Again,people often make this sound simpler than it actually is. I don't like paying taxes,nobody does. I'm also not stupid enough to deny that even though my income is higher than national average,I'm most likely getting more in return than I contribute. I'm also strongly against any tiered tax model,where you pay more if you earn more.There are some freeriders out there but the majority did put extreme amounts of energy to get to the point where they can make lots of money and that can't be said about everyone. If extra money to be raised from additional taxes,it shouldn't go towards F-35s, carrier ships or some other shit but rather towards education, some element of risk acceptance towards encouraging people to start business,create and etc. However, until we continue having people who vote based on show values rather than merit and not ensuring the elected once doing what promises, there's no chances of changing any of this.
There are some freeriders out there but the majority did put extreme amounts of energy to get to the point where they can make lots of money and that can't be said about everyone.
Did Jeff Bezos put in a million times as much effort as a typical minimum wage worker?
The reason why it's fair to make Jeff pay way more taxes than the average person is because he benefits way more from public services than the average person. Where would Amazon be without public roads, electricity, or water services?
You can perform this exercise with any big company. The idea that an entrepreneur builds a billion dollar business entirely on their own and so they deserve all of the wealth produced is the most pernicious idea in our societies today. Unfortunately, as the Monopoly study showed [1], this idea may be universal to humans who obtain an advantage.
> Did Jeff Bezos put in a million times as much effort as a typical minimum wage worker?
No, but he did make a million times more risky bet than the typical minimum wage worker. He quit a lucrative job at a financial company to start a company where he owned 100% of nothing and he has held onto that stock for 23 years. Common financial wisdom is to diversify your investments but instead, he took a massive pay decrease to start a company in the hopes that the stock would one day pay off, then held onto the stock of his company and led it to the massive valuation it currently has. He could have cashed out at any time but he didn't because our system rewards those who take risks/keep investing.
If you massively taxed outsized earnings and/or capped it, he probably would have never even started the company because why would you take the extreme risk of doing a startup when most of them fail? He probably would have just stayed at the financial company and if he did do the startup, then he probably would have cashed out when the taxes/cap got too large and retired instead of working to continuously increase the company's value which increases everyone's standard of living.
A million times more risky bet? By what measure? The risk to his livelyhood? His savings? That kind of hyperbole might help your argument, but I think it's wrong in a few regards. If he came from a lucrative job in the finance industry that means that he had a position to fall back on if it didn't work out, he would have had plenty of capital to bankroll his business without hefty, high-interest loans. His interest on those loans would almost definitely be lower because he is less risk to the lender. He would also have had connections in the business lending industry but I think that is getting too specific for my argument.
Compare this to someone who has a background in retail or a warehouse worker, the personal and financial risk of starting a business is arguably higher. In order to accrue the savings to start their business they would have to work far more hours, and if it doesn't work out they may never have the opportunity to try again. They have less job security if the business fails. They have less savings, and may completely deplete their savings and incur a large debt if it doesn't work out.
I'm not saying that Jeff Bezos didn't earn some of his keep, or that Amazon doesn't provide a lot of service, but I would say the risk vs reward of his business is atronomical compared to the average business startup. The entire idea that he took a risker bet starting a business than a minimum wage worker is, I think, totally wrong, it's utterly ridiculous, and lacks any perspective on what minimum wage workers have to stress about.
Exactly, we should just be upfront when we say that his success is due to both luck and hard work. Hard work is a given, and many people do that. But to really succeed you need a good dose of luck as well, and luck is not something you "work" for
If you massively taxed outsized earnings and/or capped it, he probably would have never even started the company because why would you take the extreme risk of doing a startup when most of them fail?
What is the marginal utility of another billion dollars to someone who is already a billionaire? What motivates Jeff to get out of bed in the morning?
The answer: winning.
Guys like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are the business equivalent of professional athletes. The money they continue to make is only a trophy at this point. To them, the real prize is to enter new markets and succeed, challenging and disrupting the status quo.
> No, but he did make a million times more risky bet than the typical minimum wage worker.
He took a risk in absolute monetary terms perhaps, but not risk in terms of consequence. Having spent a few years being relatively high up in DE Shaw, the worst that might have happened to him if his business failed is that he'd move to a smaller house.
Contrast that situation with someone who might struggle to make rent if their business failed, and tell me who's really taking the bigger risk.
How would he not? Are you really arguing that someone with D.E. Shaw and Princeton on his resume would be in the same position as, in your words, a "typical minimum wage worker"?
Even ignoring the signaling value of D.E. Shaw and Princeton, are you arguing that the wealth he'd accumulated in his career up till that point is comparable to that of the "typical minimum wage worker"?
