@wildgrass saidSure; but therefore what?
Yes. On the front end, for sure.
He's been a huge beneficiary of (mostly Democrat) policies in making large investments in private industry. Basically all of what he's built was initially staked by the government, with private investments coming later. I've seen the number $38 billion thrown around, which is the dollar amount that our government has given to Elon Musk to ...[text shortened]... he world's first trillionaire.
My problem with it is that it represents a broken economic system.
Yeah, of course public infrastructure is needed to facilitate any sort of economic growth. Everyone has access to that infrastructure.
If your argument is that government is therefore justified in taxing people, sure, I'll agree with that. I'll even agree that income tax on the rich is too low.
But if your point is that therefore there should be some mechanism in place that prevents people from getting so rich, that I totally disagree with.
1 edit
@sh76 saidWhen individual wealth becomes harmful to other citizens it should be reigned in. This is a standard Founding Father principle. It is also the Lockean Proviso.
Sure; but therefore what?
Yeah, of course public infrastructure is needed to facilitate any sort of economic growth. Everyone has access to that infrastructure.
If your argument is that government is therefore justified in taxing people, sure, I'll agree with that. I'll even agree that income tax on the rich is too low.
But if your point is that therefore there should be some mechanism in place that prevents people from getting so rich, that I totally disagree with.
There's a quote that says something like "if the wealth of an individual becomes a threat to the people the best remedy is equal inheritance to all" i.e. 100% death tax. I'm having trouble finding it. Here are some others though.
Ben Franklin
Proposal for Article 16 of the Declaration of Rights for the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776
An enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness of mankind, and, therefore, every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property.
Thomas Jefferson, 1786
...another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
=================
John Adams 1814:
“As long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families. Accumulations of it will be made, the Snowball will grow as it rolls.”
=================
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
Paris September 6. 1789
I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:2 that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it’s lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any1 natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject.
@sh76 said
Sure; but therefore what?
Yeah, of course public infrastructure is needed to facilitate any sort of economic growth. Everyone has access to that infrastructure.
If your argument is that government is therefore justified in taxing people, sure, I'll agree with that. I'll even agree that income tax on the rich is too low.
But if your point is that therefore there should be some mechanism in place that prevents people from getting so rich, that I totally disagree with.
But if your point is that therefore there should be some mechanism in place that prevents people from getting so rich, that I totally disagree with.
I'm a little rusty on US history, but wasn't this point a big deal for the founding fathers? They feared the snowballing aristocracy of wealth could overtake representative democracy, just like it corrupted the monarchy. I'm pretty sure there are lots of quotes out there which make it really clear that they saw wealth accumulation at this level to be unhealthy and fundamentally a threat to the government they were trying to set up. Something like "The consequences of inequality produces misery to the bulk of mankind, and government cannot invent too many devices for preventing it."
At the time it was all about shared distribution of property, but you could envision the same thing here because the shared investment was there, we all put money into Elon's success by investing in his startup, but there is no shared benefit unless you're a private investor in his companies. Wealth inequality will only get worse and worse with this model and our nations founders knew this.
A tax on wealth over $50 million will help, with the added benefit of closing the budget gap, will help bring us closer to that vision.
1 edit
@sh76 said
Sure; but therefore what?
Yeah, of course public infrastructure is needed to facilitate any sort of economic growth. Everyone has access to that infrastructure.
If your argument is that government is therefore justified in taxing people, sure, I'll agree with that. I'll even agree that income tax on the rich is too low.
But if your point is that therefore there should be some mechanism in place that prevents people from getting so rich, that I totally disagree with.
Everyone has access to that infrastructure.
This is wrong. SpaceX competes with no one for these contracts except maybe Jeff Bezos who is also a mega-billionaire. The only people in society who benefit are investors in these companies, so if you aren't invested you're SOL.
There are 10 companies in the USA who are responsible for 70% of all economic growth. This is a very unhealthy system because those companies continue to gain against their competitors not only economic power but political power through very large campaign contributions and industry consolidation. They operate as monopolies but in many cases they don't fit the definition because the "customer" is the government.
@AThousandYoung saidThe growing, rolling snowball of wealth accumulation... nice homework on that quote.
When individual wealth becomes harmful to other citizens it should be reigned in. This is a standard Founding Father principle. It is also the Lockean Proviso.
There's a quote that says something like "if the wealth of an individual becomes a threat to the people the best remedy is equal inheritance to all" i.e. 100% death tax. I'm having trouble finding it. Her ...[text shortened]... ght, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject.
[/quote]
Elon is already 1/3 of his way to his second trillion dollars. A snowball, indeed.
Here's that quote about inheritance. I'm not sure I understand it fully but here it is.
Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan
6 Apr. 1816 Writings 14:466
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s64.html
"If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree"
2 edits
@AThousandYoung saidI think he's saying either a 100% tax on wealth at death, or a distribution of one's wealth at death equally to all American citizens (not just your spouse/kids).
Here's that quote about inheritance. I'm not sure I understand it fully but here it is.Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan
6 Apr. 1816 Writings 14:466
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s64.html
"If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree"
It's a logical strategy for government taxation if the goal is equal opportunity.
