economics. For example, she believes that the government can spend tens of trillions on things like her "Green" New Deal without causing inflation.

How would that be inflationary and big spending on military adventures not be inflationary?

And also, as you have mentioned, despite her great education she only worked as a bartender.

Because she didn't want to sell out and join some Wall Street firm.

 

[ZiprHead]

But in reality the workers are getting more out than they put in too

How can a worker get out more than they put in? That doesn't make any sense. You're saying a worker gets paid more than his production value.

 

[ZiprHead]

Nobody is saying that they don't pay any tax.

You literally just watched ZiprHead say that they don't pay any tax.

View attachment 34761

Some posters (like bilby and DBT), but I think most of us can see nuance.

Riiiiight...

If you are going to take the meme so literally that you think it means they've never paid taxes, I'll do you one better. I say it literally means they've never been to a tax office. I'd bet the vast majority of us here have never been to a tax office to pay their taxes in person.

 

[Canard DuJour]

No but it's unlikely to be ideologically motivated. The IMF previously champoined the opposite view - that there is trade-off between productivity and inequality - but recanted due to the preponderance of evidence.

And? The IMF is no more immune to changes in ideology than any other organization. Intellectual fashions change like all fashions; and personnel are replaced.

Such organisations tend to be highly resistant to changes in ideology, especially those with a history of policy implementation. The IMF was forced to recant by the preponderance of evidence.

Not what the IMF says.

Okay, then what is it they mean by saying GDP growth has slowed because of increasing rich-poor income gaps? Normally that would mean if only we'd arranged for a smaller gap it would have stopped the growth from slowing -- i.e., it would have increased GDP. That's what it is to make a causality claim.
Well, there are two ways to arrange for a smaller gap: make the poor richer or make the rich poorer. But to say adding wealth to the poor increases GDP is practically a tautology: we don't need IMF economists to tell us that. So if the IMF is saying something substantive it seems it would have to be that subtracting wealth from the rich increases GDP.

As the dog says, "No, it is saying if the poor's income increased at a faster rate than the rich's (which does not require subtraction of wealth from the rich), then GDP growth would have been faster."

The idea that convergence further down the global income distritbution (which wouldn't even be a thing without China) is a necessary corollary of the average American's loss of income share is zero-sum thinking 101.

So who the heck said it's a necessary corollary?

Whoever it is that keeps bringing it up in defence of within-country inequality, e.g. in the U.S. Unless they're bringing up an unrelated coincidence for reasons best known to themself.

There are any number of ways the average American could "lose income share" -- i.e., gain income not as fast as the average earthling -- without convergence further down. I'm just saying it's what actually happened over the last few decades.

Then it's unclear why you're just saying it.

Not to mention "in-group" favouritism.

How do you figure that? In-group favoritism is a matter of preference; opinions about whether X happened or about whether X was a necessary corollary of Y aren't matters of preference.

Fine. You appeared to be arguing that U.S. inequality with its consequences for average Americans, and the gains of Chinese workers were part of some process to the good of humanity. Turns out you were just tossing in some unrelated factoids.

The methods you use to make inferences about me are mystifying. Yes, of course I'm arguing U.S. inequality with its consequences for average Americans, and the gains of Chinese workers, are part of some process to the good of humanity. Duh! The process is outsourcing. Duh! The convergence was a corollary of outsourcing. Duh! But it's not a necessary corollary of the average American's "loss of income share", because there are alternate scenarios in which average Americans could have "lost income share" as well as scenarios in which they could have actually lost income, due to any number of causes other than outsourcing, that would not have caused convergence further down the global income distribution. Duh! A world-wide boycott of American goods, a Yellowstone supervolcano eruption, yada yada. Use your imagination. But those things didn't happen. Outsourcing happened. Duh!

So how the bejesus does my pointing out all this imply to you that the actual worldwide drop in inequality is an unrelated coincidence/factoid I just tossed in for reasons best known to myself? Your reasoning is mysterious.

Because if U.S. inequality and its consequences for average Americans isn't a necessary corollary of outsourcing, then it makes no sense to keep bringing up Chinese workers' gains in defence of it. American workers' wage growth could have continued alongside and we wouldn't have the exploding rich-poor gap with the associated slower growth. If it is a necessary corollary, then it's a zero-sum argument favouring Chinese workers over the loser "outgroup" of American workers because the latter are (or were) relatively richer.

 

[Swammerdami]

AOC does indeed have much political power; how much is moot. I wish she were as powerful as a billionaire.

I stand by my claim that she is much more powerful, by the virtue of her being part of the federal legislature. She has legislative powers, she has subpoena powers, and she has powers over the federal budget. A billionaire, not even Bezos, has none of these powers.

I won't bother answering your diatribe point-by-point, but this comment is especially ignorant.
AOC does NOT have subpoena powers. The chairman of a committee may have such powers, on majority vote, but not individual Congressmen. And to demonstrate she had an effect on legislation you'll want an example which passed by a single vote.

She was awarded her B.A. cum laude, so "idiot" is rather an exaggeration.

I do not know how she managed it. Maybe her advisor took the "cum" too literally ...
I kid, although you never know. Just look at our esteemed Veep and aptly named Willie Brown.

What a nasty remark. The "I kid" just makes it worse. "Although you never know" = "Just asking questions" = JAQ'ing off.

Speaking of economics, it is you who demonstrate ignorance. It isn't government spending which might cause inflation; it is spending that is not countered with tax increases.

But your "I am not a right-winger" did offer comic relief! What does this statement even mean to you? That you don't fall for ALL of Sean Hannity's lies?

ETA:

despite her great education she only worked as a bartender.

So you rant against AOC as though she were more of a problem than the millions of citizens who support Trump's lies and treasons — did she turn you down for a date or something? — and it turns out you've never even skimmed her Wikipedia bio. Wow!

 

[Bomb#20]

Nobody is saying that they don't pay any tax.

That meme Zipr posted sure is.

Was the meme meant to be taken literally, or just convey the meaning that the super rich are not paying their share of tax?

Ah. So in leftist-speak, "none" means "less than it should be". Got it. So "Nobody is saying that they don't pay any tax." means "Not as many people are saying they don't pay any tax as should be saying it."

Buffett says that his class are not paying their due.

Buffett is an expert on investment. Whether his class are paying their due is not an investment question.

 

[Bomb#20]

When your democracy is broken, the solution is to fix it, not to just replace it with an aristocracy.

Governments not having a monopoly on space is not autocracy. WTF?

How is an aristocracy of the super rich a good thing for society?

How is government not having a monopoly on space an example of "autocracy"?

Dude! People keep saying "aristocracy", and you keep hearing "autocracy". Not the same thing.

 

[laughing dog]

Buffett says that his class are not paying their due.

Buffett is an expert on investment. Whether his class are paying their due is not an investment question.

I think it is obvious that DBT's point is that someone who is a billionaire feels that people in his income bracket are not paying their share of taxes. Whether or not that billionaire is a public finance or tax fairness expert is besides the point. Or is your point that since Buffett is not an expert on taxes or tax fairness, his opinion is not worth considering? If so, no one's opinion here, including yours, is worth considering.

 

[Bomb#20]

Okay, then what is it they mean by saying GDP growth has slowed because of increasing rich-poor income gaps? Normally that would mean if only we'd arranged for a smaller gap it would have stopped the growth from slowing -- i.e., it would have increased GDP. That's what it is to make a causality claim.
Well, there are two ways to arrange for a smaller gap: make the poor richer or make the rich poorer. But to say adding wealth to the poor increases GDP is practically a tautology: we don't need IMF economists to tell us that. So if the IMF is saying something substantive it seems it would have to be that subtracting wealth from the rich increases GDP.

No, it is saying if the poor's income increased at a faster rate than the rich's (which does not require subtraction of wealth from the rich), then GDP growth would have been faster.

But that's not what "because" means. It's just a claim of correlation across possible worlds, not a claim of causation. There might be some third factor causing both GDP growth to slow and rich-poor gaps to increase.

For example, suppose they can show that if Ford had beaten Carter in 1976, that would have caused the poor's income to increase at a faster rate than the rich's and caused GDP growth to have been faster. Then that would be evidence for "if the poor's income increased at a faster rate than the rich's then GDP growth would have been faster."; but it would be equally strong evidence for "If GDP growth had been faster then the poor's income would have increased at a faster rate than the rich's." What it wouldn't be evidence for is either "If the poor's income increased at a faster rate than the rich's, that would have caused faster GDP growth." or "If GDP growth had been faster then that would have caused the poor's income to increased at a faster rate than the rich's." The evidence would be neutral about which causes which, if indeed one even causes the other, as opposed to them both being independent consequences of the initial event.

So if all the IMF is claiming evidence for is that if the poor's income increased at a faster rate than the rich's then GDP growth would have been faster, then either CDJ misquoted them when he said they said GDP growth has slowed because of increasing rich-poor income gaps, or else the IMF misspoke when they said it.

