"The Psychology of Progressive Hostility"

[Damon Lynch]

There is no way that I can visualise it to be right to remove from anyone or their family the wealth they have earned honestly.

A friend recently shared a story about going to the gym, where she saw clients arrive with child domestic helpers to help with carrying weights to and from the storage rack. A rather striking visual. To be clear: these are not their own kids. These are kids rich families hire from poor families to work for them in their household.

Lots of forces in society that cause deep inter-generational wealth inequality are perfectly legal. In a dictatorship or feudal system the reasons are obvious and there is no need to go into them here. In a democracy, the rich catch politicians and get them to pass laws that benefit them.

So if you want to argue that anyone rich ought never to be subject to taxation that is designed to reduce wealth inequality, you'd better come up with a better argument than that "they earned it honestly!".

[Farmer]

So if you want to argue that anyone rich ought never to be subject to taxation that is designed to reduce wealth inequality, you'd better come up with a better argument than that "they earned it honestly!".

Tax it when it's created (as is done) in a way to deal with that issue.  Don't tax it again!  But by all means tax the wealth created from that original capital, of course.

[Farmer]

Yes, but then again, Churchill smoked 8 cigars (usually double coronas or corona gigantes, pretty big cigars) and drank at least one bottle of wine plus a few cocktails every day, was fairly overweight, and lived into his 90s.  I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one.

Genetics.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Tax it when it's created (as is done) in a way to deal with that issue.  Don't tax it again! ...

You seem to have overlooked my argument that it is a different taxpayer that is taxed, i.e., it is not money that it taxed, but person. "Double" taxation is nothing new. Corporations are taxed on their profit first, and then shareholders taxed again on the dividends (i.e., distributions of the already taxed profits).

[Farmer]

You seem to have overlooked my argument that it is a different taxpayer that is taxed, i.e., it is not money that it taxed, but person. "Double" taxation is nothing new. Corporations are taxed on their profit first, and then shareholders taxed again on the dividends (i.e., distributions of the already taxed profits).

Not in a civilised country where tax credits (franking) exist.  If the company has paid tax, then the dividends can be fully franked (i.e. tax free, in effect, for the shareholders).  Or the company can not pay tax and then the shareholders have to.

Fix your tax system.

[LesPalenik]

Genetics.

Genes play a role to some extent, but so do many other factors, such as diet and lifestyle. Actually, in many cases the eating habits and developed diseases are due more to the learned eating habits and diets, rather than to the genes.

Several well known cardiologists and proponents of plant-based diet, I believe, Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, Dr. Colin Campbell and Dr. Neil Barnard descended from a long line of cattle ranchers and had seen their parents die early because of the heart disease. Dr. John McDougall had his heart attack at 18 which he attributed to his high animal product diet.
All these doctors (after seeing some biopsies and accumulated plaques in the arteries) have changed their lifestyles, switched to a plant-based diet and helped thousands of their patients as well. They are all in excellent health, the first two in their mid eighties, so their good health and longevity must be due to something else than their genes.
 

[Farmer]

Yes, but the question was why some people seem to go against all the recommended diets and so on but still live long and healthy - the key factor there is likely genetics.

[pegelli]

I don't think all the individual examples mentioned above prove anything. They can either be the norm or the exception. Nobody knows.

It's all about probabilities, smoking increases the probability of getting lung cancer, but it doesn't mean everybody who smokes will get it, only a larger percentage of people who smoke vs. people who don't smoke will develop lung cancer.
High animal fat diets increase the probability of heart failure, but it doesn't mean everybody who eats them will get it, only a larger percentage of people who have high animal fat diets vs. people who don't have that in their diet will develop heart problems.

etc. etc.

[Rob C]

A friend recently shared a story about going to the gym, where she saw clients arrive with child domestic helpers to help with carrying weights to and from the storage rack. A rather striking visual. To be clear: these are not their own kids. These are kids rich families hire from poor families to work for them in their household.

Lots of forces in society that cause deep inter-generational wealth inequality are perfectly legal. In a dictatorship or feudal system the reasons are obvious and there is no need to go into them here. In a democracy, the rich catch politicians and get them to pass laws that benefit them.

So if you want to argue that anyone rich ought never to be subject to taxation that is designed to reduce wealth inequality, you'd better come up with a better argument than that "they earned it honestly!".

