Global wealth inequality widened last year as billionaires increased their fortunes by $2.5 billion per day, anti-poverty campaigner Oxfam said in a new report.
While the poorest half of humanity saw their wealth dwindle by 11%, billionaires' riches increased by 12%. The mega-wealthy have also become a more concentrated bunch. Last year, the top 26 wealthiest people owned $1.4 trillion, or as much as the 3.8 billion poorest people. The year before, it was the top 43 people.
[...] To address many of these ills, Oxfam advocated raising taxes. It estimated that a 1% wealth tax would be enough to educate 262 million out of school children and to save 3.3 million lives. As of 2015 returns, Oxfam says that only four cents in every tax dollar collected globally came from tariffs on wealth, such as inheritance or property. The report also claims that the rich are hiding $7.6 trillion in offshore accounts
Previously: Only 1% of World's Population Grabbed 82% of all 2017 Wealth
Related Stories
The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017
More than $8 of every $10 of wealth created last year went to the richest 1%.
That's according to a new report from Oxfam International, which estimates that the bottom 50% of the world's population saw no increase in wealth.
Oxfam says the trend shows that the global economy is skewed in favor of the rich, rewarding wealth instead of work.
"The billionaire boom is not a sign of a thriving economy but a symptom of a failing economic system," said Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International.
(Score: 3, Funny) by PiMuNu on Tuesday January 22 2019, @10:50AM (29 children)
<sarcasm>But think how much wealth was created by those 26 people - they _deserve_ all those billions</sarcasm>
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday January 22 2019, @10:54AM (11 children)
SN autodetected my <s> tags and decided I was trying to do strikethrough... rather than <sarcasm>
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday January 22 2019, @10:57AM (5 children)
and even escape character \ does not help, but does some interesting things to the rest of the page (strike through everything else)... nb Plain Old Text is selected so I didn't expect any html. Browsing in firefox.
Glad I code in C/C++ not html...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @11:26AM
Filter error: Missing Comment.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:09PM (2 children)
You've really screwed it now!
http://imgur.com/325gTwNl.png [imgur.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:51PM
Does the strikethrough mean he hasn't screwed it now?
And if
thisis struck through does that mean he hadn't but now he had?And I'm having visions of all these poor cats trapped in boxes all labeled Schrodinger. Help!!! I'm stuck in a paradox factory!
(and yah.... I added the strikethrough in the quotes for persistence.... Sorry if that riled up whoever fixes this bug....)
If
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:08AM
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:18PM
html is not a programming language, and that's actually the problem.
had people decided to use TeX (which is a proper programming language), things would make sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:16PM (2 children)
What did you do!!!!! You just screwed up all of SN!! :D
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:32PM (1 child)
ZOMG! It's true! I just tried posting a standard reply and look what happened to my text!(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:27PM
How did you post a completely blank comment?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:11PM (1 child)
My bad. Apparently <s> didn't make it into the tags balancing sub when it was getting put into the approved_tags field in the db. Manually escaped as <s> and disabled the tag for the moment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:41PM
Sorry for breaking it. Thanks for digging...
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @11:18AM
No, no, no, no... they worked hard for those money, 8.3billions/26 times harder than any of those 8.3billions slackers just waiting for welfare
(Score: 4, Touché) by isostatic on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:01PM (15 children)
8 of them inheritted it
(Score: 1, Troll) by PiMuNu on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:33PM (13 children)
Wish for 100 % inheritance tax. Even the economic liberals have to realise that this is a good idea.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:40PM (9 children)
I'm a big fan of 100% inheritence tax. I'd put some nominal threshold of say $10k to allow sentimental objects to be passed, but I'm not
The trouble is, there are easy schemes to bypass inheritence tax for those passing enough on to be concerned about it.
