What It Takes to Be in the 1% Around the World

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It's a fair bet, that the college paid the football coach more than the president.

Not even close Gord, though I get your point.

This is the area of work valuation I struggle with especially in some of the pro sports. I do know I would pay to see top stars play and many are prepared to buy jerseys with those same names on them with the reality of neither being the case for lesser, though still immensely talented, lights.

Though I don't have access to the books of these institutions in the US, I have to assume that the well performing football teams are bringing in sufficient television and booster money to justify paying really high salaries to the great coaches. Just as you and I take the better paying opportunities presented to us in our work lives I am very sure these coaches can and will often move to another school when the money is better.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

And yet you have access to bankruptcy and Medicare, social security, food stamps etc. Just like them

I have access to destitution support sure. I don’t get free general purpose medical coverage cause I’m over the minimum earning threshold. They don’t either

But the fact remains as a company owner I’m at a tax disadvantage. The only way I can make more money is my company performs better. I don’t have any additional benefit via the tax system.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I don't think it's a modern concept...go back to the days of small groups of hunter gatherers...the guy who didn't pull his weight wasn't going to be kept around long.

I was going to respond, but I see Gord has already done the job. So no need to add more. As for the oft-repeated meme about "eskimos" leaving their elderly to die on ice flows; there is no anthropological or acheological evidence to support this European myth. ALL societies have instances of senilicide, so it probably happened somewhere, sometime. There's zero evidence it was a widespread or even uncommon practice.

But to address the real meat of your comments, you seem to have misunderstood mine. In fact, I agree with the general tenor of your thoughts. I have never said, nor suggested, that people should or would be idle in retirement, nor in the coming times without paying work. I agree that "sitting in a rocking chair watching the grass grow is not appealing to the vast majority of people." I've stated this at every point in this discussion.

This is the entire point in referencing retirement as the living example of what can be. Most people who retire do not just sit around waiting to die. They continue to find engaging and challenging ways to live their lives. They just do it in a more self-directed way.

Yes, it is hard for some to make this transition. And indeed, some never do. But most retirees live fulfilling, engaging lives of their own choosing. This forum is full of them.

This is the point I'm trying to make. There is no necessity to intertwine engaging activity with resource distribution. We do it now through what we call "a job," but it doesn't have to be this way. We could distribute necessary resources to people AND we could have productive and engaging activity take place. They don't have to be combined.

As more and more jobs are taken over by robots and artificial intelligence, productive activities will continue, but without humans doing them. This is why we need a new way to distribute the wealth and resources generated by this activity.

Either that, or we need to abandon the drive for added efficiency. But that would require a much more radical shift in thinking than the one I'm proposing. So I see my suggestion as a necessary and easier interim step.

[roverhi]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It's a fair bet, that the college paid the football coach more than the president.

It's a fact, not a bet, that giving to a University is directly related to the success of the football team. A winning team is also a win for the endowment fund.

[nextis12]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

True...the bottom 50% of earners pay 0% and $0 taxes.

In income tax, but every dollar earned is subject to social security and medicare payroll tax which make up 36% of US tax revenue. Not to mention the bottom 50% pay sales, gas, cell phone, tariffs and maybe property tax.

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by nextis12

In income tax, but every dollar earned is subject to social security and medicare payroll tax which make up 36% of US tax revenue. Not to mention the bottom 50% pay sales, gas, cell phone, tariffs and maybe property tax.

I'm quite sure that if the tax bill the owners of the marinas that we dock our boats at goes up it gets passed to the tenants.
This has been years ago, but IIRC, when all of the taxes and "fees" were added-up, the average US family of four was paying out over 50% of their income, and the streets are still covered with potholes and the kids can't read.
How strange, in 1776, when the motto was "No taxation without representation", the taxes were~5%, and the kids could read.

[Shanachie]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

But the fact remains as a company owner I’m at a tax disadvantage. The only way I can make more money is my company performs better. I don’t have any additional benefit via the tax system.

(rant) If you are a company owner and have competent tax advisers, you are never at a tax disadvantage.


In the U.S. and other western countries, there are hundreds of tax loopholes that allow people with money (myself included ...) to pay far less than working people who file short-form returns.


Capital gains taxes. Depreciation. Business write-offs. A cornucopia of deductions. Depending on the type of business you own, the list goes on and on and on.


Yes, working people pay a relatively small fraction of income taxes ... because they are paid so little that they barely have enough to make ends meet.


Most of the profits made with the labor of these working people go to the shareholders (again, like me) who sit on their collective butts and make investments by clicking computer mouses.


Phew, typing and doing investment research on the Internet is tough work! I deserve the money much more than the people actually performing the jobs that make the profits possible!



These working people also pay hugely regressive levies such as sales taxes and VAT, Medicare and Social Security taxes, gasoline taxes, use fees, etc.



Add them all up and they amount to a large chunk of a working person's salary.


Forgive the sarcasm. I used to be a working guy once and remember just how difficult that life is. Wealthy people whining about paying taxes is just pitiful.



