• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Criticism of billionairism

grainbelt said:
I hypothesize that supporting, subsidizing, or protecting the creation or sustenance of billionaires is antithetical to supporting a strong middle class and in turn a strong consumer capitalist economy.
Click to expand...
I agree with these principles 100%, but your methods I couldn't disagree with more strongly. Allow me to explain.

By not having to appease the billionaires big ROI, income instead is dispersed at lower levels amongst more people and spent much more efficiently in the economy.
Click to expand...
No. When those large corporations(wealthy) go away what happens is there is less money in the total pot. You have more equality at the cost of a lower overall standard fo living. Eventually foreign large corporations will take advantage and you'll lose on both fronts.

This things comes from the income distribution gap: e.g. source to see how different sectors are doing.

Bottom 90%: -5%
Top 10%: 75%
Top 0.01%: 325%
*The more you graduate the greater the raise

That seems damning until you consider that the largest income growth in that comparison period was coming from foreign markets. See the world curve does not look like this at all(we are averaging). The reason for the massive growth rate at the top is foreign wealth enters the country through the top 0.01%. Changes in the 0.01% in this period reflect those realities. This new income is only distributed indirectly for the 99.5% the domestic growth rate is much lower.

Another thing worth considering is although that accounts for inflation that is a very poor way of measure changes in living standards. Taxes were way less as government provided far less public services in the past not to mention changes in technologies, choices and expectations. The advantages of owning a car in 1960 say equivalent to modern transportation options which can cost a lot less, what is the worth of a $50/mo internet connection, a luxury item like a tv or computer is now in most people's pockets? On that a car or house, is the average one built in 1960 the same as one built today? Houses are bigger now, more energy efficient etc etc. Car are more environmental friends, faster, comfier, have computers build in etc etc

An upper-middle class life in 1970 would be maybe working class by 2019 standards. In terms of lack of technology, healthcare, entertainment, convinces etc.

Living standards have certainly not gone down or improved as slowly as that chart alone would indicate.

To this end, progressive taxation, enforcement of tax and other white collar laws, anti trust laws, all need to be strengthened and enforced.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of these although likely disagree in detail. The problem with progressive taxation is it is scam. For example In 2018 we had 2,208 billionaire in the world worth 9.1 trillion dollars of 317 trillion (3%). In 2000 we had 470 worth about 1 trillion of 117 trillion USD (less 1% of total).

470 -> 2,208 increase by a factor of 4.4 (440%)

1% -> 3% increase by a factor of 3 (300%)

6b -> 7.7b increse of 28%

116,000/6 -> 317000/7.7 increase factor of 1.12 (112%)


Diversification of the top is fastest growing factor, yes there is a concentration but slower than the rate of which people are joining and with a significantly more wealth being added for the 99.9% of people(doubling and then some).

Progressive taxation may or may not affect the rate of concentration but not by much since that is not caused by having unfairly low taxation (in fact we find the opposite). It will however vastly affect the diversification factor as income is what is needed to go from 99.9% to 0.01%. So what you would certianly see is who is wealthy stays wealthy.

The very top has levels of wealth that they have trouble stashing. They buy the mega yacht, mansions, they send it offshore to evade taxes, they have a lot of luxury good spending. Luxury goods are not economically efficient use of funds.
Click to expand...
The income is often coming from offshore in the first place and second what do you think is more likely to be a new growing small business a new yacht company or one that makes a mass consumer product like groceries?

They gain unhealthy levels of monopoly and monopsony power. Competition greatly deteriorates in that atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Kind of like how the government concentrates more and more wealth and gives especially nicely to those at the top they deemed more politically important?

Even the democratic and economic votes of the rest of us wont be able to stop him. Is it effectively different from an oligarchy or monarchy when someone has that much power over our society?
Click to expand...
That is why the fact we have more billionaire than most is to the American advantage. The US has 1.7 billionaires per million, China 0.3, France 0.5, Zimbabwe 0.05. Etc etc. In which country does the 0.01% hold more power the one with 585 or 1?
 
Last edited:
marke said:
Communists destroyed Russia with their crappy Bolshevick Rob the rich fiscal ideas.
Click to expand...

And the Czar set them up for it did he not? I wish you right winger would learn more about history. Russia was a fuedal society in the early 1900s, it was basically serfdom. They fell for communism which sounded a lot better then working as a serf for Count Sergei. You should read some Tolstoy, educated people used to read him when I was growing up.
 
grainbelt said:
I hypothesize that supporting, subsidizing, or protecting the creation or sustenance of billionaires is antithetical to supporting a strong middle class and in turn a strong consumer capitalist economy.

If you get the idea that removing a middle man from a supply chain could lower cost and enrich the whole thing, you should also get that removing the billionaire at the top could do something similar. By not having to appease the billionaires big ROI, income instead is dispersed at lower levels amongst more people and spent much more efficiently in the economy. To this end, progressive taxation, enforcement of tax and other white collar laws, anti trust laws, all need to be strengthened and enforced. Competition needs to be restored as a necessary pillar of our form of capitalism. Worker and consumer rights need to be elevated. Small businesses should be incentivized further. And the various governments need to stop pandering to mega conglomerates. This kills competition!

Theres no leeway for more corporatist judicial decisions or laws. They are middle class killers that suck the wealth and opportunity out and away from the working class.
Click to expand...
Other people's income is none of your damn business.
 
iguanaman said:
wealth transfer to the rich
Click to expand...
False claim.



iguanaman said:
No we want the wealth transfer to the rich to stop. Enough already. It's time to put back income tax structure that controls the massing of wealth to the 1%. It worked before and it will work today. $20 million incomes are obscene and need to be taxed out of existence. Then maybe their will be money left over for raises for workers from all those record profits.
Otherwise we are headed down the same road as we were in the 1920's. No one wants that again, do you?
Click to expand...
Doens't matter what you selfishly want. Other people's incomes and wealth is none of your business.
 
Excon said:
False claim.




Doens't matter what you selfishly want. Other people's incomes and wealth is none of your business.
Click to expand...

Not true. The health of our people and our economy is everyone's concern. Our tax structure is too.
 
Cordelier said:
I can pinpoint exactly when it started - with the passage of Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986. Prior to that time, the tax code operated using Eisenhower's 1954 system.... it was focused on bolstering the middle class.
Click to expand...
The medium household income in the US in 1985 was $22,259. Average house $116,506. Bread $0.76. Gas $1.19. Car $6,495.00. Tax $5,037. Including all government spending $6,285 was spent per citizen. GDP was 4.3T(7.9T - $33,193/person) and there was a 34% tax Burden.

Today that would be $52,138. The medium income is $59,055. So the average has saw an increase of 13%. The 1985 avg home price: $272,899(using general inflation is much higher depending one's area). Meanwhile the average new home sold in sqft went from 1,750 to 2,555 and the average sales price $225,900($96,441 in 1985 dollars) so there is also an overall increase in house buying power as that of one of the same buying power in 1985. Bread and Gas show they about flat in terms of relative buying power. The average new car now is $25,449, but look at your choices at $15,213 (power power of $6,495 in 2018) and there are still available car, so fair to people are buying 60% more luxury cars. Tax on $52,138 in 2018 is $3,823 which is an increase of $8,954(17%) of real world buying power. All levels of government spent $23,048/cit($9,839 in 1985 dollars) in other words the government is spending 56% more in services for citizens A 38% tax burden meaning taxes have raisen in real terms faster than growth regardless of rate change. GDP 19.39 T which means there is a $59,119 per person (78% more) in the total economic activity to access domestically. How can you say these significant relative buying power increases compared to average or even lowest income, higher government assistance and economic growth aren't bolstering the 'standard of living' for the average american post-1986?

I say these charts say all we need to know: growth equality

Picture the economy like an internal combustion engine... it requires a mixture of fuel and air to run. Fuel is supply and Air is demand. The Tax Code is the carburetor that sets the right mix between the two. During the 1970's, we were running lean and stagflation was the result. I think Reagan got roughly the right mix with his first term tax cuts.... but his second-term tax reform made us run way too rich... and that's where we've been ever since.
Click to expand...
Or…people are lying with statistics by hiding that 'middle class life' is about buying power and now it is more available to more people for cheaper; people are coveting greater and greater wealth because our system is producing most rapidly very wealthy people from all sort of backgrounds which threatens though who like status and concentrated power.

My question for you. If most growth is global. How would that wealth make it to the average american if not for the ventures of the top 1%?
 
Vadinho said:
And the Czar set them up for it did he not? I wish you right winger would learn more about history. Russia was a fuedal society in the early 1900s, it was basically serfdom. They fell for communism which sounded a lot better then working as a serf for Count Sergei. You should read some Tolstoy, educated people used to read him when I was growing up.
Click to expand...

I read the Bible. I can clearly see that Lenin and his gang were out to foment unrest for the wicked purpose of seizing the country for Lenin and gang. All their talk about helping the poor was a ruse. The same thing is going on with modern American Bolsheviks. They are not interested in the poor. They are not interested in God bless America. They are interested in themselves.
 
marke said:
I read the Bible. I can clearly see that Lenin and his gang were out to foment unrest for the wicked purpose of seizing the country for Lenin and gang. All their talk about helping the poor was a ruse. The same thing is going on with modern American Bolsheviks. They are not interested in the poor. They are not interested in God bless America. They are interested in themselves.
Click to expand...
Who are these American Bolsheviks? I have no idea who you are referring.

We have long heard 'warnings' from the right that any program to improve the lives of Americans is really socialism. We heard it from Ronald Reagan about Medicare, before the Act was passed. Nothing that he predicted came to pass. The ploy is to use the word 'Socialism' as a fear word. Now, you use the word "Bolsheviks" in the same way.

 
MTAtech said:
Who are these American Bolsheviks? I have no idea who you are referring.

We have long heard 'warnings' from the right that any program to improve the lives of Americans is really socialism. We heard it from Ronald Reagan about Medicare, before the Act was passed. Nothing that he predicted came to pass. The ploy is to use the word 'Socialism' as a fear word. Now, you use the word "Bolsheviks" in the same way.

Click to expand...


Ronald Reagan was exactly right. Leftist socialists have long been for government control of human lives. To leftists there is no God and men need the government to protect them and meet their ever increasing needs in a way that causes them the least expense and distress, even if it means dumping huge burdens and distresses on others. Socialist democrats invented the original medicare program with support from socialist republicans. Everybody is for affordable care but not everybody understands that medical costs are very expensive and, in government care programs, reaching epidemic fiscally strained unsustainable proportions.

How well is the US economy handling these huge Medicare costs today? This is from American Health Care: Health Spending and the Federal Budget American Health Care: Health Spending and the Federal Budget | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Over the long term, the rising cost of federal health care spending is clearly unsustainable. Without a course correction, the result will be insolvency, crowding out important public priorities, and a growing federal debt.

Democrats giddily thought they had solved the growing medicare indebtedness crisis by creating the Obamacare tax, designed to raise huge money from young working Americans through mandated "premiums" most of them would not benefit from or add cost to the government from for decades.
 
marke said:
Ronald Reagan was exactly right. Leftist socialists have long been for government control of human lives. To leftists there is no God and men need the government to protect them and meet their ever increasing needs in a way that causes them the least expense and distress, even if it means dumping huge burdens and distresses on others. Socialist democrats invented the original medicare program with support from socialist republicans. Everybody is for affordable care but not everybody understands that medical costs are very expensive and, in government care programs, reaching epidemic fiscally strained unsustainable proportions.

How well is the US economy handling these huge Medicare costs today? This is from American Health Care: Health Spending and the Federal Budget American Health Care: Health Spending and the Federal Budget | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Over the long term, the rising cost of federal health care spending is clearly unsustainable. Without a course correction, the result will be insolvency, crowding out important public priorities, and a growing federal debt.

Democrats giddily thought they had solved the growing medicare indebtedness crisis by creating the Obamacare tax, designed to raise huge money from young working Americans through mandated "premiums" most of them would not benefit from or add cost to the government from for decades.
Click to expand...

You are merely repeating what over 60 years of history has discredited. Prior to Medicare, seniors could not obtain affordable insurance because they were a bad risk to insurance companies. Medicare solved that.

Reagan, who was a paid spokesman at the time, clearly said that:

  • 'years from now, you will explain to your grandchildren what it was like in America when men were free.'
  • 'Doctors will be told where to live.'
  • 'Doctors will lose liberty.'
  • 'If we pass this, out of it will come other programs that will invade our freedoms.'
  • 'If we pass this, we will have socialism.'

Everything Reagan predicted was wrong and never happened.

I don't know about you, but I have freedom; my doctors aren't told by the government where to live and we are not a Socialist county.

