Jump to navigation
Wealth-X, the global wealth intelligence and prospecting company, presents its first annual report on ultra high net worth (UHNW) indi- viduals. The World Ultra Wealth Report 2011 provides insights into the next decade of global wealth among ultra high net worth individuals and families.
The report, whose method has never been employed by other firms, provides a comprehensive distribution on the number of super rich by region and country, based on intelligence gathered by Wealth X – the Little Black Book of UHNW individuals. The in-depth study examines markets by country, wealth-tier, and more, uncovering exciting opportunities within the segment. UHNW are defined by individuals with a net worth of at least US$30 million. Key findings of this unique analysis include the following: • Wealth-X estimates there are 185,795 UHNW individuals globally, with a total net worth of US$25 trillion. • North America is home to 62,960 UHNW individuals, and constitutes the largest concentration of UHNW wealth in the world. This region accounts for nearly 33% of the total $25 trillion held by the world’s UHNW segment. • Europe currently has the second largest population of UHNW individuals. The region’s 54,325 UHNW individuals have a collective fortune of $6.8 trillion. • Wealth-X forecasts that the UHNW population in Asia-Pacific will surpass that of Europe in 2024 and overtake that of the U.S. in 2032. • Asia-Pacific, with its 42,525 UHNW individuals, represents $6.2 trillion. • While the Latin American UHNW has captured considerable attention, its 15,100 UHNW individuals with $2.3 trillion in assets represent roughly a third of the Asian market. • Wealth-X estimates there are 1,235 billionaires globally, with a combined net worth of $4.18 trillion. 2.5% of the total UHNW population around the world are worth $500 million and above, and they control 25% of the total fortunes of the super rich.
How can we control these people. there are so many of us and so few of them.
Part of the problem is that there are people who divide the world into two categories: The rich and everyone else -- and then they actually classify people who make $100,000 per year as "rich" (as though someone making $100K is jetting around the world in private jets and sailing the oceans on their mega yachts).
As long as we have people envious of neighbors just down the street who make $100K (or even $250K) per year, we'll essentially be navel-gazing (and mired in unhappy self-pity to boot) while the UHNW folks just keep coasting along...above the riff-raff (because the riff-raff will be tussling among each other: "Oh? You make three times as much as me?! You RICH BASTARD!!!")...
I don't think these things are necessarily rocket science
Financial transactions taxes would at least be a good start.
No tax-free havens where they can run to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
And a universal planet-wide inheritance tax 10% should just about do it.
Btw Sven why bother posting if you don't want to contribute something worthwhile.
Btw, NorthReport, you have a virtual "ignore button" of your very own that you can make use of any time you want. It's kind of like a TV: If you don't like what's on a particular channel, then don't watch it.
It's the Inequality, Stupid
How rich are the superrich?
A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.
Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn't reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In 2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth held by the superrich.
Yeah, oh my god... Like if only these deluded commies would just accept the fact that lowering taxes = the policy solution to everything - everything would be like... better. If only we would let "job creators" "invest" we wouldn't have any economic problems at all, unemplyment would be zero, inflation would be zero, growth would be ten percent a year and deficits would be a thing of the past!1!1!1.
PS that was sarcasm. That said, what are your thoughts on tax policy in the last 30 years or so? Do you think it's reasonable and do you think it's led to a strong economy? Do you think the top 1% (regardless of your philosophical - or something - objection to identifying them) should have their taxes lowered further? Or do you disagree with Elizabeth Warren's assertion that they should acknowledge that their prosperity is built on common resources and therefore they have an obligation to pay for the resources that have contributed to their success? If you disagree with her critique, you'll save us all a lot of time by getting to your point quicker as time is money and envy is something or rather.
Well, VK, of all federal taxes (income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, inheritence taxes, etc.) that were collected by the US government in 2007 (the most recent year with complete information), the share borne by the bottom quintile of households was 0.8%, the next quintile paid 4.4%, the third quintile paid 9.2%, the fourth quintile paid 16.9%, and the top quintile paid 68.9%.
So, I don't think it's a matter of the more well-off "not paying their fair share."
In other words, the tax policy is not what is creating the wealth gap. I think that has more to do with free trade and the massive movement of lower-skilled jobs to places like China and India.
I looked at my own taxes this year (and I'm not even in "the hated 1%") and I forked over about 37% of all of my income in federal and state income taxes and payroll taxes (and that does not even include a host of other taxes that I also pay, such as property taxes and excise taxes). And, quite frankly, I think that's more than enough.
Mark Zuckerberg will soon be worth about twenty billion dollars. So what? How does that negatively affect you or I?
What right do we have to dictate the tax policies of other sovereign countries?
Yeah who do we think we are, the IMF, World Bank, BIS, and ECB? Who voted for any of those guys?
Technically, I agree with you. The problem is more that they're not making their fair share in the first place. Taxes are an imperfect way of trying to shoehorn some fairness into an economic system that plain doesn't work. The net worth of that justly-hated 0.01% has skyrocketed over the last thirty years. Is this some measure of their contribution to society? Did all of these people get many times more productive over this period? clearly not. Rather, they took of advantage of loosened regulations (that they lobbied for) to engage in a variety of financial dirty tricks that sluiced more and more of the wealth that the world produces to themselves. Wealth produced by other people's work. These plutocrats don't earn money. They steal it.
Does it even make sense to talk about "earning" such ludicrous amounts of wealth? If a doctor who saves lives every day makes less than a hundred grand, what does someone have to do to "earn" fifty times that amount. What contribution could they possibly make that would justify such outrageous compensation? There is nothing. These people just take the wealth of nations because they can. because nobody stops them. It's as simple as that. So yes, trying to claw some measure of that back through taxes is a rather poor solution, but until there gets to be some political will to address the real problem (capitalism) then it's all we've got. Stop weeping for ther uber-rich Sven. They steal your money too, and the more we can tax out of them the better for everyone. They never earned this money and they don't deserve it.
Sure, but you'd think that if it was 30%, or 20%, or even 10%. You just hate paying your taxes. Your personal distaste tells us nothing about whether your tax "burden" is appropriate or not. The proof of that is more in the balance we can see between public and private spending in society. Does the public sector have the revenue required to do the things it was designed to do? I think we can look around and see that the public sector is falling apart, and that a lot of the problems we're facing now have to do with not having the stability and equalising factors that the public economy is supposed to provide.
It's not envy, Sven. There is a real problem here. The economy can't function properly because the uber-rich have taken all the money, and we all struggle to survive while they sit on the wealth of the world like Smaug on his hoard. I'd rather bring down this corrupt system than pussyfoot about rasing taxes, but if you're not willing to support that, you still need some solution to this. How are you going to get all the money back from the thieves who have taken it? If you are against raising taxes, then what's your solution?
I thought Sven this community has told you repeatedly that you derail threads by talking about envy.
You show no respect for others which is probably why you resent paying anything into a shared pool. Sorry I take that back you seem to believe you have the right to piss in our swimming pool.
Please stop derailing this thread with your envy bullshit.
[quote=Sven]As long as we have people envious of neighbors just down the street who make $100K (or even $250K) per year, we'll essentially be navel-gazing (and mired in unhappy self-pity to boot) while the UHNW folks just keep coasting along...above the riff-raff (because the riff-raff will be tussling among each other: "Oh? You make three times as much as me?! You RICH BASTARD!!!")...[/quote]
Sven, are you on vacation? I've noticed a significant uptick in baiting statements like this one. I wonder how you can look at someone who makes three times more than another human being and think that it's some insignificant thing. (I'm further baffled by Mr. Tea's ludicrous statement that Mark Zuckerberg making $20 billion in a day has no bearing on my financial reality--he's probably of the same ilk that thinks it's no big deal that JP Morgan can lose $2-billion without realizing it, apologize, and move on.)
I can't say, of course, that the above statement is explicitly against babble policy (although it's clearly against the spirit of this place, as you know); but it does adversely affect our tolerance as a community of your brand of politics. Since, doubtless, you will once again stray on the wrong side of policy--you might want to think about what kind of stead you want to stand in when you get there.
As for our other capitalist cheerleaders in this thread, well, carry on, I guess. How did you find babble anyway?
Since you insist on using American examples on a Canadian message board I'll use them for your benefit as well.
The only reason your useage of quintiles is relevent is because it proves that the US government is not taking in enough money to pay for the services that it provides, which is why it's running a massive defecit. This is alright if you are a deciple of Grover Nordquist and have a fetish for making the government so small that it can be "drowned in a bathtub", which due to your defence of increasing economic inequality I assume you are in favour of? Personally, I'm against this. While I'm not sold on an outright rejection of captalism, because I've never been convinced that pure alternatives have ever worked and I don't think they ever will, I think you have to be pretty dense to think a turn towards increased capitalism will solve any of these problems. You've basically admitted this yourself by alluding to increased competition from the third world leading to a downward pressure on wages and thus living standards. One way to mitigate this problem is with more communal (and government is the only realistic tool for this) action.
In any case, for government to be effective it needs money. Running a defecit will rob it of its effectiveness. As such, running a defecit is something I'm against (although in adition to a fiscal defecit, I'm also against running social and environmental ones too). Hence the two logical choices to close that defecit gap are to slash services or to raise taxes. I actually agree that the average person pays too much in taxes too whether directly through traditional taxes or indirectly through service fees charged on things that used to be covered by taxes. The reason this is the case is presicly because of this chart.
So no the Top 1, 0.1 and 0.01% do not need you to defend them. And if you have no problem with this then there is probably little point in you even posting here.
One wonders, what's the entertainment value of trying to bait progressives with indefensible arguments supporting wealth and privilege? Kind of sad, when you think about it.
There seems to be an assumption on the apologists part that wealth is infinite rather than finite.
Technically, I agree with you. The problem is more that they're not making their fair share in the first place. Taxes are an imperfect way of trying to shoehorn some fairness into an economic system that plain doesn't work.
I think that's the nub of the issue. Looking at tax rates as way of evening things out among different economic classes is really an indirect way of trying to fix something that is much more structural. Income tax rates are not the fundamental cause of income disparity, so they are really not the solution, either. If a person is concerned about income disparity, then there are root causes for that disparity (unrelated to taxes) that should be examined.
Again, my sense is that free trade (and globalization generally) has probably had the biggest effect on expanding income disparity over the last twenty years than any other factor.
Does it even make sense to talk about "earning" such ludicrous amounts of wealth? If a doctor who saves lives every day makes less than a hundred grand, what does someone have to do to "earn" fifty times that amount. What contribution could they possibly make that would justify such outrageous compensation? There is nothing.
I think the question is: Who decides what is the proper compensation for doing job X?
Is Alexander Ovechkin's contribution to society really worth him being paid over $125 million under his current contract? Who's to say? He sure as hell doesn't do anything "important," like saving lives.
Looking at your doctor and your saving-lives example: I know a guy who used to be a framing carpenter and he started a cleaning business about three years ago (just as the economy tanked), most of it relates to cleaning windows. He doesn't save lives but I suspect he makes about the same income as a well-paid registered nurse who does save lives. Is he making "too much" money because he merely cleans windows? I think he makes as much money as his services demand (he does a great job and people are willing to pay him for that job).
Now, obviously, the über wealthy that the OP is talking about are on a completely different scale. But, virtually all political discussion about taxes and income disparity is focused on a far smaller scale than that (like a small business owner or consultant who earns a $200,000 a year and is thereby labeled as "rich" and is lumped in as an indistinguishable part of a class that includes those über wealthy individuals who have billions of dollars. They are barely on the same planet, let alone in the same economic class.
Stop weeping for ther uber-rich Sven. They steal your money too, and the more we can tax out of them the better for everyone. They never earned this money and they don't deserve it.
I don't weep for the über rich billionaires of the word (what did the article say, that there are over 1,000 billionaires in the world?!). What I get antsy about is people casually lumping someone making as little as $100K a year in the category of "the rich".
Sure, but you'd think that if it was 30%, or 20%, or even 10%.
Actually, no. Although I pay plenty of taxes now, I don't advocate cutting my taxes (I wouldn't oppose a cut but I'm fairly ambivalent about it). What I object to is people wanting to increase my taxes beyond the rates I'm already paying.
Does the public sector have the revenue required to do the things it was designed to do? I think we can look around and see that the public sector is falling apart, and that a lot of the problems we're facing now have to do with not having the stability and equalising factors that the public economy is supposed to provide.
I don't know. It depends on what you mean by what the public sector "was designed to do". Was it designed to help the truly poor (which I support) or was it designed to provide something far beyond that?
That all being said, JTT, I enjoyed reading your comment and found it interesting and thoughtful.
...your defence of increasing economic inequality I assume you are in favour of? Personally, I'm against this.
I'm not "in favor of" inequality. What I'm in favor of it personal autonomy and choice...and that will inevitably lead to inequality because some people make poor choices and other people make better choices. Choice is not wholly determinative, of course (there's good and bad luck, there's continuing effects of racism, etc. that also affect outcomes). But choice plays a significant role in how a person's life evolves.
Some people get nervous when no one is "in control". I'm reminded of the comments that Catchfire made the other day in a thread in which he and I were discussing choice in college education. I don't want to put words in his mouth, and I'll be happy to be corrected, but I got the sense that he was uncomfortable with education not being run by the experts (the professoriate class) ...and that education has evolved into a system where students have choices and power to demand certain things from educational institutions and that has lead to an array of negatives. Some students are going to make stupid decisions. I've made stupid decisions in the past. But, I want the freedom to make those decisions...and to live with the consequences. I don't want people telling me this is what I should or must do. Some people want the comfort of having decisions made for them. I don't. I'm confortable with the ambiguity of uncertainty.
I think a lot of folks here share my views when it comes to things like decisions about who they can marry, or control over their bodies, or what they have a right to read, and other civil rights matters. But, when it comes to economic matters, many of those same folks want centralized or collectivized control over everything.
The reason this is the case is presicly because of this chart.
What is more telling than nominal tax rates is the amount of taxes actually paid by varous groups. In the context of the USA (sorry!), I'd be more than happy to send you a PDF from the Congressional Budget Office that shows, going back to the 1970s, the actual percentage of total taxes collected by the five quintiles. The percentages have trended up for the top quintiles and down for the bottom quintiles over the last forty or so years.
I do, by the way, appreciate your civil approach to having an open-ended discussion like this.
Wealth is neither infinite nor finite. The wealth of a society can contract or expand over time, depending on how that society is structured. I'm of the belief that wealth grows when people have an incentive to make it grow. That's why China, after Mao came to power, eventually gave farmers a right to keep and sell a portion of their crops and livestock. When it was all collectively owned, food production was terrible (few wanted to work hard because there was zero direct benefit for doing so). When the farmers had a personal incentive to increase production, production bloomed.
[quote=Sven]I don't want to put words in his mouth, and I'll be happy to be corrected, but I got the sense that he was uncomfortable with education not being run by the experts (the professoriate class) ...and that education has evolved into a system where students have choices and power to demand certain things from educational institutions and that has lead to an array of negatives. Some students are going to make stupid decisions. I've made stupid decisions in the past. But, I want the freedom to make those decisions...and to live with the consequences. I don't want people telling me this is what I should or must do. Some people want the comfort of having decisions made for them. I don't. I'm confortable with the ambiguity of uncertainty.[/quote]
This, of course, is wrong. I don't want experts in control. I want the people in control. You, mistakenly, imv, believe that what neo-liberalists call "choice" gives the consumers power. It doesn't. In fact, it's not even choice. My criticism of students nowadays (which equally, if not moreso, applies to administrators and faculty) is not that their capacity to choose allows them to exert a new influence on professors and thus subvert the existing hierarchy; it's that their capacity to choose--more precisely, their belief in their capacity to choose, which is encouraged at every turn by the media, government, economy and culture--is false. In the other thread's example, the students hectoring and complaining about an allegedly inferior professor did nothing to improve their education. Nothing.
If Wal-Mart treats me poorly so I opt to shop at Zellers instead, that's not choice. My ability to eat sweet corn in December isn't either--not while industrial monocultures continue to reduce the number of available seed varietals, all the while flogging a choice between bland, dry off-season corn and shrivelled second-freshness peas. The fact that I can choose between a Ford, a Honda, a Toyota or nothing does not empower me, because I am still subject to a geography, a cultural ethos, a civic infrastructure and an economic system which will determine the context in which I make my decision. Autonomy? Ha! You may call it choice, but it's choice without option.
Aside from the fact that you equate wealth with money--rather than some realistic definition of the good life--your point about autonomy is demonstrably false. After societies have accumulated a baseline of material wealth, more wealth doesn't make people happier--equality does. You, contemptuously, call this envy--rather than an unacceptable social reality which punishes people for the racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and anti-ablist prejudice of others. And then calls it "choice."
I don't want experts in control. I want the people in control. You, mistakenly, imv, believe that what neo-liberalists call "choice" gives the consumers power. It doesn't. In fact, it's not only choice. My criticism of students nowadays (which equally, if not moreso, applies to administrators and faculty) is not that their capacity to choose allows them to exert a new influence on professors and thus subvert the existing hierarchy; it's that their capacity to choose--more precisely, their belief in their capacity to choose, which is encouraged at every turn by the media, government, economy and culture--is false. In the other thread's example, the students hectoring and complaining about an allegedly inferior professor did nothing to improve their education. Nothing.
Although there are many interesting things to discuss there, I appreciate your clarification.
If Wal-Mart treats me poorly so I opt to shop at Zellers instead, that's not choice.
Or, at least, not much of a choice. But, that isn't your only choice in a free market.
If all means of production and distribution was controlled by the government (or the collective), then you'd have whatever "choice" that monolith decided that you'd have. That's truly a case of an individual not having any choice.
I have many, many choices, for example, as to where I can buy food. There are big chain stores, there are region chain stores, there are local cooperatives, there are farmers' markets, there are local organic shops, etc. It's not a false choice. Can I get whatever I want? Of course not. But there are many, many choices and alternatives that I have for food. I happen to like that. Same with restaurants. Same with many, many things.
After societies have accumulated a baseline of material wealth, more wealth doesn't make people happier--equality does.
So, who's right is it to decide for everyone what is best for them and what will make them happiest? Why not let people figure it out themselves? If someone wants to spend ever minute of her life earning as much money as she can because that's what makes her feel happy, then I say, "Knock yourself out." Who am I (who is anyone?) to make that decision for others?
Seriously Sven what are you doing here?
[quote]What is more telling than nominal tax rates is the amount of taxes actually paid by varous groups. In the context of the USA (sorry!), I'd be more than happy to send you a PDF from the Congressional Budget Office that shows, going back to the 1970s, the actual percentage of total taxes collected by the five quintiles. The percentages have trended up for the top quintiles and down for the bottom quintiles over the last forty or so years.[/quote]
I'm not interested in such a PDF, because the point you're making doesn't change the fact that government does not have the resources required to mitigate the causes of extremes in income equality. It will need more money to do so. While I don't disagree that increased globalization has led to lower standards of living, perhaps more so than taxation, increased privatization leads to lower income individuals paying more for services they used to enjoy at lower rates when they were public services. This contributes to the problem. As such, this contributes to a lower standard of living for lower income individuals, whereas the highest income individuals benefit as they reap the profits made.
For example, let's say that a new government is elected that announces that it will cut everyone's taxes in half. Yippie? Also, very historically accurate everywhere.
Person A makes 50K/year and Person B makes 500K/year.
Person B will still contribute more to the funds used to operate government than person A. Then, a newer government is elected. It also promises tax cuts (because those are all the rage!), but it realises that it can't afford to give everyone tax cuts, so it only offers person A a 25% tax cut (or at least a tax cut on the first 50K of income). Because who can be against a tax cut for regular old person A (or at least the first 50K of income). Great, person B is still paying a bigger portion of the pie, albiet a much smaller pie.
But wait, the government is hurting for funds!
Easy, and typical solution, the government decides to privatize various services so as to pay it's bills! This privatization includes various everyday services such as Health Care (because that's Kenyan socialism, duh!), Fire and Police departments, public transportation, education, etc, etc. The added bonus will be that everyone will take care of these issues themselves and utilize the services should they so desire. Huzzah! Ayn Rand would be so proud!
Great, so the amount of money everyone would've spent on these essentially services that used to be covered by their taxes - in a pool of resources provided by everyone thus utilizing an economy of scale - will come out of their own pocket and everyone will now have a "choice" to use these services or not provided they can pay for them. But regardless of ones value judgement on that, at least they have this choice! Because everyone now "has the choice" to use these essential services those who don't have the money will not be able to, but that's just the way it is.
But wait! Because there is no economy of scale utilized and because some people will wait to use certain essentially services until it's almost too late and very expensive (hello Health Care in the USA - unless of course you subscribe to the Ron "let them die" Paul theory) more money will come out of individuals pockets to pay for the same services that one cannot avoid so as to use said services. Oh well, at least it's free choice!
As for Catchfire's argument, assuming you've read it right the disdain that people show for "experts" is sometimes downright illogical. If I were to use your logic (and I use the term loosly in this case) on this matter I shouldn't consider that an expert, such as a doctor, knows more about my health than me (with no medical training) or that a civil engineer could build a better bridge than me (with no training in engineer). No, no, I should not only have the right but the duty to make stupid decisions about these things out of purely ideological reasons because making a decision is more important than making a correct decision. Sorry, but that's stupid. And while experts are not infaliable and people should have every right to an opinion and in most cases an ability to excercise that opinion, nor should experts be treated with some exagerated sense of importance where people fall at their feet, one should weight their opinions more heavily than some random person who happened to read an article about something some time who insists "but my opinion is just as important, even though I have less knowledge on the matter."
[quote=Sven]But there are many, many choices and alternatives that I have for food. I happen to like that. Same with restaurants. Same with many, many things.[/quote]
Then why is it when I go to buy locally-sourced, organic apple juice at my local co-op it always costs about 10x more than the concentrate-in-a-can stuff at Safeway? What kind of autonomy does that grant me? Ever think that the reason you like (what you call ) "choice" is because it affirms your financial superiority?
[quote]If all means of production and distribution was controlled by the government (or the collective), then you'd have whatever "choice" that monolith decided that you'd have. [/quote]
You always come back to this appeal to a "monolith." It's not unlike your appeal to censorship when you start expressing your free speech fetish. Fetishizing choice has about the same success. Whenever you think about alternatives to neo-liberalism, the only image you can muster is some Maoist cartoon propaganda disseminated by the Public Broadcasting Corporation. There is no reason that a free association of humans can't jointly decide how to live their lives heterogeneously. If anything is monolithic, it's capitalism--whose breathless revolutionary force destroys difference, flattens diversity and eliminates mobility (all the while claiming to be an exemplar of all three).
So much for talking about ways to reduce the power of the thieves who run the world's economies.
Sven is a troll that destroys threads. This is fucking unbelievable.
May I suggest that the troll should either be banned or not fed. Please can we have a conversation that is not about Sven's right wing views.
I don't know, kropotkin, I think there is some productive material in this thread. And Sven isn't the only defender of the ultra-rich in this thread. I count three. Shall I ban them all?
As for the question posed in the OP, I'd prefer to start with local billionaires and the local infrastructure which supports and enriches foreign billionaires. First step? Tax the rich. It isn't rocket science.
I am sure you and Sven and the others will enjoy debating whether penis envy is the root cause of our economic woes.
Sorry for raising the issue in a context that is not compatible with Sven's penis envy meme. I will just bow out of this conversation now. Continue on.
Suit yourself. There's lots of room for discussion. You could always try entering the discussion yourself and see where that gets you.
[quote=Catchfire] If anything is monolithic, it's capitalism--whose breathless revolutionary force destroys difference, flattens diversity and eliminates mobility (all the while claiming to be an exemplar of all three). [/quote]
Not all mobility. Capital itself is more mobile than ever before, and economic privation seems to have people the world over fleeing in all directions. Upward mobility is a bit of a challenge no doubt, despite all the poster children the corporate media makes use of.
[quote=Catchfire]There is no reason that a free association of humans can't jointly decide how to live their lives heterogeneously. If anything is monolithic, it's capitalism--whose breathless revolutionary force destroys difference, flattens diversity and eliminates mobility (all the while claiming to be an exemplar of all three). [/quote]
gr8 responses. this 1 too. except for the "eliminates mobility" part IMV. if e1 is equal and maintaining diversity (class) mobility isn't part of any societal construction. if ya mean actual travel mobility then it's all good.
What the Lucky Owe the Rest
Are we a society that cares for one another? Taxes are a key measure
Rafe did well until he reverted to being a Cold War warrior. Rafe speaks in support of allowing the 185,795 to remain in control but just tax them more. I can't for the life of me figure what his shot at Chavez had to do with the rest of the article. Those comments could have been written by any right wing asshole. But then Rafe was a sycophant for the 1% for most of his career in broadcasting and all his political career. Maybe it is as simple as old habits die hard.
The people of Venezuela are in the process of undergoing a fundamental change in the way politics is done and it is more democratic than anything we can hope for in Canada. I tried getting a discussion going about this feminist revolution going on in Venezuela but no one was interested. Here is a link to an article on the system Rafe disparagingly dismisses as communism with the rough edges sanded off.
The answer to destroying the power of the 185,795 is not in taxing them more. The answer lies in countries with democratic governments setting up international financial institutions designed to meet the needs of the people not the Ultra Rich. The democracy part has to become a community based participatory model. The people need to be engaged and listened to not given a ballot every four years to elect a different set of dictators.
If the the international press [and Rafe] is to be believed, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela is a dictator, a menace to the region and is driving his country to the ground. If that is so, why do his people vote for him in landslide numbers? Why does he have an enormous following of the women of his country? Are they all deluded? Are they all paid or coerced to vote? It would seem so to the casual reader of headlines because the achievements of the Chávez government are treated like a top secret: Venezuela’s new participatory democracy should not be advertised. A new form of economic and social development that does not pay homage to global capital should be shunned. Nevertheless, a new world is being formed in a Latin America that has refused to be any power’s “back yard”. These developments are not ignored in Latin America where the Venezuela revolution has had a deep impact. The women of Venezuela have especially embraced the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela, not because they are “followers” but because actually, they have become protagonists of a social, economic and, cultural revolution that has transformed Venezuela and the region.
It would take some time but if Canada had adopted just a 10% inheritance tax as Layton proposed a while back, it would have done wonders about reducing our financial inequalities.
The world's problems are not solvable by tinkering at the edges and certainly not by leaving the same crooks in charge of the global finance system. An inheritance tax does little to combat the financiers. The system described in 1913 by my namesake is remarkably similar to our present situation.
That's not to say that an inheritance tax is a bad idea but only that it as a measure to deal with the Ultra Rich it is really just Canadian society demanding that some of the money that our wealthy imperialists extract from not only Canadian workers but from foreign peoples be taxed back. in my opinion getting "our" cut of the spoils is not progress towards a society where social justice can be achieved.
In short, there is in the lending States a complete organisation, in which rulers, bankers, company promoters, concocters of business schemes, and other interlopers, whom Zola has so well described in “L’Argent,” joined hands in order to exploit whole States. Thus, where simple folk believe they have discovered deep political reasons, there are only plots hatched by the filibusters of finance, who exploit everything: political and economical rivalry, national enmities, diplomatic traditions, and religious conflicts.
[quote=NorthReport]It would take some time but if Canada had adopted just a 10% inheritance tax as Layton proposed a while back, it would have done wonders about reducing our financial inequalities.[/quote]
no it wouldn't. imv it would do sfa. if Jack was wanting to go down that avenue than i've lost some deal of respect for him.
someone inherits 50 million and has to give 5 million in taxes doesn't do a damn thing to make equality happen. they still have 45 million. the rest of us will never make that in our life times making the rich even richer. then what? we wait another 50 years for them to die to get more "equality"? Kevin O' Leary and pals ain't dy'in for awhile. and i ain't buyin into some future trickle down pyramid scheme.
and inherit what? land? land probably up for FN's claim? land or restitution that should be turned over to People who actually own it when the current landholder ceases to be. ora maybe children working for just above min wage inheriting it who have no money to pay 10% taxes on the inflated worth of house or land?
i don't know. never considered myself too "socialist" or land claimish but reading the 10% inheritance tax and thinkin 'bout it has made me real angry. yep sellin a 10% inheritance tax as a social justice and equality move makes me angry. i ain't buying it. and the sellin of it needs to stop IMV.
Except the reason that the NDP backed off from an inheritance tax was beczuse it was viewed as too bold and extreme. At the time they couldn't defend even a 10% inheritance tax.
Going from a 0% inheritance tax to a 10% inheritance tax is definitely progress and it would generate revenue. If I were to vote between setting the inheritance tax at 0% or 10% it would be 10% every time.
I can understand that people are objecting to the idea that a 10% inheritance tax would've done ownders to reduce our financial inequaility.
But if the idea of a 10% inheritance tax makes you mad, I don't know what to say. You are likely going to mad for a very long time.
Great another NDP thread. How many do we need?
All hail the social democrats they will save the world and any other discussion need not take place.
Tinker, tinker, tinker that's the extent of your vision.
North Report if you read the dozen or more MSM articles that you post everyday then I suggest that you need to take some of that time and invest it in thoughtful progressive analysis not just the Ultra Rich's propaganda.
Moderators could you please rename this thread, "The Ghost of Jack Layton Wins"
[quote=wage zombie]Except the reason that the NDP backed off from an inheritance tax was beczuse it was viewed as too bold and extreme. At the time they couldn't defend even a 10% inheritance tax.
But if the idea of a 10% inheritance tax makes you mad, I don't know what to say. You are likely going to mad for a very long time.[/quote]
i was just reading up on inheritances in Canada. found out Pierre Trudeau took away Canadian inheritance taxes in 1972 according to wiki or 87 at another site. other developed countries pay around 30% except Japan which is 70%. Canada if i'm reading it right the Estate pays capital gains tax on capital assets ' cause it's considered sold to the beneficiaries unless its a spouse and then taxes are deferred until spouse dies or sellls capital assets. it's anywhere from 20-50%. cash inheritances have no tax.
if the Estate has to pay 20-50% taxes on current market value then a 10% Inheritance tax is lower than what's current. unless there are 2 taxes applied and that's not what was proposed. so.... nope still not up for a 10% inheritance tax.
Inheritance taxes in Canada are going to stop the Ultra Rich from running the world. I know I should have faith that Saint Jack had the policy to cure anything even an issue in the international forum dealing with the global kleptocracy.
That is why I have no faith that social democrats will effect any significant change. Like Canada's union movement a federal NDP government will only drag its heels, not dig them in, to slow down the descent into tyranny that is being put in place globally by the minions of the 185,795. Of course we will still be going backwards but slower. Of course that is better, right?
A 10% inheritance would be a separate tax beyond the capital gains tax.
Plus if the first tax is a capital gains tax then I suspect it is not a tax on the current market value of the estate, it would be a tax on only a small portion of the estate.
Capital gains tax and an inheritance tax are two totally different things.
That 2nd link you quoted is certainly inaccurate about this at least:
Canada has no inheritance taxes since 1987 when they were repealed by the government of Pierre Trudeau.
Because Brian Mulroney was PM in 1987.
I think you are getting your info about capital gains from here:
When a person passes away, no tax is payable for cash held in the bank. However, many people own capital assets (e.g. real estate and stocks) which are deemed sold at fair market value before their owner had passed away. The final return should contain all resulting capital losses or gains.
What this means is that if those assets now have a higher value since purchased, then the extra value gets taxed as a capital gain.
So if someone originally purchased a house for $250,000, and the market value is now $400,000, and they are passing it on to a non-spouse, then $150,000 would be taxed as a capital gain.
However if someone has some assets that increased in value up to their death, and they have other assets that decreased in value up to their death, then they can use the value lost on the bad assets to write off the increase on the good assets, and therefor they would pay no capital gains tax.
The only way things will really change is if a collapse caused by external factors forces it. Until then I'll take as much incremental change as we can get.
A 10% inheritance tax gets us closer to where we want to be than a 0% inheritance tax. Is it arguably negligible? Sure. But it's going to be decades of struggle to get where we want to be.
I think we'd need a 2nd consecutive NDP majority govt before we'd really start getting anywhere.
Inheritance taxes in Canada are going to stop the Ultra Rich from running the world.
You're responding to a caricature.
Wage Zombie this is not the Canadian politics (i.e NDP countless thread forum] it is the International forum. We know that incremental is your answer and thanks for reminding us that nothing can change much. I'll try to stop daring to dream.
All hail Saint Jack and his historic legacy of saving the world with incrementalism. Instead of electing mice the NDP now advocates electing cats who promise to restrict the mouse intake of the largest predators by 10%. I can't argue that saving 10% of the mice is not a good idea.
The strong rise for the NDP in the polls has something to do with inequality. But we have to find ways which are going to be acceptable to the majority of the population. Starting with an inheritance tax of 10% is a good beginning, the percentage can be increased later on. A financial transaction tax is another good step that most Canadians would probably accept. And of course getting rid of all the income tax loopholes, and taxing the corporations and the wealthy their fair share.
You're having a discussion with yourself.
I'll leave you to your solutions.
I am glad that the inheritance taxes in other countries have reigned in their Ultra Rich. LOL
Yup in four or five decades we might be back to where we were in the late 1980's. Whoopee shit.
Since they won't even engage in a discussion about it I gather the Dipper's posting have no use for the style of participatory democracy that is sweeping South America. Also they appear to be at ease with the current international system and see no need to overcome the power of the IMF and World Bank. Unlike the real change agents in the Union of South American Nations they are proposing tinkering at the edges of the Masters estate.
Please sir, may I have more? Don't forget to have your cap in hand when you go begging.
I think we are all on the same side here, but just have different suggested solutions for the rich against the poor inequality issues.
That is most likely the case, NR.
kropotkin has hit the nail on the head; however. Raising any sort of taxes will do nothing to solve any problem. It is too simple a solution and proper solutions are never simple. Who decides how that new inheritance tax revenue is used? It's possible that it could go towards an oil subsidy or beefing up law enforcement budgets.
What krop says about the banking system, the IMF and the World Bank is right on track. Changing the financial system is the ONLY way to truly stop what's happening. The average Canadian doesn't even know that the Bank of Canada is a private bank... they don't understand that we have worse fractional-reserve practices than the U.S. They don't know that our banks were bailed out. Because the banks finance government and business ... they dictate monetary policy. AKA, they decide who has a job and how much they make (ultimately), they decide how much money is available for public services, and on and on.
The media, business and the government itself have a stake in keeping information FROM the populace. If they understood the financial system they would flip their shit.
This is why it is unlikely an NDP government would be much different federally. Unless they're keeping their banking reform ideas until after winning the election. Learning finance and spreading the knowledge is key to changing things... educate people on what a scam it all is. And how it's been this way forever... money changers ruling the population.
A tax raise would simply go towards paying down the debt. The debt which wouldn't even exist if the government printed money as opposed to a private bank printing it (Bank of Canada doesn't even print our money anymore... it's a German conglomerate) and loaning it to the government at interest.
Here is good look at the 275,000 people in Canada's 1%.
Here are some more of the findings from the study, titled "Canadian Inequality: Recent Development and Policy Options":
The top one per cent of earners amount to 275,000 individuals.
Fifty-two percent of people in the top one per cent work at least 50 hours a week, compared to less than 20 per cent for the overall population.
One needs an annual income of at least $230,000 to be part of the top one per cent. The average income in this group is $450,000, compared to only $36,000 for the whole Canadian population.
One could safely call this a brotherhood -- 83 per cent of those in the top one per cent are men. "So despite the significant gains realized by women over the last few decades, they remain dramatically underrepresented at the very top of the income distribution."
If you look at the incomes of all of the people in the world, you're in the top 50% if you earn more than $2,138 per year. And you, dear reader, are rich (i.e., in the top 90% of world incomes) if you make at least $61,000 per year.
If "rich" and "poor" are relative terms, then there are a lot more rich people in Canada and the United States than you might first guess.
Oh, and if you are just at the poverty line in the United States for an individual ($10,830), then you are in the top 14% of all income earners globally (the "near rich," I suppose you could say).
On the other hand, if you make $500,000 and you compare your income to the top 185,795 people of the world, then, by God, you're dirt poor!
Frankly, in world terms, most of us are either rich or "well to do" already.
Now take a look at America (from the NYT):
Notice how the entire line for the United States resides in the top portion of the graph? That’s because the entire country is relatively rich. In fact, America’s bottom ventile is still richer than most of the world: That is, the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants.
Now check out the line for India. India’s poorest ventile corresponds with the 4th poorest percentile worldwide. And its richest? The 68th percentile. Yes, that’s right: America’s poorest are, as a group, about as rich as India’s richest.
That quote is discussing the very interesting graph shown in that NYT's piece.