No, there is no need for further argument, and your comical example is neither relevant to the matter of punitive, vindictive taxation nor anything else beyond the fact that one party employs another, and that without that employment one of those parties would be unemployed.

Employment is about doing what you can to earn your crust. The level of your employment is generally directly linked to two basic things: your qualifications; your geography. If you choose to see into that race, colour, religion and all the rest of the social differences, that choice is yours to make and may or may not have anything to do with the reality of the individual's situation. If you think that those basics are skewed, then you may be right, but that is not the fault of the rich; it's the fault of those who are in  charge of the money already raised via taxation, and the manner in which they spend it.

If you believe that it's all down to bought politicians, then all you have to do is produce honest politicans. Or, move to a country where all are equally poor except for the dictator and his support system.

It's my belief that all the misplaced angst about the über rich is that folks often think the rich just put all that bread into the bank and leave it there. No, they have it working, and when it works it creates work for the rest of us. And even those who do not further invest their capital by themselves can't avoid that capital working, because whichever bank into which they deposit it is doing just that: using that money in keeping companies and jobs going, new ones being created and the wheel spinning.

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Funny how the fresh complaints against “wealth inequality” (a funny term in itself, presupposing that “wealth equality” is the ideal) are not so fresh: its best-by date expired in October 1917.

[JoeKitchen]

Churchill died at 90. Same age as Fidel Castro. Fidel started to smoke cigars at 14, but stopped the habit at 59, and followed mostly vegetarian diet. Perhaps more importantly, according to New York Post, he slept with 35,000 women in his life, adhering to a standard schedule - sleeping with at least two women a day for more than four decades, one for lunch and one for supper. Sometimes he even ordered one for breakfast.

Ahhh.  Well, Castro was a fan of lanceros, which are a good deal thinner then what Churchill smoked.  I'm guessing all those women must have made up for it. 

[Rob C]

Ahhh.  Well, Castro was a fan of lanceros, which are a good deal thinner then what Churchill smoked.  I'm guessing all those women must have made up for it.

But, what did those women actually do: did they get smoked, or what?

Assumptions, assumptions...

[Rob C]

Funny how the fresh complaints against “wealth inequality” (a funny term in itself, presupposing that “wealth equality” is the ideal) are not so fresh: its best-by date expired in October 1917.

I have been working on a system of wealth management that isn't yet quite honed into a fine, polished state. I may leave that to others...

Basically, there could be a brand new set of rules that limits the top pay packet of any boss to, say, an arbitrary max. of 20million per annum. There could be a stepped, fixed scale of payments to the staff in the lesser grades, sex-agnostic, of course, depending on position within the firm. Equally, there would be a maximum proportion of profits to be split between the shareholder elements, with another proportion going to any agreed employees pension fund. The excess would be required to be spent on the development of the company itself.

Though I see no fault with saved wealth going from generation to generation (a little more of that would have been nice!) there also seems little point in anyone having more than that certain number of millions per year. If you want to buy the 30million yacht, just save for a year or two, and there, you have it. You will also appreciate it more!

That way, the wealth does get spread around, and not concentrated in the tender care of a small selection of people.

You read it here first, another reason to stay with LuLa.

:-)

[Ray]

To get back closer to the topic, the main problem as I see it is the stupid wastage of resources by wealthy people who have far more money than they need.

When a billionaire spends a thousand dollars, it's equivalent to a millionaire spending just one dollar. A fancy, gold-plated, jeweled, designer watch that cost say $100,000, is of no concern to the billionaire. It's equivalent to a millionaire buying a $100 watch.

An interesting example of such stupidity and wastefulness is the ongoing investigation into the watch possessions of the deputy prime minister of Thailand, General Prawit Wongsuwan.

Here's the story:
"The scandal began when General Prawit was photographed shielding his eyes from the sun during a photo shoot, revealing a fancy-looking watch.
It was identified by Thais on social media as a Richard Mille RM29, worth $100,000."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-25/thailands-deputy-pm-prawit-wongsuwans-watch-collection/9359130

In the news report it is mentioned that this deputy prime minister appears to own about 25 such watches with an estimated total value of $1.5 million.

In a semi-developed country like Thailand, where the minimum wage is a mere $10 per day, the fact that the deputy prime minister in a military organisation that ousted the previous democratic ruling party on the basis it was corrupt, is showing off watches on his wrist, worth $100,000 each, on average, is a total disgrace.

