Undecided voters

[philostam]

U.S. combined value of billionaire wealth 2020-2022​

Published by Statista Research Department, Jul 5, 2024
As of November 2022, a combined value of 4.48 trillion U.S. dollars was held by billionaires living in the United States. While U.S. billionaire wealth has seen a drop over the last year, it is still more than 1.5 times the amount it was at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1291685/us-combined-value-billionaire-wealth/

• The government is running a cumulative deficit of $1.9 trillion so far in FY2024 ($302 billion more than the same period in the prior fiscal year when adjusted for timing shifts. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/

1.9/8=.237 4.48/.237=20.21 but hey, what does the actual facts matter as long as you can make your point?

Maybe it said the total government spending, not deficits. I'll try to find the tweet. My bad for not doing so before anyway.

But even if we assume your numbers. 3.4 trillion net worth of all billionaires vs 1.9 trillion yearly deficits. So if we stole and taxed everything from the billionaires, it would not even cover 2 years of government deficits. And it would be a one time thing, because next year we would have nothing to tax anymore or it would drop significantly. Not to mention in this case stock market would crash and rich people would flee the country, thus reducing tax revenues.

So math was off but point stands that taxing billionaires doesn't solve anything. Not to say it is logistically completely impossible like @slant says. You would have to go full commie and tax unrealized capital gains and pretty much do all kind of illegal and unconstitutional shit.

Taxing retained earnings is also commie shit, so companies are not allowed to make profits now so that government can fund their wars and ponzi schemes and interest on debt? Also, that too would make stock market crash thus resulting in loss of capital gains tax revenue for the governments. US is so financialized that it actually needs stock market to go up.

The point is that all of this is completely unrealistic and no policy change will magically raise enough taxes to make US run sustained government surpluses. Kamala will not do it, nor will Trump, nor would Bernie and nor would Lenin. Or maybe he would by killing enough people who are owed social security and medicare/medicaid.

 

[philostam]

The giant gorilla in the room is the Fed. We have no idea what is going on in that void of a system because there is no check and balance. All this talk of tax and we are leaving out the largest invisible tax of all, inflation, that was literally put in place by our government while fully understanding what they were doing.

1. Get rid of anything that backs the money like gold or silver.
2. Print all the money you want to spend on whatever you want to spend it on. This will increase the number of dollars and reduce the value of each dollar (through inflation).
3. The people then have to pay back the government debt for their fiscal irresponsibility AND they have to come up with the cash (for taxation) from dollars that are now worth less than before [the government was printing].

This makes the inflation a tax because it is stealing money from the people through inflation (reduction in the value of money) which was created through loans the government took. That makes this scenario a triple taxation: a) The interest owed to the Fed. b) The inflation which steals from the people. c) The taxes that must be collected to pay back principle to the Fed.

Still we don't know who technically owns the Fed and there is no auditing allowed - at least not anything that the public is allowed to see.

So, I'm not in favor of supporting any candidate that wants to continue with low transparency and continued "taxation without representation." This has all become a house of cards and the people are just standing on the top card looking out over the horizon with their genital's in one hand and a giant bong in the other.

Is it better to die fat, dumb, and happy OR just a quick lights out, because that is what it feels like when I'm choosing a candidate this election term. But isn't China being a good sport about it all by sending in the Fentanyl Ferry from the southern border while whispering, "go to sleep," even after Biden directly asked them to stop. I don't think THEY are listening to the Biden administration and that means my ass is being pimped out in some way, shape or form.

Bravo, could not agree more.

 

[philostam]

If a 94% tax were applied to just the top 1% of individual income earners, based on their estimated $46 trillion in net worth, this could generate hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in additional tax revenue annually, depending on the income derived from that wealth.

For corporations, a return to high corporate tax rates (40-50%) could yield hundreds of billions more from retained earnings and profits. For example, in 2021, corporate profits totaled about $2.8 trillion, and taxing these at 40-50% could raise upwards of $1 trillion in revenue.

So that's really 2 to 3 trillion extra dollars, assuming that world war 2 tax-era standards were re-imposed. How this would actually impact businesses, IDK, but I think the calculation you did was a bit off.

@phil

Yeah, If we tax top 1% earners at 94% and forbid them to leave the country and at the same time magically force them to stay equally motivated and productive it might work.

Norway tried raising the wealth tax and their tax revenues dropped as a result lol.

 

[Wyote]

Pimpin ain't easy

 

[TomasM]

Not everyone is good enough to pimp. In this case it had become obvious enough to Xi and Putin that they could pimp slap Biden and he would just take it. Obviously this is a metaphor but it's obvious that is what they believe.

 

[slant]

Yeah, If we tax top 1% earners at 94% and forbid them to leave the country and at the same time magically force them to stay equally motivated and productive it might work.

Norway tried raising the wealth tax and their tax revenues dropped as a result lol.

View attachment 95585

Yeah I largely agree with that I am just being anal about accuracy of details. No way people wouldn't just move

 

[slant]

Maybe it said the total government spending, not deficits. I'll try to find the tweet. My bad for not doing so before anyway.

But even if we assume your numbers. 3.4 trillion net worth of all billionaires vs 1.9 trillion yearly deficits. So if we stole and taxed everything from the billionaires, it would not even cover 2 years of government deficits. And it would be a one time thing, because next year we would have nothing to tax anymore or it would drop significantly. Not to mention in this case stock market would crash and rich people would flee the country, thus reducing tax revenues.

So math was off but point stands that taxing billionaires doesn't solve anything. Not to say it is logistically completely impossible like @slant says. You would have to go full commie and tax unrealized capital gains and pretty much do all kind of illegal and unconstitutional shit.

Taxing retained earnings is also commie shit, so companies are not allowed to make profits now so that government can fund their wars and ponzi schemes and interest on debt? Also, that too would make stock market crash thus resulting in loss of capital gains tax revenue for the governments. US is so financialized that it actually needs stock market to go up.

The point is that all of this is completely unrealistic and no policy change will magically raise enough taxes to make US run sustained government surpluses. Kamala will not do it, nor will Trump, nor would Bernie and nor would Lenin. Or maybe he would by killing enough people who are owed social security and medicare/medicaid.

I think this is a really good point. Obviously I wasn't arguing in favor of it, but I think some people who are in favor of it don't understand the extent it would have to be taken and the overall economic implications. They see that it's possible (which it technically is) and think, let's do it. I also think people are hurting so badly that they have an unrealistic idea of how billionaires wealth could be used to help them. Most people, rather than have it pay the deficit, would rather it just be redistributed to them somehow directly. More money would be nice but I don't think people understand it has to be low enough that the price sensitive don't move and or crash the market. Those people are so pissed off about the inequity, sometimes it's a situation they don't actually own enough to care if it crashes and burns.

 

[Faye]

I've seen the argument in some leftist spaces that Harris and Trump are essentially the same candidate. It could be that Russian trolls have taken over these spaces, but I think many leftists actually feel this way. Its not just foreign trolls trying to sway the election. They view supporting Harris to be just as wrong as supporting Trump. Any argument in favor of a "lesser evil" approach to voting is seen as morally reprehensible by them and will earn you a ban (or angry words if you tell them in person). They do not consider anyone who supports Harris to be a real leftist.

I've always thought of myself as a leftist, but I also have an unfortunate condition where I care about my continued existence as well as women's rights, immigrants, families with children, and the environment. So I guess I'm not a real leftist anymore since Harris will be getting my vote.

I've learned I cannot rely on leftist political movements in any way. There are no truly good options really.

 

[slant]

I've seen the argument in some leftist spaces that Harris and Trump are essentially the same candidate. It could be that Russian trolls have taken over these spaces, but I think many leftists actually feel this way. Its not just foreign trolls trying to sway the election. They view supporting Harris to be just as wrong as supporting Trump. Any argument in favor of a "lesser evil" approach to voting is seen as morally reprehensible by them and will earn you a ban (or angry words if you tell them in person). They do not consider anyone who supports Harris to be a real leftist.

I've always thought of myself as a leftist, but I also have an unfortunate condition where I care about my continued existence as well as women's rights, immigrants, families with children, and the environment. So I guess I'm not a real leftist anymore since Harris will be getting my vote.

I've learned I cannot rely on leftist political movements in any way. There are no truly good options really.

Yeah, I definitely think that Harris is a leftist. Although I really agree with her military strategies and like that she is an interventionist. That's the #1 issue I have with Trump is his stance on pulling back the military. But Harris stance on things like unrealized capital tax is economically not a good policy. So it's like both of them hold really important positions that cancel each other out for me, that if you pick one for x y z then they'll do a b c and that ends up making things just as bad. So maybe that's why they're the same?

 

[Faye]

Yeah, I definitely think that Harris is a leftist. Although I really agree with her military strategies and like that she is an interventionist. That's the #1 issue I have with Trump is his stance on pulling back the military. But Harris stance on things like unrealized capital tax is economically not a good policy. So it's like both of them hold really important positions that cancel each other out for me, that if you pick one for x y z then they'll do a b c and that ends up making things just as bad. So maybe that's why they're the same?

I view Harris as a right wing capitalist politician (i.e. not a leftist at all really); she just isn't as far right as the Republicans are. But for purposes of the usual election discourse in the USA she is considered a leftist. The leftists I've seen consider them both the same because they both support Israel and are both capitalists, and I guess that is all those leftists care about.

Why is taxing unrealized capital gains bad economically? It is definitely complicated from an accounting perspective, but beyond that what is the issue?

 

[slant]

I view Harris as a right wing capitalist politician (i.e. not a leftist at all really); she just isn't as far right as the Republicans are. But for purposes of the usual election discourse in the USA she is considered a leftist. The leftists I've seen consider them both the same because they both support Israel and are both capitalists, and I guess that is all those leftists care about.

Why is taxing unrealized capital gains bad economically? It is definitely complicated from an accounting perspective, but beyond that what is the issue?

Well, first you have to understand what an unrealized gain is: illiquid capital. It is defined as 'an increase in the value of an asset you haven't sold', which is why it is 'unrealized', because it is not liquid. This includes things like land and stocks.

Harris specifically wants to target people who have a net worth of 100 million or more. Note that networth can include things like stock, net worth is not necessarily money that is in a bank account. Take Jeff Bezo's for example, with Amazon. He owns 9.9% of Amazon's total stocks which makes him what we would call a blockholder, meaning they hold 5% or more of a stock. So there are actually laws and regulations on how and when they can sell their stocks (SEC reporting requirements) because if Jeff Bezo's were to sell a large chunks of his stocks it could potentially tank Amazon's stock overall. If you have a 401k, some of your money is probably invested in the S&P 500 and Amazon is one of those stocks. So Bezo's stocks are worth about $120 billion dollars which is 80-90% of his total networth. What this means is that it is not liquid money he can just withdraw, it's actually mostly symbolic. Harris proposes a 25% rate tax on this wealth, on unrealized, meaning he has not sold any stocks but it gained wealth. This would happen every year.

Another demographic this might impact is people who own land like farm land for example. Now, the average American farmer only owns $1.8 million but if a farmer were to own $100 million or more in farm land; take "The Wonderful Company"-- they have Fiji water as one of their products and they actually only have $9 billion of their wealth in liquid assets. The rest of it is valued over $100 billion and that is all in farmlands where they grow pistachios and stuff.

I did see a detail that, thankfully, the tax is not on the total value but the increase value. Taking Bezo's from 2022 to 2023 for example he actually lost money in his stocks so he wouldn't have paid that 25% tax. While looking into it to explain I realized that it was not on the total value and that this is something they don't explain, it is also only on 100 million or more so it would impact small time farmers or anything like some people in the media have claimed. My misconception that the tax was on total value...which it is not, only on the amount gained. I actually changed my mind I don't think this would have any major economic impact. Total value would tank the economy, that's why I was opposed to it.

 

[SlowUpTake]

Maybe it said the total government spending, not deficits. I'll try to find the tweet. My bad for not doing so before anyway.