You know what else? Seniors have freedom from being worried that they won't be able to afford medical care in their old age.

Regarding your warning that "the rising cost of federal health care spending is clearly unsustainable," if federal health insurance becomes unsustainable, private insurance would already be unsustainable too.

Why? There’s a simple reason from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid historical expenditure data, which among other things offers a comparison between Medicare spending per beneficiary and premiums on private health insurance. Medicare has expanded the range of things it covers, so what you want is the “common benefits” comparison that adjusts for this. And what it shows is that except during a brief period in the 1990s, as HMOs spread, cost growth has consistently been slower in Medicare than in the private sector.

072615krugman1-tmagArticle.png


Meanwhile, as Medicare is about to turn 54, it has brought immense benefits.
 
MTAtech said:
You are merely repeating what over 60 years of history has discredited. Prior to Medicare, seniors could not obtain affordable insurance because they were a bad risk to insurance companies. Medicare solved that.

Reagan, who was a paid spokesman at the time, clearly said that:

  • 'years from now, you will explain to your grandchildren what it was like in America when men were free.'
  • 'Doctors will be told where to live.'
  • 'Doctors will lose liberty.'
  • 'If we pass this, out of it will come other programs that will invade our freedoms.'
  • 'If we pass this, we will have socialism.'

Everything Reagan predicted was wrong and never happened.

I don't know about you, but I have freedom; my doctors aren't told by the government where to live and we are not a Socialist county.

You know what else? Seniors have freedom from being worried that they won't be able to afford medical care in their old age.

Regarding your warning that "the rising cost of federal health care spending is clearly unsustainable," if federal health insurance becomes unsustainable, private insurance would already be unsustainable too.

Why? There’s a simple reason from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid historical expenditure data, which among other things offers a comparison between Medicare spending per beneficiary and premiums on private health insurance. Medicare has expanded the range of things it covers, so what you want is the “common benefits” comparison that adjusts for this. And what it shows is that except during a brief period in the 1990s, as HMOs spread, cost growth has consistently been slower in Medicare than in the private sector.

072615krugman1-tmagArticle.png


Meanwhile, as Medicare is about to turn 54, it has brought immense benefits.
Click to expand...

Democrats to voters: 'Close your eyes and dream of a world where everything is provided by the government and free for the asking. Don't worry about the costs because the government invents its own money as costs rise so there is no need to worry about expenses getting out of hand.'
 
marke said:
Democrats to voters: 'Close your eyes and dream of a world where everything is provided by the government and free for the asking. Don't worry about the costs because the government invents its own money as costs rise so there is no need to worry about expenses getting out of hand.'
Click to expand...
How despicable for voters to elect candidates who promise to make their lives better!

Ask seniors if America is a better place because there is Medicare.

It also is telling that you ignore what I previously wrote: that Medicare costs are rising slower than private insurance. But I understand, cognitive dissonance is difficult to overcome.
 
iguanaman said:
No we want the wealth transfer to the rich to stop. Enough already. It's time to put back income tax structure that controls the massing of wealth to the 1%. It worked before and it will work today. $20 million incomes are obscene and need to be taxed out of existence. Then maybe their will be money left over for raises for workers from all those record profits.
Otherwise we are headed down the same road as we were in the 1920's. No one wants that again, do you?
Click to expand...

Taxes don't go to workers, they go to government.
 
marke said:
I read the Bible. I can clearly see that Lenin and his gang were out to foment unrest for the wicked purpose of seizing the country for Lenin and gang. All their talk about helping the poor was a ruse. The same thing is going on with modern American Bolsheviks. They are not interested in the poor. They are not interested in God bless America. They are interested in themselves.
Click to expand...

Try reading non-fiction for a change.
 
marke said:
Ronald Reagan was exactly right. Leftist socialists have long been for government control of human lives. To leftists there is no God and men need the government to protect them and meet their ever increasing needs in a way that causes them the least expense and distress, even if it means dumping huge burdens and distresses on others. Socialist democrats invented the original medicare program with support from socialist republicans. Everybody is for affordable care but not everybody understands that medical costs are very expensive and, in government care programs, reaching epidemic fiscally strained unsustainable proportions.

How well is the US economy handling these huge Medicare costs today? This is from American Health Care: Health Spending and the Federal Budget American Health Care: Health Spending and the Federal Budget | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Over the long term, the rising cost of federal health care spending is clearly unsustainable. Without a course correction, the result will be insolvency, crowding out important public priorities, and a growing federal debt.

Democrats giddily thought they had solved the growing medicare indebtedness crisis by creating the Obamacare tax, designed to raise huge money from young working Americans through mandated "premiums" most of them would not benefit from or add cost to the government from for decades.
Click to expand...

We are almost 60 years down the road from the actors speech about the pending communist takeover of America because of Medicare. Where are the communists?
 
MTAtech said:
How despicable for voters to elect candidates who promise to make their lives better!

Ask seniors if America is a better place because there is Medicare.

It also is telling that you ignore what I previously wrote: that Medicare costs are rising slower than private insurance. But I understand, cognitive dissonance is difficult to overcome.
Click to expand...

The government does not have to pay for unsustainable private insurance costs and it is not keeping up with growing government healthcare costs. Congress should not promise to make American lives better by implementing programs the government cannot pay for.
 
Vadinho said:
We are almost 60 years down the road from the actors speech about the pending communist takeover of America because of Medicare. Where are the communists?
Click to expand...

In Russia and in hundred million dollar American recipients of undesignated Russian cash contributions.
 
When will you learn?

If you cap wealth, the super wealthy will take their wealth elsewhere. If the super wealthy stop generating wealth YOU DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY GET WEALTHY. NO ONE gets wealthy. See...the reason the super rich get super rich is because they are busting their ass and EARNING it. And NOTHING is stopping you from earning your OWN. But you dont get to take someone elses **** just because THEY make it and you dont/cant/wont. And if you decide to try, and have enough idiots in congress to support the idea, then the super rich will simply take their ball and go home. And then you will be DOUBLY ****ed. No...triply ****ed. Because you wont have their wealth, you wont have anyone to take care of you, and you wont have anyone to blame for your failures.
 
marke said:
The government does not have to pay for unsustainable private insurance costs and it is not keeping up with growing government healthcare costs. Congress should not promise to make American lives better by implementing programs the government cannot pay for.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying that the U.S. can't afford what other countries have been doing for decades, namely, providing health coverage for all the people? Why do you have such little faith in the ability of this nation?
 
VanceMack said:
When will you learn?

If you cap wealth, the super wealthy will take their wealth elsewhere. If the super wealthy stop generating wealth YOU DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY GET WEALTHY. NO ONE gets wealthy. See...the reason the super rich get super rich is because they are busting their ass and EARNING it. And NOTHING is stopping you from earning your OWN. But you dont get to take someone elses **** just because THEY make it and you dont/cant/wont. And if you decide to try, and have enough idiots in congress to support the idea, then the super rich will simply take their ball and go home. And then you will be DOUBLY ****ed. No...triply ****ed. Because you wont have their wealth, you wont have anyone to take care of you, and you wont have anyone to blame for your failures.
Click to expand...

The above post represents conservative folk-law, not real analysis, and is generally false. The nation has performed the experiment with varying tax-rates many times over the last 100 years. We have had many period of high taxes on income. We had decades of a 70% top rate and periods of a 91% top rate. The rich did not flee the country nor stop investing or go Galt.

While you claim the rich 'busted their asses' to be rich, a high portion just worked hard making sure they had rich parents.

There is also no evidence that low taxes on the wealthy is positive for the economy as a whole.

The correlation between tax-rates and economic growth is weak
jZ7VbtxA
 
MTAtech said:
The above post represents conservative folk-law, not real analysis, and is generally false. The nation has performed the experiment with varying tax-rates many times over the last 100 years. We have had many period of high taxes on income. We had decades of a 70% top rate and periods of a 91% top rate. The rich did not flee the country nor stop investing or go Galt.

While you claim the rich 'busted their asses' to be rich, a high portion just worked hard making sure they had rich parents.

There is also no evidence that low taxes on the wealthy is positive for the economy as a whole.

The correlation between tax-rates and economic growth is weak
jZ7VbtxA
Click to expand...

The whole "the rich will just leave" bit requires the uber wealthy to he doing something other than they are.

They are competing with each other. Hindbrain status games.

So I'm not sure where they're gonna go where the status seekers there are gonna go for new competition right in their backyard. Using THEIR cheap labor and using THEIR golf courses. What if some American buys the biggest house in Lithuania?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom