The Democrat Thread

[bmags]

Carnegie hired pinkertons to massacre women and children who threatened to strike. Ah, the time of the American dream.

[StrangeSox]

We also had zero social net protections at that point. And if the goal of anti-trust laws was to prevent inequality, many of those companies ended up richer. Standard Oil quadrupled its wealth as the sum of their parts were greater than their whole.

 

It was the income tax which accomplished anything remotely like what is being discussed. The consolidation is largely happening in industries where marketshare gains are combatting margin losses.

 

We just prevented STAPLES from merging. Is this accomplishing anything?

 

Well, that and FICA taxes.

[StrangeSox]

Carnegie hired pinkertons to massacre women and children who threatened to strike. Ah, the time of the American dream.

I don't know what you're arguing against, if anything my point would be closer to "we're sliding into a second Gilded Age" than "man the 19th century and early 20th century were great!" The American Dream is pretty heavily mythologized. Economic mobility has been somewhat low since the 70's now. I'd imagine it improved during the post-war boom but I can't google up good info.

[pettie4sox]

Astronomical prices? Have you ever been to another country? Try buying electronics in south america and come talk to me.

 

I don't think this is relevant to this aspect of the discussion. I was referring to Apple which produces good in China for cheap and then turn around and sell them to Americans for $600. Astronomical was a hyperbole but the point remains they are definitely taking advantage of the situation as business people should do. The American government allows this because they are of course, bought.

Edited December 10, 2015 by pettie4sox

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, I did. Look at their own listed examples: Bill Gates' parents were successful, wealthy lawyers who sent him to elite schools and had connections to the CEO at IBM (who gave Microsoft their first break). Phil Knight's father was a successful lawyer-turned-publisher, though Knight's marketing genius and cheap overseas labor really is what did it for him. Buffett's father was a wealthy businessman and Congressman. Stephen Schwarzman came from successful parents as well. Aside from Knight, the rest of that article's "self-made" examples all attended elite schools.

 

He chose some poor examples but the study found 70% of uber wealthy people didn't come from wealth. Who cares if they attended elite schools? Maybe they earned that?

 

edit: I guess the language isn't clear. 20% came from poor/little wealth backgrounds. About 70% didn't come from "very rich families." So that could be anyone from just above "little wealth" up to "a good amount of wealth but not very rich."

 

Or they were in the right place at the right time in conditions that never existed before and won't ever exist again (that one mainly applies to Gates). Society allows for intellectual property--without laws explicitly creating it, there would be no patent or copyrights and the wealth of guys like Gates and Zuckerberg and Bezos would be non-existent. Without important public spending in the first place, Facebook and Amazon aren't even a concept. For Microsoft, they repeatedly engaged in anti-trust behavior.

 

Ok, so they got lucky with timing. Everyone alive has that same luck. Everyone's playing on the same field at the same time.

 

And are you saying you don't agree with any IP protection?

 

It doesn't devalue what they've done or created, but it puts the claim of "self-made" into perspective. Nobody becomes wealthy without the work of others.

 

But at the end of the day, the important decisions/breakthroughs/creations/ideas are because of them, solely. Who cares if they needed others or worked with others? End of the day, without Zuckerberg there is no Facebook. Without Gates there is no Microsoft.

Society created the conditions that allowed them to accumulate unfathomable amounts of wealth in the first place, so yeah, they should feel responsible to give back to society. More broadly, that sort of super-concentrated wealth is unhealthy for society in general.

 

 

That's just a bunch of nonsense. Society provided everyone alive at the same time as these guys the same playing field. I'm already on record saying you can tax the piss out of them if you must, I don't mind that at all, but I think it's moronic to claim that 1) these guys aren't self-made and somehow played only a minor role in their success and 2) that they should feel obligated to give back. Do you give back your extra earnings to society?

 

 

Yes, I agree. However, for the capital class, their wealth is derived from holding wealth itself, not from labor. People who own shares in the company I work for make money off of the work I do. My work helps pay for the CEO's salary. This of course applies to everyone in the company from the top on down.

 

I'm not arguing for Marx's labor theory of value here, but just for some perspective on how "self-made" the wealthy really are.

 

Sure, but you seem to put basically no value on what they've done, as if anyone with a brain could have done it. It's not ALL them, but it's certainly more than luck/timing.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Hiding money overseas and using cheap labor to make goods to sell to Americans at astronomical prices.

 

If the 19 century rich had the international world we did today, they would do the exact same thing.

 

This is nonsense too. What goods do we as Americans buy at "astronomical prices?" Goods in our country are INSANELY cheap given what goes into making them. I mean I have no problem closing any tax loopholes for multi national corps, and i'm totally on board with penalizing companies that use non-American labor/manufacturing (or conversely, heavily benefiting those that do), but that's a different argument.

[StrangeSox]

He chose some poor examples but the study found 70% of uber wealthy people didn't come from wealth. Who cares if they attended elite schools? Maybe they earned that?

 

 

 

 

Ok, so they got lucky with timing. Everyone alive has that same luck. Everyone's playing on the same field at the same time.

 

And are you saying you don't agree with any IP protection?

 

 

 

But at the end of the day, the important decisions/breakthroughs/creations/ideas are because of them, solely. Who cares if they needed others or worked with others? End of the day, without Zuckerberg there is no Facebook. Without Gates there is no Microsoft.

 

 

 

That's just a bunch of nonsense. Society provided everyone alive at the same time as these guys the same playing field. I'm already on record saying you can tax the piss out of them if you must, I don't mind that at all, but I think it's moronic to claim that 1) these guys aren't self-made and somehow played only a minor role in their success and 2) that they should feel obligated to give back. Do you give back your extra earnings to society?

 

 

 

 

Sure, but you seem to put basically no value on what they've done, as if anyone with a brain could have done it. It's not ALL them, but it's certainly more than luck/timing.

 

1) On the bolded, then we're pretty much in agreement I think? I guess I don't particularly care if they should "feel obligated" or not if they're being taxed either way.

2) Again, I'm not putting zero value on what they've done or saying they only played a minor role. I'm saying that, by and large, the playing fields weren't level and they had a lot of rolls of the dice go in their favor. There's no Microsoft without Bill Gates, but Microsoft doesn't become the OS juggernaut if Gates' mom isn't on a foundation board with the CEO of IBM. Gates et al still needed to take advantage of these situations and have the right ideas ready when the opportunities presented themselves, of course.

3) Re: level playing field, no, society doesn't provide everyone alive the same opportunity. Most of these guys went to elite schools (Yale, Stanford, Wharton, Harvard, etc.) which can provide you with all sorts of access and connections you wouldn't otherwise have. They were mostly born into upper-middle class or upper class families. Being the son of the Congressman is going to open a lot of doors that someone like you or I wouldn't get through.

4) I'm not against IP protection, but I'm pointing out that it's something created/allowed by society to which they owe the existence of their fortune. That's less true of people like the Waltons than of the tech industry billionaires, obviously.

 

I guess I'm more taking issue with the common "rags/middle class-to-riches" mythos that can surround "self-made" billionaires. They may not have inherited the majority of their fortunes, but they were still born with an awful lot of advantages. There are some true rags-to-riches stories, like Sheldon Adelson, and it's kinda weird that the article didn't highlight those guys in the first place.

[pettie4sox]

This is nonsense too. What goods do we as Americans buy at "astronomical prices?" Goods in our country are INSANELY cheap given what goes into making them. I mean I have no problem closing any tax loopholes for multi national corps, and i'm totally on board with penalizing companies that use non-American labor/manufacturing (or conversely, heavily benefiting those that do), but that's a different argument.

 

I believe those arguments are one in the same, Jenks!

 

The only reason they do this is because it's allowed by the politicians. As I said before, I'm not advocating taking money from people I'm advocating leveling the playing field. Corporations and billionaires should not be able to hide money overseas. That money should be taxed appropriately.

 

Here's a perfect example. I am a sports bettor and I have to pay bloody taxes on my winnings, mind you they have already been taxed because of my income. How on earth is that fair? Rich people get to dictate when they will or will not pay taxes in subtle sense.

[StrangeSox]

This is nonsense too. What goods do we as Americans buy at "astronomical prices?" Goods in our country are INSANELY cheap given what goes into making them. I mean I have no problem closing any tax loopholes for multi national corps, and i'm totally on board with penalizing companies that use non-American labor/manufacturing (or conversely, heavily benefiting those that do), but that's a different argument.

 

iPhones cost about $200 to manufacture and retail at $600. There's supply chain, design etc. in there, but part of the reason that Apple is so profitable is that they make highly desirable electronics that they can sell at high margins due to cheap labor overseas. They were part of the group of tech companies conspiring to fix wages stateside on the engineering end, too!

 

It's not just on the wages end that they get to cut costs, either. Workers rights, workplace safety and environmental regulations are much, much lower in the places that do most of our manufacturing.

[Jenksismyhero]

1) On the bolded, then we're pretty much in agreement I think? I guess I don't particularly care if they should "feel obligated" or not if they're being taxed either way.

2) Again, I'm not putting zero value on what they've done or saying they only played a minor role. I'm saying that, by and large, the playing fields weren't level and they had a lot of rolls of the dice go in their favor. There's no Microsoft without Bill Gates, but Microsoft doesn't become the OS juggernaut if Gates' mom isn't on a foundation board with the CEO of IBM. Gates et al still needed to take advantage of these situations and have the right ideas ready when the opportunities presented themselves, of course.

3) Re: level playing field, no, society doesn't provide everyone alive the same opportunity. Most of these guys went to elite schools (Yale, Stanford, Wharton, Harvard, etc.) which can provide you with all sorts of access and connections you wouldn't otherwise have. They were mostly born into upper-middle class or upper class families. Being the son of the Congressman is going to open a lot of doors that someone like you or I wouldn't get through.

4) I'm not against IP protection, but I'm pointing out that it's something created/allowed by society to which they owe the existence of their fortune. That's less true of people like the Waltons than of the tech industry billionaires, obviously.

 

I guess I'm more taking issue with the common "rags/middle class-to-riches" mythos that can surround "self-made" billionaires. They may not have inherited the majority of their fortunes, but they were still born with an awful lot of advantages. There are some true rags-to-riches stories, like Sheldon Adelson, and it's kinda weird that the article didn't highlight those guys in the first place.

 

1) I just disagree with Obama and the whole "personal responsibility" angle. You don't owe society anything. Is it nice to give back? Yes. Should you be looked upon favorably if you do? Absolutely. But I don't all the time. You don't all the time. We can say "oh well if i had an extra 100 million to waste!" but the reality is when I made $6 bucks an hour in high school having a lawyer salary seemed like a crazy amount of extra cash to spend, and the reality is you just pay for bigger and better things. The same thing goes with rich people. "Necessities" and "luxury" quickly change meanings the higher up the bracket you go.

 

2/3) I guess I don't see the value in pointing this out. If that's your definition of the playing field, nothing you ever do or implement from the perspective of the gov't can ever solve this problem. People grow up with stupid/s***ty/dumb/awful parents. They lose the genetic lottery. No one can help that. Everyone in this country is given the keys to succeed. Whether outside forces put up larger barriers for some more than others is not on society. That's on your family. Hopefully kids who grow up in those environments learn that and then in the next generation don't make the same mistakes. Sadly, instead of thinking that way, most of the people in this country immediately demand more help and blame someone else.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I believe those arguments are one in the same, Jenks!

 

The only reason they do this is because it's allowed by the politicians. As I said before, I'm not advocating taking money from people I'm advocating leveling the playing field. Corporations and billionaires should not be able to hide money overseas. That money should be taxed appropriately.

 

Here's a perfect example. I am a sports bettor and I have to pay bloody taxes on my winnings, mind you they have already been taxed because of my income. How on earth is that fair? Rich people get to dictate when they will or will not pay taxes in subtle sense.

 

Sounds like you have an issue with capital gains taxes. I do to!

[Jenksismyhero]

iPhones cost about $200 to manufacture and retail at $600. There's supply chain, design etc. in there, but part of the reason that Apple is so profitable is that they make highly desirable electronics that they can sell at high margins due to cheap labor overseas. They were part of the group of tech companies conspiring to fix wages stateside on the engineering end, too!

 

It's not just on the wages end that they get to cut costs, either. Workers rights, workplace safety and environmental regulations are much, much lower in the places that do most of our manufacturing.

 

I guess I don't see $600 as being astronomical, especially in light of what the product allows you to do. And the reality is if those products are made here, they'd cost 3 times that much. Is everyone ok with that?

[StrangeSox]

Sounds like you have an issue with capital gains taxes. I do to!

Ok so that'd be an example of what petit first complained about, that they rigged the system and these guys cheat. It seems like you're basically agreeing with the underlying conclusion but just not the words used to express it?

 

edit or are you arguing against capital gains being taxed at all, because lol

Edited December 10, 2015 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I guess I don't see $600 as being astronomical, especially in light of what the product allows you to do. And the reality is if those products are made here, they'd cost 3 times that much. Is everyone ok with that?

How far down that rabbit hole of "it's okay to exploit foreign labor and the environment because cheap consumer goods" are you willing to go?

 

eta: "astronomical" was hyperbole as petit already said, but it'd be more about comparing production cost versus sale price than some abstract "how much is an iPhone worth" argument if you're discussing using cheap overseas labor to boost profits.

Edited December 10, 2015 by StrangeSox

[pettie4sox]

Sounds like you have an issue with capital gains taxes. I do to!

 

Yeah and lot of them probably have a loophole to not pay on that. The point is there is not a level playing field. If I don't pay taxes and I get caught, I'm going away because I'm a "nobody".

[Jenksismyhero]

Ok so that'd be an example of what petit first complained about, that they rigged the system and these guys cheat. It seems like you're basically agreeing with the underlying conclusion but just not the words used to express it?

 

edit or are you arguing against capital gains being taxed at all, because lol

 

How did they cheat? Both involve you using your after-tax income dollars to make money and then being taxed again. It's the same playing field - everyone has to pay it. And the rich clearly pay MORE of it.

 

And yes, I am. It's a bulls*** tax just like taxing gambling winnings. Obviously there's a need for it now, but that tax should be waived for 90% of people it would apply to. There should be a minimum threshold before any tax kicks in.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah and lot of them probably have a loophole to not pay on that. The point is there is not a level playing field. If I don't pay taxes and I get caught, I'm going away because I'm a "nobody".

 

You'd never get caught because you're a nobody. You'd only get caught if you won the main poker tournament with a prize of 10 million or something and then failed to pay taxes on it. Winning $1,500 bucks on the weekend, no one would ever know or find out.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

How far down that rabbit hole of "it's okay to exploit foreign labor and the environment because cheap consumer goods" are you willing to go?

 

Well, we're all "ok" with quite a lot already!

 

 

[StrangeSox]

How did they cheat? Both involve you using your after-tax income dollars to make money and then being taxed again. It's the same playing field - everyone has to pay it. And the rich clearly pay MORE of it.

 

The tax code didn't appear on tablets from the sky. Wealthy, powerful people use their wealth and power to protect their wealth and power, and the tax code reflects that.

 

Everyone has to pay capital gains taxes, but most people have so few capital gains that it's not even relevant. Most of us get the overwhelming majority of our money from wage income.

 

eta "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

 

And yes, I am. It's a bulls*** tax just like taxing gambling winnings. Obviously there's a need for it now, but that tax should be waived for 90% of people it would apply to. There should be a minimum threshold before any tax kicks in.

 

It's not a bulls*** tax, and eliminating it would be 1) a gigantic tax cut for the wealthy and 2) essentially allow people born wealthy to live their lives free of federal taxes entirely. I wouldn't be conceptually opposed to having some sort of threshold limit for when it kicks in or when it kicks to a higher rate, but again for most people there aren't really any capital gains to speak of so it's not relevant either way.

Edited December 10, 2015 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

You'd never get caught because you're a nobody. You'd only get caught if you won the main poker tournament with a prize of 10 million or something and then failed to pay taxes on it. Winning $1,500 bucks on the weekend, no one would ever know or find out.

 

You'd definitely get caught at $1500 because the casino sends a form in above a certain amount, $1k I think. I think the IRS would have that mismatch flagged automatically for them.

[StrangeSox]

Well, we're all "ok" with quite a lot already!

"we" are, but I think there's a moral argument to be made that we shouldn't be! The obvious end of that slippery slope is pro-chattel slavery arguments, which people made plenty of along those same exact lines. So there has to be somewhere between "worker collectives in control of the means of production!" and the antebellum South/modern Qatar, and if we're talking about capital concentration, capital mobility, wage exploitation etc it's at least relevant to discuss where we should fall on that line.

 

I'm not saying there's an easy answer there, but saying "things would cost more if we paid people a fair wage!" isn't really a strong argument in my opinion (nor is it even necessarily true because it could also mean that we just have a little less hyper-concentration of wealth!)

Edited December 10, 2015 by StrangeSox

[pettie4sox]

I online sports bet so my winnings are sent directly back on my credit card, which I then cash advance and put the money in my bank account. Rinse and repeat.

 

There is a giant electronic trail, I'll get caught if I continuously do it and don't pay up.

[Jenksismyhero]

The tax oode didn't appear on tablets from the sky. Wealthy, powerful people use their wealth and power to protect their wealth and power, and the tax code reflects that.

 

Everyone has to pay capital gains taxes, but most people have so few capital gains that it's not even relevant. Most of us get the overwhelming majority of our money from wage income.

 

It's not a bulls*** tax, and eliminating it would be 1) a gigantic tax cut for the wealthy and 2) essentially allow people born wealthy to live their lives free of federal taxes entirely. I wouldn't be conceptually opposed to having some sort of threshold limit for when it kicks in or when it kicks to a higher rate, but again for most people there aren't really any capital gains to speak of so it's not relevant either way.

 

Right, they were created by people in government who said "s***, we don't have money to spend! How do we get more of it??" Like most taxes, especially on a federal level, they're bulls***. Fastforward to today and the system would crumble without them but that doesn't mean that in theory they're a terrible idea. If we didn't have such high tax revenues maybe we wouldn't spend trillions of dollars on defense.

[Jenksismyhero]

You'd definitely get caught at $1500 because the casino sends a form in above a certain amount, $1k I think. I think the IRS would have that mismatch flagged automatically for them.

 

i thought it was 10k, but maybe you're right. Point is, most people don't need to worry about it so there's nothing "unfair" about it.

[StrangeSox]

i thought it was 10k, but maybe you're right. Point is, most people don't need to worry about it so there's nothing "unfair" about it.

It's unfair that the majority of my income and your income is generally taxed at a much higher rate than the income of the very wealthy.