My take?

1) The amount of harm here is minimal. Most bilionaires just can't spend enough on high productivity goods to matter if they leave. I mean so the aggregate demand for gardners and ferrari mechanics decreased slightly but consumption of lux goods just doesn't have a great multiplier.

2) Under late capitalism does it matter. Consider SpaceX. Yes, Elon long ago left the state. But if we assume that spaceX's value comes from talent and that talent is in California does it matter where HE lives? Moreover, since he is running a bunch of different companies and is comfortable with being remote it matters even less

3) Taxing wealth is hard. Like really hard. I am not sure how you even value private equity positions since you can not mark to market. Feels like the permanent employment act for auditors and accountants and lawyers fighting them.

4) Ultimately if you really want to go after the .00001 I am not sure why you don't simply raise property taxes on residential property (need a definition that works in CA's prop tax code) valued greater than X. Lets say 20 million to start with. Easier to find. Your county assessors are trained to do this work. Harder to avoid.

Will not raise the hypothetical amounts thrown around by SEIU but will raise more in reality.

Course I still think an inheritance tax (or closing loop holes in existing) is the right way to go.


PS. Can someone for the love of god try to defend how Theil abused the IRA system to shelter hundreds of millions (billions)? That to me just pisses me off because it is such a blatent abuse and gives what should be a solid saving mechanism for the average american a bad name. Probably also makes it hard to measure how well (or not) we are saving for retirement since most data reports out mean rather than median

Not only are you never going to get the billionaire class (Musk will be a trillionaire soon enough) to pay their fair share, they are going to use their fortunes to beef up their private space programs to leave our serf @$$es behind on a dying planet as they trail blaze in the final frontier.

I dont think a billionaire tax works at the state level. It should really be negotiated internationally.

I like the idea of higher property taxes above, say $10 million.

dajo9 said:

---

I dont think a billionaire tax works at the state level. It should really be negotiated internationally.

I like the idea of higher property taxes above, say $10 million.

---

The best way to get at billionaire excess wealth is to tax their investments and their property. International is unrealistic, but needs to be national at minimum.

Of course, the billionaires run the legislature so this will never happen.

Ask Wife his opinion on reining in excess with disparities.

A link to explaining what it is is helpful

https://www.seiu-uhw.org/ca-billionaire-tax-act/


Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) is a healthcare justice union of more than 120,000 healthcare workers, patients, and healthcare consumers united to ensure affordable, accessible, high-quality care for all Californians, provided by valued and respected healthcare workers.

Anarchistbear said:

---

A billionaire can borrow against his assets have no income and no tax. Income taxes are for workers not billionaires. The Supreme Court will probably peer into the minds of Hamilton and Jefferson and declare a wealth tax unconstitutional. I don't see anything happening here as both political parties depend on status quo for their wealth

---

Agree.
Dollars buys messaging buys votes.
The two parties don't want a third party and don't want ranked choice voting either.
Citizens United means big donors get to continue buying their politicians.

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Ask Wife his opinion on reining in excess with disparities.

---

I think the State tax will be ineffective, and hurt CA's economy. I'm not sure it is legal. it is pretty clear from the standpoint of successful people this is the only the beginning with CA dramatically increasing spending despite having huge deficits. There will be more of these taxes and down to lower income or wealth levels. With a State this fiscally irresponsible, and funding political donor causes, such as the trains to nowhere, and not willing to adequately fund more basic government functions like education, there will be more initiatives to pay for these functions, and a declining tax base to pay them from. That is because when wealthy people do leave the State to become tax refugees, they take their business with them over time. First is the higher paid employees as the top level as headquarters move, but ultimately is the core business as well. What Musk did is being repeated. Just look where Spielberg will be doing his work in the future. It no longer is a blue verses red. The biggest beneficiaries of the tax are developers in Nevada, Texas, Florida, etc. and if I was Blue Herron and Four Seasons (residential division), I would be secretly pumping money to support these initiatives. Whey you are in real estate, you can see the trends before the media. As an example, the high end development in Henderson is exploding. There is a long waiting list of Washington tax refugees to get in on the Four Seasons Residences. Both capital and people go where it is best, based on financial decisions, not rhetoric.

As for a wealth tax at the federal level, this has been litigated here for some time. It is not going to happen politically. If the wealth tax did become law, it will found to be unconstitutional, and the process for an amendment likely will be decades. The alternative is increasing income tax rates, but the economically illiterate don't seem to understand that the super-wealthy generally have arranged their affairs to have little taxable income.

