Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequality

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequality

Unread postby BrianC » Wed 08 Dec 2021, 09:55:56

Inequality has remained persistently high for decades, and a new report shows just how stark the divide is between the richest and poorest people on the planet. Insider reports:
The 2022 World Inequality Report, a huge undertaking coordinated by economic and inequality experts Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman, was the product of four years of research and produced an unprecedented data set on just how wealth is distributed. "The world is marked by a very high level of income inequality and an extreme level of wealth inequality," the authors wrote. The data serves as a complete rebuke of the trickle-down economic theory, which posits that cutting taxes on the rich will "trickle down" to those below, with the cuts eventually benefiting everyone.

They argue in the new report that the last two decades of wealth data show that "inequality is a political choice, not an inevitability." For instance, when it comes to wealth, which accounts for the values of assets people hold, researchers found that the "poorest half of the global population barely owns any wealth at all." That bottom half owns just 2% of total wealth. That means that the top half of the world holds 98% of the world's wealth, and that gets even more concentrated the wealthier you get. Indeed, the richest 10% of the world's population hold 76%, or two-thirds of all wealth. That means the 517 million people who make up the top hold vastly more than the 2.5 billion who make up the bottom. The world's policy choices have led to wealth trickling up rather than down.

One group in particular has seen its share of global wealth swell. The report notes that "2020 marked the steepest increase in global billionaires' share of wealth on record." Broadly, the number of billionaires rose to a record-number in 2020, with Wealth-X finding that there are now over 3,000 members of the three-comma club. Billionaire gains are a well-documented trend: The left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies and Americans for Tax Fairness found that Americans added $2.1 trillion to their wealth during the pandemic, a 70% increase.
Some of the solutions that the authors propose to help alleviate this disparity center around taxation. "It would be completely unreasonable not to ask more to top wealth-holders in the future, especially in light of the social, developmental and environmental challenges ahead," they write.

That means expanding wealth taxes like property taxes to all different types of wealth, and to make taxes progressive -- meaning they increase with net worth.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad ... ts-2021-12
BrianC
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue 03 Mar 2020, 13:49:10

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby Doly » Wed 08 Dec 2021, 10:20:18

I've lost track of it, but I read an interesting study pointing out that high taxes have correlated positively historically with economic growth in a country. The study even had an interesting take on why this happened: The rich want, more than anything, to preserve their wealth. So in an environment of high taxes, they invest much more of their money in the hope that their investment will go well and they will preserve their wealth. This keeps the economy active.

Obviously, this may have been true historically but these days, a couple of things are different. First, it's much easier for the rich to find ways of hiding their money (offshore tax havens, etc). Second, many investments are short-term and the rich can pull off quickly. Both these things mean that in a high tax environment, the rich can be pretty successful at avoiding putting their money to work in productive ways and at making commitments that are useful to worthwhile enterprises. Lots of companies find themselves chasing the whims of investors, when it really should be the other way around, investors bending over backwards for the privilege of investing in worthwhile companies. So I think these days, even more useful than high taxes can be mechanisms to prevent people from moving their money fast.
What are you doing about peak oil?
I am doing this
(click on the www button) v
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby Daphne64 » Sat 11 Dec 2021, 23:56:25

I don't think anyone really believed trickle down in the first place. Not in the sense of looking at the evidence and trying to find the "truth". Of course the older I get, the lower my estimate of how many people do that for ANYTHING that extends beyond their personal wellbeing, or the wellbeing of their family, town or whatever "their" group is. If I had to guess, I'd say it's well below 1%.
Daphne64
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: middle of the USA

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby Pops » Sun 12 Dec 2021, 10:27:06

Wow a shocker!

The justification was always the Laffer Curve which theorized that as taxes were lowered from 100% down to some unstated number around 50% that investment, gdp and tax revenues would increase. What republicans always leave out is that below some number around 50% that tax revenues decline because wealth accrues to the wealthy and STOPS there.