The fact that he might even retain his position of power on the grounds that the watches were loaned to him by certain wealthy friends, is even more of a disgrace.

[Rob C]

To get back closer to the topic, the main problem as I see it is the stupid wastage of resources by wealthy people who have far more money than they need.

When a billionaire spends a thousand dollars, it's equivalent to a millionaire spending just one dollar. A fancy, gold-plated, jeweled, designer watch that cost say $100,000, is of no concern to the billionaire. It's equivalent to a millionaire buying a $100 watch.

An interesting example of such stupidity and wastefulness is the ongoing investigation into the watch possessions of the deputy prime minister of Thailand, General Prawit Wongsuwan.

Here's the story:
"The scandal began when General Prawit was photographed shielding his eyes from the sun during a photo shoot, revealing a fancy-looking watch.
It was identified by Thais on social media as a Richard Mille RM29, worth $100,000."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-25/thailands-deputy-pm-prawit-wongsuwans-watch-collection/9359130

In the news report it is mentioned that this deputy prime minister appears to own about 25 such watches with an estimated total value of $1.5 million.

In a semi-developed country like Thailand, where the minimum wage is a mere $10 per day, the fact that the deputy prime minister in a military organisation that ousted the previous democratic ruling party on the basis it was corrupt, is showing off watches on his wrist, worth $100,000 each, on average, is a total disgrace.

The fact that he might even retain his position of power on the grounds that the watches were loaned to him by certain wealthy friends, is even more of a disgrace.

But Ray, that's a tale about political despots, which we all understand are given to moments of greed...

However, the relative appetites of the very rich business people, as distinct from political gangsterism, makes your complaint feel somewhat motivated by less than altruistic emotions too.

Why the problem when, as you know, what goes around comes around, and that wealth is always working away in the background, making things, even more silly, unaffordable designer dresses for wives who look bad in anything, and by the same token, create, through their self-awareness, self-help sets of motivations, even more tiers of jobs, silly or otherwise. As I say, it all circulates.

Be happy for the poor rich who offer us so many ways to make something too. Especially do they help artists such as us.

:-)

[texshooter]

People who earn more than $75,000 are no happier than those who earn less, so taxing the rich more won't hurt them a single bit.

https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-price-of-happiness-science-confirms-it-is-75000-per-year/

[Rob C]

Well, I read through the article but it didn't convince me one little bit.

Happiness is not a normal state of being. A normal state of being is equilibrium, where one is neither happy nor unhappy. Happiness is the product of a surprise, which may come to one as simply a sudden idea about a loved one, a win on the lottery, or just walking by the sea on a warm, sunny day, the wind in your hair (I have to exclude myself a little bit here) and perhaps not a penny in your pocket.

It most certainly is not a permanent condition imposed by wealth. Wealth simply makes unhappiness less uncomfortable in the physical sense; you can weep into your martini.

In conclusion, happiness is perhaps but a rush of positive emotion.

Rob

[Damon Lynch]

No, there is no need for further argument, and your comical example is neither relevant to the matter of punitive, vindictive taxation nor anything else beyond the fact that one party employs another, and that without that employment one of those parties would be unemployed.

The example is not comical. It's reality, unfortunately. But you wouldn't know about that, because you choose to look in the other direction.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Yes, but the question was why some people seem to go against all the recommended diets and so on but still live long and healthy - the key factor there is likely genetics.

And luck. Never underestimate the influence of luck on life expectancy.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

The example is not comical. It's reality, unfortunately. But you wouldn't know about that, because you choose to look in the other direction.

Even if my head were capable of doing a Beetlejuice, the illustration would be adrift because it functions or, rather, predicates it's position on the possibility of happiness being a relatively constant condition for some sectors of earners, and attempting to make a connection between people who decide to make particular decisions, simply because they can, and that impossible to define "politically correct" use of, and relationship between, earning power and use of earned income. They are a string of red herrings still in the smoker.

As I indicated, happiness is not a constant state, and it can be experienced by pauper as well as by zillionaire. There is no firm ground for anything that attempts to make relatively fixed correlationships as does the article you quoted.

Now, if you want to change the discussion to comfort rather than happiness, indeed money can work natural wonders. But comfort and happiness are not the same thing. So, any implied direct and exclusive relationship between money and happiness is bogus.