84 replies to this topic

[JRC]

more stuff for working schlubs to get angry about

[thebiggameover]

im all for a class war....

[Rize]

So the top 1% has an incredible share of the wealth, but most of their money is invested in businesses intended to generate more wealth. Maybe the reason they're so rich is because they do such a good job of it. Maybe it's a good thing they're the ones investing and controlling so much of the money, especially considering the alternative is to let the government take it.

I multiplied out their figures and I'm not sure where they are getting those charts from showing who owns which part of the wealth because I got this which still looks bad, but not as bad as they suggested. They trying to make things look as bad as possible. They have an agenda (to please their readership which skews greatly left).

90% x 31,244 28%
9% x 164,647 14%
0.9% x 3238,386 29%
0.1% x 27,342,212 27%




What does that second chart mean to you? Payroll tax is what employers pay to employee you. So as corporate taxes went down, payroll taxes went up. At any point, if you add the two together it's about the same as personal income taxes. So what this chart shows is that corporations have been paying just as much as individuals to finance the government over the last 60 years.

You might argue that payroll tax is really just a hidden extension of income tax, but then so is corporate taxes. A tax on businesses increases the price of all goods and services and removes money that would go into competitive wages. It doesn't matter who is paying the taxes, the government is the enemy not the various people being taxed.

[raubhimself]

So the top 1% has an incredible share of the wealth, but most of their money is invested in businesses intended to generate more wealth. Maybe the reason they're so rich is because they do such a good job of it. Maybe it's a good thing they're the ones investing and controlling so much of the money, especially considering the alternative is to let the government take it.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Look at Bill Gates. Oh he's so great now, but all of his wealth is built on him being a huge dick. The first big jump of Microsoft was at the expense of IBM and OS/2 devs. There is a saying "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" that Microsoft used in-house which describes their strategy to decimate standards so they can be the de-facto standard. They supposedly have used BSD code for their TCP/IP stack but I don't think that's ever been proven one way or another. More recently they kept throwing wrenches in the ODF spec. They didn't like not being in control of the Sun-designed ODF spec, so they pushed for their own OOXML (which the first two letters stand for Office Open, making confusing as to what spec belongs to what side since Sun had Open Office). Their strategies for gaining support for OOXML were not based on the genuine worth of their standard.

Microsoft is just one example, but there are plenty of other companies, especially in the tech sector, that make their worth not through hard work and the quality of their product, but by manipulating the market and the consumers, using monetary muscle, and exploiting legal loopholes and patents. Larry Ellison is up there too, he's like the Bill Gates wannabe. Is the Walton family really deserving?

So no, I definitely don't think most of the supremely rich are deserving. Saying that maybe the rich worked hard to get there is like saying maybe most politicians got where they are by being good, genuine politicians. Come on, we both know that's not true. Are there exceptions? Sure, but I'm not about to generalize the rich or the government as a group of deserving people.

As a Libertarian I'm sure you know how the Fed got started. Do you think the people who made out like bandits from that are deserving? I mean, obviously they were good at what they do, but what they do is manipulate and take advantage.

We're talking about having our money in control of one set of manipulative, greedy assholes, or another. Corporations or government, doesn't really matter much. Government at least symbolically means for the people though.

[Rize]

Unchecked monopolies are a problem, but they will still get useful work done in the process of squashing competitors even if it isn't maximally efficient. If MS originated in a garage and accomplished things that others weren't accomplishing, even if they stole code or stole ideas and implemented them poorly, the fact that they succeeded means that they were still doing something more right than anyone else (attracting customers to important new technology).

Overall, I trust money in the hands of competitive businesses more than non-competitive government. Paper money is essentially stored work. If you give people money without requiring work (or without requiring as much work; or give them extra money/benefits for the same work; or let them take money), then you reduce the value of money overall just as surely as if you printed more of it.

Certainly some things are better done by government. The inefficiency is sometimes worth it. I just don't find the sort of charts on that page to be very useful or enlightening. Better to consider things like how teachers unions have destroyed public education. Public school teachers are overcompensated compared to private school teachers and do a poorer job. Why is that?

[jeremx]

..even if they stole code or stole ideas and implemented them poorly, the fact that they succeeded means that they were still doing something more right than anyone else..

cheating/stealing and getting away with it is still cheating/stealing.

[Rize]

..even if they stole code or stole ideas and implemented them poorly, the fact that they succeeded means that they were still doing something more right than anyone else..

cheating/stealing and getting away with it is still cheating/stealing.

Well I meant more right for the world in general not morally right If they were able to steal another company's product and use it more successfully than the original company did, the other company obviously wasn't taking advantage of their own technology well enough. Think of gaming for a moment. It's not possible to patent or copyright or otherwise protect a game design. Imagine how stunted game design would be if each element of game design could be locked up by one company. Microsoft may have engaged in some questionable business practices early on, but the fact that they succeeded shows that they served a very important function in speeding the growth and development of technology.

