Is it time to take on the super-rich?

Blowfish

Drumpot wrote: »

Ive had this debate with a friend of mine who in the end throws out the same sentance highlighted. Thats a very poor excuse for the way things are setup today. To me, its basically saying "be thankful for what you have" as if that excuses the tragic actions of the few at the cost of the majority of us.

What cost exactly? The complaint on this thread seems to be that the wealthy are getting wealthier at a cost to the rest of us.

For a start, the wealthy aren't getting wealthier, there are numerous examples of people throughout history who had far far more wealth than anyone existing now, one primary example being John D. Rockefeller who was worth somewhere in the region of $300-600 billion in today's value.

The second point is it being at a cost to us. The vast vast improvement in the past 100 or so years has been in the range of the poorest to the middle income families. If this is where the bulk of the increase, then how exactly has the wealthiest generating more wealth been at a cost to everyone else?

Let me put it another way, if in our modern system the side effect of the striving of a few to accumulat vast amounts of wealth is the improvement of general conditions for those on the opposite end of the scale, then is it really a bad thing to let them continue?

Drumpot wrote: »

You could say to a rape victim "be thankful you were raped today instead of 100 years ago because at least you have a better chance of getting support and of the criminal getting caught". My extreme point being that if somethings wrong, its not right because its better then it was 100 years ago!

I find it extremely odd that people equate being wealthy with being 'wrong' or for that matter equatable to 'rape' or as someone did in a few posts ago, 'theft'. From a moral perspective, there is no comparison.

Drumpot wrote: »

People might not be dieing as much as they were in other era's of depression, but families are being torn apart, people are suffering serious mental illness's (depression) and entire countries are being psychologically bullied into forcing harsh austerity not simply because of the actions of their people, but also the actions of private investors (specifically in our case) and the pressure of our EU friends who felt we couldnt let a bank fail for the greater good.

This is incorrect. Very very little of our deficit is actually due to to the bank bailout. The rest is due to state overspending.

Duggys Housemate

Blowfish wrote: »

What cost exactly? The complaint on this thread seems to be that the wealthy are getting wealthier at a cost to the rest of us.

For a start, the wealthy aren't getting wealthier, there are numerous examples of people throughout history who had far far more wealth than anyone existing now, one primary example being John D. Rockefeller who was worth somewhere in the region of $300-600 billion in today's value.

In between we had an equalisation of middle income wages with the rich. That is clear on all surveys - the West is less equal than the middle of last century.

The second point is it being at a cost to us. The vast vast improvement in the past 100 or so years has been in the range of the poorest to the middle income families. If this is where the bulk of the increase, then how exactly has the wealthiest generating more wealth been at a cost to everyone else?

There was a higher growth in the middle income groups in the middle part of the last century. Entrepeneurs may create wealth - though hardly unaided - but if they cream off too much profit then middle income groups and workers do worse. So in fact does the general population, and the economy, since middle income earners are the bulk of the consumer market.

Let me put it another way, if in our modern system the side effect of the striving of a few to accumulat vast amounts of wealth is the improvement of general conditions for those on the opposite end of the scale, then is it really a bad thing to let them continue?
I find it extremely odd that people equate being wealthy with being 'wrong' or for that matter equatable to 'rape' or as someone did in a few posts ago, 'theft'. From a moral perspective, there is no comparison.
This is incorrect. Very very little of our deficit is actually due to to the bank bailout. The rest is due to state overspending.

None of the deficit would be bankbailouts, except for interest on the debt, but a very large percentage of the debt is the bank bailout.

Channel Zero

Blowfish wrote: »

The complaint on this thread seems to be that the wealthy are getting wealthier at a cost to the rest of us.

It's not just a complaint on this thread. It's a stone cold fact.

For a start, the wealthy aren't getting wealthier

Is that so? Where did you read that exactly?

The vast vast improvement in the past 100 or so years has been in the range of the poorest to the middle income families.

Is this vast vast improvement in the last 100 years a result of the super-rich hiding their wealth offshore thereby avoiding tax?

If this is where the bulk of the increase, then how exactly has the wealthiest generating more wealth been at a cost to everyone else?

