Stock buybacks also increase stock prices, and a lot of companies are doing it lately.
903 karma · joined February 1, 2022
Honest question: if you truly believe that, how do you account for the infrastructure required to mine it in a post-apocalyptic society? How do you guys envision a post-apocalyptic world where BTC is even remotely viable?
Perhaps making a highly unstable, speculative cryptocurrency legal tender is a bad move then.
It's not that clear. For example, the vast majority of money supply during the COVID crisis went straight into the financial system. The relationship to inflation is diffuse, but it's still there, as now huge companies can borrow at close to zero interest and depending on supply, this will create inflation. Also, in Europe the progressive taxation basically does what I just told you, there is enormous support for the poorest and they have a functional society with manageable inflation.
Regardless, my main point was that 115B per year going to the poorest, be it directly or indirectly (healthcare, social services, etc.) is a significant amount of money.
I just sourced an income distribution based on percentiles, you can do the same with wealth.
> The poorest 10 million Americans likely pay a negative tax rate already (as they should). But you're right—it would. But only for one year—so that's not sustainable.
If in one year less than 100 people were mildly inconvenienced to generate a major windfall and make a significant difference for 10 million people, that's already a good outcome. We could do it every year for decades and the top 100 richest people would still have billions.
> Then what do we do once it's been depleted and we've gotten used to it? That would be a big tax gap that would have to come from...you and me. Is that what you want?
I have some news for you: it's already coming from you and me. I pay over 40% of my income in taxes that I cannot escape from. The system has no loopholes for people like me, and that's fine actually, I want to contribute to society. However, it boils my blood when people think that because taxing the rich is too complicated, too harsh or - seriously? - would get us addicted on easy money, that those are reasons not to do it.
> What is "enough"?
I think we should find every way we can to tax wealthy individuals in the same scale that high-income employees are taxed.
How about most of Europe and Latin America?
It is hard to define what "left" means nowadays but it is telling that you believe the "size of the government", as defined by mostly military spending, can consist as a checkbox for being part of the left.
> I have created a list of the 61 richest Americans. Their combined net worth is $2.3T. Last year the feds spent $6.8T against revenue of $3.8T and a deficit of $3.0T. If the feds had successfully taken every penny from them they would still have run a deficit last year.
Why cut-off at the 61 richest, and not the 10,000 richest? It's also ridiculous to assume we either have to cover the entire deficit, or not tax them at all. This fallacy pops up throughout other parts as well, like here:
> These fortunes took decades to build and will take decades to replenish. So what happens if you tap it slowly with a 5% wealth tax? You raise 115B. This is not even 4% of the deficit.
115B is a ton of money. If directly distributed to the poorest 10 million Americans, that would more than double their income [1]. Comparing it to a huge figure like the deficit (which is artificially high due to war and COVID) is disingenious.
[1] https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percen...
> Finally—I would like to point out that we already have a wealth tax. It is paid by most, not just the rich. And in many states and municipalities it does indeed approach Elizabeth Warren’s proposed 2%. It represents 12% of the taxes raised. We call it “property tax”.
This is precisely the problem. Property tax is not enough, and it is not progressive.
To be clear, taxing the rich is both an economic and a moral necessity. If we "deplete" the wealth of billionaires after a few years, then so be it. Only fools and billionaires should think this outcome is something to worry about.
> On that question, the science changed dramatically in the period leading up to 2015. Science proved in the late 1990s that same-sex conduct was not a choice to reject conformity, but was rooted in biology. And in the early 2000s there was the first research showing that same-sex couples were living in committed relationships, raising children, etc. You'll notice that Kennedy spends a lot of time talking about these facts in his opinion--because those facts are critical to showing that same-sex relationships can be called "marriage" as historically understood.
Homosexual "marriages" have existed since Antiquity. And marriages do not necessarily have to lead to children, otherwise old people would be restricted from marrying. I think it is obvious that this decision is a result of the fast change in the zeitgeist rather than a careful evaluation of evidence, no matter what the Justices or their clerks deemed fit to write in their decisions.
You are right about this point, upon further reading I see that I based my question on social media bullshit that turned out to be biased. I agree with your distinction.
Regarding the rest, I think you still don't quite grasp my point. I understand there can be a technical way of looking at these decisions. I can also concede that Roe is particularly hated by most scholars. But if we both agree that politics is why these technical aspects were overlooked for 50 years, it seems absolutely pointless to discuss this issue from any other standpoint. Political interference is why this decision was made in the first place, because as another user stated, it fit into the more libertarian ideology of the Court at that time. And politics is why it's getting struck down, technical aspects notwithstanding. You can of course disagree, as I think you do, but from my perspective the political aspect is much more interesting and a more powerful predictor than anything else.
How do you account for the fact that the Court has not revised Roe v Wade in the last 50 years if it all rests on a correct interpretation of the Constitution, which has obviously not changed?
Again, this dichotomy only arises if you subscribe to the view that any decision from the Court is purely technical in the first place. If you think it has been maintained for 50 years because of its political impact, I don't see any reason to discuss the technical aspects at all, as they are irrelevant. What we should be asking is what changed in politics recently, what caused it, and where it is going to take us.
Each political side can always find legal experts and reasonable arguments to justify changing a decision they dislike. Some stones are best left unturned, as there are costs for the Court to act like this. I predict a ton of judicial uncertainty, a weakening of the SCOTUS and eventually radical solutions like court packing.
> I find it unfair to the point of outright incivility though to escalate a debate about the fairness of it the level of calling the appointment _illegitimate_, and is disrespectful to a fine and honorable institution.
A fine and honorable institution which has upheld slavery, segregation, imprisonment camps, and the list goes on. The SCOTUS is not above criticism, and change can only occur if we treat them for what they are, servants of the people.