Redistribution of American Wealth

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by cirdellin, Aug 6, 2020.

  1. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    46,233
    Likes Received:
    8,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First thing that needs be done is get buy-in from those that own the world. This may not be as difficult as one might think - as the world is currently on a crash course with disaster - and I am not referring to CO2 - "Global Warming"

    We are fking with the Oceans - not a garbage can .. this is #1 Environmental Issue - and the big Elephant in the Blue room - but - the lid is coming off this one .. 2 and 3 are Industrialization and Population Growth .. which are two more elephants in the Blue room - both mentioned in Moores new flick - along with #1 but this is a given and not debated in serious circles. He took flack for 2/3.

    4) CO2/"Global Warming" - its not like this is not an issue - but by the time this kicks in to the point where we are forced to react - we will already have fked the planet in other ways.

    Something needs to be done - We simply can't continue to industrialize the non industrialized at the rate we are doing it. We need to look at population growth as a bad thing - especially in the first world - Particularly when you are transforming a third world (bowl of rice a day) individual into a First world consumer of resources.

    The ratio is 1 to 36 .. meaning the first world person consumes 36 x that of the rice eater.

    Around 2010 I read a study - China was (11) said if China was to reach first world leves of consumption - world resource production would have to double.

    Think on that -- this is just China - At the time there was roughly 1.4 Billion on the planet industrialized - out of 7 Billion.

    By 2030 we my have another 1.4 Billion people industrialized .. we are roughly half way there. The problem is that by 2030 the population will be 8.5 Billion... so we have not made a dent in the non industrialized .. but we have increased consumption - and the concurrent pollution and energy usage HUGE ..

    We don't have to wait 30 years to see the impacts .. we are measuring them today. This is not some model of what might happen .. this is happening right now.. more than 2 cans of Tuna a week and you exceed the Mercury guideline for pregnant women.

    While this is low - I get it - we are hitting boundaries .. measurable ones .. so lets double the pollution loading by industrializing another Billion people every 15 years ? This is is a lunatic path.. and the math is ugly .. and near nothing is being done - due to myopic focus on CO2 - "Global Warming" .

    Should we have to society can turn off the CO2 tap fairly quickly .. how exactly are we going to filter the Ocean ?

    Google Dead Zones - Ocean .. this is from nitrogen/fertilizer run off - stimulates bacteria who use up the oxygen creating an anoxic zone where Ocean sea creatures do not survive.

    roughly 60% of oxygen comes from Ocean .. are you sure we want to push the limits of the microbiological equilibrium ?

    Environmental microbiology is not well understood by the mainstream - neither in medicine nor in Environmental Science - and certainly not Environmental Engineering.

    It is very well understood however in other disciplines - such as "Environmental Microbiology" an area which I have some expertise.

    90 Trillion dollars is sitting in 3 banks - owned by a few families .. half of that is enough to fix the world.
     
  2. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I generally ignore people on here who I think are not worthy of my time and I am temporarily intrigued that I clearly challenge you enough to continue the dialogue in spite of your assertions that I am not worthy of presenting opinions on this topic.

    When I was little I used to complain that Johnny down the street had more toys than I had. My parents told me that was none of my business and that I had enough and that jealousy was an ugly emotion. I outgrew that envy but some never do it seems.

    I’ve been clear on my vision of a flat tax as the best mix of fair taxation and incentive. You disagree.

    So instead of merely complaining about the wealthy pigs, what specifically does your tax code look like?

    Should everyone have a salary cap of say 100,000 dollars cause that is enough to support a family in most places or should it be a million? Or what other amount?

    And what about corporations, how much should they be allowed to have?

    Here is where you will say taxing depends upon income with a logarithmically adjusted tax as incomes rise, I am guessing.

    Ok what amount of wealth should be taxed at what level? Do you have any clear agenda on this?

    And as I’ve asked others, do you feel that the champion of progressive politics, Nancy Pelosi, has too much money and should she be shorn of much of that?

    Or should she be sheltered as she has done so much for common people?
     
