Surprise! It isn’t working the way they say it is supposed to anyway.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...thomas-piketty
http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...thomas-piketty
Well?
Printable View
Surprise! It isn’t working the way they say it is supposed to anyway.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...thomas-piketty
http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...thomas-piketty
Well?
Got to read the book first
I have not read the book and don't intend to because I think you can find enough arguments to support such a 'broad' statement if you look hard enough. If you look hard enough, you can also find enough arguments against the statement.
Have you read the book? Is there a proposed solution? Is the solution free of all problems?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Good grief!
You’ll give the others a bad name if you read stuff and know what you’re talking about.
The End is Neigh!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp4
The solution proposed in one of the articles is to reinstate the 80% tax bracket on the ultra rich and tax inheritance, among other things. Taxes on money making money. It sounds much like the old arguments from the left but perhaps there is more to it.
It is mostly about the upper levels of income which the average individual, even those who feel they are rather successful, will never see.
Currently, I believe the figure is that 140 odd corporations own 80% of the worlds wealth and resources. Most of these firms are interconnected.
Of course you can bet that governments will mostly ignore it or tax the population but still leave the loopholes for the ultra rich as they always have.
It would have to happen everywhere. I guess we could talk about it again when the planet has one government and I don't think it is unlikely, that if that ever happens, the corporations owning 80% of the wealth have something to do with it.
It is true, capitalism is creating an increasingly wide economic gap between the rich and poor, and everything in between. Everybody lazily buys into the narrative that life is, for the most part, getting better. The reality is that it is not. There is a massive underclass, especially in the UK, which live in such a state of economic helplessness, political apathy, social collapse and general hopelessness, that has not been witnessed since the advent of industrialisation.
What is remarkable about this current situation is the lack of awareness that such an underclass exists, at least on the scale that it does. We're talking about 33% of households in Scotland's biggest city where not a single person is working. Try telling them that capitalism is working. Or maybe the people in parts of Glasgow who can expect to live to 54. People are unaware of these things because the Thatcherite consensus of recent decades has completely eradicated all traces of the working-classes from civil society, from politics, from media representation. Thus, all political debate, whether you are a liberal-lefty Guardian reader or a UKIP Daily Mail type, is based on certain axioms that only hold true from those in the middle-classes or the working working-classes that actually have any stake in society. No party feels the need to tailor its policies to protect the poorest in society, because these people are so isolated from the political system and from civic society in general that they do not engage in it.
Capitalists of all shades are just as guilty of supporting this system - I do not care if you are neoliberal or social democrat; I am aware of nuance but when it comes to the bigger picture you are all the same to me. Hence why even though I hate Westminster, I have no sympathy for the social democratic platform of the SNP and such (English equivalent would be Lid Dems I guess). They get a lot of support from the sort of 'working-class who made it in life' types (which I believe are a new sort of 'Essex Man'), who are so drunk on their own success and their confidence in civic society and their narrative of social progress, that they thought it would be a bit of riveting, light-hearted fun to demolish several blocks of the most deprived housing areas to open the Commonwealth Games. Yes, truly showing a care and compassion towards those at the bottom - and these are the people who think they stick up for the poor against the Tory establishment, and who ramble on about how Scotland's sense of social justice makes it different from England, LOL!
This is the vision of the new, bold, confident Scotland - where you are told you are a problem and the destruction of your life is reduced to entertainment for the sort of middle-class young Turks that can afford to attend the live screening and work themselves into a drunken frenzy as your life is blown apart in front of them.
OK I got a bit off topic but apply the above to social democracy and you get my point. Capitalism of all shades isn't working.
But, but...what about "trickle down" economics and the "shower of gold" from the top of the fountain!?
You know you invite peeing jokes, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Must... control... the... urge...
Ahhhh, what the heck
Attachment 12782
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Obviously there is a serious plumbing problem. And the :daisy: is getting pretty deep.
The idea that any economic system will save is stupid
A theory: is the end result of unrestricted capitalism; feudalism?
Feudalism? Maybe something like it, but only transitionally.
Transitionally between our contemporary way of life, and the disintegration of our civilization into fragmented high-tech enclaves and scattered subsistence-level villages.
