Being Fiscally Liberal On The Street
I've read that Wall Street is fairly fiscally conservative. Being moderately fiscally liberal myself, how will that look to my boss/coworkers? Is it better I aim for a "Tier 2/3" city and if so which ones?
To be more specific, I think one or two of the following should be implemented:
1) Raising capital gains tax on the rich. Why tf am I paying a higher tax rate on my money I bring in than billionaires?
2) Warren's wealth tax of 2% on wealth over $50m. No other way to solve wealth inequality and I believe would not meaningfully change business plans. I mean Bezos just gave $30b to his wife.
3) Raising corporate tax rate to 28%
4) Also, support most of Keynesian economic theory in that the Fed should play a big role in stabilizing the economy.
My views are not to punish the rich but I believe that rising wealth and income inequality could lead to a collapse of the economy or the ownership of too much power in the hands of the few in the future. Also, our government is running a trillion dollar deficit and we should not be increasing taxes on the middle class or the poor.
No one:
Intern: I WaNnA pAy MoRe TaXeS
Did you read this part?
Yep, and the part about the wealth tax and that rising wealth and income inequality could lead to a collapse to the economy (how else do you "fight" wealth and income inequality if not by raising taxes champ).
I'm assuming you want to do IB, which pays ~150k out of undergrad - but no, don't raise taxes on you, only people who are richer! right? even though you would literally be in the top 1% of earners at your age
People making 150k are not the problem with wealth inequality and concentrated power. Bezos's net worth increases $200 million per day. My policies above aren't about hurting the upper middle class.
Wtf is this bootlicker argument avoid taxing monopolies and billionaires that barely or avoid paying taxes because some 1st year banker is making 150k
Actually, on second thought, here's a better one
No one:
Intern: I'm StArTiNg A tHrEaD tO pReTeNd To AsK a QuEsTiOn BuT i AcTuAlLy WaNt To ImPrEsS EvErYoNe WItH mY iNtErN kNoWlEdGe
Personally I only think political views are bad to bring up if you have the logic of an 11 year old or you constantly go on tirades. It's really not easy to hang out people who just go on and on about politics all the time. Not fun if you're stuck working with them...
I guess every group is different but politics frequently came up in my group last summer. Kind of hard not too these days, seems like an interesting news story every week.
Intern must still be living off his parents money, because there's no way an intern will ask for higher taxes if he's on his own.
Besides, higher taxes combined with free movement of capital simply result in capital moving elsewhere and lower tax revenue, which turn into a cycle of even higher taxes, more flight, less revenue, untill all the high income leave and you end up squeezing the middle class, until you have none.
Liberals are as bad at economics as conservatives are at defending their institutions.
I already responded and had a discussion about this with the top commenter.
no, you haven't addressed capital flight, you simply said you don't want to squeeze the middle class
Did you really just copy/paste from my thread?
Here we go again...
First of all, don't ever discuss politics at work.
Second, wtf does being fiscally liberal even mean?
Yeah this is fiscal "liberalism" I guess as people call it nowadays. But treating capital gains separately from income tax is the "wrong" (not particularly useful) kind of conversation to have IMO. It's better off to tax all income equally - salary, bonus, capital gains, etc... - no matter the rate.
It's not a matter of capital gains tax being low or not. It's a matter of capital gains tax being lower than the income tax, which incentivizes corporations to use more of its earnings to expand beyond what it needs to, which in turn makes monopolies and oligopolies more likely. Win-win for investors and corporations but lose-lose for consumers and new entrants.
Wealth tax is a ridiculous and dangerous idea paramount to anti-globalization for multiple reasons - 1) Most wealth isn't held up in cash, they are in equity (WTF is the government gonna do with equity assets? Are they gonna start exercising voting shares or give equity to low income people? That's ridiculous amount of intervention and sounds like some socialist BS.); 2) The wealthy voluntarily redistribute their wealth already and quite frankly they are much better at it than any government ever could be.
Wealth tax is a horrible horrible idea that'll either destroy the very fabric of capitalism as we know it or it'll be a dud and be completely inefficient when it comes to redistribution of wealth. Instead, a much more effective way to increase the voluntary redistribution of wealth is through 1) series of legislation that sets rules for how much voluntary redistribution needs to happen (through incentives and requirements) or 2) Federal Reserve like entity (an independent body separate from all 3 branches of the government) that uses certain tools to increase voluntary redistribution of wealth.
If you think that the Congress can figure out the best way to redistribute that wealth, you're wrong. If wealth tax becomes a thing, it'll probably end up being used for useless fiscal spending and further increase the deficit.
What can I say, I'd rather have no corporate tax and equalized income tax (equal rates across salary, bonus, capital gains, etc...) Let businesses do what they can do best. They're already using loopholes and not paying tax when they could. You're getting your Keynesian facts wrong here. The Fed controls monetary policy. Keynes thought fiscal policies can also stabilize the economy in the short-term. Fiscal policy is what the Congress decides. Federal Reserve is already playing a big role in stabilizing the economy, which notion was proposed by Milton Friedman and supported by other monetarists and neoclassical economists.Fiscal policy impacting short-term economy is not a guarantee. Most stimulus packages end up being a dud that goes into people's savings accounts and doesn't transition well into spending. Also most Keynesian fiscal policy ideas have now proven to have lots of unwanted long-term side effects - ie. Increased government hiring have now led to huge budget deficits and numerous obsolete government organizations that we just can't rid of.
Only acceptable form of Keynesian fiscal stimulus is sending money directly to people. Thankfully, with the advent of payment technologies, we can now make sure that this money is delivered in purely spendable forms (prepaid cards, online payment points, etc...). But if you send people a check or just wire the money, most of the stimulus is gonna end up in savings, not spending like Keynes wanted them to.
Good motives, but bad ways. I'm in favor of short-term tax raise if we can handle the deficit issue and I applaud Bill Clinton for doing just that. But the real issue is that we need to restructure the executive branch and get rid of all the obsolete departments that just waste our tax dollars.Wealth tax will probably a dud and Keynesian style fiscal stimulus plans are likely to be duds as well. Corporate taxes discourage business activities, and hence it's better off taxing people's incomes. On that note, I'm partial to (not in favor though) having conditional corporate tax decrease given that a corporation hires more people or increase wages for certain people.
The government is the last entity you should trust when it comes to redistribution of wealth and income. Just look at the budget deficit figures over the last 100 years, how big our tax rates are, and how little we get in return.
Thank you for the response, Friedchickenman.
Didn't want to go leftist and raise it too high and hurt investments. But great, was hoping for at least one to share some common agreement.
Don't really agree with this. Some billionaires have made incredible charitable donations and have signed the Giving Pledge but my worry is that relying on voluntary actions will make it so most of the people that remain with massive amounts of wealth are the ones that care more about power and less about improving society, which could lead to trouble, especially with the lobbying problem in our country.
Yeah I would also prefer lower corporate taxes but not sure if we can afford to further lower the corporate tax at this point because there seems to be little way to effectively tax the wealthy.I admit I haven't done my homework on the economic theories. I may be mistaken but I seem to recall heavy attacks from conservatives on the right during the 2009 financial crisis for the massive role of government by both the President and the Federal Reserve. Also, I believed that many conservatives want the natural flow of free markets and economic cycles without heavy influence from the government, while I support both fiscal and monetary policy to stabilize the economy.
I think this is easier said than done and I believe most of the federal budget is defense and social security. I also just don't feel Republicans in the federal govt. actually care for this and balancing budgets, but rather they say it just to get votes. They had control the last couple years and the deficit has gone up, when it was on a mostly downward trend under Obama.
Quo dolorem dolores velit sit corrupti. Recusandae sunt est et expedita.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...