Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

I think the redistribution/inequality issue is going to be a lot more complex than that older framework in which we debate whether Washington handouts should go to people or multinationals. Whatever your values about fair shares and all that, Google's disclosed in SEC filings that its global effective rate of taxation is 6%. Starbucks loopholed away all corporate taxes in the UK for something like six years. This stuff is why Bernie went from fringe to main stage in the first place. It's coming. If only because of the combo of demographic changes and disclosure requirements.

[hack]

It's an easy answer for me. It's why I prefer the US to, say, Ethiopia where inequality is relatively minimal.
In almost every instance in human history, those with money have preferred a bigger slice of a smaller pie. That's what capitalism, as distinct from free markets, is all about. Get to the top of the mountain and, from that limited space there is on the peak, use your position to shoot down those still climbing. Every so often the climbers mass a real attack and shake up the foundation. It's a cycle, and the US isn't immune to it.

[iam416]

I have a hard time finding comparative fault with the world's largest producer of wealth and single biggest contributor, by far, to the improved human condition worldwide.

But that's me. I don't hate and vilify the 1% or whatever.

[Hannibal]

It's an easy answer for me. It's why I prefer the US to, say, Ethiopia where inequality is relatively minimal.
In almost every instance in human history, those with money have preferred a bigger slice of a smaller pie. That's what capitalism, as distinct from free markets, is all about. Get to the top of the mountain and, from that limited space there is on the peak, use your position to shoot down those still climbing.

That describes people like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffet.

[Wild Hoss]

Yeah, no. Seems to be plenty of wealth in the US. Per capita income is by far and away the highest among any country with a real population. The goods and services accessible to the poor are staggering.

I guess it's a question of measures -- "inequality" or "absolute wealth." Would your rather, e.g., have everyone making $10,000 or would your rather your poor folks making $15,000 and your richest folks making $1M?

It's an easy answer for me. It's why I prefer the US to, say, Ethiopia where inequality is relatively minimal.

Too simplistic of a scenario for me, albeit with the caveat that we are on a college football message board.

I think its about degrees. I think people who see their standard of living slipping below their parents’ get upset when they hear about people and companies making obscene amounts of money. That doesn’t mean they want a free house; maybe just a decent raise carved out of the millions that the admins of their company are paid, or are stashed in overseas accounts.

I don’t find that thinking to be morally reprehensible, but the definitions and solutions are murky at best.

[Hannibal]

Fox News is reporting that Mitt Romney is going to make a "major speech" tomorrow. There have been rumors for a while that the GOP Establishment was considering throwing Romney into the race.

[hack]

That describes people like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffet.

Those are four very different types of 1% ers. We've come up against this in the past, but an actual definition of entrepreneurialism would really help to differentiate between wealth creation and rent seeking. It definitely described Gates, who moved brutally from entrepreneur to rent seeker. If Zuckerberg hasn't crossed from entrepreneur to rent seeker he will soon. But Buffett's entire career has been in investing -- i.e., the art of using money to make more. Is that entrepreneurialism? I think that's a good question to pose to the supporters of economic orthodoxy today.

I don't understand how Soros fits at all. He climbed to the top of the mountain as a rent seeker, but if you want to carry on the analogy further instead of shooting down climbers he's not only held his fire on those below but is one of the very few trying to build more space for them at the peak. Soros is a key figure in the transparency movement. Is bankrolling large parts of it.

[iam416]

I think people who see their standard of living slipping below their parents? get upset when they hear about people and companies making obscene amounts of money.

And I wonder what what means by "standard of living" because, in nearly every way, 2015 is a higher standard of living than 1975. I assume you mean in terms of available jobs and, possibly, affordable housing -- though the latter only applies to those unwilling to move to cheap housing markets.

Yeah, I don't know in a policy sense whether that's actually true. I get that there is that feeling out there, but whether or not it's borne out by macro numbers is, IMO, dubious at best.

[hack]

I don't think it's dubious. The formally-defined middle class is shrinking. The graphs are all out there for us to heed or ignore. My question, if it's only about who gets government money and not about who funds government, is why this focus on entitlements to the poor when corporate welfare is such a bigger drain on resources? Let's not pretend the 1% created that wealth themselves. They are disproportionately bigger users of public infrastructure, but that's just one example.

[Wild Hoss]

And I wonder what what means by "standard of living" because, in nearly every way, 2015 is a higher standard of living than 1975. I assume you mean in terms of available jobs and, possibly, affordable housing -- though the latter only applies to those unwilling to move to cheap housing markets.

Yeah, I don't know in a policy sense whether that's actually true. I get that there is that feeling out there, but whether or not it's borne out by macro numbers is, IMO, dubious at best.

I think it?s a little bit more than housing, but rather total wealth. Savings/debt ratios are out of whack, which accounts for much of the standard increase you posit, IMO. The economy, and SOL, would look noticeably different if people saved as they should be. Many people are financing inflation to look as if they are moving ahead, IMO.

[Hannibal]

is why this focus on entitlements to the poor when corporate welfare is such a bigger drain on resources?

The country spends a trillion dollars a year on means-tested wealth redistribution programs. I'm not really sure where you are getting your numbers from that say that corporate "welfare" is bigger than that.

[Wild Hoss]

The country spends a trillion dollars a year on means-tested wealth redistribution programs. I'm not really sure where you are getting your numbers from that say that corporate "welfare" is bigger than that.

If you choose to include the military it probably is.

Regardless, this discussion point illustrates mine about wealth trickling downwards and upwards. But for decades the debate has focused soley on "Welfare Queens", both real and imagined.

[iam416]

I think it’s a little bit more than housing, but rather total wealth. Savings/debt ratios are out of whack, which accounts for much of the standard increase you posit, IMO. The economy, and SOL, would look noticeably different if people saved as they should be. Many people are financing inflation to look as if they are moving ahead, IMO.

Could be. I dunno. On its face things don't strike me as a standard of living decrease. And I suspect the numbers bear that out. I think the more complex the analysis the more it shows an increase in standard of living through, e.g., increased purchasing power. It's not a zero sum gain -- wealth can be and is created -- especially so in the US.

In any event, it's fair enough that we just part ways on the issue. Nothing wrong with that. It's not like you've turned into a Notre Dame fan or something.

[hack]

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43934

CBO says $588bn as of '12. Numbers are easy to mess around with. Definitions are loose.

[Hannibal]

$trillion includes state and local numbers as well.

Anyhow -- if somebody is angry that X Corp only pays an effective rate of 5% then I'd put that more into the category of "picking winners and losers" than "corporate welfare" since 5% > 0% and the stockholders are already paying taxes on dividends and capital gains. That makes me mad if I am a stockholder of corporation Y more than as a "rich vs. poor" thing.

I'm all for eliminating shitty loopholes but let me use this as an opportunity to remind everyone that these loopholes almost always trace their roots to either some form of social "justice" or the government attempting to engineer the economy. Everyy tax deduction has some good intentions associated with it at some point.