Inequality

[A Red]

No threshold on inheritance tax is one way of ensuring that those in the lower economic part of society stay there.

[Strontium]

Took my step-son to play snooker earlier tonight. He only turned 14 last week and due to the age restrictions most places impose it’s only the second time I’ve been able to take him to play on a full size table.

 

Stood outside afterwards waiting for Mrs Turdseye to pick us up and I asked him if he enjoyed himself and if it made him appreciate why I’ve said a few times that if we were to ever win the lottery, I’d be happy for his mum to choose the location and size of the house we live in so long as I get a snooker room.

 

His reply? “If I won it, I’d be wary of being one of those people that blow all the money and end up as a heroin addict”

 

Cracked me up. This is a kid who won’t even have a swig of beer because he doesn’t like it after I gave him a single bottle of WKD a year or two ago and it gave him a hangover.

Your step-son sounds like someone who deserves to be wealthy.

[Strontium]

That's genetics. Economics is different.

 

I think if physical characteristics can be inherited, then so can mental characteristics, like intelligence.

[Jockey]

What about all those lottery winners who didn't blow their fortunes?

 

Tara Palmer, is dead - she follows a long line of entitled rich people who have - fucked it up. Best education, best opportunities, best start in life, still ended up dead. 

[Jockey]

I think if physical characteristics can be inherited, then so can mental characteristics, like intelligence.

 

Not sure there is much proof of that. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I think if physical characteristics can be inherited, then so can mental characteristics, like intelligence.

To a degree, yes. What will have a much more significant effect is the degree to which the domestic circumstances in which you are raised are conducive to learning and development.

 

Still, we were talking about inhereted wealth and there really is no reason to imagine that the richest people deserve their wealth because they are, say, 1,000 times more intelligent than a hospital porter or a hotel receptionist.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Inequality is a fairly complex issue (well, duh) so even if you create a system which would take more money from the rich and redistribute it, you will have to face the problem of what it means "distribute it in such a way to reduce inequality". It will always come down to creating more opportunities, and there will always be privileges across the society. None of the former socialist countries had openly rich people and no super reach, they nominally had the system of equal opportunities in place and yet their societies were full of various, often hidden, limitations and privileges. There was a clear correlation between income and social status and school grades, achievable level of education etc.

 

I don't quite understand the point about economic damage, the underlying argument seems to always be about control, will you allow, I don't know, Jeff Bezos to continue making investment/business decisions, influence society and public opinion and perceptions, or would you take that control from him and give it to some public appointed official(s).

The point about economic damage is that the richest people are wealth-extractors, contributing nothing useful and using their economic and political power to direct the economy towards things that meet their short-term needs and away from things that would provide sustainable benefits for the vast majority of people.

 

Jeff Bezos owns something like $90 billion dollars. Tax that at 90% (the kind of tax rates seen in the Sixties) and you could do a Hell of a lot of good for people's health, education, environment, etc. And there would be a degree of democratic control over how the money is used.

[TheHowieLama]

That's genetics. Economics is different.

 

Huh -- the post I answered to says "strictly based on fortuitous genetics". So yeah - genetics.

 

And as Stronts points out there is a small chance that intelligence may have something to do with genetics right? A little rich(see what I did there) to suggest that is all nurture v nature - especially as it has proven to be the opposite. So the strong get stronger in nature and have for eleventy centuries - but this is different?

 

 

the richest people are wealth-extractors, contributing nothing useful and using their economic and political power to direct the economy towards things that meet their short-term needs and away from things that would provide sustainable benefits for the vast majority of people. 

 

 

All of them?? Are you sure? Seems a little blankety here - not prejudiced, just really, really blankety.

[SasaS]

The point about economic damage is that the richest people are wealth-extractors, contributing nothing useful and using their economic and political power to direct the economy towards things that meet their short-term needs and away from things that would provide sustainable benefits for the vast majority of people.

 

Jeff Bezos owns something like $90 billion dollars. Tax that at 90% (the kind of tax rates seen in the Sixties) and you could do a Hell of a lot of good for people's health, education, environment, etc. And there would be a degree of democratic control over how the money is used.

 

But Bezos mostly ownes a stake in the company, you cannot tax an asset at a 90% rate, you would have to nationalize Amazon to achieve what you are proposing, and then "democratically" run it to finance people's health, education, environment etc. If you want to increase the tax burden on the super rich, they already have ways of avoiding what they are expected to pay now.

[TheHowieLama]

Not sure there is much proof of that. 

Really?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Huh -- the post I answered to says "strictly based on fortuitous genetics". So yeah - genetics.

 

And as Stronts points out there is a small chance that intelligence may have something to do with genetics right? A little rich(see what I did there) to suggest that is all nurture v nature - especially as it has proven to be the opposite. So the strong get stronger in nature and have for eleventy centuries - but this is different?

 

 

the richest people are wealth-extractors, contributing nothing useful and using their economic and political power to direct the economy towards things that meet their short-term needs and away from things that would provide sustainable benefits for the vast majority of people.

 

 

All of them?? Are you sure? Seems a little blankety here - not prejudiced, just really, really blankety.

Sorry if my response sounded snarky; it wasn't meant to be.

 

I don't doubt for an instant that there's a strong genetic component in physical or mental traits. The "nurture" bit determines the degree to which you can develop whatever potential abilities you are born with. Having said that, I'm yet to be convinced that there's a strong correlation between being intelligent and being rich.

 

The bit about the wealth extractors is a blanket statement and no doubt it's possible to name people who got rich on merit. But the fact that you can name them tells its own story: they are the exception. There are hundreds of thousands of millionaires in the UK, most of whom got that way through owning assets, rather than through doing anything.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/27/number-of-millionaires-in-uk-rises-by-200000

[AngryOfTuebrook]

But Bezos mostly ownes a stake in the company, you cannot tax an asset at a 90% rate, you would have to nationalize Amazon to achieve what you are proposing, and then "democratically" run it to finance people's health, education, environment etc. If you want to increase the tax burden on the super rich, they already have ways of avoiding what they are expected to pay now.

So, employ some tax collectors.

 

And taxing wealth doesn't equate to nationalising the source of that wealth. Bezos is as wealthy as he is because his company has been so successful at tax dodging: if Amazon had been taxed properly, the value of and dividends from his shares would be a bit lower (and the public purse would be a bit richer).

[TheHowieLama]

While I admire your fervor there does not seem to be a lot of focus in this.

 

First we are talking about UK millionaires - lets face it if 1 out of 65 qualify then they are probably not the super wealthy. A fella making 150k a year is he a wealth extractor? 

 

Next we are onto income tax revenue of American citizens and that somehow translating to social good worldwide?? Then it is more effective corporate taxation of an American company that becomes globally distributed?

 

Tax that at 90% (the kind of tax rates seen in the Sixties) and you could do a Hell of a lot of good for people's health, education, environment, etc. And there would be a degree of democratic control over how the money is used. 

 

When has the part in bold ever been true? How do we get there?

 

Ironically Bezos came from a few generations of rocket scientists with the added kicker of an adopted first generation immigrant's work ethic.

[SasaS]

So, employ some tax collectors.

 

And taxing wealth doesn't equate to nationalising the source of that wealth. Bezos is as wealthy as he is because his company has been so successful at tax dodging: if Amazon had been taxed properly, the value of and dividends from his shares would be a bit lower (and the public purse would be a bit richer).

 

Really? Not because of the company's business model, inventiveness etc?

[Strontium]

What about all those lottery winners who didn't blow their fortunes?

 

Tara Palmer, is dead - she follows a long line of entitled rich people who have - fucked it up. Best education, best opportunities, best start in life, still ended up dead.

Not sure being rich stops you from getting brain tumours and stomach ulcers.

 

She left £2.3m in her will, so not exactly a blown fortune.

[Jockey]

Really?

Yep. Not sure how much research points to 'intelligence' being genetic. Regardless - it has very little to do with wealth.

[Jockey]

Not sure being rich stops you from getting brain tumours and stomach ulcers.

 

She left £2.3m in her will, so not exactly a blown fortune.

She was a drug addict!

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Really? Not because of the company's business model, inventiveness etc?

He would be less wealthy if his company paid its taxes; that's self-evident, isn't it.

[SasaS]

He would be less wealthy if his company paid its taxes; that's self-evident, isn't it.

 

It is, all Amazon shareholders would be, including possibly your retirement fund, or your personally, if you hold their shares. But the point here would be how to stop / minimize wealth destruction.

