> Well when you have over 100m in assets in your pile of gold in the dragon lair, its time to be extractive.
This is emotional pleading, not a serious argument of any sort, based on the core premise of "this person has more money than me, and I don't like that, therefore I should get some".
It's a very serious argument, and it's somewhat insulting that you consider it to be emotional and meritless.
Wealth and income inequality has well-studied negative effects on society.
The ability for a single person to own over $100m in assets is not a human right. It's not a protected class or status. It's an abhorrent misappropriation of human resources. It is a societal mistake.
And let's not forget, people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg have multiple THOUSANDS of $100 million dollars in net worth. This completely insane $100 million figure is so small to those men that you would have to earn $100 million every single year for over 30 lifetimes to get to their level of wealth.
It's not about demanding some of the money from the wealthy. That's a shallow way to think about it. It's about the inherent power imbalance and exploitation that comes along with being excessively wealthy like this.
Think for a second what would happen to you if Jeff Bezos banned you from using all Amazon products. Would the Internet even work anymore for you? You know, every company has the right to refuse service to anyone. This one man can basically cut you off from television, e-commerce, Internet, employment (if you do engineering work on AWS), even Thursday Night Football.
> It's a very serious argument, and it's somewhat insulting that you consider it to be emotional and meritless.
Because, factually, the statement "Well when you have over 100m in assets in your pile of gold in the dragon lair, its time to be extractive." is emotional and meritless. There's literally zero value here. It's an opinion. In fact, you doubled down on this throughout your response.
> It's an abhorrent misappropriation of human resources. It is a societal mistake.
This is also factless, meritless, emotional pleading.
> And let's not forget, people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg have multiple THOUSANDS of $100 million dollars in net worth...
As is all of this.
> It's not about demanding some of the money from the wealthy.
That's literally what you're doing.
> It's about the inherent power imbalance and exploitation that comes along with being excessively wealthy like this.
It's clearly not about the power imbalance and exploitation, because someone genuinely interested in curbing those effects would address them directly. The fact that everyone who claims to care about the destabilizing effects of concentrated wealth immediately goes to "we should take the wealth away" instead of "we should try to figure out why concentrated wealth is destabilizing and address that" is extremely strong evidence that the goal is, actually, to take money from the wealthy.
If you consider pointing out that you're not making logical arguments, and instead engaging in emotional pleading, to be insulting (especially when, upon that being pointed out, you can't make a rational argument and instead continue pleading), then you should take a step back, because there's a good chance you're engaging in advocacy and emotional manipulation as opposed to genuine, rational arguments in good faith.
> It's clearly not about the power imbalance and exploitation, because someone genuinely interested in curbing those effects would address them directly. The fact that everyone who claims to care about the destabilizing effects of concentrated wealth immediately goes to "we should take the wealth away" instead of "we should try to figure out why concentrated wealth is destabilizing and address that" is extremely strong evidence that the goal is, actually, to take money from the wealthy.
As someone who thinks wealth inequality is a huge problem in the US - I'm genuinely curious as to what you would propose to address this problem "directly". Because to me, this tax proposal is addressing it directly.
Wealth inequality doesn't have any direct effects - merely having more money than someone else doesn't do anything. It's only after the money gets spent that you see negative effects, and the magnitude and type of spending determine the effects. It's more accurate to call this "spending inequality".
This proposal doesn't address the problem because it doesn't affect spending - only wealth. (a capital gains tax is actually a deceitfully name wealth tax) Wealth doesn't do anything until it's spent. That's the main problem with this proposal - it doesn't even try to address the problem it pretends to address.
As to how to actually address the problem: there's two types of wealth inequality that most people are concerned about - that between the super-rich and everyone else (discussed here), and that between the poor and everyone else (not discussed).
Thank you for engaging honestly, it's a breath of fresh air in this thread.
The ~wealth~ spending inequality problems of the super-rich seem to be mainly manifested in corruption - donating large amounts to political groups, and lobbying. You want to regulate/outlaw those specific things.
However, aside from corruption (which is a huge problem) most of the spending inequality problems seem to come from the middle and lower class. For instance, cost of housing and living - I think that that's being driven by the middle class having more access to capital in a supply-constrained environment (which is partially caused by big hedge funds buying up housing to rent it out - which again is a separate problem that can be addressed separately and isn't fixed by the capital gains tax). People like Zuckerberg aren't personally buying up housing all over the US on their own - this problem isn't at their level and this tax wouldn't help.
You can't outlaw the exercise of power, so the extreme power imbalance itself is the core problem for humanity; and the only way to fix that is to take some of their power away.
> donating large amounts to political groups, and lobbying
Those are indeed ways of exercising power that can be outlawed, but there are other ways of exercising power that are impossible to outlaw. For example, the ultra-rich can spend far more money on lawyers than anyone else. How are you going to outlaw that? And even the charitable contributions of the ultra-rich are controversial and probably wouldn't happen in a true democracy. E.g., the Bill Gates foundation has a lot of influence on global health spending[1]:
>
If you look across global health, they’re funding everybody. Nobody is more than one degree removed from the Gates Foundation. So it’s really difficult to avoid the foundation’s money.
Basically they wield so much power that even their charitable contributions to society are inherently political, unlike say if I volunteer at my local rescue mission.
Prologue: To be clear, I absolutely agree that rich people have disproportionate power in our economic system due to their wealth, but taking away that wealth is simultaneously (1) evil (according to every self-consistent non-arbitrary moral system I've seen - if you have another, I'd love to hear it) and authoritarian and (2) completely unnecessary - you don't need to tax people in order to get rid of these behaviors, and it completely misses the underlying problems that are present for all economic strata.
> You can't outlaw the exercise of power, so the extreme power imbalance itself is the core problem for humanity; and the only way to fix that is to take some of their power away.
This is not the only fix. It is possible to outlaw specific exercises of power that actually harm people, such as lobbying and bribery, without taking any money away at all, and it's possible to level the playing field in other areas such that money is much less of an advantage.
> For example, the ultra-rich can spend far more money on lawyers than anyone else.
By simplifying the legal system, and removing barriers to entry in the legal profession, such that people can effectively self-represent, both because they're legally allowed to, and because the legal system is simple enough that individuals can comprehend it and argue effectively. (this will also greatly reduce the effectiveness of high-powered lawyers, because the simpler the system is, the less advantage the best lawyers have over the worst ones)
The legal system is inherently flawed in that richer people have a massive advantage over poorer people - that is the problem, not that some people have more money and so can take advantage of it.
Please, seriously, think about that for a bit - our economy is filled with systems that are unfair or exploitative (e.g. legal, healthcare, non-compete agreements, the rent collusion that's currently happening), but the solution is not to start taxing the ultra-rich, because that still leaves those systems in an exploitative state, and they'll continue to take advantage of the middle and lower class even if you eliminate all of the rich people.
> E.g., the Bill Gates foundation has a lot of influence on global health spending
This is also very feasible to fix - make the status of being a tax-deductible charity contingent on not doing the bad things you want to disincentivize. This is similar to how Title IX is a huge lever over public institutions that prohibits them from doing some bad things.
The underlying problem is not "the owners of large companies have too much money", it's "large companies are too large". If you take ownership of the company away from Jeff Bezos and give it to Wall St, whoever they make the CEO can still ruin your life by denying service to you etc. It solves nothing and plausibly makes the problem worse because founders generally run companies less extractively than MBAs.
What you need is to remove barriers to competition and enforce antitrust laws.
You have what I refer to as “root cause syndrome”. It happens a lot to engineers and tech adjacent people.
You see a problem and you refuse to fix it, and instead look for a root cause that should be addressed instead, that will then fix the problem itself.
The problem with that kind of thinking is that that’s not how the real world works. The problem of homelessness is that people don’t have homes. It’s not something else. Give people homes and you solve it. But people with RCS try to solve it through jobs, training, education, etc. All those things are nice but they won’t fix the problem, which is that people are homeless.
Likewise, the problem of wealth inequality can only be solved by reducing wealth inequality. There is no other solution. Just tax rich people until they’re not rich anymore.
> The problem of homelessness is that people don’t have homes. It’s not something else. Give people homes and you solve it.
Have you considered how this is supposed to work? If being homeless means you get a free home, millions of people would purposely become "homeless" so they could eliminate their housing costs. Also, homes are quite expensive, especially in areas with high homelessness, so where does the money come from?
Meanwhile one of the primary actual causes of homelessness is zoning that prevents new housing from being built, causing people to be unable to afford it. If you just have the government buy up existing housing stock for the homeless, the scarcity is not resolved at all, you just cause new people to become homeless because you remove the housing they'd have bought from the market.
To actually solve it you can't just do the naive "have the government pay for it" thing, you have to understand the root cause, which is that you have to not just give housing to the homeless but build new housing across the overall market so it isn't in undersupply.
> Likewise, the problem of wealth inequality can only be solved by reducing wealth inequality. There is no other solution. Just tax rich people until they’re not rich anymore.
This is exactly the same level of not thinking it through. Mark Zuckerberg has billions and it gives him control over Facebook. But if you take his money and leave Facebook, someone will still be the CEO and that person will still have all of that power. The problem is not the money, it's the size of the company.
I get what you’re saying, but it really comes down to just addressing the problem directly.
Homelessness crisis -> provide housing for all -> not enough supply? build more -> can’t build because of zoning? fix the zoning -> etc
It’s the same thing with wealth inequality. Tax him until his wealth isn’t that unequal. If you then decide that the CEO of facebook has too much power you can break up Facebook, but that’s a separate issue.
> You have what I refer to as “root cause syndrome”.
This is an ad hominem fallacy/attack. Instead of discussing the actual argument, you instead attack the person making it.
> Likewise, the problem of wealth inequality can only be solved by reducing wealth inequality.
This is an opinion, completely non-factual and unjustified by any reasoning. And, the only possible underlying belief from this paragraph is "some people having more wealth is intrinsically bad" - completely separate from the negative societal effects of that wealth, and from any moral framework that even allows you to describe "bad". You just believe that it's bad.
If you took it as an insult that’s on you. I just stated a fact.
Like the fact that wealth inequality is bad, and we know that it’s bad. It’s just a fact, and if you want to ignore the facts because your opinion doesn’t agree why them that’s ok, but it doesn’t make it any less true.
> If you took it as an insult that’s on you. I just stated a fact.
This is factually and objectively wrong, in multiple ways.
First, don't understand the difference between "an insult" and an ad-hominem attack. An ad-hominem is a logical fallacy where you attack the character of a person making an argument, rather than addressing the argument itself. Whether or not it is insulting is completely irrelevant - they're orthogonal axes, and the fact that you conflated them means that you don't know what they are.
Second, you did not state a fact, you expressed an opinion. You can't read my mind, you don't even know me in person, and even if you did, there's no objective test for “root cause syndrome”, which, as you said, is a term that you have invented yourself. (your statement "Likewise, the problem of wealth inequality can only be solved by reducing wealth inequality." is also an opinion that is not a fact) You don't even know the difference between an opinion and a fact. You should stop claiming that your opinions are facts, and learn the difference.
> Like the fact that wealth inequality is bad, and we know that it’s bad.
Provide a citation for the fact that wealth inequality is bad. If it's factual, it should be easy for you to provide a study that proves that it's bad by establishing a causal link between them, and doesn't merely express a correlation. (prediction: you won't, because I've never seen any evidence ever cited despite having read hundreds of comments expressing opinions like yours)
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
Accusing others of astroturfing doesn't help the quality of HN, or your case against the poster. Please respond in a chill manner. Use the downvote and flag buttons if people are breaking the HN guidelines.
this is so weird because astroturfing is real, extremely prevalent, and people have pointed put “russian bots” on HNany times without being flagged or deleted. such a weird tging that you cant point it out
Yes, astroturfing is real - however, you do not know how prevalent it is, or which comments are it. You don't have access to the internal server logs that dang does. You don't know whether someone is astroturfing or just really invested in an ideology. And it's against the guidelines to point out.
> people have pointed put “russian bots” on HNany times without being flagged or deleted
Because dang didn't see those comments and they weren't flagged by other users. If you see what you think is astroturfing, or dishonest/manipulative/HN-guideline-breaking comments (like those above), downvote and flag it, and if you want to respond, don't accuse the user of astroturfing, but actually respond to their points. If the people on the other end are really FSB officers or whatever, you literally waste their time and money, and divert their resources from other things they could be doing (e.g. the war in Ukraine). Accusing someone of astroturfing isn't just against the guidelines, it's counterproductive!
Imagine if you saw someone who ate so much food they weighed 10,000 pounds.
I come over and tell you, “this isn’t healthy! Nobody should weigh 10,000 pounds, we weren’t designed to exist that way!”
You come back to me and tell me that I’m making an emotional argument that isn’t backed up by facts.
But, the problem with that is that this is common sense, and it’s even backed by a bunch of science and observed reality. Someone who weighs 10,000 pounds basically can’t exist, and if they did it would be so ridiculous it’s almost incomprehensible.
I think it actually should be on you and not me to prove that people owning that much wealth is something that should be considered to be okay, not the other way around. You counter my “emotional pleading” with your own emotional “nuh uh, you are wrong” argument.
Who do you know that has over $100 million in net worth that you feel would be hurt by a proposal to tax unearned gains on people with $100 million net worth and above? I don’t know anyone like that. What I do know is that I would personally benefit from my government having more income to fix potholes and pay teacher salaries.
And that’s the other double standard: when the wealthy people advocate for policy that hurts the majority like tax cuts for the wealthy, they are seen as smart businessmen. But as soon as I advocate for something that hurts the wealthy, I’m being emotional and unreasonable.
Sorry dude, I’m just advocating for what’s in my best interest. It’s in my best interest as an average person who isn’t a billionaire or millionaire for these wealthy people to not exist. They’ve done nothing positive for me and everything negative. Every penny or nickel or dime that goes to their extravagant pay package is a penny or nickel that could have gone back to me, their customer. It would be better for me if my company CEO made $200,000 a year instead of $20,000,000 a year. That could at least buy us a solid pizza patty.
No, I won't. This is a logical fallacy, that of the false allegory. It's not an argument in general, and in this particular case it's an extremely bad allegory that's also trivially inapplicable to this situation. There's plenty of scientific evidence that being physically overweight is directly unhealthy for you. Meanwhile, there's zero evidence that having a lot of money is the sole cause of any negative societal phenomenon. Think I'm wrong? Drop a link right here. Correlation isn't causal, by the way - if you show me a study that merely demonstrates correlation without causality (and sole causality, as opposed to multiple factors), then it's invalid.
> You come back to me and tell me that I’m making an emotional argument that isn’t backed up by facts.
In the case of your actual comments (as opposed to this irrelevant story you're spinning), this is true, because you are repeatedly making emotional non-arguments without providing any facts whatsoever: "very serious argument", "somewhat insulting", "abhorrent misappropriation", "societal mistake", "multiple THOUSANDS of $100 million dollars in net worth", "completely insane $100 million figure", etc. These are purely manipulative, emotional, non-arguments that are meritless and valueless, and are a symptom of someone actively trying to manipulate others. Repeatedly pointing out how much money someone has is not a valid argument.
You're inventing a completely fictional, irrelevant world because you're unwilling to or incapable of either providing a single rational argument, or a single piece of evidence.
> I think it actually should be on you and not me to prove that people owning that much wealth is something that should be considered to be okay
Over a hundred million people in the US, where I live, disagree with you. I have nothing to prove, because it's an extremely popular belief that it's ok to be rich.
Additionally, you have it exactly backwards: in almost every country in the world (and especially the US), things are assumed to be OK to do unless people explicitly decide otherwise. You can invent a new sport, make a new game, write a new book, and do whatever, and that's OK unless it violates established laws, or people decide that your specific thing is bad. This idea of "things are bad to do by default unless you prove otherwise" is completely hypocritical, because you have absolutely done novel things in your life that nobody else has done before, and felt not a shred of guilt, because you do not hold the internal belief that your actions are bad by default unless you explicitly justify them to others.
> You counter my “emotional pleading” with your own emotional “nuh uh, you are wrong” argument.
False. I've made extremely rational and detached counter-arguments to your fallacies. You are the one making objectively emotionally pleading statements like "very serious argument", "somewhat insulting", "abhorrent misappropriation", "societal mistake", "multiple THOUSANDS of $100 million dollars in net worth", "completely insane $100 million figure", and fallacies like the false allegory, the appeal to pity, and the red herring. I've pointed out your fallacies - you've continued to make more of them. You've shown that you don't even know the difference between arguments and emotional pleading.
> And that’s the other double standard: when the wealthy people advocate for policy that hurts the majority like tax cuts for the wealthy, they are seen as smart businessmen. But as soon as I advocate for something that hurts the wealthy, I’m being emotional and unreasonable.
This is a red herring. Nobody else brought up this double standard, nor did I mention it, nor is it relevant to this argument. It's just another way for you to emotionally manipulate.
