Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 177

Listen son
this is not about ideology
this isn't about apple at all was just an example of a company that has public revenue and market cap. And will apply to good causes as well...
but about practical solutions
I'm all for taxing the wealthy and corporations

but in a way that CAN BE ENFORCED and doesn't harm the economy.
You're going to discourage people from creating extra capital
You're going to force them out of the country
And you're going to create shitloads shenanigans with ownership spreading and wealth redistribution that they now will be willing to spend BILLIONS to do using lawyers because it's +EV.

Remember rakeback Pros btw guys :D
those were the days lol

ownership spreading and wealth distribution geeze the horror...

no it's not about apple or amazon alone but the stock market is vastly more concentrated into a small number of companies than it used to be

On November 05 2019 16:08 Santafairy wrote: ownership spreading and wealth distribution geeze the horror... no it's not about apple or amazon alone but the stock market is vastly more concentrated into a small number of companies than it used to be

you misunderstand
when I say ownership spreading and wealth distribution I don't mean between the rich and the poor
I mean between the rich
and their subsidiaries, offshore account and family members and whatever else shenanigans these people do.


It's been happening as is on income taxes just imagine the shitshow if you at something so preposterous as 6% net worth tax on top
EDIT: ANNUALLY

it's like you hear a buzzword and ignore the context or practicality
I guess that's why populists get elected in the first place hah

yeah, I know what you meant mr. hawking. the fact that you wrote it with the phraseology of the opposite side of the argument made me think, well either this is unwittingly ironic, or he's trying to be smart but didn't actually consider whether the result is functionally equivalent

like the evil mr. moneybags right now is so greedy he's not involving his kids. or that it would be a bad thing to somehow be forced to invest in more enterprises in an attempt to dodge taxes

YOU WOULDN'T DODGE THE TAXES BY INVESTING
this is why the wealth tax is retarded
you pay 6% of your NET WORTH that INCLUDES CAPITAL you invested in

I'm glad I explained it, you understand now and are on my side! Welcome sir!

Unless I don't understand what warren meant
I looked over articles posted and it indeed seems like this is what she means

>omg santafairy you idiot they would just hide wealth in subsidiaries
>omg santafairy you idiot you wouldn't dodge tax by investing

It's all so tiresome

also, if children have wealth they obviously pay their own taxes

On November 05 2019 05:15 Baalim wrote: The big short is a movie about the exploitation by the financial sector of a poorly thought out and corrupt government intervention in the real state market that guaranteed real state loans, how in the fuck is that a pro Warr/Sanders movie?

I saw the movie for a third time just a month ago, and you're just straight trolling here. The right wing fantasy that the financial crisis was caused by government backed real estate loans wasn't remotely a part of it. There's even a scene where a disgusted Steve Carell correctly predicts that the whole thing would be blamed on minorities which is essentially your line.

With regard to Warren/Sanders specifically, there's the trip to the ratings agency and its exposed how the lack of regulation was just letting the big firms just do whatever. Warren has been pushing heavy Wall Street regulation almost her entire government career.

That crisis literally happened cause there was no regulation lmao

On November 05 2019 17:03 Santafairy wrote: >omg santafairy you idiot they would just hide wealth in subsidiaries >omg santafairy you idiot you wouldn't dodge tax by investing It's all so tiresome also, if children have wealth they obviously pay their own taxes

No
your net is say $3bn
you pay 6% of the $2bn
you transfer that to 2 parties on paper
each now has NW or $1bn
none of the parties pays any wealth tax
EDIT: 2% ABOVE 50mill sorry

man just look at how it works
examples where they tried it and why it failed
and you'll see how ridiculous 6% wealth tax sounds

Capitalism without regulation stops becoming healthy capitalism Baal
because people DO NOT act rationally

masses make -ev decisions get manipulated and have incomplete information
and the top starts exploitation like collusion, monopolies, and rating agencies working in immediate self-interest
and shitfest like 2008 happens.

I believe Capitalism has been the best system by far so far
But fields like Behavioral economics show you that you can't just leave it totally untouched as people do not act "rationally" at least from an economist's standpoint. Thinking that it can is almost as foolish as believing in communism.

You need regulation in some Industries moreso than others but you definitely need it for capitalism to work.

Havn't seen the movie but the guy who made it is a socialist.

I actually found a paper from a person that looks insanely wise and respectable to me on scribd you can check out.
People talk about Chomsky and Kahneman, but man I must yield to say that this person whomever they might be are the true titan of academia
https://www.scribd.com/doc/52137900/A...f-Psychology-and-Behavioral-Economics

Show nested quote + On November 05 2019 04:42 Baalim wrote: [QUOTE]On November 03 2019 11:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: .. For households worth between $50 million and 1 billion, and higher % for households worth more than a billion. Sounds good to me, imo nobody should have $50 mill and most certainly not 1 billion. It's not just a matter if somebody should have that kind of money or not, if it were just than then I would agree, but its also a matter of understanding that the economy isn't a zero sum game, this person creates thousands of jobs and products, its not a matter of "would you rather give 1billion to Bezos or poor people" its weather if it will be an overall good to society to create a government apparatus dedicated for a wealth cap, it has more ripples than you seem to realize.

This just seems like you are making stuff up. Much of that wealth is due to labor exploitation. Ever since Amazon bought Whole Foods they have done everything in their power to extract from labor. Most of my days my hair is on fire and I'm playing whack a mole for 8 hours a day with no break. If I start a union I get fired. Good food is actually a worthwhile product although we only make 1 vegan pizza and it isn't very great most of the time. It's the wringing people out to the bone that bothers me. I don't have all the answers but there has got to be something better than the status quo and this idea that billionaires are inherently good because they create jobs and products.

The idea that they are job creators is a very self serving one, particularly since they actually want an economy with systematic unemployment, called 'labour insecuirty' by Alan Greenspan, it essentially is good for business if you decrease bargaining power from workers. If they were interesting in creating jobs they would promote mixed state/private economies since those are the ones that have reached full employment.

The problem with lack of regulation is exactly that people act rationally, once you obtain enough power you just group up at the top and then mold the system to meet your needs and keep you and everyone else there for eternity. That way you simply get rid of any variance in terms of status

And Lemon I haven't downloaded what you linked, but its literally all based on Kahneman and Tversky's work so what are you talking about :D

I've noticed once companies become publicly listed ones they start turning to shit (from a labor perspective), well most of them, if not all. SEC requires them to comply with so much regulatory reporting and stakeholders (public) demand some share growth it forces companies to fuck with the whole thing and slashing labor costs is like the first thing they do. I'm pretty sure Amazon was a swell place to work when it was one warehouse with like 50 employees and Bezos could be seen walking around in his office by everybody, growth really fucks with labor and it is unavoidable.

On November 05 2019 09:37 Spitfiree wrote: More houses doesn't necessarily mean more owners, nor does it mean lower prices.

sigh this again, if you are going to contradict basic economy at least explain what you mean, or be a clown like loco and call it a dismal science.


More houses (supply) in relation to buyers (demand) means lower prices.

If you are selling your house for 100k but there are 100 houses identical like yours at the same price and only a couple of buyers the price will drop or your house will stay on the market for decades.

If you are selling your house for 100k, and its the only house and you have 10 people wanting to buy it you are gonna basically auction it off at a much higher price than 100k.


If this doesn't apppy explain specifically why and dont repy with with anecdotal crap of "in bulgaria houses are the same price for years" or something like that please -_-