Society/Culture Billionaires

Remove this Banner Ad

Chief said:
Lol.

You're such a troll.
Click to expand...
The great FK is not a troll. I may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a troll, but I am NOT a pornstar.

Great tax incentives to buy a Tesla right now btw Chief. Grab one under the BF ABN cheap cheap, then tell everyone that your business is now carbon neutral... worked for my boss, anyhoo.
 
Big Papa Ted said:
Mate I'm not saying that all their free time needs to be philanthropic. But if someone isn't willing to give up a few hours on one Sunday a month to help out others/the environment/the community, I'm not really interested in hearing them wax and wane about how billionaires should help their common man.

I know there are some people that can't even afford that small amount of time, but they're definitely in the extreme minority.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, would you categorise assisting with a local sport team - playing, coaching, volunteering, umpiring - as assistance of the community?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gethelred said:
Out of interest, would you categorise assisting with a local sport team - playing, coaching, volunteering, umpiring - as assistance of the community?
Click to expand...
For kids as an unpaid role? Absolutely (assuming that they're teaching kids good values, being a positive role model etc).

Probably wouldn't say as much for adults doing that for other adults, but i could see the argument
 
OPofJazz said:
What a hilarious pathetic conversation. The semantics are ridiculous. You are losing the meaning of the words. How about if I have 999 million dollars? Am I absolved? How about I won a billion dollar lottery? does that make me more evil than a multi-millionaire sex trafficker? There are two classes, Capitalist and Worker. That is the distinction. Not how many numbers someone has.
Click to expand...
No one going to reply?
 
OPofJazz said:
No one going to reply?
Click to expand...
I’ll take a shot. I don’t think anyone should have their assets/cash seized from them. If you have a billion in cash or stock, good for you.

If I developed an app and got offered a billion in stock/cash, I’d take the deal.

But our tax system isn’t progressive enough in my opinion. If I was making 30 million a year from a billion net worth portfolio, and the marginal tax rate was 90% for every dollar over 3 million in income, you wouldn’t see me complaining.

Back when the US had this rate, from the 40s through to the early 60s, they had a golden age in economic growth and innovation. I don’t think the richest American companies would move overseas and remove themselves from the third biggest labour market in the world and the biggest consumer market in the world.
 
Coolangatta said:
I’ll take a shot. I don’t think anyone should have their assets/cash seized from them. If you have a billion in cash or stock, good for you.

If I developed an app and got offered a billion in stock/cash, I’d take the deal.

But our tax system isn’t progressive enough in my opinion. If I was making 30 million a year from a billion net worth portfolio, and the marginal tax rate was 90% for every dollar over 3 million in income, you wouldn’t see me complaining.

Back when the US had this rate, from the 40s through to the early 60s, they had a golden age in economic growth and innovation. I don’t think the richest American companies would move overseas and remove themselves from the third biggest labour market in the world and the biggest consumer market in the world.
Click to expand...

People like to think anything global is a conspiracy theory run by Jewish bankers etc.. etc.. but measures like this are genuinely things that need to be looked at;

www.abc.net.au

More than 100 countries reach global deal for minimum corporate tax rate. What will it mean?

The historic agreement ensures big companies pay a minimum tax rate of 15 per cent, making it harder for them to stash profits in low-tax countries and could raise government tax incomes by $200 billion annually. This is what the deal looks like.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

In the modern era it's very easy for companies to shift earnings around the globe, so having a corporate tax rate that's the same in every country removes the incentive to shift profits from (say) Australia to Singapore or Ireland.

We also probably need to look at things like wealth taxes, where for someone like Musk or Bezos a significant amount of their wealth is held in shares that if they don't sell, doesn't generate a taxable event.

Our tax system simply isn't equipped to handle people with such enormous wealth.
 
Coolangatta said:
But our tax system isn’t progressive enough in my opinion. If I was making 30 million a year from a billion net worth portfolio, and the marginal tax rate was 90% for every dollar over 3 million in income, you wouldn’t see me complaining.

Back when the US had this rate, from the 40s through to the early 60s, they had a golden age in economic growth and innovation. I don’t think the richest American companies would move overseas and remove themselves from the third biggest labour market in the world and the biggest consumer market in the world.
Click to expand...
Genuine question here because I have no idea which policies would produce the best outcomes in modern times.

Is it not possible that these high tax rates became untenable due to globalisation? Entrepreneurs realised that country X has lower taxes, country Y has cheaper labour etc, and they arranged their companies accordingly? Hence the first world countries have all but lost their manufacturing industries and others.

In an ideal world I would love to see 90% tax on income greater than $3M. In the real world I feel it could possibly make inequality even worse. Something needs to change, but I'm not sure it's as black and white as it seems.
 
FireKrakouer said:
Genuine question here because I have no idea which policies would produce the best outcomes in modern times.

Is it not possible that these high tax rates became untenable due to globalisation? Entrepreneurs realised that country X has lower taxes, country Y has cheaper labour etc, and they arranged their companies accordingly? Hence the first world countries have all but lost their manufacturing industries and others.

In an ideal world I would love to see 90% tax on income greater than $3M. In the real world I feel it could possibly make inequality even worse. Something needs to change, but I'm not sure it's as black and white as it seems.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not the first time I've seen that point raised and I think it has merit.

I think there's been some international push for 130 countries in lockstep to have a 15% corporate tax rate. That's a start.

Businesses are going to fight tooth and nail against higher taxes but I'm not sure too many people are going to empathise with an individual making more than 3M a year who complains about a marginal tax increase.
 
Coolangatta said:
Back when the US had this rate, from the 40s through to the early 60s, they had a golden age in economic growth and innovation. I don’t think the richest American companies would move overseas and remove themselves from the third biggest labour market in the world and the biggest consumer market in the world.
Click to expand...
No, they didn’t. The biggest rate of growth and innovation for the us was either the Gilded Age or the last 20 years.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Nuggs Bunny said:
Why would you make something up when you can so easily fact check it with a simple google search?

View attachment 1667172
www.statista.com

United States real GDP growth rate 1930-2022 | Statista

The Covid-19 pandemic saw growth fall by 2.2 percent, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent the year before.
www.statista.com www.statista.com
Click to expand...
Talking about innovation. The transition from horse and carriage and candlelight to cars and electricity will likely never be beaten. Only the internet age (maybe) can beat it.

US growth between 40-60 is due to war effort and the fact Europe destroyed its manufacturing capacity. There was literally only one game in town then, America.
 
royale with cheese said:
Talking about innovation. The transition from horse and carriage and candlelight to cars and electricity will likely never be beaten. Only the internet age (maybe) can beat it.

US growth between 40-60 is due to war effort and the fact Europe destroyed its manufacturing capacity. There was literally only one game in town then, America.
Click to expand...
I think you're just talking out of your ass and shifting the goalposts. In 1940 you couldn't fly non-stop across the ocean. By the end of the 1960's man had walked on the moon.
 
Nuggs Bunny said:
I think you're just talking out of your ass and shifting the goalposts. In 1940 you couldn't fly non-stop across the ocean. By the end of the 1960's man had walked on the moon.
Click to expand...
Nah, horse to car and fire to electricity much bigger. You couldn’t fly at all in 1900 and by 1910 you could.
 
royale with cheese said:
Nah, horse to car and fire to electricity much bigger. You couldn’t fly at all in 1900 and by 1910 you could.
Click to expand...
See, here's the thing:

Horses and horse drawn transport existed for years, literal centuries, prior to the car as did things steam piston engines and chain/sprocket systems. So 1870 to 1900 is a completely arbitrary period to talk about how once there were horse and carts but now there are cars, also incorrect because lots of key components & concepts underpinning the first cars existed before 1870. A more accurate thing to say is, in 1870 there were steam lorries but now there are combustion powered cars.

Controllable rockets did not exist before 1940, neither did fully electric computers. 1940 to 1969 perfectly illustrates how aerospace and rocketry developed in that period.
 
Nuggs Bunny said:
See, here's the thing:

Horses and horse drawn transport existed for years, literal centuries, prior to the car as did things steam piston engines and chain/sprocket systems. So 1870 to 1900 is a completely arbitrary period to talk about how once there were horse and carts but now there are cars, also incorrect because lots of key components & concepts underpinning the first cars existed before 1870. A more accurate thing to say is, in 1870 there were steam lorries but now there are combustion powered cars.

Controllable rockets did not exist before 1940, neither did fully electric computers. 1940 to 1969 perfectly illustrates how aerospace and rocketry developed in that period.
Click to expand...
no, because the transformation and shrinking of distances motorised private transport enabled was of a larger impact than rockets. Containerised shipping had a bigger impact than rockets.
 
didn’t the gutter snipe join the other reactionary racists in condemning everything chinese?

Clive Palmer lifted his net worth from $19.55b to the very precise $23.66b this year, purely on the back of Chinese royalties from the Cape Preston iron ore operation.
Click to expand...
 
schneebly111 said:
Click to expand...


Love Jesse Ventura. Aside from his gun views, from what I have seen Jesse seems generally pretty lefty, and very pro-worker, and a good guy even if a little paranoid. It's shame the Chris Kyle saga basically blacklisted him from his own country.

As for the topic. My mother likes to watch Shark Tank but it didn't take me long to show her how much of a sociopath the likes of Kevin O'Leary are. Absolute filth of a creature.
 
Know your place, peasants, and get back to the mines.

Gerry Harvey would be proud.

- And of course, old mate began with a handout from his rich grandfather and boss.

www.bbc.com

Tim Gurner apologises over call for more unemployment to fix worker attitudes

Tim Gurner backtracks over his call for "pain in the economy" to remind people they are lucky to have jobs.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

One of Australia's richest men has apologised after he said that unemployment should jump to remind arrogant workers of their place.
"We need to see pain in the economy," Tim Gurner had said.

He has previously made headlines by suggesting young people cannot afford homes because they spend too much on avocado toast.

He proposed the country's current unemployment rate of 3.7% should rise by 40-50% to reduce "arrogance in the employment market". That would see more than 200,000 people lose their jobs.
"There's been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them," Mr Gurner said.
"We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nuggs Bunny said:
I think you're just talking out of your ass and shifting the goalposts. In 1940 you couldn't fly non-stop across the ocean. By the end of the 1960's man had walked on the moon.
Click to expand...
there have been three industrial revolutions and the 40-60s didnt make it. High growth during this period was driven by all the men returning from war and the capital rebuild effort in Europe.

the gilded age did make it though. It was the second one. Planes, electricity, automobiles, refridgeration and plumbing. The third was the digital revolution of the 90s and early 2000s. It has been the weakest in terms of economic output though and Im not sure it should even qualify. At least not yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top