# 500 Richest gain additional $1.2trn in 2019



## WolfeTone (28 Dec 2019)

What a wonderful world

They must have worked so hard, upskilling, to make all this additional money on top of their existing fortunes.

Dont get me wrong, im all for anyone and everyone making as much money as they can. 
But surely there is a limit? Surely there comes a point where accumulated wealth can be defined as excessive and ultimately capped? 
Why are the 99.99% so submissive and meek when it comes to the centralising of so much wealth into the hands of so few?


----------



## john luc (30 Dec 2019)

How many dinners can you eat In your lifetime


----------



## RichInSpirit (30 Dec 2019)

Great wealth doesn't always bring accompanying happiness. Count yourself privileged to be poor.


----------



## joe sod (30 Dec 2019)

Most of this wealth would be in shares and financial assets, therefore it is because of the big rise in the share prices of the big tech companies, like Amazon, Apple Microsoft etc ,therefore the top guys with shares see the nominal value of their wealth increase.
However  its also the case that the market capitalization of Apple is worth more than the total US energy sector that's all the big oil companies combined. If there was another tech meltdown then all of that nominal wealth would evaporate again, but nothing would really change.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Dec 2019)

Yes, I didn't think it was because of working overtime and Sundays. 
Nevertheless, the increases for each individual are massive - beyond what anyone could ever reasonably need, beyond what anyone could reasonably figure out what to do with (except to invest in more shares and property to further increase personal wealth).


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, I didn't think it was because of working overtime and Sundays.
> Nevertheless, the increases for each individual are massive - beyond what anyone could ever reasonably need, beyond what anyone could reasonably figure out what to do with (except to invest in more shares and property to further increase personal wealth).


I suppose the argument is that the wealth is created, not acquired and that it is invested, not stuffed under a (massive) mattress. I do agree that the concentration of wealth in the developed world is a problem.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Jan 2020)

It is of course an illusion to think that this wealth could be redistributed and we would all live happily ever after.  As a general rule modern economies are operating at optimal productivity i.e. producing the optimal sustainable amount of goods and services, give or take the vagaries of the business cycle and the occasional financial crisis.  The point is that these guys cannot possibly consume this amount of paper wealth.  If it was redistributed to the homeless say, or even worse to the "stretched middle", it would not sustainably increase overall economic output which as I say is broadly optimal and would merely increase the price level.

Norway is a very interesting case in point.  It's Oil sovereign wealth fund is worth c.200K for every man woman and child in the country. Understandably there are political pressures to release at least some of this into current expenditure, Norway does have homeless folk also.  But this is resisted on the basis that it would be largely inflationary.

But I am not above a bit of begrudgery myself.  Whom I do begrudge are the 3rd cousins twice removed of these fabulously wealthy guys who presumably are kept in the lap of luxury by the Cousin without doing a day's work in their lives.


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is of course an illusion to think that this wealth could be redistributed and we would all live happily ever after.  As a general rule modern economies are operating at optimal productivity i.e. producing the optimal sustainable amount of goods and services, give or take the vagaries of the business cycle and the occasional financial crisis.  The point is that these guys cannot possibly consume this amount of paper wealth.  If it was redistributed to the homeless say, or even worse the "stretched middle", it would not sustainably increase overall economic output which as I say is broadly optimal and would merely increase the price level.
> 
> Norway is a very interesting case in point.  It's Oil sovereign wealth fund is worth c.200K for every man woman and child in the country. Understandably there are political pressures to release at least some of this into current expenditure, Norway does have homeless folk also.  But this is resisted on the basis that it would be largely inflationary.
> 
> But I am not above a bit of begrudgery myself.  Whom I do begrudge are the 3rd cousins twice removed of these fabulously wealthy guys who presumably are kept in the lap of luxury by the Cousin without doing a day's work in their lives.


I didn't know we were related!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Jan 2020)

Purple said:


> I didn't know we were related!


Oh I'm sure if I trawled through  your 9,000 odd posts I will find some evidence of your positive contribution to society


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Oh I'm sure if I trawled through  your 9,000 odd posts I will find some evidence of your positive contribution to society


I doubt it!


----------



## joe sod (8 Jan 2020)

@Duke of Marmalade  yes you nailed in your explanation. If for example the wealth was redistributed so that a worker in a food factory or a building labourer decided he got enough extra money that he doesn't need to do that work anymore, then less food is produced, less buildings are built therefore the cumulative production of goods goes down, everyone is actually poorer because there are less goods to go around. It could also be an explanation of the housing crisis, the much higher welfare payments today discourages people from doing the labouring work as they already get enough on welfare.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Jan 2020)

I agree with most of the above, to an extent. 
It would be a nonsense to assume that the money could simply be re-distributed and all will be well. 
But the point I tried (somewhat rashly) to make is that the it is the structure of this economic system that facilitates the accumulation of such vast wealth into the hands of few. 
As _Purple _succinctly referred, wealth creation and wealth acquired are two different things altogether. 
And the point of this thread is to acknowledge first, that the wealth acquired by the wealthiest of the wealthiest, is simply beyond any reasonable comprehension or need for anyone individual, and then multiplied by some light years.
If that is acknowledged, then what to do? And what consequences, positive/negative would there be following any limitations of imposed on such wealth? 

The _Duke _referred to price levels rising which is a fair point, but by itself hardly a reason not to limit wealth accumulation. 
Ask any Central bank in the Western world if, over the last decade would they like some price inflation, and most would gladly grab it. 
Price levels rising or falling, are inconsequential without knowledge of other critical factors of the economy that those prices relate to.


----------



## joe sod (9 Jan 2020)

I think when we talk about money we forget that it is really an abstraction, it is not actually wealth in itself. It only has value in a properly functioning economy where most people are working and producing goods. If you mess around with it where that no longer happens then everything collapses including the value of that money. We have seen that happen in the Soviet union, everyone was paid the same, there were price controls, everyone had enough money to buy the goods but crucially the goods were not produced in the quantities needed to satisfy the population.
Unfortunately there are tough hard jobs in every economy that somebody has to do, those are the first guys that will quit their jobs in any sort of wealth redistribution. This happened also in the Soviet union that's why they used prisoners and forced labour to do this work.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> And the point of this thread is to acknowledge first, that the wealth acquired by the wealthiest of the wealthiest, is simply beyond any reasonable comprehension or need for anyone individual, and then multiplied by some light years.
> If that is acknowledged, then what to do? And what consequences, positive/negative would there be following any limitations of imposed on such wealth?


