Put another way, if you personally taxed all US income at the federal rate for 2 years you’d have less wealth then this handful of people (the federal government collected 4.5 trillion last year). They basically represent another tax on income that everybody pays.
Put yet another way, Bezos’s $220 billion represents 94% of his “wealth.” And what it represents is the right to a stream of dividends out of Amazon’s profits decades into the future. It makes no sense to compare that to income the government is taxing this year. The government is already going to tax that money in the future when Amazon earns it, and then again when Amazon pays it as dividends.
The government can’t make those future profits materialize in the present by taxing Bezos. Obtaining stock from Bezos would give the government a share of Amazon’s future profits. But the government already has that right—it can simply tax those profits when Amazon earns them.
Talking about a taxing Bezos’s “wealth” as if it’s money that’s sitting around is just a shell game.
I didn’t say anything about taxing them, just framing the amount of wealth they have by comparing it to federal revenue. It’s too much even if it isn’t “realized”.
Less than two years because total taxation is about $7 trillion (don’t forget state and local). Also, insofar as most of the $10 trillion in wealth is equity, it represents their share of expected corporate earnings decades into the future. The proper comparison for that is the $360-400 trillion in future federal revenues over 75 years, probably $500+ trillion accounting for state taxes.
So the share those billionaires will get of expected earnings 10, 20, etc., years from now is just 2% of what the government will bring in from taxing everyone over a similar time horizon.
Why? What’s the specific objection? E.g. Bezos’s “wealth” reflects his 9% ownership of Amazon multiplied by the fact that Amazon makes a lot of money. Presumably you don’t object to the idea of someone owning 9% of a company. That leaves the fact that Amazon is too big/makes too much money. If you’re making an antitrust argument just say that. I probably agree with you on that point!
I recently started a green field project with sprint boot and Kotlin and it’s a joy compared to the many other things I’ve experienced in the last decade. I’m hoping spring remains strong for a while.
To me, it’s not “should I use Spring” but why not? Most frameworks of the same class crudely ape the format. Then the open-source ecosystem of most languages is a ghetto compared to that of Java.
I hate not using it at work but rather Node all the while watching Typescript libraries reinvent the Spring wheel.
Hence when I am not using one, I am doing the other, sometimes with a bit of C++ underneath, unless forced to use another programming stack due to external decisions.
It has worked quite alright for almost 30 years now.
Exactly! I find myself writing out the same code with classes and functions to show this to folks. I still prefer using classes as it’s easier for me to see at a glance that constructor = DI/curry vs a function returning an object of functions or something. So a class is just a way to communicate a pattern.
I have definitely had the whole "what is the difference between this class <class with constructor and one method> and this function that receives the same as the class constructor returns a function implementing the method" conversation with my teammates before!
So true, rarely is anything the “best” or “better”, but instead each thing is a bucket of trade offs we choose from. Maybe frustrating, but also what makes engineering genuinely interesting.
You can self host cockroach db which scales horizontally well. But I think going "fire and forget" while also having this much concern about "scaling up" on some level feels at odds with each other. Lots of DBs can just scale up vertically or horizontally pretty easily, but as it gets bigger you will want to know more and more about how to administer it properly. As you scale, risk gets bigger. So either "fire and forget", don't learn much, and cross your fingers. Or, plan for the future and plan on getting good at some database.
I think you answered your own question and it’s a fair response. Civil disobedience for a good cause is good, for a bad cause is bad. Just depends on what good means to you.
I’ve always thought there’s a tipping point of fault when such a large amount of people have a problem. Small % of folks with the issue? Maybe a personal responsibility thing. Half the population can’t come up with $1000? Large amount of credit card users carrying a balance? Large swaths of people over consuming? There’s something else at work here and I struggle to point to the individual as the source of the problem.
why do you feel this indicates anything behind what it is, "Keeping up with the joneses".
Large swaths of people do strange things with their money on a regular basis :
- State Lotto tickets
- people visiting casinos
Individuals are not the "source" of the problems, group think, media, etc encourage it. Just because my neighbour has a new car doest mean i need one too?
Back to the core point, the US does have a bias towards overconsumption. During the financial crisis Stimulus packages were issued to "encourage spending"
A stimulus check is a direct payment made by the government to its citizens. Unlike tax credits, which come as deductions from taxes owed during tax filing, stimulus checks are designed to give immediate relief to taxpayers and encourage stability and spending during an economic downturn.
What happens if everyone stops playing state lottos, and engaging in vices like drinking, smoking or doing drugs?
Take it to the logical extreme.
I’ll help.
Virtually every state experiences massive budget shortfalls overnight.
Police departments become critically underfunded.
Schools become insolvent.
Pensions go underwater.
Massive unemployment occurs do too bars, detox centers, etc closing.
This unemployment cascades as the supporting industries and businesses experience severe austerity.
I can continue but I trust that I’ve painted a grim picture of what will happen if rampant consumerism stops. The only way America can function without drastic change to the fundamental assumptions used by economists is by correcting people to engage in financially destructive or illegal behavior.
>But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break shop windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
>It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
Have you considered what the money would be used for if not spent in doing drugs and gambling? It is true that rehab centres and some police stations might no longer be needed, but perhaps society would find a better use for that money.
The comments from this individual made me question if they understand what "logic" means.
The write:
> Take it to the logical extreme.
Then proceeds to make a number of serious illogical comments?
Killing off state lotto leads to pension defaults, bars going bankrupt, etc?
as you said, no better use of the money?
The entirely missed my point which was people do dumb things with their money on a regular basis, lotto and gambling were two examples in my opinion. Naturally people who gamble would disagree and they are entitled to their opinions.
I plainly saw your point that people do dumb things with their money, suggesting I didn’t begs the question: did you actually read and ponder on my comment? My apologies for thinking you had something else to say on the matter of consumerism which is what I was attempting to engage you in discussion about. You see my examples built off of yours but you neglected to imagine the broader world without consumerism. I should made my expectation of you more clear. Apologies. I’ll summarize the point I was making explicitly for you. Capitalism is impossible without mindless consumerism. If mindless consumerism falters for a moment markets panic and the dominoes start falling. We cannot talk about ending mindless consumerism without talking about tens of millions of unemployed Americans, contagious economic crisis spreading from market to market (thanks financialization of everything) and everywhere else unpredictably.
It all seems like predictable outcomes of capitalism run amuck.
At least it's not illegal yet to live without credit cards and/or lead a frugal life.
But it is arguably part of the problem IMO that credit scores have become so necessary it's difficult if not impossible to find an apartment without one. That alone is a forcing function pushing young Americans to rely on credit, greasing those consumer wheels by decoupling their spending from their earning at a young age.
My employer keeps track of my credit worthiness. People have been fired by my employer for having bad credit because they present a risk to the company. I cannot keep my employment without maintaining good credit. Maintaining good credit cannot be done without taking on debt.
You don't actually need the debt balance, you just need the payment history. I had zero debt in the decade between paying off my student loans and taking on a mortgage. Credit score ~820 at that point. I had credit cards but auto-paid them in full every month and never carried a balance. It's the payment history that your score cares about, not the balance. You actually end up with a lower score if you have a higher balance.
> . That alone is a forcing function pushing young Americans to rely on credit, greasing those consumer wheels by decoupling their spending from their earning at a young age.
I'm Canadian and lived in the US for several years and can attest this is a strange system.
Here (Canada) credit scores are starting to become more and more common but this is a new thing, and probably something we 'borrowed' from the US.
When i moved to the US I had a credit score of zero and a really good income. I had problems finding a place to live as everyone asked for my credit score.
I finally bought a car and took out a loan which i paid off a few months later simply to attempt to build a "credit score" and make my life easier.
Things may be different now, but I dont recall ever being asked for a "credit score" when attempting to rent in Toronto many years ago.
I hear that, but also predatory marketing does work. We have to take responsibility for our actions, but I do see times when other are also culpable for bad decisions people make.
