Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[surreptitious57]

If everyone could become a billionaire tycoon then we would all be doing it
So do not think that it is some thing which can happen to absolutely anyone
Those who succeed do so because they have what it takes what ever that is

[Jason]

Many technological visionaries have their inventions and dreams stolen. Steve Jobs didn't climb to his height by being a boyscout.

What makes a good CEO? Some business acumen and a lot of luck. It's like they won a lottery that just keeps paying out.

[JimC]

Without Larry Ellison there wouldn't be an Oracle, which he founded in 1977 along with two partners and an initial investment of $2000. It was privately held till 1986, when it had an annual revenue of 55 million. He changed the computing world. By 2014 their annual revenue was 38.3 Billion. He had been CEO continuously from 1977 to 2014 when he stepped down. Oracle employs over 135,000 people worldwide, with historical earnings measured in multiple trillions.

I'm not buying "any competent manager".

A start-up guy is in a different position. If you create an entirely new enterprise from scratch, and it takes off, you will (and should) do well, mainly by owning a lot of shares in the company you start. What is over the top is the huge salaries and stock options given to people who take over as CEOs of established companies. Yes, they need to be on the ball, and competent, and probably should be paid well, and have some additional incentive rewards if they grow the company faster than average. But their current renumeration levels are simply obscene.

[mistermack]

I'm personally not against people getting rich and enjoying their riches. That is, if you own the company.
What I don't like is the gigantic salaries being paid to people who DON'T own the company, didn't start the company, but just got themselves into the chief executive's job, or a job on the board.

What happens is that the old boy's network exchanges these jobs for similar favours. You get a job on the board, and then, get someone else a top directorship, and in return, you get a directorship with their own company. Before you know it, you have a little backroom club going, everybody scratching each others backs, and nobody else gets a look in. And it's not just the jobs. It's the level of salaries that they vote for each other. That's why boardroom salaries have gone through the roof, compared to workers salaries.
It's the modern mafia.
But if you started the company, and built it, then as far as I'm concerned you deserve to pay yourself whatever you like. It's your money.

I would however, take almost all of a dead person's estate in tax. Dynastic mega-wealthy families, living on inherited wealth, don't do anybody any good except themselves.
Take it in tax, and use the money to educate the poorest kids.
That way, people would have a more equal start in life. Which I consider important.

[JimC]

mistermack wrote:

I would however, take almost all of a dead person's estate in tax. Dynastic mega-wealthy families, living on inherited wealth, don't do anybody any good except themselves.
Take it in tax, and use the money to educate the poorest kids.
That way, people would have a more equal start in life. Which I consider important.

I think that could be on a sliding scale. Up to (say) a million, no estate tax. After, tax at a higher and higher rate for every million over...

[surreptitious57]

The richest pay the most tax and so after they die should not have to pay another penny
The tax threshold can be raised to fifty per cent but inheritance tax should be abolished
Meantime there are legitimate ways to avoid paying any so that the state does not get it

[mistermack]

mistermack wrote:

I would however, take almost all of a dead person's estate in tax. Dynastic mega-wealthy families, living on inherited wealth, don't do anybody any good except themselves.
Take it in tax, and use the money to educate the poorest kids.
That way, people would have a more equal start in life. Which I consider important.

I think that could be on a sliding scale. Up to (say) a million, no estate tax. After, tax at a higher and higher rate for every million over...

I certainly agree that smaller estates should be taxed less. On a sliding scale as you say.
I've never understood why governments start a tax at a particular figure, with nothing below it, and full rate above it. It's a silly way of doing things.
Personally though, I would start it at a lot less than a million.

After all, if you work for your father, and he pays you a salary, you pay income tax on it.
But if you get a huge lump, for no work, it's apparently not income. You just pay a lower rate of inheritance tax, or none at all in some cases.
If you pay tax on money you worked for, I see no reason not to pay tax on money you haven't worked for.
So if they started by just treating it as any other income, that would be a good start.

Ideally, the money raised would go to providing every school kid with a high quality education.
Any left over would go to reducing income tax. So you pay less tax when you are alive, but more when you die.

[Brian Peacock]

That bunch of Marxist propagandists at the IMF disagree with Seth. Their analysis paints a completely different picture about the merits of using structural mechanisms to secure and enhance the wealth of the wealthy alone.

Our analysis suggests that the income distribution itself matters for growth as well. Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.

Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspectivei

Their conclusions are broadly consistent with similar research in this area.

[Hermit]

Um, you are aware that the yacht fairy didn't provide that yacht, a legion of craftsmen and workers did, and got paid for building it, aren't you?

Um, yes, I do. Furthemore, a boat like that probably requires a dozen or so permanent employees to keep it afloat and going places. Additionally, there are flow-on effects, such as the driver of the trucking company that gets paid for a few hours a month to supply it with fuel or the people at the chandlery who pick, pack and deliver the victual and so on. Originally named "the horse and sparrow theory" late in the 19th century (The more oats you feed the horse the more of it passes through its gut, which leaves more shit for the sparrow to feed on). It's been revived in the 1970s. Tax cuts for the rich were supposed to mean better income for the mass of their employees. That is not what happened.



What happened instead was that wealth concentrated at the top end of society at an even faster rate than before. I think the wine glass analogy I linked to before illustrates that pretty well.

What you're bitching about is the fact that YOU don't have as much wealth as someone else

You know that how? I am 62 years old and own my four bedroom house with attached granny flat outright. Between 2002 and today I have worked for pay for one 18 month period, not because I needed to, but because I wanted to. What am I supposed to bitch about? How to spend my time defending my 10 billion dollar empire from some rival tycoon's predatory attempts to drive me out of business? Not bloody likely. While I am happy not to be in your shoes, what with having frittered the proceeds from the sale of dad's farm away, and having to move into a trailer because you cant afford the rent for a house, I have no hankering for the billions of dollars others play with. What I do object to is the power wealth confers on its owners. The Murdochs an the Packers of this world have repeatedly boasted how they have toppled democratically elected governments. Other tycoons do that sort of thing without publicising the fact.

[Hermit]

The richest pay the most tax

Not in percentage terms they don't

[Seth]

The richest pay the most tax

Not in percentage terms they don't

Oh yes they do. The top one percent pays something like 40 percent of taxes collected.

[Jason]

The richest pay the most tax

Not in percentage terms they don't

Oh yes they do. The top one percent pays something like 40 percent of taxes collected.

Isn't that because they own like 99% of the country?

[Seth]

you want to sit around and nobody wants to give you money voluntarily why should
anyone be compelled to do so through taxation to fund your desire to be indolent ?

Do you therefore think that taxation used to subsidise the unemployed is morally indefensible ?

Depends on why they are unemployed.

Do you think governments should have the legal right to use taxpayers money for this purpose ?

Depends on how they propose to use the money.

Do you think taxpayers them selves should instead decide what their taxes should be spent on ?

Absolutely! I'd like to see a flat income tax of 15% combined with a form that lists different areas of expenditure of the government and different programs that Congress wants funded. Each taxpayer would check off those areas and programs that they want their taxes used for and government would be legally obligated to use that taxpayer's money for those specified purposes.

There is no better way to reign in out of control government spending than to force government to beg taxpayers for money for specific things and then force it to spend the money they get only on those things that taxpayers are willing to fund.

[Seth]

The richest pay the most tax

Not in percentage terms they don't

Oh yes they do. The top one percent pays something like 40 percent of taxes collected.

Isn't that because they own like 99% of the country?

No, it's because Marxists levy the highest tax brackets of their "progressive" seizure and redistribution scheme on the wealthy.

Why should anyone pay any more as a percentage of their income than anyone else?

Everybody should pay 15%, period.

[Seth]

I am not bothered at all by how wealthy some are as the rich have always been with us and always will. So nothing is going to
change that undeniable fact. I am more concerned about the other end of the scale for obvious reasons. Although having said
that society can never be truly equally. Even in communist states some are more equal than others. And there will never be a
time when everyone is just equal. Although reducing inequality as much as possible is something both desirable and necessary

Indeed. But one reduces economic inequality by giving the poor the tools they need to improve their economic conditions, not by stealing wealth from the productive class and transferring it to the dependent class. That just keeps them dependent, which of course is exactly what Marxist progressive want.