patrick.net

just_passing_through says

It's not like they've been doing nice things with the money have they.

They're using it to control politicians.

just_passing_through says

So long as it's temporary (sunset written into the bill) and only goes after the uber rich like bezos I'm okay with it.

Keep dreaming!

zzyzzx says

Keep dreaming!

LOL

Misc says

the government gets nothing.

Good.

If you have any doubt that the government collected death tax (estate tax) from the rich, look at Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

The only reason they are being so charitable is that they know that the government will take a lot of it when they die; so, they spend their money on things they prefer.

Gates for some reason is focused on outside the USA.

Liechtenstein taxes: low income tax, no real estate tax as such, but you are taxed on 4% of your assets every year. Bezos pays zirself 80K salary but owns 160 bn in assets.
In Liechtenstein, he would have to pay income taxes on 6.4 bn + 80K...in US ze is realistically taxed on 80 K salary as company profits are well-hidden.

WineHorror1 says

Patrick says

Another way to look at it is that wealth is control over labor.

Correct. Money is a claim on resources and labor is a resource.

I would go further and say that at a more abstract level, money is always a claim on labor.

When you buy a good, you're buying the labor used to transform land into that good.

When you buy land itself, you're buying the services of the courts and armed men to kick and keep all people other than yourself off of that land.

The 655 (or any number less than 100,000) are mostly products of government policies. For example, the Bezos' company could grow (or even survive) for decades while losing money on every shipment because of low interest and targeted funding; Gates got his start (and continue to collect most of his company's revenue) because his mother sitting on the IBM board of directors negotiated a sweet-heart deal for him: the OS monopoly, relying on ridiculously strong "privatization" of what is essentially a public utility under the name of "IP." Both companies (and most of the other rock-star high tech companies that produced young billionaires) are In-Q-Tel fronts, and In-Q-Tel itself is a front/conduit.

Those 655 visible ultra high networth individuals are actually the more market oriented (although manipulated market) components of the ultra wealthy. There are at least 6,550 or at least 65,500 UHNWI out there in the world who pile up billions of dollars in their basements (on top of ownership of assets above ground either in corporations or in real estate, often via front-men) that are government officials arbitraging their power of corruption.

The 100,000th to the 10,000,000th are more likely to see actual self-made entrepreneurs, and they are the competitors to the top 100,000 in hiring labor. Without the 100,000th to the 10,000,000th, the labor / masses would have nobody to sell their labor to except to the top 100,000 who are essentially feudal lords. Guess on whose shoulders any wealth tax would fall? The 100,000th to the 10,000,000th . . . and where would the tax revenue go? into the hands of the top 100,000th who are mostly corrupt government officials and their lackeys.

BTW, aside from the arbitraging/monetization of political power, the second biggest reason to wealth disparity is the artificially low interest rate. An average residential home in the top cities can be worth over a million dollars and a portfolio of companies that lose money can be worth anything are largely the results of the artificially low interest rate.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and etc. are not being charitable when they donate to their own "charities." Many of the characters are front-men for holding money for what is essentially a political cartel. Why do you think Warren Buffet was allowed to buy WashingtonPost in the 1970's? Why do you think Bezos is allowed to take the baton from Warren Buffet?

Liechtenstein's high property tax rate only works in a tiny country that only tax the property in that country, not the global wealth of any individual. It's better to think of Liechtenstein as a town that collects property tax on not only houses but also bank account balances (at in-town banks only). It can work only because it is a playground for the ultra wealthy, a little like some gambling cities and tropical islands.

Reality says

The 655 (or any number less than 100,000) are mostly products of government policies. For example, the Bezos' company could grow (or even survive) for decades on losing money on every shipment because of low interest and targeted funding; Gates got his start (and continue to collect most of his company's revenue) because his money sitting on the IBM board of directors negotiated a sweet-heart deal for him: the OS monopoly, relying on ridiculously strong "privatization" of what is essentially a public utility under the name of "IP." Both companies (and most of the other rock-star high tech companies that produced young billionaires) are In-Q-Tel fronts, and In-Q-Tel itself is a front/conduit.

