higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFABLACKBELT Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Except the top 2% pays over half of federal > > taxes… > > > > I’m not saying they shouldn’t pay more, but > simply > > saying that they pay “so little” is > misinformation > > at best. > > > Wouldn’t it be “funny” if the top 2% decided to > just buy their own country somewhere and leave the > remaining 305 MM of us to all our great government > services funded by 1/2 the tax receipts? Things > would be so much better for us poor people then. > Most certainly. They can go ahead and try that and see how long they last with out getting ‘taxed’ in a much more unpleasant way.
bodhisattva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Wouldn’t it be “funny” if the top 2% decided to > > just buy their own country somewhere and leave > the > > remaining 305 MM of us to all our great > government > > services funded by 1/2 the tax receipts? > Things > > would be so much better for us poor people then. > > > Most certainly. > > > They can go ahead and try that and see how long > they last with out getting ‘taxed’ in a much more > unpleasant way. Obviously it’s not going to happen, but us “poor” folks need to stop whining about how unfair the tax system is because we would be screwed without the hated “rich” folks. If you think about it though, the “rich” folks could set themselves up with a pretty nice gig: The 6 million richest folks in the US leave and start their own country, let’s call it Richland. Population 6 million. They can agree to an annual flat tax of $50,000 per person, far lower than they are paying now. That will result in gross tax receipts of $300 billion per year. That’s peanuts compared to the US, but here’s a list of countries with annual nominal GDP in that general neighborhood or slightly less: Thailand, Greece, Denmark, Venezuela, Columbia, UAE, Finland, Hong Kong, Portugal. Tax receipts in those countries are obviously far below GDP, so Richland would have oodles of money to work with and a significantly smaller population than most of the countries listed. Denmark and Hong Kong have similar population sizes, and standard of living seems to be pretty good in both places. Denmark’s taxes are about 50% of GDP and Hong Kong’s are about 30%. So, Denmark does a pretty good job with $150 billion and Hong Kong does a pretty good job with $125 billion. Richland could take its “surplus” tax receipts and fund the 2nd largest military in the world.
Though, presumably, that military would consist entirely of mercenaries and play-generals.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Though, presumably, that military would consist > entirely of mercenaries and play-generals. Nothing wrong with that. Imagine what Blackwater (now Xe) could do with $100 billion at its disposal. It’s not like Richland is going to attack other countries.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- If you think about it > though, the “rich” folks could set themselves up > with a pretty nice gig: > > The 6 million richest folks in the US leave and > start their own country, let’s call it Richland. > Population 6 million. They can agree to an annual > flat tax of $50,000 per person, far lower than > they are paying now. That will result in gross > tax receipts of $300 billion per year. That’s > peanuts compared to the US, but here’s a list of > countries with annual nominal GDP in that general > neighborhood or slightly less: Thailand, Greece, > Denmark, Venezuela, Columbia, UAE, Finland, Hong > Kong, Portugal. Tax receipts in those countries > are obviously far below GDP, so Richland would > have oodles of money to work with and a > significantly smaller population than most of the > countries listed. Denmark and Hong Kong have > similar population sizes, and standard of living > seems to be pretty good in both places. Denmark’s > taxes are about 50% of GDP and Hong Kong’s are > about 30%. So, Denmark does a pretty good job > with $150 billion and Hong Kong does a pretty good > job with $125 billion. Richland could take its > “surplus” tax receipts and fund the 2nd largest > military in the world. I like the thought behind this idea, although I wouldn’t qualify to be a Richland resident. The fatal flaw I find with this is the idea of infrastructure and that Richland would be starting with absolutely none of it. It has taken the US over 200 years to progress to where we are today.
BValGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I like the thought behind this idea, although I > wouldn’t qualify to be a Richland resident. The > fatal flaw I find with this is the idea of > infrastructure and that Richland would be starting > with absolutely none of it. It has taken the US > over 200 years to progress to where we are today. I wouldn’t qualify either, so I’d be screwed along with all the other “poor” people if this actually happened (which obviously it won’t), but $300 billion per year buys a lot of infrastructure. It’s not like they’d need extensive infrastructure anyway. We’re only talking 6 million people and they’re not going to have heavy industry. Corporations would probably fall all over themselves to build the infrastructure for free for Richland residents so they could set up shop in Richland. What company wouldn’t want that semi-captive customer base?
Well, there are lots of practical challenges with this concept. First of all, where would this Richland be located? It’s not like there is a bunch of unclaimed beach front property somewhere where these rich people would want to move. Plus, who would clean the toilets? Plus, the income that rich people make in countries like the US is based on societal context. For instance, if I am the CEO of a big company, I am rich because I am able to exert leadership over many less rich people. If I move to a different country (and presumably, separate myself from these workers), I will no longer be able to leverage my position into income. However, higgmond and others, I do appreciate the greater point that you are making regarding tax receipts from the rich.
Rich people need poor people to make them appreciate the fact they are rich. Who would have the biggest home in the neighbourhood? And who would do the menial jobs? And where would they live? Nice idea though, needs some more thuhinking.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The 6 million richest folks in the US leave and > start their own country, let’s call it Richland. > Population 6 million. They can agree to an annual > flat tax of $50,000 per person, far lower than > they are paying now. That will result in gross > tax receipts of $300 billion per year. That’s > peanuts compared to the US, but here’s a list of > countries with annual nominal GDP in that general > neighborhood or slightly less: Thailand, Greece, > Denmark, Venezuela, Columbia, UAE, Finland, Hong > Kong, Portugal. Tax receipts in those countries > are obviously far below GDP, so Richland would > have oodles of money to work with and a > significantly smaller population than most of the > countries listed. Denmark and Hong Kong have > similar population sizes, and standard of living > seems to be pretty good in both places. Denmark’s > taxes are about 50% of GDP and Hong Kong’s are > about 30%. So, Denmark does a pretty good job > with $150 billion and Hong Kong does a pretty good > job with $125 billion. Richland could take its > “surplus” tax receipts and fund the 2nd largest > military in the world. Who would build the infrastructure? Those people would have to move there at least temporarily. Then who would collect garbage, repair streets, serve in the military, waiter at the restaurants and man the gas stations. Who would be the nurses, etc? Those people would all need to live in Richland. In turn those people would require goods and services to survive. Inevitably you’d end up with just another country. Look, I see both sides I guess. I don’t like that the middle class is being squeezed out, but I don’t think people have a “right” to continue taking from those who have been successful financially just because they share the same arbitrarily defined geographic region. There’s obviously a balance and that balance is going to require a compromise, and a compromise means that both sides will be simultaneously right and wrong to some degree. And by our nature of focusing on inequalities and things we disagree with, we will thus all be unhappy with whatever compromise is struck. People keep focusing on the diminishing middle class and pointing back to more equal eras of the early to mid 1900’s, although in truth there was still some level of disparity there as well. The fact is that the trend has been ongoing since mass production first began and will continue regardless of how hard we try to stop it. It is driven by fundamentals and as a result, the current world of higher disparity and past examples are not fundamentally equivalent environments. As mass production becomes increasingly potent, markets widen (globalize) and digitalization continues to streamline data flow, the natural structure of the world will become increasingly non-normal in its distribution. It happened with small town musicians in the early 1900’s as the recording industry blossomed, it happened with shop keepers as logistics improved allowing national mega stores and later the internets to penetrate vast swathes of consumer markets and it’s happening within firms as streamlined reporting and information flow reduce the need for middle management and allowed for larger firms with more efficiently scaled management. It has even driven a similar effect in professional sports as the distribution has become increasingly of pay / ad deals / fan base has become increasingly winner takes all. With fewer teams serving broader markets where in the early century many teams served local markets and players were payed modest salaries as media had not advanced to a stage where it could supplant actual attendance. Our increasing willingness to pass by tangible social experiences for a more removed digital interaction (like this forum) is also playing a role in some of that as well. The bottom line is, all of these factors have allowed fewer high payed / highly talented execs to manage larger scales of operations with fewer middle management (middle class) and have evolved a more disparate tournament pay scale. This trend is not prepared to stop, no matter how loudly middle class like myself voice our outrage. My advice to myself and others is simply to recognize the trend and strive to get the heck out of the middle class like it’s the Titanic. Because what we have now, is likely not to persist indefinitely.
Also, I don’t think equality for the sake of equality is intrinsically valuable. Even if there is less equality today than in the early 1900s, people overall are still better off, even in the recession. A large part of this is due to the US’s capitalist economy, which is inherently unequal.
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, I don’t think equality for the sake of > equality is intrinsically valuable. Even if there > is less equality today than in the early 1900s, > people overall are still better off, even in the > recession. A large part of this is due to the US’s > capitalist economy, which is inherently unequal. Yep, it’s always important to keep in mind the balance between relative comparison “middle class” and absolute comparison to nearly every other period in history or most other geographic locales.
What I mourn is the death of community moreso than the death of middle class. When I hear of the community environment my parents were raised in, or visit cultures like Mexico where the town square is filled at night with people of all ages coming together, I’m reminded of what we lost.
@Ohai, it all depends how you define “better off”. I think we’re loosing the ability to appropriately value non-monetary benefits…i.e., work-life balance, decreased suicide rates, a sense of community, national unity, community service…there’s more to life than money. Wealth != quality of life. There are people in villages in the Philippines who have a better quality of life than Paris Hilton, Donald Trump, or Tiger Woods. You have to ask yourself, why are so many rich people you meet depressed?
I think this is the next frontier in the financial advising… Scenario: Yes client X, you’ll make better returns putting those proceeds from your property sale in commodity index but you’ll be more fulfilled, happier setting up a foundation to help fight malaria in Panama. I know this may not be standard OP for a finance person but just remember, they laughed at behavioral finance.
Wait, who said rich people are depressed? Most rich people I know seem pretty happy. My uncle, for instance, made millions of dollars in the tech boom and retired in his 30s. He seems pretty darn happy to me. He also has great work-life balance, given that he does not need to work. Media celebrities don’t count.
Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think this is the next frontier in the financial > advising… > > Scenario: Yes client X, you’ll make better returns > putting those proceeds from your property sale in > commodity index but you’ll be more fulfilled, > happier setting up a foundation to help fight > malaria in Panama. > > I know this may not be standard OP for a finance > person but just remember, they laughed at > behavioral finance. There is already a growing segment of financial advising dealing with this area. It is called life planning. Here is an example: http://www.kinderinstitute.com/consumer.html
I’m currently in negotiations with the Obama administration, the Govt. of Haiti, and the Govt. of the Domincan Republic. There are a few details to workout, but the general structure is this: The US Govt. agrees to move all current residents of Haiti to the San Francisco Metropolitan Area, many of whom will be granted pieces of some of Nancy Pelosi’s vast real estate holdings (including the vineyard). The US military will then bomb Haiti flat at the request of the current Haitian Govt. (at US taxpayer expense, of course). The Haitian Govt. will then sell Haiti to me, on behalf of the future residents of Richland, for $30 billion. Payment to be made in 3 equal annual installments. I, as interim Prime Minister of Richland, will then sue the US Govt. for bombing the crap out of my country. The Obama adminstration has agreed in advance to settle the lawsuit by rebuilding Haiti’s infrastructure to my specifications (at US taxpayer expense, of course). The Dominican Govt. has agreed to enter into a services agreement with the Govt. of Richland to provide staffing for all services not involving law enforcement or military operations at an annual cost of $50 billion. All non-domestic staff will continue to reside in the Domincan Republic and will commute into Richland on a daily basis on the nationwide highspeed rail system kindly constructed by the US Govt. (at US taxpayer expense, of course). All law enforcement and military services will be provided by Xe (formerly Blackwater) for an annual fee of $150 billion. As a friendly neighbor, we will provide military protection to the Dominican Republic for no charge.
Dude, your system is basically Apartheid.
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dude, your system is basically Apartheid. Which part, the services agreement with the Dominican Republic? It instantly doubles the country’s GDP and provides them with the protection of what will be the world’s 2nd largest military (probably the best equipped). No one in the DR will be forced to work in Richland. The only people who lose are the owners of resorts in DR because the will lose their best employees to better paying jobs in Richland.
Muddahudda Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who would have the biggest home in the neighbourhood? the person with the b!tch!est wife > And who would do the menial jobs? monkeys, dolphins and robots - the smartest animals known to man > And where would they live? in the clouds, under the sea, on a man-made island shaped like incredible. doesn’t really matter - just has to sound cool.