But there are other (apocalyptic) factors at work, so we won't see that happen, I don't think.
No. Neo-Feudalism would require that the goverment gives up the monopoly of violence to the companies (that creates their own fiefdoms). That can happen (look up early industrialism), but it's not a default. Feudalism also that the companies are formally obliged to the goverment/supercompany/whatever that are higher up. Companies taxing their workers and paying the company tax to the higher ups would be a sort of neo-feudalism, but there's no drive for that structure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Capitalism as a concept wasn't even invented until after feudalism had became obsolete. Many concepts only survive for a limited time.
First of all, shoutout to drone for posting that study.
Well, modern rationalized capitalism, yes. But capitalism in the sense of the exchange of goods has existed since even before agriculture.Quote:
Capitalism as a concept wasn't even invented until after feudalism had became obsolete.
I, for one, do not believe future history books will see mildly on the apathy going on today.
Inheritance tax shouldn't exist, the effect it intends is perfectly manageable by income tax as covered under capital gains. I.e., my father dies and leaves me 400,000 Woolongs, thus putting me into a tax bracket of 40% for every ₩1 above ₩60,000. The inheritance is still effectively taxed this way, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I feel we are in a sense approaching, or maybe already in, that stage of a Monopoly game where 1 player holds all the property and the remaining few sweat their way around with 3 mortgaged properties and $42 in the pocket. All the while only picking up their $200, praying for a break on that next roll, hoping to avoid another big bill. And what happens if they keep playing after they've sold off the last of their land? And been placed in jail? The one with all the property wins of course! But, what does he do now? Everyone who could keep passing him wealth is in jail and he has no way of increasing his wealth. No one to sell his wares to. I suppose he changes the rules. Makes it so the other players have just enough to make it round with enough for beer and only the occasional scrape with the law.
Nah... what am I blabbering about, just a fairy tale, made-up, not happening, Māyā.
I mislike income taxes and loathe the progressive income tax. The PIT is always bandied about as a panacea for the redistribution of wealth but it usually serves to impede the progress of those in the working and middle class.Quote:
Originally Posted by naut
You're framing things better in that you aren't exempting capital gains (though taxing capital gains equally will have a chilling effect on investment), cutting out some of the shenanigans, but the issue is not income but wealth.
If you believe that wealth is the core of the problem, then tax it -- efforts to tax wealth indirectly via income will always result in dodging and loophole efforts while putting an obstacle in the path of the middle and working classes bettering themselves. Loopholes, dodging, (and criminal avoidance) will occur in whatever system is imposed, so make it direct to what you seek to curtail and don't catch other people in the backlash.
I don't see how progressive taxation harms the Working and Middle classes, as the thresholds are far higher than what they earn.
For example, in the UK, up to £10k is not taxed. A minimum wage job working 37.5 hours a week is £13k, National average is £26k, professionals such as a Doctor earn £37k-70k, Consultants earn £75k-101k. Teachers earn between £21k-65k (depending on area and experience). The Prime Minister earns £142k.
So here are some figures of wages of professionals (middle class) and the working class.
Progressive taxation starts at £150k.
In short: It doesn't affect the working and middle class at all. It only affects rich people.
Your first income band is taxed at 20% rate; your first "progressive" band starts at 31,866 and is taxed at 40%, and the highest band (150k plus) is 45% only a 1/8th increase above the rate of those at 31.9k; moreover, this is over and above a Value added tax levied on all consumers and an inheritance tax on anything above 325k. While the latter does seem to be aimed at wealth, the 32-150 band rates do not seem to conform to your "only the rich" mantra -- aren't the folks in that 32-150 band the small business owners, new start ups, etc.? In short, the very people you would want to encourage more of so as to employ more and grow the economy? So why should they be taxed higher than that Nat'l average worker? Taxation always has a chilling effect on what is taxed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
No they are not. Start-ups are running at a loss and many people are in negative income, it is when they have produced a viable business, they start taking a wage and income from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Then they start employing other staff to help them then they gradually start to increase their own incomes. When they start earning over the 30k mark, it is that their businesses are earning sufficiently enough to pay it.
I have seen enough start-up stories, Dragon's Dens, Business renovations, experiences via family and the like the know about this. As for Family experience, my Uncle and Aunty started their own business with just the two of them in Manchester and now they are head of an operation which has outposts covering three different areas in the UK. Their main gripe is corporation tax, but that is a whole different story.
Because they earn more? They are still receiving a higher income and the taxation is only applied to money earned over the bracket. Would you say you would turn down a pay-rise which increases your money in real value even though you may pay more in tax? The whole argument is very silly to suggest you would want to receive less money.Quote:
So why should they be taxed higher than that Nat'l average worker?
150k used to be the 50% tax bracket, I forgot that it was decreased under the Tories.
Is that's the excuse for the blatant regressive tax system for any rich person with half a brain? Aka "let's run with 15% tax rate on capital gains and wonder why every rich man in Amercia pays less taxes than the average American".Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'll counter with that capital gains are the largest wealth accumulation system and that to have any profits from wealth, you'll need to invest anyway.
Mayhap the pursuit of profit in the age of oligarchic supply and "too big to fail" is cheapening life.
For example: is Big Pharma out to kill us?:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...d-suicide.html
As always, Capitalism only "doesn't work" relative to the problem that it is meant to solve. If the goal was to harvest workers for decreasing amounts of pay and to re-institute indentured servitude, further entrenching oligarchy, voila.
The American worker is like a Turkey. The American Capitalist is like a farmer.
Every day, when the Farmer comes in to feed the Turkey, the Turkey is further cemented into the belief that farming exists to support Turkeys and feed them so that they can grow. They realize on the day before Thanksgiving that their ideas couldn't have been further from the truth.
I have always viewed financial crisis as the culling time of capitalism. Not an unexpected occurrence that is anomalous to the system, but the culmination of greed and crushing boot-on-neck that the system is built for. A bank robber could notice that nobody would put their money in a bank if they robbed it daily, which would also be a tremendous workload and personal peril for the robber. Better for the robber to encourage stability for a long time to consolidate all of the efforts of people so that, maybe just once per year they could come in for the harvest.
People are the chaff; that their byproducts exist at all is the reason, like the proliferation of cows, that our masters allow us to exist all all. The day that robots can produce at a level that adequately serves the obermench, is the day that they will begin to purge us off of this earth.
So, yea - Capitalism works just fine.
B-ark, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
How melodramatic.Quote:
People are the chaff; that their byproducts exist at all is the reason, like the proliferation of cows, that our masters allow us to exist all all. The day that robots can produce at a level that adequately serves the obermench, is the day that they will begin to purge us off of this earth.
But there's no reason to suspect this level of conspiracy, or even the capacity to fulfill it were it to exist.
No conspiracy alleged. That would be like saying that there is a conspiracy of gravity to hold you down. What I'm alleging is a force of nature. What is the value of individuals, how is it valued and why? The answer is more subjective than is comfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The problem is we've spent the last half century perfecting production to the point where we have massively cut the number of hours of labor (both physical and mental) requried. Less labor=more profit which general doesn't (to use a cliche) trickle down. I don't think this is some grand conspiracy, no one is that smart or that organized. I do, however, think it's at least partially for the reason of the 1% and the breaking of regulations built up during the industrial age.
People with money realize they can increase their profits without having to rely on labor like they once did so they mobilize to make labor cheaper and less intrusive on their business model. I think some of them truly beilvie they will be able to "create jobs" while others are thinking about their bottom line (understandable).
The fact is we may very well be looking at a world with simply less labor to go around. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. People today (in the west) have much more stuff and live eaiser lives than their forefathers. Now, granted, the concentration of wealth (mainly property) is continuig to fall into fewer and fewer hands but on the whole I have more than my father and grandfather did before.
The problem is I have "stuff" while they had "wealth" Things like property and resources are outpacing real dollars while the price of stuff continues to fall, perhaps giving us the illusion of plenty
IDK this is cutting into beer time
As always, kill the rich
I can't agree with that. Every mainstream media outlet has been peddling the "lost generation thing" since the crash. I think many young Americans are quite aware of what is happening and are simply dealing with it. I don't think we are where we are due to some shawdoy cabal. This the pinch of rapid technological advancement and deindustrialization. The "labor" is simply shrinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube