Is it time to take on the super-rich?

Valmont

Channel Zero wrote: »

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.

It is incontrovertible that the 'public sector' could not exist without taxing private enterprise. Are you suggesting the converse in that all productive private enterprise is entirely dependent on public services? The implication of what you're saying is that the economy would die off without social-democratic government interventions -- I don't think that is a defensible position. What about flourishing economies the world over 1800-1900? The U.S had a level of government intervention then that would give the modern social-democrat a heart attack -- how do you explain such instances of prosperity?

Channel Zero wrote: »

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.

So you don't want equality or inequality -- what is the utopian end envisioned here?

Duggys Housemate

Valmont wrote: »

Channel Zero wrote: »

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.

It is incontrovertible that the 'public sector' could not exist without taxing private enterprise. Are you suggesting the converse in that all productive private enterprise is entirely dependent on public services? The implication of what you're saying is that the economy would die off without social-democratic government interventions -- I don't think that is a defensible position. What about flourishing economies the world over 1800-1900? The U.S had a level of government intervention then that would give the modern social-democrat a heart attack -- how do you explain such instances of prosperity?

Channel Zero wrote: »

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.

So you don't want equality or inequality -- what is the utopian end envisioned here?

There is no utopian end here. We are, on this thread neither libertarians or Marxists. The point about the super rich is their control over democracies, and the fact that taxation of wealth can enable consumption.

As for the US there was growth in the 19th century. However there was growth in the USSR. Both came at cost to human life. Since then the public sector - in the US in particular - has contributed to lots of inventions which shaped the modern age.

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

The U.S had a level of government intervention then that would give the modern social-democrat a heart attack -- how do you explain such instances of prosperity?

What prosperity? The US had a vast and relatively unpopulated continent in which to exploit, which was rich in natural resources. It had an almost unlimited supply of cheap labour, due to mass immigration. Most of America's prosperity was a result of good luck rather than the robber baron style capitalism you'd like to see return (Which made the lives of ordinary people a grey misery) In America at the height of the gilded age there was a small plutocracy, a small professional middle class, and millions of huddled masses struggling just to survive. It would have had a communist revolution very similar to Russia's if it hadn't been for Roosevelt and his long overdue social reforms. So tell me, what exactly is it that you desire? A new plutocratic entity governed by the extraordinarily wealthy and a politically impotent working and middle class? That can only end in one way and one way only - revolution of one kind or another.

And when that happens all the wealth in the world won't save the plutocrats in their mansions.

Valmont

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

There is no utopian end here.

What is the end? Equality isn't the aim and neither is inequality -- I'm just wondering what is being envisioned?

Duggys Housemate wrote:

As for the US there was growth in the 19th century. However there was growth in the USSR. Both came at cost to human life.

We have now entered the twilight zone.

The USSR killed millions and millions of its own people - and the U.S what? Provided low wage jobs for some people? Are you really comparing the two?

Duggys Housemate wrote:

Since then the public sector - in the US in particular - has contributed to lots of inventions which shaped the modern age.

All of this is empty when we acknowledge that without a private sector to leech off the public sector would wither and die. So you can talk about 'great inventions' all day -- the only engine keeping the world running is private enterprise. And if we have super rich people as a result, I don't see the problem.

FreudianSlippers

The issue with taxation of the "super-rich" is not about the rate they pay; it's about actually getting them to pay the tax. There are too many loopholes and offshore accounts.

There are also serious problems with how different groups view what "rich" is.

Valmont

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There are also serious problems with how different groups view what "rich" is.

I think that is the key problem in this debate. Twelve pages and we have yet to see any numbers or any consistent criterion; in essence, we've had the usual 'anti-rich' sentiment bandied about.

Let's take on the super-rich! Yeah! Cough...

Duggys Housemate

Valmont wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There are also serious problems with how different groups view what "rich" is.

I think that is the key problem in this debate. Twelve pages and we have yet to see any numbers or any consistent criterion; in essence, we've had the usual 'anti-rich' sentiment bandied about.

Let's take on the super-rich! Yeah

I've written about the difference between the super-rich and rich, and how taxation can be refined to go after the idle rich, distinguishing the idle rich from the entrepreneur. You, on the other hand, have come to sneer. Cough.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote:

All of this is empty when we acknowledge that without a private sector to leech off the public sector would wither and die. So you can talk about 'great inventions' all day -- the only engine keeping the world running is private enterprise. And if we have super rich people as a result, I don't see the problem.

