Taxes; National Debt; Balanced Budget; and the diff Between the 1% and .1% - Winter Thread

Discussion in 'The Tiki Bar' started by Boat Guy, Feb 3, 2019.

  1. Boat Guy

    Boat Guy Well-Known Member

    Well guys, all this talk about taxes, etc. got me thinking about the bigger picture.

    I thought for a good winter thread a discussion about the .1% and how they relate to the overall health of the economy and country might be a good winter discussion.

    All this pointing the finger at the 1% seems to deflect from a more sincere discussion about the ultra wealthy, the .1% ....

    Here's a few articles that will, in a broad sense, start the dialog...

    https://www.businessinsider.com/the...-the-top-1-and-the-top-1-capital-gains-2011-7

    http://review.chicagobooth.edu/econ...er-mind-1-percent-lets-talk-about-001-percent

    So, to start the discussion... What are the thoughts about a progressive capital gains tax over, say, $1,000,000?
     
  2. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    659
    Sep 12, 2009
    IL
    281
    V8
    You can confiscate all the wealth of the top 1% and you still don't fix the problem. It's just feel good class warfare BS. Until we get spending under control nothing will change.
     
    Great Lakes, Jaybeaux, Espos4 and 2 others like this.
  3. JVM225

    JVM225 Well-Known Member GOLD Sponsor

    Apr 8, 2008
    Farmingdale, NY
    2002 410 Sundancer, Monaco Edition.
    3126 Cats.
    Progressive taxes and complex tax law are part of the problem. Not the solution.
    A flat individual federal tax on all earnings above an established national poverty rate with absolutely zero deductions is the only fair way.
    Example:
    Flat tax of 10% (arbitrary number) on every dollar over 25k per individual taxpayer. Everyone files separately, no deductions of any kind on any personal earned income, interest, capitol gains, etc.
    You take in 100k, you pay $7500. You take in 30k, you pay $500.
    Increase in GDP is 2%, 25k gets adjusted up 2%.
    Develop similar policy for corporations.
    Couple that tax policy with an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Congress from spending a single penny more than gets taken in, another imposing 12 year term limits in Congress, and then pass laws severely limiting the amount of money that can be spent on political campaigns and forbidding lobbying of any kind by other than individual constitutes or community groups.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2019
    MiLoII and Craig like this.
  4. JVM225

    JVM225 Well-Known Member GOLD Sponsor

    Apr 8, 2008
    Farmingdale, NY
    2002 410 Sundancer, Monaco Edition.
    3126 Cats.
    Amen! The problem is that about half the population pays nothing and doesn’t care, a good perecentage of them actually take in money from the feds in cash or benefits so they are against anyone looking to curb spending.
    Of the people who do pay, most are too busy trying to make ends meet or too ignorant to do anything about it, and a lot of the rest are either rich enough or smart enough to game the system.
     
  5. Boat Guy

    Boat Guy Well-Known Member

    I'm going to try again...i want to preface this by saying I'm extremely fiscally conservative....I'm not an advocate for redistribution nor guaranteed minimum income...

    Yet, I'm saying there needs to be a discussion. When the top .1% owns as much as the bottom 90%, there is a an issue... We are talking wealth, not income... The top .1%

    Forget the income for a second...You can talk flat tax; everyone should pay something and have skin in the game - I agree....What I'm talk about are the .1% that are enjoying the heat the 1% is getting because it takes the heat off of them. The ultra wealthy that don't earn a traditional income....Just living off investments, etc... Think family offices... The disparity, by design, is going to get worse.

    I doubt you are reading my links but just in case you want look at some data....

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...trillion-first-time-ever-there-just-one-catch

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-biggest-economic-social-political-issue-two-economies-ray-dalio/

    DB top 0.1.jpg
     
  6. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    659
    Sep 12, 2009
    IL
    281
    V8
    A lot of that is government policies that favor large multinational corporations and a lack of anti trust enforcement. Look at how many small mom and pop type businesss the big box stores have taken out. Same with the move to off shore production. Tons of small providers where decimated. That's real wealth that was owned by the 90%.
     
    MonacoMike likes this.
  7. Boat Guy

    Boat Guy Well-Known Member

    Good points.... I think the 5%-.5% are in for a surprise.
     
  8. FootballFan

    FootballFan Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Jun 20, 2012
    Florida
    Marquis 59
    MTU Series 60
    Not sure if I totally understand your premise.

    Not a study, just look at the list of wealthiest people. Don't remember the exact numbers - maybe starts at someone who is worth 30-40 Billion (though most of that may be in stock for their company, not really directly accessible at that valuation).

    Take the top 50 of that group, maybe you get down to a net worth of 2 or 3 billion (once again, not looking at specific data, doing some estimates here).

    For that top 50, let's say we just take all their money, leave then with 0, and put that in the Federal Government.

    What impact would that amount of money have on the deficit. It would not cover the deficit within a single year. End of the day, minimal impact.

    So this is not about solving the deficit, is this just about its "not fair"?

    What I gathered from the line chart posted is that the top .1% are just now getting back to the levels of assets they owned (as a %) in the early 20th century. But we all know we can make a line chart look anyway a statistician wants.

    What is wrong with the capitalistic dream of starting a software company and becoming a billionaire? Is that something that we should take away?
     
    Blueone likes this.
  9. Boat Guy

    Boat Guy Well-Known Member

    I'm not taking a side here, I'm simply opening up the dialog... I certainly understand, and to a large degree, agree with your points... I could have made the same comments years ago... I'm not really focusing on the entrepreneurs that hit the home run and their wealth is tied to their stock....In fact, many of those guys are already pledging to disperse their wealth...

    I'm guessing you didn't read any of the links I posted. I'm talking about the family offices, the est. $100 Trillion owned by the top %... Don't get hung up in the numbers. While it might not be as evident today, I think in the next decade it will become easier to see, as the system is designed to continue this trend.

    Let me put it another way.... (This is not where we are today, but potentially headed..

    Say the .1% owned a glass of water and the lower 90% owned a drop of water, so if the want to survive they need to buy it from the .1%, would that be a system that's sustainable? To some degree this is happening now... VC groups buying and consolidating companies; smaller businesses closing; major corporations growing....

    It's not so much where we are today, but where we are headed.
     
  10. FootballFan

    FootballFan Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Jun 20, 2012
    Florida
    Marquis 59
    MTU Series 60
    What about the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The days of the Rockefellers, JP Morgan, the Vanderbilt's.

    Having a group of people whose wealth is beyond comprehension compared to the rest of the population is not new.

    Consider the railroad tycoons and those who were the early pioneers of the industrial revolution. Today we are seeing people who were early pioneers of the information revolution.

    My observation - is it really that different?
     
  11. MonacoMike

    MonacoMike Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Sep 15, 2009
    Indiana lakes and Lake Michigan
    2000 Cruisers 3870
    8.2 Mercs
    85 Sea Ray Monaco 197
    260hp Alpha 1
    A lot is wrong. And yes, we should take that away. Anti-trust should be applied in a much stricter way.

    You all know I'm very fiscally conservative and those words are hard to write, but I have come to believe they are true. The model must change or capitalism is likely doomed.

    An example, Microsoft should be a competitive operating system software company competing software companies for your business against other competitive OS. They are not, we, through our lax anti-trust allowed them to "win" by using their modicum of success to buy or eliminate (B&E) all competitors and innovation. The Clinton Justice Dept did rein Microsoft in but not before the created a OS monopoly. Google does the same does the same and is unchecked in the world now. Facebook also did likewise and are a monopoly as is Amazon.

    Nothing wrong with "starting a software company and becoming a billionaire" if you build a company and provide the world a better widget, not by anti-competitive practices putting your competitors out of business.

    Thousands and thousands are denied the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, and join the 1%, by these anti-competitive companies.

    MM
     
    Krazzeeddie and Golfman25 like this.
  12. Woody

    Woody Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Nov 20, 2007
    N. Wisconsin/Lk Superior
    2005 420DA
    Cummins 6CTA8.3
    You're bumping up against what comes with such extreme wealth, the power and influence.
     
  13. bobeast

    bobeast Dance the Tide SILVER Sponsor

    Oct 22, 2017
    Isleton, CA
    2002 310DA
    350 MPI w/V-drives
    We can discuss it all you want, but anyone's principles which change because of the math, are part of the problem and are not looking for a real solution. If it's not right to distribute wealth from the top 50%, 10%, 1%, etc. then it's not right to do so from the .1%.

    This goes to the core of the whole "fair share" argument. If those who argue it really wanted to be fair, everyone would pay on the basis of what public resources they consume and their income or wealth would have absolutely no bearing on it. In our backwards system a family can churn out 10 babies creating a huge burden on society and really the planet, and get rewarded for it.

    Fairness as in many things is an exercise in being careful what you wish for.
     
  14. FootballFan

    FootballFan Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Jun 20, 2012
    Florida
    Marquis 59
    MTU Series 60
    Over time I have read your posts and by and large agreed with most of them.

    I have to weigh in here though and offer some comments.

    Lets go back in history. The considerations prior to Microsoft, your example.

    DOJ was pursuing anti trust against ATT and IBM. The ATT path led to breakup. The IBM path was eventually dismissed. Look at the market value of the ATT divesture vs the IBM value. I would much rather owned stock in ATT at that time. Divesture actually increased the value.

    Microsoft is struggling to remain relevant. Doubt they will have their presence in 10 years.
     
  15. bobeast

    bobeast Dance the Tide SILVER Sponsor

    Oct 22, 2017
    Isleton, CA
    2002 310DA
    350 MPI w/V-drives
    A lot of the discussion around those big bad corporations centers around market value. Its important to remember that that value is reflected in investors' portfolios. Its not like these corporations are pulling this money out of the economy and stuffing it in a mattress. Its being used by gramps and granny buying boats to entertain the grandkids.

    See there? Its all about the children (and boats)
     
  16. Boat Guy

    Boat Guy Well-Known Member

    Haha.... I knew this could potentially be an interesting thread.

    Though, I want to caution you, or should I say, try and change your mindset a bit... I think it's easy to discuss in practical terms and superficially by bringing into the discussion the generic fiscally conservative mindset...

    I know - I'm there with you... I think the same way... But - And there is a big but... I'm specifically taking about the .01%... It's a hard concept to wrap your head around. You really need to read the links I posted or on your own about what I'm trying to have a discussion about.

    Fairness is a moving target...Is it fair that everyone pays the same percentage? (flat tax).. Is it fair that everyone basically makes the same? (socialism)... Forget about fair for a second, I'm taking about sustainable...

    The capitalistic system is great when, and this is a key part, checks and balances are in place. MM hits on a key issue of monopolies and anti-trust etc....

    Look at the graphs, the policies, the innate greed, and tell me you don't see what is to be in the next 50 years.

    I see the possibility of a system where you think you are the 1% today so it doesn't matter to you, but you are going to be shifted from the wealthy to the lower class...

    We have $800k 42' center consoles....
     
  17. MonacoMike

    MonacoMike Well-Known Member PLATINUM Sponsor

    Sep 15, 2009
    Indiana lakes and Lake Michigan
    2000 Cruisers 3870
    8.2 Mercs
    85 Sea Ray Monaco 197
    260hp Alpha 1
    Is that not a direct result of the Justice Dept actions against them that resulted in a settlement that curbed the mentioned behavior.

    I have a plan for a Facebook breakup, declare the user connection to be a public utility and run as such, allow FB to run it. Like the old phone system, then allow ANY developer to make an app that would network into the FB utility. End users could use any social media app they wanted with any filters they desired but the information flow would not be controlled by any one entity.

    MM
     
  18. JVM225

    JVM225 Well-Known Member GOLD Sponsor

    Apr 8, 2008
    Farmingdale, NY
    2002 410 Sundancer, Monaco Edition.
    3126 Cats.
    The chuckle of the day was a result of watching Schumer and Sanders giving a news conference talking about how business should spend/invest money and how they want to pass legislation.
    Two guys with zero business experience who have never had a grownup paycheck outside of political office.
     
  19. Boat Guy

    Boat Guy Well-Known Member

    Those two guys are a national security threat with their logic
     
  20. JVM225

    JVM225 Well-Known Member GOLD Sponsor

    Apr 8, 2008
    Farmingdale, NY
    2002 410 Sundancer, Monaco Edition.
    3126 Cats.
    Greed is good! It’s a basic premise of capitalism.
    The top .1% make money, then spend, invest, etc., and it flows downhill.
    Tax the crap out of the rich and they’ll go someplace that doesn’t tax them as much and they will take their money with them.
    The Brits found that out in the 60’s and 70’s when a bunch of the rock stars fled because of taxes.
    Big business started fleeing the US years ago because of high taxes.
    Just got back from 10 days in Ireland. Economy is booming there. Plenty of American companies went there in the last decade. Facebook is putting in a big place now with thousands of jobs.
     

Share This Page

Show Sidebar