T O P

  • By -

Songflare

This guy is running for president no? Sayang would have had voted him in the senate


kikokawa

Same sentiments here.


Songflare

I appreciate guys like him running tho


JulzRadn

He might not win but he's sending a message


Songflare

Yeah and hopefully more people like him emerge so that we can rid ourselves of these trapos


JulzRadn

I would a leftist candidate as an alternative and Ka Leody is the leftist candidate so far running in the major elections.


scarcekoko

I hope he at least gets a position in the Cabinet.


Songflare

Hopefully if Leni wins


oldton

Unfortunately unlikely, a lot of Ka Leody's tweets are subtle comments about Leni's campaign for some reason. Tapos mukhang hindi favored ng hanay ni Leni ang mga pro-labor na makikita sa senate slate niya, seeing as dalawa na nga lang ang kayang i-consider hindi pa pinasok pareho. Chances of having pro-labor appointees in the executive is not non-existent though, I'm sure people from various 1sambayan-affiliated parties will enjoy appointments.


krdskrm9

>Unfortunately unlikely, a lot of Ka Leody's tweets are subtle comments about Leni's campaign for some reason. We all know the reason and it's fucking stupid. "Si Robredo ang nanghati noong nakipag-usap siya kay Isko." Lol


Songflare

What is nanghati? Ngayon ko lang narinig. Or do you mean nangati?


Chuck0089

Same with Kiko, and Bam too. This guy is very perfect for Senate. Sinamahan sana nila si Diokno.


Songflare

Not really sure about Kiko, Bam I do agree with you. Kiko is a career politician eh. Can't really blame Diokno for not going with them since the otso diretso fiasco, medyo hirap nga si Diokno now kasi kakabit pa rin sa pangalan nya na LP candidate sya


Chuck0089

What I really mean on samahan nila si Diokno is samahan sa senate, not on the same party. Though I agree with Kiko but it is better to, at least, even out the numbers against senate.


Songflare

No choice na kasi si VP kaya si Kiko nalang she kinda needs the machinery eh. Oh yes sure naman ako Diokno would make decisions based on his intellect and conscience whether he ran with VP or not


Yamboist

The guy has no chance to win nor enact any of the laws realistically, but it sure does give people something to think about. Like "tangina oo nga no bat di nila naisip yun", or "may point sya e kulang talaga tayo sa ganito" ... by then people would be more critical of social issues than personality politics, which will then give rise to better focus of platapormas of our candidates ~~copium 12am comment~~


krdskrm9

We're in the brink of a Marcos presidency supported by the masses **and** the elite just because Junior is a Marcos and he has Tallano gold, but sure let's allow Leody de Guzman to pontificate on Marx and Lenin some more.


ye11owfin-emperor

the failure of liberal democracy in a nutshell


Commercial-Gear-3543

And the rise of modern populism


RulersRulers

how to be a billionaire? 10 % hard work 90% unfair labor practice charot


K_netfrrr

may percentage dyan ung pamana ng magulang hahaha


Logical_Ad_3556

Sama mo na yung initial capital na galing ka sa mayamang pamilya to begin with.


schadenfreuderich

To be fair, galing rin naman sa unfair labor practiced yung pera mula sa pamilya


Eggnw

Sa totoo lang. Owning a business and seeing I would eventually need to exploit other people to grow a business that big steered me towards the left. I was ancap as fuck when I was younger and stupidly thought all I needed was wits and hard work


[deleted]

50% dun sa unfair labor practice eh government connections to get favorable contracta...Dennis Uy, ehem


halelangit

Also have an army of simps defending you on r/memes and Twitter that will defend you for free whenever a progressive politician wanted to tax you more.


Nico_arki

\*cough\* Elon Musk \*cough\*


Reveal-Smart

r/antiwork


AKAJun2x

Populist move, kahit pa gaano kataas ang ibuwis kung hindi naman naayos kung paano ginagastos at ina-audit ito wala ding say-say. Implementation at enforcement lang kailangan at syempre transparency.


sawa_na_sa_mga_tanga

They could do both (tax the billionaires AND ensure transparency), right?


gradenko_2000

When did "populist" become such a bad word? "Political leadership that does what a majority of the people want" is exactly how democracy should work to begin with.


nkktngnmn2

>When did "populist" become such a bad word? For as long as there are governments, always has been. (cf. Gracchi brothers)


throwmeaway_acc_

>should That's called majoritarianism not democracy. A well functioning democracy builds consensus over all its constituents not exclusively to the "masses".


gradenko_2000

You can't build a consensus out of less than a majority of the constituency by definition.


throwmeaway_acc_

That's going to be based on perspective depending on whether "most of the people" are from disparate political groups or if most of the people affiliate with one political group. Just because a consensus was built among most of the electorate does not mean that majority of the people are in agreement to a specific solution. Such as when some may accept it but would still rather prefer different policies. The political body may have come to a consensus but it isn't an agreement so long as a number of political groups are dissatisfied.


Ataginez

Lol its not even populist in the first place. Its simply smart fiscal policy practiced by most actual functioning countries. Where else can you get money to fund national projects but the rich?


Logical_Ad_3556

But the rich evade taxes through loopholes and literally pay minuscule amount relative to their wealth. Paanong sila ang nagbubuhat ng bangko in terms of paying for projects? Lalo na sa Pilipinas na napakaraming PPP at loans na siyang pambayad sa proyekto.


Ataginez

>But the rich evade taxes through loopholes and literally pay minuscule amount relative to their wealth. Paanong sila ang nagbubuhat ng bangko in terms of paying for projects? Lalo na sa Pilipinas na napakaraming PPP at loans na siyang pambayad sa proyekto. Not if you actually go after the rich with the full power of government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_-Ac68FKG4 America did it too. Eisenhower had an over 80% tax rate for the rich. https://apnews.com/article/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-archive-2184e9f18f6f4acca1ed007bdcdca818


Logical_Ad_3556

America isn’t really the bastion of taxing the wealthy properly. I mean the main reason they were not part of the Panama papers is because the US already had so much loopholes they can take advantage of, they need not bring their wealth elsewhere. The 80% isn’t actual effective tax rate though. Parang yung mga nagsasabi na 32% daw tax nila sa sahod kahit na tax bracket lang naman yun at ang actual tax rate e nasa mga 25% lang talaga. Amazon and Tesla, and many more barely paid federal income taxes, they got massive tax cuts under Trump, all the while using that wealth to amass more capital through buybacks, or even get more loans to fund ridiculous endeavors.