If you want to tax wealth in this country, you need to tax assets such as property, toys (e,g., yachts), etc. which typically is done on a state level. I suspect that people sorta shrugged at Dajo's post, but if you understand taxes, that probably is the most effective way to tax the wealthy.

If you look at tax policies they are based on income taxes, and they are designed to achieve political objectives, like incentives to provide for electric cars. That all goes to crap when you impose these broad overall taxes. Newsom probably says this a lot better than me, but the approach on this poorly drafted CA tax proposal is counter-productive. That also is another discussion.

I also question if demonizing and going after successful people will be in the long run good for the country's overall success. But that also is a different discussion.

I'm not sure much debating on this subject is productive. People here have their own views based on rhetoric and narrative, without a much understanding of the economic impacts of taxation.

---

But I think the harder argument here is that "rich people take their businesses with them.":

I think this is old thinking. _IF_ we believe (I do) that talent is king in the modern economy businesses will invest where talent is. For a variety of reasons (QOL, universities, stickiness of internal migration) talent is in California. Try convincing a well paid software engineer to take a buy out and move to Central Florida or the Valley of the Sun. Remote work makes this even MORE challenging - fun fact (which I had to pull for work) fully 1/4 of the Carlsbad CA workforce works 3 or more days remote and a full 10% of the workforce have companies that file state unemployment taxes at zip codes outside of a 100 mile radius of CB.

So what I think happens is..(if it passes) - a whole bunch of youngish billionaires leave. Corporate HQs likely follow but they already have been following because your controller has to suffer orlando. But the bulk of talent remains. Older billionaires that are "stuck" (for the reasons that old people are stuck) remain.

I also think that there will be a bunch of lawyers that make bank because assigning value to assets is hard. Really hard. Much as I hate carried interest philosophically I get that it is hard to value assets during an estate event in any other way. As I said, the thing I would tax is real estate - because while you can hide the value of your arts or options it is pretty easy to figure out what the value of a trophy property is in La Jolla or Mailbu and tax that at, for example, 3% rather than prop 13 1%. I have always thought THAT was the split roll you could pass.

The Top 1% of wage earners (>$905,000) in California pay 40% of the state's income taxes.

California's tax system is highly progressive, taxing capital gains and high wages (over $1 million) at high rates.

Clearly, a stock market downturn reduces revenue, as seen with the $40 billion deficit following the 2022 market drop.

And yet the state still keeps spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

God forbid if there's ever a real Bear Market that lasts longer than just a few months.

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Ask Wife his opinion on reining in excess with disparities.

---

I think the State tax will be ineffective, and hurt CA's economy. I'm not sure it is legal. it is pretty clear from the standpoint of successful people this is the only the beginning with CA dramatically increasing spending despite having huge deficits. There will be more of these taxes and down to lower income or wealth levels. With a State this fiscally irresponsible, and funding political donor causes, such as the trains to nowhere, and not willing to adequately fund more basic government functions like education, there will be more initiatives to pay for these functions, and a declining tax base to pay them from. That is because when wealthy people do leave the State to become tax refugees, they take their business with them over time. First is the higher paid employees as the top level as headquarters move, but ultimately is the core business as well. What Musk did is being repeated. Just look where Spielberg will be doing his work in the future. It no longer is a blue verses red. The biggest beneficiaries of the tax are developers in Nevada, Texas, Florida, etc. and if I was Blue Herron and Four Seasons (residential division), I would be secretly pumping money to support these initiatives. Whey you are in real estate, you can see the trends before the media. As an example, the high end development in Henderson is exploding. There is a long waiting list of Washington tax refugees to get in on the Four Seasons Residences. Both capital and people go where it is best, based on financial decisions, not rhetoric.

As for a wealth tax at the federal level, this has been litigated here for some time. It is not going to happen politically. If the wealth tax did become law, it will found to be unconstitutional, and the process for an amendment likely will be decades. The alternative is increasing income tax rates, but the economically illiterate don't seem to understand that the super-wealthy generally have arranged their affairs to have little taxable income.

If you want to tax wealth in this country, you need to tax assets such as property, toys (e,g., yachts), etc. which typically is done on a state level. I suspect that people sorta shrugged at Dajo's post, but if you understand taxes, that probably is the most effective way to tax the wealthy.

If you look at tax policies they are based on income taxes, and they are designed to achieve political objectives, like incentives to provide for electric cars. That all goes to crap when you impose these broad overall taxes. Newsom probably says this a lot better than me, but the approach on this poorly drafted CA tax proposal is counter-productive. That also is another discussion.

I also question if demonizing and going after successful people will be in the long run good for the country's overall success. But that also is a different discussion.

I'm not sure much debating on this subject is productive. People here have their own views based on rhetoric and narrative, without a much understanding of the economic impacts of taxation.

---

Thx for your words.
I AM actually interested.
Each time we discuss this you tell me why it wouldn't work and such. And that's all fine.
But I'm asking your opinion on wealth aggregating in the hands of "the successful" as you phrased it.

I'm all for people becoming super rich. (I come from the self made super rich myself.) I'm concerned that this is not a great development for society. As you often point out, it's easy to hide income and keep growing wealth - so long as one pays attention and is not a spendthrift.

But what are the consequences, nationally? Culturally? Economically?

I want to know if you think we should just let natural forces continue, laizze-faire, or if we actively say no to that and actually want to curb natural forces wealth concentration.

I know you'll say, "we already have intervention in that, via the IRS "
But concentration is increasing. Do you care? At which level should the ideal social engineer step in?






I think this is the type of graph I'm interested in. At what % should the various wealth deciles, say, be drawn?
Or, better asked, corralled?

The straw man is alive and well. Star this post if you think wealth concentration is inherently evil. I certainly don't.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The straw man is alive and well. Star this post if you think wealth concentration is inherently evil. I certainly don't.

---

This will boomerang on me, but you have a MBA and you are not who I'm talking about. And I predict you will get a lot of stars. The billionaire class would be better served acting like adults (see Buffet and Gates) and not like some other guys who come off differently. The latter gruop really engenders hate in people and allows class warfare to dictate policy views.

---

I dont think anyone other than you is going to star that post.

Every billionaire is a policy failure. The "evil" tagline is a fiction from those who support wealth inequality.

You confuse me.
You said first that you don't see wealth accumulation as evil, then second that every billionaire is a policy failure.

concordtom said:

---

You confuse me.
You said first that you don't see wealth accumulation as evil, then second that every billionaire is a policy failure.

---

Billionaires like to play the victim card and say people "hate" us but all we did was innovate. Or people say we are "evil" but we created jobs. The language is a distraction. It is not about good vs. evil. It is about policy that is good for the economy and social well being of the nation.

You definitely need the reward system to remain. It drives effort, innovation, production - all of it.

My thought has simply to change the reward structure. Culturally you could have a wall of honor where if you made so much, your wealth could then be used for various social purposes.

Like, rather than individuals continuing to amass more than is needed, ungodly sums, they could give to feed the hungry, to build homeless shelters, to retrain or rehabilitate, to provide needed healthcare.

Instead of being "hated" as you say they become revered and millions being grateful to them for their productivity.

The donors could choose which area they wanted to fund.

You could start either those who voluntarily give: Buffett and gates. Then make it a club that others want to join. Eventually the culture could change.

What do you give someone who has everything? Honor, praise, gratitude.

So many rich complain about taxation. But the state could create something that they might actually strive to have their name on.
Levels of lifetime taxes paid: wall of honor.

Elizabeth Warren plan just wants to take, and those targeted get nothing on the backside.
Warren et al want to demonize those targeted as "not paying their fair share". She's got it all wrong. Don't attack them. Make them want to join the exclusive club.

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Ask Wife his opinion on reining in excess with disparities.

---

I think the State tax will be ineffective, and hurt CA's economy. I'm not sure it is legal. it is pretty clear from the standpoint of successful people this is the only the beginning with CA dramatically increasing spending despite having huge deficits. There will be more of these taxes and down to lower income or wealth levels. With a State this fiscally irresponsible, and funding political donor causes, such as the trains to nowhere, and not willing to adequately fund more basic government functions like education, there will be more initiatives to pay for these functions, and a declining tax base to pay them from. That is because when wealthy people do leave the State to become tax refugees, they take their business with them over time. First is the higher paid employees as the top level as headquarters move, but ultimately is the core business as well. What Musk did is being repeated. Just look where Spielberg will be doing his work in the future. It no longer is a blue verses red. The biggest beneficiaries of the tax are developers in Nevada, Texas, Florida, etc. and if I was Blue Herron and Four Seasons (residential division), I would be secretly pumping money to support these initiatives. Whey you are in real estate, you can see the trends before the media. As an example, the high end development in Henderson is exploding. There is a long waiting list of Washington tax refugees to get in on the Four Seasons Residences. Both capital and people go where it is best, based on financial decisions, not rhetoric.

As for a wealth tax at the federal level, this has been litigated here for some time. It is not going to happen politically. If the wealth tax did become law, it will found to be unconstitutional, and the process for an amendment likely will be decades. The alternative is increasing income tax rates, but the economically illiterate don't seem to understand that the super-wealthy generally have arranged their affairs to have little taxable income.

If you want to tax wealth in this country, you need to tax assets such as property, toys (e,g., yachts), etc. which typically is done on a state level. I suspect that people sorta shrugged at Dajo's post, but if you understand taxes, that probably is the most effective way to tax the wealthy.

If you look at tax policies they are based on income taxes, and they are designed to achieve political objectives, like incentives to provide for electric cars. That all goes to crap when you impose these broad overall taxes. Newsom probably says this a lot better than me, but the approach on this poorly drafted CA tax proposal is counter-productive. That also is another discussion.

I also question if demonizing and going after successful people will be in the long run good for the country's overall success. But that also is a different discussion.

I'm not sure much debating on this subject is productive. People here have their own views based on rhetoric and narrative, without a much understanding of the economic impacts of taxation.

---

Thx for your words.
I AM actually interested.
Each time we discuss this you tell me why it wouldn't work and such. And that's all fine.
But I'm asking your opinion on wealth aggregating in the hands of "the successful" as you phrased it.

I'm all for people becoming super rich. (I come from the self made super rich myself.) I'm concerned that this is not a great development for society. As you often point out, it's easy to hide income and keep growing wealth - so long as one pays attention and is not a spendthrift.

But what are the consequences, nationally? Culturally? Economically?

I want to know if you think we should just let natural forces continue, laizze-faire, or if we actively say no to that and actually want to curb natural forces wealth concentration.

I know you'll say, "we already have intervention in that, via the IRS "
But concentration is increasing. Do you care? At which level should the ideal social engineer step in?






I think this is the type of graph I'm interested in. At what % should the various wealth deciles, say, be drawn?
Or, better asked, corralled?

---

You talking to me? I don't control things.


There is a lot of garbage numbers and economists with an agenda. This may come as a shock, but wealth is concentrated far less right now that other times in the country, and yet here we are all fat and happy, arguing about theoretical matters.

I guess having worked for governments and seen them in action, I don't think they automatically know what they are doing to be interfering whole heartedly in regulating the market beyond the basics of keeping people honest or health and safety regulation. I also agree with the role of the FED. I would point to the present administration in DC as a prime example of not knowing.

Unlike most here, I don't view wealth concentration as inherently evil. It can often reflects successful entrepreneurship, innovation, and value creation within a market economy and made the greater good better, and at the risk of backing evil tech types, I would say that is somewhat accurate today. However, at some point long term concentration can significantly harm economic growth, reduce social mobility, and wealth always distorts the democratic process. Don't ask me things like percentages, I don't know. So far a capitalistic approach has been a long term success in this country and so I lean for less intervention.

---

Yes, I was talking to you.
And yes, I know you don't control things.

You wrote

Quote:

---

This may come as a shock, but wealth is concentrated far less right now that other times in the country, and yet here we are all fat and happy, arguing about theoretical matters.

---

I didn't want to side step the topic by pointing out where it ranks historically.
I also didn't want to "argue". I did want to "explore" a topic theoretically. If you are not interested in doing so, that's okay if you decline. But I thought you might be able to participate.

I began typing another post when I sidestepped to ChatGPT. I'll share:

PROMPT:
Talking about wealth taxes, I thought that the vast gap between the wealthiest and the poorest might cause people despair. So I added this:



[I think one thing unsaid so far is this:

Happiness is a function of expectations relative to reality.

The truth is that the poorest in society are better off today that the wealthiest were hundreds of years ago.
By what do we measure Standard of Living?
Shelter with hvac
Indoor plumbing
Access to transportation
Access to healthy foods
Access to medical care

Everyone today has these things. They were not available long ago - let alone information and entertainment tech of today.

Yet the wealthy of yesterday were probably fairly happy, and not dying the diseases of despair that run rampant among today's downtrodden. So, why is that?
Expectations.

I'm not trying to advocate for wealth redistribution because it's impossible to be happy with today's low standards of living, because the wealthy did it long ago. ]


But then I realized a fallacy in my thinking: that I was chopping down the wealthiest, rather than changing the culture of expectation, which is what I really wish to target.

Like, I've often said that tv shows like Robin Leach's "lifestyles of the rich and famous " made everyone want to be like them. And that creates the feeling of "hey, I'm missing out, I should have that". And so, rather than today's poor feeling happy for all they do have in modern American society, they feel like bums, and that leads to diseases of despair, such as:

Addiction
Depression

Hmmm. I see I should targeting something else.


CHATGPT RESPONSE:


You're circling around an idea that social scientists have studied for a long time: relative well-being rather than absolute well-being. Your intuition actually lines up with several well-known concepts.

1. Absolute vs. Relative Living Standards

You're correct that by absolute measures, many people today live better than historical elites.

A medieval king did not have:
antibiotics
indoor plumbing
air conditioning
instant communication
abundant cheap calories
rapid transportation

But happiness doesn't scale linearly with absolute wealth. Humans compare themselves to their peers, not to people from 500 years ago.

This is sometimes called relative deprivation.

Example:
If everyone around you has roughly the same life -> expectations stabilize.
If you constantly see people living far beyond your means -> dissatisfaction grows.

2. The "Expectation Gap"

Your line is actually very close to a famous psychological observation:

Happiness = Reality minus Expectations

Rising expectations can make improving conditions feel worse, not better.

If expectations grow faster than reality, people feel poorer even while becoming materially richer.

3. Media Amplification

Your intuition about shows like
Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous hosted by Robin Leach fits into a modern phenomenon:

The constant display of elite lifestyles.

In the past:
You compared yourself to your village.

Today:
You compare yourself to billionaires, influencers, athletes, and celebrities.

Social media has massively amplified this effect.

People now compare themselves to:
Jeff Bezos
Kim Kardashian
luxury lifestyles on Instagram or TikTok

Even if intellectually we know those lives are rare, emotionally the comparison still happens.

4. The "Hedonic Treadmill"

Another concept that fits your thinking is the hedonic treadmill.

People quickly adapt to improvements:
First car -> exciting
Newer car -> normal
Luxury car -> baseline expectation

The brain resets the baseline.

So societies can become materially richer but not happier.

5. Your Realization About the Target

You noticed something interesting:

You initially aimed at wealth inequality itself, but then realized your real concern is expectation inflation.

Those are different problems:

Problem -> Focus
Wealth inequality -> Distribution of resources
Expectation inflation -> Cultural psychology

Your insight is that culture may be amplifying dissatisfaction.

6. But There's a Catch

However, one thing complicates the story.

Research shows that large inequality can increase relative comparison.

So the two interact:
More inequality -> more visible status gaps
Media -> magnifies the gap
Expectations -> rise accordingly

So wealth inequality and expectation culture feed each other.

7. Why "Deaths of Despair" Appear

Economists like Anne Case and Angus Deaton studied what they called "deaths of despair":
addiction
suicide
alcohol-related disease

Their research suggests the drivers include:
loss of meaningful work
community breakdown
status decline relative to peers
perceived lack of future mobility

So it's not just material goods - status and purpose matter deeply.

8. A Cleaner Way to Express Your Argument

If you wanted to refine your comment, you could say something like:

Happiness is shaped less by absolute living standards than by expectations and relative comparison.
Modern societies constantly expose people to elite lifestyles, which inflates expectations faster than living standards rise.
As a result, people who are materially better off than most humans in history may still feel poor or left behind.

That keeps your original insight but avoids sounding like you're dismissing real struggles.



If you're interested, there's actually a very strange historical example that perfectly supports your idea: Americans became richer between 1945 and 1970 and happiness rose - but after 1970 wealth kept rising while happiness stopped increasing.

Economists call this the Easterlin Paradox, and it gets right to the heart of what you're thinking about.

Actually the 1% chart is misleading (and derives from what we have good census data on). There is a recent Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Paper (I will try to dig for it but you can google as well) that showed it isn't the 1% but the .0001% that really have bee driving the Gini scale (a measure of inequality) through the roof. Robert Riech (sp) has written on this a bunch in recent months.

Really the main parallel for this is the Gilded age. In a lot of ways the factors that drove inequality then (the value of vertical integration, amalgamation effects of railroads) are similar to what is driving inequality now (network effects). You also see parallels in the utter lack of self awareness (when Theil talks about captalism as being the purest form of philanthropy). I think the scary thing is that a mitigating effect of some of the worst things in the gilded age was good old fashioned Protestantism - where Carganie gives away his forturne because that is what good christians do. Not present in the current crop of oligarchs.

I don't disagree with WIAF that actually trying to do this is going to be impossible. Nor do I dispute that especially SEIU and the greed of public sector unions is a big reason for the mess this state is in (greed isn't precisely right, they are simply doing what they are designed to do - push for the interest of their members irrespective of any long term fiscal consequences). But the fact that this is resonating is not just stupidity or avarice - the billionaire class should look at a lot of revolutions in the past and recognize that it isn't abject poverty that drove them (French factory workers were actually experiencing a decent increase in standard of living from what we can tell) but rather a belief that the oligarchs had no concern with the rest of people and had divorced themselves from the social contract.

The above thinking is in response to your post. I ask, should we have wealth taxes at all.
What are we trying to accomplish? Does a wealth tax accomplish that? If so, at what cost, because if you create a socialist mentality that's not necessarily Good.
Man works when hungry and motivated by incentives for reward. As we saw with the failed Soviet state, when you take away the rewards, society grinds to a halt.
And who is going to argue that a group of elected (by Citizens United dollars) representatives are better deciders at what to do with billions than, say, Bill Gates. I won't.

Edit: ah, I see you are awake and online.

socaltownie said:

---

Actually the 1% chart is misleading (and derives from what we have good census data on). There is a recent Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Paper (I will try to dig for it but you can google as well) that showed it isn't the 1% but the .0001% that really have bee driving the Gini scale (a measure of inequality) through the roof. Robert Riech (sp) has written on this a bunch in recent months.

Really the main parallel for this is the Gilded age. In a lot of ways the factors that drove inequality then (the value of vertical integration, amalgamation effects of railroads) are similar to what is driving inequality now (network effects). You also see parallels in the utter lack of self awareness (when Theil talks about captalism as being the purest form of philanthropy). I think the scary thing is that a mitigating effect of some of the worst things in the gilded age was good old fashioned Protestantism - where Carganie gives away his forturne because that is what good christians do. Not present in the current crop of oligarchs.

I don't disagree with WIAF that actually trying to do this is going to be impossible. Nor do I dispute that especially SEIU and the greed of public sector unions is a big reason for the mess this state is in (greed isn't precisely right, they are simply doing what they are designed to do - push for the interest of their members irrespective of any long term fiscal consequences). But the fact that this is resonating is not just stupidity or avarice - the billionaire class should look at a lot of revolutions in the past and recognize that it isn't abject poverty that drove them (French factory workers were actually experiencing a decent increase in standard of living from what we can tell) but rather a belief that the oligarchs had no concern with the rest of people and had divorced themselves from the social contract.

---

One of the reasons why I enjoy your posts is because you dive into issues the way I like to. So much time of OT is mindless crap. You don't play that game much. Good for you.

Keen observation about Andrew Carnegie vs the arrogance of many of today's elite.
To me, I think a fallacy may be rooted in Ayne Rand's Atlas Shrugged. The story creates a division between the accomplished and the masses who suck off the teat of the elites. Rand makes the elites the heroes and the heroes so despise others that they revolt by dropping out and fleeing to (New Zealand) Colorado.

Some tech elites today seek to shape society in spite of everyone else. Their visions occasionally come off as extremely misguided!

I agree with you and Wife that this isn't going to happen. America is more likely yo fall into the ocean fiscally before these culture-changes I spoke of above would happen.

I'd be interested in the St. Louis paper of Reich's writings that you mentioned if you find the links.

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

The 'Giving Pledge' Warren Buffett, Bill Gates launched to inspire billionaire philanthropy is losing steamsignups drop from 113 to just 14 in 2025

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

concordtom said:

---

You definitely need the reward system to remain. It drives effort, innovation, production - all of it.

My thought has simply to change the reward structure. Culturally you could have a wall of honor where if you made so much, your wealth could then be used for various social purposes.

Like, rather than individuals continuing to amass more than is needed, ungodly sums, they could give to feed the hungry, to build homeless shelters, to retrain or rehabilitate, to provide needed healthcare.

Instead of being "hated" as you say they become revered and millions being grateful to them for their productivity.

The donors could choose which area they wanted to fund.

You could start either those who voluntarily give: Buffett and gates. Then make it a club that others want to join. Eventually the culture could change.

What do you give someone who has everything? Honor, praise, gratitude.

So many rich complain about taxation. But the state could create something that they might actually strive to have their name on.
Levels of lifetime taxes paid: wall of honor.

Elizabeth Warren plan just wants to take, and those targeted get nothing on the backside.
Warren et al want to demonize those targeted as "not paying their fair share". She's got it all wrong. Don't attack them. Make them want to join the exclusive club.

---

I disagree with your desire for us to be dependent on billionaire philanthropy.

And nobody is talking about getting rid of the reward system. It's not even part of the discussion.

Having billions of dollars even after paying a wealth tax is plenty of reward.

The giving pledge can be reneged, and I suspect many will do so.

concordtom said:

---

The giving pledge can be reneged, and I suspect many will do so.

---

I'm aware.
It is a voluntary pledge.
I was simply pointing it out.
And people like Mackenzie Scott are well on their way having given away $26 Billion already since 2019.

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

You definitely need the reward system to remain. It drives effort, innovation, production - all of it.

My thought has simply to change the reward structure. Culturally you could have a wall of honor where if you made so much, your wealth could then be used for various social purposes.

Like, rather than individuals continuing to amass more than is needed, ungodly sums, they could give to feed the hungry, to build homeless shelters, to retrain or rehabilitate, to provide needed healthcare.

Instead of being "hated" as you say they become revered and millions being grateful to them for their productivity.

The donors could choose which area they wanted to fund.

You could start either those who voluntarily give: Buffett and gates. Then make it a club that others want to join. Eventually the culture could change.

What do you give someone who has everything? Honor, praise, gratitude.

So many rich complain about taxation. But the state could create something that they might actually strive to have their name on.
Levels of lifetime taxes paid: wall of honor.

Elizabeth Warren plan just wants to take, and those targeted get nothing on the backside.
Warren et al want to demonize those targeted as "not paying their fair share". She's got it all wrong. Don't attack them. Make them want to join the exclusive club.

---

I disagree with your desire for us to be dependent on billionaire philanthropy.

And nobody is talking about getting rid of the reward system. It's not even part of the discussion.

Having billions of dollars even after paying a wealth tax is plenty of reward.

---

The entire republican attack on "wealth tax" and redistribution is entirely focused on claims that capitalism (and it's incumbent inherent reward system) is under attack in favor of socialism or communism.

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

You definitely need the reward system to remain. It drives effort, innovation, production - all of it.

My thought has simply to change the reward structure. Culturally you could have a wall of honor where if you made so much, your wealth could then be used for various social purposes.

Like, rather than individuals continuing to amass more than is needed, ungodly sums, they could give to feed the hungry, to build homeless shelters, to retrain or rehabilitate, to provide needed healthcare.

Instead of being "hated" as you say they become revered and millions being grateful to them for their productivity.

The donors could choose which area they wanted to fund.

You could start either those who voluntarily give: Buffett and gates. Then make it a club that others want to join. Eventually the culture could change.

What do you give someone who has everything? Honor, praise, gratitude.

So many rich complain about taxation. But the state could create something that they might actually strive to have their name on.
Levels of lifetime taxes paid: wall of honor.

Elizabeth Warren plan just wants to take, and those targeted get nothing on the backside.
Warren et al want to demonize those targeted as "not paying their fair share". She's got it all wrong. Don't attack them. Make them want to join the exclusive club.

---

I disagree with your desire for us to be dependent on billionaire philanthropy.

And nobody is talking about getting rid of the reward system. It's not even part of the discussion.

Having billions of dollars even after paying a wealth tax is plenty of reward.

---

The entire republican attack on "wealth tax" and redistribution is entirely focused on claims that capitalism (and it's incumbent inherent reward system) is under attack in favor of socialism or communism.

---

Yes, well Republicans lie. I'm talking to you though , not Republicans.

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Ask Wife his opinion on reining in excess with disparities.

---

I think the State tax will be ineffective, and hurt CA's economy. I'm not sure it is legal. it is pretty clear from the standpoint of successful people this is the only the beginning with CA dramatically increasing spending despite having huge deficits. There will be more of these taxes and down to lower income or wealth levels. With a State this fiscally irresponsible, and funding political donor causes, such as the trains to nowhere, and not willing to adequately fund more basic government functions like education, there will be more initiatives to pay for these functions, and a declining tax base to pay them from. That is because when wealthy people do leave the State to become tax refugees, they take their business with them over time. First is the higher paid employees as the top level as headquarters move, but ultimately is the core business as well. What Musk did is being repeated. Just look where Spielberg will be doing his work in the future. It no longer is a blue verses red. The biggest beneficiaries of the tax are developers in Nevada, Texas, Florida, etc. and if I was Blue Herron and Four Seasons (residential division), I would be secretly pumping money to support these initiatives. Whey you are in real estate, you can see the trends before the media. As an example, the high end development in Henderson is exploding. There is a long waiting list of Washington tax refugees to get in on the Four Seasons Residences. Both capital and people go where it is best, based on financial decisions, not rhetoric.

As for a wealth tax at the federal level, this has been litigated here for some time. It is not going to happen politically. If the wealth tax did become law, it will found to be unconstitutional, and the process for an amendment likely will be decades. The alternative is increasing income tax rates, but the economically illiterate don't seem to understand that the super-wealthy generally have arranged their affairs to have little taxable income.

If you want to tax wealth in this country, you need to tax assets such as property, toys (e,g., yachts), etc. which typically is done on a state level. I suspect that people sorta shrugged at Dajo's post, but if you understand taxes, that probably is the most effective way to tax the wealthy.

If you look at tax policies they are based on income taxes, and they are designed to achieve political objectives, like incentives to provide for electric cars. That all goes to crap when you impose these broad overall taxes. Newsom probably says this a lot better than me, but the approach on this poorly drafted CA tax proposal is counter-productive. That also is another discussion.

I also question if demonizing and going after successful people will be in the long run good for the country's overall success. But that also is a different discussion.

I'm not sure much debating on this subject is productive. People here have their own views based on rhetoric and narrative, without a much understanding of the economic impacts of taxation.

---

Thx for your words.
I AM actually interested.
Each time we discuss this you tell me why it wouldn't work and such. And that's all fine.
But I'm asking your opinion on wealth aggregating in the hands of "the successful" as you phrased it.

I'm all for people becoming super rich. (I come from the self made super rich myself.) I'm concerned that this is not a great development for society. As you often point out, it's easy to hide income and keep growing wealth - so long as one pays attention and is not a spendthrift.

But what are the consequences, nationally? Culturally? Economically?

I want to know if you think we should just let natural forces continue, laizze-faire, or if we actively say no to that and actually want to curb natural forces wealth concentration.

I know you'll say, "we already have intervention in that, via the IRS "
But concentration is increasing. Do you care? At which level should the ideal social engineer step in?






I think this is the type of graph I'm interested in. At what % should the various wealth deciles, say, be drawn?
Or, better asked, corralled?

---

You talking to me? I don't control things.


There is a lot of garbage numbers and economists with an agenda. This may come as a shock, but wealth is concentrated far less right now that other times in the country, and yet here we are all fat and happy, arguing about theoretical matters.

I guess having worked for governments and seen them in action, I don't think they automatically know what they are doing to be interfering whole heartedly in regulating the market beyond the basics of keeping people honest or health and safety regulation. I also agree with the role of the FED. I would point to the present administration in DC as a prime example of not knowing.

Unlike most here, I don't view wealth concentration as inherently evil. It can often reflects successful entrepreneurship, innovation, and value creation within a market economy and made the greater good better, and at the risk of backing evil tech types, I would say that is somewhat accurate today. However, at some point long term concentration can significantly harm economic growth, reduce social mobility, and wealth always distorts the democratic process. Don't ask me things like percentages, I don't know. So far a capitalistic approach has been a long term success in this country and so I lean for less intervention.

---

Yes, I was talking to you.
And yes, I know you don't control things.

You wrote

Quote:

---

This may come as a shock, but wealth is concentrated far less right now that other times in the country, and yet here we are all fat and happy, arguing about theoretical matters.

---

I didn't want to side step the topic by pointing out where it ranks historically.
I also didn't want to "argue". I did want to "explore" a topic theoretically. If you are not interested in doing so, that's okay if you decline. But I thought you might be able to participate.

---

No I debate the theoretical all the time here. Take the wealth tax as an example. I think it dies in the court system, but that doesn't stop me from debating. My concern was you phrased your questions and post like I was supposed to do something about wealth concentration or know the answers. You demanded I come up with a magic number where wealth concentration was not okay. Your tone was accusatory and personal.