Image

Of course taxes at 100% would kill the economy and there would be no tax revenue—so far so good. The top marginal tax rate in the 1950's was 90% and the effective rate was maybe 70%: per wiki, then soon to 50% I think around the time of LBJ. But then Reagan and about 25% by 1985. Of course the preferential treatment of capital gains is far more unequal and makes the biggest difference, top rate for not working is 20%. The average effective tax on everyone else is about 15-20%

Rich people owning a greater portion of everything doesn't make the economy grow or cause anything to "trickle" down to the little people. You can only eat so much caviar so the excess money rich people can't spend has to go somewhere. Rich people are smart enough to know better than think investment creates demand so they don't just build factories willy-nilly and hope demand shows up. But yachts, off shore accounts, NFTs, stupid stock market valuations can't grow the economy. either The only thing that makes the economy grow is more consumers with more money to spend on consumption.

Top effective taxes fell below 50% around 1980 about the time total new debt each year started to exceeded GDP "growth." Oh and wealth inequality really took off then too— not to mention labor's share of increasing productivity disconnected and stagnated while ownership's share swelled. Not surprising either is the rise of the FIRE economy which is just shuffling money from here to there—there being the accounts of the ownership, mostly. Also the rise of "meritocracy" that makes education the dividing line in society it is.

America was great back when taxes were high on the wealthy. We did great things. Funny how the only policy victory of the party of "Great Again" was to take tax on the wealthy even lower and force the government to borrow even more. And the craziest part is it's all supported by the very people who have suffered the most.

It will be seen in the future as the biggest scam of them all

.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19626
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby theluckycountry » Sun 12 Dec 2021, 17:55:47

America was great when it was the world's largest exporter of oil, when it helped win the second world war and then made it's currency the World Reserve. It's no coincidence that living standards in the US began their decline after the peak there, nor Australia begin it's decline in 2000 after our peak. When the top marginal tax rate in the 1950's was 90% accountants were very busy finding tax shelters for the profits.

If you were to go back and look at every recorded statement about taxes and wealth etc in the media records you would find that it was all a smokescreen. Even the anti-trust laws were a gimmick to placate the masses, all they did was force Rockefeller to create a cartel of smaller companies out of one big oil company. Was this a good thing? Perhaps it was for rockefeller, perhaps it allowed him the to shuffle assets into good ones and liabilities into bad ones? Perhaps he was the instigator of the whole anti-trust movement?

This is not uncommon, the masses of plebeians complaining about injustices and the rich elites caving in to forced changes that as it turns out sees them carry on as usual. Look at the big shift in England from Landed elites running the nation to elected officials, did the lords lose their wealth and control? Hardly! The royal family retained all it's riches and grew in wealth, and the taxpayers foot the bill now for the upkeep of many of their estates, estates which in many cases incur no taxes because they are classified as crown lands, the nation as a whole owning them. Just try to go camping on one though and you'll find out very quickly who is in control.


Does the Rockefeller family still own Standard Oil?

Standard Oil’s success made Rockefeller the first billionaire in the U.S. He was the largest shareholder in the business. After Standard Oil broke up, Rockefeller continued to own stakes in the smaller companies that resulted from the split. In 2016, the Rockefeller family announced that it was exiting the oil business and selling its stakes in oil companies like ExxonMobil. The family cited climate change concerns for the decision to divest from the oil industry.

https://marketrealist.com/p/what-happen ... ndard-oil/

How nice of them to put climate ahead of their personal wealth /sarc

So rockefeller and the other minor interests split up the company. How would you do it if you were a greedy oil baron? Would you shuffle the best assets into 5 or 6 and hold a major stake in those, sell off the rest in the rising market? Or would you make it all fair and equitable.

Consider the gold theft act of 1933, it would have been months in the planning. Is it unreasonable to assume that well heeled lobbyists got the insider nod, put their gold on ships and moved it to Europe, subsequently making a 50% profit on the deal? Or would the President and the dozens of people involved in the drafting of the laws keep it Big secret, only to incur the irate glares of their peers at the dinner table for the next 10 years? If you're reading this post you don't sit down to dinner with the President, you're not his close friend, and you don't share in his secrets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MaJeW4XBxU
theluckycountry
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby Pops » Mon 13 Dec 2021, 09:13:05

The problem isn't so much unfairness but misallocation. The IDEA is that since the already rich don't need to spend their income, when they get more they will invest it and create jobs. But the rich aren't stupid, they won't invest in new jobs unless they see a demand— the lesson is: the rich don't create jobs, demand does.

Where the misallocation comes in is the rich don't work, they gamble. Some gambles benefit society generally while others only benefit the rich, like the stock market which is owned mostly by the rich where they can gamble and be isolated from any liability beyond their bet—liability is for suckers.

The problem is when the rich are given so much from preferential treatment that the real economy suffers — look at the average wage the last 30 years. The rich get the benefit of growth then when all the gambles turn up craps it hurts everyone.

Evergrnde defaulted on $300 billion that's is a lot, but crypto currencies alone total $3 Trillion and they are nothin but air.

For that matter, US housing values inflated by 30% LAST YEAR! With a face value today $36 Trillion that means $10+ Trillion in money in froth—underwritten by the US government mostly at rates lower than average inflation. Only 18% of working people can afford the average mortgage now, the lowest ever.

Talking about vapor, the US stock market is oversold by 2 or 3 times with a current face value of $50 TRILLION!

Short term interest rates in the US (fed funds) is .08%, with an inflation of 6% that mean the government is loaning money at NEGATIVE 5.92%—they are paying banks to take money overnight just to keep them solvent and encourage easy money... to keep all the balls in the air.

Crimeny, just those 3 items are $30 or 40 trillion in froth in the last 18 months!

Since the great recession governments everywhere have been trying with every method available to keep the economy inflated—since the ’80’s actually— but the last year is as spectacular. as the BushCo bubble and crash. The problem is deeper than just bubbles, we're at peak economy and yet we keep shoveling money upwards hoping the Great Job Creators will save us.

I’m a doomer, no doubt, and no money man, but those numbers are pretty scary...
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19626
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby mousepad » Mon 13 Dec 2021, 10:05:57

Pops wrote: the already rich don't need to spend their income

I'm wondering. If they don't spend their money, they effectively take it out of circulation. They create deflation which increases the value of your and my money.

the rich don't work, they gamble.

How many rich are there? And how much does their lifestyle cost per year?
If we assume they don't work, but mooch 100% then that's the cost other people (working people) have to carry. Kind of like some royalty. How much is that? Do we have a number?
All the accumulated stock and money in the bank is just fluff.

we're at peak economy and yet we keep shoveling money upwards hoping the Great Job Creators will save us.

Save us from what?
It's high time to embrace LESS, for the sake of all of us and for the sake of the future.
LESS production, LESS consumption, LESS work, LESS waste.
mousepad
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu 26 Sep 2019, 09:07:56

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby Pops » Mon 13 Dec 2021, 12:27:25

mousepad wrote:I'm wondering. If they don't spend their money, they effectively take it out of circulation. They create deflation which increases the value of your and my money.

Except they don't sit on it, they gamble with it, otherwise the government inflation policy would cause them to steadily lose it. As opposed to what the rest of us do which is spend it back into the economy, they blow bubbles. For example, investors have been behind 15%+ single family housing purchases since the great recession;
Image

How many rich are there? And how much does their lifestyle cost per year?
If we assume they don't work, but mooch 100% then that's the cost other people (working people) have to carry. Kind of like some royalty. How much is that? Do we have a number?
All the accumulated stock and money in the bank is just fluff.

The "tribute" we pay is basically the difference in what labor takes home and what ownership takes home. Once it was about even, owners share went up and down with labors, not so since the 1980s when tax rates came down and labors income was suposedly going to rise. Here is income, and why the top owns so much more now:
Image

Wiki wrote:As of Q3 2019, the top 10% of households held 70% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2%


Image


Save us from what?

That is the question isn't it. Why did we just give even greater tax breaks to the wealthy and corporate owners when they've been eating our lunch for the fifty years since reagan? Shoot, they're $20TRILLION richer just since the recession and everyone else is barely hanging on:
Image


It's high time to embrace LESS, for the sake of all of us and for the sake of the future.
LESS production, LESS consumption, LESS work, LESS waste.

I agree completely. I earned good money prior to 9/11 which completely freaked me out. I was typical and owed a bunch too. I dialed it back and now make a quarter of what I did but I owe zero.


Truth be told the republicans in congress are captured by the owners. The ploy is telling uneducated laborers that here any time they will be getting all that trickle. Oh, and while you're waiting we'll let you play guns, infect you neighbors, defend you from the War On Christmas®, snoop into other people's sex lives and all the rest—just don't blame us for your desperation and economic plight, after all we are pro-business so get a job!!!

Yeah, Ds get bought and bend to the top sometimes too but it would be a waste of my time to try and convince anyone of all the tax cuts the Rs have bestowed on the top while blocking any downward transfers if they don't already understand. The whole trickle-down scam is a con job: regular people will benefit.... trust us!

It was always a lie.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19626
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby mousepad » Mon 13 Dec 2021, 14:13:10

Pops wrote:
mousepad wrote:I'm wondering. If they don't spend their money, they effectively take it out of circulation. They create deflation which increases the value of your and my money.

Except they don't sit on it, they gamble with it,

I fail to understand why it matters. Please explain.

As a simple example, let's take a small self contained town with 10 working people and 1 rich guy.
The rich guy owns all land and all businesses in town. Now consider 2 scenarios:

1. the rich guy lives a jetset lifestyle. Clearly, since he's not working, the 10 plebs have to work to make this lifestyle possible for the man who owns it all.
2. the rich guy lives like everybody else. In a single wide trailer, no luxury. Simple modest life. All the interest payment, the increased value of his stocks etc are just sitting there. Slowly he's draining the economy of money. So there's deflation and the value of the money left in the plebs hands gains in value. The lifestyle and purchasing power of the plebs is not affected by the wealth accumulation of the rich.

I don't know how this compares to the real world. However as far as I can see the super rich have so much "paper wealth" it's unspendable. I'm pretty sure Elon won't spend a fraction of his wealth on his lifestyle. If anything he will start some philanthropy stuff in old age and donate the money away, like so many others do, too. So I'm wondering how much this wealth actually matters. Maybe you have a better understanding? At what point does wealth become a problem? There are many small time investors and retirees that live off from their rental units or other investments. They are essentially all moochers because other people pay their life. Are those a problem, too?

Here is income, and why the top owns so much more now:
Image

I'm pretty sure non of the super rich got super rich because of high income. They got super rich because of stock of compony they founded increased in value.

Even if you're in the 1% of earners, your income ain't that high. For CA it "only" takes $660k to be in the top 1% of earners. Clearly not enough to ever accumulate any wealth beyond a few millions in ones lifetime.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 ... 112002276/

The rising gap in income (not wealth!) has much more to do with job demands. Highly skilled high tech workers can demand a high salary, uneducated easily replaced laborers cannot. Maybe shipping jobs overseas while importing unskilled and uneducated workers ain't the best idea for boosting the value of a simple worker?

Wiki wrote:As of Q3 2019, the top 10% of households held 70% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2%


At a certain point the wealth inequality certainly becomes a problem. If an ever smaller pleb population must feed and cloth mooching interest earners. Is that point reached? I'm not sure.
Currently the rich serve mostly as the politically correct scape goat for all of societies ills. Especially in the eyes of the Ds.

Why did we just give even greater tax breaks to the wealthy and corporate owners when they've been eating our lunch for the fifty years since reagan?

Because the world is global. There's a reason why the canton of Zug in Switzerland with it's extremely low taxes is home to a ridiculous numbers of big corps. Corps and people can and do move.

Instead of redistribution (taxing), what about some other ideas?
1. at a certain size, company must issue shares to all employees
2. the bigger the company the less a single owner can own shares of
3. no holding companies, all shares must be owned by individuals
4. hefty import duties. If it's consumed in America it's made in America!
5. reduce import of unskilled, uneducated workers. Boost the value of our own workers.
6. reduce inheritance to break intergenerational wealth. You start with a blank slate.

Truth be told the republicans in congress are captured by the owners.

I understand you're a die-hard D.
mousepad
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu 26 Sep 2019, 09:07:56

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby Pops » Mon 13 Dec 2021, 16:56:31

mousepad wrote:I fail to understand why it matters. Please explain.

Your assumption is that the rich guy must not only make more but so much more it can't be used for his own good or even for reinvestment.

Lets say the rich guy gives everyone a raise, but he still gets twice what everyone else makes, so he's still the rich guy, still doesn't work, but everyone else makes twice what they were making before. Instead of blowing bubbles trying to outsmart the other rich guys, his workers turn around and... spend it. The economy actually grow instead of just inflating, there is more demand and the rich guy—and everyone else—actually do get richer.

At what point does wealth become a problem?

Wealth per se isn't the problem, inequality is. Not that everyone is worth the same in trade, but if everyone hears that all boats are rising and theirs isn't, they're gonna be pissed. Look around, people tried to overthrow the election results for the first time ever, certain demographics are killing themselves at alarming rates increasing their mortality rates for the first time ever, they're buying guns thinking they need to kill the other workers! They are so put out they don't care if their actions kill their grandma or the neighbor lady.

They have been lied to about trickle down and know it. But they voted for it and their wages have been stagnant for decades because of it. They are the first generation is hundreds of years to not do better than their parents.

CEOs aren't necessarily the whole problem, the markets demand the highest profit possible or they push to break up the company (thanks T Boone) but their increasing greed, or at least the increasing acceptance of it is illustrative:
Image.

I'm pretty sure non of the super rich got super rich because of high income. They got super rich because of stock of compony they founded increased in value.

The rich and merely wealthy got there because
a) they stopped giving raises to workers when the other half of the population went to work in the 70's and 80's.
b) they convinced enough people that we'd all get rich if we just let them not pay tax

Even if you're in the 1% of earners, your income ain't that high.

Income is income whether it is wages or gains. But yea, it isn't about income tax.

The rising gap in income (not wealth!) has much more to do with job demands. Highly skilled high tech workers can demand a high salary, uneducated easily replaced laborers cannot. Maybe shipping jobs overseas while importing unskilled and uneducated workers ain't the best idea for boosting the value of a simple worker?

Wealth inequality has nothing to do with education. Yeah, people with more skills earn more. But people who earn wages aren't wealthy, never will be.

Wealth inequality is about paying wages. Capitalism is about renting worker's time and paying less than it's true value, then selling whatever the product of that labor is for a profit.

At a certain point the wealth inequality certainly becomes a problem. If an ever smaller pleb population must feed and cloth mooching interest earners. Is that point reached? I'm not sure.

The problem I think manifests in societal upset. Again, uneducated, protestant, white people used to rule both political parties, back when America was great, when the difference between CEOs and line worker's pay was small, when having a degree wasn't a big deal, when a middle class life was possible with hard work. They don't now and they're pissed. Obvious targets of their ire are educated, professional, non-white, non-religious.

Because many are old, they are products of the cold war afraid of communism. I'm with them on that, but there isn't much chance of commies taking over. There is a good chance that AI and robotics will take over so I have no doubt they will learn to love socialism, or their kids will anyway. Only so may of us are needed to code —it will be either Jetsons or Flintstones.

Currently the rich serve mostly as the politically correct scape goat for all of societies ills. Especially in the eyes of the Ds.

A goat takes the blame unfairly but wealth inequality is entirely in the control of the wealthy—like Buffet said, it was class war and his side won.

Because the world is global. There's a reason why the canton of Zug in Switzerland with it's extremely low taxes is home to a ridiculous numbers of big corps. Corps and people can and do move.

Biden is trying to address the race to the bottom, we'll see.. I'm not sure why anyone would think it is a good thing for a corporation to profit from all of societies' benefits, socialize all the liabilities and not contribute to that same society. I assume it's a republican thing, modern Rs anyway.

Instead of redistribution (taxing), what about some other ideas?
1. at a certain size, company must issue shares to all employees
2. the bigger the company the less a single owner can own shares of
3. no holding companies, all shares must be owned by individuals
4. hefty import duties. If it's consumed in America it's made in America!
5. reduce import of unskilled, uneducated workers. Boost the value of our own workers.
6. reduce inheritance to break intergenerational wealth. You start with a blank slate.

Ideologically I'm a syndicalist, basically worker owned business, so some of that sounds OK. The problem is everyone has different talents and not everyone is owner material. Though I am liberal I don't like redistribution necessarily, earned money just feels better., it gives purpose and satisfaction. I'd rather there simply be a limit to ownership's share of profits after reinvestment R&D, etc. Obviously there once was, not too long ago, when America was great. The owners can still play golf, the workers are still paid according to their skill, diligence, etc but they simply share more in the gains.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19626
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 14 Dec 2021, 18:09:16

At the moment taxes are more and more a meaningless concept - at least from a perspective of western societies survival.
They may be low or high as you wish but these societies are still going down a drain and nothing changes here.
Our business model is no longer viable and long term e-shit and all sort of gizmos cannot replace a range of necessary products which are getting expensive, difficult to get and yet are no longer made on the West.
Societies who are not recognizing that engineer or scientist is far more valuable to them than an artist or clerical worker will go down the drain losing competition with those of different set of values.
This does not mean that we don't need artists at all. We need about 5% of current total and we certainly don't need Kardashian type celebrities at all.
We also don't need 90+% of non-STEM graduates (and academics who train those) because they are parasites pulling us down to ruin.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7036
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby Pops » Wed 15 Dec 2021, 09:36:40

I agree with all that EU except we don't really need engineers either. At this point we are engineering solutions to our previously failed engineering. I bought an iPhone 12, it does nothing my iPhone 6 wouldn't do except run the new operating system that does nothing important my old operating system couldn't do. And Apple has the biggest cap in the world.

Globally we have been borrowing money for decades to keep the economy inflated because we've past the point of diminishing returns. Without constantly inflating the money supply we would be long gone into deflation. Deflation makes assets less valuable, something those with all the assets can't have so we just keep inflating the money supply.

Which brings us back to lowering taxes on the rich, if the capitalist economy has run it's course and after fossils it will certainly have, the last gambit is to capture as much profit as possible.

I don't know about where you live but in the US the strain is starting to show.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19626
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby mousepad » Wed 15 Dec 2021, 10:09:28

Pops wrote:
1. at a certain size, company must issue shares to all employees

Ideologically I'm a syndicalist, basically worker owned business, so some of that sounds OK. The problem is everyone has different talents and not everyone is owner material.


You don't have to be owner material. Just like company contribution in a 401k.
With big companies (e.g amazon), have shares issued to all employees. People working and busting their ass for a successful business get some of the pie.

I know you're in love with taxing. Not me and for 2 reasons.
1. with taxation the gov is getting the money and I have no control of what it's doing with it. I have moral objections to many of the govs spending agendas. Leave it to individuals to spend. Much better in my opinion.
2. I rather make $100k and pay $10k taxes to get net pay of $90k, than making $1M and being taxed $910k, even though the net is the same. However in one case I feel badly cheated and resentful, whereas in the other case I don't even realize it. Instead of taxing, the rules should be changed to avoid building obscene wealth in the first place. Much better than trying to confiscate wealth later on.
mousepad
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu 26 Sep 2019, 09:07:56

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby Pops » Wed 15 Dec 2021, 11:22:42

mousepad wrote:I know you're in love with taxing.

That's a strawman. in fact I specifically said I'm not a redistributionist in the very next sentence after the one you quoted. As well, earlier I specifically said this isn't about taxes. Aside from that, I also specifically said that earning money is better than being on the dole.
Are you trying to get a rise or am I just talking to myself?

I do think the government can do things individuals can't and bargain more effectively than the individual in some cases, like say building aircraft carriers or fire engines or in bargaining for medicine where the consumer must either pay the fare or die. See my signature. But I think government is better at setting goals, making laws, than spending money. Let the market work the details within whatever parameter.

The goal is simply a greater share of profit be allocated to labor to reduce inequality that is tearing us apart. After which people do with it what they like—which in the case of most is spend it into the economy. Some percentage of profit before labor would be allocated to wages—not insurance, not IRAs, not cafeteria privileges, wages. That way people who are familiar with stocks continue play with stocks and people who work for wages simply get more wages.

I'm not smart enough to know what that percentage would be. It probably wouldn't be uniform across industries, Zuckerbird, damn his black soul, would probably get a bigger share just because there isn't all that much labor involved in buying up competitors, but Musk would probably get less because his is a production biz. Maybe, I don't know.

I'm pretty sure that forcing corporations to give away stock is no less an imposition than increased taxes or salaries. But inequality is really damaging us. Simply paying an equitable wage is all that's required, which they seem too greedy to do without coercion. But again that is what government is for.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19626
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby mousepad » Wed 15 Dec 2021, 12:05:35

Pops wrote:I'm pretty sure that forcing corporations to give away stock is no less an imposition than increased taxes or salaries.

Maybe. But what other options are there? I could also see to limit the size of corporation.
There doesn't need to be only one shoe company supplying the nation. There's room for 100. Yes, the shoes might be a little bit more expensive that way, but that's a small price to pay in my opinion.

But inequality is really damaging us.

Yes. It's not good in the long run.

Simply paying an equitable wage is all that's required, which they seem too greedy to do without coercion.

