Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[MikeF]

That doesn't come even close to a solution. I live in a country where companies can't donate to finance campaigns anymore and where there is a multitude of parties. Guess what? Money is still a huge source of power and inluences political decisions very much.

I have to confess that I am not well versed in the specifics of Brazil's politics and economy. You say that corporations cannot donate to political campaigns, but you do not mention what limits exist for individuals.

If there are restriction on both corporations and individuals to donate to political campaigns in Brazil, in what way does money still remain a huge source of power and influence? Perhaps if I had a clear understanding of how money continues to affect Brazilian politics despite strong campaign finance laws (which is what I assume you are asserting), I could speculate on ways to further address moneys continued strong influence.

 

[Koldo]

I have to confess that I am not well versed in the specifics of Brazil's politics and economy. You say that corporations cannot donate to political campaigns, but you do not mention what limits exist for individuals.

10% of gross income in a year.

If there are restriction on both corporations and individuals to donate to political campaigns in Brazil, in what way does money still remain a huge source of power and influence? Perhaps if I had a clear understanding of how money continues to affect Brazilian politics despite strong campaign finance laws (which is what I assume you are asserting), I could speculate on ways to further address moneys continued strong influence.

Bribery and corruption. Rich entrepreneurs buy political support. Some cases become scandals, but obviously most remain hidden.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, the poor & middle class are obsessed
with having good jobs. And they complain
when government kills jobs. So selfish.

Regardless of whether other poor and middle class people are getting screwed as a result.

It would also help to examine what happened
in other places when a proposed policy had
been adopted, eg, nationalizing all industries,
confiscating wealth.

And understanding why it did or didn't work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Regardless of whether other poor and middle class people are getting screwed as a result.

Do you think that a carpenter working on
a yacht is somehow harming a worker
elsewhere?
It's fine to apply reasonable taxation,
but don't kill the goose by over-doing it.
Think before acting.

 

[Heyo]

We already have that. The poor don't pay taxes; remember? (top 1% pays 42%, bottom 50% pays 2%)

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2023 Update

The latest IRS data shows that the U.S. federal individual income tax continued to be progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.

taxfoundation.org

Again; what are you advocating for that is different than the system currently in place?

I think we have to get some facts straight. Do you agree that
- the income of higher brackets (1%, 10%) has risen more than all others?
- the wealth of higher brackets (1%, 10%) has risen more than all others?
- productivity has gone up
- the income of the lower 50% has fallen compared to their productivity?
- the income of the lower 50% has less buying power
all over the last 50 years.

If we agree that all that has happened, don't you agree that the top 1% (10%) don't pay enough income taxes?

 

[MikeF]

10% of gross income in a year.

Ahhh, yes. I would not consider that as meeting my standard for effective campaign finance reform. I would see a fixed dollar amount cap as a more effective means of limiting the influence of money on campaigns. For example, apply a fixed maximum contribution of $2,500 per year, per individual.

Bribery and corruption. Rich entrepreneurs buy political support. Some cases become scandals, but obviously most remain hidden.

I do believe that I indicated that strong political and legal institutions would be a prerequisite for any reform to be effective. Rampant bribery and corruption would indicate that prerequisite is not being met.

 

[Heyo]

Your question doesn't answer my question.

I think it did, but to be clear, yes, there will be unexpected consequences, but I don't expect those to be worse than continuing on the same path as the last 50 years. In fact, it is astonishing that there haven't been more uprisings in the US.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it did, but to be clear, yes, there will be unexpected consequences, but I don't expect those to be worse than continuing on the same path as the last 50 years.

Do you believe that it's generally true that
any change cannot make things worse due
to unforeseen consequences?

 

[Heyo]

Do you believe that it's generally true that
any change cannot make things worse due
to unforeseen consequences?

No. But unforeseen consequences are more likely when something completely new is introduced. Returning to a former state is usually a safe bet.
And that is basically what I'm supposing, return to a wealth and income structure like before Reagonomics.

 

[Koldo]

Do you think that a carpenter working on
a yacht is somehow harming a worker
elsewhere?
It's fine to apply reasonable taxation,
but don't kill the goose by over-doing it.
Think before acting.

It is not the carpenters themselves. To enable every worker to have a decent living standard, the employers need to pay their workers a decent living wage. That however won't always happen, either because they can't afford to pay that much or because they don't want to. So, how do we solve this problem? The typical solution is to make up for this with services and goods provided by the government, which are funded through taxation.

Imagine for example that a certain industry was given tax relief. This could end up generating more jobs or at least preserving jobs. This however also means the government has less money (all else being equal) to provide the services and goods to those that are not receiving a decent living wage. Individuals workers only tend to see it from their own perspective though: they have a job, and if someone else is getting screwed they don't really care.

I also don't think taxation should be overdone. I just think there are more factors to consider than whether a certain industry is employing less workers now than before.

 

[Koldo]

Ahhh, yes. I would not consider that as meeting my standard for effective campaign finance reform. I would see a fixed dollar amount cap as a more effective means of limiting the influence of money on campaigns. For example, apply a fixed maximum contribution of $2,500 per year, per individual.



I do believe that I indicated that strong political and legal institutions would be a prerequisite for any reform to be effective. Rampant bribery and corruption would indicate that prerequisite is not being met.

How would strong political and legal institutions prevent bribery and corruption exactly?

Imagine I am a entrepreneur and you are a politician. I got your phone number and introduce myself to you. We get together in a meeting and I make an offer to you. You accept it. Next day, we meet again and I give you a suitcase filled with cash.

How would any institution prevent that from happening?

 

[Revoltingest]

No. But unforeseen consequences are more likely when something completely new is introduced. Returning to a former state is usually a safe bet.
And that is basically what I'm supposing, return to a wealth and income structure like before Reagonomics.

Don't take this the wrong way....
You'd make a terrible economist.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is not the carpenters themselves. To enable every worker to have a decent living standard, the employers need to pay their workers a decent living wage.

That's a good goal. But to institute policies
that kill the industry that's taxed harms not
only the workers losing their jobs, & the
owners losing their businesses, but also
the government that loses the revenue.

I also don't think taxation should be overdone.

There ya go.
So don't advocate things like 100% tax
on all wealth over some limit agreed
upon by AOC & her ilk.

 

[Heyo]

Don't take this the wrong way....
You'd make a terrible economist.

I know. Economics is all about maximizing profit, I'm all about maximizing well-being, two ideas that aren't always compatible.

 

[Koldo]

That's a good goal. But to institute policies
that kill the industry that's taxed harms not
only the workers losing their jobs, & the
owners losing their businesses, but also
the government that loses the revenue.

I agree.

There ya go.
So don't advocate things like 100% tax
on all wealth over some limit agreed
upon by AOC & her ilk.

I don't agree that constitutes overtaxing per se though.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know. Economics is all about maximizing profit, I'm all about maximizing well-being, two ideas that aren't always compatible.

Your knowledge of what economists
do is abysmal. I strongly recommend
that you listen to Freakonomics podcasts.
You'll learn much. I did to.
And it didn't even hurt (learning often does.)
There are books too, if reading you prefer.
Very very little of their work is even about
profit at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree.

I don't agree that constitutes overtaxing per se though.

Careful analysis, & examination of trying
such policies elsewhere are useful tools
to decide if a policy offers net benefit or
detriment.

 

[MikeF]

How would strong political and legal institutions prevent bribery and corruption exactly?

Imagine I am a entrepreneur and you are a politician. I got your phone number and introduce myself to you. We get together in a meeting and I make an offer to you. You accept it. Next day, we meet again and I give you a suitcase filled with cash.

How would any institution prevent that from happening?

By making that activity illegal and then prosecuting those who engage in it. Just as is done with any illegal activity. It also requires buy-in from the electorate by not voting for those who engage in such activity once it is brought to light. If such conduct is not seen as disqualifying, then it weakens deterrence from engaging in such activity.

 

[Koldo]

By making that activity illegal and then prosecuting those who engage in it. Just as is done with any illegal activity.

It is already illegal, obviously. What I am asking of you is the how. How would a strong institution reliably find out that it happened and successfully send them to jail?

It also requires buy-in from the electorate by not voting for those who engage in such activity once it is brought to light. If such conduct is not seen as disqualifying, then it weakens deterrence from engaging in such activity.

You seem to presume it is not an overaching problem, but it is. Many major political figures here are suspect of, at least once, being involved in some kind of corruption scheme.

 

[Koldo]

Careful analysis, & examination of trying
such policies elsewhere are useful tools
to decide if a policy offers net benefit or
detriment.

I agree. I don't think limitarianism has ever been tried.