A few of you seem to be of the opinion that there is no cost to this system of tax avoidance on wealth of the super-rich, only benefits. Would be most interested to hear you expand on that at some stage and how you came to that conclusion.

Valmont

Channel Zero wrote: »

It's not just a complaint on this thread. It's a stone cold fact.

For those who extract money from others by means of coercion and fraud (politicians, their wards, and crony capitalists), yes, it is a stone cold fact. But for Joe on the street who starts a business and has to convince people to voluntarily give him a fortune in exchange for his product, no, it's not at the expense of others. So please stop referring to the 'rich' as if they're some homogenous group of JP Morgan executives -- it's a wildly inaccurate caricature that simply muddies the entire issue.

It's no wonder things are so polarised and chaotic on here when every poster conceives of the debate solely in terms of Rich vs Poor with no consideration of how the individuals in question found themselves there. Or even what exactly constitutes 'rich' or 'poor'!

If those on the left (or whatever fluffy synonym you prefer) were being really honest about fair and equitable wealth distribution they would sell their iPhones, their cars, and all their possessions and send 90% of the money to people in Third World Countries. But who needs to be consistent when we can just call ourselves 'pragmatists'?

Channel Zero

Valmont wrote: »

For those who extract money from others by means of coercion and fraud (politicians, their wards, and crony capitalists), yes, it is a stone cold fact.

Very predictable. Here we go already with the shifting of the issue on to your preferred target. "It's the politicians and the government who are the real fraudsters for extracting tax by means of coercion!

Never a word of criticism for the tax-avoiding super-rich. Never a word. Because tax is theft according you and your ideology.

But for Joe on the street who starts a business and has to convince people to voluntarily give him a fortune in exchange for his product, no, it's not at the expense of others. So please stop referring to the 'rich' as if they're some homogenous group of JP Morgan executives -- it's a wildly inaccurate caricature that simply muddies the entire issue.

Oh please. You can take it from now on that when i'm referring to 'the rich' or 'the super-rich' on this thread, it's not "Joe on the street" who starts a business and creates a real business (and pays taxes).

This Joe caricature seems to be trotted out as soon as things get a bit sticky for the right wing libertarians. It doesn't cut any mustard with most i gather. So it's hardly me that's muddying the issue here, rather you and others who wish to deflect from discussing or addressing the repurcussions of what you preach. You'd rather wheel out Joe for some sort of guilt factor.

It's no wonder things are so polarised and chaotic on here when every poster conceives of the debate solely in terms of Rich vs Poor with no consideration of how the individuals in question found themselves there. Or even what exactly constitutes 'rich' or 'poor'!

Nobody, as far as i can see, conceives of the debate solely in terms of rich vs poor, let alone every poster.
If there is any polarisation on here, it could be because people like yourself choose to position themselves at the pole of extreme right libertarianism that condones and encourages the accumulation in the hands of a few of vast amounts of the worlds wealth, to the detriment of many others. You shouldn't be surprised if people expresses a certain amount of contempt for these views.

If those on the left (or whatever fluffy synonym you prefer) were being really honest about fair and equitable wealth distribution they would sell their iPhones, their cars, and all their possessions and send 90% of the money to people in Third World Countries. But who needs to be consistent when we can just call ourselves 'pragmatists'?

Indeed. Unfortunately this little parting shot of whataboutery that has very little to do with anything. Firstly, those who advocate a measure of fair and equitable wealth distribution are not all necessarily on the left. It just seems like that from a certain viewpoint.
Secondly, we're not hypocrites. This hypocricy you're alluding to, it's just another case of deflection on your part.

This tactic reminds me of that photo that was floating around at the time of the Wall St. protests last year.
In a poor attempt at discrediting the movement, the photo was altered (probably by some jerk off from Fox news).
Here it is: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74863776&postcount=114

Slow handclap for that one...

KyussBishop

The myth of the entrepreneur always seemed very weak to me, surprised to see a fairly non-self-conscious defense of massive accumulation of wealth.

