I'm a white male who voted Biden. Why?

submitted by DoubleReverse from self.politics

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BitterRedditRefugee 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (26 children)

Tax the rich

surprisingly, a lot of the poor and middle class are against raising taxes especially after when the rich get their tax cuts, the federal government still needs to make up for the lost revenue and they charge the middle class and lower more taxes to make up for that revenue. I guess those in the middle class and lower classes are holding out hope that maybe one their they will win powerball and when they do, they want their taxes to be nice and low.

[–]emptiedriver 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

The amount of money the super rich have is beyond any level of use and there are millions of people literally suffering in the meantime.

Life is a limited resource. Don't try to save up money for a life beyond the one you have. People waste their time looking at their money grow or shrink, without ever using it or enjoying it. They are only increasing their greed, until they die and pass it on to grandchildren, and the cycle continues. When it's a large enough amount of money, taxing it so that basic needs can be met for all is fair. In a more even system, no one has hundreds of millions, but also no one lives on the street or can't afford food.

Winning powerball is pure luck. How long you live has a lot to do with luck too. If you live for 80 years, & you win powerball at 40 then you have maybe four decades to enjoy it, and for some of those years you don't even want to do much more than sit around. Why not share the wealth?

[–]Intuit 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Saving money is how you don't become a burden to others in the future. It gives you more confidence and flexibility. People who complain about being slaves to their employer don't save money. People who make money and save it are being more productive and creating more wealth for everyone. If you punish them for being more productive, there will be less wealth to go around for everyone. Some people really are more effective at creating wealth than others. I want them to have more resources at their disposal. It benefits me.

[–]emptiedriver 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

sure, saving money to become flexible, buy a house, invest in a business, take vacations and explore options is great, but a) most people don't do it beyond perhaps the house, they just hoard the money and watch its value increase, and b) the super-rich who are the ones in question here, who literally have billions of dollars to "give them confidence", would not lose anything if their taxes were raised a bit and the comparative wealth in the country went back to something more like how it was a few decades ago.

It has just gotten out of hand and there's no purpose or fairness to it. No one should have that much more power than their peers. It's much more like a monarchy/ oligarchy than a democracy. They cannot possibly earn that much money, even if they create the most socially important and unique thing, and most of the time they are essentially lucky with their starting company, and then lucky with investments.

[–]Intuit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No one should have that much more power than their peers.

I'm fine with people having power over what they own and have acquired through voluntary exchange. I'd be thrilled with government that is non-existent or existed only at a local community level. Concentrations of power will always be exploited to benefit the few. They can't exist without being misused.

[–]emptiedriver 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So you are fine with oligarchies, aristocracies, authoritarian kingdoms, dictatorships, or other forms of society where the few rule over the many?

You accept yourself that concentrations of power will be misused - shouldn’t we try to regulate that to some degree?

You suggest that people have power “over what they acquire through voluntary exchange” - is that really how people become billionaires?

The point of these kinds of taxes is not to take from middle class people who work hard and want to keep their earnings. It’s to even out the unnecessary and accidental over abundance that the super-rich have come into possession of, so that those just starting out have more opportunities and a greater sense of security. It isn’t about “power over what they own” but power to control society, to buy media corporations or elections, or take over and merge opposing businesses so that consumers only have one choice. Having so much money that you influence the economy so dramatically is not just power over your own property but power over everyone else, and it is constantly evident, even when you do not intend to do anything questionable. Where you think the money should go is where it goes.

[–]Intuit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you are fine with oligarchies, aristocracies, authoritarian kingdoms, dictatorships, or other forms of society where the few rule over the many?

How are these simply people acquiring property by voluntary exchange? Rule over people is not possible because people cannot be property; it's a violation of property rights.

You accept yourself that concentrations of power will be misused - shouldn’t we try to regulate that to some degree?

Regulate it with a concentrated power? The solution can't be more of the disease. Regulate via voluntary exchange and defense of that? Yes. A concentration of power is not merely a bunch of people choosing the same thing, it's a few or one person choosing something and imposing it by force on others.

You suggest that people have power “over what they acquire through voluntary exchange” - is that really how people become billionaires?

That's the problem when the state has taken over so much of the market, it's difficult to do things without playing along with it. My argument was that in a situation like in the past where there was far less state interference in the market, there's nothing inherently wrong with someone who acquires a lot. Of course lots of people currently acquired money through crooked means or through the power of the state. The state isn't going to fix this other than by drastically scaling itself back.

power to control society, to buy media corporations or elections, or take over and merge opposing businesses so that consumers only have one choice. Having so much money that you influence the economy so dramatically is not just power over your own property but power over everyone else

I don't think that this is possible without the state's interference in the market.

Why There is No Such Thing as an Exploitative Monopoly in a Free Market

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Please save up enough money to convince a banker to give you a loan so you can simply buy some property, then tell me how fucking simple and easy it is, Intuit.

You just blame it on laziness, when that's only a portion of what makes poor people poor. You sound like pretty much every conservative I've ever met (I'm not calling you one, just letting you know you sound like a country bumpkin living in a place with low taxes, low interest rates, and a high enough income to convince bankers that you have a dick to swing)

[–]Intuit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You just blame it on laziness

Huh? I never said anything about laziness. Stick to arguments rather than ad hominem. If I were to blame it on something, it'd be on being given misleading advice like yours to not save wealth for a rainy day. Hence why I make arguments for taking responsibility and not falling prey to envy and misunderstanding voluntary trade.

you sound like a country bumpkin living in a place with low taxes, low interest rates, and a high enough income to convince bankers that you have a dick to swing

I've never taken out a loan, and only recently gotten a credit card (for the fraud protection and bonus offers/rewards, always paid off by due date). Not sure why my personal life matters, though. Let's stick with arguments about the subject.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh, Intuit. You sour grape.

[–]Intuit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You're not contributing to reasoned debate here with your ad hominem.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm bleeding over here

[–]denverkris 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You don't need to "convince" a banker to give you a loan. You either qualify or you don't. At least you can admit that laziness is "a portion of" whats keeping ppl poor.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Being lazy keeps some people poor, sure. That's easy to admit, because it's true.

You don't know shit about banks and such if you think it's only "fill out these boxes, meet these requirements"

I've literally lived out the truth. Banks don't give a shit what you do so long as you play ball.

[–]emptiedriver 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A person who works at an ordinary job and is raising a family will not be able to save much beyond some limited resources for their children's future, potential emergencies, or retirement funds, even when they're good with their money. The ones who have real flexibility have gotten lucky in one way or another - some more fair or rational than others since money in business can be based on manipulation, cheating, cutting out at the right time, or just dumb luck, and being super rich will mean further investment and growth at a level that just isn't available when losing money is not abstract but a meaningful risk. If losing a few million is just a number, you can bet at significant odds and do pretty well when the stock market is going up. If losing a few thousand might ruin your life and you could need access at any time, you won't want to move it out of a safe savings account that barely accrues interest.

Higher taxes for the billionaires means we can provide some of the things those people might be scared about and give them the breathing room to invest their few thousand - make health care, education, transportation or vacations more accessible and affordable, for example...

[–]denverkris 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There are not enough "billionaires" to fund all the shit that people want for "free". Most any country who has successfully provided these types of services has done so by taxing everyone at high levels, because they figured out that a) there's not enough rich people to pay for it all and b) rich people get sick of having their money taken away disproportionately, and many will simply leave to protect their assets.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You probably couldn't imagine a world where money isn't the main pillar society is built on. Apes.

[–]denverkris 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You don't need to "convince" a banker to give you a loan. You either qualify or you don't. At least you can admit that laziness is "a portion of" whats keeping ppl poor.

[–]jet199 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Even if you take away half of the billionaires' fortunes it would work out a couple of dollars each for the poor by the time it got to them, and that's a one off payment.

Also most of their wealth is not real wealth at all, its just current market valuations of property they own. What do you think would happen to Amazon share prices if Bezos said he was going to sale all his shares? It would fall through the floor. So much of his supposed wealth actually disappears the moment he tries to access it. It's been shown millionaires in the 1920s actually had far more physical wealth and physical property than the billionaires of today even though they seem to be richer and far further removed from the rest of us. Their money exists in companies, companies which actually do things for all of us, not sat in their bank accounts.

The best way of raising large amount of taxes to help people out is to tax everyone and every company reasonable amounts consistently, which is why that's what every government does. Putting an extra 1% on a tax can raise much more than any millionaire windfall tax and do so painlessly and keep doing so every year.

[–]wecandobetter 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This is the intelligent, non-ignorant-child analysis of the 'tax the rich' issue

[–]Iam1ofMany 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You don't even understand the basics of the economy. Do you think people that have millions/billions just have it sitting in a bank account or under their bed somewhere saving it for a rainy day? What do you think they do with this money they have? Once you understand that then you might start having a clue to what you are talking about.

[–]emptiedriver 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They can certainly have a portion of it in some kind of mutual fund that is just growing or shrinking with the stock market, why not? And that's not really any different from having it in a bank account, where the bank can essentially use it to invest to the extent that they want to take a risk (that's why your bank account accrues interest), so the notion that by "investing" it you are helping the economy is very limited. You are helping other rich people. The poor are still poor - until someone taxes the rich and diverts some of that money towards those who aren't invested in the stock market!

[–]Iam1ofMany 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think your understanding of what a mutual fund is incorrect. A mutual fund is simply a fund that is invested in a diverse range of things in the stock market so its value flows very closely with the stock market. If you invest in a mutual fund you are investing in lots of companies which is completely different from having it in a bank account.

[–]emptiedriver 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

no, I think your understanding of a bank is incorrect. Yes, a mutual fund is just investing in the stock market. But a bank account is just allowing a bank to take the risk for you - they will guarantee that you cannot lose any money, but they are not actually physically holding that money in a locked safe. They invest in the stock market too, and give you a small return while they make money off of your money, and can always move money around so that whenever someone needs access to their money, they can provide it. But it's all just numbers. There's no gold coins waiting in the back.

And the point is, all this investing is going into other rich people's pockets. People who don't have public companies or stock market portfolios are not gaining from it. The "economy" does well and for rich people this means their money grows, but for poor people it doesn't mean that much. Middle income people who might have a small retirement fund or something can feel hopeful with the stock market going up but it still isn't changing their life - just a number on a screen the slowly rises. If it didn't rise as much but they had stability through public means, they might be more secure.

[–]Iam1ofMany 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Banks lend your money to other people, that is how they give you a return. Your interest rate in your savings account doesn't go by the stock market, it goes by what the current interest rates for loans are.

What do you think happens with money invested in a company such as Amazon or Ford? Do you think that might work to expand Ford or Amazon and may just, maybe, create jobs for those poor people that need jobs(if they chose to work).

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

they will win powerball

It's good to have hope. Without that, what are we.