Post: #26

(01-21-2016 11:56 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  The reason why this is important, and the reason why we should care, is because excessive concentrations of wealth in a society destabilize that society.

It threatens republican democratic institutions by producing plutocratic oligarchies, rather than governments which are run with the interests of the public at heart.

I discussed this issue here:

http://www.returnofkings.com/32017/the-c...tal-wealth

That is why we should care.

It directly magnifies poverty, greed, injustice, and a host of other evils. It reduces the role of the public to that of a passive spectator, subject to the whims of the ruling caste.

It destroys the middle class and transforms society into something resembling the worst Third World tyranny.

Of course there are always going to be haves and have-nots. No one doubts this. But it is a matter of degree. America in 1960 was far more equitably configured in terms of wealth distribution.

Now, things are simply ridiculous.

If peaceful ways can't be found to ensure some measure of equity in these matters, then the result will be political instability, social unrest, and in extreme cases, civil war and dictatorship.

Within a historical context you are correct. In the past it was monarchs overtaxing their citizens without representation or ensuring any standard of living.

I don't see any monarchs on that list of wealthy individuals. I'm not saying they all played by the rules, but let's be real:

Noone is forced to run Microsoft OS

Noone is forced to take out a mortgage they can't afford

Noone is forced to put their money in a bank or apply for high interest credit.

Noone is forced to own a cell phone with a Qualcomm chip in it.

Noone is forced to shop at Wal-mart.

Noone is forced to buy candy bars, or Yves St. Laurent, or Louis Vuitton, or Moet Champagne.

You get the idea. The bottom 50% of humanity might be dirt poor, but if you gave them all $10,000 each most of them would spend it on the above bullshit that I've listed. The world is awash in gross consumerism, with hordes of people in an addled mental state, completely obsessed with their image and aspiring to live like a rap star. Many of the super rich are where they are because they are providing a product that gets people's engines going, something that people feel they can't live without. How is that the fault of the provider? Shit I see it every day in Vegas. Nobody is forcing these morons to fly to the middle of a desert and blow thousands of dollars (or more) on slot machines and overpriced food. That money would clearly be better spent invested in a long-term vehicle or enriching their lives in much more meaningful ways. That money goes straight to MGM Resorts international, a team of cutthroat executives that are rolling big. Same with Caesar's. But all they're doing is giving people what they want.

We can't have it both ways. We can't complain about this income inequality when the masses are spending it on relatively frivolous bullshit that makes a very small proportion of people super-rich. Want to curtail income inequality? Get people to start saving what they have. Get people to walk or ride a bike. Get people to read or listen to music instead of watch T.V. or movies. Get people to eat a whole foods diet rather than processed food. Get people to celebrate special occasions in more humble ways with close loved ones, rather than insane $10,000+ blowouts.

I don't have any such hope. People are animals when it comes to money. You think people are going to spend their money on a fine collection of books and classical music? Ha!

Post: #27

(01-21-2016 03:06 PM)not_dead_yet Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 12:16 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  Math is hard.

I can't believe I have to be the first to point this out. The article says that by these 62 people having wealth equal to the lower half of the world's population, they have half the world's wealth.

I hope everybody who takes a second to think about this sees the problem.

The lower half of the world's population has extremely little wealth (ie. Net Worth). I would estimate without looking it up that the lower half probably has about 5% of the world's wealth. Therefore these 62 people together have about 5% of the world's wealth. That's still a lot, but it is a full order of magnitude less than the 50% the article claims. This is pure SJW bullshit.

Ha ha. Joke's on you. The richest 80 people in the world actually have about 0.7% of the world's wealth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/upshot...verty.html

Yeah, all you Lenin-quoting losers, that's less than 1%. Power to my pee-pee.

The very article that you refer to here disproves your statement. Your article says that:

"Yes, the rich are exceedingly well off. And globally, wealth is extremely concentrated. The world’s 35 million millionaires collectively hold a huge 44 percent of global wealth. The world’s richest 1 percent — including the very richest — hold 48 percent of the globe’s wealth. But the world’s richest 80 people hold only a tiny sliver of this 48 percent."

