Argument Against Taxing the Rich

[actuallyenlightened]

On face value, it seems like a good idea to tax the rich but I'm starting to think that's not the case; except for consumption which they should be taxed the hell out of (+ high inheritance tax).

When it comes to the uber rich, most of their wealth is locked up in investments and a very small proportion of it is spent buying stuff (yachts, private jets, etc). If Elon Must were to double his wealth, he probably wouldn't buy an extra jet but would invest it somewhere. Since investment, as long as it stays within the country, creates capital for new companies, and jobs, it's something that should be encouraged. If they were taxed heavily on profits from investments, the uber rich would only make bets with the highest margins and lowest risk at best. At worst, they would move their money elsewhere. This argument does not apply in countries where they get rich through corruption. 

Taxing the rich may seem appealing in the short term, given that citizens would receive more services. However, this could hurt the economy and lead to less wealth overall - leading to less taxes and a lower standard of living. 

Edited April 18 by actuallyenlightened

[BlueOak]

Musks real estate portfolio:
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-los-angeles-homes-real-estate-portfolio-photos?op=1#musk-put-the-home-on-the-market-for-95-million-in-may-2020-but-made-one-stipulation-whoever-purchased-wilders-estate-could-not-tear-it-down-or-remove-its-soul-13

Musks collection of cars.
https://www.hotcars.com/every-car-elon-musks-personal-collection/

Musks Private Jets:
https://simpleflying.com/elon-musk-private-jet-guide/

I was going to list his boat, but I've seen conflicting numbers for it, consider it hundreds of millions.

What was the point again? Most of their wealth is locked up in investments. 
Yes, that is what makes them money, that's how rich people get richer and poor people get poorer because they pay for it. There is X amount of wealth in society, if the rich have more, the rest of us have less.

The argument that they'll move elsewhere is always flawed, and it's kept us in this dire situation for far too long.

They already DO move their labor where it's cheapest. The tax is on profit, not production, transport, or distribution. If you are saying they won't sell in our markets anymore, I've got news for you: someone else will. @actuallyenlightened

The better and only argument is, that they pass on the cost to consumers, but that is and should be regulated.

Edited April 18 by BlueOak

[actuallyenlightened]

16 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

I was going to list his boat, but I've seen conflicting numbers for it, consider it hundreds of millions.

My point is that he's worth 184 billion.

16 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

What was the point again? Most of their wealth is locked up in investments. 
Yes, that is what makes them money, that's how rich people get richer and poor people get poorer because they pay for it. There is X amount of wealth in society, if the rich have more, the rest of us have less.

Yes there is X amount of wealth. But how do you measure it? At the end of the day there's X amount of goods and services. Just because the wealthy can buy billions of it, they won't because they can only use so much individually. And what exactly do the poor pay for? They pay in terms of their labor and that could be compensated with livable wages rather than direct taxation. 

19 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

The argument that they'll move elsewhere is always flawed, and it's kept us in this dire situation for far too long.

The US consistently has 25% of the world wealth. Things can only go downhill.

22 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

They already DO move their labor where it's cheapest. The tax is on profit, not production, transport, or distribution. If you are saying they won't sell in our markets anymore, I've got news for you: someone else will. @actuallyenlightened

 But they're still American companies and the profits remain in the States. I'm saying these large firms would delist and move to foreign stock exchanges.

 

[BlueOak]

@actuallyenlightened
 

1 hour ago, actuallyenlightened said:

They pay in terms of their labor and that could be compensated with livable wages rather than direct taxation. 

Where does the money to pay the poor better wages come from? The rich. If you want to swap one tax for another, that's fine with me. If all jobs had to pay people a wage to get them to a comfortable standard of living, then I would agree, but they don't. The fewer people with money, the more easily they can define the labor market as those individuals like.

This instead becomes a fantasy scenario, where you hope people do the right thing, out of a moral or ethical obligation, but they don't.

Incidentally, this would reduce the need for unskilled immigration, which everyone complains about, because more jobs would be viable for family men/women, or those who want more than to survive. What you'll find if you take this line of argument, is that most people advocate for a pyramid where some jobs are just for survival (if that), and then justify it. They also wonder why fewer kids are being born when fewer people can afford them. I honestly wish you luck if you believe in raising the wages for average people. 
 