[Jacki O.]

i dont trust either.

the government should be in charge of running checks and balances against corporate interests. corporations, composed of people, can go haywire when they are left to their own devices, just like the government, which is SUPPOSED to be held accountable by the public. but when rich people are involved, greed usually takes over, no matter the institution, religion, organization, union, state, nation, environment, or community.

And like Jeremx stated, not every single rich person out there got rich by being hard working and compassionate employers.

I also understand the argument that the rich invest in businesses that create more jobs for "the poor" but look at our current economic situation, even small business owners are having trouble keeping their businesses afloat because uber rich corporate banks, mostly situated outside the U.S., are having a field day stockpiling federally loaned money instead of lending to small businesses - which btw are the economic engine of the U.S., not large corporations. Those small to medium-sized business can't stay open and therefore cause more job loss.

essentially:
1) everyone is only out for themselves
2) government and corporate interests are very intertwined and have been that way for a long time (see #1)
3) the economic structures that we've being leaning on (propped up by corporate interest and the government) are really the cause of our problems (see #1)
4) it's not ever gonna work because of #1

so good luck out there

[Rize]

Yes, government and some big corporations are very intertwined because government allows and encourages it as part of its power structure. If the government provides the option, naturally a businessman will seek any benefits they can get. If they don't their competitors will. Many instances of big businesses misbehaving can be traced back to the government. The housing bubble was fueled by government policy for example.

So rich people have a lot of money. Is there a better way to do things that is still practical?

[unluckycharm]

In general, I think society could be structured better. Gov / business / the little guy.

However, though you can say wages have not skyrocketed the way rich people have gotten richer, the average guy has on the other hand benefitted from economies of scale. You now can get a cheap personal computer, a relatively cheap car, a cheap house (thanx housing crisis!), gobs of cheap or free music & movies, a friggin' recording studio....etc......wayyyyyyy cheaper than any dude could in say 1972.

on the other hand....healthcare costs....eeps....

...and on the other hand....some very rich people have very much benefitted from the patently stupid decisions of their competitors (or partners), i.e. microsoft and ibm. shouldn't microsoft get rich if ibm makes a really really dumb decision?

[Rize]

ok, I'm about to check out of here for the day. thanks for tolerating my contrary opinions here in the general forum where I do not normally tread

I think you nailed it unluckycharm. the actual situation is far more complex than "who has the money". even in medicine, we have so much technology today that wasn't available 10, 20, 30 years ago and so on. So while some people are denied the best care, what do you do if there aren't enough doctors to go around? I guess you could ration out medical care since it's a life or death issue it may not seem fair to put a private price on it, but that's different discussion. While I'm suspicious of government involvement, this may be one of those cases where it is ultimately desirable.

[Jacki O.]

saw this. thought interesting/relevant

[Tony]

saw this. thought interesting/relevant

maybe i'm a monster, but i'm all in favor of three of these tax breaks:

mortgage interest deductions on vacation homes - hell yes this should be deductible. isn't the idea to encourage people to invest in the housing market? part of the reason you might invest in a 2nd home is the interest (which you are paying to a bank, which is paying corporate tax on it) can be deducted. why do you care if it's my 2nd home or somebody else's first home - it's still a purchased home. this one doesn't even make sense to me.

estate planning expenses - should absofuckinlutely be deductible. anybody here ever plan an estate or have a detailed discussion with a lawer about family trusts or making sure your relatives don't get assfucked by taxes when you die? the estate tax is a travesty. you've paid income tax all your life, and then the gov't taxes it again when you die? bullshit. total bullshit. just because i make enough money to plan for it doesn't mean you should tax me differently.

no limit on itemized deductions - why the hell not? why would you cap it? if i have legitimate itemized deductions why would you say that they're not allowable because i make too much money? my % of tax should be comparable to somebody elses whether they make more or less than me.

a lot of these seem legitimate (the oil tax breaks seem shady, for example) but i would call bullshit on at least those 3.

[Jacki O.]

i guess that, with our two multi-billion dollar wars being fought overseas, we have to decide between helping out those that have little or helping out those that have a lot.

also if you can afford a second "vacation" home, you can afford to pay taxes on it so shut the fuck up.

[Tony]

i guess that, with our two multi-billion dollar wars being fought overseas, we have to decide between helping out those that have little or helping out those that have a lot.

also if you can afford a second "vacation" home, you can afford to pay taxes on it so shut the fuck up.

i guess my point is that it shouldn't matter if it's my first home or my 10th home - if i bought them they should all fall under the same guidelines unless i'm renting them out and making a profit. i bought that 2nd home, paid for somebody to build it (directly or indirectly), and pay property taxes on it. it's not free.

my taxes and the laws that govern them should be the same whether i make $10k a year or $10m a year.

i'm still paying substantially more in taxes if i have higher income.