Does it really matter whether we're talking about 1%, .7%, or some other minuscule percent? Isn't the point here that wealth is massively concentrated, more than ever before?

This is what your article conveniently omits. The fact that wealth distribution has been getting more and more concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer.

Are you really trying to say that there is not massive income inequality in the US now, more than ever before?

This is what is dangerous for societies, and this is what history proves. Do you think it's a good thing living in society with no middle class? Where the rich feast on lobster, while the poor root in garbage bins?

Some people need a reality check.

Consider this article, which is a detailed study on the issue by the Institute for Policy Studies:

http://www.ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza/

It very clearly shows where the trend lines are here. Reasonable people can quibble over which precise percentage point is here or there, but to deny that there is massive and dangerous income inequality in the US is simply to deny reality.

Post: #28

And for the record, QC, I don't disagree with your statements, particularly those about the citizenship being relegated to spectators to the ruling caste.

My point is, we put them there.

There can be no comparisons to the French revolution or any other famous uprisings, because who are we to rise up against? Those that have only given the populace what they desire?

Post: #29

(01-21-2016 03:24 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:56 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  The reason why this is important, and the reason why we should care, is because excessive concentrations of wealth in a society destabilize that society.

It threatens republican democratic institutions by producing plutocratic oligarchies, rather than governments which are run with the interests of the public at heart.

I discussed this issue here:

http://www.returnofkings.com/32017/the-c...tal-wealth

That is why we should care.

It directly magnifies poverty, greed, injustice, and a host of other evils. It reduces the role of the public to that of a passive spectator, subject to the whims of the ruling caste.

It destroys the middle class and transforms society into something resembling the worst Third World tyranny.

Of course there are always going to be haves and have-nots. No one doubts this. But it is a matter of degree. America in 1960 was far more equitably configured in terms of wealth distribution.

Now, things are simply ridiculous.

If peaceful ways can't be found to ensure some measure of equity in these matters, then the result will be political instability, social unrest, and in extreme cases, civil war and dictatorship.

Within a historical context you are correct. In the past it was monarchs overtaxing their citizens without representation or ensuring any standard of living.

I don't see any monarchs on that list of wealthy individuals. I'm not saying they all played by the rules, but let's be real:

Noone is forced to run Microsoft OS

Noone is forced to take out a mortgage they can't afford

Noone is forced to put their money in a bank or apply for high interest credit.

Noone is forced to own a cell phone with a Qualcomm chip in it.

Noone is forced to shop at Wal-mart.

Noone is forced to buy candy bars, or Yves St. Laurent, or Louis Vuitton, or Moet Champagne.

You get the idea. The bottom 50% of humanity might be dirt poor, but if you gave them all $10,000 each most of them would spend it on the above bullshit that I've listed. The world is awash in gross consumerism, with hordes of people in an addled mental state, completely obsessed with their image and aspiring to live like a rap star. Many of the super rich are where they are because they are providing a product that gets people's engines going, something that people feel they can't live without. How is that the fault of the provider? Shit I see it every day in Vegas. Nobody is forcing these morons to fly to the middle of a desert and blow thousands of dollars (or more) on slot machines and overpriced food. That money would clearly be better spent invested in a long-term vehicle or enriching their lives in much more meaningful ways. That money goes straight to MGM Resorts international, a team of cutthroat executives that are rolling big. Same with Caesar's. But all they're doing is giving people what they want.

We can't have it both ways. We can't complain about this income inequality when the masses are spending it on relatively frivolous bullshit that makes a very small proportion of people super-rich. Want to curtail income inequality? Get people to start saving what they have. Get people to walk or ride a bike. Get people to read or listen to music instead of watch T.V. or movies. Get people to eat a whole foods diet rather than processed food. Get people to celebrate special occasions in more humble ways with close loved ones, rather than insane $10,000+ blowouts.

I don't have any such hope. People are animals when it comes to money. You think people are going to spend their money on a fine collection of books and classical music? Ha!

I think you're missing the point that I'm trying to make here. You're basically saying that things are the way they are, and we should just accept it.

Let people be consumers!

Let them eat cake!

I get the argument.

Of course I don't expect all poor people to spend their money on fine cultural things.

That isn't the point.

The point is that it is in all of our interests--not just the bottom of the economic rung--to have a society based on justice and equal opportunity.

When you have a society where the rich control everything, then it is inevitable that they are going to enact policies that favor themselves.

The middle class will become eroded or will disappear. Public schools will begin to turn to shit (like they are now). Decent health care will become more and more expensive, and closed out to many.

For our own selfish reasons--if for no other reason--we should want to live in a society where people at least have the chance to improve themselves.

It's in all of our interests to prevent unnatural concentrations of wealth and power.

Equality of opportunity is all I think a society can reasonably expect.

Not to do this is allowing society to go down a very dangerous path.

Post: #30

I agree with economist Thomas Sowell that there should be a maximum wage law as opposed to a minimum wage law. Maybe if ceo's were given a maximum wage and there was no minimum wage there would be more people employed and less money given to the higher ups.

Can't upload the YouTube link, but this lopsided wealth dustribution is caused by many factors.

Post: #31

(01-21-2016 03:51 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I think you're missing the point that I'm trying to make here. You're basically saying that things are the way they are, and we should just accept it.

Let people be consumers!

Let them eat cake!

I get the argument.

Of course I don't expect all poor people to spend their money on fine cultural things.

That isn't the point.

The point is that it is in all of our interests--not just the bottom of the economic rung--to have a society based on justice and equal opportunity.

When you have a society where the rich control everything, then it is inevitable that they are going to enact policies that favor themselves.

The middle class will become eroded or will disappear. Public schools will begin to turn to shit (like they are now). Decent health care will become more and more expensive, and closed out to many.

For our own selfish reasons--if for no other reason--we should want to live in a society where people at least have the chance to improve themselves.

It's in all of our interests to prevent unnatural concentrations of wealth and power.

Equality of opportunity is all I think a society can reasonably expect.

Not to do this is allowing society to go down a very dangerous path.

But therein lies the issue: What to do about it?

Because with the oppressive monarchy, there is only one way: revolt.

In a way, that's the easier solution, because during those times in history you had the discontent of the populace to fuel the fires of revolution.

That isn't the case today. Do you propose taxing the ever-loving shit out of the top 1%? That's what led to tax havens in the first place.

The only solution that I can see is some sort of awakening, a Renaissance of the common man that inspires him to reject the buffet of greed and consumerism in front of him and pursue a life of independence and self-sufficiency. That's the only way I can see any diminishing of the insane concentration of wealth and power at the top.

I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Post: #32

^^^

Veloce, that's the problem that baffles me. What to do about it?

The only answer seems to be: enlightened leadership. We need enlightened, brave reformers, who are willing to roll up their sleeves and make the hard decisions, rather than just coast along.

Either that, or we have serious social problems.

Julius Caesar was such as man, as was Teddy Roosevelt, Solon of Athens, and a few others.

.

Post: #33

(01-21-2016 04:24 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  ^^^

Veloce, that's the problem that baffles me. What to do about it?

The only answer seems to be: enlightened leadership. We need enlightened, brave reformers, who are willing to roll up their sleeves and make the hard decisions, rather than just coast along.

Either that, or we have serious social problems.

Julius Caesar was such as man, as was Teddy Roosevelt, Solon of Athens, and a few others.

.

So we need leaders who promote self improvement and aspiration?

I don't believe this is in the interest of the political elite.

Post: #34

^^^

Yes, true. The elites want you and me to be mindless consumer dorks.

What "should be" and "what actually is" are not often aligned.

But that doesn't mean that we can't aspire to something better for ourselves and our descendants.

It is better to dream and fail, than to do nothing.

Post: #35

Some people are that poor, they can not safe money. You even have it in western countries. And I'm not talking about people that spend their money on crap. Then those people have kids, they can not afford a better education. In some countries kids even have to work that the family can survive. So also no improvement with education and a better job. How can you improve your situation when you can not save money to invest nor do you have access to knowledge that help you to create your own ideas?

If you are rich, well lucky you. Ordinary people can not avoid taxes. And they also should not because a country is in my opinion a community of people. Put a way greedy politicians that waste money. Building schools, roads etc is a good thing. So when you benefit from the system but then don't pay something back, you are a cheap person.
The problem is the interest and the compound interest. This makes prices rise. Look whats the compound interest on everything. So one person invest and want to make a profit. Fine, so he has a product and sell it. Maybe he went to a bank to borrow this money. He has to pay the interest. So he has not only pay his material, workers and his profit, he also has to pay the interest and the compound interest.
This ships more and more money to a few people and take it away from most people.

Post: #36

(01-21-2016 11:56 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  The reason why this is important, and the reason why we should care, is because excessive concentrations of wealth in a society destabilize that society.

It threatens republican democratic institutions by producing plutocratic oligarchies, rather than governments which are run with the interests of the public at heart.

I discussed this issue here:

http://www.returnofkings.com/32017/the-c...tal-wealth

That is why we should care.

It directly magnifies poverty, greed, injustice, and a host of other evils. It reduces the role of the public to that of a passive spectator, subject to the whims of the ruling caste.

It destroys the middle class and transforms society into something resembling the worst Third World tyranny.

Of course there are always going to be haves and have-nots. No one doubts this. But it is a matter of degree. America in 1960 was far more equitably configured in terms of wealth distribution.

Now, things are simply ridiculous.

If peaceful ways can't be found to ensure some measure of equity in these matters, then the result will be political instability, social unrest, and in extreme cases, civil war and dictatorship.

I agree. Look at Soros, the Saudi family and their ilk or NGOs.

The check for these people is violent revolution either by the people or other rich and powerful people using the plebs to usher in a new era.

Every country or empire has at one stage taken its ruling elite and chopped their heads off, hung or burned them. Today is no different.

Post: #37

(01-21-2016 07:14 AM)zero1 Wrote:  What's wrong with tax havens? Why should corporations or people be required to give their money to corrupt, self-interested governments? The amount of taxes in existence is astronomical, and societies in years past have survived with a tenth of the current tax now. Minimizing tax as a business is a must, given the incredible treasonous wastage of our world leaders. Corporations, as greedy or immoral as some may be, satisfy a consumer demand. They're providing something we want. Instead of focusing on them, how about focusing on the political class which is truly responsible for all our ills.

I'd wager many in the political class are bought and paid for by some of the folks on that list of 62. And that some of their money-wasting treason is directly related to putting laws and statues in place that make the top 62 even more $.

Post: #38

Only 62 people? Yeah seems unrealistic. I think some people are missing off that list.

Post: #39

If you give 20k to a rich guy, in a year he will have 40k. If you gave 20k to a poor man, in a year he will be 20k in debt.

Post: #40

(01-21-2016 05:57 PM)Stun Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 07:14 AM)zero1 Wrote:  What's wrong with tax havens? Why should corporations or people be required to give their money to corrupt, self-interested governments? The amount of taxes in existence is astronomical, and societies in years past have survived with a tenth of the current tax now. Minimizing tax as a business is a must, given the incredible treasonous wastage of our world leaders. Corporations, as greedy or immoral as some may be, satisfy a consumer demand. They're providing something we want. Instead of focusing on them, how about focusing on the political class which is truly responsible for all our ills.

I'd wager many in the political class are bought and paid for by some of the folks on that list of 62. And that some of their money-wasting treason is directly related to putting laws and statues in place that make the top 62 even more $.

I agree with this, and that needs to be addressed. But the common notion of increasing tax on these people I don't believe is the right mentality. They shouldn't be punished for creating a product or service through excessive tax, which prevents incentive in taking risks for new innovations. They should be criminally charged for treason or whatever else it is if they're found to be manipulating the political system, or fraud if they're releasing fake information that can kill people (ie: falsifying clinical trial data to support a new drug). I think this notion of "just taxing them" kills the very essence of capitalism and a free market.

And for anyone who thinks it's only the rich that can avoid tax, and us plebeians have no hope, this couldn't be further from the truth. You can register a legal offshore corporation, along with a legal offshore bank account in a respected financial institution for under $1000, with a yearly fee less than half that. That's it. All your International income can then go into the company, tax free, and you pay yourself a salary depending where you are. And any income tax is dependent upon the country you reside in (one exception: America, which taxes based on citizenship).

But hang on, International income you say? But I work locally in the country I live in, or run a local business, so what's the point of putting my income into the offshore corporation? Well believe it or not, the big multi-nationals also pay the full local tax rates for all their locally derived profits, they don't get this mythical free lunch that the left perpetuate they do.The notion they "pay no tax" is false. They pay just as much local tax as you or me (a lot more of course) for their locally derived income (far too much in the US, Australia or the west in my opinion, which keeps these countries uncompetitive for new businesses). Now for ecommerce stores, and foreign sourced income, why on earth should these corporations, or you or me, be required to pay tax on that? Just because they were founded within the US? Just because you were born in the US you should pay the US government income that you made selling an ebook on the Internet? Now that's not fair. Nor is it fair that a corporation should pay income taxes within the US for income they make in Europe. An offshore headquarters is not unethical, it's simply the only logical thing to do when faced with a litany of new tax laws each year. The result? More incentive to innovate and implement ideas into products to provide to a free market.

Anyone can register a corporation and avail of the exact same "tax avoidance" strategies of the elite. The kicker is, this is only good for avoiding tax oppressive regimes (the West) that tax foreign income in the first place. The real issue is the incredible wastage by our leaders on "social welfare" for immigrants and those too lazy to work, not to mention bailouts of corporations like banks, which is an entirely different thing to a corporation not paying tax on their foreign income.

Post: #41

Another devil's advocate here.

What's wrong with taxing excessive wealth (net worth) along the lines of what Pickety recommends in his book Capital in the 21st Century?

Let me clarify what I mean by that. This is not from the book, just my own idea. There is a certain amount of money which a person needs to be very well off and never have to work again for the rest of his life. The amount itself is debatable, but let's say it's $10 million net worth per person. Using the 4% draw rule, $10M is likely to generate $400K/year or more in passive income for lifetime.

So, what's wrong with setting this amount as a floor (adjusted for inflation) for an asset tax and taxing everybody who has more than that at 5% of net worth per year? Suppose the US imposes such a tax and other countries follow, so the ultra rich can't play the usual tax arbitrage/avoidance game on this one. 5% is not confiscatory. With access to the best investment opportunities and advisers that the ultra rich have, they'll be able to make more than 5% return on capital, so this tax is very unlikely to cause them to deplete their savings over time. Using this additional tax revenue, governments can reduce the income tax and other taxes for the middle and lower classes. This will result in more equitable distribution of wealth.

Alternatively, there may also be a sliding scale wealth tax, let's say 1% on net worth over 5 million, 5% over 10 mil, 10% over 100 mil etc with a ceiling of, for example, 20%.

Post: #42

(01-21-2016 07:42 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  Another devil's advocate here.

What's wrong with taxing excessive wealth (net worth) along the lines of what Pickety recommends in his book Capital in the 21st Century?

Let me clarify what I mean by that. This is not from the book, just my own idea. There is a certain amount of money which a person needs to be very well off and never have to work again for the rest of his life. The amount itself is debatable, but let's say it's $10 million net worth per person. Using the 4% draw rule, $10M is likely to generate $400K/year or more in passive income for lifetime.

So, what's wrong with setting this amount as a floor (adjusted for inflation) for an asset tax and taxing everybody who has more than that at 5% of net worth per year? Suppose the US imposes such a tax and other countries follow, so the ultra rich can't play the usual tax arbitrage/avoidance game on this one. 5% is not confiscatory. With access to the best investment opportunities and advisers that the ultra rich have, they'll be able to make more than 5% return on capital, so this tax is very unlikely to cause them to deplete their savings over time. Using this additional tax revenue, governments can reduce the income tax and other taxes for the middle and lower classes. This will result in more equitable distribution of wealth.

The passive income isn't really passive income though, inflation is always greater than risk-free interest in a bank account.

Also, what about the founder of a big business with a yearly turn-over of a billion dollars? Are they only allowed to save $10m for their next business venture? Would most companies be around today if they didn't receive seed funding from wealthy investors willing to take high amounts of risk because they had a lot of money to begin with?

Post: #43

(01-21-2016 07:46 PM)zero1 Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 07:42 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  Another devil's advocate here.

What's wrong with taxing excessive wealth (net worth) along the lines of what Pickety recommends in his book Capital in the 21st Century?

Let me clarify what I mean by that. This is not from the book, just my own idea. There is a certain amount of money which a person needs to be very well off and never have to work again for the rest of his life. The amount itself is debatable, but let's say it's $10 million net worth per person. Using the 4% draw rule, $10M is likely to generate $400K/year or more in passive income for lifetime.

So, what's wrong with setting this amount as a floor (adjusted for inflation) for an asset tax and taxing everybody who has more than that at 5% of net worth per year? Suppose the US imposes such a tax and other countries follow, so the ultra rich can't play the usual tax arbitrage/avoidance game on this one. 5% is not confiscatory. With access to the best investment opportunities and advisers that the ultra rich have, they'll be able to make more than 5% return on capital, so this tax is very unlikely to cause them to deplete their savings over time. Using this additional tax revenue, governments can reduce the income tax and other taxes for the middle and lower classes. This will result in more equitable distribution of wealth.

The passive income isn't really passive income though, inflation is always greater than risk-free interest in a bank account.

Also, what about the founder of a big business with a yearly turn-over of a billion dollars? Are they only allowed to save $10m for their next business venture? Would most companies be around today if they didn't receive seed funding from wealthy investors willing to take high amounts of risk because they had a lot of money to begin with?

I don't see the connection between taxing wealth above certain level at 5% and not allowing an investor to save and invest over 10 million (or 10 billion for that matter).

Also, the ultra rich definitely know better than keeping their money in a bank account given how many opportunities they have to invest, the kind of opportunities which are out of reach of the vast majority of us.

Post: #44

The thing is though,if you could return 5% interest, risk-free, on a billion dollars, you'd be very well sought-after. This is actually very difficult to do and would make holding on to the money very difficult. Not to mention most business ventures fail anyway. Just look at the inheritance of heirs and how quickly they often squander their wealth since they lack the wisdom that accumulated that wealth to begin with. I'm all for taxing the oblivion out of inheritance though, since that truly was free money which didn't provide a service to anyone.

Post: #45

(01-21-2016 08:02 PM)zero1 Wrote:  The thing is though,if you could return 5% interest, risk-free, on a billion dollars, you'd be very well sought-after. This is actually very difficult to do and would make holding on to the money very difficult. Not to mention most business ventures fail anyway. Just look at the inheritance of heirs and how quickly they often squander their wealth since they lack the wisdom that accumulated that wealth to begin with. I'm all for taxing the oblivion out of inheritance though, since that truly was free money which didn't provide a service to anyone.

I'm not talking risk free. Investments are never risk free.

The idea behind setting the floor at, for example, 10 million, is that even if a person chooses to not invest his excessive wealth but keep it in a checking account, anything less than 10 million will not be subject to wealth tax. So, even if the tax will result in depleting the part of his savings above the 10 mil cut-off over time, the person who is subject to tax will still keep the 10 mil and have enough to be comfortably off for the rest of his life (400K/year using the generally accepted 4% draw rule).

Again, the specific cut-off is debatable, so is the 4% draw down rule I'm using, which some people argue should be 2% or even less in the current environment, but I'm talking about the general idea which is to tax excessive wealth and avoid excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite.

Post: #46

(01-21-2016 12:06 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  The only thing I want to know is how to safely dodge taxes.

If these fat cats can get away with evading millions and millions of tax liability every year, there has got to be away I can hang onto an extra $500-$1000 a month.

Not that I need it, but it would be awfully nice to take home more of what I make like these assholes do.

I've heard for Americans that opening a business in Puerto Rico is the key. Very low taxes there. Obviously the caveat is you have to be big enough to turn your work into a full-sized business and structure it so "your services are technically being provided in Puerto Rico". That's clearly easier for soft work like financial advisers, and tougher for hard work like construction.

(01-21-2016 11:56 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  The reason why this is important, and the reason why we should care, is because excessive concentrations of wealth in a society destabilize that society.

It threatens republican democratic institutions by producing plutocratic oligarchies, rather than governments which are run with the interests of the public at heart.

I think you have the cart before the horse. Also using the passive tense of "which are run" is avoiding the question: who runs them?

Humans are a hierarchical species. This follows two facts: humans are social, and not all humans are equally strong.

Democracies degenerate into high-time-preference plutocracies for a simple reason: a voter has a 1/200,000,000th input of power every 4 years. I.e. zero. A lobbyist has a much weightier input of power, continuously. Therefore, the vote means almost nothing, and pre-existing power (be it through connections within the political class or purchases of that power via the lobbyists) is everything. Democracy is the Big Lie, and no one will tell it louder than the political class who's livelihood depends on it.

Democracy creates a looting machine. A constant froth of money for power. And there is no constancy, no permanence in any one mans power -- so he must loot all he can while he has it. The lower class fulfill their role, accepting the loot in exchange for masses of votes. The upper class get behind the machine, directing its looting away from them and onto others. This takes well-known forms: on the one hand getting more inflated government contracts and favourable regulations to increase gains; and on the other hand more tax loop holes to reduce losses. That just leaves one group: the middle class, who are effectively reduced to national serfs.

There are no angels who "run government". Government, that group of political elite, run themselves. The manner by which they do, and who comprises that elite, is what we call: constitution. And that constitution needs less democracy.

(01-21-2016 08:19 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  I'm talking about the general idea which is to tax excessive wealth and avoid excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite.

Theft is theft. Bandits always "tax excessive wealth". There's no point robbing poor people. That's why they love robbing that quintessential place of "excessive concentration of wealth" -- the bank. What is needed is less antisocial behaviour in society, not more.

Post: #47

(01-21-2016 12:06 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  The only thing I want to know is how to safely dodge taxes.

If these fat cats can get away with evading millions and millions of tax liability every year, there has got to be away I can hang onto an extra $500-$1000 a month.

Not that I need it, but it would be awfully nice to take home more of what I make like these assholes do.

GS,

The way to save money on taxes is to have Gringuito levels of it in the first place; they're the ones that benefit most, and it makes sense they want to make sure only they in the rarified air can take advantage of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/busine....html?_r=0

As you can see, it's a case of spending 10s of millions, but in order to save countless more 10s of millions. The system doesn't scale such that by spending a couple thousand I can cut 10k off my taxes.

Post: #48

(01-21-2016 11:56 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  The reason why this is important, and the reason why we should care, is because excessive concentrations of wealth in a society destabilize that society.

If peaceful ways can't be found to ensure some measure of equity in these matters, then the result will be political instability, social unrest, and in extreme cases, civil war and dictatorship.

Relevant:

Will Durant in "Lessons of History Wrote:In progressive societies the concentration of wealth may reach a point where the strength of number in the many poor rivals the strength of ability in the few rich; then the unstable equilibrium generates a critical situation, which history has diversely met by legislation redistributing wealth or by revolution distributing poverty.”

Post: #49

Delete