As such I'd like to see taxes almost exclusively leveled on
Things granted monopolies by governments -- land, copyright, patents
Things with externalities - pollution, garbage, heroin, etc
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:04PM
Let's just confiscate all $7.6 + 1.4 trillion, which the US government alone can squander in about 2 years. Problem solved.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:14PM
Exactly... the problem seems to be simple inheritance like we have now would seem to be the least destructive solution to society.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:45PM (4 children)
But if we need to take money from the undeserving, then I am the obvious destination for that money. First, as I've noted before, I power trip responsibly. Other people just don't understand the nuances and obligation of it and just will be an embarrassment to you, the ruling elite. Second, when you need to take away the money again, what is more politically feasible? Taking it away from a population of thankless moocher brats who vote? Or take it away from me who will have carefully built up good, solid negative popularity polling numbers to efficiently expedite the process democratically and who only has one vote. You will, of course, down the road have to give it back to me else you would be taking from someone more popular. That would be work otherwise and the whole point of being an elite is that you don't sully your hands with that. Because I am the most undeserving of all, I am the logical choice for storing money between taxation voyages.
Third, to continue the use of nautical terms, I spend like a drunk sailor. Good for GDP numbers. Your economic figures will always look rosy!
I assure you the two minute hates will be rocking affairs; my rates for appearing in propaganda films and concerts are quite reasonable; and you'll be able to get it up with your mistress as you brag about how you once again foiled that dastardly khallow!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:17PM
Spending money you don't have is now called "Net Spending Achievement": http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/diagrams-dollars-modern-money-illustrated-part-2.html [neweconomicperspectives.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:12PM (1 child)
Your brain has begun the long slow fracturing process, once you devolve into the Fuck MDC level of AC posting you will know you're 90% towards rehabilitation. At that point just let go of your anger, admit you were wrong about so many things, and be reborn!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:50PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 23 2019, @06:52AM
No, khallow, we all know you. You are a big fan of sucking up to rich people. You think they deserve their ill-gotten gains. And you wish that they may share some with you. You are a mercenary, khallow, a whore, a carpet-bagger of capitalism. You are a parasite on the working class, a syncophant of the richies, a non-productive member of society. You are an ideologue, a shill, a fifth columnist. You argue in bad faith, you bathe in bad faith, you breathe bad faith. So go suck up to rich people where there actually are some? I mean, TMB is "comfortable", which means first and last months rent, if it came down to that. And NCommander? No rent for him, living out of backpack, like all good Soylentils should be. Wealth is not what you think it is.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday January 22 2019, @09:30PM
Me too, but the people who make the laws tend to also benefit from the lack of "death duties" so the chances of getting them back are zero.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @06:00AM
even 10 million should be ok. but billions, thats a whole different beast.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:46PM (2 children)
What is my incentive to take care of my own home then? Right now I have been working on restoring the home that my grandparents bought in the 50s so that when I'm dead in the 50s my kids or grandkids will have an asset in good condition. If we lose everything, what incentive is there to maintain anything?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:43AM (1 child)
I fix a leaky roof because I actually like to live in the house and don’t want to get wet. Horses for courses I guess.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday January 23 2019, @03:57PM
Right, but why do any more than the bare minimum. Most problem with a house can be ignored for another two decades, especially if you do patchwork. Why spend 10-15k replacing the whole bad roof when some flex seal and some tyvekwill last a decade. You will have the boomers who continue to do things for asthetics, but i imagine they only keep up appearances because they think it makes their house more valuable. Sure as hell wouldn't plant a shade tree if i might be dead before it grows.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Funny) by Nuke on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:31PM
They worked hard inheriting it. You've no idea how much work is involved in filling in those probate forms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @11:34AM (25 children)
Eat the rich
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @11:53AM
Mmmm, criiispy baaacon.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:36PM
26 people, no matter how overweight they are, won't go very far among 3.8 billion people. And think of the arguments over who gets the choicest cuts. We need implement that idea on an industrial scale, like in a film I once saw called ...er ... Something Green?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:53PM (2 children)
Or we could try the one that works long-term: "Kill the poor"
Poverty solved.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:30PM
Do it. We'll be waiting for you at the gates of Hell, all of us, to throw you in and slam them on you. Go on; do it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:41PM
Then who would the rich exploit?
(Score: 2) by donkeyhotay on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:10PM (18 children)
BTW, "Eat The Rich" is a book by P.J. O'Rourke written in 1998. Although it is 20 years old, it still holds up pretty well. O'Rourke travels to countries all over the world and examines what makes some economies work well; and why others do not. Why, for instance, does socialism work in Sweden, but not in Cuba?