Those 655 visible ultra high networth individuals are actually the more market oriented (although manipulated market) components of the ultra wealthy. There are at least 6,550 or at least 65,500 UHNWI out there in the world who pile up billions of dollars in their basements (on top of owner...

Agreed with most except for the wealth-tax benefiting the most corrupt. You can make that argument for any tax and thus abolish all taxes. You would never get to pay for anything collective. So make it a fee or a special tax tied to specific payments / uses such as outstanding budget debt and only if a balanced budget is passed subsequently. You need practical solutions once you got where we're at now. Not all legislation is bad and will be 100% misused. Keep it clear and simple with fewest words possible.

Reality says

The 655 (or any number less than 100,000) are mostly products of government policies. For example, the Bezos' company could grow (or even survive) for decades on losing money on every shipment because of low interest and targeted funding; Gates got his start (and continue to collect most of his company's revenue) because his money sitting on the IBM board of directors negotiated a sweet-heart deal for him: the OS monopoly, relying on ridiculously strong "privatization" of what is essentially a public utility under the name of "IP." Both companies (and most of the other rock-star high tech companies that produced young billionaires) are In-Q-Tel fronts.

Those 655 visible ultra high networth individuals are actually the more market oriented (although manipulated market) components of the ultra wealthy. There are at least 6,550 or at least 65,500 UHNWI out there in the world who pile up billions of dollars in their basements (on top of ownership of assets above ground either in co...

The one thing I never see anyone address (it seems) is the danger that extreme wealth/income inequality poses. What 1 thing do all third world countries share? Wealth inequality. USA will become a shithole like every other country. Who wants a society that's nothing more than a shithole for 90% of the people?

WineHorror1 says

Reality says

The 655 (or any number less than 100,000) are mostly products of government policies. For example, the Bezos' company could grow (or even survive) for decades on losing money on every shipment because of low interest and targeted funding; Gates got his start (and continue to collect most of his company's revenue) because his money sitting on the IBM board of directors negotiated a sweet-heart deal for him: the OS monopoly, relying on ridiculously strong "privatization" of what is essentially a public utility under the name of "IP." Both companies (and most of the other rock-star high tech companies that produced young billionaires) are In-Q-Tel fronts.

Those 655 visible ultra high networth individuals are actually the more market oriented (although manipulated market) components of the ultra wealthy. There are at least 6,550 or at least 65,500 UHNWI out there in the world who pile up billions of...

Totally agreed. You can make the (valid) argument all day that those 90% are a product of unfair government and subsequent government teat or that they are "losers", welfare scammers (of which probably quite a few are), you need to stop the widening of the wealth gap and the widening imbalance of number of poor vs number of extremely wealthy. You will eventually end up a shit-hole country. Some inequality is totally fine but we're likely already way past that.

WineHorror1 says

What 1 thing do all third world countries share? Wealth inequality.

Not true. North Korea and Cuba have very low nominal wealth inequality. OTOH, Leichtenstein and Singapore have very high nominal wealth inequality. Hongkong had very high nominal wealth inequality half a decade ago, now getting lower after communist take-over showing its teeth. Venezuela used to have very high nominal wealth inequality 20+ years ago, now lower after the country going full socialist and turned what used to be the richest country in Latin America into a literal sh*thole of mass starvation.

Thirdworld sh*tholes are sh*tholes because there is a lack of competitive entrepreneurs/capitalists offering workers a better deal than government officials/monopolies do.

It's not the wealth gap that matters, it's the wealth floor.

Reality says

WineHorror1 says

What 1 thing do all third world countries share? Wealth inequality.

Not true. North Korea and Cuba have very low nominal wealth inequality. OTOH, Leichtenstein and Singapore have very high nominal wealth inequality. Hongkong had very high nominal wealth inequality half a decade ago, now getting lower. Venezuela used to have very high nominal wealth inequality 20+ years ago, now lower.

Thirdworld sh*tholes are sh*tholes because there is a lack of competitive entrepreneurs/capitalists offering workers a better deal than government officials/monopolies do.

FuckCCP89 says

It's not the wealth gap thst matters, it's the wealth floor.

