Raising Tariffs and supporting private unions in order to end Gun Violence

[panamaican]

I don't know that it works that way re: economic inequality. You'd have to have significant tariffs to address this issue in any measurable way.

The Scandinavian countries haven't resolved their issues primarily with economic policy but with stronger social welfare programs, more empowered unions and greater worker protections and higher taxes of course.

The problem with tariffs is that the impact on the producer is frequently passed on to the consumer thus creating the possibility that the gap between the top and the bottom doesn't change all that much. Less profit to the producer but greater cost to the consumer.

Unpleasant as it might seem, taxing the upper end of the income range and applying it to social programs is a more reliable way of reducing income inequality in an otherwise free trade environment.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing how that first part is an answer. Obviously agreed on the second part.




Sounds like you answered your own question.

It's generally taxed less because investment is good for everyone. Capitalism is built on people investing in profitable businesses. All taxing capital gains like income would do is decrease investment and slow the economy. I know people hate to hear this, but rich people have the upper-hand and nothing short of something like the french revolution will take it away from them, until the next cycle of income inequality develops that is.

 

[panamaican]

That's a fair point.

It's not a fair point in my opinion. It avoids what is a real issue when discussing capital gains.

Unless you're buying an IPO, most people aren't investing in the underlying corporations anymore. The investors are already in, everyone else is just trading speculated future value.

I think that is actually a discouragement from real investment in this country. Why invest in a real start up risk and get the tax benefit when you just spend 18 months in a random established company with little real risk but get the same tax benefit?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing how that first part is an answer. Obviously agreed on the second part.

I would rather avoid burdening middle class American's retirement plans by increasing the taxes on their capital gains. That's why I'd want to target the larger portfolios and leave the smaller ones untouched.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

It's not a fair point in my opinion. It avoids what is a real issue when discussing capital gains.

Unless you're buying an IPO, most people aren't investing in the underlying corporations anymore. The investors are already in, everyone else is just trading speculated future value.

I think that is actually a discouragement from real investment in this country. Why invest in a real start up risk and get the tax benefit when you just spend 18 months in a random established company with little real risk but get the same tax benefit?

So after an IPO all stocks would become trash.

 

[panamaican]

So after an IPO all stocks would become trash.

Not really, because the owners of the stock have an actual economic stake in the underlying corporation. It would change the way investors look at the value of a stock and what investment actually means. ROI, in this case, would return to requiring an actual return on the investment.

Dividend stocks are a decent example for this. Stockholders in a IPO might demand some sort of dividend payment on their investment. Stocks of those companies wouldn't be trash because you could actually calculate future value of the dividends and assign a value to the stock itself.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Not really, because the owners of the stock have an actual economic stake in the underlying corporation. It would change the way investors look at the value of a stock and what investment actually means. ROI, in this case, would return to requiring an actual return on the investment.

Dividend stocks are a decent example for this. Stockholders in a IPO might demand some sort of dividend payment on their investment. Stocks of those companies wouldn't be trash because you could actually calculate future value of the dividends and assign a value to the stock itself.

And who would buy their shares when they wanted to liquidate their assets? I sure as shit wouldn't want to buy them If I was going to get taxed 40% on the gains. I'd just stick my money in a bond and go to bed. Maybe there would be a few big players worth buying, but they would be few and far between.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

All taxing capital gains like income would do is decrease investment and slow the economy.

No it wouldn't. They gonna lose money by putting it under their mattress or in a savings account? If you're getting taxed it means you came out ahead.

I would rather avoid burdening middle class American's retirement plans by increasing the taxes on their capital gains. That's why I'd want to target the larger portfolios and leave the smaller ones untouched.

Who said middle class would receive an increase? We're talking progressive taxation. What numbers are you considering?

I'd note that taxing earned income at higher levels to make up for lower taxes on capital gains just means you've taken more from the middle class over the years (and based on your argument have left them in a precarious position).

 

[panamaican]

And who would buy their shares when they wanted to liquidate their assets? I sure as shit wouldn't want to buy them If I was going to get taxed 40% on the gains. I'd just stick my money in a bond and go to bed. Maybe there would be a few big players worth buying, but they would be few and far between.

Well, yes, that's the point. You would go and look for an actual investment, as opposed to looking for a speculative trade.

Beyond dividends, the original investors would get their money back through stock buybacks by the corporate founders who want to control more of the profits.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Well, yes, that's the point. You would go and look for an actual investment, as opposed to looking for a speculative trade.

Beyond dividends, the original investors would get their money back through stock buybacks by the corporate founders who want to control more of the profits.

So I'm guessing you're not a millionaire day trader. How would your 401k do with this plan?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Who said middle class would receive an increase? We're talking progressive taxation. What numbers are you considering?

I'd note that taxing earned income at higher levels to make up for lower taxes on capital gains just means you've taken more from the middle class over the years (and based on your argument have left them in a precarious position).