And all of that is an empty framing of the debate, when you acknowledge that the private sector benefits directly off of services and infrastructure provided publicly.

The private sector and all of society benefits from various public expenditures, some core parts of which even libertarians view as necessity, such as courts, lawmaking and the police, which are funded through taxes and are essential to society and are thus a prerequisite to the success of private enterprise.

Unless you advocate the complete abolition of government, of complete abolition of taxes, and privatization of everything, even core parts of a functioning country like the courts, the law, and the police; unless you advocate that, you have to acknowledge the core functioning of public services and expenditure in even allowing the safe existence of most private enterprise.

Duggys Housemate

Valmont wrote: »

What is the end? Equality isn't the aim and neither is inequality -- I'm just wondering what is being envisioned?

Getting rid of the power of the super-rich. Which isn't the same as nationalising the factories, reducing the wealth of the rich - as distinct from the superrich - or stopping enterprise.

the difference between superich and rich will always be subjective, somewhere on the road from millions to billions.

The USSR killed millions and millions of its own people - and the U.S what? Provided low wage jobs for some people? Are you really comparing the two?

The US killed millions of people in its takeover of what was other people's land. In fact the Federal Government was highly involved in that takeover. The US wealth therefore depends on the government, and always has.

You need to read a history book.

Here is one example of ethnic cleansing. There were dozens more. The killings were in the millions, at some extimates tens of millions. It was most definitely ethnic cleansing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

All of this is empty when we acknowledge that without a private sector to leech off the public sector would wither and die. So you can talk about 'great inventions' all day -- the only engine keeping the world running is private enterprise. And if we have super rich people as a result, I don't see the problem.

Nonsense. The IT sector you almost certainly belong to - I say that because libertarianism in my experience is an ideology of the unsocialised and barely socialised IT worker - depends on these state sponsered invention s, and inventors.

Just off my hand I have.

Turning, and his ideas.

All the original computers: - this bit is from Wiki

Vacuum Tubes:
The Z3 (1941)
The non-programmable Atanasoff–Berry Computer (commenced in 1937, completed in 1941) which used vacuum tube based computation, binary numbers, and regenerative capacitor memory.
The secret British Colossus computers (1943)
The Harvard Mark I
The U.S. Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory ENIAC (1946),

Transistors:

The first transistorised computer was demonstrated at the University of Manchester in 1953.

Claude Shannon
ARPANET - and protocols including:

TCP/IP
Packet Switching
Telenet
Email
CERN fundeed WWW.

The C language. Posix, and Unix, and BSD - basis of iOS and OS X. Linux is a derivative, and underlies Android.

And thats just offhand. The modern world depends on the State.

[MOD]"The IT sector you almost certainly belong to - I say that because libertarianism in my experience is an ideology of the unsocialised and barely socialised IT worker - depends on these state sponsered invention s, and inventors." Not acceptable - attack the post, not the poster.[/MOD]

Channel Zero

Valmont wrote: »

Twelve pages and we have yet to see any numbers

Not sure what numbers you mean, but to get back on track a bit, here's the lead author of the report in a recent interview: link

The website of The Tax and Justice Network here. Well worth a read. Reams of good articles and links in there with solid numbers. This is worth a read too, even though slightly off topic

On the effects of inequality and the myth of increasing top-rate taxation hurting the economy , the problem really is where to start.
Joseph Stiglitz has documented this for years.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/2006/Benefits_and_Costs_of_Taxation.pdf
(summary on page 7)

Nick Hanauer at TED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI

Valmont

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I've written about the difference between the super-rich and rich, and how taxation can be refined to go after the idle rich, distinguishing the idle rich from the entrepreneur. You, on the other hand, have come to sneer. Cough.

I missed your explanation of the idle rich versus the entrepreneur - what post #?

I don't buy into the argument of lauding the state for an individual's scientific achievements unless we have ample reason to believe that it would not have happened without state support. Monopolistic state control of crucial sectors of the economy ensures they have a hand in important industries but that in no way proves its involvement is a necessary ingredient.

For example, if bicycles are an integral part of your successful business and I, acting on behalf of the state, legislate that you use Bord-na-bicycle bicycles and nothing else, and then go on to claim "You used public bicycles to get where you are" -- well, you can see the problem. It's no wonder businesses hire people educated in public educational establishments and drive on state-built roads when the state maintains a coercive monopoly on these areas in the first place.