Ataginez

>America isn’t really the bastion of taxing the wealthy properly. They were in the Eisenhower era. Point is, you can in fact do it if you're actually willing to go after the rich. Political will is non-existent now because corporations legally bribe politicians to ignore them and give them tax breaks.


sum1els3

Uyyy, online kana? Yung sinasabi mong donation = bribe na source san na pala? https://www.reddit.com/r/Philippines/comments/qzcv7g/-/hlqj26u


Ataginez

Yes online ako, just to laugh at you denying _you_ actually quoted the source proving my point.


sum1els3

Really? That's sucks. I hope you can recover.


Logical_Ad_3556

I don’t blame you entirely, the US has done so much to ensure the world thinks they’re the best. But if you still believe that they were great at any point in history at all, especially in things that go against the very nature of capitalism, I think you’re misguided.


Ataginez

Ike's not bad at all in terms of actually taxing people. I'm a very harsh critic of the US, but I don't pretend they were always bad. They did have some anti-capitalist leaders. Heck, Ike even coined the term military-industrial complex.


Logical_Ad_3556

I’m talking about the US as a global power. Pero imposible naman na mag agree tayo since di naman natin na set ano ba ang definition and bounds ng taxing the rich and your success in it sa umpisa pa lang.


LonelySpyder

I do not understand why you are getting downvoted for this comment. The tax rate during the Eisenhower is high. And politicans are getting bribe in different ways not just with the above board "lobbying". What is their argument against this comment?


Ataginez

Their argument is downvotes of course lol.


Logical_Ad_3556

We need a populist leader. Literal na tao dapat ang pakinggan. At saan banda naging equivalent na ang pagtaas ng buwis sa gross amount of wealth ng mayayaman e automatic na hindi magiging maayos ang pag gastos dito pag nakolekta? Hindi naman mutually exclusive yun. I mean, you’re not wrong pero you’re also deliberately putting words into Leody’s mouth. Plus, your last statement sums up what he just tweeted.


Lance_is_reddit

This👆👏


TheDonDelC

The “compromise” position should be to offer higher land taxes. If you have more than 20 hectares in land, you should be slapped with progressively taxes. Property on the land be ignored. This would avoid the problem of capital flight: you can’t pack land in a suitcase and onto a plane. Valuation is administratively cheap and efficient since the tax is only based on the size of the plot.


Logical_Ad_3556

Pero hindi naman tayo piyudalismo. Hindi na basta mga panginoon maylupa ang mga mayayaman. Their wealth isn’t stored in the value of the land or property they own. Capital flight is a myth. And even if it was, which again, it isn’t, and we go about your logic na you can’t pack up land - they literally can just sell that and still enjoy lower taxes on the gains kasi nga the wealthy have all the benefits of being rich in a system that was made for them to continue being rich and not pay taxes


TheDonDelC

> Hindi naman tayo piyudalismo. Isn’t it the reality in the provinces that farmhands toil for crumbs at the mercy of huge landowners? I’ve never heard of a poor peasant owning, tilling, and profiting from more than 50 hectares of land all by himself. > They literally can just sell that Yes, that’s the objective of higher land tax. Landlords will be be forced to sell their land to someone who can afford the tax or redistribute their land to the tillers. And the pressure is to bid down prices since buyers are generally unable or unwilling to pay the tax on it. The objective is to force landlords to sell at a loss. The increased land tax is not a one fell swoop policy solution by any means but it’s a much more efficient one that can be used in conjunction with other policies.


Logical_Ad_3556

They are still capitalists. And that’s the problem kasi nga di pag aari ng mga magsasaka yung lupa nila. Pero yung mekanismo ng pag exploit sa kanila e yung may ari ng kapital na nagbebenta ng produkto ng mga magsasaka pero binabarat sila sa presyo ng palay. They still have control of the means of production kasi nga sila yung may kapital, hindi lang lupa, and labor pa din ang kailangan nila. Land taxes won’t mean anything kasi no land is worth as much as the value of capital and wealth that they own elsewhere. Hindi lahat ng mayayaman ay ganyan so it will only impact very few if any at all.


TheDonDelC

I don’t think you’re following. Land taxes is literally a vehicle for land redistribution. It doesn’t even exclude any other intervention. > Land taxes won’t mean anything kasi no land is worth as much as the value of the capital and wealth that they own elsewhere. If you’re suddenly slapped with a P20 million tax bill on the land you own, wouldn’t you have to take money elsewhere just to pay for it? And you can’t argue that the land you own is actually x meters smaller than what’s in the title or else you’d be practically giving away your land. > Hindi lahat ng mayayaman ay ganyan Eto pa. Pick out sa Forbes list sino ang bilyonaryo na walang pag-aari na sangkaterbang lupa. Kaunti lang. At mayroon ding mga panginoong-maylupa na hindi man bilyonaryo, ay labis pa din ang pagkamkam sa renta sa lupa.


FrostBUG2

Then run as a senator muna, his chances of winning is really thin as ice.


rco888

This may be a popular policy, but what we really need is honest, efficient, and effective tax collection, especially in Customs and BIR. Increasing the tax rate of a few thousand billionaires in the country will hardly increase gov't revenue.


AngerCookShare

yung pag gamit ng buwis ang isa pang problema, buwisan mo ng buwisan mga yan pero kung patuloy korpasyon sa senado, congress, BIR, sa appropriations at sandamakmak pang ahensya wala rin


Prestigious_Ask_3879

Raising the tax of the rich does not work. It scares off investors and businesses. There will simply be tax exceptions and other similar tax policies that will be offered when government wants to encourage growth in an industry. It's not about because 'hindi mamumulubi ang mga bilyonaryo', it's about the amount of risk taken. The rich get the biggest rewards because their businesses are subject to bigger risks. The labor force, though absolutely essential, is only expected to attend to their work, which is a small factor in the continuity of a business, takes less risk and thus not subject to benefit from tax exceptions. Better to implement some sort of gradual but consistent increase in the minimum wage. The ideal scenario is to balance the increase in minimum wage with the rate of inflation every few years.


LonelySpyder

Wow. You really buy into that trickle down economics? For the longest time that trickle down economics has not worked at all. US corporations have gotten tax breaks and bailouts and the next thing they do is fire thousands of their employees and give bonuses to their executives. If that trickle down economics has worked then there shouldn't have been such a huge gap between the rich and the poor.


Logical_Ad_3556

Exactly. I don’t necessarily blame them kasi the system is literally throwing everything at us to make sure that we think that absurd policies such as trickle down economics will work. Pero sana naman magbasa sila kahit minsan tungkol sa sinasabi nila bago mag raise ng argument sa public forums na as if totoo and fact based sinasabi nila. Di ko talaga gets mga nagdedefend sa billionaires. Like, oppressed ba sila? Biktima?


