Page 1 of 16
1
2
3
11
... LastLast
  1. #1

    Revolt against the Rich

    Nobel laureates, a new congresswoman and others urge raising taxes on the ultrawealthy to counter surging inequality

    Good article title from the Scientific American. I see more and more people are starting to talk openly about what was once tabu. Makes me happy.

    It's not the full article, they deserve your click, so if you liked it, visit the link to continue reading.

    In 2015 I attended a workshop on political polarization with an eclectic group of scholars and activists. We swapped ideas on resolving battles over climate change, inequality, abortion and gay rights. One obstacle to compromise, a psychologist said, is that many Americans have a visceral, emotional reaction to issues like homosexuality.

    I have a visceral, emotion reaction to inequality, I replied. It sickens me that some Americans have billions while others barely have enough to eat. An economist derided my attitude as typical left-wing irrationality. Inequality isn’t the problem, he said, poverty is the problem, and we shouldn’t try to solve it by taking more from the rich.

    I felt chastened. But a flurry of recent articles—with headlines like “Abolish Billionaires” and “The Economics of Soaking the Rich”—argues that we should be appalled by the immense gap between the poor and rich. The proliferation of billionaires shows that capitalism is malfunctioning and in need of reforms, including higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy.

    One vocal billionaire-basher is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a newly elected Congresswoman from New York and self-identified democratic socialist. “I’m not saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are immoral,” she said recently, “but a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong.”

    A report from the anti-poverty organization Oxfam provides a global, historical perspective on inequality. Maximum tax rates in the richest countries fell from an average of 62 percent in 1970 to 38 percent in 2013, and inequality has surged. The number of billionaires has doubled over the past decade to 2,208. The collective wealth of the 26 richest people now equals that of the 3.8 billion poorest, whose total wealth fell last year by 11 percent.

    In short, the rich are getting richer and the poor, at least lately, poorer. “We need to transform our economies to deliver universal health, education and other public services,” Oxfam states. “To make this possible, the richest people and corporations should pay their fair share of tax.”

    Ocasio-Cortez has proposed raising the federal tax rate for ultra-wealthy Americans to 70 percent, almost double the current maximum federal tax on income. The so-called marginal tax would apply to annual income above $10 million. Presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have called for higher taxes on assets as well as income of the ultra-rich.

    Paul Krugman, a Nobel laureate in economics, agrees on the need for such taxes. The 70-percent tax proposal of Ocasio-Cortez, he writes in his New York Times column, is based on analyses by economist Peter Diamond, a Nobel laureate, and Christina Romer, former head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.

    The analyses, Krugman explains, are based on “the common-sense notion that an extra dollar is worth a lot less in satisfaction to people with very high incomes than to those with low incomes. Give a family with an annual income of $20,000 an extra $1,000 and it will make a big difference to their lives. Give a guy who makes $1 million an extra thousand and he’ll barely notice it.”

    This is the reasoning behind progressive tax rates, which rise along with income. Raising tax rates too high might discourage some people from being more productive, resulting in a net loss of tax revenue. Balancing these factors, Diamond and Romer recommend maximum marginal tax rates of 73 and 80 percent, respectively.

    Krugman rejects the claim that high taxes hurt the economy. Maximum tax rates reached 90 percent in the late 1950s, and they remained at 70 percent as recently as the early 1980s before plummeting during the Reagan administration. The U.S. economy “did just fine” during these periods, Krugman says. “Since then tax rates have come way down, and if anything the economy has done less well.”
    Last edited by CryotriX; 2019-02-25 at 08:14 PM.

  2. #2
    The Insane
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,386
    @CryotriX which candidate is the most anti-rich and which one has your support? Also have you thought about running your own political campaign to heavily increase taxes on the rich?

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    @CryotriX which candidate is the most anti-rich and which one has your support? Also have you thought about running your own political campaign to heavily increase taxes on the rich?
    Impossible to say. Probably between Bernie/Warren. Anti-rich is also sounding kinda bad. I don't think that you're anti rich if you want to drastically reduce wealth inequality, it just means you're anti-excess.

    I'm fine with either Bernie/Gabbard/Warren.

    As for taxes, I'm not that convinced it's actually a good thing. I don't want the state to hold that much power. It's just a temporary compromise that I am willing to ignore... for now... for the purpose of spreading wealth.