The way the current economic system is set up, the people who actually make our society function have little chance of getting ahead unless they were born smart enough to figure out how to manipulate the system.


People who already have money, or who figure out how to manipulate the system (again, like myself), find it easy to make piles more without so much as breaking a sweat.



I think the current system is ridiculous, but I can't change it. So I use it for the advantage of my family.(/end rant)

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

That's not exactly what the evidence indicates.

A short essay [well described, by the title], from NPR:
"Ancient Bones Offer Clues To How Long Ago Humans Cared For The Vulnerable"
“... the evidence suggests that people in the past devoted significant time and scarce resources to caring for those in need...
... caring for the weak and sick is behavior that goes back as far as Neanderthals...
... From the very earliest times, we can see evidence that people who were unable to function were helped, looked after and given what care was available...”
➥ https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...the-vulnerable

Caring for individuals with diseases may have enabled prehistoric humans to prevent disease transmission, as social networks became more complex, and the threat from socially transmitted diseases increased, according to a study [1] in Scientific Reports.
Care-giving may have been a key element, of the psychological and behavioural traits, that are associated with the success of the human lineage, and the ability to suppress disease spread, may have been fundamental to the evolution of complexity in human societies, the authors conclude.

[1] “Social Structure Facilitated the Evolution of Care-giving as a Strategy for Disease Control in the Human Lineage” ~ by Sharon E. Kessler et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-31568-2

Evidence of care for the ill and injured, amongst Neanderthals, inferred through skeletal evidence, for survival from severe illness and injury, is widely accepted.

“Living to fight another day: The ecological and evolutionary significance of Neanderthal healthcare” ~ by Penny Spikins et al
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...77379118305389

“Calculated or caring? Neanderthal healthcare in social context” ~ by Penny Spikins et al
➥ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...3.2018.1433060


As for the, merely, 'lazy freeloader', you may be more correct. I don't know of any way to tell, with any certainty.

There's a difference between those choosing not pulling their weight and those who are unable...as in my example where grandma & grandpa stay back and watch the kids if grandpa is no longer capable of going out hunting.

Likewise someone with a broken leg may heal, so in the long run, it's worth keeping them going.

I was referring to those who choose not to participate.

Ironically, this may be the source of the animosity towards both the rich and the poor.
- I suspect this is also at the root of hatred of the rich. People see "lifestyles of the rich and famous"...they see people doing no work and enjoying an outsized lifestyle. Of course, they simply are not shown the hard work that goes into it. Therefore, a popular misconception that the rich do not work and thus are not worthy of their wealth.
- Similarly, the poor get money from govt programs for apparently doing nothing and most govt programs make little or no effort to get them back on the path to work.

Now there is the stray wealthy guy who inherited it all and there are the proverbial welfare queens. But when shown someone who does make an honest effort, the tone tends to change.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Shanachie

(rant) If you are a company owner and have competent tax advisers, you are never at a tax disadvantage.

You are making the classic presumption that a business owner equals a Buffet, Gates, Bezos.

The vast majority of business owners are small businesses who can't afford a legal and tax department at their company. Many are one man shows.

Owning a business is much more complex tax situation but for most comes with similar earnings on average.

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Let's just say it's all been done before. Just spend some time looking at the New Deal era, leading up and through WWII and into the 50s and 60s. None of this is new.



We will soon have a fully functioning economy, but one mostly devoid of jobs for humans. This is why we're seeing the rise of various versions and experiments with guaranteed incomes. We need to find a new way to distribute the resources generated by our fully-functioning economy.

The New Deal provided for TEMPORARY financial assistance to the unemployed and farmers. Most of what it did was create public works jobs for the unemployed to work at minimal wages. It did not provide any sort of permanent free money. Granted, power was enhanced to labor unions- which goes back to paying people more than they're worth.

I argue that the current level of subsidies in USA is sufficient for a well managed household- see my prior calculations on what a family can make on minimum wage.

Again, a guaranteed income sufficient to survive SO LONG AS THEY ARE WORKING already exists. In fact, it's pretty good even if they aren't. And, I still question why anyone would bother working hard or going to university if it has no financial reward as compared to an increased guaranteed income.

[goboatingnow]

In the U.S. and other western countries, there are hundreds of tax loopholes that allow people with money (myself included ...) to pay far less than working people who file short-form returns.

if one stays within the law, certainly where I am , there are NO loopholes , depreciation refers to company assets and its declared profits, I cant touch profits personally and if I do I pay income tax as normal. If I get share options , I pay income tax on unrealised gains ( except in certain circumstances ) , Sure if Im apple then corporations can avail of various arbitrage schemes to maximise profit etc . but none of that applies to my personal gain

the only way I can get more money is to be more successful , the tax system provides me with no personal advantage over a salaried worker and that is right and proper by the way

clearly if successful , I have advantages as my income is bounded by the level of success not a salary scale, but that has nothing to do with the tax system

Most of the profits made with the labor of these working people go to the shareholders (again, like me) who sit on their collective butts and make investments by clicking computer mouses.

true, but thats a function of the money system not taxes

[goboatingnow]

This is the point I'm trying to make. There is no necessity to intertwine engaging activity with resource distribution. We do it now through what we call "a job," but it doesn't have to be this way. We could distribute necessary resources to people AND we could have productive and engaging activity take place. They don't have to be combined.

As more and more jobs are taken over by robots and artificial intelligence, productive activities will continue, but without humans doing them. This is why we need a new way to distribute the wealth and resources generated by this activity.

your first paragraph I entirely agree with , in theory as more and more menial. repetitious and dangerous work is performed by automatons, people are released to do fulfilling work even if that work doesn't pay well ( or at all) , hence the concept of a living wage irrespective of what you do.

two flies in the ointment, one is that the need for humans is often greatly underestimated in technological change, for example the massive rise of the software industry , largely completely human orientated , was not forseen by early computer pundits , rather like the paperless office turned to be anything but

and secondly all seeing all doing AI and robotics is a "long ", "long" way away, if ever =, its one thing to watch sci-fi , its entirely another to engineer fully functional autonomous robots. Rather like the issue of fully autonomous cars ( 20,30,40 years out in reality)

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

The New Deal provided for TEMPORARY financial assistance to the unemployed and farmers. Most of what it did was create public works jobs for the unemployed to work at minimal wages. It did not provide any sort of permanent free money. Granted, power was enhanced to labor unions- which goes back to paying people more than they're worth.

Yes, IMO the most significant thing the New Deal, and similar policy choices did, was to allow unions to flourish. This is in contrast to sending in the military and police to act as goons to physically crush collective action -- THIS was the norm prior.

Here's some light reading for those interested: https://www.britannica.com/event/New...al-New-Dealers

And how in g-d's graces do you reach your final comment. Please explain how you know what people are worth?!? In business, I've always understood that I don't get what I deserve. I get what I can negotiate. Are you suggesting there is some magical abacus in the sky that allocates worth based on some absolute TRUTH?!?. How bizarre.

Your assertion then means large companies like Walmart should not use their commercial might to negotiate better deals from suppliers. Large pharmaceutical purchasers should not use their buying power to negotiate lower rates... This is utter poppycock (and I don't use the P word lightly ), and flies in the face of ... reality. Why shouldn't workers also use their collective strength to bargain for better outcomes?

Originally Posted by Tetepare

I argue that the current level of subsidies in USA is sufficient for a well managed household- see my prior calculations on what a family can make on minimum wage.

If this is the case, then please live on this wage for a year. Come back and tell us how you fair. I'm serious. Live on this minimum wage that you claim is sufficient. Not for a night. Not for a week. Do it for a year. Then you will have real personal data worth sharing.

[JBP]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

I argue that the current level of subsidies in USA is sufficient for a well managed household- see my prior calculations on what a family can make on minimum wage.

Erm, your prior calculations showed that 3 people working overtime with no sick days, no vacation days, no healthcare or benefits (min. wage does not include benefits), could, in theory, make as much as one person with an ordinary decent job with a standard 40 hour week plus the usual vacation, sick days, health insurance, and other benefits.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Shanachie

(rant) If you are a company owner and have competent tax advisers, you are never at a tax disadvantage.


In the U.S. and other western countries, there are hundreds of tax loopholes that allow people with money (myself included ...) to pay far less than working people who file short-form returns.


Capital gains taxes. Depreciation. Business write-offs. A cornucopia of deductions. Depending on the type of business you own, the list goes on and on and on.


Yes, working people pay a relatively small fraction of income taxes ... because they are paid so little that they barely have enough to make ends meet.


Most of the profits made with the labor of these working people go to the shareholders (again, like me) who sit on their collective butts and make investments by clicking computer mouses.


Phew, typing and doing investment research on the Internet is tough work! I deserve the money much more than the people actually performing the jobs that make the profits possible!



These working people also pay hugely regressive levies such as sales taxes and VAT, Medicare and Social Security taxes, gasoline taxes, use fees, etc.



Add them all up and they amount to a large chunk of a working person's salary.


Forgive the sarcasm. I used to be a working guy once and remember just how difficult that life is. Wealthy people whining about paying taxes is just pitiful.



The way the current economic system is set up, the people who actually make our society function have little chance of getting ahead unless they were born smart enough to figure out how to manipulate the system.


People who already have money, or who figure out how to manipulate the system (again, like myself), find it easy to make piles more without so much as breaking a sweat.



I think the current system is ridiculous, but I can't change it. So I use it for the advantage of my family.(/end rant)

Though you sound quite the opposite of someone paying taxes on significant wealth, I will trust your assertion that you can pay less tax than 'working people'. I can tell you through experience that there is no way in Canada for you or me to put money in our bank accounts to buy things without paying taxes at a pre-determined rate scaled to income. You can shelter money from the tax man but if you want to spend it you will have to take it as income and pay the tax.

You have not heard me ever cry poor me for having to pay the prescribed level of taxes but I am awfully sick of people throwing made up information out there and blaming me for not paying enough taxes. I don't consume any more of the services paid for by taxes but I am paying vastly more than most of the people yelling that I am the one causing the problem.

It does not add up.