Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
203 Posts
[1]  Prev «  3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7  Next »  [9] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Other people getting stuff you didn’t rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: US_Politics [+] [View All]
Doremus Jessup
msg tools
Avatar
mb
windsagio wrote:
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
MikePustilnik wrote:


And what about the students who chose to go to less expensive colleges, or worked during their studies, just so they would have lower debt when they graduated? Is it fair to them that the students who chose to go into more debt will get their debts forgiven, at taxpayer expense?



I know people actually think this way and it makes me despair for humanity. Both of you are getting your enormous debt covered. Why does it actually matter that someone else is getting a larger amount of debt covered than you? Why can't you be happy with the fact that you no longer have to pay your own debt?

People have an almost endless capacity to spite themselves if it seems like someone else might, just might, be getting a slightly better deal than they are. It's fucked up.


We kind of spoke to it. Part of the issue with the current system is that it encourages people to make very poor and very expensive financial decisions.

We legitimately don't want to reinforce that behavior, and so we need an equitable way to get people clear of the real predatory treatment and at the same time not encourage profligacy.


Warren's plan is a start towards that. Free 4-year and 2-year state college tuition helps them avoid that trap.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Escapade wrote:

If you want all the money to go to the general budget, okay, fair. On the other hand, you're the one bringing free medicare for all into this. Nobody suggested that we could fund that by just upping the top bracket a few percentage points. That'll pretty obviously have to be a major overhaul of our entire medical and economical systems. And also, you're the one worried about taxing people for "not wasting money", which is...definitely not what anyone here is talking about. We want the wealthy to pay their fair share. Why can't we just leave it at that until the wealthy DO pay a fair share, or (more likely), we are all seven feet under and halfway to the heat death of the universe?



Sanders has asserted part of how we would pay for Medicare for all would be an increased tax on the rich.


Warren's suggested way to tax the rich more is to tax them based assests rather than on income.


There 1%er who makes a million a year but spends 75% of his income on lavish parties, trips, gambling whatever etc would get taxed less than 1%er who makes a million dollars and invests or buys something of lasting value with it. In short her tax would become a use it or lose it tax every year on the rich.

Then you get into things like people who buy something like say a painting, just because they like it while it was cheap, but the artist becomes famous and then the painting is worth millions. They might have to sell it because they cannot afford to pay the taxes on it over and over and over.

Plus haven't even started talking about land values, closely held buisnesses or family heirlooms pasted down in families that they have no intention of ever selling that have become on paper worth a lot of money. There are many small to medium sized buisness and family farms that are worth more than 50 million on paper, and they provide lots of jobs in their regions. But they could not absorb a repeated asset tax year after year because while they make some money, they don't make that kind of money. It would eventually require them to sell off the capital and destroy the buisnesses and farms. These types of holdings are Uber rich on paper but not in ledger books.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Dearlove wrote:
bippi wrote:
I'm mostly for this. I just wish that college worked a little more free-market. You don't NEED to go to Stanford, folks.


Of course not. Stamford and the rest of the Ivy League should be reserved for the children of the rich. Then they can be best qualified for all the well paid jobs, keeping them out of the reach of the hoi polloi.


Actually, going to a world-class university is a great deal nowadays...it's going to expensive private schools that aren't top-tier where the value proposition is poor (both in terms of cost and the market value of the degree).

For example, right now at Stanford if your parents make less than $125k/year, you pay no tuition. If your parents make less than $65k/year, your room and board is completely covered, too (and that's by grants, not loans).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doremus Jessup
msg tools
Avatar
mb
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
MikePustilnik wrote:


And what about the students who chose to go to less expensive colleges, or worked during their studies, just so they would have lower debt when they graduated? Is it fair to them that the students who chose to go into more debt will get their debts forgiven, at taxpayer expense?



I know people actually think this way and it makes me despair for humanity. Both of you are getting your enormous debt covered. Why does it actually matter that someone else is getting a larger amount of debt covered than you? Why can't you be happy with the fact that you no longer have to pay your own debt?

People have an almost endless capacity to spite themselves if it seems like someone else might, just might, be getting a slightly better deal than they are. It's fucked up.


To some, punishment is the most important thing. Mercy and charity being reserved for those who "deserve" it. The GOP has made schadenfreude part of their campaign strategy and it does have hold over a depressingly large portion of the population
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Poole
msg tools
Avatar
Unless you have a more substantive quote from Bernie, I'm just going to ignore him. That could cover literally any increase in taxes on the rich, the vast majority of those I'd be in favor of and you say you would as well. "Part of the money for more medicare will come from rich people" is not a serious policy proposal.

Warren's a lot more interesting. For starters, neither of your hypothetical 1%ers is going to pay any wealth tax at all, unless they were born rich, or have extremely long, lucrative careers while meticulously saving every cent, because the wealth tax wouldn't kick in until a household is worth $50m.

There are around one to two hundred paintings in the world that would put you over that threshold, and even if you are that lucky, your first $50m are exempt. Also, art is incredibly hard to value until it's sold, I'm very skeptical that the IRS would come around to your house and assess your painting at $60m even though you bought it for $25k.

But let's set aside art-lottery winners and think about the kinds of households who really do have $50m+. They tend to be heavily invested, and not all in one physical asset (though they will often own at least one lavish home). The stock market, on average, tends to generate about 7% returns over time. It's a rule of thumb, and you can argue with me about it, but I won't be convinced that the actual average return on investments is less than 2%. That is, if you have invested most of your $50m, the net effect will be that you grow more slowly over time, not that your wealth will be wiped out. Can you have a bad year where your investments do poorly? Sure, and maybe you'll get taxed to under that $50m threshold, or maybe your net worth will shrink (which, if you're heavily invested, is a possible outcome even without the tax).

TLDR: Nobody rich is ever going to get taxed to the poorhouse, or even down into regular, white collar worker lifestyle, by Warren's proposal.

Do you have any kind of statistics on these small to medium business owners and landlords who are worth over 50 mil on paper but couldn't cover 2% on their excess over $50m per year?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
Escapade wrote:

If you want all the money to go to the general budget, okay, fair. On the other hand, you're the one bringing free medicare for all into this. Nobody suggested that we could fund that by just upping the top bracket a few percentage points. That'll pretty obviously have to be a major overhaul of our entire medical and economical systems. And also, you're the one worried about taxing people for "not wasting money", which is...definitely not what anyone here is talking about. We want the wealthy to pay their fair share. Why can't we just leave it at that until the wealthy DO pay a fair share, or (more likely), we are all seven feet under and halfway to the heat death of the universe?



Sanders has asserted part of how we would pay for Medicare for all would be an increased tax on the rich.


Warren's suggested way to tax the rich more is to tax them based assests rather than on income.


There 1%er who makes a million a year but spends 75% of his income on lavish parties, trips, gambling whatever etc would get taxed less than 1%er who makes a million dollars and invests or buys something of lasting value with it. In short her tax would become a use it or lose it tax every year on the rich.

Then you get into things like people who buy something like say a painting, just because they like it while it was cheap, but the artist becomes famous and then the painting is worth millions. They might have to sell it because they cannot afford to pay the taxes on it over and over and over.

Plus haven't even started talking about land values, closely held buisnesses or family heirlooms pasted down in families that they have no intention of ever selling that have become on paper worth a lot of money. There are many small to medium sized buisness and family farms that are worth more than 50 million on paper, and they provide lots of jobs in their regions. But they could not absorb a repeated asset tax year after year because while they make some money, they don't make that kind of money. It would eventually require them to sell off the capital and destroy the buisnesses and farms. These types of holdings are Uber rich on paper but not in ledger books.




If the assets aren't able to produce income enough to satisfy a tax, then either they're valued too highly or they're not being used effectively, or the tax rate is too high. But I have no trust in the government's ability to determine what assets are worth and tax on that, as property taxes in the downtown commercial district in my town show.

And if you buy a painting cheap, it isn't valued any different until it's sold in any reasonable accounting plan.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Boardgame Aesthete
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
Sanders has asserted part of how we would pay for Medicare for all would be an increased tax on the rich.


Warren's suggested way to tax the rich more is to tax them based assests rather than on income.


There 1%er who makes a million a year but spends 75% of his income on lavish parties, trips, gambling whatever etc would get taxed less than 1%er who makes a million dollars and invests or buys something of lasting value with it. In short her tax would become a use it or lose it tax every year on the rich.

Then you get into things like people who buy something like say a painting, just because they like it while it was cheap, but the artist becomes famous and then the painting is worth millions. They might have to sell it because they cannot afford to pay the taxes on it over and over and over.

Plus haven't even started talking about land values, closely held buisnesses or family heirlooms pasted down in families that they have no intention of ever selling that have become on paper worth a lot of money. There are many small to medium sized buisness and family farms that are worth more than 50 million on paper, and they provide lots of jobs in their regions. But they could not absorb a repeated asset tax year after year because while they make some money, they don't make that kind of money. It would eventually require them to sell off the capital and destroy the buisnesses and farms. These types of holdings are Uber rich on paper but not in ledger books.



Yeah, yeah, we get it, you can't tax the rich 1% for this and 1% for that and so on for every single thing we need money for.

But the rest of your argument is just a tired variation on why taxing the rich is bad.

(I haven't looked at Warren's plan closely, but taxing based on assets would probably not include estimated appraisal values of artwork and the like. That would require the IRS to hire professional appraisers every year, because there is no way a table is going to tell them what something painted by some guy who becomes the next Andy Warhol is worth five years later. Of course that means art would become a more advantageous form of tax shelter, but so it goes, people will game any system.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doremus Jessup
msg tools
Avatar
mb
Escapade wrote:
Unless you have a more substantive quote from Bernie, I'm just going to ignore him. That could cover literally any increase in taxes on the rich, the vast majority of those I'd be in favor of and you say you would as well. "Part of the money for more medicare will come from rich people" is not a serious policy proposal.

Warren's a lot more interesting. For starters, neither of your hypothetical 1%ers is going to pay any wealth tax at all, unless they were born rich, or have extremely long, lucrative careers while meticulously saving every cent, because the wealth tax wouldn't kick in until a household is worth $50m.

There are around one to two hundred paintings in the world that would put you over that threshold, and even if you are that lucky, your first $50m are exempt. Also, art is incredibly hard to value until it's sold, I'm very skeptical that the IRS would come around to your house and assess your painting at $60m even though you bought it for $25k.

But let's set aside art-lottery winners and think about the kinds of households who really do have $50m+. They tend to be heavily invested, and not all in one physical asset (though they will often own at least one lavish home). The stock market, on average, tends to generate about 7% returns over time. It's a rule of thumb, and you can argue with me about it, but I won't be convinced that the actual average return on investments is less than 2%. That is, if you have invested most of your $50m, the net effect will be that you grow more slowly over time, not that your wealth will be wiped out. Can you have a bad year where your investments do poorly? Sure, and maybe you'll get taxed to under that $50m threshold, or maybe your net worth will shrink (which, if you're heavily invested, is a possible outcome even without the tax).

TLDR: Nobody rich is ever going to get taxed to the poorhouse, or even down into regular, white collar worker lifestyle, by Warren's proposal.

Do you have any kind of statistics on these small to medium business owners and landlords who are worth over 50 mil on paper but couldn't cover 2% on their excess over $50m per year?


I am wondering how many "small" businesses are worth over 50 million. According to the analysis we are talking about 75,000 families total. They did, one may point out, quite nicely for themselves in the recent tax cut. And for example someone worth 60 million would be assessed another 200,000 under this plan. You are right, this is not going to break anyone's bank. They just won't buy this year's lamborghini
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Doremus wrote:
Escapade wrote:
Unless you have a more substantive quote from Bernie, I'm just going to ignore him. That could cover literally any increase in taxes on the rich, the vast majority of those I'd be in favor of and you say you would as well. "Part of the money for more medicare will come from rich people" is not a serious policy proposal.

Warren's a lot more interesting. For starters, neither of your hypothetical 1%ers is going to pay any wealth tax at all, unless they were born rich, or have extremely long, lucrative careers while meticulously saving every cent, because the wealth tax wouldn't kick in until a household is worth $50m.

There are around one to two hundred paintings in the world that would put you over that threshold, and even if you are that lucky, your first $50m are exempt. Also, art is incredibly hard to value until it's sold, I'm very skeptical that the IRS would come around to your house and assess your painting at $60m even though you bought it for $25k.

But let's set aside art-lottery winners and think about the kinds of households who really do have $50m+. They tend to be heavily invested, and not all in one physical asset (though they will often own at least one lavish home). The stock market, on average, tends to generate about 7% returns over time. It's a rule of thumb, and you can argue with me about it, but I won't be convinced that the actual average return on investments is less than 2%. That is, if you have invested most of your $50m, the net effect will be that you grow more slowly over time, not that your wealth will be wiped out. Can you have a bad year where your investments do poorly? Sure, and maybe you'll get taxed to under that $50m threshold, or maybe your net worth will shrink (which, if you're heavily invested, is a possible outcome even without the tax).

TLDR: Nobody rich is ever going to get taxed to the poorhouse, or even down into regular, white collar worker lifestyle, by Warren's proposal.

Do you have any kind of statistics on these small to medium business owners and landlords who are worth over 50 mil on paper but couldn't cover 2% on their excess over $50m per year?


I am wondering how many "small" businesses are worth over 50 million. According to the analysis we are talking about 75,000 families total. They did, one may point out, quite nicely for themselves in the recent tax cut. And for example someone worth 60 million would be assessed another 200,000 under this plan. You are right, this is not going to break anyone's bank. They just won't buy this year's lamborghini


Yes they will. But they might sell the one from 10 years ago.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So...

We have a solution that does zero to address the rising costs, rising at double the average inflation, just throws public money at it, and it's okay because we're taking this money from people who deserve to have it taken from them. That way we don't have to work on reducing costs or being more efficient, we can just grab more money whenever we want.

And once that happens, then we have to address the next generation, and since we basically gave free college to people who promised to pay for it but then didn't have to, we have to keep giving free college to the next people after them and after them and after them. Because that's fair, even though we're saying people who are advocating keeping things fair for all now are a bunch of jerky jerkheads.

But when conservatives say that the left are a bunch of socialists who are looking to take over one aspect of public life after another, we get told we don't know what a true socialist is. Well, it's basically this, yes?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, just like healthcare, once we have a single payer system set up, costs will decrease because the single payer won't put up with such high tuition costs. In this capitalistic society, people are still demanding college, even though it is providing no useful service in their life beyond it in 90% of cases, but is seen as 'important' or 'the thing to do' which gives them inelastic pricing. So it will keep going up pretty much forever, until someone steps in and stops it, most likely a public that figures out it's a bad investment.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Poole
msg tools
Avatar
GameCrossing wrote:
So...

We have a solution that does zero to address the rising costs, rising at double the average inflation, just throws public money at it, and it's okay because we're taking this money from people who deserve to have it taken from them. That way we don't have to work on reducing costs or being more efficient, we can just grab more money whenever we want.

And once that happens, then we have to address the next generation, and since we basically gave free college to people who promised to pay for it but then didn't have to, we have to keep giving free college to the next people after them and after them and after them. Because that's fair, even though we're saying people who are advocating keeping things fair for all now are a bunch of jerky jerkheads.

But when conservatives say that the left are a bunch of socialists who are looking to take over one aspect of public life after another, we get told we don't know what a true socialist is. Well, it's basically this, yes?


You know Warren's plan explicitly includes making public universities tuition-free, right? Paying for college for the next generation and those that follow isn't some "oops!" unintended consequence of this plan. It's a significant purpose of it.

You're asserting that failing to assist the people burdened now is "keeping things fair", as if this is some zero sum game to be played between taxpayers. As long as people adhere that mindset, the only winners are the ownership class.

There is nothing in making tuition free that prevents the government from working to address inefficiencies or reducing costs. At the same time, you can't deny that due to the mystic cache of a degree in the modern job market, the free market has also completely failed to control costs spiraling ever upwards.

If socialism is letting the government, with its unified negotiating power, handle tuition costs while in the meanwhile allowing our kids to become doctors, lawyers, underwater basketweavers, engineers, pointy-haired middle managers and professors without crippling them with undischargable debt, by all means, bring on the socialism. All I'm hearing from the rah rah free market capitalist side on student debt is crickets.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
Redmond
WA
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
So...

We have a solution that does zero to address the rising costs, rising at double the average inflation, just throws public money at it, and it's okay because we're taking this money from people who deserve to have it taken from them.


Just to be clear -- yes, if you're a billionaire, the public should take everything you have. Literally everything. 70% is light.

Being a billionaire is an abject moral failure.

Quote:
That way we don't have to work on reducing costs or being more efficient, we can just grab more money whenever we want.

And once that happens, then we have to address the next generation, and since we basically gave free college to people who promised to pay for it but then didn't have to, we have to keep giving free college to the next people after them and after them and after them. Because that's fair, even though we're saying people who are advocating keeping things fair for all now are a bunch of jerky jerkheads.

But when conservatives say that the left are a bunch of socialists who are looking to take over one aspect of public life after another, we get told we don't know what a true socialist is. Well, it's basically this, yes?


Fire and blood. arrrh

ugh shit I'm never gonna get clearance, fuck it
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamie Hankins
United Kingdom
Southampton
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fake Mike wrote:
It’s the same emotion regardless of the cause - righteous fury is a reaction to a perceived unfairness. We all have it because it encourages fair treatment of others and allows for better social bonding


I tend to agree.

If I came into possession of a magic that could cure people of disease... but only worked on white people, should I still use it? Presumably, the answer is 'yes' but I wouldn't feel great about it and people might be rightfully annoyed by my racist magic wand.

The situation seems to have at least some similarity with a magic wand that wipes away the debt of current debtors while doing nothing to help people who paid off their debts already. It's wrong to say that we shouldn't use the wand, but that doesn't mean that you'd be wrong to feel annoyed if you'd just made a massive payment against your debt the day before the wand was discovered (or even just feeling annoyed that the wand wasn't discovered when you were young).

They're not equivalent in the severity and kind of injustice involved but both involve solutions to a problem that do not equally serve everyone impacted by a problem, which is going to be provide some kind of negative response amongst those who get left out.

Wanting the wands to not be used is where we cross the line into spite... if we have a magic wand that only cures white people then we should use it, but it's okay to not feel good about it.

That being said, the debt wand has some relevance to real-life choices while the racist wand doesn't seem to relate to any real-life scenario.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AmadanNaBriona wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
Sanders has asserted part of how we would pay for Medicare for all would be an increased tax on the rich.


Warren's suggested way to tax the rich more is to tax them based assests rather than on income.


There 1%er who makes a million a year but spends 75% of his income on lavish parties, trips, gambling whatever etc would get taxed less than 1%er who makes a million dollars and invests or buys something of lasting value with it. In short her tax would become a use it or lose it tax every year on the rich.

Then you get into things like people who buy something like say a painting, just because they like it while it was cheap, but the artist becomes famous and then the painting is worth millions. They might have to sell it because they cannot afford to pay the taxes on it over and over and over.

Plus haven't even started talking about land values, closely held buisnesses or family heirlooms pasted down in families that they have no intention of ever selling that have become on paper worth a lot of money. There are many small to medium sized buisness and family farms that are worth more than 50 million on paper, and they provide lots of jobs in their regions. But they could not absorb a repeated asset tax year after year because while they make some money, they don't make that kind of money. It would eventually require them to sell off the capital and destroy the buisnesses and farms. These types of holdings are Uber rich on paper but not in ledger books.



Yeah, yeah, we get it, you can't tax the rich 1% for this and 1% for that and so on for every single thing we need money for.

But the rest of your argument is just a tired variation on why taxing the rich is bad.

(I haven't looked at Warren's plan closely, but taxing based on assets would probably not include estimated appraisal values of artwork and the like. That would require the IRS to hire professional appraisers every year, because there is no way a table is going to tell them what something painted by some guy who becomes the next Andy Warhol is worth five years later. Of course that means art would become a more advantageous form of tax shelter, but so it goes, people will game any system.)


No the rest of my argument is why I happen to think taxing assets instead of income or capital gains is likely to be highly problematic and potentially bad. Which is not even in the same ball park as some defualt taxing the rich is bad position.


That the IRS would have to hire apprasiers is almost a given if we are going to start taxing assets. Not just art appriasers but all kinds of appriaisers: Land, coins, jewelry, antiques, animals, boats etc. and dozens of things which at this point I cannot even personally imagine since I don't own valuable things nor do I run a buisness or a farm. Though for some of it I suspect they will take insured value as a starting point rather than appraise each item themselves.


Still when it comes to audits and reading the "tax filings" they are going to have to have experts who will at least have a clue about if the valuation of the things listed are reasonable or not.




1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Being a billionaire is an abject moral failure.


I am pretty sure you are serious about this... and wow, next time we are playing games in person we need to have a long chat about this one.

I think you are clearly in error by stating that as a default position. I might agree with you if you were to say having a billion dollars in liquid assists was a moral failure... though even that would be dicey.

But just being a billionaire, in many cases is inescapable if one has been successful and isn't done doing amazing and needed things. For example Elon Musk is doing some really amazing things IMO... things he cannot do if he just gives all his money away. He invests in the kind of R and D that the government isn't and likely can't any time soon due to politics and does it far more efficiently than the government would even if it were to manage to find the political will and funds to do so. If he sold off enough stock to stop being a billionare, he would lose control of the companies he is using to do that research.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J J
Australia
flag msg tools
Meerkat wrote:
If you literally liquidated Bill Gates AND Warren Buffet's fortunes entirely (Both had ~ 90 Billion last I read) ... we could cancel out the 1.5 Trillion student loan debt and toss a bit toward something else. But then those fortunes would be gone. You cannot spend them twice. Even if we strip the 1% of every penny they have (which would not be reasonable nor econmoically sound policy) it is still a finite amount.


What? Money is not used once and then gone. Money circulates endlessly (unless removed from the economy by, I dunno, some ultra-rich bastard hoarding money for no good reason, like Apple does). Every indivual dollar is spent millions upon millions of times. And every individual dollar is also taxed millions upon millions of times. There is no end to the money, just so long as it actually circulates.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamie Hankins
United Kingdom
Southampton
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Being a billionaire is an abject moral failure.


My moral intuitions agree that people with vast amounts of money should dedicate that wealth to charitable causes; it would be very hard to justify the buying of an island in today's world given the amount of moral good that could be achieved with the same amount of money.

That being said, both the morality and the economics of the situation are perhaps more complicated than that.

Current Affairs: It’s Basically Just Immoral To Be Rich - Here is a simple statement of principle that doesn’t get repeated enough: if you possess billions of dollars, in a world where many people struggle because they do not have much money, you are an immoral person. The same is true if you possess hundreds of millions of dollars, or even millions of dollars. Being extremely wealthy is impossible to justify in a world containing deprivation.

Slate Star Codex: Bottomless Pits Of Suffering - A friend on Facebook recently posted the following dilemma, which of course I cannot find right now so I have to vaguely quote my recollection of it: Would you rather the medieval Church had spent all of its money helping the poor, rather than supporting the arts? So that maybe there were fewer poor people back in medieval times, but we wouldn’t have any cathedrals or triptychs or the Sistine Chapel?

Slate: What I Like About Scrooge - During the holiday season, most people seem to believe that giving is better than hoarding. But in an “Everyday Economics” article published in 2004, and reprinted below, Steven E. Landsburg argued that Ebenezer Scrooge, contrary to belief, is as generous as any philanthropist.

Foundation for Economic Education: The Smaug Fallacy - The wealthy aren’t hoarders — they’re stewards of capital
1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max Sewell
United States
Morganton
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Escapade wrote:
You know Warren's plan explicitly includes making public universities tuition-free, right? Paying for college for the next generation and those that follow isn't some "oops!" unintended consequence of this plan. It's a significant purpose of it.

Just a note: My son attended Fitchburg State University in Warren’s own state. Tuition might have been the least of the fees paid. Massachusetts also had a free tuition program waiving that fee for high school students who graduate in the top ten percent of their class.

Free is great. But “free tuition” often sounds like a lot more than it really is.

https://www.fitchburgstate.edu/offices-services-directory/st...




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Jester
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
"We have now sunk to a depth at which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."--George Orwell
Avatar
mbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
If you literally liquidated Bill Gates AND Warren Buffet's fortunes entirely (Both had ~ 90 Billion last I read) ... we could cancel out the 1.5 Trillion student loan debt and toss a bit toward something else.



(Irrelevant aside:

Unless I'm misreading your intent, you dropped the decimal point in the wrong place. 90B + 90B = 180B not 1.8 trillion.)
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doremus Jessup
msg tools
Avatar
mb
Escapade wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
So...

We have a solution that does zero to address the rising costs, rising at double the average inflation, just throws public money at it, and it's okay because we're taking this money from people who deserve to have it taken from them. That way we don't have to work on reducing costs or being more efficient, we can just grab more money whenever we want.

And once that happens, then we have to address the next generation, and since we basically gave free college to people who promised to pay for it but then didn't have to, we have to keep giving free college to the next people after them and after them and after them. Because that's fair, even though we're saying people who are advocating keeping things fair for all now are a bunch of jerky jerkheads.

But when conservatives say that the left are a bunch of socialists who are looking to take over one aspect of public life after another, we get told we don't know what a true socialist is. Well, it's basically this, yes?


You know Warren's plan explicitly includes making public universities tuition-free, right? Paying for college for the next generation and those that follow isn't some "oops!" unintended consequence of this plan. It's a significant purpose of it.

You're asserting that failing to assist the people burdened now is "keeping things fair", as if this is some zero sum game to be played between taxpayers. As long as people adhere that mindset, the only winners are the ownership class.

There is nothing in making tuition free that prevents the government from working to address inefficiencies or reducing costs. At the same time, you can't deny that due to the mystic cache of a degree in the modern job market, the free market has also completely failed to control costs spiraling ever upwards.

If socialism is letting the government, with its unified negotiating power, handle tuition costs while in the meanwhile allowing our kids to become doctors, lawyers, underwater basketweavers, engineers, pointy-haired middle managers and professors without crippling them with undischargable debt, by all means, bring on the socialism. All I'm hearing from the rah rah free market capitalist side on student debt is crickets.


Agree totally. A further point, using the University of California system as an example. As late as 1968 there was no tuition (but with a 300$). So the idea of a tuition-free state school is not some radical departure, but merely getting back to where we were before. A time where we knew the worth to the nation as a whole of education and paid for it


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
AmadanNaBriona wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
Sanders has asserted part of how we would pay for Medicare for all would be an increased tax on the rich.


Warren's suggested way to tax the rich more is to tax them based assests rather than on income.


There 1%er who makes a million a year but spends 75% of his income on lavish parties, trips, gambling whatever etc would get taxed less than 1%er who makes a million dollars and invests or buys something of lasting value with it. In short her tax would become a use it or lose it tax every year on the rich.

Then you get into things like people who buy something like say a painting, just because they like it while it was cheap, but the artist becomes famous and then the painting is worth millions. They might have to sell it because they cannot afford to pay the taxes on it over and over and over.

Plus haven't even started talking about land values, closely held buisnesses or family heirlooms pasted down in families that they have no intention of ever selling that have become on paper worth a lot of money. There are many small to medium sized buisness and family farms that are worth more than 50 million on paper, and they provide lots of jobs in their regions. But they could not absorb a repeated asset tax year after year because while they make some money, they don't make that kind of money. It would eventually require them to sell off the capital and destroy the buisnesses and farms. These types of holdings are Uber rich on paper but not in ledger books.



Yeah, yeah, we get it, you can't tax the rich 1% for this and 1% for that and so on for every single thing we need money for.

But the rest of your argument is just a tired variation on why taxing the rich is bad.

(I haven't looked at Warren's plan closely, but taxing based on assets would probably not include estimated appraisal values of artwork and the like. That would require the IRS to hire professional appraisers every year, because there is no way a table is going to tell them what something painted by some guy who becomes the next Andy Warhol is worth five years later. Of course that means art would become a more advantageous form of tax shelter, but so it goes, people will game any system.)


No the rest of my argument is why I happen to think taxing assets instead of income or capital gains is likely to be highly problematic and potentially bad. Which is not even in the same ball park as some defualt taxing the rich is bad position.


That the IRS would have to hire apprasiers is almost a given if we are going to start taxing assets. Not just art appriasers but all kinds of appriaisers: Land, coins, jewelry, antiques, animals, boats etc. and dozens of things which at this point I cannot even personally imagine since I don't own valuable things nor do I run a buisness or a farm. Though for some of it I suspect they will take insured value as a starting point rather than appraise each item themselves.


Still when it comes to audits and reading the "tax filings" they are going to have to have experts who will at least have a clue about if the valuation of the things listed are reasonable or not.






We are already doing this for other purposes. Accountants already know how to evaluate a person's assets, we have several methods for doing it, and we just need to be told which one to use and we'll take care of it. And bill for every hour it takes. The IRS might add personnel to help with the audits that come out of this. So not only are we gaining revenue, but we're also gaining jobs in the accounting industry, and that means more boring people like me getting work straight out of college, more accountants going back to get their MBA, and more CPAs showing up. Which is funny, because that's an increase in college educated jobs as opposed to trade school jobs, and that will make college more valuable.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Boardgame Aesthete
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Doremus wrote:
Agree totally. A further point, using the University of California system as an example. As late as 1968 there was no tuition (but with a 300$). So the idea of a tuition-free state school is not some radical departure, but merely getting back to where we were before. A time where we knew the worth to the nation as a whole of education and paid for it


Okay, but keep in mind, in 1968, the University of California was smaller, more elite, and there was no Prop 13.

I mean, I think the fact that we've made a college degree essentially a job requirement for any career outside the trades or unskilled labor means we are probably moving towards universities being an extension of the public education system, so yeah, something about the current system needs to change. Right now, unless you are very lucky, very frugal, or very clever, you basically take on mandatory debt to have a future - it's almost like indentured servitude.

But, you cannot just compare one aspect of 1968 to today and pretend we could go back to the way we did things then but leaving everything else the same.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AmadanNaBriona wrote:
Doremus wrote:
Agree totally. A further point, using the University of California system as an example. As late as 1968 there was no tuition (but with a 300$). So the idea of a tuition-free state school is not some radical departure, but merely getting back to where we were before. A time where we knew the worth to the nation as a whole of education and paid for it


Okay, but keep in mind, in 1968, the University of California was smaller, more elite, and there was no Prop 13.

I mean, I think the fact that we've made a college degree essentially a job requirement for any career outside the trades or unskilled labor means we are probably moving towards universities being an extension of the public education system, so yeah, something about the current system needs to change. Right now, unless you are very lucky, very frugal, or very clever, you basically take on mandatory debt to have a future - it's almost like indentured servitude.

But, you cannot just compare one aspect of 1968 to today and pretend we could go back to the way we did things then but leaving everything else the same.


Isn't the right idea, though, to say, "Hey, maybe we don't need college degrees for all these jobs?"
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doremus Jessup
msg tools
Avatar
mb
AmadanNaBriona wrote:
Doremus wrote:
Agree totally. A further point, using the University of California system as an example. As late as 1968 there was no tuition (but with a 300$). So the idea of a tuition-free state school is not some radical departure, but merely getting back to where we were before. A time where we knew the worth to the nation as a whole of education and paid for it


Okay, but keep in mind, in 1968, the University of California was smaller, more elite, and there was no Prop 13.

I mean, I think the fact that we've made a college degree essentially a job requirement for any career outside the trades or unskilled labor means we are probably moving towards universities being an extension of the public education system, so yeah, something about the current system needs to change. Right now, unless you are very lucky, very frugal, or very clever, you basically take on mandatory debt to have a future - it's almost like indentured servitude.

But, you cannot just compare one aspect of 1968 to today and pretend we could go back to the way we did things then but leaving everything else the same.


You are correct. The key is in bold. We have gotten away from funding education, as if it is some kind of nuisance. Time to realize what a backward self defeating point of view this is. That is an important first step
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7  Next »  [9] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.