How the Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

[Mathgod]

Well, as Canadians, they do.

For a few months when the CERB was in effect, we kind of did (although even then there were T&Cs). But other than that no.

It's the same argument - yes, it is advantageous to be born in Canada. And by the same token, Canadians have access to many advantages.

Absolutely. But that in & of itself doesn't justify the status quo.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This whole thread has been the same point over and over: life isn't fair! Yes, that is absolutely true, life isn't fair.

That line of reasoning can be used to justify literally any system or any type of abuse in any amount.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

My belief is that if the rich have access to passive income (and they do, for some of them inordinate amounts), then everyone should have access to some passive income.

That's the beauty of it, my $10 dollars invested in the S&P index compounds at the same rate as Buffet's $10 million. If you want to get rich, buy assets and invest, you will get rich at the same pace as the billionaires.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yeah, no surprises here.

Regardless, there is no doubt that having rich parents is advantageous, but again, what should we do about that? Punish them?

No, but I thought it was interesting as it quantifies what most assume or believe to be true already. It does indicate that wealth gaps become entrenched, which is what mathgod is arguing (I think) though I do not agree with the proposed solutions. Rather than hoping the government taxes everyone to no advantage, maybe it is a better strategy to become rich.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

That's the beauty of it, my $10 dollars invested in the S&P index compounds at the same rate as Buffet's $10 million. If you want to get rich, buy assets and invest, you will get rich at the same pace as the billionaires.



No, but I thought it was interesting as it quantifies what most assume or believe to be true already. It does indicate that wealth gaps become entrenched, which is what mathgod is arguing (I think) though I do not agree with the proposed solutions. Rather than hoping the government taxes everyone to no advantage, maybe it is a better strategy to become rich.

Agreed!

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

That's the beauty of it, my $10 dollars invested in the S&P index compounds at the same rate as Buffet's $10 million. If you want to get rich, buy assets and invest, you will get rich at the same pace as the billionaires.



No, but I thought it was interesting as it quantifies what most assume or believe to be true already. It does indicate that wealth gaps become entrenched, which is what mathgod is arguing (I think) though I do not agree with the proposed solutions. Rather than hoping the government taxes everyone to no advantage, maybe it is a better strategy to become rich.

The issue is that in order to become rich, you have to already be rich or have access to riches.

95-99% of people aren't and can't.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

That's the beauty of it, my $10 dollars invested in the S&P index compounds at the same rate as Buffet's $10 million. If you want to get rich, buy assets and invest, you will get rich at the same pace as the billionaires.
No, but I thought it was interesting as it quantifies what most assume or believe to be true already. It does indicate that wealth gaps become entrenched, which is what mathgod is arguing (I think) though I do not agree with the proposed solutions. Rather than hoping the government taxes everyone to no advantage, maybe it is a better strategy to become rich.

lol no. When my $10 makes a $1 return, Buffet's $10 million makes him $1 million. $1 is not $1 million.

The problem with the upward mobility argument is that it assumes there aren't any major flaws in the idea of endless economic growth, consumerism, and resource depletion when we live on a finite planet.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

For a few months when the CERB was in effect, we kind of did (although even then there were T&Cs). But other than that no.

No, what I mean is that, as Canadians, we have access to all kinds of beneficial advantages: schools, the opportunity to pursue wealth, to start a business, to gain access to job training (sometimes free), healthcare, low cost borrowing opportunities (mortgages), freedom from oppression, the right to vote for political parties that represent your interests, etc

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by kermitology

The issue is that in order to become rich, you have to already be rich or have access to riches.

95-99% of people aren't and can't.

this has already been shown to be false

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

lol no. When my $10 makes a $1 return, Buffet's $10 million makes him $1 million. $1 is not $1 million.

The problem with the upward mobility argument is that it assumes there aren't any major flaws in the idea of endless economic growth, consumerism, and resource depletion when we live on a finite planet.

You don't want to have a discussion, you just want to vent

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, what I mean is that, as Canadians, we have access to all kinds of beneficial advantages: schools, the opportunity to pursue wealth, to start a business, to gain access to job training (sometimes free), healthcare, low cost borrowing opportunities (mortgages), freedom from oppression, the right to vote for political parties that represent your interests, etc

Those things are all wonderful, but none of them are passive income.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You don't want to have a discussion, you just want to vent

Name any of the things I said that you think are false, and we can discuss them further.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Those things are all wonderful, but none of them are passive income.

they are advantages, which is what I said

you (vaguely) referenced passive income as an advantage

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Name any of the things I said that you think are false, and we can discuss them further.

That's the point - the only things you've said are rants. Propose something. State something discussable.

We all know that life isn't fair.

[RichieRich]

Randomly choose 1000 people to give $100000 to. Wait 5 years. I guarantee you there'll be a very well defined bell curve reflecting what value those people have turned that money into. From those that blow it all, to those that "save" it under a mattress, to those that use it to start an amazing business (some may fail), to investing. Despite being given $100k it's a guarantee that somehow those in the lower half will find ways to blame the upper half for their situation, and vice versa. Yes sometimes good/bad luck may cause someone to be on the other side of the curve. Wealth naturally distributes itself. Even generational wealth isn't a guarantee.

Every day is a new day to make yourself better than the day before - whether that's decisions or health.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Relevant article recently on this, statistically showing that having wealthy parents is a greater indicator of future success than having a good first job, or having good grades.

https://ofdollarsanddata.com/the-bes...ntage-in-life/

I think this comes down to a number of things, and not just inheritance of money.
It's also the benefits of learning from parents who have figured out the system, may have a strong work ethic, being around other connected people, better schools and teachers, better competition to sharpen skills, better coaches.

Redistribution of money is one thing, but making sure all classes have access to good education, great teachers/coaches, positive peers and mentors is what's really needed.

Redistribution of resources would be more impactful than redistribution of wealth IMO.
Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome should always be the goal.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That's the point - the only things you've said are rants. Propose something. State something discussable.

We all know that life isn't fair.

Universal basic income, but I'm well aware that most of the members of this board are hostile toward the idea. So if we aren't going to do that, I think we should at least adopt the Nordic model and structure our systems the way they do. I also would like to see bigger efforts to fight climate change, such as phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and making investments in clean energy.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

Randomly choose 1000 people to give $100000 to. Wait 5 years. I guarantee you there'll be a very well defined bell curve reflecting what value those people have turned that money into. From those that blow it all, to those that "save" it under a mattress, to those that use it to start an amazing business (some may fail), to investing. Despite being given $100k it's a guarantee that somehow those in the lower half will find ways to blame the upper half for their situation, and vice versa. Yes sometimes good/bad luck may cause someone to be on the other side of the curve. Wealth naturally distributes itself. Even generational wealth isn't a guarantee.

Every day is a new day to make yourself better than the day before - whether that's decisions or health.

Why are you talking about a relatively piddly amount of money when the discussion is around people with extraordinary wealth and trying to use it as any kind of indicator?

Let's run this thought experiment with 10 million dollars and wait 5 years so they can do some truly rich people #### other than maybe get a new car or 1/5 of a middle class mortgage

[puckhog]

This thread got me curious about what the data on wealth inequality actually says. It lead me to learn about a measure called the "Gini coefficient" that measures the level of inequality in a country - it can be applied to both overall wealth and income, with somewhat different results. A Gini coefficient of 0 is perfect equality and 1 is perfect inequality.

Wealth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lth_inequality

Income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ncome_equality

In terms of wealth inequality, Canada's actually not too bad, coming in at 0.728 vs a global measure of 0.885. Unsurprisingly, we're considerably more equal than the US at 0.852. However, I was surprised to find that we do better in terms of wealth inequality than Sweden (0.886 - even more unequal than the US), Denmark (0.838), Norway (0.798) and Finland (0.742). Though, I do note that we have greater income inequality than those countries.

So, if we generally agree that too much wealth inequality is a problem, Canada is doing pretty well globally on minimizing that issue. Also, even with their higher tax rates, Nordic countries still have higher inequality, so simply increasing taxes doesn't seem to be the solution.

To me, the key issue is what I think Cliff and others are getting at - we want to ensure that there is upward mobility for people born into lower income families. But simply taking a bigger chunk at the end of a wealthy person's life won't accomplish that without proper programs. In my opinion, we should try to improve low income kids prospects as early as possible.

With that in mind, the one program that I'd really like to see a government implement is a breakfast and lunch program for low income school districts. I don't believe that a kid can properly pay attention and learn on an empty stomach (and I don't just mean skipping breakfast one day, but actual ongoing hunger), and so a gap will start to grow quickly between that child and others. If we can reduce that gap through early school years, I think it could really help that child's prospects into higher levels of education.

Note: I'm not necessarily against changes to our tax rates or estate taxes, just that they have to be going to fund programs that actually target the issues that inequality breeds.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Universal basic income, but I'm well aware that most of the members of this board are hostile toward the idea. So if we aren't going to do that, I think we should at least adopt the Nordic model and structure our systems the way they do. I also would like to see bigger efforts to fight climate change, such as phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and making investments in clean energy.

Thread topic: How The Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

Author: MathGod

[you&me]

Originally Posted by puckhog

This thread got me curious about what the data on wealth inequality actually says. It lead me to learn about a measure called the "Gini coefficient" that measures the level of inequality in a country - it can be applied to both overall wealth and income, with somewhat different results. A Gini coefficient of 0 is perfect equality and 1 is perfect inequality.

Wealth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lth_inequality

Income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ncome_equality

In terms of wealth inequality, Canada's actually not too bad, coming in at 0.728 vs a global measure of 0.885. Unsurprisingly, we're considerably more equal than the US at 0.852. However, I was surprised to find that we do better in terms of wealth inequality than Sweden (0.886 - even more unequal than the US), Denmark (0.838), Norway (0.798) and Finland (0.742). Though, I do note that we have greater income inequality than those countries.

So, if we generally agree that too much wealth inequality is a problem, Canada is doing pretty well globally on minimizing that issue. Also, even with their higher tax rates, Nordic countries still have higher inequality, so simply increasing taxes doesn't seem to be the solution.

To me, the key issue is what I think Cliff is getting at - we want to ensure that there is upward mobility for people born into lower income families. But simply taking a bigger chunk at the end of a wealthy person's life won't accomplish that without proper programs. In my opinion, we should try to improve low income kids prospects as early as possible.

With that in mind, the one program that I'd really like to see a government implement is a breakfast and lunch program for low income school districts. I don't believe that a kid can properly pay attention and learn on an empty stomach (and I don't just mean skipping breakfast one day, but actual ongoing hunger), and so a gap will start to grow quickly between that child and others. If we can reduce that gap through early school years, I think it could really help that child's prospects into higher levels of education.

Note: I'm not necessarily against changes to our tax rates or estate taxes, just that they have to be going to fund programs that actually target the issues that inequality breeds.

If you want to use data and present reasoned opinions, you've come to the wrong thread.

[I_H8_Crawford]

want to start fixing wealth inequality? Start with Education.

You can tax the rich more, give it to the needier of our society, and they will likely throw it away on the newest gadget or car that they like. Hell, look at CERB - how many of the people who needed it budgeted, and then threw some of that money into investments? Or how many used it to buy PS5s, iPhones, etc. Would be an interesting study....

How many people received an actual education in budgeting and finance in grade school? I mean CALM had like a 1 week lesson on it, but other than that??? People have no clue how to manage money, and they learn that from their parents.

Rich parents teach their kids how to manage money. Poor parents likely don't focus on that as much. Get the education down first then look at solutions for actual $$$.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by you&me

If you want to use data and present reasoned opinions, you've come to the wrong thread.

Actually the thread has been terrific for discussion minus 1 person