Time to tax wealth - Covid cost Solution

FVP3

markodaly wrote: »

You are missing my overarching point. It's not about wealth accumulation although often success in a respective field can earn good coin, it's about being exceptional in their respective field. From sports to art to business.

What exactly is Roman Abronovich's exceptional ability? And plenty of people are exceptional but did not earn "good coin". Feynman stayed firmly in the middle class. So did Einstein. Tim Berners Lee is no billionaire.

Michelangelo is not remembered for this salary or how much money he had in the bank, he is remembered for this artistic contributions.
Same as Messi. People don't watch youtube clips of him counting his money, they watch youtube clips of his amazing goals.
And so on...

Neither of these are CEO's of course. We are fully aware that there are brilliant people, some paid well, some not.

But the narrative is put forward that in business, the people who build up companies from next to nothing and make them world leaders in that sector are just 'lucky'.

People who actually build up companies from next to nothing often paid very little outside stock compensation. Jobs earned $1 a year. If you want CEO's to be compensated for their work then give them only stock, and minimum wage.

Why is that business people are just 'lucky' to be there at the right time, are nothing special where the next CEO can be plucked out of thin air, yet when James Joyce writes 'Ulysses' or Oscar Wilde writes 'The Picture of Dorian Grey' they are considered literary geniuses?

The idea that the CEO's who often run companies into the ground are the equivalent of geniuses is so utterly insane, it is literally beyond parody.

In my opinion, it stems from the Marxist thinking as noted by the likes of Paul Murphy last week. In their eyes, it is the workers who make know how a company operates and what success hinges on. Its as if every company operates as if its a coal mine or a textile mill. Not much of a business plan needed for those companies really.

Everything with you is marxism, although there are no marxists anywhere on this thread. I did mention that new version of Godwin before, it hasnt worked.

So, in summary, next time you think a guy like M'OL is just lucky and nothing special, are you submitting to your own political bias when coming to that conclusion or not?

Theres a reason I think you pick only Michael O'Leary but not, say, the ex CEO of Wells Fargo John Stumpf who made Wells Fargo employees illegally open credit card accounts for customers, against their will, that they were then charged interest on. Or the CEOs of the pharmaceutical companies who promoted the opioid crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/21/opioid-makers-drug-industry-trial-cleveland-ohio

Or the CEO's of the entire banking sector pre 2008. Or indeed the CEOs who run companies into the ground. Elop made a fortune as he destroyed Nokia.

Besides all that the idea that we live in a meritocracy where CEOs are all brilliant and nobody just inherits wealth. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is rich because is from the house of Saud.

1st dalkey dalkey

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Inequality on a detrimental scale no doubt exists in many countries, the USA being the clearest example of the developed economies, there is no comparison between America and Ireland in this regard however

Inequality is not a big issue in this country

I disagree.

I am going just from memory here, but I think our Gini number for wealth is about 0.72, which is on the high side i.e. we are relatively unequal from a wealth perspective.
Our Gini for income is just 0.44, reflecting the adjustments our tax system brings to gross earnings. We are really quite fair from an earnings perspective.
But there is room for more on the Wealth front, if we can properly define wealth.

Geuze

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

Our Gini for income is just 0.44, reflecting the adjustments our tax system brings to gross earnings. We are really quite fair from an earnings perspective.
But there is room for more on the Wealth front, if we can properly define wealth.

The Gini co-efficient is approx 0.30, and has been fairly steady for the last five years.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditionssilc2018/

Geuze

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

I disagree.

I am going just from memory here, but I think our Gini number for wealth is about 0.72, which is on the high side i.e. we are relatively unequal from a wealth perspective.
Our Gini for income is just 0.44, reflecting the adjustments our tax system brings to gross earnings. We are really quite fair from an earnings perspective.
But there is room for more on the Wealth front, if we can properly define wealth.

I had a look for a Gini co-efficient for wealth.

See the HFCS 2018:

https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/housingandhouseholds/householdfinanceandconsumptionsurvey/


https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hfcs/householdfinanceandconsumptionsurvey2018/incomeandwealthinequality/


The Gini coefficient for net wealth in 2018 is 0.66, compared to 0.75 in 2013, indicating a reduction in wealth inequality over this five-year period.

Geuze

Just to give an idea about the distribution of net wealth:

"Net Wealth Thresholds

Households with a net wealth value greater than €835,000 belong to the wealthiest 10% of all households (the top net wealth decile). Households in the bottom 10% of the net wealth distribution have a net wealth value less than €1,000 (see Table 5.1)."

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hfcs/householdfinanceandconsumptionsurvey2018/wealth/

Cordell

Also, average median Joe's household wealth ranges between 150-250k depending on the region. Not a very bad place to be imho.
Well, actually, it is. He can afford to pay some more taxes That's the sad reality, if more taxes are needed, he's there for the taking.

JustAThought

Cordell wrote: »

Also, average median Joe's household wealth ranges between 150-250k depending on the region. Not a very bad place to be imho.
Well, actually, it is. He can afford to pay some more taxes

Household wealth? And hiw do you think the average/ median come about a quarter a million ? Sitting on his arse drawing the dole? Living in a taxpayer funded council house worth a quarter a million? Should we tax those living in twenty euro a week taxpayer funded rented houses that are worth half a million - lets face it - they are occuping the property and contributing nothing. At least the owner pays 50% tax on the rent. Or are you far removed from work and working that you think the average rake hime oay of one or two people - either before or after tax - is a quarter a million?

Cordell

It's wealth, not income.
I'm not removed from work, not at all, I'm actually one of those just ripe for more taxes. "Wealthy" enough to afford them, not wealthy enough to avail of loopholes and tax optimizations.

FVP3

Geuze wrote: »

Just to give an idea about the distribution of net wealth:

"Net Wealth Thresholds

Households with a net wealth value greater than €835,000 belong to the wealthiest 10% of all households (the top net wealth decile). Households in the bottom 10% of the net wealth distribution have a net wealth value less than €1,000 (see Table 5.1)."

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hfcs/householdfinanceandconsumptionsurvey2018/wealth/

That's interesting, my income is in the top 10% but my wealth is nowhere near it. This indicates that wealth is highly divorced from income here. I know some of it is accumulated over time, but theres a clear inheritance factor too.

Geuze

FVP3 wrote: »

That's interesting, my income is in the top 10% but my wealth is nowhere near it. This indicates that wealth is highly divorced from income here. I know some of it is accumulated over time, but theres a clear inheritance factor too.

Note that of course wealth is accumulated over time.

I earn more gross than my parents, but they are far wealthier than me.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

Note that of course wealth is accumulated over time.

I earn more gross than my parents, but they are far wealthier than me.

That’s often the case. After the recent corona virus, would you be happy letting your parents go into a nursing home or would you be better off keeping them at home? Life has been turned upside down. What we thought right now longer is.

I would like to think that the equity in my house could be used to keep me at home for as long as possible. The last thing I’d want is to be a burden on my kids.

FVP3

Geuze wrote: »

Note that of course wealth is accumulated over time.

I earn more gross than my parents, but they are far wealthier than me.

did say that in my post :-p

markodaly

FVP3 wrote: »

What exactly is Roman Abronovich's exceptional ability? And plenty of people are exceptional but did not earn "good coin". Feynman stayed firmly in the middle class. So did Einstein. Tim Berners Lee is no billionaire.

This is tedious, but Tim Berners Lee is a multi-millionaire. Perhaps wealth accumulation wasn't his primary goal, which is fine so he isnt as rich as Bill Gates.... which is my very point I am making.

The world of IT would be very different without Linus Torvalds, the guy who developed the first Linux Kernel, and whos OS is hosting this very website you are viewing.

But he is doing alright with his $150 million or reported Net Worth. Again, not as much as Mark Zuckerberg, but both exceptional people by all accounts.

Neither of these are CEO's of course. We are fully aware that there are brilliant people, some paid well, some not.

Agree, you don't have to be a CEO to be exceptional, that was not my point but if you want to grow and build a company from a tiny regional outlet on the periphery of Europe to one of the worlds largest, you have to be an exceptional CEO and business person. I would have thought this self-evident.

People who actually build up companies from next to nothing often paid very little outside stock compensation. Jobs earned $1 a year. If you want CEO's to be compensated for their work then give them only stock, and minimum wage.

But then you will have your KB's or your Junkyard Toms of this world giving out about how the CEO is inflating the stock price with buybacks. You cant win, because there is always a whinger with an axe to grind.

The idea that the CEO's who often run companies into the ground are the equivalent of geniuses is so utterly insane, it is literally beyond parody.

I'm not, you are.

Everything with you is marxism, although there are no marxists anywhere on this thread. I did mention that new version of Godwin before, it hasnt worked.

Not at all, that train of thought has deep roots in the concept of the worker being the primary force of good and change in the world. We can't concede now that M'OL is actually worth a lot more to Ryanair than a baggage handler, can we? :pac:

Theres a reason I think you pick only Michael O'Leary but not, say, the ex CEO of Wells Fargo John Stumpf who made Wells Fargo employees illegally open credit card accounts for customers, against their will, that they were then charged interest on. Or the CEOs of the pharmaceutical companies who promoted the opioid crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/21/opioid-makers-drug-industry-trial-cleveland-ohio

Or the CEO's of the entire banking sector pre 2008. Or indeed the CEOs who run companies into the ground. Elop made a fortune as he destroyed Nokia.

Ah so now we engage in new-age purism, the he who must be perfect can only be among us, type thinking.
Karl Marx was an avid anti-semite, as was Henry Ford and Malcolm X, but all were exceptional for different reasons.

CEO do wrong and bad **** too, shock horror, and those people you mentioned I would not classify as exceptional.
You are too focused on the job title and not on the person.

Besides all that the idea that we live in a meritocracy where CEOs are all brilliant and nobody just inherits wealth. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is rich because is from the house of Saud.

Oh for the love of god, are you finished yet with your inane virtue signaling?
Wealth does not mean exceptional. If said it before and Ill have to say it again.

Besides, for all your write about social justice, at least I recognise a genocide denier when I see one.

FVP3

markodaly wrote: »

This is tedious, but Tim Berners Lee is a multi-millionaire. Perhaps wealth accumulation wasn't his primary goal, which is fine so he isnt as rich as Bill Gates.... which is my very point I am making.

The only point wer are arguing here is a wealth tax. If you think some people are happy with status over wealth then you are making the opposite argument to your position.

The world of IT would be very different without Linus Torvalds, the guy who developed the first Linux Kernel, and whos OS is hosting this very website you are viewing.


But he is doing alright with his $150 million or reported Net Worth. Again, not as much as Mark Zuckerberg, but both exceptional people by all accounts.

This is all diversionary. We can tax any of these people on their wealth, they will survive. As we know from the highly productive decades that was the post war era, CEOs and entrepeneurs can handle high taxes. This isn't opinion, it is fact..

Agree, you don't have to be a CEO to be exceptional, that was not my point but if you want to grow and build a company from a tiny regional outlet on the periphery of Europe to one of the worlds largest, you have to be an exceptional CEO and business person. I would have thought this self-evident.

I mentioned, of course, plenty of CEOs who removed value from their companies. I am moving away from MOL.

But then you will have your KB's or your Junkyard Toms of this world giving out about how the CEO is inflating the stock price with buybacks. You cant win, because there is always a whinger with an axe to grind.

I am not sure how we got to stock buybacks, but I'll throw in that they used to be considered a form of stock manipulation. They make CEOS and stock owners richer but don't add a jot of productivity to the economy,

I'm not, you are.

Kindergarten.

Not at all, that train of thought has deep roots in the concept of the worker being the primary force of good and change in the world. We can't concede now that M'OL is actually worth a lot more to Ryanair than a baggage handler, can we? :pac:

I don't think anybody is saying here that a CEO should be paid less than a baggage handler, if they are successful. And arguments opposing the increases in CEO pay compared to workers have been made in the Economist and the WSJ. It's hardly marxist.

US: CEOs are over paid, and there should be a wealth tax.
You: You are a marxist who believes that baggage handlers should be paid the same as a CEO.

Ah so now we engage in new-age purism, the he who must be perfect can only be among us, type thinking.
Karl Marx was an avid anti-semite, as was Henry Ford and Malcolm X, but all were exceptional for different reasons.

What now? We are talking about the financial benefit to the companies that CEO's bring. Whenever your argument is defeated you engage in massive diversions. Karl Marx and Henry Ford were anti-semites? Do you think that has any relevance outside your addled head? Steve Jobs denied his child for a while. All irrelvant. I stuck to the financials.

CEO do wrong and bad **** too, shock horror, and those people you mentioned I would not classify as exceptional.
You are too focused on the job title and not on the person.

We are talking about CEO pay, which you were justifying in all cases. When I point out that CEOs often remove value from companies, you rant about anti-semtiism, or that CEOS are bad like everybody else. Diversion.

Oh for the love of god, are you finished yet with your inane virtue signaling?

Are you finished with your diversionary arguments. And, of course, as usual you get your entire argument wrong. Saying the House of Saud inherit their money isn't virtue signalling. Firstly its true, secondly it implies no virtue to me either way. Words have meanings, not what you apply to them.

Wealth does not mean exceptional. If said it before and Ill have to say it again.

If you are going to say it again, you have to say it before.

Besides, for all your write about social justice

I don't write about social justice at all, couldn't care less about SJWs. There should be a wealth tax though, good for those of us in the middle.

at least I recognise a genocide denier when I see one.

No idea who you are referring to, hopefully not me or ill be looking for a site ban, but its a diversion nevertheless.

markodaly

FVP3 wrote: »

The only point wer are arguing here is a wealth tax.

I made my point here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113273646&postcount=13

The debate moved on when some went down the rabbit hole of thinking people like M'OL knows nothing about running an Airline, or that their job is merely running through the numbers on a screen.

I am not sure how we got to stock buybacks, but I'll throw in that they used to be considered a form of stock manipulation. They make CEOS and stock owners richer but don't add a jot of productivity to the economy,

If you pay a CEO in stock only then things like buybacks and other forms of increasing the stock price artificially will take place. So, there goes your theory.

I don't think anybody is saying here that a CEO should be paid less than a baggage handler, if they are successful. And arguments opposing the increases in CEO pay compared to workers have been made in the Economist and the WSJ. It's hardly marxist.

Its not about pay though. It's about status and worth. We have a false notion that good CEO's are just normal people when they are not, they are exceptional.
Marxist thinkers hate that though, for obvious reasons.

US: CEOs are over paid, and there should be a wealth tax.
You: You are a marxist who believes that baggage handlers should be paid the same as a CEO.

Except I didn't say that at all know did I.
Argue with what I actually say, not what you think I say.

There should be a wealth tax though, good for those of us in the middle.

We already do have one, it is called the Property Tax.

No idea who you are referring to, hopefully not me or ill be looking for a site ban, but its a diversion nevertheless.

Perhaps a diversion but your love for the CCP and the denial of its Tibetan Genocide is certainly interesting to say the least.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113064531&postcount=454

And no, I don't want to take this topic down that little track.

j8wk2feszrnpao

markodaly wrote: »

Why is that business people are just 'lucky' to be there at the right time, are nothing special where the next CEO can be plucked out of thin air, yet when James Joyce writes 'Ulysses' or Oscar Wilde writes 'The Picture of Dorian Grey' they are considered literary geniuses?

Those geniuses are apparent, it’s almost literally their own work we admire. I don’t subscribe to the idea that MOL’s success is luck based, but he hasn’t had a blank page and had to fill in all the words by himself. Not a knock on MOL, I’ve seen a top CEO in action, and the guy worked 7 days a week (long hours, constantly available).

KyussB

markodaly wrote: »

But then you will have your KB's or your Junkyard Toms of this world giving out about how the CEO is inflating the stock price with buybacks. You cant win, because there is always a whinger with an axe to grind.

You're like PB and the other finance shills, who fully know the difference between endorsing paying a CEO in stock, versus endorsing stock buybacks - yet wilfully conflate the two, to pretend there are no ethical issues with the latter.

markodaly

KyussB wrote: »

You're like PB and the other finance shills, who fully know the difference between endorsing paying a CEO in stock, versus endorsing stock buybacks - yet wilfully conflate the two, to pretend there are no ethical issues with the latter.

Tell me, whom am I shilling for?

JimmyVik

Can someone answer me a question.

If I live in a council provided house worth €300000 how much tax should I pay on this wealth?

Then there is this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6HEH23W_bM

Cordell

Yes, that's how it works, that's the sad truth.
But what that video fails to mention, this is also how Tom gets to be able to afford to eat and not need to rob Harry.

Geuze

JimmyVik wrote: »

Can someone answer me a question.

If I live in a council provided house worth €300000 how much tax should I pay on this wealth?

Then there is this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6HEH23W_bM

You don't own the house, so you don't pay the LPT.

Wealth taxes would typically kick in at a much higher threshold, e.g. 1m wealth.

Geuze

An update on Household wealth in Ireland:

https://centralbank.ie/statistics/data-and-analysis/financial-accounts

Key Points – Q4 2019
Publication date: 8 May 2020

Private sector debt as a proportion of GDP decreased by 10.1 percentage points to stand at 229 per cent.
Household net worth increased to €802bn in Q4 2019, equating to €162,960 per capita.
Household debt continued its downward trend, falling by €331m in Q4 2019.

Geuze

Households have reached 800bn of net wealth:

https://centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/statistics/data-and-analysis/financial-accounts/qfa-landing-page-charts-data/dataset1.xlsx?sfvrsn=13

Housing assets = 540 bn

Financial assets = 409 bn

Financial liabilities = -147bn

JimmyVik

Cordell wrote: »

Yes, that's how it works, that's the sad truth.
But what that video fails to mention, this is also how Tom gets to be able to afford to eat and not need to rob Harry.

So Harry has to pay Tom not to Rob him.

JimmyVik

Geuze wrote: »

You don't own the house, so you don't pay the LPT.

Wealth taxes would typically kick in at a much higher threshold, e.g. 1m wealth.

Someone in a council house is sitting on more wealth than I am to be fair.
Maybe they would like to swap and I will pay the wealth tax on the house.

Icepick

The only wealth tax we need to increase is property tax.
Double tax on any home value over 600k, triple on over 1 mil and quadruple on over 1.5 mil

JimmyVik

Icepick wrote: »

The only wealth tax we need to increase is property tax.
Double tax on any home value over 600k, triple on over 1 mil and quadruple on over 1.5 mil

Agreed. It should be like the council tax in the UK.
Each person living there pays the tax whether renting or owning.

j8wk2feszrnpao

JimmyVik wrote: »

Agreed. It should be like the council tax in the UK.
Each person living there pays the tax whether renting or owning.

It’d be nice if we got services for it here. i.e. it pays for bins, lights maintenance, greens cut, water rate etc ... that’s if it was done right.

GreeBo

Icepick wrote: »

The only wealth tax we need to increase is property tax.
Double tax on any home value over 600k, triple on over 1 mil and quadruple on over 1.5 mil

Why does having an expensive house mean you are wealthy?
What if i've been living in the house for 50 years and its worth far, far more than I ever paid for it?

Forcing me to sell it isnt going to solve any housing problems, the market for 7 figure houses isnt exactly the problem we have today.

So I sell and downsize, now what? Whats going to entice people to buy that house if they are paying triple the LPT rates?

They need to get less money from more people, not try and and crucify the top earners who are already paying significantly more in actual money than anyone else is.

Junkyard Tom

Marxists under the bed, accusations of 'Virtue Signalling' (one of the most moronic terms to bubble up out of the alt-right sewer) and now brain-dead propaganda from Prager U?