Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 193

Thread: Let's Be Better People

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Switzerland Geneva Cern
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiD View Post
    Yeah, having 2-3-4 children is good and nice. But the system should also help, should try to avoid concentrating billions of $ in few people and instead share these resources more evenly.
    Also since i have heard countless times the argument of "stop single people from owning billions" you should consider this:

    If you take all the annual earnings / cash from the most rich companies and everyone in the top 5% of the richest people in USA the money would not be enough to cover the state expenses for more than some years. (You can search the actuall numbers they are certenly not good and its not only for the USA)

    luckily there is this thing called debt that i personally hate that states (and some companies use) to continue to operate and make more expenses than their income. This is used to ensure that states have what it takes to take care of their citizents. An absolutely massive amout of cash is spent on health and education exactly as you and most of us actually wanted. And you guess what? The rich people actually pay for it because they invest in bonds etc. There is also the argument that if we stopped spending so much in weapons we would have much more to spent on more important things. While this is true i am certain that many countries cannot afford to do so. Turkey would have captured most of our islands as they did to Cyprus if we were completely ungarded.

    Also Greece (collectively) is 100% in line with your ideas. We wanted all our debt erased because it would be hard to work our asses of and pay it back. The money that was borrowed by our governments was mostly spent on salaries / pensions and gave the abillity to the average citizent to buy BMWs and other very expensive cars and travel abroad every year. It came from rich bankers. So according to your idea we should simply not pay it back because this money was previously concentrated in a few people and we had managed to spread it to the 10 millions of our population.
    Current rig: i5 3570 @3.8GHz, Asus 7750, Dell 24'' 2560X1440, Corsair Vengence 16GB Ram DDR3 @1600MHz, Chieftec 550W PSU, 480GB OCZ SSD + 500GB Seagate + 1TB WD hd, Windows 10 64-bit

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way
    Posts
    3,533
    There should be a cap in the budget or the wealth of a single person - they can still be rich but not THAT RICH.
    Extremes are the bad thing, and a mix of all the optimums can lead to 'miracles'...

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerdmaster View Post
    This is true. If people want to have more resources per person they should consider not giving birth to 5 - 20 children. Look for example China and India. If they had 25% of their current population their people would have massively better quallity of life. The same can be said about many other countries as well. But who am i to judge. They have the right to live however they want. If they want to have 5+ billion population its their collective choice so be it.
    The problem is, if China had 25% of its current population, it would not have population reserves to employ in factories, to work fields, and to serve as huge consumer market.
    It would all be proportional -- assume for 1.5 billion Chinese, 40 million work in factories. If there were 25% of them, 375 million Chinese, even though there would be 40 million workers readily available, they would not be working in factories, probably only 10 million would, the internal market would me much smaller, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiD View Post
    There should be a cap in the budget or the wealth of a single person - they can still be rich but not THAT RICH.
    Extremes are the bad thing, and a mix of all the optimums can lead to 'miracles'...
    There should NEVER be a cap in the wealth of any person. Some people earn or make considerable amounts of money, but spend very little. Why would you want them to be unable to make money and keep money? What arbitrary cap would there be? Why would they be motivated to continue making money?

    Instead, there should be something else -- a cap, or rather, a specific multiplier on salary. In the fifties, a typical US CEO made 40 times the amount of money of a regular worker. Now it's more like 4,000 times.
    USA unfortunately never mandated it, but left it to self (de-)regulate. If salary was given as a multiplier of basic company salary, any salary increase for a CEO would require the company to raise the salaries and wages of all workers at once.
    Also, do away with stock options. Instead, award stocks annually which vest long term, think 20-40 years.
    There are many ideas. These would make the CEO work for the company and not to just milk it and move on elsewhere to pretend he cares.
    There are two types of people: Those who make backups and those who will.

    Opinions presented in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way
    Posts
    3,533
    Quote Originally Posted by toughluck View Post
    There should NEVER be a cap in the wealth of any person. Some people earn or make considerable amounts of money, but spend very little. Why would you want them to be unable to make money and keep money? What arbitrary cap would there be? Why would they be motivated to continue making money?
    Well, I don't say that there is a need for that particular person to earn even more. Enough is enough. Once a person reaches, for instance 50 mln $ in personal wealth, they can retire and give space to the others around. Anyways, they have nothing more to prove, neither to themselves, nor to the society. We are not running after world records for richness, are we?

    If there should never be a cap for richness, why isn't there also a cap in the bottom - let's say the poorest can have what is needed and they are not left to die from starvation.
    Sometimes it isn't the education, but capitalism as a system is quite hostile and the society is like wilderness, literally.
    It's like we are in the wild and fighting to survive.

    Also, for example, take Formula 1. The F1 body considers a cap in the budget for all teams, so to make the sport more entertaining and with more competition. Because the small teams have no money to compete well.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,164
    Socialism is not that thing on where everyone gains the same money... Socialism(the true one) should give a ton of liberty(financially too) to the people.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    7,451
    Issue with people sitting on so much value (in "real" money, not stocks from creation of company/etc) is that they don't spend nearly as much as they have.

    And movement of money keeps economy running. investment is important, but $1000 going through a local economy 2,3,4,5+ times is much more useful than an extra $1000 sitting in a bank account of millions.

    Less an issue of people having tons of net worth, and more an issue of them sitting on to much net worth.

    Sadly, there seems to be no better solution for most people with this kind of money to be moved more than higher tax rates.

    There are few people like Elon musk who take a fortune and put nearly all of it into building companies paying suppliers, workers, etc.

    it does happen just not as often as it "needs" to in order to keep enough money flowing through economies.

    And sometime with companies, such as Apple, it is due to feeling like there is to high a tax rate. Which complicates the manner. Although I think Apple would just buyback more shares and increase divisors more if it gets it's money into the USA.

    Given the US government is at a deficit on a yearly basis this going to retirement/banks may be better net for economy given reducing the deficits does not increase the total flow of spending from US government until it gets into a negative deficit.

    Negative deficit probably is the wrong wording
    -Q

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiD View Post
    Well, I don't say that there is a need for that particular person to earn even more. Enough is enough. Once a person reaches, for instance 50 mln $ in personal wealth, they can retire and give space to the others around. Anyways, they have nothing more to prove, neither to themselves, nor to the society. We are not running after world records for richness, are we?
    It depends on the person. Imagine you have an annual cap of $5m. Suppose you have ten guys, one of which is very industrious and could easily make $50m per year. The cap makes it impossible for him to make that much money, and instead, nine other guys fight an divide the $45m remaining on the market between themselves.
    Great, huh? Instead of one insanely rich guy, you have ten insanely rich guys.
    Not quite. Let's add that the industrious guy has an ascetic lifestyle (for a rich person), leaves $100k for himself and his family, and gives the rest to charity, while the rest of the bunch are hedonists that spend all of the money. Charities, instead of having $49.9m, now have $4.9m.
    It's never simple. In actual terms, you have about five strata of the society:
    - poor, not making enough to sustain themselves
    - low class, making enough to sustain themselves, and perhaps able to afford to save up a bit, maybe some low-level luxuries
    - middle class, which makes enough to save up a significant portion of their income and spend some money on luxuries
    - low-level rich people, making and having money in the millions
    - high-level rich people, who make and have money in the billions

    Most of the budgets of charities comes from the fourth group. Middle class and low class typically do not contribute to charity, the poor, despite being generous, simply don't have the kind of money to make a significant portion of charities' budgets, and the billionaires either don't care for charity, or set up their own foundations (which is often self-aggrandizing and extremely wasteful -- charity spending of <2% of the entire budget is typical), or vow to spend their money on charity, but never do.

    Also, for example, take Formula 1. The F1 body considers a cap in the budget for all teams, so to make the sport more entertaining and with more competition. Because the small teams have no money to compete well.
    This actually works. All American sports associations have player salary caps to prevent the best players from moving to a single franchise, and to allow the smallest franchises to acquire a few very good players to be able to compete.
    That is why I mentioned salary caps instead of wealth caps.

    Quote Originally Posted by testbug00 View Post
    Issue with people sitting on so much value (in "real" money, not stocks from creation of company/etc) is that they don't spend nearly as much as they have.
    And movement of money keeps economy running. investment is important, but $1000 going through a local economy 2,3,4,5+ times is much more useful than an extra $1000 sitting in a bank account of millions.
    This. The amount of money in the coffers of the richest people caused an artificial deflation, which limits investment, which forces banks to try to squeeze the last drop of income (instead of funding actual investment, they engage in microsecond arbitrage, which are polar opposites in terms of expected time of return on investment).

    Less an issue of people having tons of net worth, and more an issue of them sitting on to much net worth.
    And this is often not so simple. Typically, most of that money is in stocks. Rich people don't usually have huge vaults filled with gold coins like Scrooge McDuck had.
    If they tried to sell all their stock in one go, it would cause a market crash in an instant.

    Sadly, there seems to be no better solution for most people with this kind of money to be moved more than higher tax rates.
    The problem with higher tax rates is that you have no right to force all countries to tax rich people evenly. Suppose you have six countries. Industrialized A, B and C, and island countries J, K and L.
    There are 600 billionaires in this world. 200 live in A, 200 in B, 200 in C.
    A, B and C tax them at 25%. J, K and L would tax them at 20%. But there are some advantages of living in A-C that makes up for the difference.
    However, country A decided it wants to take a piece of their pie and taxes them at 75%. 150 A-cans now move equally to J, K and L, and the other 50 move to B and C. Instead of having zero income from rich people, J, K and L now each have income from 50 rich people. A decides to lower taxes because it failed to get them any money. None of the rich A-cans moves back.
    B wants a shot, which causes 210 rich people to move to J, K and L, and 15 people try their luck and move to C. B withdraws from the 75% tax, nobody trusts them anymore. C starts mentioning it wants to take a look at taxes. All their 240 rich people move to J, K and L.
    After trying to extract money from the rich people, A, B and C realize that there is nobody left paying taxes on their billions. Instead, the island countries J, K and L now have rich citizens who cost them nothing to acquire, and even with their modest 20% rate, they still enjoy immense contribution to their budgets.
    The problem trying to pull this off today is because it is extremely easy to move and there are places which won't ask any questions if you put a sufficiently high pile of money on the table.

    There are few people like Elon musk who take a fortune and put nearly all of it into building companies paying suppliers, workers, etc.
    Yes. None of them successful, but the spending alone makes it worthwhile. Shame that he will run out of his billions before he starts making a profit on any of his recent failed businesses.

    And sometime with companies, such as Apple, it is due to feeling like there is to high a tax rate. Which complicates the manner. Although I think Apple would just buyback more shares and increase divisors more if it gets it's money into the USA.
    Quite true. This is the reason why corporations should operate under zero tax, but they should be forbidden from making profit higher than 5% of their revenue (which rolls into next year, so they need to spend that extra money).
    Companies should be forced to issue bonds instead of shares in order to raise money. If issuing shares, the company should be forced to buy back shares from stockholders and to pay dividend to stockholders if they are not interested in a buyback.
    These three are something that would heal the economy overnight.
    There are two types of people: Those who make backups and those who will.

    Opinions presented in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way
    Posts
    3,533
    Quote Originally Posted by toughluck View Post
    This actually works. All American sports associations have player salary caps to prevent the best players from moving to a single franchise, and to allow the smallest franchises to acquire a few very good players to be able to compete.
    That is why I mentioned salary caps instead of wealth caps.
    The American sports associations are not successful on a global level.
    Take for example Premier League in England and you'll see that in comparison there is almost nothing in the States. No one cares about US' soccer.

    You can't put a salary cap - if you are a very rich employer, you should pay accordingly, if you don't, your employees will leave anyways. They have where to go...

    I was speaking about budget spending cap, not about players' salaries caps...

    EDIT: Yes, this is a contradiction which shows that the system is not ideal:

    Choice 1: Salary 10 000$/month at an employer who makes 100 mln $ per year
    Choice 2: Salary 10 000$/month at an employer who makes 1 mln $ per year

    Where will you go and why?

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way
    Posts
    3,533
    You should avoid all types of cartels/kartells which (illegally) fix at similar level salaries or prices without logic.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,898
    toughluck makes an excellent point about corporation or company taxes. I just don't understand the justification for them, or disproportionate business property rates, at all.

    Business and enterprise and manufacturing is the one and only goose that lays the golden eggs, and generates huge income tax and sales tax for the state. Business creates wealth and goods. The rest of us then spend it!

    Why should you be taxed for setting up a business in your garage or front room? You still pay income taxes, sales taxes and a tax on any dubious benefits in kind you might award yourself like a vehicle. In fact it was the model for home spinning by women in the Black Country (A rather grubby coal mining district for the men...) of the English Midlands in years gone by.

    The realistic alternatives for women were prostitution and domestic service at this Victorian time. Neither a great prospect.

    I'm all for Eisenhower's advice, that the electorate should keep itself well-informed and alert to what Governments actually do, and whether they serve us. We have to hold them to account. We should have a historical perspective.

    I wanted to talk about the logical contradictions and flaws of shallow slogans like the hopeless Jacobin: "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" and the limited US: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". But I must stop here, for brevity. We'll get back to them.

    OH, BTW, GeorgiD, soccer is a sideline in the US, because they have a much better game called NFL Football, and a reasonable alternative to Cricket called Baseball. You gotta watch them to get it.
    Best Regards from Steve in Portsmouth, UK.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux