Pretty impressive long-term charts, and dramatic surge in the last years. Of course there are lot of other relevant details (e.g. more people own capital, and this is pre-tax numbers). But overall this seems pretty consistent with the story Piketty tells in Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
Are corporate profits actually at a peak, or just their percentage share of national profit (per the article)? Not in denial about the wealth gap, just wondering where profit growth is coming from.
7 hours ago [-]
nojvek 19 hours ago [-]
Automation can’t be taxed. Servers consuming electricity in data centers to generate what the next ad someone will click isn’t the same as paying employee salary. It’s not taxed.
So Trump cuts tax on the rich, and the rich cut out human workers or depress their pay.
The debt will have to be reckoned with if the govt ain’t getting their share to build infrastructure.
On the other hand US has the highest participation of people who own stock.
Unlike China, where the median Chinese doesn’t benefit from growth of state run companies.
chradams 18 hours ago [-]
Corporate taxes can tax corporate revenue or profits. Stock buybacks and dividends can be regulated or outlawed. If we don't want to force corporations to pay with more equality across ranks, we can take larger portions of revenue or profit and then fund social safety nets and welfare that are targeted at those that corporations choose not to give raises to.
There are plenty of systems answers, power just doesn't care, and neither do voter bases.
JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago [-]
> Automation can’t be taxed
Of course it can. Like, for AI, put a surtax on wattage consumed and use it to extend and expand unemployment insurance.
idiotsecant 11 hours ago [-]
This also has the second order effect of further incentivising power efficiency
teeray 18 hours ago [-]
Tokens are probably the easiest tax target since that is also the unit of billing.
JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago [-]
Tokens are funny money. Never tax funny money—that be Hollywood accounting.
zaik 15 hours ago [-]
There will be shenanigans with the definition of a token to save on tax.
conception 18 hours ago [-]
The participation rate in the stock market may be high, but the ownership rate is effectively the top 10% own the entire market.
triceratops 19 hours ago [-]
> Automation can’t be taxed.
Sure it can. Take shares in companies. Put them into a sovereign wealth fund.
lazide 11 hours ago [-]
That isn’t a tax by the normal definition, just seizure.
triceratops 11 minutes ago [-]
Not at all. Before the widespread availability of currency, taxes were always paid in property. Farmers paid with bushels of wheat or turnips or whatever.
scotty79 7 hours ago [-]
Shares aren't a real thing. They are paper invented out of thin air with intent to pull the money out of capital market. There are already many rules about what you have to do be allowed to sell them to the public.
Adding a rule that 10% of whatever you print must be put under national democratic control is not inconceivable.
lazide 7 hours ago [-]
Shares are proxies for ownership/control.
What you are proposing is literally what China does to ensure CCP control of all businesses.
Do you really want whoever is in power at the moment to have (even more direct) control over every business in the country?
Because that is literally how you do that.
triceratops 10 minutes ago [-]
> Shares are proxies for ownership/control.
But they don't have to be. There could be a law that shares paid as tax have no voting power. The government gets capital gains and dividends but no votes.
The sovereign wealth fund could be required to be structured as a black box, with visibility into it severely constrained. Selling is governed by a strict mechanical algorithm, or at random, to prevent indirect pressure by the government ("Do what we say or we'll dump all your shares").
scotty79 5 hours ago [-]
> Shares are proxies for ownership/control.
Connection between shares and ownership is tenuous at best and rarely exercised.
> What you are proposing is literally what China does to ensure CCP control of all businesses.
10% is not control. China is not democratic. Given that, Chinese companies seem to be doing quite well under those conditions. Better than Western ones.
> Do you really want whoever is in power at the moment to have (even more direct) control over every business in the country?
Do you really want all economic power to be controlled in undemocratic manner rather than democratic?
Because that is literally what we have now and society and governments are getting impoverished and companies are getting outcompeted too.
lazide 4 hours ago [-]
Hardly, it's quite a clear relationship and exercised constantly - if you do the math re: share classes and look at what a corporation actually does.
In most large corporations, 10% is often the largest single shareholder and/or bloc.
In democratic countries, we pass laws and let that do the talking. If the gov't owns direct shares, whoever is in charge of the gov't is de-facto the 'controller' of them, eh?
So no congress, no laws, no vote of the people after they pick whoever is 'in charge'. Doesn't sound very democratic to me?
cactacea 19 hours ago [-]
Well that just sounds like communism with extra steps.
triceratops 19 hours ago [-]
What's your point? I only showed a way to tax automation. The labels are left as an exercise for the reader.
Pretty impressive long-term charts, and dramatic surge in the last years. Of course there are lot of other relevant details (e.g. more people own capital, and this is pre-tax numbers). But overall this seems pretty consistent with the story Piketty tells in Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...
https://lobste.rs/s/z0mdor/archive_today_is_directing_ddos_a...
https://everywheremillionaire.substack.com/p/why-the-labor-s...
https://everywheremillionaire.substack.com/p/another-reason-...
So Trump cuts tax on the rich, and the rich cut out human workers or depress their pay.
The debt will have to be reckoned with if the govt ain’t getting their share to build infrastructure.
On the other hand US has the highest participation of people who own stock.
Unlike China, where the median Chinese doesn’t benefit from growth of state run companies.
There are plenty of systems answers, power just doesn't care, and neither do voter bases.
Of course it can. Like, for AI, put a surtax on wattage consumed and use it to extend and expand unemployment insurance.
Sure it can. Take shares in companies. Put them into a sovereign wealth fund.
Adding a rule that 10% of whatever you print must be put under national democratic control is not inconceivable.
What you are proposing is literally what China does to ensure CCP control of all businesses.
Do you really want whoever is in power at the moment to have (even more direct) control over every business in the country?
Because that is literally how you do that.
But they don't have to be. There could be a law that shares paid as tax have no voting power. The government gets capital gains and dividends but no votes.
The sovereign wealth fund could be required to be structured as a black box, with visibility into it severely constrained. Selling is governed by a strict mechanical algorithm, or at random, to prevent indirect pressure by the government ("Do what we say or we'll dump all your shares").
Connection between shares and ownership is tenuous at best and rarely exercised.
> What you are proposing is literally what China does to ensure CCP control of all businesses.
10% is not control. China is not democratic. Given that, Chinese companies seem to be doing quite well under those conditions. Better than Western ones.
> Do you really want whoever is in power at the moment to have (even more direct) control over every business in the country?
Do you really want all economic power to be controlled in undemocratic manner rather than democratic?
Because that is literally what we have now and society and governments are getting impoverished and companies are getting outcompeted too.
In most large corporations, 10% is often the largest single shareholder and/or bloc.
In democratic countries, we pass laws and let that do the talking. If the gov't owns direct shares, whoever is in charge of the gov't is de-facto the 'controller' of them, eh?
So no congress, no laws, no vote of the people after they pick whoever is 'in charge'. Doesn't sound very democratic to me?