The general trickle-down idea of wealth benefiting society is pretty much false, and it's pretty clear that most accumulated wealth gets hoarded (often in tax havens) rather than making it back into society.
Through tax avoidance, much of the wealthy don't pay their expected dues to society, i.e. are not living up to their part in the social contract, and can use their money to gain substantial power in society, business and in politics.

So straight away, there are some pretty obvious negatives to such accumulation of wealth, and the positives seem largely based on the entrepreneurial myth which is fairly unsubstantiated.
Usually, a genuinely innovative entrepreneur is paraded out at this point, to show that there are some people who genuinely contribute to society with their wealth, but simultaneously ignoring the massive amounts of unproductive hoarding of money, and the unethical means much of it is 'earned'.


So really, please list the (provable, not anecdotal) positives that come from such accumulation of wealth, which can't be brought about through other means? (and it'd be nice to see explanations of why they outweigh the vast negatives too)

Jonny7

KyussBishop wrote: »

The myth of the entrepreneur always seemed very weak to me, surprised to see a fairly non-self-conscious defense of massive accumulation of wealth.

The general trickle-down idea of wealth benefiting society is pretty much false, and it's pretty clear that most accumulated wealth gets hoarded (often in tax havens) rather than making it back into society.

Well, most if not all businesses and companies expand as they make profits. It would seem a little odd that China can manage up to 10% growth with entrepreneurs "hoarding" all the wealth, which is created - there isn't a "set amount" that is somehow spread around. The trickle-down effect is known as the multiplier.

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well, most if not all businesses and companies expand as they make profits. It would seem a little odd that China can manage up to 10% growth with entrepreneurs "hoarding" all the wealth, which is created - there isn't a "set amount" that is somehow spread around. The trickle-down effect is known as the multiplier.

I'm not talking about business profits (that stay within the company), I'm talking about personal wealth.

Channel Zero

Jonny7 wrote: »

It would seem a little odd that China can manage up to 10% growth with entrepreneurs "hoarding" all the wealth which is created

It would seem odd alright, if you were under the impression that China had allowed it's "entrepreneurs" to hoard all the wealth and that it was the main driver for this growth. Fact is they didn't, and it wasn't.

The trickle-down effect is known as the multiplier.

Trickle-down? It's been thoroughly discredited. Haven't you heard?

Jonny7

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm not talking about business profits (that stay within the company), I'm talking about personal wealth.

Yes I understand but could you perhaps you could provide a little more definition, for instance we may considered grotesquely rich in some parts of the world, so what should the standard be, considering this is a world-wide problem (e.g. off-shore accounts)

Should this encompass not only wealthy entrepreneurs, but also all celebrities, sports stars, actors, lottery winners, etc under the same principle?

Also what do you mean by "social contract"?

PeadarCo

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm not talking about business profits (that stay within the company), I'm talking about personal wealth.

The thing is for a lot of entrepreneurs business and personal wealth are one in the same. Once they become and ltd company and incorporate then you can make that you distinction. Most don't reach that size and people such as Denis O Brien and Sean Quinn are the exception in growing their businesses to a large size.

Jonny7

Channel Zero wrote: »

It would seem odd alright, if you were under the impression that China had allowed it's "entrepreneurs" to hoard all the wealth and that it was the main driver for this growth. Fact is they didn't, and it wasn't.

Eh? I wasn't under that impression at all.

What a million Chinese millionaires do with their cash and holdings is their business, but it doesn't seem to be too far off what the rest of the world's millionaires (etc) do and it doesn't seem to be affecting China's rampant growth.

Trickle-down? It's been thoroughly discredited. Haven't you heard?

The multiplier effect has been thoroughly discredited?

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yes I understand but could you perhaps you could provide a little more definition, for instance we may considered grotesquely rich in some parts of the world, so what should the standard be, considering this is a world-wide problem (e.g. off-shore accounts)

Should this encompass not only wealthy entrepreneurs, but also all celebrities, sports stars, actors, lottery winners, etc under the same principle?

Also what do you mean by "social contract"?

That's mainly a semantics game really, there's quite an enormous difference between what this thread defines as the 'super-rich' compared to average wages in the first world, and average wages in the first world vs third world.

Reading this article just now which made me think of this thread, and it gives quite a good outline of the 'rentier' class who extract profits far in excess of the value they provide to society; it goes a long way towards providing a more solid definition of the exact ethical and equality problems involved when people talk about the 'super-wealthy' (very long article mind):
http://michael-hudson.com/2012/07/veblens-institutionalist-elaboration-of-rent-theory/

Generally, I think that encapsulates some of the most significant issues people have, which define the super wealthy.

PeadarCo wrote:

The thing is for a lot of entrepreneurs business and personal wealth are one in the same. Once they become and ltd company and incorporate then you can make that you distinction. Most don't reach that size and people such as Denis O Brien and Sean Quinn are the exception in growing their businesses to a large size.

While I get what you mean, in that often wealthy people have a large stake in specific companies, personal wealth still isn't comparable to money that stays in business; that's focusing on what personal wealth is invested in, not on the origin of that personal wealth.

Jonny7 wrote:

The multiplier effect has been thoroughly discredited?

You'll need to be a bit more specific on the kind of multiplier you mean; certainly at least, I know the money multiplier effect through increases in the money supply is largely discredited.

PeadarCo

KyussBishop wrote: »

While I get what you mean, in that often wealthy people have a large stake in specific companies, personal wealth still isn't comparable to money that stays in business; that's focusing on what personal wealth is invested in, not on the origin of that personal wealth.

No my point was most entrepreneurs are not super rich. For entrepreneurs who are not incorporated business wealth is personal wealth. You can't separated them until incorporation You termed them a myth when most people in Ireland are employed by one or an organisation that were started by one. Most are also not big. http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

When talking about the super rich you need be more specific when talking about entrepreneurs as most are not super-rich.

The origin does matter as ideally its preferable a person becomes rich by creating large numbers of jobs compared to winning the lottery or obtaining it through an inheritance. For a government it would be preferable to inventivise the former rather than the latter.

Duggys Housemate

Lots of silliness getting into this thread because of misunderstanding of terms.

1) An Entrepreneur is not necessarily a capitalist. He is a guy with an idea for a business. Generally when he gets to be rich he is called a capitalist. In Dragon's Den the rich are correctly called the Investors, the poor are the entrepeneurs.

2) Corollary: Not all rich people are, or were, entrepreneurs. Some were. Many inherit wealth. Some just invest. Others buy real estate which generates no new wealth.

3) The trickle down theory is a strawman argument. Nobody ever makes it except to rebut it. Obviously creating a business creates wealth immediately, parcelled out between the workers and the business owner. Most income in most businesses goes on wages. There is a problem for society if the capitalist takes too much of that pie, as workers get poorer over all, and a problem for the business if the wages are too high. A balance is needed.

4) Any tax on Entrepreneurs getting rich might therefore work against increased income for everybody, however a tax on income over a large amount of earnings would just be a hurdle to overcome for entrepreneurs on their way to wealth. Its all relative, and tax is just a cost of business. However it might reduce people's propensity to start businesses. This only applies to the entrepreneurial rich, or would be rich.

5) Since not all rich people are Entrepreneurs - what has George Soros ever created? - this does not apply to all rich people, particularly the idle rich. Libertarians pretend the rich are all wealth creators. They aren't. Some taxes on the rich can therefore have no effect on enterprise; for instance an inheritance tax would benefit everybody except the inheritor.

6) The multiplier effect is very real and is not the trickle down theory. Its generally considered leftwing or Kensyian.

7) if tax on certain "idle" rich people - say all of Paris Hilton's wealth was taxed- were to reduce taxes on everybody else if would stimulate the economy because of the marginal propensity to consume ( MPC). This means that if a billionaire gets $1M extra - say in reduced taxes - he will just put it in the bank where it might, or might not, find an investment. If 1,000 middle class people get $1000 they will spend about 80% of it. And the poor would spend 100% of the $1000. This circulating money would then cause the shop keepers getting it to spend, and so on. The multiplier for food stamps is 2.0. Each $1000 given is worth $2000 of economic activity.

In short: taxing wealth gained through economic activity is worse than other forms of tax on the rich. And certain taxes on the rich generate economic activity, not curtail it.


However, we need to distinguish between rentier classes, and other classes of the rich. Hudson's link is old school labour theory of value, and largely useless. I can expand more if I need to on why he is so wrong.

The solution is not to see all the rich as "bad", or thieves. Leave that to Marxists. We should still challenge the wealthy who are too powerful, most would not be real wealth creators anyway - and paradoxically where they are, as in Bill Gates - they tend to give it away.

Jonny7

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's mainly a semantics game really, there's quite an enormous difference between what this thread defines as the 'super-rich' compared to average wages in the first world, and average wages in the first world vs third world.

The super-rich are hard to define, if someone earns 500,000 dollars a year they are still in the "99%" so to speak. However if we agree they are, for argument's sake, the billionaires of the world, then I do of course have issues with what they provide to society monetarially outside of their skills, industry and business.

Ferreting away vast sums of money which otherwise taxed or spent is not providing "benefit" to society directly. However the counter argument is that the existence of these billionaires is a by-product of capitalism and a virtually unavoidable part of the system - a system which taps into people's natural greed, competitiveness to produce a higher standard of living for everyone. The poor or anyone else does not have some sort of "right" to that money, and if they want that right, then they have to change the system - a system which may result in a situation where there are no billionaires to scrape cash from.

Also if someone can show me somewhere in the world that doesn't have "poor" people and "rich" people - I'd also like to know what posters here who seem to see the system as failed would like to replace it with..

Personally I am not saying the current system is perfect, far from it, but its an issue of fine-tuning, not a complete overhaul.

Jonny7

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

3) The trickle down theory is a strawman argument. Nobody ever makes it except to rebut it. Obviously creating a business creates wealth immediately, parcelled out between the workers and the business owner. Most income in most businesses goes on wages. There is a problem for society if the capitalist takes too much of that pie, as workers get poorer over all, and a problem for the business if the wages are too high. A balance is needed.

To use a very basic example - a wealthy individual buys a Rolls Royce - in a macro way this cash is then distributed down amongst the company, the workers taking home pay, of which a small proportion is the money received on the purchase of the car (relatively over thousands of car purchases but for this example we are using one purchase to highlight) those workers then spend the cash through various outlets, e.g. Dunnes Stores, the teller receives the cash, and then spends a portion of that cash on some products and so on and so forth..

The whole time the government is taking in VAT on all these purchases.

Perhaps people mean something else by the trickle-down effect?

Edit Ah just saw point 7

KyussBishop

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

However, we need to distinguish between rentier classes, and other classes of the rich. Hudson's link is old school labour theory of value, and largely useless. I can expand more if I need to on why he is so wrong.

The solution is not to see all the rich as "bad", or thieves. Leave that to Marxists. We should still challenge the wealthy who are too powerful, most would not be real wealth creators anyway - and paradoxically where they are, as in Bill Gates - they tend to give it away.

I largely agree with your post, and it defines in much better detail what I was getting at, but I don't fully get how Hudson's link is primarily labour theory of value and not useful; the usefulness I took from it, was how it extrapolated on the various kinds of 'rent seeking' in the current world economy, and how that ties into the kind of 'bad' wealth that is undesirable.

To note, I don't see all rich as bad myself (and I recognize the different 'classes' of rich), I primarily take the view that a lot of wealth is generated through unethical (even if often still legal) means, and much is not 'earned' despite being portrayed that way; I don't really portray all wealth as bad, some of it is genuinely earned (though at the same time I don't see the useful purpose in wildly excessive earnings, but wouldn't go so far as to say it's wrong).

Duggys Housemate

KyussBishop wrote: »

I largely agree with your post, and it defines in much better detail what I was getting at, but I don't fully get how Hudson's link is primarily labour theory of value and not useful; the usefulness I took from it, was how it extrapolated on the various kinds of 'rent seeking' in the current world economy, and how that ties into the kind of 'bad' wealth that is undesirable.

To note, I don't see all rich as bad myself (and I recognize the different 'classes' of rich), I primarily take the view that a lot of wealth is generated through unethical (even if often still legal) means, and much is not 'earned' despite being portrayed that way; I don't really portray all wealth as bad, some of it is genuinely earned (though at the same time I don't see the useful purpose in wildly excessive earnings, but wouldn't go so far as to say it's wrong).

To be honest I didn't read all of hudson :-) It was long, so I might have misinterpreted him from the first few paragraphs.

blushes


Yes, a lot of extreme wealth is in fact due to corruption, connections, or inheritance. I think the tax system could work out the difference.

KyussBishop

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

To be honest I didn't read all of hudson :-) It was long, so I might have misinterpreted him from the first few paragraphs.

blushes


Yes, a lot of extreme wealth is in fact due to corruption, connections, or inheritance. I think the tax system could work out the difference.

Heh, yes it's quite a lot to dig in to (only just finished it after quite a long while going through it); ya I think we largely agree so, the distinction between entrepreneurs and various forms of unethical capitalists (which I didn't make in my own posts), clears up a lot of the ambiguity in my posts between genuinely innovate/beneficial entrepreneurs, and the kind of 'entrepreneurs' which seem to be (from my point of view) championed as justification for excessive wealth building.

In other words, it seems to be that genuinely beneficial entrepreneurs seem to get used as justification for the above 'unethical capitalists', when they are not representative of that.

Jonny7 wrote:

The super-rich are hard to define, if someone earns 500,000 dollars a year they are still in the "99%" so to speak. However if we agree they are, for argument's sake, the billionaires of the world, then I do of course have issues with what they provide to society monetarially outside of their skills, industry and business.

Ferreting away vast sums of money which otherwise taxed or spent is not providing "benefit" to society directly. However the counter argument is that the existence of these billionaires is a by-product of capitalism and a virtually unavoidable part of the system - a system which taps into people's natural greed, competitiveness to produce a higher standard of living for everyone. The poor or anyone else does not have some sort of "right" to that money, and if they want that right, then they have to change the system - a system which may result in a situation where there are no billionaires to scrape cash from.

Also if someone can show me somewhere in the world that doesn't have "poor" people and "rich" people - I'd also like to know what posters here who seem to see the system as failed would like to replace it with..

Personally I am not saying the current system is perfect, far from it, but its an issue of fine-tuning, not a complete overhaul.

The distinction above, between genuine entrepreneurs and 'unethical capitalists', clears up much of this I think; I don't think a complete overhaul is needed either myself, just fair taxation and actual enforcement of it, as well as proper regulation in specific industries.

Jonny7

Well, looks like he is really going to push it, up to 75% rate on the wealthiest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-france-socialist-hollande-sets-out-to-soak-the-rich/2012/08/01/gJQAmhIARX_story.html

cgarrad

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well, looks like he is really going to push it, up to 75% rate on the wealthiest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-france-socialist-hollande-sets-out-to-soak-the-rich/2012/08/01/gJQAmhIARX_story.html

Hollande, who plans to slap a 75 percent tax on income of more than 1 million euros ($1.29 million), reinforces the sentiment that in France to be rich is not glorious.

Hmmmm.... At least €750,000 tax bill for those affected. I think this the the very essence of bad populist governance.

Who in their right mind would pay that? If you can earn a mill a year your obviously not half as dumb as those in power.

Flight of the wealthy will leave France in a worse situation can't they see that?

Icepick

Denerick wrote: »

Yes, they are. They're wealthy as a direct result of their relationship with the poor. They are wealthy because someone else is poor.

This ridiculous/dangerous opinion comes from an old (communist) idea that wealth is a limited pot of gold that is shared by everyone. So if someone is rich, someone else has to be poor by definition.
But that is indeed nonsense because wealth and well-being have been increasing like never before in the last two centuries.

Valmont

Icepick wrote: »

This ridiculous/dangerous opinion comes from an old (communist) idea that wealth is a limited pot of gold that is shared by everyone. So if someone is rich, someone else has to be poor by definition.
But that is indeed nonsense because wealth and well-being have been increasing like never before in the last two centuries.

Don't hold your breath for any evidence being presented to support the contention that wealth is a fixed pie -- there isn't any! The very system that produces wealth -- capitalism -- ensures that it will be unevenly distributed simply due to the inherent inequality in talent between individuals.

Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature is an interesting essay related to the topic we are discussing. I would like to hear some people's view on it if they're interested.

Jonny7

Valmont wrote: »

Don't hold your breath for any evidence being presented to support the contention that wealth is a fixed pie -- there isn't any! The very system that produces wealth -- capitalism -- ensures that it will be unevenly distributed simply due to the inherent inequality in talent between individuals.

Can you give an example of what you mean?

What system is a realistically better alternative?

cgarrad

Jonny7 wrote: »

Can you give an example of what you mean?

What system is a realistically better alternative?

Can you give an example of what you mean?

Just as in the Olympics some people are better at thing than others. For some reason its lauded in sport but deplored in business.

What system is a realistically better alternative?

Don't know if there is a name for this system but I think there should be no income tax system. Instead there should be a tax on savings which would force people to reinvest their money in more wealth creation. Money sitting in banks is a huge waste. Everybody gains. No freeloading. You pay for the services you use.

Jonny7

cgarrad wrote: »

Just as in the Olympics some people are better at thing than others. For some reason its lauded in sport but deplored in business.

I'm sorry I don't know what you are talking about.

Don't know if there is a name for this system but I think there should be no income tax system. Instead there should be a tax on savings which would force people to reinvest their money in more wealth creation. Money sitting in banks is a huge waste. Everybody gains. No freeloading. You pay for the services you use.

A tax on savings will result inflation going through the roof, how will you compensate that?

Also every rich person has just moved their holdings off-shore..

Plus you now have a very pissed off population who don't like paying Zimbabwe style prices.

Blowfish

cgarrad wrote: »

Don't know if there is a name for this system but I think there should be no income tax system. Instead there should be a tax on savings which would force people to reinvest their money in more wealth creation. Money sitting in banks is a huge waste. Everybody gains. No freeloading. You pay for the services you use.

Do you have any actual evidence that people are hoarding savings? The wealthiest are the least likely to keep cash sitting around in bank accounts as they are fully aware that savings are constantly depreciating.

Duggys Housemate

Blowfish wrote: »

Do you have any actual evidence that people are hoarding savings? The wealthiest are the least likely to keep cash sitting around in bank accounts as they are fully aware that savings are constantly depreciating.

ambronovich is all in property?

Channel Zero

Valmont wrote: »

The very system that produces wealth -- capitalism -- ensures that it will be unevenly distributed simply due to the inherent inequality in talent between individuals.

It isn't just capitalism that produces wealth all on it's own though. It's the partnership of private and public institutions that should take credit. Public institutions play an essential part in the equation, providing education for all, providing funding for much of the research that modern industry in built on, building infastructure to support that industry, providing legal and regulatory frameworks, providing healthcare.
Not to mention it all starts at home with parents nurturing of this future human capital.

Valmont wrote: »

The very system that produces wealth -- capitalism -- ensures that it will be unevenly distributed simply due to the inherent inequality in talent between individuals.

Nope, not simply due the inherent inequality in talent. Yet another myth. Quite a few on the thread at this stage.
For starters what about wealth gained from corruption, connections and inheritance? (as Duggys Housemate phrased it)

Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature is an interesting essay related to the topic we are discussing. I would like to hear some people's view on it if they're interested.

Found it very interesting, though his writing style was a bit long-winded and turgid. (Would rather read Permabears' silky prose any day.)
Loads of hand-wringing about the inherrent evils of equality and those who espouse it. That it's against nature and it will lead to the destruction of civilisation.
Ironically, it is the inherrent evils of inequality that is causing all the problems in the world at the moment, so he got it arse-backwards by the looks of it.

One of the false positions attributed to those who want a more equal or fairer society, is that we're in favor of total equality, meaning that there would be no incentives.
That's not the case at all, so it's really a bit of a strawman argument and has only served to propagate the delusion that if we do anything about inequality, it will weaken the economy. In fact quite the opposite is true.