I acknowledge. 
What to do? A few suggestions.
1.  Confiscate and redistribute.  I think you accept that this is an economic illusion.  This is quite different from the accumulation of wealth by Louis XVI court which was on the backs of the people.
2.  Confiscate full stop.  It might satisfy a certain envy syndrome.  Not to be sneezed at as I think for example the unseemly competition for top executives to leap frog each other in multi million pay awards is driven by jealosy and egotism and is not conducive to socio-economic harmony. However given international competition for these captains of industry (tax havens etc.) confiscation would seem to need international co-operation, so is not really an option.  Anyway, it is far from proven that the bulk of the populace are in any way disadvantaged (other than in resentment) by this concentration of paper wealth.)
3.  Change the system. As _joe sod_ has pointed out, this was tried but was abandoned as an obvious failure in 1989.

Any suggestions yourself?  But first what do you perceive as the big damage to the rest of us other than the natural instinct of envy and resentment?


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But first what do you perceive as the big damage to the rest of us other than the natural instinct of envy and resentment?



Simply too hard a question to quantify with a precise answer. But simple observations of humankind in general tend to show our common human trait to want more. But as an intelligent species we are capable of recognizing when excessive amounts wealth acquired go beyond any reasonable need, as you acknowledge yourself.

The damage? Lost opportunity to access education, healthcare, protection of the environment etc.

What to do? Not having the answer is no reason not to search for the answer.
Attempts to distribute wealth through centralised command economies are doomed to fail, at worst, at best cause the same damage.

So as a social experiment, 100% taxation on any new acquired wealth by the top 500 wealthiest people in the world.
In 2019 that would net $1.2trn.
If the 500 take to the capital streets to protest it might be something we just have to live with.
My guess, such a move would barely register a shrug of the shoulders.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The damage? Lost opportunity to access education, healthcare, protection of the environment etc.
> 
> So as a social experiment, 100% taxation on any new acquired wealth by the top 500 wealthiest people in the world.
> In 2019 that would net $1.2trn.


Those 500 are not and have not in any way reduced my access to education, healthcare, food, shelter, entertainment, travel etc. etc.  We are not talking Louis Seize's court robbing the populace.  If anything, the 500 may have even contributed a little to my well being, but I won't labour the point.

Your statement that by confiscating this "money" we would "net $1.2trn" suggests that the economic arguments about the entire naiveté of this assertion made by me and  _joe sod _have gone completely over your head.  Maybe it would help if you thought about how a 4 year old might rephrase your suggestion:  "Dad do you know how many lollipops you could buy with $1.2trn?".  Think what it would do to our economy if we took up that suggestion!
On reflection I think I should back off any discussion on macro economics.


----------



## Sunny (10 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Those 500 are not and have not in any way reduced my access to education, healthcare, food, shelter, entertainment, travel etc. etc.  We are not talking Louis Seize's court robbing the populace.  If anything, the 500 may have even contributed a little to my well being, but I won't labour the point.
> 
> Your statement that by confiscating this "money" we would "net $1.2trn" suggests that the economic arguments about the entire naiveté of this assertion made by me and  _joe sod _have gone completely over your head.  Maybe it would help if you thought about how a 4 year old might rephrase your suggestion:  "Dad do you know how many lollipops you could buy with $1.2trn?".  Think what it would do to our economy if we took up that suggestion!
> On reflection I think I should back off any discussion on macro economics.



I make it 558,139,534,883,721 lollipops...… Lets do it.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

_Ouch! _That one hurt _Duke. _Quite the abrupt response to a somewhat throw-it-out-there-, shooting-the-breeze-topic.

Far from economic arguments proffered by yourself and _joe sod _going over my head, I have fully accepted the points made.

Its the point I made - about targeting only 500 people  - that has gone over your head.

Notably, it is the second time in a week that you are attempting to shut down discussion, debate.

Should you choose to back off from any macro economic discussion is your prerogative. Certainly, limiting a comment about access to education, healthcare etc to _your _experiences would support that decision.
Mé-féinism, is the complete antithesis of discussing the underlying message of income inequality at macro level.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

This is an interesting development. It has more substance than my off-the-cuff proposal of targeting the top 500 wealthiest.









						New executive pay transparency measures come into force
					

New regulations come into force today to improve transparency on executive pay.




					www.gov.uk
				




Albeit, it seems a little watery to me to make any real impact on income disparities.
But at least its an idea, better than the "everything has been tried before, nothing works better than the current system" herd mentality.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> _Ouch! _That one hurt _Duke. _Quite the abrupt response to a somewhat throw-it-out-there-, shooting-the-breeze-topic.
> 
> Far from economic arguments proffered by yourself and _joe sod _going over my head, I have fully accepted the points made.
> 
> ...


Okay, apologies,  we are just shooting the breeze.  Yes the amount these guys "earn" is simply mind blowing, but I should have resisted the urge to counter any supposed simplistic suggestion for redistribution.


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> So as a social experiment, 100% taxation on any new acquired wealth by the top 500 wealthiest people in the world.



I appreciate this is STB, but this is the single most ridiculous proposal I have ever read on AAM.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> I appreciate this is STB, but this is the single most ridiculous proposal I have ever read on AAM.



Thats interesting, would you care to elaborate? 
The 500 top figure is simply arbitrary, following from the article in the OP. But fundamental to the point is that there is a massive store of wealth that could be procured without any or minimal negative impact pertaining to productivity levels, price levels, social unrest, tax evasion, in my opinion. 

I would be interested in hearing why you think such an acquired store of wealth taxed at 100% on the 500 wealthiest people would be, ridiculous.


----------



## elacsaplau (10 Jan 2020)

My dear WolfeTone,

I see that the normally measured Firefly has not held back his punches on this occasion!

You seem to favour living in a better world. Such cill e nigh eve a tay. This will probably go over your head (cf the normally measured Duke!!) but the way to achieve this is greater, not lesser, wealth inequality. As has been correctly pointed out, the wealth of the few has actually helped the plight of the many. It follows that it should be relatively simply to raise all boats if only my solution, to follow, gained greater traction. Rather than attempting to redistribute wealth to billions - simply facilitate even greater wealth accumulation into the chosen 500. The beauty of this approach is that _ni h-e amhain_ should this approach be administratively very straight-forward but also it creates a virtuous spiral - the more the wealth is concentrated, the more all boats are raised and the happier we all shall be. So simply rinse and repeat _ad infinitum_. Ultimately, my solution envisages a scenario where all wealth is concentrated in the top 500. Alas, I'm not sure if I'll see this in my lifetime. There is simply not sufficient urgency afforded to the issue.

Dems da facts - but probably over your little head!


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

Dear _elacsaplau_

I've been a fool, how could I have not seen what is directly in front of my eyes! 
It is patently clear now, I owe it all to the 500 who have contributed at least a little, if not entirely to my well being. 
Where would we all be if it were not for the 500?