Good points. I would argue though that Liechtenstein only has substantial inequality because it is home to very high net worth people and entities, but the wealth floor is pretty high. As for communist countries sure the majority is equally poor but the government and the connected are extremely rich compared to those poor.

mell says

As for communist countries sure the majority is equally poor but the government and the connected are extremely rich compared to those poor.

That's exactly what a government carrying out any "leveling" would always accomplish. Power inequality is the real issue; "wealth inequality" is ironically a criticism of the more market/transparent aspect of power inequality.

mell says

need practical solutions once you got where we're at now.

The practical solution is reducing monopoly. Now that the big tech monopolies have shown all the dictators of the world that each country has to have their own social networks for regime stability / survival, there is no longer any national security reason to promote those monopolies for world domination. Time to break them up or let competitors rise, and the existing monopolies will drop in value like MySpace and Yahoo, thereby reducing "wealth disparity" in a benign way. It's the same as: when rent is too high, instead of government rent control, relaxing zoning restriction and/or letting new transportation technology improve would bring down rent much more quickly and fairly, with less perverse "unintended consequences."

People don't like paying taxes , specially rich who control politicians.

KgK one says

People don't like paying taxes , specially rich who control politicians.

The ultra rich love raising taxes (both Buffet and Gates promoted raising taxes for decades) . . . because the tax burden would fall on the middle class and those who do not control politicians, whereas the tax revenue through government spending would go to the ultra rich's monopolistic holdings.

Reality says

WineHorror1 says

What 1 thing do all third world countries share? Wealth inequality.

Not true. North Korea and Cuba have very low nominal wealth inequality. OTOH, Leichtenstein and Singapore have very high nominal wealth inequality. Hongkong had very high nominal wealth inequality half a decade ago, now getting lower after communist take-over showing its teeth. Venezuela used to have very high nominal wealth inequality 20+ years ago, now lower after the country going full socialist and turned what used to be the richest country in Latin America into a literal sh*thole of mass starvation.

Thirdworld sh*tholes are sh*tholes because there is a lack of competitive entrepreneurs/capitalists offering workers a better deal than government officials/monopolies do.

I think it is a mix...socialism is ascendant when wealth/income inequality becomes extreme. People will vote for it because they see no other way.

Reality says

most of the other rock-star high tech companies that produced young billionaires) are In-Q-Tel fronts, and In-Q-Tel itself is a front/conduit.

You mean Zuck is not a genius?

What about Musk? He seems pretty smart.

If I was a mega BillionaireFuck and it sounded like a heavy wealth tax would be imposed on wealth over X dollars, I would probably just spend more of my money each yr so as to keep myself under the limit.

If the wealth tax was gradual / progressive, so that it was a small %, and as your wealth grows, the % got larger, for example like:
1% per yr for wealth over 10M
2% over 100M
3% over 1B
etc...

then this might dissuade them from spending their money to avoid a limit, because its gradual. But if they did something like
3% over 1B, but no wealth tax for wealth under 1B
I think it would encourage limit-dancers. They would just focus on reducing capital, while increasing income via reinvestment and spending schemes.

The structure of businesses would change to cater to this high-income but low-capital form.

If the goal is to prevent society from having people who have too much power and influence due to their financial prowess, they probably need both a wealth tax (to prevent excess capital accumulation) and a progressive income tax (to prevent low capital but high income, from immediately using their money to buy influence).

And if you do both of those taxes, I think you'll then see a rise in entities where multiple people each own a share of the wealth so as to avoid tax limits, banding together to increase their power.

Reality says

KgK one says

People don't like paying taxes , specially rich who control politicians.

The ultra rich love raising taxes (both Buffet and Gates promoted raising taxes for decades) . . . because the tax burden would fall on the middle class and those who do not control politicians, whereas the tax revenue through government spending would go to the ultra rich's monopolistic holdings.

Yeah but they advocate for raising income taxes mostly, not wealth or gains taxes. Because most hardly earn any income but have massive wealth and gains.

WineHorror1 says

I think it is a mix...socialism is ascendant when wealth/income inequality becomes extreme. People will vote for it because they see no other way.