> Sorry dude, I’m just advocating for what’s in my best interest
This can be used to justify every single kind of evil. Someone can make this argument to justify why they can murder, rape, steal, lie, and cheat, and it works exactly the same way, because they're just doing "what's in their best interest".
Your comments demonstrate an inability to differentiate between opinions and facts, and between emotions and logic. You should stop confidently conflating those things.
Here’s an article from the
council on foreign relations that talks about how inequality is a drag on the economy and fuels populist authoritarian movements,:
Here’s a Saint Louis Federal Reserve article which doesn’t necessarily prove that wealth inequality is bad, but helps to detail how wealth inequality has grown along the lines of education and generation (so you might need to explain how “the younger generation is more poor than previous generations at their age” is good for the economy): https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/august/wealth-ine...
Let me know when you’ll be dropping your links that say that wealth inequality is totally cool and awesome.
I think you need to stop debating people by attacking their logic and reasoning abilities just because they disagree with you. I mean, one of your points was that 100 million people agree with you that being rich is okay. Well, that’s an opinion that 100 million people hold, right? There are more than 100 million Christian’s and over 100 million Muslims, but they can’t both be right.
Literally every link you posted is correlation, not causation, which I already pointed out is fallacious before you sent those links:
>> Correlation isn't causal, by the way - if you show me a study that merely demonstrates correlation without causality (and sole causality, as opposed to multiple factors), then it's invalid.
So, you still have provided exactly zero evidence for your claims.
> Let me know when you’ll be dropping your links from reputable institutions that say that wealth inequality is totally cool and awesome.
This is a strawman fallacy - I never claimed that wealth inequality was "totally cool and awesome". My point is that it's a correlation without a causation, and that wealth inequality is not the causing factor. It's still up to you to provide evidence for your claims.
> I think you need to get over yourself and stop debating people by attacking their logic and reasoning abilities just because they disagree with you.
You need to learn how to actually use logic and reasoning. Almost every single thing that you've said in this entire thread has been emotionally manipulative and fallacious. You're not merely "disagreeing" with me, you're making invalid points to justify something morally dubious - it's entirely reasonable for me to point out those fallacies and that emotional manipulation.
Also, literally the definition of a "debate" is to use logical arguments to argue for a point. You cannot have a "debate" with out logic.
It's also extremely ironic that your last statement is yet another emotional plea, because you can't justify your positions with logic or evidence.
I honestly suggest spending some time to think about why you're unable to justify your positions and beliefs with logic. Usually, that means that they're either purely driven by emotion, or logically inconsistent with each other - neither of which are good for either you, the people around you, or society as a whole.
If yes to both, then the centralization of money is bad.
You have no argument against this. The best you can do is to attempt to refute the notion that money is tantamount to power, which will be laughable. But please do try.
Expropriation of wealth from the rich just centralises it more by giving it to the government (and in particular whoever is in charge of the government), as happened with every single communist revolution.
The government controls the supply of money, they don’t need anyone’s money they already have complete monetary power.
Taxes don’t fund the government. All of the money the government collects via taxes is written off in a spreadsheet and disappears. The government then creates money, however much money it wants to, in order to fund its activities.
No? We aren't a communist country, so bringing up communist revolutions is irrelevant here.
We used to tax the rich much more than we do now, and government bureaucrats were not obscenely wealthy then as you seem to be implying.
Also, the US government spends more money than it accrues every year, so there isn't any consolidation of money happening in the government (nor will there be if taxes go up).
> We used to tax the rich much more than we do now, and government bureaucrats were not obscenely wealthy then as you seem to be implying.
This is inaccurate. We used to have higher tax rates on paper but nobody actually paid them because the tax code of the time had many enormous loopholes that have since been closed, which happened at the same time as the rates were lowered. Real government revenue per capita has been increasing over time.
It's not inaccurate. While it is true that they didn't pay the rates on paper, their effective rate was still significantly higher than it is today (even with all the loopholes).
GDP is the aggregate of everyone's income, but the highest income earners have a disproportionate share by definition. The lowest tax brackets have never represented a large proportion of government revenue; they both pay lower effective rates and have less income. It's a decent proxy unless you expect that the tax rates paid by the upper middle class (e.g. the top 50% as opposed to the top 1%) have gotten dramatically out of proportion from what they used to be, but that isn't what happened.
You can find the raw data here though (Tables II: distributional series, you're looking for tab TG2b): http://gabriel-zucman.eu/usdina/
And then you can see that the highest effective income tax rate ever paid by the top 1% was 23.4% in 2001. The most current number from that table was 2019 when it was 20.3%. Whereas the highest rate from the mid-20th century period when they were alleged to have been paying such high income tax rates was 21% in 1945. In 1953, when the US had its highest marginal tax rates (92%), the effective income tax rate on the top 1% was 14%. Which is more typical for the period; 1945 was an outlier, it being the height of WWII.
The thing that has actually come down is not effective income tax rates on the top 1%, it's corporate income tax, which is a consequence of globalization. "Corporate income tax" is not a good fit for an international supply chain because tax avoidance and jurisdiction shopping is too easy if you're trying to tax something that only exists in a spreadsheet ("corporate profit") instead of something that has a definable physical location (goods, workers, real estate, etc.) So corporate tax avoidance is higher (because of transfer pricing etc.) and corporate rates are lower because it's easier for corporations to set up shop somewhere else if the somewhere else is taxing them less, which puts tax jurisdictions in competition with each other. But that's not an easy one to fix without abandoning globalization, so other taxes got raised to compensate (which brings us back to, government receipts as a percent of GDP haven't really changed).
Thank you for clarifying and providing that source, it's very informative.
The numbers I was looking at before were referring to the overall tax rate, which included both income tax and corporate taxes. With that said, the overall tax rate for the top 1% has gone down significantly since 1950 (from 45ish percent down to 32ish percent). As you mentioned, that is mainly due to the lower corporate income tax rate.
Given that drop in the overall tax rate (along with rising income inequality and increasing debt spending), it seems clear to me that the income tax rate was not raised enough to compensate for that loss but that's a separate discussion.
All this to say that - my original point that the rich were effectively taxed higher back then still stands, and government bureaucrats were not getting rich off of the higher tax rates either (that was a response to the person I originally replied to, not you)
> The numbers I was looking at before were referring to the overall tax rate, which included both income tax and corporate taxes.
Including corporate taxes in the overall rate doesn't make a lot of sense to do. Corporate taxes are on a different entity and who really pays them depends on the nature of the business.
For example, there are a lot of businesses that are simply capital intensive. You need to make a large investment in order to operate. Nobody is going to invest in them unless the returns can beat alternative investments like bonds, but that will be the after tax returns in both cases. Bond interest and dividends are both taxed, but corporate income tax is an additional tax, so with higher corporate taxes every company in that industry would have to generate higher profits to attract investors. So higher corporate taxes drive mergers/dissolutions, the market consolidates to give incumbents more market power and the tax mostly ends up getting paid by customers or employees rather than investors.
Conversely, if the market is already consolidated, it might mostly get paid by investors. But it also acts as a force to keep the market consolidated for the same reasons, which is not super great.
The point being, you can't just assume corporate taxes are always paid by the rich or the owners of the company.
> Given that drop in the overall tax rate (along with rising income inequality and increasing debt spending), it seems clear to me that the income tax rate was not raised enough to compensate for that loss but that's a separate discussion.
Income inequality has very little to do with tax rates -- it's often measured on the basis of pre-tax income, and has increased significantly even using that metric, largely as a result of market consolidation and regulatory capture. Incumbents that capture government regulators and exclude competitors become megacorps and then their executives and owners extract disproportionate income. Taxes rates have little to do with it.
The increased deficit spending is because the government is spending more money. Federal receipts as a percent of GDP are around the same, federal spending as a percent of GDP has gone up.
> government bureaucrats were not getting rich off of the higher tax rates either
But there weren't higher tax rates -- and the real measure of what there is to get rich off of would be government receipts, if not expenditures. Receipts are flat as a percent of GDP, but up quite a lot in real dollars and real dollars per capita as a result of growth in population and real GDP per capita. Spending is up even on top of that because of deficit spending. So the time they'd be getting rich isn't back then, it's right now.
Which they are. Of course, "they" are Lockheed and healthcare companies and members of Congress, but there's little doubt that it's happening.
> The point being, you can't just assume corporate taxes are always paid by the rich or the owners of the company.
I was just pulling the numbers off of the source you gave. I'm not sure what methodology they used to compute those numbers.
> Income inequality has very little to do with tax rates
Sorry, I meant wealth inequality. I agree with you that the wealth/income inequality we're seeing is mostly driven by the actual incomes of the rich vastly outpacing the middle/lower classes - what I meant is that a higher progressive tax rate should be deployed in order to help correct that problem.
> The increased deficit spending is because the government is spending more money
Yes, I'm aware. Again what I meant is that if we're going to continue to spend at the levels we are, and wealth inequality continues to grow at the rate it has, then it makes sense to increase the tax rate on the highest brackets.
> But there weren't higher tax rates --
There were though - according to your source.
> So the time they'd be getting rich isn't back then, it's right now
No argument there - but again my point is that they aren't getting rich from increased government taxes, they are getting rich by lobbying/regulatory capture.
> I was just pulling the numbers off of the source you gave. I'm not sure what methodology they used to compute those numbers.
It's Piketty/Saez/Zucman. They did a lot of work to compile the data but they have a particular conclusion they're trying to support, so the data is probably accurate but they're organizing it in a way that supports their position.
> I agree with you that the wealth/income inequality we're seeing is mostly driven by the actual incomes of the rich vastly outpacing the middle/lower classes - what I meant is that a higher progressive tax rate should be deployed in order to help correct that problem.
I don't think that really fixes it because it isn't the underlying cause. The problem here is market consolidation, e.g. Facebook is too big. So Zuckerberg has "billions of dollars" but in fact the vast majority of that money is in shares of that one company and what he really has is control over an enormous and disproportionately powerful corporation. Which is a problem, but taxes don't solve it, because the corporation is still just as big even if nobody has a controlling interest. Wall St would still put someone in charge of it and that person would still have massively disproportionate influence.
Whereas if you do something about the market consolidation then individual corporations don't come to be that size and their owners/executives don't come to have that much influence or money. So higher tax rates neither solve the problem nor are necessary if you do solve it.
> Again what I meant is that if we're going to continue to spend at the levels we are, and wealth inequality continues to grow at the rate it has, then it makes sense to increase the tax rate on the highest brackets.
The current level of spending is pretty useless. Indeed, it's actually one of the causes of the problem -- a lot of the money is going to the megacorps. It's probably better to stop giving it to them to begin with.
> There were though - according to your source.
On corporations, not rich people.
> No argument there - but again my point is that they aren't getting rich from increased government taxes, they are getting rich by lobbying/regulatory capture.
The thing they're lobbying for is the tax dollars. Lockheed and healthcare companies are getting rich from tax money. And the same for Congress, though the mechanism there is less direct. They allocate tax dollars to corporations that then funnel a portion of it back to the legislators in various ways.
By the philosophy under which the human right to property is defined, someone has just as much right to own a billion dollars without it being stolen as they do to have ten dollars.
>It's an abhorrent misappropriation of human resources
It's not a misappropriation; for a company founder, they _created_ those resources. Without them, the resource wouldn't exist. And if you punish them a lot, such people will all go somewhere else, and then you'll have no businesses or jobs and everyone's standard of living will be worse. This has been demonstrated historically countless times, every single case of the government mass-appropriating the wealth of the wealth led to extreme poverty; Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia.
>Wealth and income inequality has well-studied negative effects on society.
Negative as defined by some left-leaning social scientists. Conversely, punitive taxation has been overwhelmingly shown by economists to lead to reduced growth in people's standard of living as measured by income and GDP.
> It's not a misappropriation; for a company founder, they _created_ those resources
Created, or taken the fruits of others’ labor? Obviously, no Amazon-sized company is the work of a single person. Was the pharaoh, sitting in luxury, more responsible for the creation of the pyramid as the architect or the common slave building it?
Its more a question of if the best way to allocate our resources is to allow the bulk of the population to struggle while a lucky few have more money than they could reasonably spend on themselves in several lifetimes.
> Its more a question of if the best way to allocate our resources is to allow the bulk of the population to struggle while a lucky few have more money than they could reasonably spend on themselves in several lifetimes.
This is emotional pleading, dishonest framing, and a false dichotomy. Are you going to make a real argument, or continue to engage in emotional manipulation?
This is emotional pleading, not a serious argument of any sort, based on the core premise of "this person has more money than me, and I don't like that, therefore I should get some".