Then are you arguing that a hedge fund manager and a "typical minimum wage worker" face the same relative risk when they invest the same amount of money? In other words, are you saying that someone who has 110,000 dollars in savings and someone who has 11,000 dollars in savings face the same risk if they both invest 10,000 dollars?
"he did make a million times more risky bet than the typical minimum wage worker"
No, definitely not.
The rhetoric here is missing the nature of power: power gives leverage and enables entities to extract money and surpluses. Knowledge and talent is just one means to power. A more common means is patronage. The highest earning individuals are generally more talented and intelligent, but not that much more so.
Major corps have access to information, systems, lobbying that individuals do not have, any 'salary negotiation' is like playing poker against the house: the tables are tilted.
I think European taxation is excessive after income, payroll and VAT it's well beyond 50% for many income earners (though they get healthcare from that), there's no reason that those earning $1M a year can't pay the tax rates on the books, and opt to hide their money offshore.
Especially in US/Canada where taxes aren't crazy, there's really no excuse for these folks. It's just criminal.
"He did make a million times more risky bet than the typical minimum wage worker"
What a ridiculous statement! A bet one million times riskier than the average person makes would be one where there's a 1% chance of achieving great wealth and a 99% chance of everybody you love dying immediately.
An already affluent person starting a business is not that risky.
An already affluent guy convinced affluent investors to fund a technology company which the social meme was going on and on about being the next big thing.
I find it hard to believe there was any sort of real “risk” to Bezos future ability to earn a more than average wage.
It’s an information and networking game. You can say there’s some sort of numerical or quantifiable risk. But I suspect Bezos status pre-Amazon, in an early 90’s economy, with a very different wealth equality and cost of living scenario for the masses, he was well buffered from any long term ruin.
Just consider how much it’s changed: 22 people invested $50k according to Google. What’s that get you in 1994? My after tax take home is $110ish/year depending on bonus. My purchase power is a fraction of what it was a generation ago. I should be taking home $500k/yr to enjoy the same purchase power as someone making $110k in the 80s. And this is “normal”, we’re told.
Most people don’t even get anywhere near the network access and education he had.
The notion that we exist in a meritocracy is mind bogglingly engrained in the masses. Bezos earned every cent, it seems. They pay economists a lot to measure very carefully and confirm as much.
Bezos is not that good and that special, and took very little real risk. Society is rewarding him so much because that’s what society is told is correct.
> I find it hard to believe there was any sort of real “risk” to Bezos future ability to earn a more than average wage.
You are ignoring opportunity costs [0]. He quit a highly lucrative job in finance to attempt a startup where he probably payed himself like 1/10th the wages of his old job during the initial years while he established his business.
With like 90% of startups failing [1], that is a massive risk in the hope of future stock worth for decreased current wages.
You’re ignoring the boring but more important human aspect for abstraction: he was capable of getting such a job once and was well connected to a couple dozen people that could toss $50k/each at him on a pipe dream.
If it failed, he would have had plenty of options relative to the average worker.
And he lost out on hundreds of thousands of dollars of real income while pursuing said startup. In his case, the stock that he created ended up being worth way more but for 90% of companies, that stock will be worth nothing.
As someone getting well with an incurable genetic disorder while the world calls me crazy and generally tries to tell me to STFU because I must be making that up, I find comments like this ironic at best.
Good luck getting the word out if one person solved it rather than a member of a team in a large lab and yadda. More likely outcome: The "one guy" who cures cancer will be written off as a member of the lunatic fringe and have endless doors slammed shut in his face.
How would you calculate the value (to society) of Amazon? A lot of small businesses have folded as a result of pressure from that behemoth. Yes, consumers have benefited from lower prices, but the total value is unclear. There is considerable debate in antitrust circles concerning what to do about Amazon [1].
Well that depends on what he wants to charge for the drug now doesn't it? and dont give me some free market BS because there is very little free market left in pharma pricing. its just extortion by making artificial monopolies plain and simple.
Yes, patents give companies monapolies for a limited time but I don't see how a company having a monopoly on a drug for a limited time makes anyone worse as the alternative is to just not have the drug at all.
And if your argument is that the government should fund all drug research, realize that they are fully capable of doing so and then patenting the drug and giving it out for free in our current system. Thus, both funding models can work in cohesion.
Why do we tax individuals in the first place? It goes back to history, there was a time when kings got their money from their estates as well as from prize money. But, the wars were not paying well so they would get some poor souls to be taxmen and to demand hard currency from peasants that weren't even on the monetary system as they lived off the land. In the UK the minority who the king would bully into collecting the taxes would be the Jewish one.
There was a time when it was considered none of the government's business to know how much people earned, hence taxes on fireplaces and windows. If you had a fireplace then you were probably a family unit and needed to pay up, if you had two fireplaces then you were a bit rich and could pay up double.
We take for granted so much of the tax system that we do not question it, there are also entrenched left wing and right wing viewpoints.
When it comes to value added tax, a.k.a. sales tax, we let businesses off but make sure individuals pay. It is all skewed in favour of capitalism rather than the individual.
Clearly a company can move to wherever it wants to avoid taxes. Individuals don't have quite the same freedom unless they are of the capitalist company owning class.
So we need to stop confusing individuals - businessmen - with businesses. Bezos and Amazon are not one and the same. If Amazon paid all its taxes then Bezos the individual as well as all Amazon employees should be afforded zero income tax and have zero motivation to squirrel gains away in some tax haven.
We also have a slight problem of rents and property being too expensive with property being insufficiently taxed. The whole system is designed to screw the little guy over with the corporations getting a free ride.
I like paying taxes. I have absolutely no problem with the idea that if I (and others) contribute from what we earn, that we get collective benefits, such as education, infrastructure, and healthcare, which in turn improve our society.
I also have no problem with tax increases, as I am well aware that the overall benefit I receive from increased contribution greatly outweighs having that money in my bank account.
The money I pay in taxes contributes to a better educated society, who are more aware of the challenges we face together, and more capable of solving them.
The money I pay in taxes builds public transport, helping people move around, and removing the burden on our roads. It repairs those roads, so they are safer.
Where I live, the money I pay in taxes provides healthcare, so people who are ill or injured can be treated without going into life-ruining debt.
I am happy to pay taxes, because I believe a country where the population on the whole are smarter, safer, and healthier, and infrastructure is modern and maintained, is better than one in which I'd have a bit more money, but be surrounded by people who are less educated, sick, and in crippling debt, with crumbling infrastructure.
> I also have no problem with tax increases, as I am well aware that the overall benefit I receive from increased contribution greatly outweighs having that money in my bank account.
Why don’t you just write a bigger cheque to your tax collector, then?
Because collective benefits don't work without the collective. Might as well say "If you want roads why don't you just build or pay for them yourself?" "If you want electricity, just build and operate your own power plant"
You can do a whole hell of a lot more with 100 people working together than with 100 individuals acting of their own isolated accords.
But you just said “the overall benefit I receive from increased contribution greatly outweighs having that money in my bank account”. The marginal utility to the government of your cheque only decreases if more people do the same.
Don’t really buy this in the middle argument. “It’s the budget committee’s fault that I dodge taxes.” The way you change the way the national budget is allocated is changing your voting habits and organizing with people who feel similarly, not gaming the tax system until you feel that it’s suitable
Regardless of the industry, the anti-subsidy side has a bunch of stressed-out volunteers. The pro-subsidy side has a sizable budget, and a large team of paid professionals doing lobbying.
> but the majority did put extreme amounts of energy to get to the point where they can make lots of money and that can't be said about everyone.
Did their children also? Then why do they inherit it? I'm all for a 100% estate tax. You shouldn't be able to take it with you. Society doesn't need dynasties. Their children were raised with the benefit of extreme wealth with all of the advantages it brings. They shouldn't also get to keep it.
So in a free society, power should be given out according to the whims of the already powerful? Rather than earned of their own merits and general public accord?
An actual free society does its best to balance different things, like individual rights versus the good of the whole. When done well, protecting individual rights enhances the good of the whole.
The reality is that a 100% estate tax mostly will hurt the middle and lower classes. The ultra rich will get with their lawyers, set up trust funds while they yet draw breath and find other loopholes.
Same as it ever was.
And while wealth inequality is a genuine issue, there's much worse things that grow out of trying to prevent people from being wealthy at all. It's absolutely the wrong goal. The goal should be to not exclude people from the benefits of living in a wealthy, developed nation. It shouldn't be trying to arbitrarily and spitefully rob the rich.
> So in a free society, power should be given out according to the whims of the already powerful?
It depends on what you mean by “power”. If by “power” you mean money then the answer is yes, if it’s their money. The same applies for the not-so-“powerful”.
> I'm also not stupid enough to deny that even though my income is higher than national average,I'm most likely getting more in return than I contribute.
But we have also proven that men have a great interest in exaggerating the relative value of the services they render one another. I cannot indeed, see any other limit to these claims than the free acceptance or free refusal of those to whom these services are offered.
I feel at some point tax payers should be allowed to select where their money goes, in a broad sense (military, education, arts, infrastructure), but allowing a portion to go a mixed-use fund for government flexibility.
I feel there is a disconnect between voting for representation and where money is allocated. In the US, voting does not guarantee representation, as losing votes are essentially useless.
True. But that's a bigger issue than "just" some money being misallocated. Letting taxpayers decide individually where "their" money goes also smells like census suffrage.