----------



## elacsaplau (10 Jan 2020)

Sorry WolfeTone,

There's one thing that I didn't make absolutely clear. I used 500 as this was the number used throughout the thread and I didn't want to get overly technical and distract from my central message. However, just for completion, my research shows that 472 is actually the right number but I went with 500 as it's in the right ballpark and with much humility, I recognise that my models could be slightly off. [By the way, I have read peer reviewed and supposedly well researched papers which posit that right number is actually in the thousands - which I think we can all agree is a bit of a stretch if not outright silly.]


----------



## joe sod (10 Jan 2020)

Yes we are just shooting the breeze, sometimes we get attached to our opinions I include myself in that. I think with regard to wealth distribution it must be at least targeted at workers and the workers that do the toughest jobs especially. Therefore if someone is to get more money they must still earn it so that it is still tied to producing goods especially goods that are in short supply. We have seen the issues that crop up when it is just general welfare payments especially in Ireland.


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Thats interesting, would you care to elaborate?



How would you assess & prove the growth in wealth in the inevitable court cases around the world?
Which country would get the spoils?
What do you think the 501st richest person would do?
Would someone very asset rich like Mark Zuckerberg have to sell shares every year as the company he runs is doing well?

I could go on, but the only "experiment" that comes close to this was tried before and failed as you correctly agree:



WolfeTone said:


> Attempts to distribute wealth through centralised command economies are doomed to fail, at worst, at best cause the same damage.








WolfeTone said:


> But fundamental to the point is that there is a massive store of wealth that could be procured without any or minimal negative impact pertaining to productivity levels, price levels, social unrest, tax evasion, in my opinion.



How?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Jan 2020)

The withering sarcasm and backslapping "likes"  whiffs a tad more like wind than breeze to me


----------



## elacsaplau (10 Jan 2020)

Well, you should know that all breezes are winds whereas not all winds are breezes. But, hey, as I said, let's not get too technical. Anyways, I enjoyed the irony of the "likes" piece - no need to reference I suspect.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

@Firefly There is a lot to pack in there in those questions so forgive me if I cannot provide the intricate administrative and legal detail of how such an operation would work on the pages of AAM, save one way to prevent impending court cases is to make whatever system that is imposed, eh,  legal.
We do it here all the time already, one year Im pay 40% the next year im paying 41% and USC too!
As for which country gets the spoils, lets be flexible here for the moment and apply a principle of whichever country the individual resides in etc.
I have no idea what 501st wealthiest person would do, save, as s/he is not in the 500 s/he will be entirely unaffected, as will the remaining 6,999,999,499 (give or take a couple of hundred mill) population.
I don't understand the point made about Zuckerberg. If I have €100m in assets and cash those assests in, I have €100m in cash.



Firefly said:


> How?



Because I am only talking about 500 people. Who, after having the ignominy of having $1.2trn taxed, will have to endure coping with their remaining $4.8trn in wealth.
For the life of me, I cannot envisage the 500 out on the streets with placards protesting. Most likely they would pay others to do it for them.
Is that you?


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> @Firefly There is a lot to pack in there in those questions so forgive me if I cannot provide the intricate administrative and legal detail of how such an operation would work on the pages of AAM, save one way to prevent impending court cases is to make whatever system that is imposed, eh,  legal.
> We do it here all the time already, one year Im pay 40% the next year im paying 41% and USC too!
> As for which country gets the spoils, lets be flexible here for the moment and apply a principle of whichever country the individual resides in etc.
> I have no idea what 501st wealthiest person would do, save, as s/he is not in the 500 s/he will be entirely unaffected, as will the remaining 6,999,999,499 (give or take a couple of hundred mill) population.
> ...



How would you go about proving that the 500th richest person in the world, is actually the 500th richest person and not the 501st richest?


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> How would you go about proving that the 500th richest person in the world, is actually the 500th richest person and not the 501st richest?



It would be beyond my limited capabilities for sure. But these people seem to have a grasp on how to do it

What a wonderful world


----------



## Sunny (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> It would be beyond my limited capabilities for sure. But these people seem to have a grasp on how to do it
> 
> What a wonderful world



Cool. We can use Bloomberg to decide tax policy around the world. I am going to guess that Mr Bloomberg and his billions will never appear.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

Sunny said:


> Cool. We can use Bloomberg to decide tax policy around the world



Why would we do that?


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> It would be beyond my limited capabilities for sure.



I think we should build a bridge from Galway to New York. Don't ask me how though.....


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> We do it here all the time already, one year Im pay 40% the next year im paying 41% and USC too!



That's income tax not wealth tax


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> I think we should build a bridge from Galway to New York. Don't ask me how though.....



Ok, I wont. 
But engineers and architects, might be able to assist in determining if its possible or not.



Firefly said:


> That's income tax not wealth tax



I was inferring using the legislature to avoid legal cases, by making such a tax legal - like how my income tax is legal. 
Do you think its possible to implement a wealth tax?


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Do you think its possible to implement a wealth tax?



On a global scale, very difficult. How about you?


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> On a global scale, very difficult. How about you?



It would be no mean feat for sure, but far more complex international treaties, affecting hundreds of millions of people, even billions of people, have been implemented. International aviation laws for example. 
So a wealth tax, applicable to 500 identifiable individuals, should be a picnic by comparison. 
But that aside, and assuming it could be achieved, what would be the problem with it?


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> It would be no mean feat for sure


Take a few minutes and scroll though the list below.



			https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#5f13e611251c
		


Looking at the photos, imagine trying to impose a wealth tax on them with their armies of lawyers, tax accountants and shell companies.

Unless you had the vast majority of countries around the world signing up to the same treaties ( look how difficult the EU is finding it to trying to get us to increase or corporation tax), you will have tax havens popping up all over the place, gladly willing to take the cash for secrecy.

Have a read of the trials and tribulations the Irish government went through chasing the Quinns and imagine that on a global scale.









						IBRC unravels web around Seán Quinn family’s assets in India
					

Property values fall and legal costs spiral as State investigates potential hiding of assets




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> imagine trying to impose a wealth tax on them with their armies of lawyers, tax accountants and shell companies.
> 
> Unless you had the vast majority of countries around the world signing up to the same treaties



I don't understand, wouldn't those armies of lawyers, tax accountants etc be subject to the law? 
Are you seriously suggesting that beyond a certain wealth level, the law no longer applies? 




Firefly said:


> look how difficult the EU is finding it to trying to get us to increase or corporation tax), you will have tax havens popping up all over the place, gladly willing to take the cash for secrecy.



It is difficult for the EU to get us to increase our corporation tax (if that is what they are trying to do) because the EU is subject to its own laws also. 
And changes to those laws require political support, namely EU governments. As it stands, the Irish government appears to be opposed to EU interference in our tax laws, not least because one of the criteria for us to push through Treaties like Maastricht, Nice etc was that the each member state would retain sovereignty over its tax affairs. Ireland is not alone in this, meaning, European governments representing the interests of their citizens, that number in the 10's of millions, should have, in a democracy, far more political sway than, say, 500 people. 

I appreciate the sentiment that it would still be no mean feat to achieve. But, just to shoot the breeze for a moment, if it were achieved, what would be wrong with it?


----------



## Sunny (10 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> On a global scale, very difficult. How about you?



Are you bored on a Friday afternoon or something??!


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> It is difficult for the EU to get us to increase our corporation tax (if that is what they are trying to do) because the EU is subject to its own laws also.
> And changes to those laws require political support, namely EU governments. As it stands, the Irish government appears to be opposed to EU interference in our tax laws, not least because one of the criteria for us to push through Treaties like Maastricht, Nice etc was that the each member state would retain sovereignty over its tax affairs. Ireland is not alone in this, meaning, European governments representing the interests of their citizens, that number in the 10's of millions, should have, in a democracy, far more political sway than, say, 500 people.



Now imagine trying to introduce a new law that the vast majority of countries would sign up to!

_"On paper, Russian President Vladimir Putin is a man of modest wealth. In reality, he may be one of the world's richest people."








						How rich is Vladimir Putin?
					

On paper, Russian President Vladimir Putin is a man of modest wealth. In reality, he may be one of the world's richest people.



					money.cnn.com
				



_
Do you think Comrade Putin would sign up to this, being the good communist he is?



WolfeTone said:


> I appreciate the sentiment that it would still be no mean feat to achieve. But, just to shoot the breeze for a moment, if it were achieved, what would be wrong with it?



Not much point....would be like me waxing lyrical about that bridge to New York...


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2020)

Sunny said:


> Are you bored on a Friday afternoon or something??!



Ha!!!


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> Ha!!!



If you are bored, dont let me occupy your time....but before you go, could you answer a question - if a wealth tax were achievable, as I suggested, what would be wrong with it?
If you cant answer that, then we can leave it here.


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> If you are bored, dont let me occupy your time....


Sorry, where did I say I was bored?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> If you are bored, dont let me occupy your time....but before you go, could you answer a question - if a wealth tax were achievable, as I suggested, what would be wrong with it?


What would be right with it?  Sorry, I *am *bored so I am going to try my macro economic lecture again.  I'm not patronising you _Wolfie_, I leave that to others.
You see the macro perspective can be totally different from the individual perspective.  The best example of that was given to us by Keynes.  Since Victorian times "saving" has been a virtue. Prudent woman can't have too much of it.  But Keynes taught us that at the macro level too much savings can be a very bad thing indeed.
So when we see a paper worth of $1,200,000,000,000 being added to 500 folk's balance sheet, we think from our narrow perspective hey why can't we use that money to buy 558...... lollipops (see post #17), or 500 Childrens' Hospitals or distribute it $1m each to the least well off 1.2 million of us?
Those are economic illusions. The paper $1.2trn of the 500 cannot be converted to anything like what we think that is worth by redistribution.

Put more simply still, the chances of the 500 ever spending even a cent of that $1.2trn is remote but if it was redistributed to those that we would all agree  to be deserving, it *would *be spent.  The effect of that on economies already at near full throttle would be to increase prices.  Yes there would be some redistributive effects but not from the 500.  For example, giving it to those who would spend it on food would increase the price level of food.  In fact, the type of redistribution dear to left wing agitators would lead to a redistribution from the lower middle to those below them in the economic pecking order.

Just shooting the breeze.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> Sorry, where did I say I was bored?



I don't think you did say you were bored. I just asked if you were bored. I take it your not?


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> What would be right with it? Sorry, I am bored so I am going to try my macro economic lecture again



You see @Firefly, direct precise answers.

I do appreciate the underlying basic economic message and to an extent you are of course correct. But economics is not called the dismal science for nothing, so if doable, allow me a little latitude to suggest an idea that _may _offer some opportunity to consider some enhancement on the prevailing economic theory (unless you think there is nothing left to improve?).
I am of course open to learning the error of my ways and once shown what is wrong with such an idea, then if necessary, I will answer what is right with the idea.

I perhaps over-egged the notion of using 500 wealthiest people as a means to make my point.
So for ease of reference, and as this is nothing more than a crude  experiment I will amend it down to 1 - the wealthiest individual on the planet. I will also take the liberty of applying a universally agreed principle of putting a limit on excessive wealth amongst the nations of the earth and that all armies of illegally practising lawyer's, tax accountants etc have been stood down. But I will offer a token insofar that the government will guarantee a financial return to this person equivalent to 0.1% for every year of their life of the total of the sum of excessive wealth confiscated or taxed,_ if ever_, in real terms that individuals personal wealth ever falls below 1% of what his/her max acquired wealth ever was.
(E.g Richest person was worth $100bn. Gov confiscates 100% in excess of this figure.
Somehow this person goes bankrupt and the gov returns $100m every year for rest of life, in cash, to cope with the hardship).

We can use the richest country in the world, the US, as our laboratory, in turn, the richest person in the world and we can theorize on the pro's and cons and ponder on likely reactions, positive, negative or neutral from the wealthiest person, and the population at large (we will avoid using real names, as how Zuckerberg, Gates, and that Amazon guy react to a proposal is wholly subjective)

The wealthiest person in the world, an entrepreneur of highly successful internet retail company has acquired a personal wealth of $100bn. The government implements a law that says, as you are the wealthiest person in the world, any additional acquired wealth over and above what you have now will be taxed 100%. The following year, she acquires $10bn more. The government sends her a bill for $10bn payable by cash, cheque, bank transfer or transfer of ownership.
The following year, an owner of a tech firm surpasses this woman as the richest person in the world. Having acquired an additional $7bn to achieve this feat, the government sends him a bill for $7bn instead....and so forth.

What would be wrong with that?


----------



## joe sod (10 Jan 2020)

@WolfeTone , in your wealth redistribution scenario, who will do the crap jobs, who will pick the vegetables, clear the sewars, be the builders labourers. There is always a hierarchy and somebody has to do those jobs. When we discuss money , the abstraction of money allows us to distance ourselves from the nitty gritty. Maybe it's illegal migrants like in the US or indentured labour like in the gulf states


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> @WolfeTone , in your wealth redistribution scenario, who will do the crap jobs, who will pick the vegetables, clear the sewars, be the builders labourers. There is always a hierarchy and somebody has to do those jobs. When we discuss money , the abstraction of money allows us to distance ourselves from the nitty gritty. Maybe it's illegal migrants like in the US or indentured labour like in the gulf states



Who will do the crap jobs? The same people that do them now. 
Im not sure I understand?


----------



## joe sod (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Who will do the crap jobs? The same people that do them now.
> Im not sure I understand?


If the same people are doing those jobs, even with increased money, then their lives have not been improved. If they get enough extra money through wealth distribution then somebody else must do those jobs.  We saw the failure of wealth distribution in Zimbabwe, land was redistributed, more people received wealth in land, production collapsed and everyone ended up poorer and starving. Why because the people that were working the farms and factories stopped doing it.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> If the same people are doing those jobs, even with increased money, then their lives have not been improved. If they get enough extra money through wealth distribution then somebody else must do those jobs. We saw the failure of wealth distribution in Zimbabwe, land was redistributed, more people received wealth in land, production collapsed and everyone ended up poorer and starving. Why because the people that were working the farms and factories stopped doing it



You are assuming that the wealth confiscated is to be distributed to those doing 'the crap jobs'. 
I have never said that, it will be the prerogative of the administration of the day as to what should be done with the money. 
If per chance a generous sum of say, €15bn, were to be confiscated and afforded to the Irish government and the prevailing government choose to use it to reduce our national debt - is there anyone, within the pages of AAM that would think paying down our national debt in this way would be a bad thing? 
And in terms of wealth redistribution, a nation with sound fiscal policies and a low national debt is a recipe for inviting foreign investment, creating jobs, creating wealth, providing for better public services in transport, education, health etc. 
As far as wealth distribution goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat. 

So back to question above - what is wrong with imposing a 100% tax on additional acquired wealth on the wealthiest person in society?


----------



## joe sod (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> You are assuming that the wealth confiscated is to be distributed to those doing 'the crap jobs'.
> I have never said that, it will be the prerogative of the administration of the day as to what should be done with the money.


  If it is the prerogative of the Irish government to distribute it then based on precedence they would do it through welfare, that's what they always do. There was a question asked in another thread, why when we have full employment are we still paying out 20 billion in welfare payments.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> If it is the prerogative of the Irish government to distribute it then based on precedence they would do it through welfare, that's what they always do. There was a question asked in another thread, why when we have full employment are we still paying out 20 billion in welfare payments.



There are a plethora of reasons, not least is that many people have contributed to their retirement are in receipt of a State pension, people with disabilities, and the term 'full employment' is not defined as nobody unemployed. 

So back to the question above - what is wrong with imposing a 100% tax on additional acquired wealth on the wealthiest person in society?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> If per chance a generous sum of say, €15bn, were to be confiscated and afforded to the Irish government and the prevailing government choose to use it to reduce our national debt - is there anyone, within the pages of AAM that would think paying down our national debt in this way would be a bad thing?


This has triggered a macro economic thought experiment in me, which I have not fully resolved yet.  The scene is that the next time Mr Z visits Dublin we hold him for a €15bn ransom. We don't use it to pay down the national debt, that seriously neutralises the macro economic impact.  So we spend it.

Now I am not going to tease out the feasibility of this project from a legal perspective but it does pose some macro economic challenges.  Arguably Mr Z is not at all affected, he was very unlikely ever to be down to his last €15bn.  So Ireland Inc. seems in real material terms to be €15bn better off, maybe say a brand new Merc for every male over 30 in the country,  without any added economic added value having been input at all and without any significant redistribution of real material wealth.
I'm working on the conundrum and would welcome any help, watch this space.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

I think you could be on to something, aside from the kidnapping bit. Instead of paying down the debt, we could (or rather the government of the day) could buy a new merc for anyone in the country.
But as has been alluded to by _joe sod _his main concern seems to be the precedence set by previous administrations by pumping social welfare transfers. That kind of knocks the Mercedes proposal a bit as I would be more inclined to agree with joe. 
Nevertheless, there is always the prospect that such a store of wealth, sitting idly on the balance sheet of some people doing not much at all, could be used for real opportunities to develop and progress the welfare of the people as a whole. Oh, things like the broadband internet thingy that is causing such fuss over cost but which im reliably informed if we are to remain competitive, if we are to remain as a first world country, then this is something we need to do. 
And obtaining such a windfall will allow other funds to be diverted to address other infrastructural deficiencies in the State - perhaps more educational programs, perhaps reducing waiting lists for operations, or providing cheaper childcare for working people. All of which, can and will add economic value to our society.
Otherwise, I cant help with the conundrum, other than to say having reduced my sample of 500 people to 1 single person I have yet to read a plausible reason as to why it cannot be done on the ONE SINGLE person who would be directly affected, but not by any stretch of the imagination, unduly affected. 
Whereas, indirectly, thousands of our fellow citizens could be positively affected. 

It would appear that phrases such as "broaden our tax base" are actually joky phrases, not meant to be a real thing. More revenue for State is not to be welcomed (or at least depending where it is being retrieved from). 
Wealth tax, nope, Apple tax, nope, welfare cuts, definitely! 

So aside from the Mercs, and the annual €5 pension increase et al, sticking exclusively with the theory, what effect, positive and negative would a 100% tax on additional acquired wealth on the wealthiest person in society have?


----------



## Firefly (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> So back to the question above - what is wrong with imposing a 100% tax on additional acquired wealth on the wealthiest person in society?



Actually, I think you need to be more ambitious. Why not expand it to the top 25% of people in the world, (which would include the vast majority of people in Ireland (probably including yourself))? Every increase in wealth and 100% of it should go to the poorest 25%? Any wage increases, increases in property values and we all write a cheque for that amount and send it to the poorest 25%. Seems fair to me


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Jan 2020)

Conundrum Solution
Of course in the thought experiment,  Irish males over 30 have made a material gain - a spanking new Merc.  But I forgot to mention the other premise - viz. that World economies are more or less operating at capacity i.e producing the optimal amount of goods and services.  Therefore if Irish males over 30 have received a windfall share of these goods and services the pricing mechanism must be exacting redistribution from other agents.  And here's the rub.  The pricing mechanism will never have any impact on Mr Z's consumption of goods and services - he will always consume just as much as he wants.  That is the illusion.  Mr Z's paper wealth cannot be turned into additional goods and services for the rest of us by redistribution of that wealth.
_Wolfie _I appreciate your attempts to help with the conundrum.  You were disadvantaged by not having the key premise that economies are at full capacity.  If broadband and other good stuff was merely due to the lack of paper wealth or money we would simply print the stuff - has been tried. But we can only really afford these things if we have the real economic capacity to deliver them.


----------



## Firefly (11 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Mr Z's paper wealth cannot be turned into additional goods and services for the rest of us by redistribution of that wealth.


So I won't be gettin me Merc?


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> Actually, I think you need to be more ambitious. Why not expand it to the top 25% of people in the world, (which would include the vast majority of people in Ireland (probably including yourself))? Every increase in wealth and 100% of it should go to the poorest 25%? Any wage increases, increases in property values and we all write a cheque for that amount and send it to the poorest 25%. Seems fair to me



Ah, jeez _Firefly, _I started this thread identifying 500 of the wealthiest people in the world as the focus with an average of $9.6bn in personal wealth between them.

