Should billionaires be taxed out of existence?

[Dan_Cardone]

Billionaires would simply move and take their value, innovation, and jobs with them. Im sure other countires would love to have them.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Dan_Cardone]

Amazon and the goverment feeds and houses those workers because a lot of warehouse workers are paid too little to live on which is why they can claim means tested benefits.

So you need to either give credit to both or neither.

There are employers that voluntarily pay a living wage and your assertiom holds true for them(Amazon is not one)

Im not saying that amazon shouldn't pay their employees more money (nor am I saying they should) but I live in a place where Amazon warehouse employees are paid above the average for similar work from other employeers in the area. I have an distant cousin who works for them and always complains they don't pay him enough to live. Of course, him buying a bag a weed every week and new PS4 games all the time probably doesn't help.

My point? Some people really are underpaid and exploited but most "poor" people in America are poor because they have a bad mindset and even worse spending habits. Bezos could give his lowest paid employees a 20% raise and most of them would still complain because they would continue to waste their money.

 

[Xeon]

Billionaires hurt economic growth and should be taxed out of existence, says bestselling French economist

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Lol, I can't stand Piketty.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[daniel_m]

I mostly agree with everyone on this thread, but I feel like the top 10 or 15 guys in the Bezos stratosphere (50B+) should have some sort of obligation to do more - not necessarily tax wise.

Don't sit here and talk about buying Porsche's or whatnot; these guys literally can't spend their money in 20 lifetimes even if they live every day like a degenerate college student who just won the lottery.

I wouldn't want the feds to take their money, cause that won't help with anything. but I do think that they should contribute directly more, somehow. I know they already are, but I just personally feel like at a certain point, it gets kind of ridiculous.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[RazorCut]

I don't see a problem with that.

If you spend 5 years of your life developing a new drug, then why should anyone be able to tell you what you can and can't do with it?

The problem is you price it out of the hands of those that need it and people suffer and die. All down to unnecessary greed.

Also the guy spending 5 years of his life developing it is most likely an employee who would be much happier if the drug was available to all at a sensible price but that’s not his call as it’s way beyond his pay grade as he is a tiny cog in a multi-billion dollar corporation.

If you charge an exorbitant price, then no-one will buy it. If you charge a high price and people are prepared to pay it... I don't see a problem. If it really is that great a drug, private charities would probably subsidise it for special cases like they do for other healthcare expenses

So you don’t see a problem with only ‘special cases’ having access to life saving drugs? Well let’s hope no one you love is ever deemed less than special then shall we?

 

[Get Right]

Meh, I'd rather the billionaire allocate the money than any government.

 

[Tourmaline]

80/20 -> 64/4 -> 51.2/0.8

0.8% of people will own 51.2% of all wealth. It's just the laws of nature.

@SamRussell you saying "America is not a capitalist country." seems rather...odd. If it's not a capitalistic country then what is it? Surely you can't make a strong argument that it's a socialist country...

 

[advantagecp]

I read a relevant quote in Tim Ferris's 5-Bullet Friday:

Quote I’m pondering —
“To the economically illiterate, if some company makes a million dollars in profit, this means that their products cost a million dollars more than they would have cost without profits. It never occurs to such people that these products might cost several million dollars more to produce than if they were produced by enterprises operating without the incentives to be efficient created by the prospect of profits.”
— Thomas Sowell

Another thing I would add: Yeah, F*ck those billionaires. They got all that on the back of the common man. They don't need all that money anyway. Tax them to oblivion.

Then guess who is next? Millionaires. Hmm. That starts to get a little bit less comfortable, doesn't it?

 

[RazorCut]

Truly profiteering is only possible with government intervention.

In a free market, if a company increases prices, it makes competition more attractive. If they increase prices by a crazy amount, then they invite competition into the field.

Say a healthcare company increases prices by 10x, and they are the only healthcare company at the point in time. What you will see, is competition entering the market like mad. Prices would quickly come back down again.

In fact, price gouging is only really possible with help from the government.