  3. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    40,823
    Likes Received:
    9,430
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But it isn't why income disparity got out of control. And they weren't before Reagan they were confiscatory. And along with the increasing complexity of the and scope of the administrative state had flat lined the economy under Carter.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
    cirdellin likes this.
  4. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I appreciate the very thoughtful response.
    Two thoughts though;
    The first world has essentially come to zero population growth but the third world is still increasing in non linear pattern. I understand that Africa is now growing at a faster pace than Asia and the third world will be expecting to live a 1st world lifestyle and if denied that will claim they were cheated.

    When Bernie Sanders suggested the third world should be practicing more effective birth control to help control environmental issues he was immediate shouted down as a racist. So no one will now touch this issue.

    The other thought I have is if the 90 trillion is taken doesn’t most of that belong to people who count on it as savings?

    Also how could it be spent to desk with social and climate issues.

    I’m all for limiting human population growth though and I too see it as the major human problem especially as almost 8 billion are fighting for limited resources. War and pandemics will become more common.

    But the third world will never agree as they view nature the way our ancestors did. Nature is to be subdued so they can have cars and air conditioning and all the other goodies Americans and Europeans have.

    I have no suggestions about the population problem.
     
  5. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My IRA was stagnant under both Bush and even more under Obama. It grew 50 percent under Trump in the first two years alone. It seems to me that the key to income disparity is investment in an economy where businesses are not micromanaged by governments.I had little money but chose not to spend what I did have on dead losses like an automobile or eating out at restaurants and concentrated on studying the funds and spending only on things vital. It can be done. I see lots of poor people lining up at liquor stores and buying cigarettes and lottery tickets. They seen to have enough money for that.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
    roorooroo and garyd like this.
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,870
    Likes Received:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It would be rude not to allow you to put things right. How about these questions?

    Has the hedge funder benefitting from covid19 earned his wealth? Has the property developer benefitting from land speculation earned her wealth? Are the capitalists underpaying their workers, when their business would be worthless without workers, earning their wealth?

    This really is a cliche, which you neatly advertise through your reference to boyhood toys. It amuses me though. Class conflict creates the extreme inequalities. It creates economic rent. And when folk mention those rents, which are undoubtedly both inefficient and inequity, they're accused of envy ;)

    The difference is that you are spouting opinion. I'm not. My personal opinion is that capitalism needs to be removed, but we aren't talking that here. Here, we are referring to basic econonic sense. We've seen that with an understanding of how work disincentive effects are focused on the poor. Indeed, once we factor in the interaction of tax and benefit systems, effective marginal rates of tax can exceed 100%.

    Flat taxes aren't about economic incentives. They are about using political ideology to ignore economics.

    Tut tut, false effort. I haven't complained about the 'wealthy pigs'. I have complained that your position is not based on any sound economic footing.

    Another false question. I haven't referred to any salary cap. While I have mentioned Marxism (and the ultinate need to change the economic paradigm), with you I have only referred to a basic fact: progressive tax is rational. The nature of the resulting tax system will then be based on economic constraints. We know, for example, that tax evasion and dodging makes 100% tax impossible. Of course, and this does me smile, your supply side economics (via the multi-peaked Laffer Curve) does ironically argue for tax increases.

    Your question doesn't make sense. Should we have corporation taxes which are enforced? Of course. Do we need more strident monopoly and mergers action? Of course.

    Nope. I'd say the obvious. If you take your stance that work incentives should dominate the discussion, we should form a progressive tax system which maximises revenue (and therefore reduces further any tax burden on the poor). Heck, let's take that further and mention Friedman's negative income tax. Let's integrate tax and benefits, but to ensure poverty is avoided, let's have progressive tax rates which take into account diminishing marginal utility of income.

    Again you don't have a clear question. What type of wealth? The source is rather important. Wealth created from environmental exploitation should be treated differently to wealth inherited which should be treated differently from wealth created through financial speculation etc.

    Note that many of these sources of wealth have naff all to do with efficiency! High taxes are then actually efficient.

    False question! She isn't a champion of progressive politics. While she isn't as right wing as some of the other big business bought politicians, she is a supporter of neoliberalism.

    Why don't you actually just say the obvious?: the Dems, except for a few outliers, arent actually a left wing party.
     
  7. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It strikes me that workers wouldn’t be working for the company that “exploits” them if that company did not exist in the first place. This demonstrates the value of investment.

    I’ve given you an opportunity to state a clear taxation plan. What level of income should be taxed at what rate. You evade clear answers and that leads me to believe that you wish to evade scrutiny.

    And shall you ever do.

    As I said, you were a source of brief interest but the evasions are now tedious.

    As for investments, time is also one and I can’t invest mine arguing with a stranger who will do nothing but evade when I ask for clear solutions.

    I wish you the best!
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  8. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    46,233
    Likes Received:
    8,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly - Moore caught major flack for stating "The Truth" w/r to industrialization - population growth - something I have been preaching for 2 decades. These rank above "Global Warming" with respect to Environmental Risks. The numbers simply don't work. We live in a closed system - there is a limit to how much junk we can put into the environment in general but - particularly limited is how much our Oceans can handle.


    Um .. yeah .. but - It belongs to a few families .. I am sure they will survive - and generations on down - long past the point where we have messed up the earth - and that wealth no longer matters - on 45 Trillion. That is how many Nancy's ? to try and give some perspective on how much money this is. Lets use 100 million to make the math simple. - thats 450,000 people with 100 million. The people that own that money is way less than that - so do not shed too many tears - as each individual will be left with way more than 100 million .. more like 100 times more .. 4500 people each with 10 Billion.


    You have already given the solution :) First world nations do not replicate - Limit immigration into first world nations - from third world nations to a trickle.

    Then we need to get the other nations to stop pop growth - China is no problem - India knows it can not continue to increase. In Africa we need to make sure everyone gets a bowl of rice a day - food security is key. If you know you are taken care of .. you don't have to have 20 kids hoping that one survives to feed you in your old age.. so you don't sit somewhere and starve.

    These people don't need buildings - roads - and so on - they have everything they need .. grass hut for a shelter .. whatever .. just make sure they are fed - no need for a new corvette.. guaranteed food security for the ridiculously poor.

    What do you figure it would cost to get a bowl of rice a day into every mouth ?

    Non industrialized nations will still want to industrialize - and this can happen over time - in a way that is not dirty as hell - but that will take capital - the carrot being that the nation must reign in population growth. Every couple can have 2.5 kids roughly .. it is not like we are stopping folks from having families ... but .. we have to act on a level higher than fruit fly populations.
     
  9. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I hear what you are saying but I recall that during the 1950s US population growth was greater than India’s. At a time of plenty. So I’m not sure economic and food security is enough to stop accelerating population growth.

    I live a very simple life. No car just public transportation walking and of course bicycling. I eat very little and i recycle. But most people refuse to live this way.
     
  10. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    46,233
    Likes Received:
    8,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    India doesn't have much of a choice - Way too many people - it can't grow much more - population wise - and they know it. India is a smart nation .. the big problem with India is how fast they are industrializing .. For every one person you industrialize - this is like a rice eater having 36 kids.
     
  11. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I’m sure the Indian government understands that the population can’t grow any more but the population probably is working on a more natural level.

    I could be wrong about this but places like Nigeria are growing even faster.
     
  12. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    4,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ Spay & neuter your children. Help control the people population .
    [​IMG] ~ And then there are some who think only they have the key to life's dilemmas .
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
    roorooroo and cirdellin like this.
  13. David Landbrecht

    David Landbrecht Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    386
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    It isn't a question of "taking away" money from the grotesquely rich, it is about their lack of sense in not seeing how their excesses lead to trouble. What is wrong with their intelligence? Placing their extra money where it would help people would aid society and the image of the "1%". Rubbing the disparity in everyone's face only leads to radicals proposing drastic, and historically cataclysmic, action. This unlearned lesson has already been too often repeated. What does it take for humans to learn?
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,870
    Likes Received:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tut tut, look at you trying to take things out of context. I stated the obvious: I am not referring to my opinion, I am referring to the economics that they should base their opinion on. If you're going to spout supply side economics, at least get the basics right ;)
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,870
    Likes Received:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It strikes me that you can't actually respond to anything said. Is the right wing economics beyond you?

    A weak as pish effort! I answered all of your questions (even when they didn't actually make any sense). As you've not based your stance on any sound economic footing, you're lost in the cliche wilderness.

    We've seen that repeatedly. You talked about work incentives. You ignored that work incentive analysis actually leads to support for progressive taxation. You talked about the wonders of wealth creation. You ignored that much of that wealth is created through economic rent, automatically a sign of inefficiency.

    I actually went further and I really aren't a fan of you avoiding an honest response. I referred to the need for multiple different types of wealth tax, given the multiple sources of economic rent. I also referred to the need for integration of tax and benefits systems, with a negative income tax created which meets your work incentive criteria. Within that it becomes a simple practical exercise: finding the highest rate associated with tax revenue maximisation, given the twin curse of tax evasion and dodge.

    Hahaha! Folk spouting 1980s supply side guff perhaps need to show more interest in economics? ;)

    I wish for right wing comment where economics is used correctly. I don't expect it to happen today. One day mind you. One day...
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  16. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    4,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ It's hard to regulate greed. There are certainly the wealthy who are indeed generous to others. As they approach the end of life they leave their fortune to charities and philanthropy. The Walton family is not among them. As far as I know neither is Jeff Bezos.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  17. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok, so how much are you going to allow people to have before it becomes offensive to you?
    And how much do you think can be taken before the incentive to invest goes away?
    Or should investment even be a value as simple redistribution should care for everyone from here on out?
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,870
    Likes Received:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not true. Its actually very easy. For example, eliminate market power, protect property rights and tax economic rent.
     
  19. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    40,823
    Likes Received:
    9,430
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes gods a whole thread of bombastic nonsense.
    Let's start with a few simple explanations. 1. Yes hedge fund manager, business owners and the like do earn their money. On top of that they provide benefits to a whole slew of people including their workers and customers. Getting rid of them does not make anyone's life better. It's been tried repeatedly and always fails.
    Subsaharan Africa is for the most part unindustrialized. Life there is nasty brutish and often quite short. Forgive my refusal to envy that life style.
    That legendary swirling mass of plastic in the middle of the Pacific does not exist which in certain ways is too bad since much of it would be recyclable and a fairly easy proposition to clean up.
    According to Malthus we should all have starved to death 100 years ago. We still seem to be decades if not centuries from from peak oil. And every year we get more efficient in its use.

    The nervous Nellie's and Stalinist not withstanding if governments would back off and quit trying to micromanage every damn aspect of everyone's lives and relationships we would have a golden age.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
    roorooroo and cirdellin like this.
  20. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    40,823
    Likes Received:
    9,430
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oops
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  21. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I value and even learn from people who disagree with my assertions but what I can’t put up with are people who reiterate the problem with “over wealth” simply by saying over and over again ad nauseum that the wealthy shouldn’t have this much without even proposing an alternative plan. Just they shouldn’t have this much money seems jejune.

    What tax rate applied to what income group???

    I also suspect those who hold this view may be simply envious and/or do not wish to propose a plan that could be open to practical scrutiny.

    If someone just wants to kvetch about the rich then just admit it.

    But I deeply admire those who have expressed practical solutions no matter how much I may or may not disagree.
     
    James California and roorooroo like this.
  22. Pants

    Pants Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2018
    Messages:
    6,759
    Likes Received:
    4,820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I can only speak for myself, and there are only two issues I consider when discussing income disparity - fair wages and proper taxation. I don't believe that a person is bad for having 'too much wealth', as long as they pay their taxes appropriately. And as business owners, they should not be living the high life while their employees are on food stamps. On a more personal level, I admire the wealthy who share their wealth, but I don't think it should be mandated.
     
  23. Quantum Nerd

    Quantum Nerd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    11,069
    Likes Received:
    9,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If your IRA was stagnant under Obama, you must have done something wrong. The stock market gained nearly 150% during Obama. This is, however, typical conservative revisionist history, pretending that everything under Obama was horrible. Do they think people have such short memories?
     
  24. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I mostly agree but I might add that their employees on food stamps might not have a job of any kind without the infrastructure that was provided by their employer. The second and third world understand this and so try very hard to come to the West.
     
  25. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    46,233
    Likes Received:
    8,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe you are correct - Africa is definitely a problem and it is one of the least industrialized nations.
     
    James California likes this.

Share This Page