Jeff Bezos Is Now Worth Over $150 Billion - Page 26 - Politics and Economics

I have been saying this for thirty years. But rather than seizing it all make it 95% of anything over some big number and give them some choice as to which worthy causes it goes to.

If you would like to bankrupt the USA this is one of the better ways to do it.

Other than that there isn't much to elaborate on this position.

10-14-2018 , 12:35 PM

#627

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by jman220

I’m not saying 95 percent is what the effective tax rate should be. That said, do i think someone will continue working to get an extra 25 million dollars? Yeah I do.

I agree. I just don’t think they’d work as hard, or more apt, incur the same risk. Think of it like a poker game with a highly progressive rake that goes up with the size of the pot or kicks in when the pot reaches a certain threshold; it’s going to impact the overall economy of the game along with the decision processes within it.

10-14-2018 , 12:43 PM

#628

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 57,075

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

It might be more like the 60s when companies invested based on longer term growth than on immediate gains in stock price.

10-14-2018 , 12:54 PM

#629

ecriture d'adulte

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 5,959

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerowo

I mean how many people are there starting businesses that don't even get to $500 million? Are they going to just say "**** it" because that's the new limit? Let those pussies get out of the way, there will still be people willing to start businesses.

It’s not that people won’t start businesses, it’s that venture capital, which is often based on getting super lucky a couple times, won’t bother if their gains are capped. And if companies basically have to grow without outside investment you’d have way way crappier products/services for consumers. Maybe that’s a feature and not a bug though. Income inequality doesn’t matter if there isn’t stuff to buy.

10-14-2018 , 01:03 PM

#630

kerowo

lolcat

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 37,190

Yeah, what would we do if we couldn't by a Juicero?

10-14-2018 , 01:20 PM

#631

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by microbet

It might be more like the 60s when companies invested based on longer term growth than on immediate gains in stock price.

It might and that would be a good thing, imo. But it would also hinder capital from pursuing the path of more creative destruction which would be a bad thing, imo.

10-14-2018 , 01:35 PM

#632

kerowo

lolcat

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 37,190

Bad for whom? Part of the disconnect in this thread is that there is a difference in who you think should benefit from economic activities. Traditionally, it's been only the stockholders and that's led us to where we are today. Perhaps it's time to add some other entities to the list of those who benefit from a companies success?

10-14-2018 , 01:52 PM

#633

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerowo

They do benefit but not directly or in ways that are easy to quantify. For example, to convey your thought to me, you didn't need to drop a letter in the mailbox and wait for me to receive it. That's worth something.

10-14-2018 , 02:02 PM

#634

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,282

You haven't had to do that in over a hundred and fifty years

10-14-2018 , 02:05 PM

#635

kerowo

lolcat

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 37,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

No ****. What I'm saying is perhaps it's time to include other entities to the list of people who directly benefit. Imagine if the US had internet coverage as good as Korea?

There was just a Capital One commercial where some business owner was proud that the 2% cash back he got from Capital One paid for his employees health care. Implying that without that 2% discount he couldn't afford health care. Think about that.

10-14-2018 , 02:11 PM

#636

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 57,075

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

You could use email which is socialist technology.

10-14-2018 , 02:15 PM

#637

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by microbet

You could use email which is socialist technology.

You could use an iPhone, which was created by publicly funded research. Sort of like democratic socialism but Apple gets like 95% of the benefit and consumers get to...pay for the research in the first place.

10-14-2018 , 02:21 PM

#638

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerowo

What I'm saying is perhaps it's time to include other entities to the list of people who directly benefit.

I agree with your end, but not your means. Rather than paying people more for the same output, I think we should give them better tools to increase their output.

10-14-2018 , 02:23 PM

#639

kerowo

lolcat

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 37,190

If you aren't going to pay me for more output, why do I need tools to increase it?

10-14-2018 , 02:24 PM

#640

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

The real question, why do WE keep making these powerful and wealth-producing tools, and why don't we get any of the goddamn benefits. We keep advancing science, engineering, technology.....and we get less wages, less benefits, less security with each passing year. What the hell are we doing all this work for the ruling class for when we could own these tools we are creating ourselves?

10-14-2018 , 02:26 PM

#641

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

Wages gone down?

No bother:

10-14-2018 , 02:55 PM

#642

Effen

CRAB

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 24,004

Max: taxing unrealized gains is bad!
Everyone: no one mentioned that, dummy
Max: well if you won't then I will and look at how bad they are!

What are you doing with your life dude

10-14-2018 , 02:56 PM

#643

ecriture d'adulte

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 5,959

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerowo

No ****. What I'm saying is perhaps it's time to include other entities to the list of people who directly benefit. Imagine if the US had internet coverage as good as Korea?

The internet is a singularly confusing example since it’s gone from a network used by a handful of elites to transmit particle physics data at research universities to the standard way for everyone worldwide to communicate about everything just in our lifetime largely because of multi billion dollar American companies looking for more revenue sources.

Quote:

There was just a Capital One commercial where some business owner was proud that the 2% cash back he got from Capital One paid for his employees health care. Implying that without that 2% discount he couldn't afford health care. Think about that.

Lol. A commercial. But congrats you’ve found a small business owner about as credible as Mason Malmuth. Didn’t think that was possible.

10-14-2018 , 03:09 PM

#644

kerowo

lolcat

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 37,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte

Lol. A commercial. But congrats you’ve found a small business owner about as credible as Mason Malmuth. Didn’t think that was possible.

You seem to have missed the point.

10-14-2018 , 03:09 PM

#645

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerowo

If you aren't going to pay me for more output, why do I need tools to increase it?

For the most part, whenever that increased output rises above the cost to create it, you have been paid more.

10-14-2018 , 03:17 PM

#646

kerowo

lolcat

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 37,190

How? And is it money I can spend or is it in Adams bucks?

10-14-2018 , 03:21 PM

#647

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 57,075

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

For the most part, whenever that increased output rises above the cost to create it, you have been paid more.

For the most part, whenever productivity goes up so do wages.....oh, wait.

10-14-2018 , 07:50 PM

#648

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by microbet

For the most part, whenever productivity goes up so do wages.....oh, wait.

Exactly! As I alluded to earlier, “increasing rate in the rate of growth of growth rate of productivity.”

Productivity CAGR:
1948-1973: 2.7%
1973-2014: 1.3%

Compensation CAGR:
1948-1973: 2.6%
1973-2014: 0.2%

10-14-2018 , 08:31 PM

#649

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

Exactly! As I alluded to earlier

lol, no one will ever forget your earlier performance

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

Increased living standards depend on increased productivity. There’s no way around that. No sustainable way, that is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

**** off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

Thanks, that will help illustrate my point.
Average annual productivity growth rates:
1947-1973 - 2.8%
1974-1999 - 1.7%
Source: https://www.bls.gov/lpc/

So as I said, "Increased living standards depend on increased productivity." [emphasis added for the cognitive or ideological impaired]

bahahahahaha

10-14-2018 , 08:36 PM

#650

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 57,075

You're wrong about that imo and the there's no reason that compensation should be tied the rate of change of the rate of change of output of goods divided by the hours worked as opposed to simply productivity itself, but what is your understanding then of what happens to income if we happened to just freeze at the current level of productivity? That level still being the highest level of productivity achieved in human history. It's got to go down then. Eventually work is worth zero despite productivity being at record levels. I think that's what Marx was saying.

Page 26 of 73

First

6 16 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 36 46

Last

...

Page 26 of 73

First

6 16 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 36 46

Last