I don't like that, because it's not the free market doing the bidding.
From my own experience in the past I made decisions to buy robots for a production line instead of hiring people because a coerced minimum wage made the workers uncompetitive. It should not be that way. The worker should be naturally made valuable, whiteout coercion.
During the pandemic, a lot of people spent time and money doing home remodeling. Including myself.
The carpenter I hired cost double what it would have cost me 2 years earlier, simply because of shortage. That's the way to go. Make low level labor valuable and good salaries will follow.
mousepad
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu 26 Sep 2019, 09:07:56

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 15 Dec 2021, 15:23:09

mousepad wrote:During the pandemic, a lot of people spent time and money doing home remodeling. Including myself.
The carpenter I hired cost double what it would have cost me 2 years earlier, simply because of shortage. That's the way to go. Make low level labor valuable and good salaries will follow.


The "way to go" you've just described is a growth in demand (more carpenters needed to build stuff) versus supply (the number of carpenters did not grow in response to the higher wages...yet).

As the situation you've described will revert back to the mean value of carpenters at some point in time, what you want is a permanent-temporary situation and therefore it must be coerced, economically speaking.

So what is your plan for keeping low level labor valuable, without it being an artificial construct?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 15 Dec 2021, 15:28:22

mousepad wrote:
Pops wrote:I'm pretty sure that forcing corporations to give away stock is no less an imposition than increased taxes or salaries.

Maybe. But what other options are there?


How about actually BUYING shares of the corporations?

That way you own a teeny tiny part of the evil corporation and when it makes outrageous profits from selling its products the stock goes up and you personally benefit a teeny tiny bit.

As you build your stock portfolio over time you become rich, right along with the evil corporation.

All the smart leftwing people have money in the stock market......Obama, Hillary, Biden all have lots of money in the stock market, and they're no dummies.

And its not hard to find money to invest....just take some of the money that gets wasted on buying drugs and alcohol and instead put it to the work in the stock market.

In the long run you get rich and you stay healthier too!

Image
Invest in the stock market....and get rich just like Obama and other smart leftwing politicians do!

Cheers!
250 million thousand people have died of covid---Joe Biden
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama

-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 25377
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby mousepad » Wed 15 Dec 2021, 16:06:45

AdamB wrote:So what is your plan for keeping low level labor valuable, without it being an artificial construct?


Good question. I would start with not importing millions of low level workers. And then second that with gradually increasing import duties on anything made in 3rd world wage countries. And then see where it takes us.
mousepad
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu 26 Sep 2019, 09:07:56

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby theluckycountry » Wed 15 Dec 2021, 16:28:10

So the rich get all the wealth?

Social Security costs, $1.151 trillion
Medicare ($722 billion)
Medicaid ($448 billion)

Food stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security Income, Student Loans, Retirement and disability programs for civil servants, the Coast Guard, and the military. ($645 billion)

The rich don't come from Mars. They are often average people who have risen out of the muck and now enjoy the benefits of their superior intelligence, or luck, or dogged hard work. This is the whole ethos of America is it not?

Only in America:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1cvWTBK9zI

Only in America
Can a guy from anywhere
Go to sleep a pauper
And wake up a millionaire

Only in America
Can a kid without a cent
Get a break and maybe
Grow up to be President

Only in America
Land of opportunity, yeah
Would a classy girl like you
Fall for a poor boy like me

Only in America
Can a kid who's washin' cars
Take a giant step and reach right up
And touch the stars.

That's what America is built on, it's a dream, but a reality for many.
theluckycountry
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: Huge 20-Year Study Shows Trickle-Down Is a Myth, Inequal

Unread postby mousepad » Wed 15 Dec 2021, 16:49:37

Plantagenet wrote:
mousepad wrote:
Pops wrote:I'm pretty sure that forcing corporations to give away stock is no less an imposition than increased taxes or salaries.

Maybe. But what other options are there?


How about actually BUYING shares of the corporations?

Yes, that's an option. However I think certain companies and shareholders are too powerful for societies good. Pile of Sugar a good example (Zuckerberg is german and means "mountain of sugar").
I believe he should not own that large of a sugar pile.
But then again, I'm an armchair dude, just thinking out loud and trying to solve societies ills one beer at a time. Cheers.

What do you think?
mousepad
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu 26 Sep 2019, 09:07:56

Next

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests