0. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/top-50-ri...
0. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/top-50-ri...
I've seen it at least three times on hackernews and countless times on reddit.
Therefore “tax the rich” logically means “give the rich the power to choose who actually pays the tax”
As it turns out the best way to “tax the rich” is to increase the number of competitors (Including, if necessary, publicly funded competitors. ) in their markets and squeeze the profit share down towards the zero theoretical minimum.
Or “euthanise the rentiers” as somebody once said.
In this example, to the concern about a power imbalance there was an immediate, trained response of „it can’t be done” - there’s simply no way to diminish the concentration of wealth.
It’s fantastic because you acknowledge that the imbalance is there and that it’s problematic - that can’t be argued. So instead you argue that it’s inevitable.
Intricate web of beliefs. Stable and resilient to any challenge.
Ironically, dismissing an argument with an ad hominem--like calling it a "trained response"--is also a mechanism that makes ideologies resilient.
I'm well aware that discussion or debate isn't an effective way of having a person question their ideology.
Ironically, by ascribing this dark pattern to me you could also be seen as employing an ad hominem, because it casts me as a dishonest, disrespectful person.
Alas, I am a human full of contradictions and vices. If it helps you maintain your mental composure, do feel comforted by my perceived malice :)
Particularly as I explained the mechanism by which it can be done. Did you miss that bit?
What I find interesting is how rigid the "tax the rich" belief is, even when the obvious problem with it is pointed out.
Almost like the people who believe it in really want to LARP as Robin Hood and won't hear any objections to the contrary.
When you have a system that deliberately uses unemployment as its escape valve, then the costs just get passed on until somebody loses their job and can't do anything about it because there are not enough jobs to go around.
Complexity in the tax system will be gamed by people who have the resources to do so (and those are not poor people). That means if you want a controlling force that affects everybody (e.g. to avoid runaway values in how rich individuals you are) you need simple rules that can't be gamed.
In society those simple rules also have the added benefit of being more broadly accepted since they are more broadly understood.
But if someone asked me to build a system that could be gamed by the rich I would aim for as much complexity in the rules as I can get away with, each piece added with a good marketing slogan, in effect resulting in the CEO paying less taxes than their poorest worker.
It feels like you're confusing this with corporate taxes.
Nitpick. Zero is not the theoretical minimum profit, you can have negative profit.
Zero is the profit predicted by basic economic theory in a market equilibrium.
Because money is a circuit, tax is a percentage and money doesn’t stop at its first use.
The velocity of money is about as good a high-level measure of where the balance between “Wall Street and Main Street” lies as you’ll find - and there’s not much juice left to wring out from your typical American when a typical dollar is spent 1.2 times before it winds up accumulating interest in a billionaire’s bank account all over again (and that’s with the Federal government spending at unforeseen levels running an all time high and increasing deficit).
And nobody knows what that is.
Anybody decomposing GDP into "MV" first needs to explain what M is, and they can't.
The question is, how to make democracy stable against interference by very wealthy people?
One idea that occurred to me was to have non-linear money that becomes proportionately less valuable as it is accumulated into larger and larger amounts. Add $100 to $1000 and you increase that value by approximately $100, but add $100 to $1000000 and you only increase that value by say only $1. Of course this is impractical in this form, but this is in effect what progressive taxation does.
So maybe a democracy could be made stable against billionaires by having progressive taxation which prevents people from accumulating more than a certain proportion of GDP, say.
This would lead to a sort of capitalism in the small but communism in the large.
The revenue from this progressive taxation wouldn't even need to fed into the governments fund's, if its purpose was to supress billionaires then it could just be destroyed or 'burnt' and still achieve its purpose. Another possibility would be to distribute it to the citizens of the country as a sort of 'divident to shareholders', but you would have to be careful with this because some would-be billionaires might use this as a lever to build their popularity.
So a stable democracy would be a voting system plus an army (to prevent takeover from outside) plus progressive taxation (to prevent takeover from inside) plus a few other things to deal with things like citizenship and immigration.
Or move the money abroad and hide it, no one knows how much they have.
... from other nation states - an even harder question, in that they have even more money and tools like Twitter, TikTok, Facebook.