But even at that, the 'what-if-ometer' and 'what-about-ometer' started to churn. 
So to ease what I thought would not be complicated, I amended the suggestion to target one single person - that person being the wealthiest person in the world, or the wealthiest person in any given society. 
But you suggest to cast the net much further, 25% of global population! 
I fear if I followed your thinking the reaction here may crash the site.
No, best just stick to 1 person for the moment. 
Mercedes and lollipops aside, incentives to motorists to switch to electric vehicles, or investment in food science to reduce the liklihood of obesity would be more probable.
I certainly think a cleaner environment and a healthier population to be conducive to achieving higher standards of living for everyone.


----------



## Firefly (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> But you suggest to cast the net much further, 25% of global population!
> I fear if I followed your thinking the reaction here may crash the site.
> No, best just stick to 1 person for the moment.



But why? Wouldn't the top 25% also include the richest person and so would result in an even GREATER redistribution of wealth?

As you asked yourself.....



WolfeTone said:


> I appreciate the sentiment that it would still be no mean feat to achieve. But, just to shoot the breeze for a moment, if it were achieved, what would be wrong with it?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> ... incentives to motorists to switch to electric vehicles...


A very good example to get across my main message, which I fear I am still failing to do.
"Switch" is the key word here. A recognition that we can't actually increase overall economic output but we can redirect it.  Confiscating from the top 500 and subsidizing the purchase of electric cars is a possible way to achieve that.  So would taxing petrol cars and using the tax to subsidize electric cars.  The problem with the first is that it would be inflationary, we are just pushing money around, it would be little different from printing money.  We are not making any real redistribution from the 500.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> that World economies are more or less operating at capacity i.e producing the optimal amount of goods and services.



Are we still in 1930's economic thinking?
I do have upmost respect to the aforementioned Keynes and to others who preceded him. 
But isnt it time modernize the wallpaper? Or, as I have asked before, you think there is nothing left to improve? 
My dear _Duke_ economies operating at capacity providing optimal goods and services is indeed an intriguing and thought provoking _theory. _
It is something to strive for, but alas, and despite all the great technological advances of modern times to help us on our way, we are still a long,long way from that holy grail. 





Duke of Marmalade said:


> Mr Z's paper wealth cannot be turned into additional goods and services for the rest of us by redistribution of that wealth.



This is interesting, and I will come back to it due course when I have time. 
Im pretty sure however, that in recent times, paper debt was transferred from private sector to the State sector limiting, or closing the opportunity to avail of many services. In turn the State transferred that paper debt back onto citizens by increasing taxes on income, forcing businesses to close and people to emigrate.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> Wouldn't the top 25% also include the richest person and so would result in an even GREATER redistribution of wealth?




Because, im estimating, that the top 25% of income earners have not acquired excessive amounts of wealth beyond what anyone could reasonably need.
It is why I focused on only the top 500 wealthiest people out of a population of 7,000,000,000.
But even that seemed to ruffle feathers so I limited it one person - the wealthiest person in the world. I limited it to a 100% tax on any _additional _wealth acquired.
These posts are from the first page.



WolfeTone said:


> Dont get me wrong, im all for anyone and everyone making as much money as they can.
> But surely there is a limit? Surely there comes a point where accumulated wealth can be defined as excessive and ultimately capped?





WolfeTone said:


> the increases for each individual are massive - beyond what anyone could ever reasonably need, beyond what anyone could reasonably figure out what to do with





WolfeTone said:


> And the point of this thread is to acknowledge first, that the wealth acquired by the wealthiest of the wealthiest, is simply beyond any reasonable comprehension or need for anyone individual, and then multiplied by some light years.



The _Duke _raises an interesting point about capacity. 
So to word my point another way - is there capacity to tax wealth acquired by the wealthiest without unduly infringing on their standard of living, or without unduly affecting in a negative way price levels, productivity levels, overall standards of living? 
Take the wealthiest person in the world as a starting point with $100bn personal wealth.  Apply a 100% tax on any additional wealth acquired over and above that limit (e.g. a max limit of personal wealth of $100bn) say, $10bn and ask, will it unduly affect in a negative way that person, price levels of the economy, productivity levels in the economy, the overall standard of living in society? 

I suspect it wouldn't. But if it would, how so?


----------



## AlbacoreA (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> What a wonderful world
> 
> They must have worked so hard, upskilling, to make all this additional money on top of their existing fortunes.
> 
> ...



The problem with this concentration of wealth is that it's usually at the expense of others. That is if a few people are getting a disproportionately wealthier a lot more people are getting a disproportionately poorer. 

But it seems these days the cost of everything is much more expensive for those less well off. For example we make running a cheap old car much more expensive (if we ignore depreciation) than a brand new one.

Something like this..



On the flip side there is this...









						Milton Friedman - Redistribution of Wealth
					

Milton Friedman clears up misconceptions about wealth redistribution, in general, and inheritance tax, in particular.  http://www.LibertyPen.comSource: Milto...




					youtu.be


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Jan 2020)

I am not saying we are in a state of perfect economic balance and optimal redistribution.  I am simply saying that when we look at these enormous, nay obscene, accumulations of paper wealth we should avoid the illusion of thinking in terms of how that wealth could be better deployed.

_Wolfie_ talks about the denial of access to education, healthcare and environmental protection brought about by this concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. This suggests to me that he is thinking of how many teachers you could employ, how many childrens’ hospitals or how many electric cars.  So let’s say we spend it on teachers and bring the pupil teacher ratio down to 2/1.  The real economy would have to cope with this by diverting resources from other sections.  It would finish up being a redistribution from them and not from the rich guy in the first place. His lifestyle would be unaffected.

Milton Friedman makes the point in that interesting clip.  Asked about 100% inheritance tax he says that would just cause the rich guys to dissipate their wealth.  Asked what’s wrong with that he asks where would the machines and factories come from to satisfy this consumption.  That’s my key point, inferring that this paper wealth can be converted to useful consumption of goods and services assumes that the economy is operating under capacity and is an illusion.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Jan 2020)

Let me try this one.  One could conceive of a situation where the top 500 or X folk have so much paper wealth that it would appear that it could be redistributed amongst the rest of us and we could all give up work.  I presume we accept that that would be an illusion.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Jan 2020)

Well I have to say, that is an excellent post,  and timely interjection exhibiting both sides of the wealth distribution coin.

There is certainly much to ponder within.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am simply saying that when we look at these enormous, nay obscene, accumulations of paper wealth _*we should avoid the illusion of thinking in terms of how that wealth could be better deployed*_



This is the talk of the indoctrinated.
"Dont touch _my_ wealth, its not good for you. Take it from someone, somewhere else".



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So let’s say we spend it on teachers and bring the pupil teacher ratio down to 2/1. The real economy would have to cope with this by diverting resources from other sections.



Here we go again. The implication being that economy couldn't cope by diverting resources from one area, (the extreme wealth), to another area teacher/pupil ratios.
Yet, as I recall in recent times, a 'local property tax' was imposed on my paper wealth. A transfer of my (paper) resource to be redistributed elsewhere (probably to plug a hole in county council funding).


The key questions are, have I the capacity to cope with this redistribution? - yes I have. Has the economy the capacity to cope with this redistribution? - it appears so.

So I rephrase my original question somewhat.

Is there capacity for any _additional acquired wealth _of the _singular most wealthiest person_ in the world, or in any given society, to be redistributed back into society as a whole, mindful of unduly affecting in a negative way that persons standard of living or unduly affecting in a negative way price levels and productivity levels of the economy?

I would suggest that, quite clearly, there is that capacity.


----------



## joe sod (12 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Let me try this one.  One could conceive of a situation where the top 500 or X folk have so much paper wealth that it would appear that it could be redistributed amongst the rest of us and we could all give up work.  I presume we accept that that would be an illusion.



In the nineteenth century when socialism was being conceived by Karl Marx and others that was the issue they really dwelled on, if you give people unearned wealth well then they will not do any work, the people that earned the wealth will also do much less, Karl Marx actually referred to this phenomenon as "vulgar socialism". Of course when socialism came into existence in Russia, that's exactly what happened, it wasn't implemented by men like Marx, but by Stalin and Lenin. They tried to rectify the production deficits in the Soviet economy using gulags and forced labour, very " vulgar socialism".
       Even in the Soviet union they had no problem getting people to do the bureaucratic jobs, however they had big problems getting farmers to grow the crops and miners to dig the mines. It would still be the same today if it was tried. That's why my emphasis on "crap jobs" because those are the jobs that people give up, and there are still a lot of those jobs today even though they are largely invisible workers. It was also probably the reason for the hammer and sickle flag, and the socialist realism murals, they needed to try and glorify these workers and put them on a pedestal.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Jan 2020)

Of course there is scope to transfer wealth from the wealthiest person in the world, question answered.  
I am highlighting the illusion that the transfer of the excess "wealth" of these guys would not in any way translate to a comparable transfer of economic consumption.  In fact your very premise that they should not suffer any loss of standard of living is evidence that there would be no transfer of economic consumption.  For ordinary punters and dukes like myself LPT, for example, does reduce my consumption without reducing my economic contribution and is therefore a genuine economic transfer.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Of course there is scope to transfer wealth from the wealthiest person in the world, question answered.



Ok, we are getting somewhere.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> In fact your very premise that they should not suffer any loss of standard of living is evidence that there would be no transfer of economic consumption. For ordinary punters and dukes like myself LPT, for example, does reduce my consumption without reducing my economic contribution and is therefore a genuine economic transfer.



I agree with the latter part, I dont agree with the initial part. 
My premise is that the standard of living is not appreciably affected. If I have €110bn and it reduces to €100bn a simple calculation would deduce that my personal wealth, and as such my standard of living has fallen. But considering the sums involved, and as it is acknowledged that these sums are at a scale that no human being could ever reasonably need or require, then the affect on my standard of living is negligible, it wont register. Unlike for instance, imposing a LPT on the population with limited incomes as you point out. 

If I eat a large crispy baguette with ham, egg and peppers, and a crumb falls from mouth, the affect of that crumb in satisfying my hunger inconsequential. It does however offer a mouse, or a bird, some chance of fulfilling their need to feed themselves. 

The wealth tied up in the value of my home is unutilised wealth which could be put to use if I sell it or if the government, which it has done, taxes me on it. However, that could have a negative impact on my standard of living if I cannot find somewhere to live or forces me to reduce my consumption. 

The wealth accumulated at extreme levels (ie the wealthiest person in the world) can be taxed without negatively impacting, in any real sense, the standard of living of that person and it can be transferred to society as a whole opening up opportunities for greater access to education, healthcare, protecting the environment etc. 

The problem I see is that as a society we tend to work from €0.00 upwards, imposing higher taxation rates as incomes increase. Instead, what would be more beneficial is to start with the guy with €100bn working down to see where unutilised accumulated wealth  can be taxed and put to use in the economy _ but before the point _ where such taxation of wealth starts to negatively impact, in a real sense, the standard of living of those who have accumulated that wealth, or adversely impacts price levels in the economy etc.
I would hazard that at least 500 people would not be, in any real sense, detrimentally impacted on by virtue of the huge sum of wealth they have accumulated. Others may argue that all billionaires fall into this category. 
I would suggest that applying this concept to the top 25% population, for example, would have started to impact negatively.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The wealth accumulated at extreme levels (ie the wealthiest person in the world) can be taxed without negatively impacting, in any real sense, the standard of living of that person and it can be transferred to society as a whole opening up opportunities for greater access to education, healthcare, protecting the environment etc.


That is the illusion.
Let me try a parable.  We have only three persons in this society.  The accountant, A, works hard and keeps the books.  B the baker also works very hard to provide society with its daily bread and C the carpenter is at full stretch to keep society in furniture.  B and C begin to notice that A has a billion theo in his account whilst they have nothing.  Things are priced in theo and thankfully A gets as much bread and furniture as he needs and does not use his vast paper wealth to grab all the economic output of the society.  However, B questions this state of affairs and suggests to C that we should divvie A's billion between the three of them.  C points out that this wouldn't mean there will be more bread and furniture to go round - the prices will only go up.  And there is also the _joe sod_ point that with B and C getting this windfall they might stop producing bread and furniture.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Let me try a parable



Yes, if the economy is working at full capacity, if the economy is producing the optimal amount of goods and services.

But it is not and it is an illusion to think it is.

The economy is littered with inefficiencies and deficiencies, it is littered with over supply in some sectors and under supply in other sectors, it is littered with capital misallocation and missed opportunity.
We strive, as a species, to resolve all of these issues through greater understanding of human behavior and investing in research and development. We have progressed considerably in many ways and failed in many others. And in between, we are constantly facing new unforseen challenges and hurdles that force us at times to rethink what we thought was right is now wrong, and what we thought was once wrong to be right.

I'll introduce D the doctor, T the teacher (of accountancy) and S the student (of accountancy).

C hurts his hand with a chisel and cannot work for six months. He attends the doctors and finds that the doctor has no bench (he was in the process of ordering a new one from C).
This leads to a crisis in furniture shortage. S qualifies as an accountant but there are no jobs available as it is already taken. He is unemployed - now U
In an effort of social solidarity, the government taxes A, B, C, D and T in order to provide U (the student formerly known as S) with some benefit.
B, C, D and T are a bit peeved having to pay tax for welfare benefit at the same time cannot even get any furniture. U is peeved because there are no jobs. A is unperturbed by all of this, closeted in his general splendor.
The government invites I, the immigrant, to fill the skills gap for carpentry. This threatens to eat into C's market and while out of work goes on protest. The protest projects a negative image of society and, people being people, start to reduce their spending in the event that the economy takes a turn for the worse for them also. Sales at the bakery fall and B's income is barely covering his costs.
The government wants more tax to cover the shortfall in receipts, making matters worse.
B,C,D,T and U want a change. They demand that the government ease the burden of taxation on them as it is crippling the economy and causing social unrest. The government responds there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
B, C, D, T and U point to A's vast store of wealth as a means to assist. The government responds that his wealth is only an illusion and wont be of any help.

B,C,D,T and U respond "Dont be silly!"


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, if the economy is working at full capacity, if the economy is producing the optimal amount of goods and services.
> 
> But it is not and it is an illusion to think it is.
> 
> ...



The government's advisor, W, a well meaning leftie suggests that it could take 500m theo off A and she wouldn't miss it.  That could then be distributed 100m apiece amongst the rabble.  This seemed a no brainer and indeed it did give rise to an uptick in the economy as the monetary injection corrected the fall in demand for bread so that B became fully employed again.  Unfortunately the other problems remained and there was large resentment at the rampant inflation.  There was after all no pot of gold - it was all paper.  What's worse U has decided that with his new found paper wealth he isn't interested in work.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Jan 2020)

Its descending into a rowdy episode of Trumpton. 

Trumpton Riots


As mentioned, this is nothing more than a crude experiment lab. I am satisfied that the point im trying to make is understood, to any reasonable observer, at least. 

I will also accept that it is not agreed upon and that differences will continue to persist.


----------



## joe sod (12 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> As mentioned, this is nothing more than a crude experiment lab. I am satisfied that the point im trying to make is understood, to any reasonable observer, at least.



Why is it a "crude experiment lab", it explains perfectly and simply the problems and real life disasters that have happened with improper wealth redistribution. Go on a communist tour in Warsaw or Budapest and it will be explained in exquisite detail what happened. 
It is a big problem in economics that simple concepts are hidden using fancy jargon. Therefore it is very necessary to use "crude" and simple language to explain things properly.
Even the greatest scientists like Einstein used simple thought experiments to describe difficult concepts in physics. He did not use any mathematics or jargon, just two observers A and B observing the same event but "seeing" different things.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> Go on a communist tour in Warsaw or Budapest and it will be explained in exquisite detail what happened.



Why? Who is proposing a return to Soviet style communism? You?
Certainly not me.



joe sod said:


> Even the greatest scientists like Einstein used simple thought experiments to describe difficult concepts in physics. He did not use any mathematics or jargon, just two observers A and B observing the same event but "seeing" different things.



Yes, and I am using *1 single* *person*, namely, the wealthiest person in the world with a current personal wealth of some $100bn as my guinea pig - no one else.
Yet, you are inviting me to tour Warsaw and Budapest, why ??

Perhaps, let me try it from another angle?

If the average industrial wage was $50,000 pa, would you be against imposing a 100% tax on the accumulated wealth of an individual where that persons wealth equates to, or exceeds _two million times the average industrial wage_, and still only applying the 100% tax on wealth over and above the _two million to one _ratio?

Its not a hard question, no history lessons involved. In fact I would say it is a unique proposal. I certainly haven't heard it before. To my mind the answer should be a straight forward Yes or No.
If Yes (being opposed), why?


----------



## joe sod (13 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Why? Who is proposing a return to Soviet style communism? You?
> Certainly not me.


Because this period in history is being completely and intentionally forgotten about, especially how communism affected the common woman and man, the endless queuing for basic foodstuffs. You had to wait years for a tradesman and pay him on the black market not with money (which was useless) but with meat or bread. 

As @Duke of Marmalade  has been illustrating nominal paper money is not really wealth, wealth is man hours , land, food ,technology etc and these commodities are very limited. One very rich man can only consume what one man can consume. If you spread this paper wealth to every man and woman, well then all these people will want to consume much more than the rich man. However the commodities are still limited and cannot be increased because everyone has more paper money, therefore the price of everything goes up.
      Paper money is really an abstraction , in fact the whole financial services sector is an abstraction, it allows people to distance themselves from the nuts and bolts of what is wealth creation, and then to think that wealth is paper money.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> Because this period in history is being completely and intentionally forgotten about,



It has not been forgotten about, it just has nothing to do with the proposal.



joe sod said:


> nominal paper money is not really wealth,



Every year, the government confiscates from me, by way of a property tax, a sum of money based on estimated value on the price of my home. This is a transfer of my resources to the State.
If im an average paid worker, apparently this is an example of a real economic transfer. If im a multi-billionaire, it is apparently an illusion to think that this transfer can occur. 





joe sod said:


> If you spread this paper wealth to every man and woman,



That has not been proposed. All that is proposed is a broadening of the tax base to utilise the accumulation of extreme wealth to assist in paying for public services.



joe sod said:


> in fact the whole financial services sector is an abstraction



Yes it is, but it helps us to make decisions, individually and collectively.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jan 2020)

Moving away from State taxation to private investment (and not a mention of Mercedes or lollipops).

The CEO's solving global disability inequality

#valuable 500

Lots of talk of social inclusion, access to education, to the workplace, designing products, infrastructure etc to account for the needs of those with disabilities - apparently some 17% of global population have, or will experience some form of disability in their lifetimes.
Of course this takes investment, in many forms - financial, intellectual, aesthetic, collective, individual, etc

It represents a transfer resources from those with access to ample resources to those that have none, or little, access to such resources.
Its objective, to reduce inequality. And its not an illusion.

The Bloomberg guy has admitted that not enough has been done. He did state that over the vast area of real estate under his control, every effort is been made to make sure that all areas are accessible to people with disabilities. This is certainly commendable. But is it enough?
What about those with disabilities that are not part of the Bloomberg empire, or in the reach of the #valuable 500 CEO's?

Would there be a way for private industry to lead, supported by state legislation, in enhancing access and acceptance to education, employment, healthcare, social inclusion to reduce inequality across all populations?


----------



## Purple (22 Jan 2020)

Ireland, along with a few States in the USA and a handful of other countries, is the reason these top tech company owners are amassing such vast wealth. It is our complicity in their company's tax evasion which allows it to happen. Our cut of their tax evasion pays for our public services in their current form. Be careful what you wish for. In this discussion we are one of the bad guys.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jan 2020)

Purple said:


> Be careful what you wish for.



Its not me in this instance, its the CEO's of 500 (240 to date) national and multinational corporations making commitments to actively reduce inequality experienced by people with disabilities. 

I just think it sounds like a good idea.

www.thevaluable500.com


----------