  4. #4
    Brewmaster Arenis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    1,311
    Truth be told, I wouldn't have a problem with taxing a lot more money from those who already have an insane amount of possessions. Every single one of them thanks their fortune partially to very low-wage workers that often struggle to maintain a normal life.
    But now the biggest part,
    is all about the image
    and not the art

  5. #5
    The Undying freefolk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    32,455
    We Americans get along with our rich better than other country's get along with their rich.

    Ocasio-Cortez fucked up big time by chasing off Amazon who was going to set up offices in the city she represents, costing her constituents hundreds of billions of dollars. If she's re-elected, I'll be surprised.

    OP article is from the extreme left.

  6. #6
    Guess what? I'm not one of those asses who would shit on his fellow human being to save a grand or two. I'm willing to pay my fair share of taxes, if anything I'm very likely underpaying in the US while paying something I feel to be more appropriate here in Spain (I have to pay in both places).

    I would even be glad to pay substantially more, if I see that money spent in areas that I consider important, like education, healthcare, infrastructure spending, social services.

    And no, the whole philanthropy bullshit is just that. Bullshit. Charity spending has a significantly smaller and more inefficient reach than large national government run services.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by CryotriX View Post
    Anti-rich is also sounding kinda bad. I don't think that you're anti rich if you want to drastically reduce wealth inequality, it just means you're anti-excess.
    Then these 2 terms need to be specifically defined and all of the folowing questions need to be answered:
    What's just rich?
    What is considered excess?
    Why is it not the exact same thing?
    Should we make exception between deserved wealth and undeserved wealth?
    Who is the judge of that?
    What other incentives should be put in place to motivate people to work hard if they just get punished for being successful?
    How can we prevent people from just doing their business elsewhere since this socialist idea only works when capitalist money is flowing?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    OP article is from the extreme left.
    Scientific American (informally abbreviated SciAm or sometimes SA) is an American popular science magazine. Many famous scientists, including Albert Einstein, have contributed articles to it. It is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States (though it only became monthly in 1921).

  9. #9
    The Insane
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,386
    Quote Originally Posted by CryotriX View Post
    Impossible to say. Probably between Bernie/Warren. Anti-rich is also sounding kinda bad. I don't think that you're anti rich if you want to drastically reduce wealth inequality, it just means you're anti-excess.

    I'm fine with either Bernie/Gabbard/Warren.

    As for taxes, I'm not that convinced it's actually a good thing. I don't want the state to hold that much power. It's just a temporary compromise that I am willing to ignore... for now... for the purpose of spreading wealth.
    The Democrat party doesn't align with them very much. Your better bet is to run as a third party candidate free from the Democrats.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    The Democrat party doesn't align with them very much. Your better bet is to run as a third party candidate free from the Democrats.
    You may as well write #MAGA #TRUMP2020, our system is set up so the most a third party candidate can accomplish is help elect Trump.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    We Americans get along with our rich better than other country's get along with their rich.

    Ocasio-Cortez fucked up big time by chasing off Amazon who was going to set up offices in the city she represents, costing her constituents hundreds of billions of dollars. If she's re-elected, I'll be surprised.

    OP article is from the extreme left.

    Nothing to be proud about when you say "We Americans lick the boots of our rich more than any other country!" Also, Stop with that Amazon bullshit, It would have just caused even more of the city to be unlivable for the average person (Which this wasn't even aimed at, it wasn't a warehouse) On top of handing out billions in tax breaks just because you have to give the corporations their welfare. Enough of these tax breaks that will never come back to the city in any meaningful way or amount of time.

    "Hundreds of billions". No, just no. Where the fuck are you pulling that number from? What reality are you living in that Amazon brings hundreds of billions to a city? That is insanity.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    We Americans get along with our rich better than other country's get along with their rich.

    Ocasio-Cortez fucked up big time by chasing off Amazon who was going to set up offices in the city she represents, costing her constituents hundreds of billions of dollars. If she's re-elected, I'll be surprised.

    OP article is from the extreme left.
    You do realize Amazon would likely import most of the higher earning workers from other parts of the country/world, that their crap-paying jobs aren't much of a favor (no one would be affording NY rents), and Amazon was getting HUGE tax breaks? In the meantime, there would be more traffic congestion, and already expensive and limited housing would get that much worse.

    Just look what happened to Seattle, San Franciso and Silicon Valley (in terms of high tech companys and//corporate campuses harming the middle/lower classes). People making six figures are barely middle class, while the actual middle class has been completely shut out.
    Last edited by Tazr; 2019-02-25 at 09:28 PM.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Varitok View Post
    Nothing to be proud about when you say "We Americans lick the boots of our rich more than any other country!" Also, Stop with that Amazon bullshit, It would have just caused even more of the city to be unlivable for the average person (Which this wasn't even aimed at, it wasn't a warehouse) On top of handing out billions in tax breaks just because you have to give the corporations their welfare. Enough of these tax breaks that will never come back to the city in any meaningful way or amount of time.

    "Hundreds of billions". No, just no. Where the fuck are you pulling that number from? What reality are you living in that Amazon brings hundreds of billions to a city? That is insanity.
    Everybody knows that commerce does not bring money to an area! Also, tax breaks do not mean paying zero state business taxes. There would be SOME business taxes paid to the state, but they said no we would rather have none of it than only some of it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Tazr View Post
    You do realize Amazon would likely import most of the higher earning workers from other parts of the country/world, that their crap-paying jobs aren't much of a favor (no one would be affording NY rents), and Amazon was getting HUGE tax breaks? In the meantime, there would be more traffic congestion, and already expensive and limited housing would get that much worse.

    Just look what happened to Seattle and San Franciso.
    Amazon pays its employees WAY over minimum wage to do extremely unskilled labor.
    Felpooti - DH - Echo Isles
    Hack - Warrior - Echo Isles
    Pootie - Hunter - Echo Isles

  14. #14
    I always prefer the guilotine method.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Trump did it so it's good. I put my faith in a strong political figure because I lack self-esteem and feel threatened by a changing world. Whoever stands against him is bad because I do not understand their arguments and I have a simple tribalistic mindset created through the consumption of right-wing media.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lionhearte0 View Post
    National Socialist* .

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrak View Post
    I always prefer the guilotine method.
    I have a feeling this will end up in somebody's signature.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    We Americans get along with our rich better than other country's get along with their rich.

    Ocasio-Cortez fucked up big time by chasing off Amazon who was going to set up offices in the city she represents, costing her constituents hundreds of billions of dollars. If she's re-elected, I'll be surprised.

    OP article is from the extreme left.
    1. This is exactly why she got elected.
    2. She did nothing to chase them off lol, but keep giving her credit to make her more popular.

    oh Hubcap, you silly boy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Trump did it so it's good. I put my faith in a strong political figure because I lack self-esteem and feel threatened by a changing world. Whoever stands against him is bad because I do not understand their arguments and I have a simple tribalistic mindset created through the consumption of right-wing media.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lionhearte0 View Post
    National Socialist* .

  17. #17
    AOC shitting on Bill Gates shows how stupid she is. He has done more for poor people than 1000 of her ever would.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Dakhath View Post
    AOC shitting on Bill Gates shows how stupid she is. He has done more for poor people than 1000 of her ever would.
    Does not take away the problems you cause by amassing such wealth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Trump did it so it's good. I put my faith in a strong political figure because I lack self-esteem and feel threatened by a changing world. Whoever stands against him is bad because I do not understand their arguments and I have a simple tribalistic mindset created through the consumption of right-wing media.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lionhearte0 View Post
    National Socialist* .

  19. #19
    Well, we have to come up with some plan sooner or later.

    You don't have to be a socialist to think that the excesses of greed and globalisation and the breakdown of any responsibilities associated with wealth has caused inequality to get dangerously out of whack.

    I don't just mean that the top few individuals could end the concept of poverty - Jounrnalism, policitics, security and data protection have just become a huge shitshow as companies have too much power to be controlled. +Massive scale tax evasion, global labor arbitrage and the ruling plutarchy will just fuck over the country in the long run.
    Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right...

  20. #20
    Give me WC3:R, Blizz! The Stormbringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    12,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    We Americans get along with our rich better than other country's get along with their rich.

    Ocasio-Cortez fucked up big time by chasing off Amazon who was going to set up offices in the city she represents, costing her constituents hundreds of billions of dollars. If she's re-elected, I'll be surprised.

    OP article is from the extreme left.
    Ah, so America kow-tows and sucks up to the rich better than anyone else and gets the choicest of the scraps? Lucky us.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •