Bill Gates gets credit for being one of the nicer ones, meanwhile his company just signed massive contracts with oil giants while his employees are protesting climate change, all the while he and Melinda are essentially running experiments on poor populations via strings attached computer grants and data harvesting ... all the while they sit on stores of cash that they couldn’t come close to spending in their life time; that they’ll give away when they’re dead (they say) while people die from lack of money in real time.

And he’s considered a good one.

----- September 25th


Today

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/bill-gates-goes-after-warren-on-wealth-tax-wont-commit-to-backing-her-over-trump-voting-for-whoevers-more-professional/
Bill Gates Goes After Warren on Wealth Tax, Won’t Commit to Backing Her Over Trump: Voting for Whoever’s ‘More Professional’


______


And let me get in an early "he doesn't and you're a twat" to all of you "he has a point" types

For one, you know Bill Gates retired right?

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/corporate-governance/board-of-directors.aspx

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/bill-gates-microsoft-ownership-dips-below-2-with-4-6b-stock-gift/

Decades ago he retired and began giving all his money away. He's famous for that. Today he's worth more money than the day he stopped working. Neat trick. © some tweet I saw.

Great take, guy

The OP is right, Gates is garbage.

How would you see him make change with that wealth?

>The OP is right, Gates is garbage.

>How would you see him make change with that wealth?
>
>

He could do everything.

>>How would you see him make change with that wealth?
>>
>>
>
>He could do everything.

It’s not on him to do EVERYTHING!!!!!

>>>How would you see him make change with that wealth?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>He could do everything.
>
>It’s not on him to do EVERYTHING!!!!!
>
>

He shouldn't put on the uniform if he doesn't want the job.

I learned so much

Now you know and knowing is half the battle.

Both of y’all sound COMPLETELY RETARDED!!!!

Stop pretending, you are not Black.

Say what you want about me... leave my mom’s name out of your mouth.

Not unless we can discuss the whore that your mom is. Y’all dummies need to know your limits.

Now go protect massa some more.

"It's not on Boss to do everything" -Clown

What kind of dumb shit is that.

Why don’t you do something like be a respectable human being. That 3/5 of a human being describes you perfectly.

If you were in my hood you’d cease to exist. You’re not all that important to come look for.

You sound real tough when you type about your hood.

Keep exposing yourself.

>>>>How would you see him make change with that wealth?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>He could do everything.
>>
>>It’s not on him to do EVERYTHING!!!!!
>>
>>
>
>He shouldn't put on the uniform if he doesn't want the job.

>>>How would you see him make change with that wealth?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>He could do everything.
>
>It’s not on him to do EVERYTHING!!!!!
>
>

but you really should study and think about this topic more.

The point is people like Bill Gates have so much fucking money we can't even comprehend it.

They could do SO MUCH good in the world, and still be very, very, very rich.

Some are happy with the crumbs they throw us- even to the point of being scared to ask for more.

But, nah...they should absolutely be taxed more.


Especially considering, in most cases, their wealth is being sustained by simply extracting value from the economy via the stock market, etc.

You could even take it a step further and talk about how they are extracting value from the economy via relative low wages.

Take the Waltons. How much richer are they because they pay employees crazy low wages, and those employees subsequently have to get government aid?

Seriously, think about this topic some more.


No one is asking them to do everything, even though they probably could. Just saying they could do a hell of a lot more, and they definitely should.

People are great at saying what other people should be doing instead of getting it for themselves. It’s on that individual to do whatever they want with what they’ve earned. Raising taxes is the worst thing that you can do because you would affect the 6 figure earners and lower level millionaires to pay a higher tax that they really can’t afford to pay.

Secondly do you really know what people are doing with their money? They usually are doing a lot, but instead you have a bunch of skeptical and uneducated folks that post making judgements and assumptions.

That sounds incredible!! I’d love to see how they’ve done that.

>He could do everything.

Oh? Describe your Utopia by injected money scenario

He could pour money into housing for the homeless. Food for those who are hungry. Support candidates and policies that help the people who need it the most.

1st world problems first?

>You are sure he ain't trying?"

I know about the water and the Malaria

>You want him to go at
1>st world problems first?


He can do both.


https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/11/6/20952392/bill-gates-wealth-tax-jeffrey-epstein-elizabeth-warren-philanthropy

"Some critics think billionaires should not be allowed to put their money into foundations and receive tax deductions for this philanthropic giving — arguing that it deprives the US government of revenue for social services. Gates said that some gifts to foundations could be “more taxed.”

But Gates, whose foundation gives out about $5 billion a year, defended Big Philanthropy against its critics who argue that it is a second-class way to solve the country’s problems, after government.

“Should rich people pay more in taxes? The answer is yes. For whatever remainder of money that they have left over, I do think philanthropy is a good thing. That 2 percent of the economy plays a role that neither the private sector or the government is able to do,” Gates said. “If you create a company that is super valuable, at least some part of that you should be able to have — a little bit for consumption, and hopefully the balance to do philanthropic things.”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWNQuzkSqSM

To make sure we ain't all fucked over here. Will it help? Who knows? But they are in some measure subsidizing the densifying of greater Seattle. Probably still fucked.but they are actually making moves for the janitors

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/10/how-microsoft-avoided-billions-in-taxes-and-what-the-gop-says-theyll-do-about-it/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/technology/dod-jedi-contract.html

>To make sure we ain't all fucked over here. Will it help? Who
>knows? But they are in some measure subsidizing the densifying
>of greater Seattle. Probably still fucked.but they are
>actually making moves for the janitors


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

Thats where I would start. Then I’d hire two county (for every county 3142) facilitators to work for my program for 3 years contract for every county at 100k a year, that’s around 2 billion on payroll immediately.

I’d offer more incentives for funding locally grown products which would help reduce the carbon footprint and inject money directly into communities.

I’d start there.

Love how he said whoever is more "professional" will get his vote. If he was being genuine that vote would already be decided.


>The OP is right, Gates is garbage.

The property tax. For most middle class home owners, most of their net worth is tied to their house.

To make the property tax even more punitive, you are taxed not only on the portion of the house you own, but on the entire value of the house.

Wonky rant below......



Let's do a numerical example to show how punitive it can be.
Say we have a person who just purchased a house last year.


She bought the house for $300,000 with a standard 30 year mortgage. After a year's worth of payments she owns about $5,000 of the house.

She would pay property tax not just on the portion she owns (her wealth). But also on $295,000 the bank owns. In Texas, the average property tax rate is about 1.90%.
So her total property tax bill would be $300,000 x 1.90%= $5,700


For simplicity, let's say she has $40000 of other net wealth (savings + investments net of student loans, debt, etc).

Then her effective wealth tax would be $5,700/$45,000 = 13%


High net worth individuals don't come close to having wealth taxes like this. Not even under Warren's proposed plan. This is a disproportionate tax levied those who can least afford it.

And it doesn't just affect homeowners either. These taxes are passed through to renters as well. So they are indirectly affected by these existing punitive middle/lower class wealth taxes too.

Pulling numbers out of the air doesn’t make to wonky.

Our tax code focuses on taxing income, but a family’s wealth is also an important measure of how much it has benefitted from the economy and its ability to pay taxes. And judged against wealth, our tax system asks the rich to pay a lot less than everyone else. According to Saez and Zucman, the families in the top 0.1% are projected to owe 3.2% of their wealth in federal, state, and local taxes this year, while the bottom 99% are projected to owe 7.2%.

While we must make income taxes more progressive, that alone won’t straighten out our slanted tax code or our lopsided economy. Consider two people: an heir with $500 million in yachts, jewelry, and fine art, and a teacher with no savings in the bank. If both the heir and the teacher bring home $50,000 in labor income next year, they would pay the same amount in federal taxes, despite their vastly different circumstances. Increasing income taxes won’t address this problem.

That’s why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans. It applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or more—roughly the wealthiest 75,000 households, or the top 0.1%. Households would pay an annual 2% tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion. Because wealth is so concentrated, Saez and Zucman project that this small tax on roughly 75,000 households will bring in $2.75 trillion in revenue over a ten-year period.
——-

Nothing you typed even makes sense

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

Norway
Switzerland

Here’s a planet money about a wealth tax

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744962126/episode-929-could-a-wealth-tax-work

To the point that you don't even realize I'm on your side. And making an argument in support of your position

In response to Bill Gates complaining about a wealth tax
That’s the equivalent of posting real lynching pictures to show the horrors of lynching to people that are downplaying it.
It doesn’t accomplish what you think it does.

I posted how the super wealthy are complaining about a potential 1-4% wealth tax when the middle class has been paying 10-15% (or more) wealth taxes for decades.

How is that out of place in a post about Gates complaining about a wealth tax?

To talk about the rich. What does your method accomplish if it’s not focused on analyzing the rich? It centers the conversation on someone not rich to make a point about someone else
That’s not affective
Doesn’t work when it’s about race, or gender, or anything else.
I accepts a framing that “I need to make this argument relatable so that it can be understood by not talking about the specific subject that I’m on about”
And if that’s where you have to start any conversation you’re not going to be in the same place as your audience.

Bill Gates is insanely wealthy, and right now his wealth makes wealth, Elizabeth warren is proposing taxing wealth in the form of assets over 50 million dollars.

you were illustrating how much an "average American" pays to say that if they are paying X percentage at such a low amount of wealth that billionaires can pay A LOT more of their wealth.

MEAT be out there.

If you take a conversation about the exploitation by the rich and center it to the relatability of the not rich you lose crucial elements

Tax havens being used to shield their wealth
What tax avoidance takes from local communities
How their overrepresentation in local and global politics skews the narrative
What assets of that size passed down between generations does to the economy
The scale of their decisions
The subsidizing of their failures

Etc

Using an example of paying for a house is so narrow that using it as an analogy completely warps the debate.
It’s not that you understood. It’s that now you’ve centered your thinking on something relatable. The wealth of the ultra rich and how devastating in ripples that is to the world can’t be understood in terms of how me and you live our day to day lives.


The mega rich will GLADLY talk to you about percentages in numbers. Because then they treat the debate like it’s actually comparative.

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/paying-for-m4a

I think that's what has him shook, tbh.

He said he'd have been comfortable handing over like 20B to the feds. I don't even think her ultra-millionaire tax asks for that much from him. But to help fund M4A she does propose a 6% billionaire tax, raising the capital gains tax rate to match that of an equivalent labor income tax rate and collecting it annually (as opposed to after its sold), and a bunch of corporate taxation reforms that would ding MS extra hard as a huge multinational. And as a large employer, MS Employer Medicare Contribution would probably be pretty significant too.. although that's probably not as much of a concern for them as everything else.

His people probably just crunched the numbers on what all her proposals are going to cost him and he, understandably, is coming to terms with the possibility of the majority of his net worth being confiscated by the government. lol

after a huge amount, not even on all of it.

these billionaires are kind of reinforcing bernies and warrens criticisms.

is he worth 1.6 trillion?

a big portion of her proposal to pay for M4A is using existing taxes/fees that companies are already paying for health care, reducing them by 2%.

im not saying i am 100% convinced about her plan but all the complaints about it have been dishonest.

Just that I can see how the millionaire tax, the billionaire tax, and the capital gains and corporate tax reforms all together probably add up in a way that makes them feel unjustly targeted. Like he's legit trying to casually negotiate lol (eg. "I'd pay 20B?")

>
>a big portion of her proposal to pay for M4A is using existing
>taxes/fees that companies are already paying for health care,
>reducing them by 2%.


I honestly think its her capital gains and corporate tax reforms that must worry them most though, not the EMC or M-tax or B-tax. The capital gains and corporate tax reforms would definitely be significant increases to their tax burden since the gov has been super lenient in those areas. Plus she's not even stopping at increasing the rates, right lol... she wants to increase the frequency with which their collected and with her "mark-to-market" scheme even the jurisdictions where they'll apply. Like I was reading it thinking htf does she plan to get elected proposing some of this shit lol. But then I figured, that wasn't the ask... the ask was for her to show how M4A could be paid for without lower/middle class taxpayers having to foot the bill. On that, she succeeded.

>
>im not saying i am 100% convinced about her plan but all the
>complaints about it have been dishonest.

I will say Warren did manage to do what I thought was impossible... get a M4A-skeptic like me somewhat supportive of trying out M4A lol. But ya, like you, I still have reservations/doubt about a couple things (eg. there's one aspect in particular about her corporate tax reform I think goes too far and would be super punitive to a certain type of minority small-business owner).

Still working through details of all the different proposals, tho. I'll probably up that healthcare post you made at some point bc there's so much to digest and you're one of a handful of posters I find is also into digging behind the talking points lol.

>Plus she's not
>even stopping at increasing the rates, right lol... she wants
>to increase the frequency with which their collected and with
>her "mark-to-market" scheme even the jurisdictions where
>they'll apply.


too late to edit

Is $40 billion going to put to better use in his hands or in the government's hands?

He would argue that his plans with the foundation are a better use. Some would argue otherwise.

He also has a point about innovation and capital formation. With a high wealth tax, there will be less private sector investment. So it could stifle business innovation. And capital will grow at a slower rate, again decreasing private sector investment in the future.

The argument could be made that the government will fill this investment gap. Or that the reduced inequality will have economic boosting side effects. Or that the societal gains are well worth a potential negative effects

You know in normal times the people with national staffs, decades worth of data, resources, bid contracts, laws, constitutions, constituents, accountability mechanisms ... how is this even a question.

Just because you type a lot of words doesn’t make you right Tucker Carlson

this, it's key not to look at "the government" as some static neutral entity either. Govs are extremely dynamic, and any functions under their care are immediately subject to politicization and other distortions.

So, for example, one may like the idea of a Dem-run healthcare system... but what about a Repub-run healthcare system? What if a crucial revenue stream gets rolled back in a later congress... is one prepared to deal with an underfunded system and what that might mean as far as quality?? Coverage is only "one" aspect of healthcare access.

There's a lot of nuances to the question that gets glossed over, I find.

Like a whole profile on Adam Neumann doesn’t exist

You: Is $40 billion going to put to better use in his hands or in the government's hands?

Every policy has spillover effects. And its important to think about them.

If taxes go up, savings/private investment goes down. That is not trickle down economics and there is nothing controversial about that statement.
In fact Saez and Zucman, two economists behind the scenes of this wealth tax plan, have to counter this obvious issue.

They say:
"A potential concern with wealth taxation is that by reducing large fortunes, it may reduce the capital stock in the economy—thus lowering the productivity of U.S. workers and their wages.
However, these effects are likely to be minimal in the case of a
progressive wealth tax for two reasons. First, the United States is an open economy and a large fraction of U.S. saving is invested abroad while a large fraction of U.S. domestic investment is financed by foreign saving. Therefore, a reduction in U.S. savings does not necessarily translate into a large reduction in the capital stock used in the United States."


Regarding innovation: if the payoffs to risky innovation decline because the gains will be taxed more, then there is less incentive to take that risk. Again, not trickle down and not controversial.
And again, it is so obvious that Saez and Zucman have to address it.

http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/saez-zucman-wealthtaxobjections.pdf

lol in basic economics the only thing related to savings/investment is interest/returns on that investment. Taxes are unrelated, there is no economic model relating them. No one decides not to make money because they'll have to pay some tax on it.

https://media.giphy.com/media/G4ZNYMQVMH6us/giphy.gif

<
<Taxes are unrelated,
there is no economic model relating them

I can come up with a simple exercise that can show taxes can affect investment decisions.

Say we play a coin flip game:
You have to invest 1 dollar to play. If it lands on heads you get $1.50, if it lands on tails you lose your 1 dollar.

In a world with no taxes, you would most definitely play this risky game since the expected outcome is that you profit $0.25: . Invest a dollar and you are expected to go home with $1.25.

But let's say there is a 25% tax on winnings.
Will your decision to invest change? Maybe.
Now your expected profit is . Invest a dollar and you are expected to go home with $1.06.
Not as attractive as an investment.

What if the tax rate increased to 40%?
Your expected profit is now = -$0.05. A loss. Invest a dollar and you are expected to go home with $0.95.
Now a bad investment.




Here is one of the (I'd imagine)100s of formal models relating taxes to investment.

Tax Policy and Investment Behavior by Robert E. Hall and Dale W. Jorgenson

This was cute, but it in no way represents real world investing. Especially at the level we are talking about.

You think guys like Bill Gates are investing in 50/50 situations?


I get it, you tried to make it simple. But you can't come up with a simple exercise to put any of us in the shoes of how Bill Gates will decide to invest.

A more realistic exercise/question would be "Do you think an ultra-billionare would walk away from investment that previously would return 80 million per year, but now only returns 40?"...or something.

I hope you're just being devils advocate here.


But at the end of the day, even if we accept the idea that investment would go down...the argument would be 1) the increased government spending would lead to other benefits/growth and 2) the societal gains are more important and 3) your argument sort of assumes that Bill is investing all of his wealth into booming businesses today AND that a different investor wouldn't step up etc etc.


And again, the natural progression of the stance you are taking are things like privatize social security, continuing to worship investors, etc.

than just "TAX THE RICH!!".

I'm for a wealth tax of the super wealthy. As I tried to show in post #23, I think it is unfair that a relatively high wealth tax already exists and it is borne by everyone but the very wealthy.

But there are significant side effects to every policy. My political pet peeve is candidates putting up apparently simple solutions to complex issues. But maybe OKP isn't the best place to talk about nuance.




>This was cute, but it in no way represents real world
>investing. Especially at the level we are talking about.
>
>You think guys like Bill Gates are investing in 50/50
>situations?
>
>
>I get it, you tried to make it simple. But you can't come up
>with a simple exercise to put any of us in the shoes of how
>Bill Gates will decide to invest.
>
>A more realistic exercise/question would be "Do you think an
>ultra-billionare would walk away from investment that
>previously would return 80 million per year, but now only
>returns 40?"...or something.
>


Investments are never certainties like you are portraying here. They are risky. And increasing the tax rate increases the number scenarios in which an investment is unprofitable. So it decreases the likelihood of taking on an investment project.


>I hope you're just being devils advocate here.

I kind of am. But also kind of not. Again, trying to get into the nuance instead of campaign slogans.


>
>
>But at the end of the day, even if we accept the idea that
>investment would go down...the argument would be 1) the
>increased government spending would lead to other
>benefits/growth and 2) the societal gains are more important
>and 3) your argument sort of assumes that Bill is investing
>all of his wealth into booming businesses today AND that a
>different investor wouldn't step up etc etc.
>
>

All this is true. These are possibilities. Especially #2


>And again, the natural progression of the stance you are
>taking are things like privatize social security, continuing
>to worship investors, etc.
>

Not really. Sometimes social welfare can improve at the expense of economics. I.e. Everyone gets healthcare, but as a result everyone has to pay a little more.

I can come up with a simple exercise that can show taxes can affect investment decisions.

Say we play a coin flip game:
You have to invest 1 dollar to play. If it lands on heads you get $1.50, if it lands on tails you lose your 1 dollar.

In a world with no taxes, you would most definitely play this risky game since the expected outcome is that you profit $0.25: {(0.5 x 1.50) + (0.5 x -1) = $0.25}. Invest a dollar and you are expected to go home with $1.25.

But let's say there is a 25% tax on winnings.
Will your decision to invest change? Maybe.
Now your expected profit is $0.06. {(0.5 x 1.50(1-.25)) + (0.5 x -1) = $0.06}. Invest a dollar and you are expected to go home with $1.06.
Not as attractive as an investment.

What if the tax rate increased to 40%?
Your expected profit is now -$0.05. {(0.5 x 1.50(1-.40)) + (0.5 x -1) = -$0.05}. A loss. Invest a dollar and you are expected to go home with $0.95.
Now a bad investment.

So yes, taxes can affect investment decisions. Especially if they are risky.

No one needs to see the work on something you made up, it wouldn't matter whether it was right or wrong.

Also, if you actually read your saez-zucman piece you'd realize all their conclusions negate the points you keep trying to make, but keep quoting things in bad faith all you want.

Me: Here's a model relating taxes and investment

You: https://media.giphy.com/media/UTX8UTKmpjQgo/giphy.gif

Doing a bunch of Finance equations about a single investor and a single investment and a made up tax rate is not an Economic model, it's just Accounting. Throwing out the term Basic Economics like it proves anything at all relevant to this debate when you don't even know what Basic Economics is is problematic. They don't even start throwing Taxes in to economic models at any basic level of learning it, because it is entirely to do with assumptions, and introducing taxes requires the introduction of a whole bunch of other complicated shit. But like your example, and like your quotes from that article, you find it nice and easy to leave out the stuff that's hard or negates your point. Like the fact that most investment in anything innovative/risky is done by those with a wealth level under the mark where this tax will take affect. Or pretending that losses don't provide any taxable benefit to these people claimed against their income. And not realizing that in your example, the risk associated with that investment does not actually change regardless of what level of tax you introduce, especially relative to all other investments, which has to be considered to anyone who actually knows anything about Economics as a broadly generalized attempt to model "everything" not just one flip of a coin, which is way too specific to be called economics.

>Doing a bunch of Finance equations about a single investor
>and a single investment and a made up tax rate is not an
>Economic model, it's just Accounting.

lol. What I did was a very, very, basic economic model of investment under uncertainty that went against your claim that taxes aren't related to investment.
Didn't realize you wanted a "real" model.
People have already done that

Tax Policy and Investment Behavior
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/HallJorgenson67.pdf
"Our basic conclusion is that tax policy is highly effective in changing the level and timing of investment expenditure"

And empirical evidence:
The Effect of Corporate Taxes on Investment and Entrepreneurship
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1091238
"We present cross-country evidence that effective corporate tax rates have a large and significant adverse effect on corporate investment and entrepreneurship."


The Effect of Corporate Taxation on Investment and Financial Policy: Evidence from the DPAD
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20150378
A 1 percentage point reduction in the effective corporate income tax rate via the DPAD increases investment by 4.7 percent of installed capital


>Throwing out the term
>Basic Economics like it proves anything at all relevant to
>this debate when you don't even know what Basic Economics is
>is problematic. They don't even start throwing Taxes in to
>economic models at any basic level of learning it, because it
>is entirely to do with assumptions, and introducing taxes
>requires the introduction of a whole bunch of other
>complicated shit.

We talk about taxes in Introductory Micro and Macroeconomics. It is basic economics.



But like your example, and like your quotes
>from that article, you find it nice and easy to leave out the
>stuff that's hard or negates your point. Like the fact that
>most investment in anything innovative/risky is done by those
>with a wealth level under the mark where this tax will take
>affect.

Could be true. Entrepreneurs tend to be younger and are not initially super wealthy. So a case could be made that taxes won't affect innovative activity. But it could also be the case that funding for innovation comes from investment within corporations (think of medical innovation), venture capitalists (think Silicon Valley).
Again to my main point, this is something that needs to be thoroughly thought through.



Or pretending that losses don't provide any taxable
>benefit to these people claimed against their income. And not
>realizing that in your example, the risk associated with that
>investment does not actually change regardless of what level
>of tax you introduce, especially relative to all other
>investments, which has to be considered to anyone who actually
>knows anything about Economics as a broadly generalized
>attempt to model "everything" not just one flip of a coin,
>which is way too specific to be called economics.

No clue what you're talking about here. Risk stayed constant to illustrate the effect of changing on thing: taxes.
Again, my example was just to simply illustrate that taxes can affect investment. Of course I'm not going to spend months on a formal model for OKP. It has already been shown before with many other "real" models.

It is jarring to read because it sounds like something Paul Ryan would say.

this one:

"Is $40 billion going to put to better use in his hands or in the government's hands?"

That statement/question is typically made by right-wind supply siders.

It implies that whatever Bill does with the 40 billion it will be used in a better way than the government, which is bullshit.

This idea that the government is somehow less competent than large corporations is laughable- its like people have never worked for a large company or won't admit how much waste/stupidity/etc exists ON TOP of the need for profits.

Not to mention, chances are Bill would just sit on the amount anyway and continue to accumulate more wealth by extracting value via the stock market.

Is Bill doing anything today to actually add value to the economy? I could be missing something, but seems like he's just a shareholder.

They add no value.


Not to mention, where does that argument end? It ends with shit like privatizing social security, etc. You know, Paul Ryan shit.

"He would argue that his plans with the foundation are a better use. Some would argue otherwise."

Again, here is where we get into an area where we worship the super-rich.

Its great that Bill gives back on causes that he cares about.


But, what about causes he doesn't really care about? They don't deserve attention/funding/etc?


And, if he is going to take his charities and go home because he has to pay Uncle Sam more, then he really isn't all that charitable, is he?

"He also has a point about innovation and capital formation. With a high wealth tax, there will be less private sector investment. So it could stifle business innovation. And capital will grow at a slower rate, again decreasing private sector investment in the future."

Jesus Christ. This is supply side economics.

The message of 'Don't tax us or innovation/jobs will go away!!' is some classic job-creator boogie man shit.

Like someone else pointed out, if there is money to made on investment...the investment will be made. If the return on that investment goes down x% from a higher tax rate, there is still a return.

And just because some economists anticipated this argument and addressed it, doesn't make it less bullshit.

"The argument could be made that the government will fill this investment gap. Or that the reduced inequality will have economic boosting side effects."

Right. We can't be duped by these right wing scare tactics. Otherwise we will continue to live in our current tax system that is terribly regressive- which I think even you pointed out above.

"Or that the societal gains are well worth a potential negative effects"

This in general is a change that we as a society need to make or we are all fucked. Seriously. If we look at things like climate change, healthcare, housing, immigration through a short term economic lens we are completely fucked.

mistake lol. let's not engage in blind "government worship" either

>This idea that the government is somehow less competent than
>large corporations is laughable- its like people have never
>worked for a large company or won't admit how much
>waste/stupidity/etc exists ON TOP of the need for profits.

But this idea that corporations are naturally more efficient is completely fucking laughable to me and has been for some time.

How many of us are at our private sector jobs as we type this shit?

My point isn't to blindly trust government. My point is to not blindly trust corporations/the wealthy- especially when you consider on top of the waste/inefficiency/corruption/etc that happens in the private sector, they also have to turn a profit.

ideal lol

>
>But this idea that corporations are naturally more efficient
>is completely fucking laughable to me and has been for some
>time.
>
>How many of us are at our private sector jobs as we type this
>shit?
>

There may be some at a public sector job too :)

>My point isn't to blindly trust government. My point is to
>not blindly trust corporations/the wealthy- especially when
>you consider on top of the waste/inefficiency/corruption/etc
>that happens in the private sector, they also have to turn a
>profit.
>

I understand. For me, I think nobody likes the trouble caused when governments fail to intervene (at the VERY least by effectively regulating) and the private sector runs amok. But at the same time, there are countless examples of poorly/inefficiently/fraudulently run government services, programs, sectors (or even whole economies) too so..

I don't know. I think in the case of Gates and a handful of other major philanthropists in the billionaire class (eg. Oprah)... they do actually target some areas where governmnets have failed and facilitate good outcomes. And, as a practice, in some cases public-private partnership can even produce better outcomes than either side could have achieved alone.

Does that mean PPPs are a perfect fit for every sector or every problem??? Not sure, I'm not a development expert lol. But I personally believe the private sector can be a decent partner if governments don't completely abdicate their role to keep them in check... especially when operating in really sensitive domains like healthcare, education, etc. *shrug*

Perhaps I'm a little idealistic too lol

..this country will continued to be fucked

they come from the criminal under class of Europe.

Europe literally exported their bottom feeders to the Americas and said go kill and colonize for the "Queen".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html#click=https://t.co/ii6si47Cuo

Some billionaires seem confused about how much they would pay under Elizabeth’s Ultra-Millionaire Tax. Don’t worry, now we have a calculator for that too.
https://elizabethwarren.com/calculator/ultra-millionaire-tax

she even has an option to click on if youre bill gates. the result?

WOW — YOU’VE GOT A LOT OF MONEY!
Your wealth puts you in the top 0.0002% of Americans.

Now you have the opportunity to invest some of it back into our society so everyone has a chance to succeed.

You’d pay $6.379 billion next year under Elizabeth’s wealth tax. This amount, which you likely won’t even feel, will help us invest in education from birth through college and help finance health care for everyone.

Good news - you’ll still be extraordinarily rich! And if history is any guide, if you do nothing other than invest your wealth in the stock market, it’s likely that your wealth will continue to grow.

---
no matter who you support you have to admit this is funny.

now i just need an okp to give me an example with quarters so i can understand.

>Some billionaires seem confused about how much they would pay
>under Elizabeth’s Ultra-Millionaire Tax. Don’t worry, now
>we have a calculator for that too.
>https://elizabethwarren.com/calculator/ultra-millionaire-tax
>
>she even has an option to click on if youre bill gates. the
>result?
>
>WOW — YOU’VE GOT A LOT OF MONEY!
>Your wealth puts you in the top 0.0002% of Americans.
>
>Now you have the opportunity to invest some of it back into
>our society so everyone has a chance to succeed.
>
>You’d pay $6.379 billion next year under Elizabeth’s
>wealth tax. This amount, which you likely won’t even feel,
>will help us invest in education from birth through college
>and help finance health care for everyone.
>
>Good news - you’ll still be extraordinarily rich! And if
>history is any guide, if you do nothing other than invest your
>wealth in the stock market, it’s likely that your wealth
>will continue to grow.
>
>---
>no matter who you support you have to admit this is funny.
>
>now i just need an okp to give me an example with quarters so
>i can understand.
>

The snark is real.

but will throw their money away buying ads and endorsements in order to avoid paying more taxes.



*funny isnt the most accurate word for it.

Greedy bastards

has she objected to paying higher taxes?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/how-much-you-have-to-earn-to-be-in-the-top-1percent-in-every-us-state.html

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/11/9/20956153/mike-bloomberg-president-2020-jeff-bezos-phone-call-amazon-hq2