wyldechylde said:
I used Meg Whitman as an example when I heard not only the term "class warfare" but also "punishing success" which to me seem to be synonymous with one another. Basically I decided to try and find out exactly what it is the rich are trying to protect.
Getting back to Meg Whitman as of 2010 she was the fourth richest woman in California with a net worth of $1.3 billion. Obviously all of that wealth is not liquid capitol but let's assume she cashed out and the $1.3 billion was all cash. If she spent $500K a year, roughly equal to the lower salary limit of the 1% that wealth would last 2.600 years. In other words she would run out today if she started spending it during the rise of the Byzantine empire. Now let's take a more realistic look at how much cash she probably has on hand. I'll assume she has 25% of $1.3 billion in actually liquid cash and the rest is frozen in assets (property, trust funds, investments, etc.) which would leave $325 million in actual cash. Again at $500K a year being spent that money would last 650 years. Meaning she would run out today if she started spending during the rise of the Renaissance. Now we tax said cash at 35% and we are left with $211,250,000. Spend that at $500K a year and it will last 422.5 years. Or she would run out today if she started spending it just prior to the discovery of the New World.
How is it class warfare or punishing success when all we are asking them to do is give up money they couldn't ever possibly spend in their great, great, great, great, great ancestor's lifetimes?
You've actually underestimated some of your figures. If she spent all of her cash at the rates you mentioned, and she ran out today, she would have had to start spending at roughly the same time the Babylonians razed Jerusalem and destroyed the nations of Israel and Judah. We're not talking the stuff in the New Testament. We're talking about history contained in the books of 2 Kings and, according to Jewish and Christian myth, prophesied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
This also assumed she collected 0 interest on her money during this time period. Theoretically she could still make money without having to do anything for the rest of creation.
Yeah I realized my historical references were off but the math at least holds. And yes I assumed 0 income for that entire time period. In short that's a lot of fucking money and why the ultra rich are desperately trying to cling to it when they can't possibly use it is beyond me.
Actually, the biggest problem I'm seeing with the Meg Whitman example is that it isn't even net worth (or liquid assets, or cash on hand) that's being taxed, it's income. If you're making $2mil/year, you're getting taxed (theoretically, deductions and credits aside) on that $2mil/year, whether you have $150 billion or $150k.
Wealth doesn't get taxed, per se. Income gets taxed. It's an important distinction.
wyldechylde said:
Yeah I realized my historical references were off but the math at least holds. And yes I assumed 0 income for that entire time period. In short that's a lot of fucking money and why the ultra rich are desperately trying to cling to it when they can't possibly use it is beyond me.
I'm no psychologist but I would suspect it probably has to do with the erroneous equation of wealth with power. It's about control and, to some measure, meeting societal expectations. The thing is that human societies have been structured to promote that equation of wealth and power for millennia, and the illusory nature of the concept is regularly obviated when the oppression of the wealthy over the poor causes the poor to rise up. As it turns out the reality is that power of one person over another, or over a group, requires common consensus. The power of wealth only exists if we permit it to.
The chief executive of Deutsche Bank has warned of a "social time bomb" from wealth and income inequality.
Josef Ackermann, who also heads the Institute of International Finance which represents the world's banks, told the BBC that bankers had a responsibility to be philanthropic with their bonuses.
He is due to receive a partially deferred bonus of 8m euros (£6.6m).
Towelly
Philadelphia, PA
January 2007
DEC 06, 2011 02:22 PM