Socialism is ascendant when schools churn out an over-supply of students whose job prospects in the market place can not keep up with the expectations that had been built up when they were in school. The unemployable/dissapointed former students are the perfect dupes who have little real life experience in give-and-take that is normal in a competitive market place but have been conditioned to believe and follow whatever the teacher/leader says.

It was not a coincidence that Ancient Greek Liberty (city states of limited power, including Athenian Democracy) came to an end within two generations of the founding of Plato's Academy. Aristotle was Plato's student, and Alexander was Aristotle's student.

And all their money is locked up in charities so they will never pay a penny in taxes.

mell says

The ultra rich love raising taxes (both Buffet and Gates promoted raising taxes for decades) . . . because the tax burden would fall on the middle class and those who do not control politicians, whereas the tax revenue through government spending would go to the ultra rich's monopolistic holdings.

Yeah but they advocate for raising income taxes mostly, not wealth or gains taxes. Because most hardly earn any income but have massive wealth and gains.

Correct. The ultra rich who control the government have always been the ones advocating raising taxes, including the agenda on what type of taxes to raise. OTOH, do you believe government bureaucrats would be better at managing productive capital instead of distributed/diverse/competitive individual ownership? Seems to me, those who believe that are literally socialists, and have proven over 100+ years that bureaucratic managers can not replace risk-taking entrepreneurs if we are to have any economy that is not so backwards that copying technologies already discovered in a more advanced economy would produce improvement.

Onvacation says

Reality says

most of the other rock-star high tech companies that produced young billionaires) are In-Q-Tel fronts, and In-Q-Tel itself is a front/conduit.

You mean Zuck is not a genius?

What about Musk? He seems pretty smart.

Hahaha. What do you think of Elizabeth Holmes? The residue freedom of expression/information did her in half a decade ago. With today's restrictions on truth in media, Holmes might still be a high-flying star. She was born too early by about 5 years.

You either want EQUALITY or FREEDOM.....pick your poison because you can't have both.

Reality says

Hahaha. What do you think of Elizabeth Holmes? The residue freedom of expression/information did her in half a decade ago. With today's restrictions on truth in media, Holmes might still be a high-flying star. She was born too early by about 5 years.

She never delivered anything and, from accounts of actual people involved in R&D there, was not going to deliver. Not anywhere near Musk by any stretch of imagination.

Good or bad that this home ended up in government's hands? Why did it end up in government's hands? Would we be better off if the powerful trusts had never been broken up by TR?

GlocknLoad says

this home ended up in government's hands? Why did it end up in government's hands?

Because it's a money pit.

Eric Holder says

She never delivered anything and, from accounts of actual people involved in R&D there, was not going to deliver. Not anywhere near Musk by any stretch of imagination.

Musk has created a commercially viable reusable rocket with mostly his own money. He has profitable launches that don't depend on government subsidies anywhere to the degree his competitors do, and has more launches than most countries including China. His launch costs are so cheap he's made the R-7/Soyuz, an ancient and reliable and comparatively dirt cheap rocket family, obsolete. Arianespace and ULA are totally non-competitive without lots of Pork Aid from the EU and Uniparty.

All of his industry competitors are subsidized from top to bottom AND often don't deliver at all (SLS aka Aries aka SDHLV in Development Hell for 30 years based on a 1970s design that is already retired, the Shuttle with taxpayers flushing 10s of billions down the toilet for vaporware) and have 300-500% higher costs.

I don't follow Tesla or Boring, but SpaceX is a successful enterprise.

NoCoupForYou says

Eric Holder says

She never delivered anything and, from accounts of actual people involved in R&D there, was not going to deliver. Not anywhere near Musk by any stretch of imagination.

Musk has created a commercially viable reusable rocket with mostly his own money. He has profitable launches that don't depend on government subsidies anywhere to the degree his competitors do, and has more launches than most countries including China. His launch costs are so cheap he's made the R-7/Soyuz, an ancient and reliable and comparatively dirt cheap rocket family, obsolete. Arianespace and ULA are totally non-competitive without lots of Pork Aid from the EU and Uniparty.