Would merely taxing the rich solve the problem of income inequality? I'm not entirely convinced of that. Out of those 3.8 billion poorest people, how many live in countries where there are private property rights and a strong rule of law? Once you start asking those kinds of questions you're on the track towards finding a solution.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:57PM (16 children)
Thats where you get into topics that can't be discussed in our modern Lysenkoism era. There is no intelligence, there are no races, there are no human biological differences all brains are all perfect clones just like we're all the same height weight and color, etc.
An infinite amount of money cannot turn Haiti into pre-invasion Sweden, unless the population is replaced. Likewise you can economically punish South Africa and it'll still be wealthier and higher quality of life as long as certain groups are in charge, and once other groups take over, even sending an infinite amount of money cannot prevent Rhodesia 2.0.
Fundamentally its kinda like democracy or freedom of speech ... you can't spread that to races that can't handle it, not even at the point of a gun, but you can't stop it from being implemented by some races even at the point of a gun opposing it. Essentially all this "Africa is poor" complaining is inherently colonialist imperialist and racist. You can't expect any amount of money or military force to make people of race X act and have identical outcomes as people of race Y; oppression just doesn't work.
Africa, for example, has an African economy and quality of life because of Africans; no amount of cultural imperialism, guilt trips, military force, or economic bribes will ever turn Africa into Montana. Population replacement, sure.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:32PM (13 children)
Did a black man steal your girlfriend in college or something? (Because if so, serves ya right...)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:54PM (3 children)
>> Did a black man steal ...
Way to continue propagating negative racial stereotypes.
thatsracist.gif
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:21PM (2 children)
Hurr hurr hurr...shut up. No it's not. What it is is an only half-joking attempt to figure ou where this guy's constant anti-black "scientific" racism comes from. I'm trying to imagine how his mind works and just not coming up with anything coherent aside from a trauma model.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:55AM (1 child)
Fuck off, Azuma. You're a notorious SJW hyper-troll on here and you're not fooling anyone. Facts don't care about your feelings. Go fuck yourself.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:23AM
Wrong on two counts, "SJW" and "troll" of any description. We are in a sad state when someone who has the courage and moral fortitude to stand up to the rising tide of authoritarian right-wing batshit sludge that's slowly dissolving this place is called "troll." You, good sir, and I am *certain* you are a "sir," can go fuck YOURself. If you can get ahold of that microscopic excuse for genitalia, I mean.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:27PM (8 children)
(Score: 0, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:48PM (7 children)
Maybe this needs some further explanation here: it's fairly obvious the guy's *always* been a racist, but this constant posting, in every goddamn thread, about the exact same thing, smacks of the zeal of the newly-converted. In other words, this guy is basically the equivalent of someone who always thoughtlessly voted Republican, then one day lost his job and went completely batshit Dominionist insane.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:20PM (6 children)
Khallow has a long slow process of discovery ahead. I guess it is just so easy for hints of racism to slide past, explained away by "they're just bringing up uncomfortable topics stop being so sensitive!" VLM, Jmorris, and Ethanol Fueled are the most clearly racist users around here. EF might get a pass by being just a massively stupid troll, but I doubt someone could pull that off for years without actually being racist. Runaway1956 is a closeted racist. Those are the only ones I have clear memories of racist postings but there are quite a few others that probably are as well.
So khallow, ready to realize that its only been a short time since the Civil Rights Movement when it was ridiculously obvious how racist parts of the US are? Things have gotten better but yes, there really truly 100% actually are a lot of racists still hanging around.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by khallow on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:54PM (5 children)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @01:52AM (4 children)
Well, I can't speak for the original AC but I don't want them on SN because (a) they are tedious and damned annoying and (b) I don't want people to think I am one of them (guilt by association).
True, as far as that goes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 23 2019, @03:13AM (3 children)
How does "guilt by association" work?
It sounds to me (yes, I'm WAGging here), like you are claiming that if someone advocates a loathsome idea on a forum that has your name in it somewhere that somehow you risk being associated with that. Would it be something like an HR grunt typing in "John Doe" into their Google search, seeing some SN article on wealth inequality, and then reading a scary VLM screed elsewhere on the web page as a John Doe post, then vetoing your employment due to scary racist post that you had nothing to do with?
I suppose, if that were true, this is my take [xkcd.com] on that, especially given that we're giving pseudonyms anyway.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:00AM (2 children)
Guilt by association: You fucking racist, khallow! Did you repudiate Ethanol_filleted? No? Racist. Did you renounce VLM's call to round up and exterminate all left-handed Americans? No? Racist! And did you stick a red-hot poker up jmorris's ass, for saying all the bigoted and racist things he has said, including suggesting that some races are more racier than others? No? You are a racist, khallow. Racist by association, Racist by ommission, Racist by lack of repudiation of racism! And if I did not personally know that you are African-American, I might think you are racist by white privilege. So, there, you racist bastard.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:39AM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 23 2019, @08:27AM
Tax khallow's shit! It is not given! I suspect he is THE Super-Donor!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:51PM
Economic development and rule of law on the other hand have turned a lot of shitholes into pretty nice places to live. I think I'd rather try those tools out instead, particularly since they're already working in Africa!
(Score: 4, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:59PM
Thats where you get into topics that can't be discussed in our modern Lysenkoism era. There is no intelligence, there are no races, there are no human biological differences all brains are all perfect clones just like we're all the same height weight and color, etc.
Thankfully for you, the are people made entirely out of straw, though.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:33PM
People think there is no solution because any solution that might work will not fit in 140 characters.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:49PM
Define rich, and when will that definition shift to you? I mean yeah sure we can get rid of all the billionaires. But then those people with 100+ million need to be dealt with. Then of course we need to punish those with 10s of millions. Why is that jackass at the end of the street with a million dollar savings skirting by? That guy "owns" a duplex worth 400k he is renting out half of for 1k/month, that practically theft. How dare anybody earn more than 100k a year? Anyone making more than the 35k/year 1% of the planet need to be dealt with too.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: -1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:33PM (4 children)
For Patriotic reasons. And I love the company there. But the food, frankly, isn't so great. They don't use normal lettuce in the burgers. Or normal cheese. And I normally would have gone the White House chefs. And they would have brought regular food and cooked it for me. But, Chuck & Nancy have shut down our government.
The lists of the richest people, so interesting to see who's on them. This one, where are the names? They don't tell you the names. But I'm sure I'm on it. Unless they made a big mistake. Forbes always puts me on their lists. They love to interview me. They sell a tremendous amount of magazines when they interview me.
And by the way, everybody looks to see who's richest. And Jeff Bozo of Amazon has been getting a lot of buzz. But, what about the divorce? What about the girlfriend that he was sexting BEFORE the divorce? Some people say he's the richest, he's gonna drop down a lot of rungs. And here's the kicker, I'm hearing he's not the richest. I'm hearing it's President Putin of Russia. He's been running Russia -- one way or another -- for 20 years. And it "pays" a lot. And not just the salary.
But, you want to hear about me. I wasn't always rich. I'll tell you, the early early '90s were hard for so many of us. Very tough times -- recession. Because our Country was being run by Bush Original, from the CIA. Of the CIA. And for the CIA. We had more people shopping at Wal-mart than at Sears. Just to show you how bad it was. And I had so many real estate projects going. You borrow, you build, you sell. I'd borrowed, I'd built. And the selling slowed to a crawl. To an absolute crawl. When I had a billion dollars in debt.
So around 1991, I was with my daughter in Manhattan. Going for a little walk -- I try not to get too much exercise. And she sees a Hobo, she wants to give him a dollar or two, right? I said to her, wait. That guy is a billion dollars richer than me. He has nothing, I have tremendous debts. And you couldn't tell by looking at me. But, I was possibly the poorest guy in New York right at that moment -- I would say, one of the poorest 25 people in the world. Ivanka understood. She loaned me a dollar. On very favorable terms. And I worked very hard, I went from that to where I am now. I skipped Davos this time. But I went last year. And I was the center of attention. They love me there, it was incredible. Not the food but the audience. But, I love America!
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by c0lo on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:39PM (3 children)
Just from curiosity: does Melania's cooking results in something edible?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:00PM (1 child)
I don't know how she cooks. That's something I've never seen. Never tasted. But all agree on how she looks -- incredible!!
The best eating is when Bubby (mother-in-law #1) visits. We fly her in from Czechia and she makes us the most indescribable dishes. We eat and eat and eat. And eat some more. Eric's learned so many of her recipes, he's amazing. His best strawberry dumplings are as good as Bubby's worst -- and getting better!!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:20PM
Did you know that MELANIA IS A MAN [youtube.com]?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:45PM
That depends on who she's cooking for.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:23PM (4 children)
Raising taxes will make no difference, this "wealth" is literally printed from thin air. Until people start grasping the consequences of this (a group of insiders gets first dibs on all new money and they use this to control governments), this will continue.
Innane attempts to solve it by raising taxes just makes me laugh. Yea, dont let the rich people have the money, give it to the governments they control instead... great idea guys.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:23PM (3 children)
Libertardian click bait. Increase taxes on the wealthy and decrease taxes for everyone else. If there is a surplus of taxes we can then start paying off the national debt and/or funding more social programs such as universal healthcare and education.
Too easy though, lets make up some bullshit about "trickle down" or "job creators deserve whatever they want".
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:32PM
You will see. Even 100% taxes on everyone is not enough. Money needs to be printed, given to a group of insiders first, and they will hold the power. Taxes don't change the equation at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @10:28PM (1 child)
You underestimate the power of the baking cabal. Forgot the trillions given away as a reward for crashing markets in 2008 already?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:13AM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:20PM (28 children)
I'd be happy with a hard ceiling for gross income of 5 to 10 million a year, adjusted for inflation, since we can't seem to get rid of inflation.
Put that money towards the important stuff: infrastructure, medical care, education, that sort of thing.
If you can't live extremely well on a gross income of 5m/year, even after taxes, you're too much of a douchebag to be handling money anyway.
...but I know it'll never happen. Or if it did, the rich, in control of the legislators, would find some way to hide money or exempt it.
But I can dream.
--
Life's a beach...
and then you dry.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:57PM (2 children)
I'd be happy with you fucking-off with your "imagination."
"More important", according to you. I don't think healthcare for obese is "more important" than a rich man's yacht. I don't think free "Gender Studies" dactorate for everyone is more important than a celebrity sea-side villa. And unless the "infrastructure" cannot make the money back on its own, it probably should not have been built (think bridge to no-where).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:23PM (1 child)
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, the wall will pay for itself by curbing the importation of crime, drugs and illegal immigrants who tend to go on the federal Dole. bit.ly/2p8DuHY [t.co]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:40PM
I'll just leave this [wikipedia.org] right here for anyone that wants some background info.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:02PM (5 children)
The problem isn't income, and income tax is never going to solve it. Anybody in the billionaire class can adjust the books to give themselves whatever income they feel like, while their actual wealth keeps accumulating.
You need to tax existing wealth. A flat 1% per year tax on wealth and you could probably dump the income tax.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:49PM (4 children)
In a general sense, perhaps. During a high inflation high growth rate era, eating 1% off returns is no biggie. Well the implementation would be a nightmare but I'm talking strictly about economic effects.
However at this moment for some decades we've been pushing lower and lower interest and inflation and investment return creating a giant capital bubble because of supply and demand, dollars searching for return and willing to pay crazy multiples. Graham and Dodd was a "cool book" a little less than a century ago, but in our bubble era its meaningless. As such we need a complete economic reboot BEFORE we can knock 1% off total returns as a tax.
I am kinda mystified how it could be implemented anyway... this would mostly result in the price of gold and other untrackable assets (bitcoin?) going thru the roof, I suppose. Everythings inter-related and nothing moves slower than the government, so rather than policy providing a revenue stream for awhile, policy promotes redistribution of assets resulting in middleman profits, economic chaos, and no revenue stream. We could implement a 1% wealth tax but if anything the economic damage would mean to continue to provide services at a constant expense in a declining economy, we'd need to INCREASE income tax rates not lower them.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:41PM (1 child)
France had a wealth tax until very recently.
The point was that you have to invest your millions in something productive, so that you make at least the inflation plus the 1% tax, and having to sell/leverage enough assets to pay that tax prevents that money from freezing in place.
More importantly, it's not actually enough to drive the rich to poverty, it's not even that much money, but it's psychologically important, to keep the poor from reaching for their guillotines. The suppression of that tax (technically, it changed to only apply to real estate) is one of the things France's Gilets Jaunes keep protesting (middle-class asked to pay more taxes, while the rich got rid of the Rich Tax).
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:42PM
So concern about the envionment plus encouraging wasteful spending?
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:36AM (1 child)
Is it harder to track wealth than to try and track every private transaction so that you can take a percentage of that?
You front up with a form once a year listing assets and values and pay your tax.
Anything you 'forget' to put on the form is subject to confiscation if caught. After all, if you didn't remember it, you won't miss it.
I would support a moderate threshold and limited primary residence exclusions, something like 2 years of national average annual income worth of possessions, and the first $500000 of residence value. At those limits assets are more likely to be personal possessions rather than income generating wealth.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:25AM
And just like originally only 1%ers paid income tax, in a decade or so a trailer will cost $500k.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:34PM (17 children)
An interesting calculation, just for fun:
Making a wildly optimistic assumption that those making $10 million per year work every day of the year for 18 hours per day, that salary works out to $10 miilion/yr / 365 days/yr / 18 hours/day = $1522/hour!!!
Question: what the hell can a person do that would actually deserve $10 million/yr in compensation? I can't think of anything that is not highly dangerous to life and limb that would be even remotely deserving of that kind of compensation. Hell, I'm quite sure that even the local bomb squad doesn't make even a tiny fraction of that kind of salary! And don't give me any bullshit about how these uber wealthy are taking extraordinary risks that deserve extraordinary compensation: they do no such thing. Most of these guys, when they make a bad decision that bankrupts the company get a golden parachute which they use to leap to safety to safely glide on to the next company that they can leach off of.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:04PM (16 children)
Run a business that employs hundreds of thousands of people a year.
Well, someone has already remarked on the lack of imagination in this thread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:20PM (9 children)
Seriously? You think that is deserving of more than $1500/hr compensation? Discuss.
Yes, please do share some more of your imaginative thoughts on the matter. This should be amusing.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by khallow on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:39PM (8 children)
Well, how valuable is a job?
The Obama administration, for example, valued short term jobs around several hundred thousand per job (generally $200k to $400k per). Thus, a business that provides 100k jobs displaces federal funding for around $20-40 billion a year. The CEO's $10 million salary to manage that is quite reasonable and probably a smaller share than a prime contractor would get.
Then of course, there's the people actually paying the CEO's salary. They clearly believe the CEO is worth that or they wouldn't pay that much.
And of course, there's the downsides to having a bad CEO. Losing all those jobs, losing the business, losing investor's stakes, etc. A lot of parties get screwed by a bad CEO. Better pay means one can attract better talent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @09:20PM (7 children)
Well, I don't know. But I can't personally think of anything I do in my day-to-day work that should be compensated at the rate of $1500/hr. Can you?
You do realize that the board of directors is frequently stacked with friends of the CEO, no? The whole thing is kind of an incestuous relationship with members sitting on the various boards of each other's companies. Little wonder that everyone of them agree that they are each worth their exorbitant pay scale.
Ummm, yeah. About that. Some are beginning to question that bit of sacred dogma. [washingtonpost.com] You were saying?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 23 2019, @12:13AM (6 children)
So your job is probably worth less than $1500/hr - unlike the CEO's. I have no problem at all with the concept that jobs aren't all worth the same amount.
They don't magically appear in boards of directors. Someone puts them there. The common factor missed is that the investors are the same for these groups of companies. You have institutional investors (pension funds, mutual funds, etc) that are installing people they know in these positions. And it doesn't matter what the members of the boards think, it's what the stakeholder that installed them thinks.
Of course, they are. Everybody thinks they can skimp and still get top talent. Let me know how it works out for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @02:27AM (5 children)
Okaaaay? So, you don't think my job is worth $1500/hr. Fair enough. But the point which you seem to be avoiding is that I can't think of anything that a CEO might do that would be worth $1500/hr. Can you? The only thing I can come up with is something that would require extreme risk to life and/or limb. Hell, there are people who actually do risk their lives for us who don't make more than a tiny fraction what these uber CEOs make! Why do you think that might be?
What you don't seem to get is that "the stakeholders" and the members of the board are intimately connected to each other. This is fundamentally a problem of conflict of interest.
You didn't bother to read the article, did you? If top dollar produced top results then my argument would be substantially weakened, of course. What the authors of that article are saying, though, is that "top dollar" appears to be producing remarkably less than top results.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 23 2019, @03:35AM (4 children)
And I already answered the question - running a business that employs hundreds of thousands of people. The remark about how the Obama administration (and some other government projects where job creation figures heavily) has priced job creation or saving. You then followed up with the non sequitur about how you didn't think of anything that would make your job worth $1500 per hour. I take it that you don't run a company that employs hundreds of thousands of people? But even if you did, it's a rare skill set with a lot of risks and downsides when done badly.
So yes, I can and I did think of a reason why a CEO would be worth such money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @06:06AM (3 children)
"Rare skill set"? Much of that can be acquired from a business degree. Also, what risks are you talking about? Most times when the CEO screws up big time it is everyone else in the company that face layoffs and pay cuts. The CEO screwup just takes a leap with his golden parachute to the next company he can leach off of.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:35AM (2 children)
So have you actually done that and been vindicated? In the business world, there was this theory that the MBA could just hop behind the desk of any CEO and run things. It hasn't worked well in practice. Turns out you need more than a business degree - like a clue what the business is that you're running and knowledge of the people who are in it, plus maybe a few decades of experience in the industry. Who woulda thought it, amirite?
Thus, a total valid reason to get a shitty CEO. Because if there aren't shockwaves, pressure rings, and fifty million years of mantle plume-generated volcanic activity coming off the collapse of your company then you didn't fail hard enough.
Amirite?
Or we could just not be idiots here. CEO failure is real bad, ok? Grabbing a random set of degrees, pay it peanuts, and then expecting your company to not self-destruct, is insane. I find it particularly bizarre how you have all these cases of CEO failure in mind, yet can't connect the dots that maybe that sort of failure is exactly why there is a huge business reason to get something other than bad CEOs and pay them enough to care about what they're doing? Just because some businesses don't do due diligence - and end up in a train wreck - is not an indication that the CEO is just another job that one can throw a little money at.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:55PM (1 child)
No one is arguing to "get a shitty CEO". The point, which you seem to be steadfastly avoiding, is that CEO compensation seems to negatively correlate with performance on the job.
Yes, I agree; you should stop being an idiot.
Again, we agree.
On the flip side, merely throwing a bunch of money at the problem and hoping for the best has not produced good results.
So, finally, you agree with me? It was hard to bring you to this point, but it looks like we may have made it!
OK, this article has now slipped off the front page so I am dropping out of this conversation. I've noticed that you seem to have an almost compulsive urge to have the last word, so I will now turn it back over to you for your final thoughts (such as they may be).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 24 2019, @07:42AM
So what is it to you? I have some stamina and I believe in good idea hygiene. Maybe a little OCD as shit. If someone finishes strong, instead of with a whiny parting shot, I just might let them have the last word. But this particular thread kept recycling the same dull nonsense over and over again. When some AC wrote:
after numerous back and forth posts where the answer was in my very first reply [soylentnews.org]:
I didn't "avoid" the point. I answered it instantly in my very first reply. Yet here we are a half dozen posts later playing games with someone berating me for "avoiding".
I find it remarkable just how dumb you and who knows who else have been in this thread. I don't care anymore why you can't figure out why running a business that employs hundreds of thousands of people and generates lots of profit for various shareholders (the latter who control the hiring of the CEO) might be worth a lot of money. You're obviously not listening or thinking about the subject.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:25PM (1 child)
You do realize that the actual work of running a large business is done by other people yes? Greedy fuckers and their jealous guarding of the ownership model.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:47PM
And? Their actual work would be pretty useless without the collective infrastructure and organization of the business that employs them.
It's a poorly kept secret. One should be wondering why the ownership model has so few owners despite a few centuries of demonstration that it works really well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:06AM (1 child)
The more people you employ, the more people you can steal wages from! It's called "surplus value" in Marxist economic theory! Of course, idiots like khallow think that it is just that this employer is producing so much more production! Ignoring the plain and simple fact that it is his employees who are producing the value. You ought to be ashamed to endorse such blatant robbery, khallow.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:52AM
Write off that entire post.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday January 23 2019, @10:44AM (1 child)
Once, in the space of three weeks, I did some work that saved my company spending about $50 million. They were about shut down a power station for structural repairs and I did calcs that showed that the repairs were not necessary. Should I have been paid more than my relatively modest professional engineer's salary? No. I regard that as all in a day's work.
A banker however would demand a 5% "handling fee" for passing on a money transaction that was actually done by his computer. Where does this stop? Should the programmer of that computer get 5% or even 0.05% of every transaction his software ever handles? Should a bus driver be awarded $1 million every time he applies the brakes because he is saving his company the $10 million in damages that would arise from the collision if he did not? Of course not. Some jobs should be paid more than others, but some incomes are insanely high. No one person is worth tens of millions of $ per year.
One thing I have noticed with senior staff is that none of them are irreplacable even though they tend to create an aura that they are. I saw several power station managers retire and someone else step quietly into their shoes and carry on without a blip.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 23 2019, @03:42PM
Unless you're money laundering that 50 million USD (where I understand, the fees tend to be higher), the fees don't get that high merely for money transactions.
I already explained why that viewpoint was wrong. The CEO of a major company has far greater responsibilities than that exercised every day. I'll note as additional support, that back in the 1980s, there was this interesting hysteria in the US concerning Japan. We had just come off of the worst decade since the Great Depression, the 1970s, with two major energy crises, and the start of the long decline in the US industry with competition from Japan devastating large portions of US industry and the US Midwest. A fair number of books were written on how the US was going to be taken over by Japan.
What might have looked a sure thing in 1985, looked very different ten years later in 1995. Suddenly, Japan reeling from a bad recession (which incidentally the US suffered from as well) was no longer a threat, and the US was holding its own against the other newcomers, like China, in the global market. This was even more obvious by the next decade, despite the dotcom recession. By having de facto huge incentives to create and grow valuable businesses, the US retained its huge economy and standard of living despite losing large amounts of industry to other countries. Sorry, but this supposed outsized pay to CEOs is part of a thing that has worked well for the US.
And I can't help but notice the anti-pay camp always falls down to the same single argument. This theoretical argument that a good CEO could be had for less pay. That somehow the board of directors and the investors would make better choices, if they were forced to offer less money for the position? I just don't see that. Incompetent boards stay incompetent, no matter how little they pay their CEO.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday January 23 2019, @11:06PM
Or something like a like a lifetime asset cap. You reach a certain point, you cannot accumulate more. Not from interest, not from investments, nothing. You are booted out the door to begin attempting life enriching experiences. Maybe put a term limit on this, if such an individual spends or donates a certain percentage of their assets after a set number of years they can again accumulate up to the cap.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by inertnet on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:21PM (9 children)
Billionaires can't lead a normal life like us, I don't envy them at all. Also to become one, you'd have to have kind of mindset that most people don't have, no fun to be around. And their children are likely to become real assholes.
It would be nice to be rich. But being rich, I think raising children to become wonderful adults would be a real challenge.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:26PM (2 children)
For what it's worth, both BillG and Warren Buffett have been pretty clear that their kids are only getting enough to live comfortably, maybe a few million each, and are determined to give away the rest.
I think it's possible to be not a complete jerk and be super-rich. But the path to doing that involves ruthlessly giving away a lot of your riches. It's one of those ideas that Jesus guy was about (see Matthew 19:16-24, Mark 10:17-25, Luke 18:18-25), which for some reason the prosperity gospel types tend to not emphasize. And other religions have similar ideas too, it's not just Christians.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:46PM
Notice that the giving pledge is not a Chinese invention, and I seriously doubt many top-profile chinese billionaires will be doing anything of the sort
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday January 23 2019, @10:24AM
Gates remains a complete jerk whatever he does wiith his money.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:35PM (5 children)
I'll trade with the fucking billionaire. I'd end up giving most of it away to important causes like clean energy and ending human trafficking anyway, so it wouldn't corrupt me, and I'm sure the bllionaire would be begging for his riches back after a few months of my life. Especially if it was a few of the selected worst ones.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:47PM (4 children)
You've been living multiple lives?!?!? Split personality? This would explain a lot.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:52PM (3 children)
Selected worst months, you fucking moron. Get off the site and go back to fourth grade until you can read like a grown-up.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:27PM (2 children)
They are just desperate to tear you down in any way possible. You are the AOC of SN!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:37PM
I really, really, REALLY do not want to be thought of as the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes of SN, but I know what you meant by it...thanks :) And yeah, they want to, but they will never be able to, because they stand convicted by their own evil and stupidity.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @07:58PM
Thats not fair to say of AH, AH at least tries to make logical conclusions from the data provided, AOC was educated in economics and then threw the books away because it didn't match her feels.