Like I said I'd agree on progressive taxation for capital gains but I think its an easier sell if you have a pretty generous bracket system that would narrowly target only the very largest of portfolios. I'm not going to lose sleep if people like you want to be a little less generous with the cut off as long as its generally progressive and focuses on taxing the upper class and not the middle class.

 

[panamaican]

So I'm guessing you're not a millionaire day trader. How would your 401k do with this plan?

Oh, I thought this was a question about how to actually reduce income inequality as opposed to a question about how to keep things exactly the same where middle class people point to middling 401(k) returns as proof of some sort of success?

Me personally? I'd ask my broker to move the funds in my trust into dividend stocks. In truth, I've long argued that my family should transition into acquiring actual small businesses, although the current model is far easier to manage.

The changes I proposed would certainly not help me. But I didn't propose them with my personal gain in mind. I proposed them with the overall national health in mind. I vote GOP because the current model helps me and my family. But as long as people with mid-6 figure (and lower) retirement nest eggs advocate for policies as if they are 7 figure (and higher) retirees they will remain blind to how those policies don't actually bridge the gap between them and the truly wealthy.

Middle class people do not need the same retirement strategy as actual rich people.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

The problem with tariffs is that the impact on the producer is frequently passed on to the consumer thus creating the possibility that the gap between the top and the bottom doesn't change all that much. Less profit to the producer but greater cost to the consumer.

Unpleasant as it might seem, taxing the upper end of the income range and applying it to social programs is a more reliable way of reducing income inequality in an otherwise free trade environment.

Producers want to make more and more money anyways. There is nothing to stop them from raising prices, and the more they consolidate, they more they can get away with prices increases. The only thing to stop that is a large pool of competitors, and rules against them forming a cartel.

Producers passing on costs cannot be a reason against tariffs. Producers want to find costs to pass on anyways. Instead, you have to look at other angles when you do increase tariffs or something. Every new barrier, or regulation government sets up with have some negatives, and positives. So they always have to make more than one adjustment.

If the upper classes are taxed more, won't they just pass that on to consumers too?

 

[MadSquabbles500]

I am fleshing out a theory right now. Jordan Peterson argues that the biggest determinatior of violence in a society is economic inequality. This is measured by something called the Gini Coefficent. Read more about it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Based on this model, it explains why Scandavian countries with less restrictive gun laws have far less violence than England and France that have more restrictive gun laws yet they are all in Europe. Why England has far more income inequality that Norway and Denmark.



@Trotsky one of our most liberal posters agrees with him.
Correct me if I am wrong but tarrifs tend to make it more expensive to produce goods overseas. Thus, it incentives having those jobs in the U.S. Adam Smith himself was a proponent of tariffs.
Why because it helps the workers in developed countries compete with third world countries that can pay their workers 10 cents an hour due to many factors including a lack of labor laws.

On the other hand it makes the very rich less rich because this cuts into their bottom line.

So assuming trickle down economic is not true and the rich tend to amass wealth rather than let it trickle down to the working class, tarriffs are a good thing for the working class. Isn't true that the working class will have more work and the rich will take a hit?
If so and assuming Jordan Peterson is right along with Trotsky isn't imposing tarrifs a way to end gun violence? Thus, Donald Trump's trade policy is actually solving the problem of gun violence with out taking a single gun If so shouldn't this added benefit to Trump's trade be part of the conversation when discussing whether Trump raising tarrifs on China is a good idea? Discuss

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ing-through-on-threat-to-impose-china-tariffs

How do the unions factor in?

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Oh, I thought this was a question about how to actually reduce income inequality as opposed to a question about how to keep things exactly the same where middle class people point to middling 401(k) returns as proof of some sort of success?

Me personally? I'd ask my broker to move the funds in my trust into dividend stocks. In truth, I've long argued that my family should transition into acquiring actual small businesses, although the current model is far easier to manage.

The changes I proposed would certainly not help me. But I didn't propose them with my personal gain in mind. I proposed them with the overall national health in mind. I vote GOP because the current model helps me and my family. But as long as people with mid-6 figure (and lower) retirement nest eggs advocate for policies as if they are 7 figure (and higher) retirees they will remain blind to how those policies don't actually bridge the gap between them and the truly wealthy.

Middle class people do not need the same retirement strategy as actual rich people.

The only way to get to 7 figures is have a valuable talent(maybe we should add in marketable talent) or get stupid lucky. I honestly believe if we tax capital gains at income rates it would completely stifle the economy. I don't believe you would actually invest in local businesses. FAR too risky. Something like 80% of businesses fail. You're putting your long term savings on that?!

 

[panamaican]

Producers want to make more and more money anyways. There is nothing to stop them from raising prices, and the more they consolidate, they more they can get away with prices increases. The only thing to stop that is a large pool of competitors, and rules against them forming a cartel.

Producers passing on costs cannot be a reason against tariffs. Producers want to find costs to pass on anyways. Instead, you have to look at other angles when you do increase tariffs or something. Every new barrier, or regulation government sets up with have some negatives, and positives. So they always have to make more than one adjustment.

If the upper classes are taxed more, won't they just pass that on to consumers too?

I didn't present any of this as an argument against tariffs. I presented it as an argument against tariffs reducing income inequality.

Tariffs are on the corporation, income taxes are the individuals. So while a manufacturer can pass on the individual tariffs on a per item basis, passing on your income taxes to the consumer is only a real option if you're actually a producer of something.

 

[panamaican]

The only way to get to 7 figures is have a valuable talent(maybe we should add in marketable talent) or get stupid lucky. I honestly believe if we tax capital gains at income rates it would completely stifle the economy. I don't believe you would actually invest in local businesses. FAR too risky. Something like 80% of businesses fail. You're putting your long term savings on that?!

It would not stifle the economy. If you say that, you don't understand the difference between the stocks you buy via trade vs. the stock you buy in an IPO and which one is an actual capital investment.

As for me, I would invest invest in local businesses (early in my legal career, I aggressively looked for and worked to acquire them with mixed success). I have no interest in buying young companies (although I have built a few for clients). This is a subject that has fascinated me for years and I think more people need to be informed here.

Let me break this down, when you buy a stock you are buying partial ownership in a business, just like any local business except for scale and that your co-owners might be on the other side of the country. In every other way, the underlying economic principles are exactly the same. The same rigorous financial analysis that top traders are doing is the same analysis that applies to buying a local McDonald's franchise.

And just like stocks on the index, you can either invest in a start up or buy an established venture. The market for established businesses is actually pretty large and if you have the interest and knowledge, you can amass a portfolio of small businesses that is more lucrative than your 401(k) in terms of annual cash returns.

This is exactly what is happening with people who get into the flipping business. They are just running a low level real estate development company instead of investing in a high level REIT. They just don't realize that it's the same principles in play.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

It would not stifle the economy. If you say that, you don't understand the difference between the stocks you buy via trade vs. the stock you buy in an IPO and which one is an actual capital investment.

As for me, I would invest invest in local businesses (early in my legal career, I aggressively looked for and worked to acquire them with mixed success). I have no interest in buying young companies (although I have built a few for clients). This is a subject that has fascinated me for years and I think more people need to be informed here.

Let me break this down, when you buy a stock you are buying partial ownership in a business, just like any local business except for scale and that your co-owners might be on the other side of the country. In every other way, the underlying economic principles are exactly the same. The same rigorous financial analysis that top traders are doing is the same analysis that applies to buying a local McDonald's franchise.

And just like stocks on the index, you can either invest in a start up or buy an established venture. The market for established businesses is actually pretty large and if you have the interest and knowledge, you can amass a portfolio of small businesses that is more lucrative than your 401(k) in terms of annual cash returns.

This is exactly what is happening with people who get into the flipping business. They are just running a low level real estate development company instead of investing in a high level REIT. They just don't realize that it's the same principles in play.

OK So you invested in this great start up and you want to eventually cash out. Unless you cash out early who wants to pay income rates on that shit, nobody who can afford to invest. Guess what because less people want it, it's actually worth less. It literally devalues all companies except for unicorn startups that completely change the world.

 

[panamaican]

OK So you invested in this great start up and you want to eventually cash out. Unless you cash out early who wants to pay income rates on that shit, nobody who can afford to invest. Guess what because less people want it, it's actually worth less. It literally devalues all companies except for unicorn startups that completely change the world.

I explained this previously. Investing in actual new companies should still get capital gains benefits. Just trading stocks between individuals should not.

People who invest in actual new companies cash out in numerous ways. Because there's no secondary market for the stocks, investors will look for more measurable ways to recoup their investments. The common methods are:

1) Share of profits.
2) Stock buybacks by the other shareholders.

So, the stock price ends up more closely tied to the actual cash flow that it generates for the shareholders.

Forgive me for speculating but I'm guessing that you don't have a finance or business background? The entire point of what I'm describing is that it incentivizes investors to seek out new companies to invest in, instead of trading stocks for established corporations on the secondary market.

Your repeated response is about stock value on the secondary market which makes me wonder if you're not understanding that I'm specifically weakening the secondary market to encourage more investment in the primary market.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Like I said I'd agree on progressive taxation for capital gains but I think its an easier sell if you have a pretty generous bracket system that would narrowly target only the very largest of portfolios. I'm not going to lose sleep if people like you...

Not sure what you're reading that inspired this, so here's from my first post in this thread.

I'm all for reducing income inequality by taxing the shit out of people making tens of millions or more per year.

You're the guy (seemingly) insisting the middle class is gonna get fucked merely by virtue of changing capital gains taxation and I'm the guy asking you how. I'm confused as to what you think is going on here.

Ps. There aren't people "like me". I'm a snowflake, so go fuck yourself.