All of his industry competitors are subsidized from top to bottom AND often don't deliver at all (SLS aka Aries aka SDHLV in Development Hell for 30 years based on a 1970s design that is already retired, the ...

If I remember correctly, Musk got a ton of tax subsidies.

WineHorror1 says

If I remember correctly, Musk got a ton of tax subsidies.

Nothing on the order of ULA in the USA or Arianespace in the EU, however. Any profit seeking company is going to apply for free money they qualify for.

They've been working on the SDHLV since 1989 and haven't had a suborbital flight with a dummy payload in 30 years of it's various renamings. Even the F-35 is finally flying.

There are three interest groups in Spaceflight:

1. Contractors want modest goals that don't push much on existing technology with indeterminate timelines so they can gouge the taxpayer up the ass without risking failure.
2. Saganites want nothing but probes to Mars and beyond
3. Developers want to break ground and create cheap, reliable vehicles and programs to expand the reach of humans in space.

True. A lot of mansions like that are so expensive to maintain that the owners are willing to give them away.

You can buy castles for pretty reasonable prices all over Europe exactly because they are incredible money pits.

Is the Biltmore now owned by the government? I thought it's a private museum and the largest private home in the country; at least it was when I visited the place a few years ago. Did they lose it to the government during the plandemic due to the shutdown of tourism?

The Vanderbilt grandson lost the bulk of the family fortune as he focused on the construction of the estate instead of focusing on his business, then the automobile did the rest to the drug-dealing (opium trade) turned railroad family fortune . . . so the official story goes. The free market has its own way of disciplining the spendthrifts . . . then we get Anderson Cooper from that family to lie to us and lecture us everyday in the socialist America, so the official story seems to be missing that family's investment into politics, which is less susceptible to market discipline / social mobility.

Let's start with a wealth tax on crypto currency holdings.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Let's start with a wealth tax on crypto currency holdings.

Or just taxing it in general. Remember you've got 23 year olds throwing $1k at it. If they got lucky buying at $10k and sell at $40k, there's $3k of taxable income. 70-80% of Americans have no clue how to file taxes. There are 10's of thousands running around probably not paying a dime on any crypto gain. It's a good target to go after because investment in it produces nothing.

It's not like Boeing for example where they generally employ Americans, buy American aluminum, etc. Bitcoin is nothing. It's like trading cards, except with that there's at least a paper product you can recycle and you're not consuming copious amounts of electricity.

It should also be taxed upon purchase because it does nothing for the country, only those invested in it. It enriches a few whales and institutions. That's about it. It produces nothing of value for those not invested. Basically the only investment on that planet that is like that. It's a complete waste of resources that could be put to better use.

If you reside in the USA and are not 1. Blind 2. Paraplegic 3. Sick then you can easily have a few thousand dollars saved up.

If you don’t, you aren’t trying.

There’s a little Mexican market in Santa Cruz, CA. My visitor from Mexico went there and became friends with the cashier. The cashier is a Mexican here illegally for 16 years.
I remembered the cashier as being in the market every time I went.

Her goal was to buy a house and she had saved up $400,000.

Another one I know told me she was saving up “another $70,000” before she would go back down to Mexico and live in the house she had built there.

If having money is important to you and you live in the USA, you can usually acquire some.

WookieMan says

It's a good target to go after because investment in it produces nothing.

Very much like land.

Owning land produces nothing. It only excludes others from using that land productively.

This is why Henry George though that the only tax should be a land value tax. No income tax or sales tax.

I think he's still approximately correct. What we really need imho is a tax on "non-productive rent-seeking", a term I first heard in The Economist when my wife got me a subscription for a year. Have they been cucked yet? Do they enjoy watching people they love get fucked?

Patrick says

It only excludes others from using that land productively

Interesting to see who the biggest "excluders" are. Bill Gates is the largest holder of farm land.
https://nypost.com/2021/01/15/bill-gates-is-the-largest-farmland-owner-in-america-report/
https://www.landleader.com/sites/default/files/2018_LR100.pdf