But even if we assume your numbers. 3.4 trillion net worth of all billionaires vs 1.9 trillion yearly deficits. So if we stole and taxed everything from the billionaires, it would not even cover 2 years of government deficits. And it would be a one time thing, because next year we would have nothing to tax anymore or it would drop significantly. Not to mention in this case stock market would crash and rich people would flee the country, thus reducing tax revenues.

So math was off but point stands that taxing billionaires doesn't solve anything. Not to say it is logistically completely impossible like @slant says. You would have to go full commie and tax unrealized capital gains and pretty much do all kind of illegal and unconstitutional shit.

Taxing retained earnings is also commie shit, so companies are not allowed to make profits now so that government can fund their wars and ponzi schemes and interest on debt? Also, that too would make stock market crash thus resulting in loss of capital gains tax revenue for the governments. US is so financialized that it actually needs stock market to go up.

The point is that all of this is completely unrealistic and no policy change will magically raise enough taxes to make US run sustained government surpluses. Kamala will not do it, nor will Trump, nor would Bernie and nor would Lenin. Or maybe he would by killing enough people who are owed social security and medicare/medicaid.

The point of the tweet seems to be that Billionaire wealth is a mere drop when compared to the reckless spending of the US gov.

My issue with billionaires is the influence their wealth has on policy and discourse.

 

[philostam]

The point of the tweet seems to be that Billionaire wealth is a mere drop when compared to the reckless spending of the US gov.

Yup, that's true.

My issue with billionaires is the influence their wealth has on policy and discourse.

And why do the policy makers let themselves be influenced? Because they like money and influence, that's why.

 

[philostam]

What always gets me about the left is that they somehow think politicians are made of finer clay than successful entrepreneurs.

 

[philostam]

Yeah, I definitely think that Harris is a leftist. Although I really agree with her military strategies and like that she is an interventionist. That's the #1 issue I have with Trump is his stance on pulling back the military. But Harris stance on things like unrealized capital tax is economically not a good policy. So it's like both of them hold really important positions that cancel each other out for me, that if you pick one for x y z then they'll do a b c and that ends up making things just as bad. So maybe that's why they're the same?

So Democrats are the pro-war party now, and that's...good?

I think their attitude to Russia-Ukraine war is pathetic and dangerous. First, deterrents to Russia were not good enough, and when the war started all they did was limp sanctions and just enough support to Ukraine so that it doesn't lose, but it doesn't win either. They essentially want this to continue for as long as possible.

 

[slant]

So Democrats are the pro-war party now, and that's...good?

I think their attitude to Russia-Ukraine war is pathetic and dangerous. First, deterrents to Russia were not good enough, and when the war started all they did was limp sanctions and just enough support to Ukraine so that it doesn't lose, but it doesn't win either. They essentially want this to continue for as long as possible.

Yes, I don't like protectionism/isolationism. Nobody likes war, but the reality of geopolitics is that we are all living on the same planet and with free trade, what other countries do impact us. Issues like having access to oil, being able to import enough fertilizer that we need, etc.

Part of geopolitics is having allies and protecting them. Historically, the only countries that succeed without having allies and helping them during times of war are countries that are super isolated fortresses where nobody can access them- and even in those situations-- eventually a war does touch them and they are often rallied against because of their position of power and how people came to them asking for aid and they refused. They were too powerful to touch, too wealthy, so they continued to do whatever they wanted, until luck is not in their favor and the consequences of 'staying out of it' comes to a boiling point.

 

[philostam]

I've seen a lot of data on how women are becoming more "liberal" and men more conservative. Even some studies (not sure how robust) that higher testosterone correlates with more conservative views (smaller government, lower taxes etc.). We see a lot of clustering of views in other issues too, such as climate change, pro/anti fiat currency, pro/anti vax, veganism/meat eating etc.

It's all becoming way too much bifurcated. If we see election as a proxy for physical combat, than this proxy loses all effectiveness if we are divided in two camps of women vs men. Because we all know who would win in an actual combat.

 

[philostam]

Yes, I don't like protectionism/isolationism. Nobody likes war, but the reality of geopolitics is that we are all living on the same planet and with free trade, what other countries do impact us. Issues like having access to oil, being able to import enough fertilizer that we need, etc.

Part of geopolitics is having allies and protecting them. Historically, the only countries that succeed without having allies and helping them during times of war are countries that are super isolated fortresses where nobody can access them- and even in those situations-- eventually a war does touch them and they are often rallied against because of their position of power and how people came to them asking for aid and they refused. They were too powerful to touch, too wealthy, so they continued to do whatever they wanted, until luck is not in their favor and the consequences of 'staying out of it' comes to a boiling point.

I understand that, I am not a pacifist. Nor is Trump.

You still need to be smart with it and not fight wars with poor risk/reward ratio. This isn't uni-polar world of 1990s anymore when both Russia and China were weak and willing to play ball. You cannot bully Russia and/or China, it will just anger them and bring them closer together.

And some people definitely like war. I think Hilary didn't see a war she doesn't like yet. But it's not her children dying, so all good.

 

[slant]

I understand that, I am not a pacifist. Nor is Trump.

You still need to be smart with it and not fight wars with poor risk/reward ratio. This isn't uni-polar world of 1990s anymore when both Russia and China were weak and willing to play ball. You cannot bully Russia and/or China, it will just anger them and bring them closer together.

And some people definitely like war. I think Hilary didn't see a war she doesn't like yet. But it's not her children dying, so all good.

It's very hard for me to believe this simplistic narrative of some people love war, sociopaths run government, etc. I know you're not saying that here but this is what I associate this thinking with. I think that's easier to rationalize, easier to put yourself in a different category that you wouldn't do something like that, you aren't like them. But I genuinely think there is a case to be made that these wars that happen are not purely to make money and kill people out of sadistic pleasure. I view it similarly to the idea of a doctor giving a patient physical pain to perform a procedure that is intended to save their life. Now, if the procedure fails or there was a better one available, that's going to make it look like he was doing it for bad reasons. But I do think it's really difficult to figure out how to secure a country's energy supply, I do think it's difficult to maintain allies and calculate how maybe allies can you loose in critical areas before a country decides to take advantage of that situation and raise the price of grain on you for their benefit and thus trigger inflation in your country or worse that spurs a civil war.

Life is not nice. It is brutal.

 

[philostam]

It's very hard for me to believe this simplistic narrative of some people love war, sociopaths run government, etc. I know you're not saying that here but this is what I associate this thinking with. I think that's easier to rationalize, easier to put yourself in a different category that you wouldn't do something like that, you aren't like them. But I genuinely think there is a case to be made that these wars that happen are not purely to make money and kill people out of sadistic pleasure. I view it similarly to the idea of a doctor giving a patient physical pain to perform a procedure that is intended to save their life. Now, if the procedure fails or there was a better one available, that's going to make it look like he was doing it for bad reasons. But I do think it's really difficult to figure out how to secure a country's energy supply, I do think it's difficult to maintain allies and calculate how maybe allies can you loose in critical areas before a country decides to take advantage of that situation and raise the price of grain on you for their benefit and thus trigger inflation in your country or worse that spurs a civil war.

Life is not nice. It is brutal.

Well, competency matters. I don't know about their intention, maybe they think they're doing good. But in my opinion they didn't deal with Russia situation well at all. They should've either be more harsh with Russia at the beginning or they should be seeking a ceasefire now. Instead they are using Ukraine and their people to fight Russia. Anthony Blinken pretty much said as much. Well, he said something like all the money we are sending to Ukraine is coming back to us, which I read as "we are happy that Ukraine is fighting this war for us and weakening Russia". Fair enough, but let's call spade a spade. They don't give a damn about Ukraine and it is not our ally at all. Ukraine is just an unfortunate pawn in this game. And if you mention ceasefire, they bring up Hitler again, compare you with Neville Chamberlain and cancel you.

You tell me, why is Ukraine such an important ally to the USA?

So in conclusion, I have more cynical view than you. That's how I see it anyway. A lot of self interest, deception, wilful blindness and desire to control what cannot be controlled.