If someone increased prices by XYZ, competition entering the field can only be prevented with the help of the government, e.g. "licencing", or a market distortion creating an artificial barrier to entry, such as taxes (hitting the bottom line twice, once from the taxes and a second time with the admin required).

If a monopoly has been created by lowering prices or creating a more efficient process, or a unique product, then the monopoly position has been earned, until someone comes up with a better method.

Agreed in a free market economy. However I was thinking more along the lines of patents on medicines. Then using that protection to charge exorbitant prices for these products. Way above the costs of research, production and sensible returns.

It's one of the reasons our health service is on its knees having pharmaceutical companies siphon off vast sums of money to line their coffers. But then I have an issue with profiteering from health care (as opposed to incorporating in a fair margin).

 

[Kevin88660]

That is why we non-native speakers speak and write in English, not French.

 

[Dominik_M]

The problem is you price it out of the hands of those that need it and people suffer and die. All down to unnecessary greed.

Also the guy spending 5 years of his life developing it is most likely an employee who would be much happier if the drug was available to all at a sensible price but that’s not his call as it’s way beyond his pay grade as he is a tiny cog in a multi-billion dollar corporation.



So you don’t see a problem with only ‘special cases’ having access to life saving drugs? Well let’s hope no one you love is ever deemed less than special then shall we?

Well, I have to be honest: I am not sure what's the best here. Propably something inbetween the two extremes.
Just as an example: Health care in Germany is mandatory. Not being in possession of a health insurance plan is a felony.
The result is that health care is cheap as f**k. You'll pay somewhere around 100-300€/mo for a family of 4.
Pretty sure the medical care is almost as good as in the U.S.
But you can feel the results if you need an appointment e.g. at a special surgeon. You're going to wait somewhere around 1-5 months for an appointment.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Ing]

Politics is not made for single persons. Its made for majorities. If you are in their loot schematic , than you are!
Either you are a biker with a loud bike or a millionaire with the 5 th Porsche!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[RazorCut]

This argument has no real basis and is succesfull by its ability to induce guilt.

I would say my argument has a solid basis and if your argument had any morality there would be no guilt associated with it. (And yes this whole discussion is based on moral standpoints; what is right, principled, proper etc. so you cannot remove morality from the equation).

Anyway, we can bat this back and forth 'till the cows come home, we are never going to agree, so lets move on.

See this as the end of my participation. No hard feelings.

 

[StrikingViper69]

I would say my argument has a solid basis and if your argument had any morality there would be no guilt associated with it. (And yes this whole discussion is based on moral standpoints; what is right, principled, proper etc. so you cannot remove morality from the equation).

Anyway, we can bat this back and forth 'till the cows come home, we are never going to agree, so lets move on.

See this as the end of my participation. No hard feelings.

None taken

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Joost11]

of course they should tax the hell out of billionaires, but before that we need a world government to tax the hell out of all the biggest companies.

No small man or company should be taxed unless they make more than 200k a year imo. Give some oportunities to individuals and small business so we still get to have a little bit of originality in this world before every place has turned into a F*cking McDonalds.

 

[ZF Lee]

Amazon has about 300,000 employees.

This was only possible due to Bezos starting the company and taking risks others weren't wiling to take.

Now, Amazon feeds and houses 300,000 families because of the value the company creates through its competitive advantage and hard work of their team.

That's a lot of social contribution if you ask me.

Beyond that, Bezos does donate to charity, but minimally so.

Why you may ask? Because by and large, charity is the 2nd worst allocation of capital (paying taxes is #1) you could possibly make.

Just look up the largest charitable organizations in the world. Very few actually give 20% or more to the actual cause. Most of the money ends up in the hands of administrators.

The best "charity" Bezos and others like him can provide is to continue to be economically productive hiring more employees and empowering more people to take care of themselves.

Haha...never know how they manhandle with the retained earnings.

Speaking of accounting, it’s one of the reasons why I am in favour of the social enterprise model.

You serve a social cause, but at the same time, public oversight and market demand (for your enterprise’s products) keep you in check.

Plus, valid social enterprises usually have to show their financial statements each quarter on their website. A quick look besides a simple ratio analysis would be able to tell what’s going on.

As for charities, I have never found any who display their figures eagerly, or they only put up select doctored figures on the slides at the annual dinner.

 

[LittleWolfie]

Do we have any example that taxing millionaires and billionaires
will bring "common good"?

Yes it is called a flat tax system,everyone pays the same percent of their income

Bulgaria has 10% make 20,000 selling your time for money? Pay 2,000. Divorce your time and sell productocracy for 1,000,000,000 pay 10,000,000.

Compare that to how apple has an effective tax rate of 3.5% while the little guy has what 40%?

The australian goverment proposed it and the opposition objected on the grounds they would be taxed too little!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GlobalWealth]

Amazon and the goverment feeds and houses those workers because a lot of warehouse workers are paid too little to live on which is why they can claim means tested benefits.

So you need to either give credit to both or neither.

There are employers that voluntarily pay a living wage and your assertiom holds true for them(Amazon is not one)

The average Amazon warehouse employee earns $13.50 per hour.

That is their pay because that is what the market bears. They deserve nothing more, or nothing less.

Amazon has no moral obligation to feed their families.

 

[StrikingViper69]

80/20 -> 64/4 -> 51.2/0.8

0.8% of people will own 51.2% of all wealth. It's just the laws of nature.

@SamRussell you saying "America is not a capitalist country." seems rather...odd. If it's not a capitalistic country then what is it? Surely you can't make a strong argument that it's a socialist country...

Like every other western country, it's a mixed economy. There are elements of a free market and elements of socialism.

A capitalist economy is one where there is 0 government involvement in the economy and individual rights are upheld (by the government, that's the only legitimate purpose of a government).

A socialist economy is one where property is privately held, but government directs its use (even the definition of socialism is contradictory).

You don't need to be full on USSR to have a socialist, or elements of, socialism in the economy.

The US, and every other Western country, we can have some private property, but government takes a cut and tells us what we can and can't do with it. Examples: Cars, education, healthcare, corporations; just about everything. Want to build an extension on your house? You better make sure the local pencil pusher gave you permission on what you can do with your property.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Tourmaline]

Like every other western country, it's a mixed economy. There are elements of a free market and elements of socialism.

A capitalist economy is one where there is 0 government involvement in the economy and individual rights are upheld (by the government, that's the only legitimate purpose of a government).

I appreciate your point of view. What you described here sounds like libertarian laissez-faire capitalism, radical free markets.

Rather, a capitalist economy is based on free enterprise, private property, and open markets. The USA has all of that. I can start a business for $5. I can start a corporation for $300. You cannot do this in a socialist country. The existence of government regulations does not make a capitalist economy not capitalist, and furthermore regulations are necessary for a capitalist economy to function well and fairly.

We do however have a touch of social programs which are socialistic. But the base of our Economy is Capitalist. A few of our social programs, like welfare and food stamps and disability, are socialist in spirit. They redistribute wealth from people that earned to people that did not directly earn it. However all the money that is earned to begin with is through a capitalist system of free enterprise, private property, and free markets.

A socialist economy is one where property is privately held, but government directs its use (even the definition of socialism is contradictory).

You don't need to be full on USSR to have a socialist, or elements of, socialism in the economy.

The US, and every other Western country, we can have some private property, but government takes a cut and tells us what we can and can't do with it. Examples: Cars, education, healthcare, corporations; just about everything. Want to build an extension on your house? You better make sure the local pencil pusher gave you permission on what you can do with your property.

A socialist economy will either have government owned enterprise, or it will have community owned enterprise. Outside of small pockets we have never seen community owned enterprise, it has been government owned enterprise. No private property. No open markets.

I think you're conflating regulations with socialism? Idk, but your perspective is not in line with general definitions.

For example, Venezuela has the PDVSA a state owned oil and gas company. That is what you find in a socialist country.

America has no state owned companies. It is not socialist.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Wiezel]

You can't tax the rich, they have passive income. It won't hurt them.
Easy for 'poor' people to complain about the rich, the "lucky" rich.

 

[LittleWolfie]

Now, Amazon feeds and houses 300,000 families because of the value the company creates through its competitive advantage and hard work of their team.

The best "charity" Bezos and others like him can provide is to continue to be economically productive hiring more employees and empowering more people to take care of themselves

Amazon and the goverment feeds and houses those workers because a lot of warehouse workers are paid too little to live on which is why they can claim means tested benefits.

So you need to either give credit to both or neither.

There are employers that voluntarily pay a living wage and your assertiom holds true for them(Amazon is not one)

 

[Tourmaline]

Yes it is called a flat tax system,everyone pays the same percent of their income

Bulgaria has 10% make 20,000 selling your time for money? Pay 2,000. Divorce your time and sell productocracy for 1,000,000,000 pay 10,000,000.

Compare that to how apple has an effective tax rate of 3.5% while the little guy has what 40%?

The australian goverment proposed it and the opposition objected on the grounds they would be taxed too little!

I actually do like a flat tax system in general. It's fair.

However, this is America's current tax rates for single people:


Pretty low taxes overall. Most people do not pay more than 22%.

However, I do not like taxing corporations. There's no need to. Why tax them at all when the people that get money from the corporation are going to get taxed?

Apple is made up of employees. They pay income tax. Why does Apple need to pay taxes as well? Having incentives to lower their tax rate is good, presuming those incentives are good too. Which they typically are. Want a low tax rate? Invest in oil or build housing for example as some good incentives for tax breaks.

 

[MoneyDoc]

No.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[LittleWolfie]

I actually do like a flat tax system in general. It's fair.

Yes and most wealthy people would pay more under that system. It also has the advantage of the simplicity reducing the cost of tax officers, accountants etc.

However, this is America's current tax rates for single people:
View attachment 27567

Pretty low taxes overall. Most people do not pay more than 22%.

That is a progressive tax system of course, and if your Warren Buffet you pay 17.4% straight from the horses mouth.

This is why the 23% fair tax proposal needs far less funds form the higher earners on the table, because Buffet et all would pay more.

However, I do not like taxing corporations. There's no need to. Why tax them at all when the people that get money from the corporation are going to get taxed?

I think the theory is the company uses resources itself (office space, fire/police//ambulance/water/road space etc) Plus how do you stop the use of a company by an individual?

I'm guessing you would quite like the Estonian system. 0% on undistributed profits(Left in the company) and 20% on distributions like Salaries/dividends/benefits in kind so no one can buy a "company yacht" and just use it themselves. Anyone with offshore income or self-employed pays 20%,nobody else has to worry.

Apple is made up of employees. They pay income tax. Why does Apple need to pay taxes as well?

Should Apple's overseas employees pay income tax too? Why should employees pay for corporate chancery courts of Delaware? Apple can exploit accountants and economies of scale to pay the same amount of tax revenue but in a more productive time than each employee alone. Or can outsource to other specialized companies for even greater scale) This is why it takes the average Estonian 5 minutes to file their tax. The productivity savings are returned in the form of greater services for the same rate or lower taxes and same services.

Having incentives to lower their tax rate is good, presuming those incentives are good too

I like the idea of offsetting employee payroll and income tax form corporate tax, that way the more people you hire the lower your bill. Which will reduce the complaints and the government gets the money either way.

. Which they typically are. Want a low tax rate? Invest in oil or build housing for example as some good incentives for tax breaks.

Maybe the US ones are , but I have yet to see many good ones here. I'd suggest oil is a bad instinctive. Why should it be prioritized over gas or sustainable wood or solar ? Should the government or the market be making that decision?

Investing in homes also encourages, speculators to rise the prices and put homes beyond the reach of the masses. Why should it be homes rather than offices or farms?

What about in new companies instead?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.