Sam Altman’s ChatGPT promises to transform the global economy. But it also poses an enormous threat. Here, a scientist who appeared with Altman before the US Senate on AI safety flags up the danger in AI – and in Altman himself
The political right actually has one good point that we on the left don’t always appreciate: taxes on middle class people should be lower.
Specifically, very liberal tax exemptions on things like 401Ks, including the ability to transfer wealth across generations.
Combine that with higher taxes on the wealthy, and it will be possible to shift power to the middle class.
Consider the total market cap of the S&P 500, rounded up it’s about 50 trillion. Divide that among 130 million households and each household should own about $400K in stock on average.
Full equality is neither achievable nor desired by most people, so a good scheme would be to let every household hold up to $1M in wealth, tax exempt.
Problem is, people usually by far overestimate their position in society.
If you say “tax the rich” a whole lot of people feel like it’s about them even though they barely count as middle class.
Here in Germany I’ve had countless debates about inheritance tax. If your parents die, you only have to pay taxes (10%) on anything over 400k, and that’s per child. That means, most people will never pay a cent of inheritance tax, yet they are horrified by the idea of it, because they firmly believe, their parents shitty house in a village somewhere will bankrupt them and their two siblings.
People fundamentally don’t understand their own wealth and how tiny their wealth is compared to the billionaires class.
Thing is, I agree with your sentiment, but I’m 95% sure, this will be killed by political interests.
Everyone wants to be middle class, be in reality, a married couple of tenured teachers already is upper class. I’m upper class, since I’m a single software developer.
There was a reform recently, where couples having combined incomes over something like 180k would get less benefits for their children. Hardly anybody would have been affected by this, but the genuine outrage of middle class people was gigantic, because these morons don’t want to accept, that they’re not rich.
I’m really afraid for our democracy because so many people are willfully stupid. It’s not that they’re incapable of knowing or understanding, they don’t want to understand. For whatever reason…
No you are not upper class if you are a married couple of teachers, that is exactly the point you made before about people overestimating their place in society. If you have to work to earn money you are not upper class, the upper classes already have so much wealth that they can live off the passive proceeds of that wealth.
Yes your dual income might but you in the top 15% of incomes, but wealth is the defining characteristic of the truly rich not income.
According to the official definition, upper class means being in the top 10% of earners. And for a couple without kids that’s somewhere about 6k, and a teacher makes easily 3k.
That’s the thing is, the average employee is pretty poor, so even such moderate incomes are well within the highest percentiles.
You simply have a different understanding of upper class, that is in my opinion too narrow, since this means a finance bro making half a million a year is not upper class.
those who dedicate their lives to gaining and holding onto massive wealth and power, are the ones least fit to wield massive wealth and power.
Which is why the tax system needs to be reformed.
The political right actually has one good point that we on the left don’t always appreciate: taxes on middle class people should be lower.
Specifically, very liberal tax exemptions on things like 401Ks, including the ability to transfer wealth across generations.
Combine that with higher taxes on the wealthy, and it will be possible to shift power to the middle class.
Consider the total market cap of the S&P 500, rounded up it’s about 50 trillion. Divide that among 130 million households and each household should own about $400K in stock on average.
Full equality is neither achievable nor desired by most people, so a good scheme would be to let every household hold up to $1M in wealth, tax exempt.
And then progressively tax everything above that.
Problem is, people usually by far overestimate their position in society.
If you say “tax the rich” a whole lot of people feel like it’s about them even though they barely count as middle class.
Here in Germany I’ve had countless debates about inheritance tax. If your parents die, you only have to pay taxes (10%) on anything over 400k, and that’s per child. That means, most people will never pay a cent of inheritance tax, yet they are horrified by the idea of it, because they firmly believe, their parents shitty house in a village somewhere will bankrupt them and their two siblings.
People fundamentally don’t understand their own wealth and how tiny their wealth is compared to the billionaires class.
Yes, I fully agree.
So we need to find the right messaging.
I don’t know about Germany, but here in the Netherlands most people identify as middle class.
So “stop taxing the middle class” and “let the billionaires pay more” is a message that should resonate.
I’m optimistic and I believe we will get there. The level of equality we have today would be unfathomable for somebody living before 1945.
Thing is, I agree with your sentiment, but I’m 95% sure, this will be killed by political interests.
Everyone wants to be middle class, be in reality, a married couple of tenured teachers already is upper class. I’m upper class, since I’m a single software developer.
There was a reform recently, where couples having combined incomes over something like 180k would get less benefits for their children. Hardly anybody would have been affected by this, but the genuine outrage of middle class people was gigantic, because these morons don’t want to accept, that they’re not rich.
I’m really afraid for our democracy because so many people are willfully stupid. It’s not that they’re incapable of knowing or understanding, they don’t want to understand. For whatever reason…
No you are not upper class if you are a married couple of teachers, that is exactly the point you made before about people overestimating their place in society. If you have to work to earn money you are not upper class, the upper classes already have so much wealth that they can live off the passive proceeds of that wealth.
Yes your dual income might but you in the top 15% of incomes, but wealth is the defining characteristic of the truly rich not income.
According to the official definition, upper class means being in the top 10% of earners. And for a couple without kids that’s somewhere about 6k, and a teacher makes easily 3k.
That’s the thing is, the average employee is pretty poor, so even such moderate incomes are well within the highest percentiles.
You simply have a different understanding of upper class, that is in my opinion too narrow, since this means a finance bro making half a million a year is not upper class.
The top 10% of income is not upper class. The error that people make, including you, is to focus on income.
People like Elon Musk have incomes smaller than $100K.
Upper class are the people who do not need to work and who live off of capital.
We need to shift our focus on wealth equality.
Look, the economy needs capital. If we want to be less dependent on the capital of rich people, then middle class people need to take over that role.
The people making $100-300K per year are key, because they can provide an alternative source of capital if their tax burden is lowered.
The people making $50K will not be able to provide large amounts of capital.
It’s not my mistake, it’s literally the official definition…
How is this ability limited currently in the US?
For one, you can’t transfer a 401K to your kids.
You have to first cash it out, pay income tax and then you can transfer what remains.
Lol