1 hour ago, actuallyenlightened said:

My point is that he's worth 184 billion.

So?
Are you saying that the more someone is worth, the more assets they should have sitting there doing nothing?
 

1 hour ago, actuallyenlightened said:

Yes there is X amount of wealth. But how do you measure it?

For a country, it is including but not limited to: people's quality of life. healthcare, education, crime rate, corruption, technological development, infrastructure health, cultural development, security, political agency, future outlook, and birthrate. 

1 hour ago, actuallyenlightened said:

And what exactly do the poor pay for?

Billionaire's vain and wasteful lifestyles.
 

1 hour ago, actuallyenlightened said:

But they're still American companies and the profits remain in the States. I'm saying these large firms would delist and move to foreign stock exchanges.

Profits for shareholders will be given wherever they live.

A company's buildings don't move unless it's more economically viable to move them, and this already happens. If people tax production, I could understand your point. We are talking about individuals with all the wealth, and to use that wealth to better society, they need to be taxed to get at it.

If you are talking about control and a financial center's influence, that's a different (and honestly better) point you can raise. However, I would say it pales against having a functional society that can afford homes, and families and isn't disempowered politically to the point of despondency.

Edited April 18 by BlueOak

[actuallyenlightened]

45 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Where does the money to pay the poor better wages come from? The rich. If you want to swap one tax for another, that's fine with me. If all jobs had to pay people a wage to get them to a comfortable standard of living, then I would agree, but they don't. The fewer people with money, the more easily they can define the labor market as those individuals like.

Raising the minimum wage is regulation, not taxation. I support that.

46 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Incidentally, this would reduce the need for unskilled immigration

Yeah unskilled immigration is a horrible idea. Easiest way to make unskilled locals' labor worth pennies.

46 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

What you'll find if you take this line of argument, is that most people advocate for a pyramid where some jobs are just for survival (if that), and then justify it. 

That's always been the case throughout history and would be for the foreseeable future.

47 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

They also wonder why fewer kids are being born when fewer people can afford them.

Urbanization and no religion are the main issues, but yes that contributes.

48 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Are you saying that the more someone is worth, the more assets they should have sitting there doing nothing?

No never nothing, always invested somewhere.

49 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

For a country, it is including but not limited to: people's quality of life. healthcare, education, crime rate, corruption, technological development, infrastructure health, cultural development, security, political agency, future outlook, and birthrate. 

We're talking about the economy here. You can't get those without a strong economy (except birthrate)

49 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Billionaire's vain and wasteful lifestyles.

So my point is if you have 500 million vs 50 billion, you would have the same lifestyle. 

50 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

A company's buildings don't move unless it's more economically viable to move them, and this already happens. If people tax production, I could understand your point. We are talking about individuals with all the wealth, and to use that wealth to better society, they need to be taxed to get at it.

By investing in industry, which they do, they better society. Taxing would make them do less of that.

52 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

If you are talking about control and a financial center's influence, that's a different (and honestly better) point you can raise. However, I would say it pales against having a functional society that can afford homes, and families and isn't disempowered politically to the point of despondency.

Tax won't solve these issues. If you do that, and you give money to people to buy homes, home prices go up and we're back to square one. Different zoning laws are needed here.

[Basman]

My impression is that reforms that benefit the the general populace tend to not be beneficial for just making money and make it much harder to generate massive wealth. Values matter here a lot.

There is an argument to be made that top wealth needs to be taxed more because it is wider society that enables the generation of that wealth in the first place and by simply hoarding massive amounts of wealth, which is what tends to happen, it is more like a parasitical relationship (assuming you value wider society which companies arguably don't, they exist to make profit). With growing wealth inequality, there is a reason why "tax the rich" is a popular sentiment. It makes sense on an intuitive albeit shallow sense.

Edited April 18 by Basman

[Danioover9000]

@actuallyenlightened

On 2024-04-18 at 9:12 AM, actuallyenlightened said:

On face value, it seems like a good idea to tax the rich but I'm starting to think that's not the case; except for consumption which they should be taxed the hell out of (+ high inheritance tax).

When it comes to the uber rich, most of their wealth is locked up in investments and a very small proportion of it is spent buying stuff (yachts, private jets, etc). If Elon Must were to double his wealth, he probably wouldn't buy an extra jet but would invest it somewhere. Since investment, as long as it stays within the country, creates capital for new companies, and jobs, it's something that should be encouraged. If they were taxed heavily on profits from investments, the uber rich would only make bets with the highest margins and lowest risk at best. At worst, they would move their money elsewhere. This argument does not apply in countries where they get rich through corruption. 

Taxing the rich may seem appealing in the short term, given that citizens would receive more services. However, this could hurt the economy and lead to less wealth overall - leading to less taxes and a lower standard of living. 

   This blog should be sufficient in addressing this issue for you here, but I'll still address each point anyway:

https://www.actualized.org/insights/scott-galloway-on-finances

 

   If it seems like a good idea to tax to tax the rich on face value, yet you are starting to think it's not the case, would this also extend to taxation as well throughout society? Also why do you say it's not the case for taxing the rich, but you are fine with high consumer and high inheritance taxation, why this hypocrisy here?

   So you ultimately advocate for only domestic investments in countries, and no foreign investments elsewhere? If taxing profits too highly leads to the uber rich gambling with highest-lowest margins of risk at best, at worst they would move money elsewhere, why doesn't that argument not apply to countries where they get rich via corruption when some of those uber rich are trying to cut corners and escape from the higher profits taxation you are claiming here?

 

[Danioover9000]

@actuallyenlightened

On 2024-04-18 at 9:12 AM, actuallyenlightened said:

On face value, it seems like a good idea to tax the rich but I'm starting to think that's not the case; except for consumption which they should be taxed the hell out of (+ high inheritance tax).

When it comes to the uber rich, most of their wealth is locked up in investments and a very small proportion of it is spent buying stuff (yachts, private jets, etc). If Elon Must were to double his wealth, he probably wouldn't buy an extra jet but would invest it somewhere. Since investment, as long as it stays within the country, creates capital for new companies, and jobs, it's something that should be encouraged. If they were taxed heavily on profits from investments, the uber rich would only make bets with the highest margins and lowest risk at best. At worst, they would move their money elsewhere. This argument does not apply in countries where they get rich through corruption. 

Taxing the rich may seem appealing in the short term, given that citizens would receive more services. However, this could hurt the economy and lead to less wealth overall - leading to less taxes and a lower standard of living. 

   So in argument or standard form:

Most taxing against the rich is bad.

Sometimes consumption tax, inheritance tax against the rich is good, but sometimes raising corporate taxes on Elon Musk, and uber rich like him is bad.

Taxing the rich seems good short term given that citizens get more services but bad long term because economy lowers and less wealth overall for Elon Musk and uber rich.

Therefore taxing the rich is bad.

How is this a valid argument to make against taxing the rich when you claim higher taxation leads to more citizen services?

[Hardkill]

@actuallyenlightened That’s a big misconception.
 

Actually taxing the rich and corporations to a very significant degree actually is better for the economy because it doesn’t just provide ample amount of money for the government to pay for government funded social programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Social Security retirement funds, public infrastructure, public education, necessary welfare, etc.) and government funded services (public schooling, military, police, FBI, CIA, fire fighters, etc.).
 

Taxing the billionaire crime lord and corporate tyranny heavily is also crucial to maintain stability of the US economy for a number of reasons. One reason is that it provides much better levels of consumer spending by providing enough money for the middle class, working class, and lower class people in the country, with which is essential for keeping the economy from going into a recession/depression and significantly growing the economy. Another reason is that it reduces excessive capital that many rich people and big corporations may be encouraged to use for engaging in excessive speculation in the stock market. That also, extremely important for preventing another financial crisis or severe recession/depression from happening. An additional reason is that it actually encourages even more people to pursue entrepreneurship and start-ups by providing enough everyday people with enough capital to do so. Plus, tax raises on the rich and corporations are needed to reduce the federal deficit/national debt. One more reason is that it greatly reduces excessive economic inequality which reduces economic anxiety, resentment amongst the vast majority of Americans. If anxiety and resentment about the nation’s economy becomes too widespread, especially if it largely pertains to an overwhelming sentiment of economic injustice then the people will cause widespread catastrophic civil unrest throughout the whole country. Believe me, you do not want to see that happen. 
 

Have you read up on the history of the Gilded Age or the history of the Great Depression? Did you also realize that one of the reasons that Trump got elected president in 2016 is because of the economic inequality which has been growing for decades made too many Americans vulnerable to being won over by an extreme right-wing populist racist demagogue such as Trump who gotten away with promoting hyper nationalism and authoritarianism. It’s just like the way Hitler convince the people of Germany to support Nazism and worldwide fascism largely because of extreme economic inequality that occurred all over Europe in addition to wanting revenge on the whole world for being fucked over by the rest of Europe during WW1.

Edited April 20 by Hardkill

[something_else]

Is this not just trickle down economics?

[TheAlchemist]

Without progressive taxation of the rich you end up with increasing economic inequality in society, which has many downstream harmful effects, for example reduction in social cohesion and social mobility and an increase in polarization. You might get economic growth in the short term by pleasing the rich, but in the long run the stability and resilience of the society suffers, and ultimately the economy suffers too.

 

Edited April 20 by TheAlchemist

[Bobby_2021]

This is a huge myth that does more damage than good.

Taxes do not fund anything.

Taxes are not used to build roads.

Taxes are not used to subside healthcare.

Taxes are not funding the Ukraine aid package, or any other foreign aid package for that matter.

Taxes do not fund wars even though the expenditure runs into trillions.

Taxes exist for a different purpose, rather a complicated one.

Politicians like Sanders and AOC know this. But to explain it to the masses is a pain in the ass. So they keep hammering the narrative to #TaxTheRich.

Because it's palatable to the masses. 

No one ever really explains how exactly inequality is bad or if concentration of wealth harms the economy. It's something we are supposed to believe.

Edited April 20 by Bobby_2021

[Hardkill]

5 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

This is a huge myth that does more damage than good.

Taxes do not fund anything.

Taxes are not used to build roads.

Taxes are not used to subside healthcare.

Taxes are not funding the Ukraine aid package, or any other foreign aid package for that matter.

Taxes do not fund wars even though the expenditure runs into trillions.

Taxes exist for a different purpose, rather a complicated one.

Politicians like Sanders and AOC know this. But to explain it to the masses is a pain in the ass. So they keep hammering the narrative to #TaxTheRich.

Because it's palatable to the masses. 

No one ever really explains how exactly inequality is bad or if concentration of wealth harms the economy. It's something we are supposed to believe.

Are you serious?

[Bobby_2021]

6 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Are you serious?

Did the united states collect an extra 2T in taxes before going to Iraq and Afghanistan Invasion?

Ask yourself how they funded the war.

Where did the money come from?

[BlueOak]

On 4/18/2024 at 1:05 PM, actuallyenlightened said:

Raising the minimum wage is regulation, not taxation. I support that.

That's always been the case throughout history and would be for the foreseeable future.

Urbanization and no religion are the main issues, but yes that contributes.

No never nothing, always invested somewhere.

We're talking about the economy here. You can't get those without a strong economy (except birthrate)

So my point is if you have 500 million vs 50 billion, you would have the same lifestyle. 

By investing in industry, which they do, they better society. Taxing would make them do less of that.

Tax won't solve these issues. If you do that, and you give money to people to buy homes, home prices go up and we're back to square one. Different zoning laws are needed here.

Expenses, pricing, or costs would need to be regulated, so the cost wasn't just passed on to the people getting the wages. @actuallyenlightened

Defending the pyramid is not going to help you raise the bottom. It'll maintain the pyramid.

With birthrate. The main issue is how we interact remotely, almost entirely in our heads, separating ourselves into individuals and others into labels. Interacting in groups has become awkward for many. So much is lost in this form of distance communication. Did you know that in days gone by, nobody knew who they would be attracted to? Now it's all categorized and pre-planned in our mind as an illusion, it's artificial, like the mechanism it's delivered on.

Some boats are worth more than $500 million, and a few are worth more than a billion. The lifestyle may be the same, but the expenses and impact on the population's funding of these more expensive, wasteful lifestyles are not the same. 

You are focused on the economy, I was focused on how you measure wealth. An economy is just numbers that make rich people feel good if they're not improving people's lives. BTW, you can get half of those points I raised in poor economies.

Edited April 21 by BlueOak

[Hardkill]

5 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Did the united states collect an extra 2T in taxes before going to Iraq and Afghanistan Invasion?

Ask yourself how they funded the war.

Where did the money come from?

No, it didn’t and the war Iraq and Afghanistan was a total waste of time and money (except for the assassination of Osama Bin Laden). That’s one big why we went into much worse of a federal deficit/national debt.

So, why are you saying that taxes don’t fund anything?

[Bobby_2021]

10 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

So, why are you saying that taxes don’t fund anything?

Taxes don't directly fund anything directly, but it does so in an indirect sense if you have a powerful autonomous Sovereign economy that can print it's own currency.

The exact explanation is rather complicated which is why politicians gloss over this point. 

[Chadders]

@actuallyenlightened No because the chronic dysfunctions created by the growing wealth inequality are terrible for society. 

The fact is a lot of rich people are actually consciousness enough to understand the importance of putting back into society. Of course not all of them and well it sucks to be them. Sure they will find happiness with their Louis Vuitton, Rolex and new Bugatti. Oh and their 40 bedroom mansion. Happy now?

There needs to be a wealth tax. It’s the only way to begin to heal the dysfunctions created through rampant greed and materialism to reinvest back into society and create a more harmonious equilibrium and balance. This combined with a high dose of spirituality so people actually connect with the deeper spirit 

[Chadders]

@Bobby_2021 I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at?

The gov has only a few ways to raise capital and taxes is the most fiscally responsible way and also helps to level the playing field. Inequality at the levels we have has created obvious and chronic dysfunctions in society

It is not good for either the personal or collective health of society that people can’t even afford to feed themselves or have decent living conditions

[Danioover9000]

@actuallyenlightened

On 2024-04-18 at 1:05 PM, actuallyenlightened said:

Raising the minimum wage is regulation, not taxation. I support that.

Yeah unskilled immigration is a horrible idea. Easiest way to make unskilled locals' labor worth pennies.

That's always been the case throughout history and would be for the foreseeable future.

Urbanization and no religion are the main issues, but yes that contributes.

No never nothing, always invested somewhere.

We're talking about the economy here. You can't get those without a strong economy (except birthrate)

So my point is if you have 500 million vs 50 billion, you would have the same lifestyle. 

By investing in industry, which they do, they better society. Taxing would make them do less of that.

Tax won't solve these issues. If you do that, and you give money to people to buy homes, home prices go up and we're back to square one. Different zoning laws are needed here.

   How is raising the minimum wage not a type of taxation?

   If unskilled immigration is a horrible idea, why are western countries in general, with liberty/democracy/individualism bias and multiculturalism continuing to support immigration, even if some immigrants are unskilled? Also if it's a bad idea then why don't you set up a training program for some of these unskilled immigrants?

   How is that ALWAYS been the case throughout history and the future? What if this history you sourced is white washed? What if in the future we face a nuclear war, would this be always the case during and after nuclear fallout?

   How does urbanization and religion contribute?

   Which economy are we talking about here? What does birthrate have to do with predatory capitalism?

   Do you mean 500 mil to 500 bil, in currency? How would such money ranges like that mean your lifestyle would be the same? If you won the lottery and won 10 million, would you still say your lifestyle would relatively be mostly the same, or would you invest in more commodities and goods, or invest in a better living location, and so on?

   Investing in industry /=/ better societies and is dependent on many factors. If I took your logic, then the slave industry is worth investing into because slavery is a better society. Same with child labor, same with predatory capitalisms toppling governments to install puppet rulers, same with exploitation of natural resources whilst toxicity in environment increases as a ramification, same with human sex trafficking in the black markets.

   Again it depends on what type of taxation here. Are we talking about corporate tax? Tariffs?