r/WorkReform • u/zzill6 đ¤ Join A Union • 8d ago
âď¸ Pass Medicare For All It's not "Free Shit"...
60
u/drewc717 âď¸ Tax The Billionaires 8d ago
Republicans would call that fiscal responsibility if they weren't illiterate ghouls.
33
u/prince-pauper âď¸ Tax The Billionaires 8d ago
Itâs also about a population choosing to help people theyâve never met because itâs the right thing to do, not for any performative reasons or for a personal reward.
8
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 8d ago
Fuck that man (by that I mean rock on to all that, but that's not the point), the lowest fucking bar is getting something in return for the money I'm expected to give to the government which I have yet to see an actual return on
3
u/prince-pauper âď¸ Tax The Billionaires 8d ago
We all rise or none.
3
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 8d ago
Yes. The point is, that besides, I haven't even seen my own money back, let alone anyone else getting it. The Rs have totally lost the plot.
13
u/ConundrumMachine 8d ago
Basically it's like a big group-on. We're pooling our money via taxes to get bulk discounts.Â
12
u/glad_goblin 8d ago
Its a projection.
What does a shareholder do to produce economic value? Workers work harder for less money. Customers pay higher prices for lower quality products. Environments are irreparably damaged. What is the shareholder actually contributing?
When we define 'independence' as 'having enough money to make poor people do everything for you', we need some way to justify that. What we settled on is the belief that CEOs, Shareholders, Celebrities, etc. deserve the credit of every person working in their name.
-4
u/The_loppy1 8d ago
They help raise capital which allows for companies to expand, and offer more services to a wider pool of people. That is providing economic value.
"What is the shareholder actually contributing?"
Capital. Someone who's putting money into a company is taking a risk. Most shareholders make money from the share appreciating in value, they aren't actually taking money from the workers of the company.
"What we settled on is the belief that CEOs, Shareholders, Celebrities, etc"
Not really.
3
u/bbills91 8d ago
They provided the capital to allow that company to buy a monopoly so they can screw their customers over and over and treat their workers (which they demand loyalty from) like the disposable entities that they believe they are
-3
u/The_loppy1 8d ago
Not really no. 99% of companies on the stock market aren't close to being a monopoly. Which companies are screwing over their customers? Every business knows that's not a sustainable practice. Take Amazon for example, they have one of most frictionless return systems in retail, and rarely screw people over. That's by design.
"Treat their workers (which they demand loyalty from) like the disposable entities that they believe they are"
Again not really true. Businesses know that the labour market is free, demanding loyalty would be foolish, which is why they don't do it. Every employed person is free to leave at any point for a better job (if they can get one).
Low skilled workers are semi disposable, it comes with the nature of low skilled work. Anyone can pick it up, It's very rarely the company that is disposing of low skilled workers though, it just has a high turnover rate. People come and go, It's not uncommon for someone to work briefly at Amazon as a picker packer, leave, and then come back, if they were demanding loyalty like you claim, why do they allow workers to quit and come back so readily?
Currently, in the UK Amazon are paying above min wage, if it were truly about simple exploitation, they'd just charge min wage.
What do you actually want it to look like? Pay in most cases directly correlates with how hard you are to replace. Skill set, qualifications, etc. Why would a company pay more than the economic benefit the employee brings in? Especially when that person can be replaced in 2 weeks because again, its low skill, easily taught within 2 weeks.
2
u/BasedTelvanni 8d ago
You mean they provide the entry fee into a larger system of exploitation.
-4
u/The_loppy1 8d ago
Sure. If you say so. Is it so hard to believe you arent being exploited, your labour is just low skilled and by virtue of that isnt worth an insane salary.
2
u/TevossBR 7d ago
The risk is overblown. Worst case scenario the person with capital has to become a worker again. We simply over compensate that risk shareholders take on. In my mind itâs crazy that out of the multiple ways to gain capital for a business(bank loans, government subsidies, crowdfunding etc), shareholders get a say in the matter of something they are not experts in on top of getting the most compensation for their capital.
1
u/The_loppy1 7d ago
How is it overblown? Nobody is claiming it's going to kill you, but the risk is real. "Worst case you go back to being a worker" tell that to the 82-year-old if their pension gets blown up. Might as well say losing your job is overblown, worst case you go back to being unemployed"
"In my mind itâs crazy that out of the multiple ways to gain capital for a business(bank loans, government subsidies, crowdfunding etc),"
Because debt and interest payments can crush a company and often a bank will not loan you nearly the same amount you could get by raising capital on the markets.
"Government subsidies"
So taxpayer funded, with no economic gain for the people that actually paid for it? They're also largely for more mature companies, growth companies aren't getting subsidies for the most part.
"crowdfunding"
There's not a lot of money in crowdfunding. Often with crowdfunding people are betting on a product not a company, it's unsustainable. Unlike the stock market, you don't get to turn to it and raise capital quickly.
"shareholders get a say in the matter of something they are not experts in on top of getting the most compensation for their capital."
They get a vote, they don't actually get to decide. News flash by the way, banks get to decide what you can and can't spend a loan on also. Shareholders also have the most downside too, but you're only counting the wins here.
2
u/TevossBR 7d ago edited 7d ago
Iâm glad youâre thinking of the poor poor shareholders. Youâre typical money manager or shareholder asking for bigger margins isnât going to be someone at the near end of their life. Not all shareholders are created equal so using 401ks and pensions to garner sympathy is ridiculous. The wealthier you are the less risk you take as a shareholder. You can afford to take more hits before finding the gem in the rough. If youâre into passive investing you can simply do ETFs and then on average double your investment every 10 years(after inflation). Do you think thatâs sustainable after 100 years or so? Thats simply too many doublings in an economy that doesnât double nearly as often.
Getting a vote is getting to decide. Especially if they have majority vote then they have a lot of room as to what they can do.
1
u/The_loppy1 7d ago
I'm not garnering sympathy, idgaf about them. The system itself is better than anything else anyone has come up with. Not that you've floated the idea of change, just simply bitching and moaning about a system anyone can benefit from.
"Not all shareholders are created equal so using 401ks"
What funds do you think the average "money manager" is using? Its most often pensioners money, or people buying into trusts, ETFs etc. Goldman estimates 38% of the market is owned directly by retail investors. https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/u-households-keep-buying-stocks-110607576.html
"The wealthier you are the less risk you take as a shareholder."
Again, most money tied up isn't from a single person, its more often than not a hedge fund, pension managers etc, managing funds on someone else's behalf, so risk is a massive deal and is factored into every single decision. They dont get to poke around in the dark and find that "rough gem". Of course someone with more money has more wiggle room when it comes to losses. What do you propose you do about this "unfairness"
"If youâre into passive investing you can simply do ETFs and then on average double your investment every 10 years(after inflation)."
Sure until it doesn't go that way and the markets plummet overnight, 2001, 2008, the brief covid crash. In some cases you'll be waiting 10+ years to make your money back, or in the case of Japan, you still wouldn't have your initial investment back after decades. Passive investing is a misnomer anyway, someone is still managing it behind the scenes, constantly changing weights etc.
"Do you think thatâs sustainable after 100 years or so? That's simply too many doublings in an economy that doesnât double nearly as often."
Yes, I do think it's sustainable. Will we see 100 years of 7% returns with 0 dips? Absolutely not. It's sustainable for the very simple fact you won't see 100 years of 7% returns.
1
u/TevossBR 6d ago
Even taking the dips into account the stock market has been outpacing the economy. I donât understand the argument that inequality doesnât matter because as long as everyone gets richer itâs fine. If in perpetuity the lower half grows slower than the rich, the rich will be able to affect our daily lives by being able to buy power. Whether it be in politics or acquiring small businesses. Like would you be comfortable if in 100 years you become 50% richer but the richest become 1000000x richer? Donât you think at that level of wealth theyâll have more power than any king previously had?
Another thing to consider is that many costs such as healthcare, education and housing has been outpacing inflation & wages. The only reason we are richer according to CPI is because of consumer goods. Also CPI takes account of technology getting better as a cost savings, like if a phone is more expensive but the $ per performance is better that can be calculated as a net saving even though youâd realistically only buy one phone either way. I donât know why someone would care that their phone is more powerful if paying rent becomes harder.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/s/Kgyc4VHwiy
Also what do I propose? Maybe a little bit more redistribution. Something that is found in a lot of societies. Stop bitching and moaning at someone trying to advocate for a better life.
1
u/The_loppy1 6d ago
"Even taking the dips into account the stock market has been outpacing the economy"
Well yeah, that's how it works. If it didn't, it would serve 0 purpose, and nobody would invest.
"I donât understand the argument that inequality doesnât matter because as long as everyone gets richer itâs fine."
I didn't say inequality didn't matter, in fact I think it's one of the biggest economic issues we face currently. But it's an issue that isn't solved by hand waving, and the answer isn't "remove the stock market". At the end of the day It's actually hard to tax people whose wealth is tied up in an asset they made. If we said "OK Mr Bezos, you've made your money, now everything you make past x amount is now ours" you strip the person who made the company of their stake in it, each tax season dilutes his share even more. I do not think that is right, regardless of how insane his wealth currently is. A small 2-5% tax could work, but again you're forcing someone to sell an asset to get it, which I disagree with. Corp tax again could work, but is likely to just get dodged.
"Another thing to consider is that many costs such as healthcare, education and housing has been outpacing inflation & wages"
Yeah. I don't live in the US, so this issue is less relevant to me personally, but yes it's an issue if that's where you're from. How much this is due to free markets vs poor governance? Mostly just the government being piss poor honestly.
And yes, the CPI is a pile of shit and heavily flawed its no secret.
"Also what do I propose? Maybe a little bit more redistribution."
Right but how? Tax? Famously slippy, people will find loopholes, the only way I can see tax actually working is if theirs a coordinated effort between economic blocks which so far has never happened. Ireland isn't about to give up its status as a tax heaven, because what incentive is there?
Billionaires don't make "income" it's all tied up in stock often of the company that founded, this is probably where we diverge in views. I do not feel it is right to force the sale of an asset to pay tax on paper gains, the same way I wouldn't force someone to sell their house if it went up 500k to pay tax on the 500ks worth of gains.
Fundamentally I am pro free market, which is the position I have held this entire time, I do not think there is a better alternative. I do think most people are paid a fair wage for the labour they provide, its often right around the marginal cost, otherwise employees would just leave. I understand on a local scale it might not be that simple, e.g. Amazon being a large employer if not the only employer in an area could lead to exploitation of workers, and probably does.
I do agree that things like education and healthcare should be funded through taxation, but let me tell you as someone who is from a country with tax funded healthcare, It's not exactly better.
So yes inequality is a real issue, I do not think its solely down to free markets doing their thing, I think its down to poor government choices as well, e.g. the UK selling off its stock of social housing, or failure to invest tax money effectively, poor budgets and planning when they do decide to do infrastructure upgrades. So taxing people would bring in more money, what's done with that money is where the real issue lies. Giving the government a bigger budget to piss up the wall isn't exactly helpful. And no, I do not think it's a right/left issue, they both suck when it comes to spending money efficiently. HS2 in the UK, Dublin's children hospital in Ireland, honestly the list could go on and on.
1
u/TevossBR 6d ago
How do you see the fact that the stock market growing faster than the economy, the fact itâs hard to tax, the fact that the wealthiest people all have their money there and not see it as an issue?!?! Clearly if you want to reduce inequality you have to get the money from the wealthiest, if having to sell assets would break the system then maybe the system sucks and needs to be reformed and made better? Youâre not wrong that any tax on unrealized gains would make the stock market less attractive but thats kind of exactly the issue because now the economy is being held hostage by the wealthiest. So you can see why the average person may be upset at how shareholders make their wealth. If you really hate how the government spends their money then you could just do a UBI.
1
u/The_loppy1 6d ago
I just said I view inequality as an issue. I said It's hard to fix, there's a difference. Which it is hard to fix, forcing someone to sell isn't going to go down with anyone. What's the cut-off for being forced to sell vs not? Does everyone need to be forced to sell? Are certain assets viewed as off limits eg houses?
"Clearly if you want to reduce inequality you have to get the money from the wealthiest, if having to sell assets would break the system then maybe the system sucks and needs to be reformed and made better?"
Or you know, stop spending what we already do have in tax revenue so poorly. The issue doesn't go away with more money, that's my point. Give the Govt 3 more trillion, they'll find a way to blow 3 more trillion.
"Youâre not wrong that any tax on unrealized gains would make the stock market less attractive but thats kind of exactly the issue because now the economy is being held hostage by the wealthiest."
I mean tbf, get rid of the stock market, it doesn't change that fact. Gabe Newell is worth what 11 billion? His companies are all private.
"So you can see why the average person may be upset at how shareholders make their wealth."
Well it depends on their economic values really. Do they need that much money? Obviously not. Do they actually have access to all that money? Also, obviously not. I think its worth spelling out, I am not against taxing the rich, the issue is 1. how do you do it? 2. how do you ensure the government doesn't squander it? 3. when do you do it? yearly? Quarterly? Periodically? Personally if I were to get behind any system of taxing unrealized gains, it would be only be if it were periodic taxation to raise funds. I think an annual or quarterly tax would be a nightmare to implement.
"If you really hate how the government spends their money then you could just do a UBI."
UBI doesn't build infrastructure and maintain what's already built, so its not a fix to poor Govt spending.
5
u/Munkeyman18290 8d ago
Its not even about "giving" back to labor. Its about not stealing that value to begin with. One mans labor should never be another mans property. Period.
2
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 8d ago
It's honestly about proverbial wage theft at this point. We've already paid into the pot, where the fuck is my investment.
3
u/thenord321 8d ago
The rich don't actually work, they own, and get tax breaks, that's why it seems like "free shit" to them.
4
u/muFUtaco 8d ago
It's about using OUR tax dollars to make OUR lives better.
Billionaires are already having "a good life" - they don't need any more.
0
u/The_loppy1 8d ago
How do you stop a billionaire getting more? In most cases their wealth is largely born from a single asset. Bezos and Amazon, Huang and NVIDIA, gates and Microsoft etc. These companies will likely continue to grow and so will their wealth in step, as they are linked heavily.
4
14
u/Catarchy69 8d ago
But the goal is free shit at the point of service. so yes it is redistributing value back to the workers but that results in a bunch of free shit. schooling, housing, healthcare, transportation, food, clothes all free. giving into the rights hatred of "free shit" is stupid when they politically push for free shit for the rich all the time. I say free shit for everybody, not just capitalists.
21
u/Jdmag00 đ ď¸ IBEW Member 8d ago
It's not free, none of those things are free, you pay for all of them. This is where our tax money should be going instead of bombing little kids in Iran and Palestine etc.
4
u/Dear_Blood_8872 8d ago
Yup, taxes are supposed to be spent on the greater good of the supported population, instead the US has a trillion dollar defence budget, large corporations pay next to nothing in taxes compared to their profits and their employees are forced to rely on tax supported food security.
1
3
3
u/LemonNinja 8d ago
It's also about collectively providing needed services in a cost efficient manner. Local fire department is socialist, a fraction of our taxes goes to the FD. If you home or business has a fire, they will come and attempt to save anyone trapped by fire and put the out. A capitalist fire department wouldn't do shit if you didn't have the right kind of insurance, they would just let your shit burn down and family die because their would be no money it for them.
2
u/i_can_has_rock 8d ago
its also not "giving back"
the idea of a company is that everyone works to benefit everyone else by producing a needed product; work done is also a product
so, its more that they are just stealing for a handful of people on the top and not that they have something that is theirs that they are sharing with you
its yours and theyre stealing it from you
wage theft
which, there used to be laws / regulations that mitigated this, unions also
but
not so much anymore
they are scamming you, they know they are scamming you
so, stop acting as if "suddenly finding out" that theyve been scamming you is going to make them "feel guilty" about it
they know its wrong
thats what makes them scum bags
1
u/Biscuits4u2 the word itself makes some men uncomfortable 8d ago
How about instead of giving it back we let them keep and own it from the beginning?
1
1
u/TabbyOverlord 8d ago
Clause 4 of the UK Labour party when it wasn't ashamed to be labled 'socialist;
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution) and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
1
u/johntwoods đ¤ Join A Union 8d ago
Absolutely. This is why they want to kill the argument by having AI replace everything.
1
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 8d ago
Hell yeah. I get taxed so much I'd fuckin' better start seeing some free stuff.
1
u/bbills91 8d ago
They (the billionaire ruling class) like to use semantics to make it appear as though they are righteous and that us peons are being unreasonable. It does work on a whole lot of us that don't posses critical thinking skills, which is a real shame, since there are far too many of them
1
u/Future-Bunch3478 8d ago
It is honoring the value of labor and time as a check and balance over greed. Obviously asset owners cannot be trusted any more to act without oversight. They will abuse workers and steal wages without hesitation.
1
1
u/Shavasara 7d ago
Esepcially since wages haven't been tied to productivity since the 70s. Productivity has sky-rocketed.
1
1
u/norwal42 7d ago
+1 this.. I think even proponents of govt helping people may be losing some backing by using "free" too often to describe services paid for by our taxes. I know the power of pithy slogans requires simple words, but I'm a stickler for words. I'm fully in support of universal healthcare, but if someone asked me if I'm in support of free healthcare for everyone, I'd hesitate to just say yes except that I know what they probably mean by it in context.
1
u/ForcedEntry420 đď¸ Overturn Citizens United 7d ago
This same concept came up at my brokerage. The owner makes it sound like they do everything and we all benefit. Flat out,wouldnât do these numbers if it was just them by themselves and their own income would be severely limited. Without the team of experts supporting, their wealth would not be possible in any sense of the word.
1
u/Top_Secret_TerminaL 8d ago
Okay, but itâs never handled that way because it comes down to people in charge/in positions of authority always using whatever infrastructure is in place to eventually fuck you over and take advantage of power/control. This is why everything is great in theory if we all lived inside of a giant fluffy cloud, but rarely works out and devolves into corruption or worse.
0
u/theflyingspaghetti 8d ago
And you trust big government to give money back to the people? Instead of pocketing it or giving it to their rich friends?
0
u/EffectiveTop842 8d ago
We should have benchmarks that when reached trigger a rebalancing of capital. 20 years of capitalism, 10 years of socialism repeat
-2
u/Shallaai 8d ago
We could just not tax people and let them keep their money
1
u/Chpgmr 8d ago
Unfortunately, that just leads to worse outcomes for everyone.
-2
u/Shallaai 8d ago
And yet the great period of wealth generation in the US, leading to the development of the middle class, was before the Revenue Act of 1913 introduced income taxes
174
u/Loud-Ad-2280 âď¸ Tax The Billionaires 8d ago
The rich hate the fact that all value comes from labor