 

A simplistic example, if you have a lot of land concentrated in the hands of just one man, and this land is not worked to its fullest potential, because workers are poorly paid and not incentivized to work harder and the landowner creates  more than enough value for himself as it is, through the shire size of his estate, then by all means it makes economic sense to take most of this land away from him and distribute it among the workers. If you then protect their property rights and incomes derived from working that land, they will massively increase production and wealth creation, if you create a co-operative probably less so but the reform would still make sense (on top of removing obvious inequality situation of one man having everything and the rest nothing).

 

However, if the mentioned landowner reinvests most of what he makes from the land into improving the methods of working that land, machinery, education of his workers, various profit sharing schemes and incentives and actually achieves the same maximum wealth creation whilst at the same time opening a sizeable share of ownership of his land to the public, you have a slight problem.

 

What do you tax, what part of landowner's wealth and why? You can obviously tax his private income and real estate, but this is only a fraction of the wealth, and if you heavily tax the reinvested company profit, you are actively weakening the wealth creation and it becomes about control, will you allow the company (landowner) the wealth creating decision, or would you know better what to do with that money. And if you claim you do, you must present a plan how exactly you intend to redistribute the wealth and how would this create new wealth. And this is where the problems usually begin.

[TheHowieLama]

Yep. Not sure how much research points to 'intelligence' being genetic. Regardless - it has very little to do with wealth.

 

The first part is undeniably wrong -- the second is arguable.

Certainly inherited wealth - but I don't think you can say an individual such as Gates' or Bezos' wealth had little do do with their intelligence.

That would be stupid.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

While I admire your fervor there does not seem to be a lot of focus in this.

 

First we are talking about UK millionaires - lets face it if 1 out of 65 qualify then they are probably not the super wealthy. A fella making 150k a year is he a wealth extractor? 

 

Next we are onto income tax revenue of American citizens and that somehow translating to social good worldwide?? Then it is more effective corporate taxation of an American company that becomes globally distributed?

 

Tax that at 90% (the kind of tax rates seen in the Sixties) and you could do a Hell of a lot of good for people's health, education, environment, etc. And there would be a degree of democratic control over how the money is used. 

 

When has the part in bold ever been true? How do we get there?

 

Ironically Bezos came from a few generations of rocket scientists with the added kicker of an adopted first generation immigrant's work ethic.

Someone on the median income in the UK would take over 36 years to earn £1 million, so, yeah, millionaires are pretty fucking rich.  Having said that, the super-rich are streaking away from the merely very rich.

 

The fella on £150k a year?  Depends on what he does to get paid that.  

 

The problem of extremely rich people extracting wealth is a global problem, obviously.  Jeff Bezos isn't a special case; he just sprung to mind because (through this forum) I recently learned that he's a "centi-billionaire" (or thereabouts) - it's a word that shouldn't even exist.  There are whole countries with less money than that.

 

I never suggested that taxing American individuals would have a global benefit.  Citizens get taxed by their government and the money gets spent for the benefit of the population of that country.  We get there by voting.  That's pretty much how every democracy works (or is supposed to).

[A Red]

Someone can fully own a house worth a million pounds and not be rich. How do you tax that?

[Rico1304]

Someone on the median income in the UK would take over 36 years to earn £1 million, so, yeah, millionaires are pretty fucking rich. Having said that, the super-rich are streaking away from the merely very rich.

 

The fella on £150k a year? Depends on what he does to get paid that.

 

The problem of extremely rich people extracting wealth is a global problem, obviously. Jeff Bezos isn't a special case; he just sprung to mind because (through this forum) I recently learned that he's a "centi-billionaire" (or thereabouts) - it's a word that shouldn't even exist. There are whole countries with less money than that.

 

I never suggested that taxing American individuals would have a global benefit. Citizens get taxed by their government and the money gets spent for the benefit of the population of that country. We get there by voting. That's pretty much how every democracy works (or is supposed to).

Depends on what he does? Some people are more equal that others?

[SasaS]

Someone can fully own a house worth a million pounds and not be rich. How do you tax that?

 

By a property tax of, say, 10k a year?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Depends on what he does? Some people are more equal that others?

No. Some people work; others just own assets. Almost all of the very rich fall into the latter category (i.e. extracting wealth); some of the merely very rich, such as someone on about £150,000, might be getting paid for doing something useful.

 

I never said it was black and white.