Jump to content

Taxing the richest


atdlzpae

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, LanghamP said:

Wealthy neighborhoods seem to have Toyotas and Hondas parked outside of mansions, while poorer communities have BMWs and Mercedes parked outside of small houses that have bars in their windows.

I see this a lot as well.  This 60% not employed group of people you mentioned.  Are they retired, unemployed, or people who just don’t want to work?  Unemployment is about 3% in Orlando right now, just wondering, that seems like a high percentage of people not working.  Most Americans make poor financial decisions which does not help their situation.  Like buying cars they have no business buying which constantly depreciate.   The federal reserve was created in 1913. Until 1913 the dollar actually appreciated.  Since 1913 it has lost ninety something percent of its value, an enormous hidden tax.  The 16th and 17th  Amendments  were ratified allowing the federal government to tax individuals instead of getting taxes from the states as originally designed, and States lost their senatorial representation.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joker10 said:

This 60% not employed group of people you mentioned.  Are they retired, unemployed, or people who just don’t want to work?  Unemployment is about 3% in Orlando right now, just wondering, that seems like a high percentage of people not working.  

Most people use unemployed (no job but actively searching over the past 3 months) and "not employed" interchangeably. I would suggest always using the "not employed" figure, because unemployed eventually results in measuring only "churn", or the tendency of people quiting and finding a new job. For example, in a town where a factory closes down, the unemployed rates drops down to nearly zero after a year because most workers move away, are discouraged, or take early retirement. The not employed rate could easily be 80% while the unemployed rate is under 5%.

If your information sources say unemployment rate is 3%, but there are many job applicants per job opening, and salaries aren't 1/2 the housing cost per year in that area, then you can be certain the unemployment figure has no value. It doesn't mean anything because it doesn't display or predict anything in real life except how often fast food workers change minimum wage jobs. It's the "not employed" rate you need to look at. 

I don't know why newspapers and government officials use "unemployment" almost exclusively. Economists don't, and anyone who handles economic reports don't.

 

Edited by LanghamP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2019 at 10:45 PM, Nic said:

 

CEOs always find a way to award themselves huge pay increases regardless of whether a company is doing well or badly but they cut their employees wages when things aren't going so well. When things aren't going well they award themselves a big pay increase because things would be much worse without them, and when things are going well they deserve a reward because this was obviously due to their great leadership and business skills. This has been happening for decades and all while taxation for those at the top has been coming down, so we end up with a problem where the wealth gap is larger than ever and there is no easy way to correct it.

 

The problem is you are talking about CEO's of big companies. People that are not necessarily owner of the company they run (lots of them are publicly traded) so, even if that person has a big responsibility, they aren't playing with their own money.

I think we need a system where risk can give you reward. If that system wouldn't exist (or even worse, if all goods would be priced as a % of your income) everyone would simply become an employee and nobody would risk starting their own business. In the case where you own the business if business is good you can give yourself a raise, but you still have to see the numbers make sense. If the business goes bad you might go bankrupt and lose your source of income! That's a big difference with a CEO with a vast network who can just move along to another S&P500 company to have a seat on the board.

The problem is people tend to project the bad behavior of the "CEO types" on the owners of small and medium sized businesses too (even if those people buy a yacht, good for them! They took and take the risk!), and especially where I live business owners get a bad rep and "they should be taxed more!".

Also, let's be objective. If we are talking about taxing those "CEO" people, how many people would that be, and how much would the net gain for a country be? Because sometimes we tend to forget the absolute numbers and it becomes more a matter of principle than doing something that will improve society.

 

For me the biggest issues are education, healthcare and housing. A good country is a country where people can work a normal job and don't have to worry about either of those 3. If you have those 3 covered you have freedom. If you miss one of those you become a capitalist slave. What good is living in the land of the free if you have to live from paycheck to paycheck and therefore can't afford to lose or quit your job, even for 1 month?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2019 at 6:51 PM, LanghamP said:

Years ago I was tasked to make what we informally called "a chain insurance claim program" for our pharmacists. They are called chain insurance claims because the drug company submits a bill for a patient's drugs, then we say no, and submit a lower price, then they say no, and so on until certain conditions are met and we agree on the drug price. The resulting data table looks like a chain sorted by time, hence the name.

As insane as it sounds, our automated bargaining programs bargain with the automated drug companies' programs. No such automated programs (which peeks into the Federal Big Book of procedural Medicaid costs) are available to the average user who shows up bleeding at a medical center, while medical providers can charge whatever they want.

WTF? So there are no fixed prices for medication? You get medical treatment and go to the pharmacy lottery?

 

On 12/26/2019 at 6:51 PM, LanghamP said:

In other countries the Monolithic State sees Themselves as stewards of the People and bargains on Their behalf, 

That's how it works where I live. All medication that is (partially) reimbursed by insurance has a pre-negotiated price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ir_fuel said:

WTF? So there are no fixed prices for medication? You get medical treatment and go to the pharmacy lottery?

The price drug companies set is based upon the demand for that drug. Since these drugs are patented (and they are all patented, because they change the color of the drug in order to ensure a new patent on an old drug), and there's no money in generic drugs, it follows a $2 drug becomes a $500 drug.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/health/2019/12/29/diabetes-lead-to-death-who-cant-afford-insulin/2617976001/

Drug pricing is set by the Laefer curve, upon which most people can barely afford a drug, but a large portion cannot. The official view of all US drug companies is, "fuck 'em, and fuck off if you cannot afford us".

Interestingly, there is strong evidence to show pm2.5 pollution (particles created mostly by brake dust, tire wear, and dust kicked up on road surfaces by cars) is mostly caused by cars.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-07-pm25-contributes-burden-diabetes-mellitus.html

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/10/2196

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/07/a-frightening-new-reason-to-worry-about-air-pollution/564428/

https://www.intechopen.com/books/diabetes-and-its-complications/fine-particulate-matter-pm2-5-air-pollution-and-type-2-diabetes-mellitus-t2dm-when-experimental-data

A big reason to get rid of high speed urban highways is to stop pm2.5 pollution. You could easily stop most pm2.5 pollution by reducing speed limits within cities to 20-25 mph, and greatly reduce diabetes and other health problems.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

The price drug companies set is based upon the demand for that drug. Since these drugs are patented (and they are all patented, because they change the color of the drug in order to ensure a new patent on an old drug), and there's no money in generic drugs, it follows a $2 drug becomes a $500 drug.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/health/2019/12/29/diabetes-lead-to-death-who-cant-afford-insulin/2617976001/

I'm diabetic but, luckily, I live in the UK so I get my treatment for free. If I did have to pay for my insulin here then it would cost approx $60 per month here. If I lived in america then it would cost me roughly $800 a month. A few months back I spoke with an american guy who was diabetic and he told me he couldn't ever retire because he had to always pay for his medication. I suppose if you have full health insurance then it doesn't matter but a lot of folk can't afford it, or don't have enough insurance or can't be insured because of a long term ailment. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mike_bike_kite said:

I'm diabetic but, luckily, I live in the UK so I get my treatment for free. If I did have to pay for my insulin here then it would cost approx $60 per month here. If I lived in america then it would cost me roughly $800 a month. A few months back I spoke with an american guy who was diabetic and he told me he couldn't ever retire because he had to always pay for his medication. I suppose if you have full health insurance then it doesn't matter but a lot of folk can't afford it, or don't have enough insurance or can't be insured because of a long term ailment. 

I used to work at several state owned and operated hospitals; the inability of most people to afford life saving drugs is a desired feature and not a problem.

Pharmaceutical representatives are usually pretty young women who have sex with doctors. Typically, these whores are salaried, and often fly out to Las Vegas or Hawaii with doctors. I remember one particular doctor that showed me his Las Vegas pictures; in his particular case the pharmaceutical company provided him with three drug representatives/whores to do what he pleased for a week.

If you've ever wondered why US drug ads seem oddly persuasive, followed by, "talk to you doctor", it's because pharmaceutical companies will pay doctors $15,000 for a 15 minute speech, while also providing them with pretty young drug representatives who have sex with doctors, all with the understanding of prescribing non-generic drugs. These drug representatives who have sex with doctors are rather well paid, between $120,000 to $160,000 per year, last I saw (but that was ten years ago).

I hear it's different in Europe, where doctors go to bat for the patients. Not sure that's the right thing to do (many US people say we have the best medical system in the world), because where else would all those pretty young drug representatives work, and you're also denying our doctors their biological imperative.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2019 at 9:42 AM, ir_fuel said:

that system wouldn't exist (or even worse, if all goods would be priced as a % of your income) everyone would simply become an employee and nobody would risk starting their own business. In the case where you own the business if business is good you can give yourself a raise, but you still have to see the numbers make sense. If the business goes bad you might go bankrupt and lose your source of income!

It's extremely hard to start small and medium businesses in the US because rules and regulations specifically target starting businesses, especially in urban areas.

I notice activists who NIMBY are Baby Boomers. Always.

Edited by LanghamP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2020 at 5:39 PM, Mono said:

I seem to sense someone's regret of not having become a doctor :ph34r:

Doctors in states that had triplicate programs, that is, states that required opiate patients to be monitored, had half the deaths.

https://qz.com/1759632/what-started-the-opioid-epidemic/

I could only assume the benefit of having sex with pharmaceutical representatives did not outweigh the action of prescriptions being monitored. 

The program, which pre-dated the opioid crisis, mandated doctors use state-issued triplicate prescription forms when prescribing schedule II controlled substances such as Oxycontin and Vicodin. The doctor kept one copy, the pharmacy received another, and a state drug monitoring agency got the third copy. Evidence suggests the programs reduced prescriptions of the schedule II drugs because, according to the court documents, doctors did not want the government to have records of what they were prescribing and keeping track of the extra paperwork was a hassle.

As a result, Purdue Pharma focused its marketing efforts on non-triplicate states, where, without the additional paperwork, doctors were more likely to write prescriptions for opioids. Before the introduction of Oxycontin, overdose rates were higher in triplicate states, even after controlling for cocaine use which was popular in large cities. But once Oxycontin was introduced, more prescriptions were written in non-triplicate states, followed by higher rates of misuse, the use of other forms of heroin, and eventually more overdose deaths.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-inequality-poll/majority-of-americans-favor-wealth-tax-on-very-rich-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1Z914

 

Quote

 

Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll
Howard Schneider, Chris Kahn
6 MIN READ

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.

But it may have broad public support, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that found nearly two-thirds of respondents agree that the very rich should pay more.

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

A wealth tax is levied on an individual’s net worth, such as stocks, bonds and real estate, as well as cash holdings, similar in concept to property taxes. It is separate from an income tax, which applies to wages, interest and dividends, among other sources.

Asked in the poll if “the very rich should be allowed to keep the money they have, even if that means increasing inequality,” 54% of respondents disagreed.

“Rich people have a right to blow their money on Lamborghinis and world-wide cruises or whatever,” said Esin Zimmerman, 53, a lifelong Republican from Madison, Minnesota, who wants higher taxes for the wealthy. “But that money could be used in other ways that help people.”

Zimmerman said she would especially be in favor of a wealth tax that would help pay for government programs for U.S. military veterans, or help single parents with young children. “It could put the border wall up,” she said.

The results may reflect how the economic changes of the past roughly 20 years, from globalization to the financial crisis, have shaped attitudes about economic policy.

According to polling by Gallup, concerns about the rich paying too little actually declined through the 1990s and early 2000s, a relative boom period for the United States. But the concerns have been climbing since the crisis years of 2007 to 2009, from 55% to more than 60% as of 2016 here

The Reuters/Ipsos results suggested even stronger support for an annual levy on total wealth, not just income. Warren and Sanders have touted the idea as a way to help pay for major social programs like Medicare for All and to reverse a stark rise in the share of wealth owned by the very richest Americans, known as the “1 percent.”

The poll also points to changing attitudes toward basic ideas such as “keeping what you earn.”

That notion, central to a winner-take-all brand of capitalism, got mixed reviews. While 56% of Republicans agreed the very rich should keep what they have regardless of the impact on inequality, 35% of Republicans disagreed with the statement, as did 71% of Democrats.

Republican survey respondents interviewed by Reuters said they did not see their support for a wealth tax conflicting with their party ideals or their support for Trump.

Kathy Herron, 56, a Republican who lives in Santa Rosa, California, said her support for Trump - a self-proclaimed billionaire - stems from his hardline policies on illegal immigration. In her view, the president would do well to support higher taxes on rich Americans. “We’re taxed from one end to the other, and it just seems the rich don’t pay their share,” she said.

In recent years in particular, mainstream economic institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the Federal Reserve have taken seriously the possibility that high levels of wealth and income inequality may be not just politically corrosive, but bad for economic growth.

At the most recent Fed policy meeting, staff members presented research on how families’ differing access to credit might make a recession worse — the sort of exercise that shows how unequal starting points among households can influence national outcomes.

Economic and market trends have likely reinforced doubts about who gets ahead, and how fast. Since the start in 2009 of a now-decade-long recovery, the top 1 percent’s share of national net worth has grown from 27.8% to 32.2%, driven by a record-setting boom in the stock market, according to Fed data.

Trump has cited the rise in equity markets as a selling point in his campaign, which is centered on taking credit for historically low unemployment, and a tariff-heavy trade policy that he says will restore manufacturing jobs.

But that has not changed the country’s wealth picture. While the share of wealth held by the bottom 50% of Americans has increased since the crisis, to 1.5% percent, longterm the trend is down, with their share at less than half what it was in 1989. The shares of wealth held by the middle and upper middle classes - or all other Americans save for the richest 1 percent — have all fallen since the crisis.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nic said:

Trump has cited the rise in equity markets as a selling point in his campaign, which is centered on taking credit for historically low unemployment, and a tariff-heavy trade policy that he says will restore manufacturing jobs.

The "not employed rate" is about 54%, or more than half the US population. Not quite the 60% we saw a few years back, but since everyone requires income then that means one half somehow supports the other half.

The payroll tax is a regressive tax whereby the billionaire pays no more than the guy making $150,000 per year, and proportionately way less than sub $150,000. Simply expanding the payroll tax out to infinity (15% per year of your income) would make this tax less regressive.

Edited by LanghamP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2019 at 5:57 PM, RockyTop said:

All I have is a road. And the first mile of that road was NOT originally provided by the government. It is not like we have a Football Stadium or anything else public. I hear those are expensive,  wasteful money pits.

 I am OK with cutting the power lines, water and sewer lines. The water and power lead into the city not out. The sewer leads out not in. LOL. 

I have a well and septic tank. The city uses our privately own water. I hear they provide a nice service. Water cost $26 every other month for a family of 4. They have been in business for over 80 years. Our neighboring state has a state operated water system for $60-$80 per month. 

The power is private for profit and regulated by the government. ( I am sure that government subsidized play a roll) Private citizens or business have to pay for the poles to get back to the main lines. I know one guy that ended up paying more for his power line than building his house.

The “space” provides food, industry, power,  goods and products NOT only to the cities but the world. I believe Hank said it best, “ A country boy can survive because you can’t............” 

The people in the rural areas could get by without the cities. We might end up turning into a third word country but we would survive. The cities would not last a week without the rural areas. 

Non rural suburbs like around Atlanta are a different story. Those are just houses around a city. 

 

Same thing here. I fear the biggest threat, will be the nearest city. If everything went badly, the desperate people living in areas that could never sustain them, would begin to invade and of course try to take anything they find. Along with a fertile environment, low population, underground water, gravity fed springs, on site sanitation, river access and a feeling of community, we also have defenses and hunters. Nope, not even any rediculous land developments or bylaw crap, just dont piss off the church (theres 1 every 5 blocks of course). We still have people here that remember how to live without most of newer tech. Currently I have my cake and eat it too. I have access to a city (if I need) within an hour, but extremely limited access into my rural community. I pay reasonable taxes and get to use those resources, but have the added bonus of a chance of neigborhood sustainability. Our power is a coop, but honestly our neighborhood knows how to get along without it, or can generate their own. There's livestock, trees, animals and we're very near hundreds of miles of uninhabited federal forests. I am not alone in this, there are LOTS of neighborhoods just like this. ON paper, they are VERY poor, a lot of inherited lands and large families. In life, I consider them very rich. I also consider myself VERY blessed to be out here in the appalachians, as I am not from such fertile areas(from a shit city of 1/2million until i was 21). Theres not many jobs, the health care isnt great, the education isnt excellent(entire county fits in ONE high school), but at its core, the most valuable things are found here and especially just North with my TN brethren(things you cant get in the city, no matter how "rich" you think you are). I look back on my life and can see decisions I made (some in ignorance, some not), that has led me to the path I am at. Opportunities to make more money and chase the "american dream", were available to me. If nothing else, I am thankful that I had CHOICES that led me to the life i am living. Yes, our home has always been considered poverty level or near(at least the irs calls us that). Yes, we drive old cars and fix them. We make a lot of concessions to get by, but i always try to remind myself that it is this way, because a myriad of choices,luck and work, got me here. I convince myself that even the rich have problems, and hopefully they also had those choices when the time came. Hell, I even own a damn EUC and NO KIDS!!! Only owe on my house, I own hand tools, i know some stuff, I got a wife with big tits (20+yrs) and for now, have my health. I can even piss off the porch, shoot guns at 3am, or work on my car in the road.  Man o man, tis great to be me!

Now as far as taxes, sustainability of governments, health care systems and anything else that isnt simple as hell to understand.. Im useless!  To address the topic.. HELL YES you tax the rich, but it damn sure aint fair to overtax them. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor doesnt sound fair to me.  In america, we try to tax everyone. Military aint cheap and neither is funding crooks. Everyone gets to pay to play here... or at least i think they should if they can. Those that play the game for the $$ and get rich, shouldnt be penalized for it.  *For the record, I am blissfully ignorant of other countries, even more so than my own*

Edited by ShanesPlanet
so many damn typo's
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2020 at 3:06 AM, ShanesPlanet said:

Same thing here. I fear the biggest threat, will be the nearest city. If everything went badly, the desperate people living in areas that could never sustain them, would begin to invade and of course try to take anything they find.

What does the historical record say? It almost always goes bad 1st for the hunter, 2nd the farmer, and 3rd the urban dwellers.

The hunters have neither the numbers nor the technology. The farmers have the numbers and the technology. But the urbanites have both, plus organization and desperation. Still, history is littered with civilized people pushing into rural areas (one could argue history is nothing if not that).

Did you know that most air combat aces and snipers come from the city? You take the top ten people from several different sized populations, and the bigger ones have better quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...