This isn't a quibble -- it makes a difference. If the IMF only have evidence for correlation but not for causation, then they don't have a case for anti-inequality interventions. They'd need to first find out what the chief third factor is, and then target that for intervention.

 

[Bomb#20]

Buffett says that his class are not paying their due.

Buffett is an expert on investment. Whether his class are paying their due is not an investment question.

I think it is obvious that DBT's point is that someone who is a billionaire feels that people in his income bracket are not paying their share of taxes. Whether or not that billionaire is a public finance or tax fairness expert is besides the point. Or is your point that since Buffett is not an expert on taxes or tax fairness, his opinion is not worth considering? If so, no one's opinion here, including yours, is worth considering.

My point is that his opinion is just as worth considering as anyone else's, but not more so. Argument by name-dropping isn't a good argument unless the name you drop is the name of a domain expert.

(It should also be pointed out that taxing capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income very roughly compensates for the government measuring cost basis in pre-inflation dollars; the degree to which it compensates for it depends on the ratio of real appreciation to inflation. Buffett is such a spectacularly brilliant investor that in his case that ratio is huge; consequently in his case the lower capital gains rate is massively overcompensating him. Which is to say, his perception of what "his class" is paying may perhaps be unduly influenced by his knowledge of what he personally is paying.)

 

[Jayjay]

The US federal budget is $2.45 trillion.

$6.6T actually, but who's counting?

That was a typo. 2019 federal budget was $4.45 trillion.

A Congress critter's power goes beyond just the budget. They also make laws, which is a major power.

And large part of the budget is mandated by various laws and can't be changed with just annual budgeting. So looking at the entire budget already accounts for the congress's legislative powers.

Jeff Bezos makes that in a month. So even by the most outlandish estimate of Ocasio-Cortez's power converted to US dollars, she'd still be at least an order of magnitude below Bezos.

No, he does not. $8G per month is $96G per year. He is not making nearly that much per year, or his net worth would be a lot higher than the current $195G.

The figure was based on his net worth growth in the first half of 2020. Granted, it's not a sustainable figure, because Amazon stock skyrocketed during that time. But the point remains, it's way more than the averaged, dollarized influence of a congressperson. And your claim was that a congressperson is at least an order of magnitude, i.e. ten times, more influential, which is clearly false no matter which way you look at it.

 

[Jayjay]

How is an aristocracy of the super rich a good thing for society?

How is government not having a monopoly on space an example of "autocracy"?

He didn't say "autocracy", he said "aristocracy".

 

[laughing dog]

This isn't a quibble -- it makes a difference. If the IMF only have evidence for correlation but not for causation, then they don't have a case for anti-inequality interventions. They'd need to first find out what the chief third factor is, and then target that for intervention.

It is a quibble because in macroeconomics there never is a single factor driving outcomes over more than a month or so. Moreover, if the rich-poor gap is a substantive factor in the rate of economic growth, it does not require taking income or reducing the growth in the income of the rich (as you suggested).

This is the IMF site about income inequality - https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/Inequality. In the Introduction part, they cite 2 papers as its basis for its conclusions about inequality and growth

Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry "Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of
the Same Coin? " (downloadable at https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf) and
Dani Rodrick (https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/rodrik.htm) - Institutions for High Quality Growth.

In addition, there is more recent paper by Aiyar and Ebeke "Inequality of Opportunity, Inequality of Income and Economic Growth" (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/02/15/Inequality-of-Opportunity-Inequality-of-Income-and-Economic-Growth-46566".

I have not had a chance to read these in-depth. But it would be a mistake to assume that the IMF is a proponent of strong gov't redistribution

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But in reality the workers are getting more out than they put in too

How can a worker get out more than they put in? That doesn't make any sense. You're saying a worker gets paid more than his production value.

Your problem is in thinking value is fixed.

The worker values the income more than they value the time it takes to make it. The company values the work done more than it values the money they pay for it.

Without such differences in value there would be no trade of any kind.

 

[DBT]

Buffett is an expert on investment. Whether his class are paying their due is not an investment question.

He is speaking as a taxpayer. As a taxpayer he pointing out that those in his class may get away with paying a smaller percentage of their income in tax than their workers on a fraction of that income. Which is clearly a case of tax avoidance. The system being set up to benefit the rich while keeping the incomes of ordinary workers down. All the while milking workers for whatever taxes can be extracted.