Up until the argument was co-opted by rich propagandists, conservatives have long understood the idea that extreme wealth consolidation is destabilizing to markets, and to social cohesion, and to the governments collecting taxes.
Somehow the confused conservatives seem to be arguing that wealth inequality is some sort of good thing now (capitalism!) that should be nourished, lest we offend the oligarchs and they take their money to Flooooorida.
@wildgrass saidSuzanne used to say people make money off of the backs of others, and here you are saying that musk made his money off of the back of the government. We have never been explaining what the hell that means and don’t try because it means nothing.
I don't know if it's philosophy as much as practical considerations. We don't want another Great Depression, and the Great Depression was caused by wealth inequality, so we should enact government policies that prevent wealth inequality.
If you have wealth, it grows all by itself, but if you don't have it then you're behind the eight ball. Obviously I'm in favor of a wea ...[text shortened]... an and should invest in innovation and R&D. They should not be investing in Elon anymore. He's fine.
“ since the Great Depression”????? Talk about a One-Off. Tell us what is happened to the United States of America in these hundred years..
Our economy is booming, I will not even bore you with the percentages that the markets have increased. If I do, you will write “what do you mean by the markets, “ and I am not going to teach intermediate economics to you guys. ( I used that Yankee phrase “you guys’ for Susie)
@AThousandYoung saidI certainly do not understand what he means by dangerous to the state. Has the state suffered from the wealth of musk??????????? . You cannot answer that but one way,
Here's that quote about inheritance. I'm not sure I understand it fully but here it is.Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan
6 Apr. 1816 Writings 14:466
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s64.html
"If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree"
You ask me why, do you?!?!? Because, he is NOT ,
he is not, dangerous to the state!!
@AThousandYoung saidYou will tell us how the wealth of musk is dangerous.
When individual wealth becomes harmful to other citizens it should be reigned in. This is a standard Founding Father principle. It is also the Lockean Proviso.
There's a quote that says something like "if the wealth of an individual becomes a threat to the people the best remedy is equal inheritance to all" i.e. 100% death tax. I'm having trouble finding it. Her ...[text shortened]... ght, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject.
[/quote]
1 edit
@wildgrass saidHahahahahaEveryone has access to that infrastructure.
This is wrong. SpaceX competes with no one for these contracts except maybe Jeff Bezos who is also a mega-billionaire. The only people in society who benefit are investors in these companies, so if you aren't invested you're SOL.
There are 10 companies in the USA who are responsible for 70% of all economic growt ...[text shortened]... monopolies but in many cases they don't fit the definition because the "customer" is the government.
There are 10 companies in the USA who are responsible for 70% of all economic growth. This is a very unhealthy!!! Hahahaha
1% of our citizens pay 50% of taxes!!!!!!!!!!!
That is very unheeeeeereaaaalllltthy. Geez man you dig one hole after another!
Have you got it in you to respond on this, to make the four interesting or are you gonna cowardly walk away?
@wildgrass saidThat was my impression at first but it may simply mean the government forces an equal split among all legal heirs or something kind of like how the Frankish Empire was evenly split which degraded its power. I'm not sure how that would work.
I think he's saying either a 100% tax on wealth at death, or a distribution of one's wealth at death equally to all American citizens (not just your spouse/kids).
It's a logical strategy for government taxation if the goal is equal opportunity.
Up until the argument was co-opted by rich propagandists, conservatives have long understood the idea that extreme wealth con ...[text shortened]... m!) that should be nourished, lest we offend the oligarchs and they take their money to Flooooorida.
@AverageJoe1 saidHuh? Why are you laughing? Are you saying the tax base is the same as GDP?
Hahahahaha
There are 10 companies in the USA who are responsible for 70% of all economic growth. This is a very unhealthy!!! Hahahaha
1% of our citizens pay 50% of taxes!!!!!!!!!!!
That is very unheeeeeereaaaalllltthy. Geez man you dig one hole after another!
Have you got it in you to respond on this, to make the four interesting or are you gonna cowardly walk away?
Are you saying it's healthy that 10 companies drive 70% of economic growth?
@wildgrass saidThousand wrote this above,
I think he's saying either a 100% tax on wealth at death, or a distribution of one's wealth at death equally to all American citizens (not just your spouse/kids).
It's a logical strategy for government taxation if the goal is equal opportunity.
Up until the argument was co-opted by rich propagandists, conservatives have long understood the idea that extreme wealth con ...[text shortened]... m!) that should be nourished, lest we offend the oligarchs and they take their money to Flooooorida.
“It's a logical strategy for government taxation if the goal is equal opportunity.”
All of you don’t seem to get it!! His sentence seems to say that for all to have the same opportunity, that it can be accomplished by taxation.
I wish you would respond to this point it would make for more enjoyable conversation.
@AverageJoe1 saidYes, it is very unhealthy.
1% of our citizens pay 50% of taxes!!!!!!!!!!!
We should question why such a small number of citizens were able to amass so much money that the modest percentage they pay in income tax amounts to 50% of the total.