Not to mention all these services are provided for by taxes in the first place! Businesses, industries, small firms; they have already paid for the services they are being forced to use!

I figure the argument here is that they haven't paid enough which brings us to the age old statist problem of how many feathers can we comfortably pluck from the goose before she stops laying eggs.

Valmont

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The modern world depends on the State.

Yet it is the state whose existence hinges entirely on coercively extracting wealth from private businesses and individuals. So I'm not sure what you mean here, perhaps you could elaborate?

Duggys Housemate

Valmont wrote: »

I don't buy into the argument of lauding the state for an individual's scientific achievements unless we have ample reason to believe that it would not have happened without state support. Monopolistic state control of crucial sectors of the economy ensures they have a hand in important industries but that in no way proves its involvement is a necessary ingredient.

For example, if bicycles are an integral part of your successful business and I, acting on behalf of the state, legislate that you use Bord-na-bicycle bicycles and nothing else, and then go on to claim "You used public bicycles to get where you are" -- well, you can see the problem. It's no wonder businesses hire people educated in public educational establishments and drive on state-built roads when the state maintains a coercive monopoly on these areas in the first place.

Thats a nonsense rebuttal. In one case public money allows engineers, physicists, and general scientists the time and money to work on ideas which become the future of technology, but the public purse purse doesn't have a monopoly on scientific hiring and in the other - your bicycle case - there is a State monopoly where we would have to use bicycles.

However, we weren't forced in that sense to use the science created by public bodies and universities in the 20th century, because the public sector had no monopoly on science. As it happens the private technology sector existed during this time, but until it became profitable the computer industry and its theoretical foundations were for the most part created, pushed forward and maintained by public bodies. In fact even after - it was well into the PC age that Time Berners-Lee invented the WWW; a private corporation would have created a walled garden on the internet, not the WWW. There are examples at the time. We don't need any counter-factual arguments here - like the private sector could have invented this stuff in the abscence of the State, because the private sector was not banned, it was there and it did not invent this stuff.

And of course this isn't even to mention the huge investment every State spends on scientists and engineers before they qualify into the private sector.

Dr Galen

If posters cannot be civil to each other in this thread, then we're going to have a problem. No more warnings I'm afraid.

Cheers

DrG

joseph brand

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Am I the only one who finds this focus on the super-rich possibly irrelevant? Surely the aim should be to ensure a basic minimum standard of living for everyone, rather than just keeping the "top" down? That achieved, is it really a problem if a select few go beyond this minimum by enormous amounts?

The argument might go that taxing the super-rich more rigorously will allow us to help the needier more. But I haven't seen much discussion of that here. In fact, no one has suggested how the extra revenue should be spent to tackle the social problems. Is taxing the super-rich being seen as a good in and of itself?

Didn't they cause this recession?

It certainly wasn't caused by a teacher. Maybe it was some nurse somewhere. :rolleyes:

Icepick

joseph brand wrote: »

Didn't they cause this recession?

It certainly wasn't caused by a teacher. Maybe it was some nurse somewhere. :rolleyes:

No, it was the Illuminati.

bernardamaac.

Plane and simple why go after the rich when it was foreign bank's that made an investment.When you make an investment and lose your money "Tough Sh^t".Why are we paying for it ? Where's the connolly's and larkin's of this generation ? What we need is hitler before ww2. Like what he did with the versaille treaty. Someone to tell angela murcel to go to hell and we're not paying for there mistake's.

(P.S) All this coming from someone who does'nt pay tax's cant seem to get a first time job and is just waiting for college to start then finish then go murder some german chancellor. :rolleyes:

joseph brand

Valmont wrote: »

All of this is empty when we acknowledge that without a private sector to leech off the public sector would wither and die. So you can talk about 'great inventions' all day -- the only engine keeping the world running is private enterprise. And if we have super rich people as a result, I don't see the problem.

The US has privatised prisons. They're a joke, and not a funny one. Judges get more money (brown envelopes), the more convictions, and the longer the sentence. Truly disgusting, scary stuff. Money breeds sociopaths.

A Judge in the US was convicted in the Kids for cash scandal.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, here's a table showing the top tax bracket and the national deficit for the US. It's hard to argue with facts, me thinks.

Increasing the tax rate on the rich will not force them out on the street. Worse case scenario, they buy a mid-range yacht. And they say the Syrians have it tough. :rolleyes:

joseph brand

RichardAnd wrote: »

They (they being the most wealthy people on the planet) get away with what they do because they have designed the modern financial markets to favour them. Super rich individuals, I'm talking about billionaires here, have massive political influence and I think it is incredibly naive to believe that they don't use it for their own gain.

Each year, a group of the most wealthy individuals meet in what is known as the bilderberg group. I don't buy into alot of the conspiracy theories attached to this organisation but what I do know is that nothing of what is discussed is ever published and the people at such a meeting are men (and occasionally women) of enormous influence. Money is power and these people have an incredible collection of wealth. Do you think that they won't use their influence to protect their position?

Gentlemen, democracy is an illusion given to the masses to allow them to believe that they control their own lives. I've no doubt that the local TDs are able to get boilers fixed, pot holes filled, speeding tickets torn up and other vacuous favours carried out but when it comes to the really big decisions, the paper work is signed and seals long before it reaches the Dail.

This is why I don't get myself involved in petty bickering between "the left" and "the right". Choose the puppet on the left or choose the puppet on the right, at the end of the day, there's one guy hold the strings of both.

Reminds me of the secret meeting on Jekyll Island, attended by the wealthiest bankers in the world. Their mission? To form the US Federal Reserve.

Wasn't Glenn Beck recently fired from Fox News for reporting on this meeting? I'm no fan of Beck, and was surprised that he dedicated a whole show to The Fed.

I have my pitch-fork ready for when we get ready to attack the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. Their wealth makes Buffet look like the owner of a little corner shop.


As regards the whole money influencing power problem. Don Regan famously told the President of the United States of America, to 'hurry up', while he was making a speech. :eek: :eek:

Valmont

I'm assuming many of the 'super-rich' and their business interests would be international in nature. They would have residency in countries with low-tax rates or other laws favourable towards allowing them to keep as much of their money as possible. Surely any attempt to 'take on' the super rich would involve international police or tax agencies or cooperation between national revenue services -- what form could this operation take? How do you get around dozens of separate countries sovereign legal procedures?

Most importantly, on whose behalf will this crack-down be? I'm hearing plenty of talk about going after them and why, but for whom, specifically? How could the spoils be divvied out among many different countries? These issues seem insurmountable to me, and only a supra-national body with incredible power could possibly overcome them effectively. Of those you supporting an assault on the super-rich and their assets, how could it be done? Is it even practical? Where do you start?

Laminations

Valmont wrote: »

I'm assuming many of the 'super-rich' and their business interests would be international in nature. They would have residency in countries with low-tax rates or other laws favourable towards allowing them to keep as much of their money as possible. Surely any attempt to 'take on' the super rich would involve international police or tax agencies or cooperation between national revenue services -- what form could this operation take? How do you get around dozens of separate countries sovereign legal procedures?

Most importantly, on whose behalf will this crack-down be? I'm hearing plenty of talk about going after them and why, but for whom, specifically? How could the spoils be divvied out among many different countries? These issues seem insurmountable to me, and only a supra-national body with incredible power could possibly overcome them effectively. Of those you supporting an assault on the super-rich and their assets, how could it be done? Is it even practical? Where do you start?

So having failed so far to defend the super-rich on economic or ideological grounds you resort to the practicalities of it. At least you've moved off the question of why should we do it and onto how could we do it - a more constructive approach. While you are correct in pointing out it would be extremely difficult, that is not a good enough reason not to consider ways in which it could be done.

As for whose behalf this would be done? The citizens. General equity. To reduce the burden on working class (tax paying) individuals. Again it would be difficult to work out but for a race that has probed the far reaches of space, has identified the particle that gives all things matter and has uncovered much of the workings of the most complex known thing in the universe (the human brain) I think if we put our minds to it (if there was a will to do it) we'd find a way.

Very interesting thread Denerick. Some great contributions by Channel Zero and Duggys Housemate too.

Valmont

Laminations wrote: »

As for whose behalf this would be done? The citizens. General equity. To reduce the burden on working class (tax paying) individuals.

So you want an international effort to go after the 'super-rich' in the name of the citizens and general equity. I remain entirely unconvinced that this is little more than wildly generalised left-wing drum-banging.

Laminations

Valmont wrote: »

So you want an international effort to go after the 'super-rich' in the name of the citizens and general equity. I remain entirely unconvinced that this is little more than wildly generalised left-wing drum-banging.

Who is you? Just as I've been told by libertarians we don't all speak with one voice. Just because you disagree with my personal wishes to see more equity doesn't mean you've dispelled all argument to properly tax the super-rich.

By general equity I don't mean some communist idea of total equality of resources. I refer to it in the sense of fairness, in terms of contributing fair shares. You also ignored the next sentence, to reduce the burden on productive working classes

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

So you want an international effort to go after the 'super-rich' in the name of the citizens and general equity. I remain entirely unconvinced that this is little more than wildly generalised left-wing drum-banging.

1. Do you think it is a problem that vast, unimaginable wealth is lying idle in tax havens?

2. Don't you think the social and moral consequences of revolution outweigh the benefits of your ideal 'economic liberty'. Hayek argued that without full economic liberty we would resort to totalitarianism of a left or right hue. I disagree pasionatelly with this. In your ideal economic entity you would have full economic 'liberty', thus provoking mass unrest, thus leading to revolution, thus leading to chaos and tragedy.

3. 'Generalised left wing drum banging' aside, don't you think it is outrageous that an American billionaire can purchase a new fleet of yachts at his convenience whilst millions of children in the third world die of malnutrition? That is the long and short of it. Libertarianism will make the lives of most people an abject misery and those who defend it are defending an indefensible moral position.

Laminations

The full economic liberty espoused by some libertarians hinges on the state protecting property rights. It hinges on the hope that with minimal public services, a modestly paid police force will defend the miserly wealth of multi-billionaires.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

Hayek argued that without full economic liberty we would resort to totalitarianism of a left or right hue. I disagree pasionatelly with this.

Yet here you are arguing for the establishment of some supremely powerful pan-global tax authority.

Denerick wrote: »

'Generalised left wing drum banging' aside, don't you think it is outrageous that an American billionaire can purchase a new fleet of yachts at his convenience whilst millions of children in the third world die of malnutrition? That is the long and short of it. Libertarianism will make the lives of most people an abject misery and those who defend it are defending an indefensible moral position.

Which all rests on the assumption that the wealth in the world is of a fixed quantity -- I've asked you to support that assertion quite a few times now to no avail!

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

Yet here you are arguing for the establishment of some supremely powerful pan-global tax authority.

'Supremely powerful?'

Eventually I'd like to see a global government. They managed it in Star Trek and eventually drifted into a multi planetery federation

I'd start at the regional level first. The EU could do more to crack down on tax evasion if it really wanted to, as could the Americans, but there isn't the political will there. As China and India rise, they too will be forced to meet their international obligations, one of which is to clamp down on trans national tax evasion. A boycott and shaming campaign organised by all the advanced states in Europe, the Americas and Asia would quickly destroy most of the security these quasi criminal tax havens enjoy. An earnest and proper campaign. But as I said, there isn't the political will for it.

And by the way; was that really your rebuttal? Government's are a fact of life, NOBODY wants to live in a 'Libertarian ideal'. To most people it would be a form of hell. If you'd recognise that you'd quickly understand why so many people are openly hostile your ideology.

Which all rests on the assumption that the wealth in the world is of a fixed quantity -- I've asked you to support that assertion quite a few times now to no avail!

I'm not sure what you're getting at. We shouldn't tax people so much that further work destroys the incentive to work. But Its morally abhorrent that a contender for the US Presidency paid only 15% of his income in tax last year.

I pay more than for Christ's sake.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

joseph brand wrote: »

The US has privatised prisons. They're a joke, and not a funny one. Judges get more money (brown envelopes), the more convictions, and the longer the sentence. Truly disgusting, scary stuff. Money breeds sociopaths.

A Judge in the US was convicted in the Kids for cash scandal.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, here's a table showing the top tax bracket and the national deficit for the US. It's hard to argue with facts, me thinks.

Increasing the tax rate on the rich will not force them out on the street. Worse case scenario, they buy a mid-range yacht. And they say the Syrians have it tough. :rolleyes:

Again with the lists of "bad things" from select countries. Extreme examples exist in almost any country. Go check out the "super-rich" in China - they get people to serve prison sentences for them.

Increasing the tax rate on the rich is a good idea as long as it brings in relatively more revenue (long term as well as short term) and doesn't drive wealth, job creation and investment out of the country.