62 people own as much as the poorest 3,5 billion people - Page 2 - Politics and Economics

Yak/ In principle it could be all cash in hand. It's just not going to be forced cash directly from the super-rich to the most poor in the world - that's too pie in the sky.

Not convinced other measures have worked poorly. Taxation and using the money to provide state services like education and health care work very well.

01-18-2016 , 07:20 AM

#27

Yakmelk

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

What did you mean by no social benefits? Just all social payments means tested to exclude top rate earners?

In my country high income earners can sometimes still get some tax rebates through the social system (for example a so called mortgage interest rebate on real estate). This is obviously wrong to me.

@chez
Sorry I wasn't clear, I was assuming that the worst cases of 'poors' would be found at the other side of the border which makes it very hard to efficiently direct the money. I think national/internal programs can work very well.

Someone started the topic so might as well hear what you think about it, how are we/will we be going to distribute the wealth internationally iyo ?

01-18-2016 , 07:29 AM

#28

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakmelk

Which is pretty much opposite to cash in hand and works pretty poorly so far. I'm all for reasonable taxation (as posted in a thread in PU recently)

Giving more money to (corrupt) governments isn't going to help the working man a whole lot and I agree that the cash in hand approach is much better, its just practically impossible. Seems like this thread should be in SMP.

Which way do you mean "practically impossible"?

01-18-2016 , 07:32 AM

#29

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakmelk

What would you guess the overhead would be on that mission ? I just looked it up and was kind of surprised, they have about 1760 billion combined and with 3.6b people that would make almost 500 billion each. It does seem like a lot of money to have just laying around.

Err 500 each not 500 billion.

01-18-2016 , 07:33 AM

#30

Yakmelk

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Which way do you mean "practically impossible"?

When realistically taking into consideration the current situation in the world it's practically impossible to take the money from the richest and bring it cash in hand to the poorest. If you disagree you can go ahead and explain how you would see it happen.

01-18-2016 , 07:50 AM

#31

Mr.mmmKay

Drugs are bad...

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 20,179

all governments spend a part of their budget on developing and supporting poor countries, to increase wealth inequality they simply have to raise this amount, either by increasing taxes or by saving on other things. No one is gonna vote for this though, but I wouldn't say it's practically impossible

01-18-2016 , 08:05 AM

#32

JayTeeMe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 29,409

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

an estate tax that hits 100% at anything over ten million is clearly fair.

Clearly.

Notice the tone in these things isn't "I think we should spend money on XYZ. Where to get the money? I guess we could take it from the super rich people." It's "The super rich people have too much money. We should totally take it. What should we do with it? I dunno, we could give some to the poor or something."

It's policy motivated by bald-faced envy.

01-18-2016 , 08:09 AM

#33

Yakmelk

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.mmmKay

This is not cash in hand though this is cash to government, unless you think you'll be able to organize bypassing local governments ? Again, someone tell me how realistically and practically (start with that last one though) you get that 1 buck from mr Gates and get it into the hands of mr Poor.

@dereds/chezlaw
How do you feel about the 100% estate tax for anything over ten million ?

Last edited by Yakmelk; 01-18-2016 at 08:14 AM.

01-18-2016 , 08:18 AM

#34

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayTeeMe

Envy is good though.

01-18-2016 , 08:22 AM

#35

SmokeyQ123

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 6,583

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakmelk

I'm much more interested in how this would work out in Asia or Africa, I'm also assuming some sort of inflation would take place after the fact. Not to mention the idea as a whole is ludicrous.

FWIW directly giving cash has worked out very well. If you'd like I can look for the cites, but I originally read about it in 'Doing Good Better' which is a fantastic book on altruism which I'd recommend to anyone who is at all concerned with making a difference (through career, donations, whatever).

edit: some charities transfer cash directly using mobile phones

01-18-2016 , 08:23 AM

#36

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Far be it from me to be blind to the warmth and kindness in the Walton family's hearts though.

01-18-2016 , 08:32 AM

#37

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakmelk

@dereds/chezlaw
How do you feel about the 100% estate tax for anything over ten million ?

I'm not sure is that 100% of all income over 10m? Idk about 100% because it seems at that point the person earning it is better not accepting it and leaving it on the companies books.

01-18-2016 , 08:33 AM

#38

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyJ

Yeah this is GiveDirectly that I linked to up thread, additionally it transfers over 90% of all donations which is pretty spectacular efficiency.

01-18-2016 , 08:36 AM

#39

Yakmelk

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyJ

Again, I'm not against cash in hand, just wondering how one would go about that, redistributing US wealth by the US government to people living in countries over represented in the 'poors' category.

@dereds
This is what I got

Quote:

The estate tax in the United States is a tax on the transfer of the estate of a deceased person. The tax applies to property that is transferred via a will or according to state laws of intestacy.

01-18-2016 , 08:38 AM

#40

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

100% I think disincentivizes paying but I am generally opposed to transfers of wealth through inheritance. Sorry I forgot the over 10m, meh still not but then I think inherited wealth should be taxed more aggressively starting much lower.

Last edited by dereds; 01-18-2016 at 08:46 AM.

01-18-2016 , 08:53 AM

#41

Yakmelk

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

What are your arguments for that ? Tax has been payed over the acquired wealth, where is the moral foundation for retaxing it ?

Let me clarify, tax should be payed for a reason and not as a cash cow. How did the decease of that person cost the state any money at all ? Why (according to you) is it a bad idea to let wealth be inherited ?

Last edited by Yakmelk; 01-18-2016 at 08:59 AM.

01-18-2016 , 09:04 AM

#42

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

That I pay tax on my earnings doesn't mean I don't pay tax on spending the money I've earned.

A couple of reasons, firstly the ability to pass down wealth promotes wealth acquisition and I am generally not a fan of people being super rich when a significant proportion of the worlds population lives in poverty. Secondly it is still unearned income by the inheritor and should be taxed as such.

Like I could go on but generally the ability to pass down wealth reinforces inequality.

01-18-2016 , 09:15 AM

#43

jalfrezi

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 12,361

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Tbh i don't even understand the super rich. Who the **** cares about getting richer once you pass a hundred million? No one needs to be a billionaire.

I think once people become so rich that they can't improve their lives any more, they keep wanting to become even richer because it's how they keep score with each other.

Or to put it crudely, it's nothing more than a cock waving contest.

01-18-2016 , 09:22 AM

#44

Yakmelk

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

I don't mind a reasonable tax in the form of an income tax for the recipient. Wrt taxes on spending money you've earned, I feel like its easier to trace that back to government spending vs. someone simply dying. I just think we differ wrt what we find reasonable taxing and the liberty of people wrt owning as much wealth as they like instead of saying things like

Quote:

Tbh i don't even understand the super rich. Who the **** cares about getting richer once you pass a hundred million? No one needs to be a billionaire.

I also don't get people who like to get pissed on, take it in the ass or collect post stamps but we let them anyway. A lot of these super rich people actually do a lot of good with their money as well, its not like they all fill up a warehouse and swim in it.

01-18-2016 , 09:26 AM

#45

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakmelk

I generally don't care what they are doing with it while 40,000 people die every day because they are poor.

Why do you think that taxes on consumption are easier to trace back to governments than taxes on inheritance.

01-18-2016 , 09:38 AM

#46

Yakmelk

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

You're making it sound as if they have anything more to do with that then you and me, that seems very hypocritical to me. That last one is too easy, why do things you spend your money on were probably relying more on governmental funding/support then the act of inheritance ? That jar of peanutbutter you bought, how did it profit from governmental spending ?

01-18-2016 , 09:42 AM

#47

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakmelk

Is it as hypocritical if I told you that I donate 10% of my income directly to the poor? For the record I also believe that not acting to help the poor is harmful and the greater wealth one has the worse it is.

I don't understand the second part of your answer. We don't tax consumption because of the contributions that governments make to the production of goods.

01-18-2016 , 10:21 AM

#48

Yakmelk

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

Off course it is, you could probably stop another X poors from dying by upping that to 20% and another X by doing 30%. How much do you need to live your life exactly ? I think you have got quite some more slack then just that 10%.

The fact that we don't doesn't mean that the influence of consuming or dying is the same on governmental spending and thus makes more sense from a logical perspective.

01-18-2016 , 10:27 AM

#49

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakmelk

No this is not correct.

I am not asking the rich to sacrifice it all I am saying unless they sacrifice some of it they are wrong and maybe wrong if they do and do not sacrifice enough. Where is the hypocrisy?

Like we could have had this discussion without making personal attacks on each other but you decided against, which is fine I don't care enough for your opinion one way or the other but it goes someway to discredit those arguments you make on another topic about not being able to discuss stuff without being accused of stuff.

That's hypocrisy just in case you needed a definition.