What's with the animosity towards the wealthy?

Absolute nonsense.

https://images.app.goo.gl/3fePRBPgCinYRWzX7

https://images.app.goo.gl/pasJgz3CXugJdYdi8

I what world are you paying more than a billionaire?

 

Have you tried effective tax rates?

 

Jealousy, and the feeling other people are responsible for you being miserable.

 

No realisation that you're to blame for coercion that enabled the rich to achieve inefficient inequalities worse than Victorian England?

 

If you earn $10 million per year, or $10 per year, it's none of my business.

 

So you don't care if people are getting rich off the backs of others? Fair enough. Some people don't care about both efficiency and equity.

 

Of course the billionaire pays more. The question is how much more , and how does that compare with how much more benefits the billionaire derives from society. My contention is that it is much MUCH more than what is actually compensated for by a mere 37%

 

Here is a prime example of the point I was going to make. The left-wing would rather see their party elite as the Elite Class instead of the wealthy. They falsely believe there will be some of that elite status left over for themselves because of their parroting the party line. This delusion wears off when they are standing in line for a loaf of bread or a roll of toilets paper. Especially when they notice that someone ahead of them completely disagrees with the party line.

You do not like the wealthy using their political capital, but you probably support the right of liberal actors speaking out against things they have no understanding of. Such as Taylor Swift recently calling the President a White Supremacist, or Ashley Judd attacking the Wildlife Management Service for killing wolves. You also have not notice that most of the wealthy support Democrat candidates and liberal policies.

 

If you have a problem with business operating for profit, then you are in the wrong country. This country is, always has been, and always will be pro-capitalist. I can recommend several countries that you would feel more comfortable in.

 

Nonsense response. I didn't refer to profit. I referred to profiteering.

 

Making money for selling things that are needed for handling the pandemic is good business and not profiteering. Those business that have increased the prices due to COVID-19 is profiteering. Several have been called out here is Virginia. But investing in stocks of companies that will make a profit during the pandemic is good business. The company that has adds on TV offering 10 disposable masks for $19.99 is profiteering. You should not be confusing the two. Otherwise, you are doing exactly what I stated in my post.

 

Your "prime example" lives in your head. Name these elites you speak of...you must have names...right?

 

What on earth are you rambling on about now? I've referred to economic rent. That is destructive, by definition. Even orthodox capitalist loving economics agrees.

 

Ah, now you want to bring in subjectivity.

Fact, the wealthy pay more by both total dollars and percent of income.

Those facts dispute your original claim accurately.

Really?

How does a wealthy person obtain more benefit from national defense? Federal roadways? Public education?

I'll play the subjective game.

My next question will ask how nearly half the population that have zero or negative tax liability are paying for the systems that benefit them are paying their fair share. But I'll await your response first.

 

Yes, I can name those that I am talking about. The Clintons, Pelosi, Schumer, all the idiots involved in the fake impeachment trail, Barrack Obama, Joe Biden, the entire DNC and everyone that supports these clowns.

 

Qu

question. how do you define wage making power?
Are you implying employees have no say in what they will work for?

 

First, you never said anything about "economic rent" in the post that I responded to. Further, if the so-called "orthodox capitalist loving economists" claim that "economic rent" is destructive, the they are not by defination "orthodox capitalists". They are more likely communist loving, capitalist hating economists. Maybe this would be a good time to define "economic rent".

Wikipedia defines Economic Rent as:

In economics, economic rent is any payment to an owner or factor of production in excess of the costs needed to bring that factor into production . In classical economics, economic rent is any payment made (including imputed value) or benefit received for non-produced inputs such as location...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent

The amount of money made in excess of costs to produce is known by economists as profit. Therefore, your post was talking about profit and not profiteering.

Now that same Wikipedia defines Profiteering as:

Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit by methods considered unethical.

Those types of unethical practices that they have limited profiteering to are Price Fixing and Price Gouging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiteering_(business)

Therefore, if you are talking about Profiteering, then you are not talking about "economic rent", and if your talking about "economic rent" then you are not talking about profiteering. Do you ever research what you post, or do you just make this crap up as you go? Like most crap, I can guess where you pull it out of.

 

The econonic definition? Labour supply elasticity (i.e. if you reduce your wage you only lose some workers).

 

You could have asked, rather than going off on one and responding to a load of bobbins that I never said.

I have repeatedly referred to labour market power. That means economic rent. That means profiteering (making it distinct from profit). Now you might want to go all orthodox on me and prefer the vocab normal and abnormal profit. Be my guest. It would be more insightful than your 'I can copy and paste from Wikipedia' routine...

 

There is no practical way to have a graduated sales tax though the theory sounds appropriate. There are many luxurious things that have excise taxes, costly automobiles for one. Luxury taxes often backfire like the excise tax put on yachts. The wealthy just stopped buying yachts, many if not most yachts manufacturers went out of business and the workers instead of being helped lost their jobs.

 

In other words, you tailor terms and defination to your insane ideologies. Got it. First you claim that you ideas are supported by "orthodox capitalists", but then claim that I am being orthodox when I utilize commonly understood definitions for the terms that you are using. So, how can you be supported by the orthodox when you misuse their definitions. I think that you are just trying to be cleaver, but are not equiped for it.

 

Just rambling aren't you? I use economic terms. Why don't you care that so much profit is actually rent?

 

What your talking about then is a simple model with profit margins against labor costs. That doesn’t define supply and demand as such. Nor does it imply a conspiracy of businessmen looking to screw workers out of money.
it also doesn’t negate a workers right to choose where he works for a living. Unless you live in a socialist situation.

 

Supply and demand is simple.

It certainly does. Its monopsonistic labour supply after all.

There is no need for a conspiracy. A profit objective is sufficient to drive rent seeking outcome.

Job search modelling predicts this rent. Why refer to socialism and ignore that reality? That's of course part of the compliance. Fed the anti-socialism diet, American working classes willingly vote for politicians bought by big business.

 

What big business bought Donald Trump?