Reducing Wealth Statification

User avatar
Martin Hash
Posts: 18245
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:02 pm

Re: Reducing Wealth Statification

Post by Martin Hash » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:17 pm

I'm not following? Who can differentiate between "good" and "bad" businesses, that's why we have regulation.

Only people should be taxed: progressively.
Shamedia, Shamdemic, Shamucation, Shamlection, Shamconomy & Shamate Change

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: Reducing Wealth Statification

Post by Speaker to Animals » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:19 pm

For instance, when you created your animation suite, you didn't earn revenue by fleecing other people like a stock market trader does, or even a bank. You grew the economy in small part, which corresponded to additional wealth, some of which you kept after paying out to your investors, your employees, and putting however much you wanted into more innovation and investment for the business. Why even tax that punitively?

I would rather punitively tax the banks that charge people a fee to park their own money in the bank accounts, which the banks then use to lend out to other people at interest, and then collect from everybody like the parasitic businesses they truly are. Tax the shit out of that. They didn't grow the economy. The only way they claim to have done so is indirectly through usury in lending to businesses. But it was those businesses they lent to who actually grew the economy.

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: Reducing Wealth Statification

Post by Speaker to Animals » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:20 pm

Just because a business shows a profit doesn't mean they necessarily generated wealth. Lots of businesses make money by taking it from others, either through usury, or through legal shenanigans, etc. There exists a stark difference between profit corresponding to real wealth generation and profit corresponding to you just taking money from another person.

User avatar
Martin Hash
Posts: 18245
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:02 pm

Re: Reducing Wealth Statification

Post by Martin Hash » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:24 pm

There's a differentiation between "active" and "passive" income. Unfortunately, the kind of income that is "passive" gets the Magic Money Discount, called Capital Gains. Only The Rich benefit from Capital Gains. America taxes the producers, such as wage earners, but the inherited rich pay almost no tax at all on their income.

It's because most people really rather would live in an aristocracy.
Shamedia, Shamdemic, Shamucation, Shamlection, Shamconomy & Shamate Change

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: Reducing Wealth Statification

Post by Speaker to Animals » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:26 pm



When a common sleaze does that, we call it fraud and we lock him in prison. But, really, it's not very different from what Wall Street banks do all the time, and they get away with it. Not only do they get away with it, it's barely taxed.

Okeefenokee
Posts: 12950
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:27 pm
Location: The Great Place

Re: Reducing Wealth Statification

Post by Okeefenokee » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:09 pm

Martin Hash wrote:
Okeefenokee wrote:
Martin Hash wrote: High progressive tax rates & confiscatory Inheritance taxes
So, businesses leave and the wealth disparity sets up shop elsewhere. Great plan.
Why? There's no business taxes in Hash economy.
You got high taxes?

I'm moving.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.

viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751

User avatar
Martin Hash
Posts: 18245
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:02 pm

Re: Reducing Wealth Statification

Post by Martin Hash » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:28 pm

Self-deportation. Have fun in Central America.
Shamedia, Shamdemic, Shamucation, Shamlection, Shamconomy & Shamate Change

User avatar
DBTrek
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:04 pm

Re: Reducing Wealth Statification

Post by DBTrek » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:33 pm

Passive income is at-risk income lent to others. This whole idea that something is evil because it wasn't earned by plowing a field is ridiculous. If I have $500 right now, and you want my $500 to start a business, or expand your home, or do whatever, then it's not evil to ask for compensation for my $500 when it is returned.

If I lend you $500, and five years later you give me back $500, not only have I lost money due to inflation, I've lost five years of enjoyment, opportunity, and alternative uses that $500 could have brought to my life. So this idea that "passive" income, or "unearned income" is some sort of evil deviltry that rich people have invented to torment the poor - that's just trailer park fairy tale stuff.
"Hey varmints, don't mess with a guy that's riding a buffalo"

Okeefenokee
Posts: 12950
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:27 pm
Location: The Great Place

Re: Reducing Wealth Statification

Post by Okeefenokee » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:33 pm

Take a look at California.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.

viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: Reducing Wealth Statification

Post by Speaker to Animals » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:35 pm

Regardless of the morality of usury (it's not moral, by the way), this really has little to do with the distinction I made. If you lent out $500 and charged somebody 10% interest on that, then you made $50 in profit. But nowhere did you actually create or add $50 to the economy. You just took it from elsewhere.

That's distinguished from somebody who actually builds shit and puts it into the economy. Elon Musk, like him or hate him, built a shit ton of electric cars and contributed them to the economy (and society). The profit he earned from that came from actual wealth generation.

Big difference.

One type of thing actually grows the economy. The other type of thing only redistributes wealth within th existing economy. We should encourage the former and limit the latter if we are going to use tax policy with a mind towards ending all this wealth redistribution to the top. That's how shit gets up there for the most part.