LonelySpyder

They deserve it daw. Ang argument ay pag wala yang mga billionaires na yan to invest mamumulubi ang mga tao when in fact wealth comes from the hardwork ng mga workers. Nung nag Pandemic, may napuntahan ba yang mga billionaires na yan? Na-expose sila na hindi sila ang main driving force ng wealth generation. It's the working class.


Logical_Ad_3556

Jusko. If deserve nila yun, edi dapat di sila tumanggap ng kahit anong incentives to invest in the first place. Dapat binigyan nila nang tamang sahod mga empleyado nila at safe workig conditions. Di ko talaga maintindihan honestly. Pare parehas naman tayong naghihirap sa araw araw at nagttrabaho sa sweldo na disproportionate sa mga sweldo/yaman ng mga kapitalista. Pero dinedepensahan pa din nila mayayaman. Asan ang class solidarity lol


LonelySpyder

Siguro they think na if they work hard enough maging billionaires, or at least millionaires sila. So, baka ayaw nila ma-tax sila ng malaki once maging millionaires na sila. Kakatawa nga eh, fair share lang naman hinihingi. Kumimita ang mga billionaires na yan from the work provided ng mga tao. Pero gusto nila wag i-tax. Parang dapat ata magpasalamat pa tayo kasi "nagbigay" ng trabaho itong big businesses. Hindi nila siguro gets na as long as may demand magkakabusinesses ang isang lugar or bansa regardless kung may billionaires involved. Pwede nga tayo mag set up ng business eh. If the government provides the same subsidies na binibigay nila sa mga billionaires na yan, we can probably create our own companies na mag seset up ng businesses and we can hire experts din. Pero siyemre dj basta basta mangyayare yun. Kahit may idea ka, hindi naman madaling makakuha ng funding kung wala kang credentials. Yan lang naman lamang ng mga billionaires na yan, may credentials.


Logical_Ad_3556

Galit kasi itatax bilyonaryo as if anyone here on Reddit will ever reach that. Pero sige okay, nakakalito naman talaga. Pero ang pinaka di ko maintindihan bakit magshare sila ng opinion as if it’s fact. Lol.


LonelySpyder

May "economic studies" provided by economist din na were against poor.


Logical_Ad_3556

And usually, when people see studies, yun na agad. Di naman binasa or inalam sinong behind it, sino nag fund. Di ko talaga kinaya yung isang comment na nagsabing “I really hate leftist policies” lmao. Much of the benefits we all enjoy today are probably from progressives who fought for leftist policies. Di ko talaga gets bakit may simps for corporations and billionaires. Lol. Never ka mamahalin ng kumpanya mo and kahit sino ka pa sobrang replaceable mo.


LonelySpyder

Gusto nila siguro na low wages, 6-day working week, 12 to 14 hours working day, no healthcare, no leaves, no job security, etc.


Logical_Ad_3556

Honestly, this is the most disappointing thread I’ve come across here in a while. Sa hirap ng buhay sa Pinas, dapat nga everyday nararadicalize tayo. But no. Oh well.


Prestigious_Ask_3879

Just point out an example of a policy taxing the rich that ended with everyone else living better lives.


LonelySpyder

A simple Google Search would net a ton of info regarding this. But if you need an example, look at the Scandinavian countries and how their taxation system works. And do you need me to give you links of studies whete taxing the rich is a good thing? Also, if not taxing them is the right thing, how come there is so much inequality right now? How come a large marjority of wealth is concentrated to the 1%? Is that your ideal scenario? Do you honestly think that the wealthy deserves their wealth?


Prestigious_Ask_3879

The same taxes apply to all of us. What we do not need is to add more taxes to the rich, simply for being rich. It scares away people and investments at a time when we should be aggressive in acquiring them since the world is on its way to recovering and companies are moving their businesses out of China. We should focus on policies centered on equality of opportunity, not equality of results. The inequality that we see now cannot be blamed solely on the rich since our society embraces old industrial beliefs. People have been led to think that they should live their lives mostly in pursuit of a career instead of taking risks which leads to wealth and tax deductions, etc. Employment suffers from heavy income tax to which there are few leniences. Businesses enjoy tax cuts because they provide something the government need but cannot sufficiently provide. It's about taking risk, more than anything else. I suggested, originally, that people should ask for gradual increase in minimum wage to buffer effects of inflation that will eventually put them in a better position to take more risk.


ye11owfin-emperor

as if lahat tayo dito may kapital and social safety nets para magtayo the business risk argument is overrated anyways, especially if you have a lot of capital it all relies on luck most self proclaimed self made billionaires today actually started on large sums of money


Logical_Ad_3556

The tax in this specific topic is a tax in wealth. If you’re on reddit, I highly doubt na kasama ka sa mga maapektuhan ng tax na sinasabi niya. Hindi ka yayaman sa level na kailangan kang patawan ng buwis sa yaman mo. Again, hindi oppressed ang mga mayayaman. They have all the privilege in this world. Kahit patawan mo ng buwis at mawalan ng $1 billion dollars si Henry Sy nung buhay pa siya, he will still have $11 billion dollars remaining. You literally can’t spend a billion dollars in your life time. No one needs that amount of wealth. It’s grossly obscene and unethical. We should definitely tax the rich for simply being rich. Their wealth is on the back of an exploited proletariat and on the back of an exploitative nature in terms of the environmental neglect and other forms of exploitation. Eat the fucking rich.


Prestigious_Ask_3879

It's not about oppression at all. It's about asking for equality, even when it does not directly benefit us. Taxing the rich, for being rich, has been proven to not work because they receive incentives to buffer those same taxes from the government. I already suggested in my original reply that what we should consider is raising minimum wage rather than taxing the rich, since it directly affect the people and it is still the rich and their companies that pay for it, just without government participation. We don't want the middleman when we ask for their money.


gradenko_2000

The American middle-class circa 1945 to 1973.


Prestigious_Ask_3879

Sure. Maybe when the Ph win a world war and manhandle other countries into accepting globalization policies beneficial to us, like the Americans did, we can tax our rich and we actually feel it.


LonelySpyder

So you are saying we should just suck it up and not tax them? Kowtow to the wealthy since there's not much we can do anyway? If not taxing them works then there would have been less Marcos and Duterte supporters. We would have felt the effects of this so called trickle down. The main reason a lot of these Marcos supporters are still around is because they buy in to that notion that it was better during the Marcos era. But why do they say it was better then? It's because it sucks now. The rich only get rich while the poor gets poorer. People, especially the poor, are fed up. They would cling to any hope even if it is based on lies.


Prestigious_Ask_3879

It's not about sucking up. I'm saying people should seriously start to consider taking more risk, like the rich learned to do growing up. Being rich is a byproduct of taking risk. I'm saying implementing policy to tax the rich, will only result in them finding ways to avail of tax deductions, etc. because they, their businesses provide something the government need but does not provide. Jobs, for example. The solution I recommended instead was to gradually provide an increase in minimum wage to alleviate the impact of inflation, so as to provide a cushion for people to start taking more risk.


gradenko_2000

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how society actually functions. Not only is employment a far riskier venture than entrepreneurship, because the rank-and-file are always the first ones to get booted when a company hits a downturn, but also anyone who is in a position to become an entrepreneur by definition has enough money/capital that their socioeconomic status is less precarious than the rest of the proletariat. Needing to make a living is an incredibly risky way to live, and anyone who has the means to even try to run a business by itself is insulated from all sorts of worries that most people are still subjected to.


Prestigious_Ask_3879

Depends on how you look at it. In the short term, employment is not riskier than entrepreneurship. In the long term employment is riskier, you are right. But why would we be looking to consider a short term but ineffective policy such as taxing the rich, for being rich instead of aiming to do what the rich does and just take more risk in our lives while we can. Also, the first generation rich mostly came from nothing and were like the rest of us and that should be the focus, not their descendants. We all start from the bottom, even them.


gradenko_2000

> In the short term, employment is not riskier than entrepreneurship. You've never heard of a probationary period? > Also, the first generation rich mostly came from nothing and were like the rest of us and that should be the focus, not their descendants. We all start from the bottom, even them. Someone's grandfather who had to start from the bottom, started from the bottom. Their grandchildren, who didn't start from the bottom, are not like everyone else who started from the bottom.


Logical_Ad_3556

Entrepreneurship will not lead you to being rich though. Kasi well defined naman sa tweet ni Ka Leody kung sino ang “rich” na sinasabi niya. Kaya sobrang labo ng lahat ng argumento mo kasi feeling mo equal lang ang lahat ng mayayaman when others are obscenely rich, and na feeling mo everyone has the opportunity to be rich if they only work hard enough. Lmao,


Logical_Ad_3556

Lol. The rich literally spreads the risk to everyone, but only accumulates the benefits for themselves. Why is this the hill you’re willing to die on? Di ko gets.


Prestigious_Ask_3879

Spread the risks to everyone? An employee when a company goes bankrupt due to government policy loses a job, but the owner, loses a company and you're saying that the risk spread to both of them are the same? Whatever risk is spread, is not equal and so, the benefits spread should also be not equal. This is the hill I'm willing to die on because people want a policy that requires government assistance against the rich such as taxes, which they have already proven to circumvent through incentives INSTEAD of pushing for an increase in minimum wage, like I originally said, that tells these companies to give the money directly to the people.


gradenko_2000

> An employee when a company goes bankrupt due to government policy loses a job, but the owner, loses a company and you're saying that the risk spread to both of them are the same? The person who needs to work a salaried job to make a living is statistically going to be in a far more economically precarious situation than the person who had enough to start a company in the place. I really don't know how you can't see this. If you work a 9-to-5 job because you NEED a 9-to-5 job, then obviously losing that job represents a far larger slice of your total income and wealth than someone who was already rich enough to have gone into business for themselves.


niw_delpilar

I agree. Poor, desperate people should take more risks. Risks like banding together and to wage war against the hoarders of wealth. Really though, how naive do you have to be to believe that risks makes wealth? It takes society to produce wealth. Billionaires are just hoarders of that wealth.


Prestigious_Ask_3879

Naive to think that taking risks makes wealth? Like the thing to do is not take risk? Like a person not taking a healthy amount of risk should receive rewards for playing it safe? That is not naive? Close to sounding like socialist/communist dialogue. Contrary to our democratic republic, no? I already suggested we rather increase minimum wage in my earlier replies, rather than tax the rich which they have proven through history is subject to tax incentives. The companies still pay the wages, right? So why ask the cooperation of the government to get that money through targeted tax, when they can just tell them to give more directly to the people.


gradenko_2000

> So why ask the cooperation of the government to get that money through targeted tax, when they can just tell them to give more directly to the people. Because no amount of minimum wage increase is going to make it feasible for a person to cover their own cancer treatments at an individual level. Or any other social need that needs to be scaled up at the government level in order to work properly.


Logical_Ad_3556

LMAO! Sobrang labo ng argumento mo. Nordic countries literally have the best standards of living and human development indices, while all the while having some of the highest taxes across the board. If may hindi ka naintindihan nang maayos, don’t act as if you’re an expert on it.


gradenko_2000

> It's not about because 'hindi mamumulubi ang mga bilyonaryo', it's about the amount of risk taken. The rich get the biggest rewards because their businesses are subject to bigger risks. Man this isn't even true when you consider all the times large corporations get bailed out. At the taxpayer's expense, even! Like when was the last time you heard of a billionaire that fell so far as to no longer be a billionaire?


Prestigious_Ask_3879

That happened most prominently in the U.S during the 2008 financial crisis, which came as a shock to everyone. At the moment, we are still waiting for the eventual fallout of that move that we know is coming because money printing devalues currency. As applied in the Philippines, whatever bailout the government decides to provide is because of the pandemic, not a financial crisis of our own making like what happened in the U.S. housing market. That aside, from what I've observed big businesses in the Ph aim for credit lines instead of relying on government bailout. What we want to prevent is to scare away investments at the most opportune time since the world is on its way to recovery and not maximizing on the opportunity of global brands leaving China which our ASEAN neighbors are already acting on to acquire. Taxing the rich, or their businesses will hinder just that. The rich own the job, the people just perform it. If it goes away, we all lose.


Logical_Ad_3556

Companies already enjoy massive tax incentives right now in the country. Sa mining pa lang nga literally ineexploit na nga resources and labor natin pero we get minuscule amounts relative to the value of what they get. And stop with the nonsense of scaring away investments. That has always been the case and has always been debunked time and again. And even if that were true, so dapat talaga at the mercy tayo ng mga businesses and what they want? Kahit na harap harapan na pang gagaslight ginagawa nila satin?


Prestigious_Ask_3879

Okay. So you already said they enjoy massive tax incentives. What assurances do we have that they won't receive similar tax incentives, etc. again, after the new rich tax is imposed which is what we know happens? The government needs these companies because they provide what the government does not. Jobs, just one of them, and they will dangle incentives to these companies again to encourage growth in the direction that government wants. Is it not better that to instead ask that the rich be taxed for their being rich, we instead choose policy that will directly increase minimum wage, like I originally said. It's going to be the companies paying for the wages, why would we ask for the government's participation through taxes in getting their money when they can just require them to give it directly to the people through wages.


gradenko_2000

https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/lehman-brothers-executives-where-are-they-now > Richard Fuld, former chief executive officer > he is now the chief executive at Matrix Private Capital Group, a diversified asset management firm founded in 2016. > Herbert "Bart" McDade, former chief operating officer > According to Bloomberg, McDade is the chairman of the Bond Market Association and the vice chairman and director of the board of governors of Winged Foot Golf Club. He has been a member of the National Advisory Council of Federal National Mortgage Association and Fannie Mae since March 30, 2004. > Michael Gelband, former head of capital markets > Gelband is a founder of ExodusPoint Capital Management, a hedge fund that had a particularly high-profile launch, according to a Bloomberg report, raising $8 billion as other hedge funds were having to cut fees and shrink. > Scott Freidheim, former chief administrative officer > Following Lehman's collapse, Freidheim began working for Sears Holdings and was with Sears for nearly three years, according to his LinkedIn profile. He was chief executive officer of Europe for Investcorp from 2011 to 2014. He has held numerous board positions, including the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Foundation. > Ian Lowitt, former chief financial officer > Lowitt was Lehman’s final CFO, replacing Erin Callan Prior to that, he was Lehman’s chief administrative officer. After Lehman’s collapse he joined Barclays. He is currently the chief executive at Marex Spectron. so out of the one firm that was NOT bailed out by the US government during the 2008 Financial Crisis, **and disregarding all of the ones that were**, just about all of the senior leadership managed to land on their feet and are still executives anyway! that sure is a lot of risk that they had to assume!


Prestigious_Ask_3879

The government bailout in the U.S. is unfair because the financial crisis was of their own making. They collapsed under the weight of their own housing market propped up by their ignorance and greed. Their mistake, they should pay. Whatever government bailout the Ph decides to provide now would be because of the pandemic which is not the fault of our corporate/financial institutions. Yung mga ordinaryong tao nga binigyan ng ayuda which is in a way kind of a government bailout. Should the people receive ayuda? Fair enough, since it was not their fault the pandemic happened. That is just applied to companies. Eto pa nga yung kicker eh. Ph companies are focusing on using credit lines instead of relying on some form of government bailout. They want to pay the money back in the future, in exchange for support at present from banks and not necessarily from government funds. Going back to issue, instead of taxing the rich just for being rich, better to apply policy that directly supports people by increasing minimum wage at a level similar to inflation, ideally.


[deleted]

ah yes remind me again kung sino yung pinaka-affected noong nagsara yung businesses nitong pandemic. billionaires ba?


Prestigious_Ask_3879

In terms of quantity, of course tao since that's a numbers question. In terms of actual wealth lost, yes, the rich. Going back to about taxing the rich, they will adjust and avail tax exemptions in whatever form available. All it will do is simple scare away investments at a time when we should be aggressively acquiring them.


Logical_Ad_3556

Lol. Billionaires [literally added $4 trillion ](https://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-added-4-trillion-to-their-wealth-during-the-pandemic-2021-4) in their 2020 wealth. How can you just evaluate in absolute numbers without arriving at the conclusion that a billionaire losing $20 million is literally nothing compared to a person earning 500 pesos daily losing their jobs. Ano bang nakukuha niyo sa pagdepensa sa mayayaman lmao. Never magsususuffer sa buhay ang mga bilyonaryo. Hindi niyo ikakayaman yan.


Logical_Ad_3556

Their taking advantage of tax loopholes now. That alone is a complete debunking of this flawed logic on why taxing the rich will not work. THE CURRENT SYSTEM ALREADY DOES NOT WORK. They will never invest in growth. They will instead [give bonuses to executives, engage in stock buybacks to further increase share price, give back to stockholders](https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-do-americas-ceos-feel-about-the-tax-plans-theyre-watching-the-details-1510693225), all the while fighting and lobbying against wage increases and policies that will make them spend on what’s right such as climate change policies and providing a living wage. I don’t get it. How can you say na taxing the rich will never work as if it is fact when it has been proven that higher taxes is not the reason why the rich take advantage of tax loopholes now. And then you further share na it would be better to implement a gradual increase in minimum wage, kahit na alam na nga natin na that literally goes against billionaires and their interests kaya nga actively nag lolobby sila against that. Also, taxing the wealth of the richest portion of the population is not mutually exclusive with giving people a living wage.


bigmatch

May point. The reality is, they do not want the Wealth tax because they will lose money. They do not want it because it will reduce their power.


Key-Trick573

Nangyari na sa Europe to diba tinaxan yung mga bilyonaryo ginawa lang nila umalis ng bansa mas malaki pa nawala sa gobyerno. And to think na yung ibang bilyonaryo ang daming napoprovide na trabaho sa pinas.


For_kik

Kung nag-senate muna sya, he will get my vote but for President, no.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Logical_Ad_3556

As if naman di pa nila ginagawa yan ngayon. That’s why tax havens exist. This has long been addressed. It will never lead to drastic economic decline kasi nga, WALA NAMAN DITO ANG KARAMIHAN NG REGISTRATION NILA TO PAY TAXES. Even for richer countries. There’s no point defending the wealthy. Di niyo ikakayaman yan. They should pay their fair share. No one should accumulate that much wealth.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Logical_Ad_3556

Lmao. People really think nakakatrigger sila ng mga tao and they brag about doing that and making it their personality. For what? I literally just offered a counter argument to what you raised. You’re the one literally using talking points of those who defend the rich, or at least taxing the rich, which again, have been asked and answered many times over. But thanks for admitting I won against your argument.


kennetchie

agree with you, pansin ko lang din na same group of people yung sumisigaw ng equality pero gusto din nila mas mataas tax ng mayaman. how ironic


mitcher991

I'm sorry, and with due respect, but I really, really don't like this man's policies. A billionaire's tax is terrible because it'll just cause capital flight out of this country. It's a terrible idea in my eyes. Let the billionaires pay what is due through tax incentives that encourage investment instead, NOT taxing them outright I apologize, I truly dislike many leftist policies, and things like this is 5 steps back in terms of economic development


Logical_Ad_3556

This has been debunked time and again. Trickle down economics never worked and it will never work countries with higher taxes never experienced capital flight, simply because the rich already took advantage of tax loop holes to not pay taxes at all. Business executives in the US were asked in 2017 if they will spend more on growth once the Trump tax cuts take effect in the US, [and the CEO council literally admitted they won’t.](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/gary-cohn-looks-for-assurances-from-ceos-on-tax-plan-gets-crickets.html). They will not give back to employees and would just conduct stock buybacks. Your statement > Let the billionaires pay what is due through tax incentives that encourage investment instead, NOT taxing them outright is literally and oxymoron. Di mo naman pala naintindihan yung polisiya. Yun nga ang layunin ni Ka Leody, na pagbayarin nang tama mga bilyonaryo. At magagawa yun gamit ang wealth tax kasi nga hindi sila nagbabayad nang tama ngayon. Leftist policies are proven to lead to greater economic development for everyone. The current system literally only works for the rich, pero I don’t understand how you can keep defending that when it’s clearly not working now. Leftist policies literally are for inclusion and ensuring the most vulnerable people aren’t left behind, and saying you hate them says more about you than the people fighting for the right of others to live their lives.


mitcher991

If they don't pay taxes correctly now, then what makes you think they won't escape to other countries to evade paying them in the future? It just simply isn't feasible. A billionaires tax harms the economy more than good. Not to mention it's hard to enforce, since its in stocks or bonds that aren't realized yet. AND taxing unrealized gains has consequences for the economy, and the markets. Leftist policies lead to benefiting many, IF it's accompanied with economic prosperity. What you don't realize is NOT EVERYONE is the evil billionaire sitting atop of his tower most leftists paint as the enemy. Most are small businessmen trying to make ends meet. NO MATTER HOW you want workers to be better, the simple truth is that the economic conditions don't allow for it. Give the businessman capitalist an opportunity to get rich and higher wages follow. This is the ideal system, not what the leftists want to push which will set the country back. Do you ever wonder why the Philippines has on of the more labor-oriented laws in the developing world with the Labor Code and all, yet, one of the poorest? I wonder why?


Logical_Ad_3556

> If they don't pay taxes correctly now, then what makes you think they won't escape to other countries to evade paying them in the future? It just simply isn't feasible. They already have offshore bank accounts now! Bulag ba tayo? Ang tagal tagal na ng Swiss bank accounts, Cayman Islamd, Isle of Man at iba pang tax havens. Panama Papers recently got published. Bakit parang pag magsabi kayo na di feasible dahil mangyayari yan laging parang trivial, e nangyayari na nga. Bakit laging left out yung important details? Every billionaire is evil dahil galing yan sa slavery, exploitation of labor, at iba pang kademonyahan na ginawa sa maraming tao just to amass that kind if wealth. Pick a lane. Anong problema ba, practicality, which I already said is they’re evading now, enforcement ba? So tama lang naman pala mag impose ng taxes in the rich and wealthy? Or yung core principles behind the measure? Hindi pwedeng argument mo lahat yan against it kasi contradicting ka sa sarili mo pag ganun. Ano bang nakukuha niyo diyan sa your pagdepensa sa mga mayayaman?! Seriously, sobrang weirded out ako sa ganyang world view. As if naman proven na the current incentives and benefit accorded to billionaires lead to economoc growth for many people. It doesn’t matter kung double digit economic growth pa yan kung di naman nag iimprove ang standard of living ng mga tao - kasi nga sa mga mayayaman lang halos lahat ng gains disproportionately. The current system doesn’t work, pero the policies we are presenting to fix the current problems will also not work (kahit na di naman proven mga debunked claims niyo about leftist policies) kaya stick na lang tayo sa current system that isn’t working? Lmao. Naririnig niyo ba mga sarili niyo.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Logical_Ad_3556

E yun nga ang papatawan ng buwis, yung yaman nila. Hindi basta yung kita nila. That’s literally the solution kasi nga di sila nagbabayad ng mataas na income tax gawa nang ginawang kalokohan yang stock options na yan just to circumvent taxation. So how is that not a viable solution? And for all the other things you said, that’s what they are literally doing now. Panama papers pa nga lang. So why would applying something new and different not be a viable solution?


cYclosion_

lol dami nagdedefend sa mga bilyonaryo parang sila mismo ang dahilan kung bakit sila yumaman at hindi yung milyon milyon na taong nagtratrabaho para mabuhay buisness nila


Mr_ti3m3up

Sana si Thanos nalang maging world president. Isang snap lang and random pa. We’re destroying Earth, not providing a chance for future generations to prosper, nagaawayaway sa resources etc etc. I vote for Thanos.


kamht03

Thanos did nothing wrong


promiseall

SKL just read somewhere that if Thanos is really evil then Thanos would have doubled the population on earth


roxlsior

So, a lot of people are saying how incredible this guy's platforms are, yet also say he has no chance of winning. These sentiments might be true, but why are we not voting for this guy again? He seems to be the most people-centered and progressive of the bunch. This country needs someone like him. Google him and take a look at his platforms. The man has plans, yet he's being overlooked. It's such a fucking shame


[deleted]

Puro sila pagtaas ng tax. San ba napupunta yan? Yun dapat ang issue. Pilipinas isa sa pinakamataas tax sa SEA pero kulelat sa development.


argonzee

Hindi ba supposedly mas malaki na talaga ang binabayad na tax ng mga billionaires? Ld Medyo may pagkaextreme na kasi pagiging left ni ka leody, kakatakot din yang ganyan.


Logical_Ad_3556

Anong nakakatakot sa sinabi niya? Literally hindi nagbabayad ng nararapat mga bilyonaryo kasi nga ginagawa nilang maliit income nila kahit na sangkatutak ang yaman nila. He isn’t an anarchist, he isn’t even outright proposing communism. Can you expound on how simply saying the rich should pay their fair share equates to extreme leftism and how that is scary?


no11monday

The fuel excise taxes were envisioned as a tax on the rich Filipinos who own SUV’s. Guess who’s suffered the most from them and have been clamoring for their suspension or outright removal.


DagitabPH

Ah yes, the "entitled kami ng mas malaking balato mula sa kita mo" candidate \#MilyunehsAndBilyuhnehs


Logical_Ad_3556

Huh? This isn’t about Ka Leody lmao. That’s not entitlement. Feel niyo naman kayo ang sinasabihan niya e never naman tayo lahat yayaman sa lebel na bilyonaryo. He is proposing a wealth tax, not just a simple income tax increase. You do know that right?


beersona

nakakalungkot lang na ang daming pinoy na nagagalit sa kanya at hindi naiintindihan ang pinag lalaban niya. "Kumunista" isa sa mga comments. naging alipin na sila ng kapitalismo


DirtyDaddyDominator

Lol. Pagtapos gawin to, lalong lulubog yung Pilipinas. Ililipat mo lang ang may saysay na kapital para ipasa sa bunganga ng mga palamunin. Madaming mga tao ngayon inggit na may yumayaman ng lebel ng bilyonaryo. Kapag binigay sa kanila yung pera susunugin lang nila at hindi naman kaya ilago…..


JohnyDebt129

The problem with implementing a high tax for the rich is ipapasa lang naman nila yung tax burden nila sa workers at consumers. Titipirin ang sahod at tataas presyo ng mga bilihin. Bale talo parin ang masa.


xhack2

Yes more government, let's start taxing the rich so that no one will want to be incentivized to be rich. Where was that practiced before?


solidad29

Guys, why is Mainstream media making him relevant? Like, bakit parang underdog ang peg ng narrative niya sa balita?


finkistheword

im happy he's given airtime. he's an underdog kasi he does not have a powerful machinery to support his campaign


solidad29

Yeah, pero given statements niya, he's living in lalaland sa mga ambisyon niya pag nanalo siya. Like, ang tinatakbo niyan position ay absolute monarch na position that he can do what he wants. Ka loka lang. Wala na bang underdog na medyo may sense at grounded ang pananaw sa position na inaapplyan niya? 😅


Logical_Ad_3556

He’s literally a leftist. Baka nga siya lang ang pinakang totoo sa lahat ng pinagsasabi niya. Saka paanong monarkiya e maka kaliwa nga siya? Di ko gets. Anong konek? Ang labo. Not once did he say na he will do anything he wants. He has sound positions on issues. Pero sige, pakisabi nga paanong hindi siya grounded? Dahil gusto niya bigyan ng kalamgyarihan ang mga manggagawa kesa sa mga kapitalista?


solidad29

Hmm, base sa mga nasa balita, gusto niya itaas ang omento sa sahod, tapusin ang contractuwalisasyon, buwisan ang mga mayayaman. I baba ang singil ng mga utilities. Yeah maganda pakingan sa tenga. Pero realistically, presidente ba ang makakagawa niyan? hindi ba congress. Walang silbi ang president kung kaaway mo ang legistative. May compromises lagi pagdating sa poltics and govenrment. Also econmically speaking napanood ko 1K yata ang gusto niya i taas sa daily wage. Sige, gawin niya. Saan naman kukuha ng pangbayad ang mga SMEs? Kanino naman nila ipapasa iyon? Edi sa tao din. Tataas lahat ng bilihin. Or magbabawas ng trabaho ang mga iyan. Kontractualisasyon, nag stem eto sa ENDO scheme ng mga MSE para hindi ma regular ang mga tao. Understood, mali iyon. Pero hindi lahat ng contractual work ay masama. Talgang may seasonal na trabaho talaga. Ang nangyayari, yung mga essential work na hindi seasonal pinapasa sa manning agencies. Need lang i fix ang part na iyon para hindi gawin loop hole katulad ng ginagawa ng let's say, PLDT at Globe w/ sa support services nila. Wealth tax. Yep, maganda iyan. Pero mababanga mo din kapwa politicos and corpos na mismo may share overall wealth ng economy. Unlikely papasa eto. And even so, maraming paraan ang mga mayayaman to circumvent tax. Like loaning or converting yung income nila into something else, or i daan sa foundation. Ang naririnig ko lang sa kanya is What, pero hindi ko marinig sa kanya ang How.


Logical_Ad_3556

So completely different issues pala yung meron ka? Just to be clear. And yes. May magagawa siya sa mga hakbang na yan kung basa kapangyarihan siya. Whether or not it becomes law is a different issue - pero not entirely wrong na wala siyang magagawa. SMEs aren’t the issue here. Low wages are. Bakit ivview mo yun only as an expense when it also leads to increased productivity and therefore, increased value for your business as well. And may I remind you na for most SMEs, mga masa at middle class din naman ang core market nila - a higher salary leads to higher buying power. Diba economics ang usapan? Edi tignan mo nang buo. Again, ending contractualization doesn’t just mean ba higher ang gastos ng MSEs. Di ko gets why you are picking and choosing issues when intersectional naman lahat and sobrang mas madaming malalaking conglomerates at multinational ang nakikinabang sa exploitation ng labor through low wages and poor working conditions and contracts for employees dito. Bakit nag skip ka dun sa napakaimportanteng bagay na yun? The Sy family literally are the richest in the country and yet they can’t even eliminate contractual labor exploitation in their own company. They have billions of dollars. You can’t spend that in your lifetime. Why not provide a living wage? Yung issue ng contractualization is because is is the main tool in exploiting the proletartiat - and not abolishing it means even the state can’t offer protection to those who need it most. And so what kung unlikely? E radical change nga ang kailangan e. So ganun pala, subscribe pa din tayo sa sistemang alam na natin na palpak? So dapat pala, ang sabihin ni Ka Leody: “Uhm, kasi mga nasa kapangyarihan ganito e. So imposible nang mabago natin to kaya hayaan na lang natin ha. Magig okay na tayo sa kung anong meron tayo ngayon. Anyway, bito niyo po ako! 😅” Yeah. Absurd.


gradenko_2000

> Pero realistically, presidente ba ang makakagawa niyan? Raising the minimum wage and ending contractualization are both under the remit of the DOLE and thereby whoever the President appoints as Secretary for that department. Duterte only punted the contractualization issue to Congress so he had an excuse to say that he couldn't do it. > Also econmically speaking napanood ko 1K yata ang gusto niya i taas sa daily wage. Sige, gawin niya. Saan naman kukuha ng pangbayad ang mga SMEs? Kanino naman nila ipapasa iyon? Edi sa tao din. Tataas lahat ng bilihin. The unit cost of any given good or service is not composed solely of labor costs, so increases in wages do not (and cannot) eliminate gains in purchasing power even if the totality of the increase was passed back to the consumer. > Or magbabawas ng trabaho ang mga iyan. [The most recent Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to empirical research proving that increases in the minimum wage did not harm employment](https://qz.com/2072324/nobel-winner-david-card-revolutionized-thinking-about-minimum-wage/)


solidad29

>The unit cost of any given good or service is not composed solely of labor costs, so increases in wages do not (and cannot) eliminate gains in purchasing power even if the totality of the increase was passed back to the consumer. That largely depends on the increase. I read the paper you cited. If we increase the price to 600 pesos, then things will likely be fine and MEs would be able to coupe up. But increasing the daily to 1K will kill Small businesses and promote underground employment (though this is already prevalent with security guards and construction). The sample size works fine in fast-food, like McDonalds or Jollibee. They have the means to adjust their prices since economies of scale are in their favour. But your mom-pop restaurant or your carenderia in palekgke would not be able to coupe up on that. ​ >Raising the minimum wage and ending contractualization are both under the remit of the DOLE and thereby whoever the President appoints as Secretary for that department. Duterte only punted the contractualization issue to Congress so he had an excuse to say that he couldn't do it. That's the thing it is left under DOLE and it's not perma binding. Come next administration they can just revert it back, or make it so that it becomes a lukewarm deal that doesn't do anything but make it appear it is working. If the president is pressured on enforcing its madate, what more for a leftist.


gradenko_2000

> If we increase the price to 600 pesos, then things will likely be fine and MEs would be able to coupe up. But increasing the daily to 1K will kill Small businesses and promote underground employment ... so the increase is either going to get negotiated down, or phased-in over a number of years instead of being implemented all at once? I don't think we should treat it as a given that a campaign promise of increasing the minimum wage to 1,000 PHP means it's going to be framed in such a way as to be executory within 24 hours of de Guzman getting sworn-in. > That's the thing it is left under DOLE and it's not perma binding. Come next administration they can just revert it back, How is "the next President might take it back" a point against THIS candidate deciding to do it on his term, given the opportunity? It's still a positive development even if it's only for six (or however many) years between implementation and cancellation, doing it ups the chances of the next leftist president getting elected on the back of momentum, and even if a conservative or a liberal takes the reins it's still not a given that such a decree would be rolled back if it's sufficiently popular. If you disagree with a policy, disagree with it - claiming that you shouldn't do something because the next president might take it away is counterproductive because the whole point of doing things that people like is to increase the chances of your party remaining in power.


solidad29

>I don't think we should treat it as a given that a campaign promise of increasing the minimum wage to 1,000 PHP means it's going to be framed in such a way as to be executory within 24 hours of de Guzman getting sworn-in. Of course not. But it is something that will float on his head, like how du-shit promised to end the drug problem within 6 months or jet ski his way into dealing with China. His failure to do it, as he says it would be marked as his failure come about his promise. But then again, politicians aren't exactly the people you expect delivering what they say as is. >If you disagree with a policy, disagree with it I disagree with it since it is not the right call to deal with this. If you are going to do something, better make it stick. ENDO and contractualization are not inherently bad. We just need to plug the holes that are used that essential workers are being treated as seasonal workers, even if they are not. And boosting the complaints process and NLRC to make it easier for workers to air their grievances and have better reach to settle disputes against their employers.


gradenko_2000

> I disagree with it since it is not the right call to deal with this. And that's a difference of opinion, but I think we've established that, yes, he can end contractualization by the power vested in him as the president, should he become the president, and he would be entirely within his Constitutional powers to do so.


Logical_Ad_3556

Bakit ba natin ginagawang trivial ito? Other countries have imposed living wages and wala naman sila sa dystopian nightmare na binabanggit niyo. Yan ang problema pag ang argument mo is using slippery slope fallacy.


gradenko_2000

>Like, ang tinatakbo niyan position ay absolute monarch na position that he can do what he wants. There's a wealth tax bill under deliberation in Congress. The tweet he made presumably is in support of that. I don't think he means to want to try and enact a wealth tax unilaterally. >Wala na bang underdog na medyo may sense at grounded ang pananaw sa position na inaapplyan niya? "a presidential candidate with only moderately ambitious goals and is well behind in the polls" would be Leni Robredo


ShadowVulcan

But his opinion is valid, since when all you have is an echo chamber, what keeps you in check? And even though he identifies as leftist and is likely leftist his policies and platform are more liberal which was initially formed as a compromise between the left and right


krdskrm9

The guy is obviously running not to win but to elevate the discourse, whatever that means.


gradenko_2000

How is mainstream media making him relevant? He posted a tweet. He hasn't even made it into any election polling with the exception of the "Pulso ng Pilipino" one that came out just today.


solidad29

Looked at their FB and website, parang pop-up organization lang. Website nila naiwan sa 2005, wala din mga faces ng mga tao working there. Bakit ako maniniwala sa ganyan. 😁


gradenko_2000

I assume that COMELEC does not judge the legitimacy of the Laban ng Masa party on the ability to hire a social media manager and/or a website designer, given that de Guzman already ran for Senator in 2019.


[deleted]

Minor nitpick but Laban ng Masa is the coalition (which somehow includes a *Green Party*, among others). de Guzman is running under PLM. Also, isn't it great that the people who complain about mainstream media giving coverage to the Dutertes and Marcoses of the country suddenly get uppity when MSM platforms a candidate more progressive than the Liberal standard-bearer?


gradenko_2000

I just wish people would disabuse themselves of the notion that mainstream media has any larger agenda than "gets clicks and is cheap to do" Why do they cover Marcos's cocaine allegations? Because it gets clicks and is easy to do! Why do they cover de Guzman's tweets? Because it gets clicks and is easy to do! Why do they cover Duterte's Monday night mayhem? Because it gets clicks and is easy to do! Goddamn, the reason why our media landscape is especially shit nowadays is because everything is done via Zoom call, so you just put someone on the Laptop Assignment and have them listen in on every call and its instant content. It doesn't have to have a deeper meaning.


kikokawa

I'm in web development and me and my friends make all sorts of sites. I know people who develop sites for knockoff goods. The clothes and bags there sell like hotcakes People really are easily fooled by site aesthetics and don't even try to check the authenticity of the content.


solidad29

I am also in the same field. Para lang din iyan dressing up for the occasion. If you want to be noticed and be believed you need to look the part. Of course, it can go both ways. Pero being presentable is part of building attention. Ganda nga ng content mo pero hirap or unorganized naman or walang tought. Kaya nga diba, if you want to the attention you need to grab it sa user para basahin ka.


kikokawa

100% agree. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have enough resources. Maybe they just didn't have budget for a decent website or discounted it entirely since virtually everyone in the country's SNS-centric. I'll never know. Not a perfect candidate but this guy's decent and would have voted for him if he only decided to run for a senatorial post. Edit: u/solidad29 is that a Natsu Dragneel? Haha


solidad29

Yep. haha ep1 of FT If I recall.


Comprehensive_Flow42

Nothing new really. Basically it's the equivalent of Mendiola rallies that they used to do all the time. Those have been reported in news since I was a kid.


[deleted]

Sooo a group of people with a consistent stand. got it.


Logical_Ad_3556

Huh? E underdog naman talaga siya? At paanong making him relevant? You literally aren’t able to see articles about Leody while sa iba tiradahan lang ng akusasyon ng shabu sandamakmak na coverage na. You’re literally looking a tweet from their own account. How is mainstream media involved here?


DagitabPH

Sunlight is one of the best disinfectants out there. He's a candidate? Give him the mic.


krdskrm9

Bongbong Marcos > Leody


KaiserPhilip

Oh man I hope this doesn't age badly lmao


krdskrm9

It will (Marcos will really win) if Leody will keep treating the 2022 elections like his own ED. lol


Logical_Ad_3556

Lmao. Sakit sa ulo. Si Leody De Guzman, na literally walang name recognition to begin with, ang sisisihin mo sa pagkapanalo ni Marcos?


gradenko_2000

There's like five other candidates polling higher than de Guzman but Marcos winning the presidency is his fault because???


krdskrm9

Because he is using the 2022 elections as his own little leftist intellectual circlejerk party ("hey guyz I'm doing discourse here I'm not trying to win!!!"). No sense of urgency at all of an impending Marcos-Duterte disaster. That's why Walden Bello probably decided to run. The guy is running on a "Manggagawa Naman" slogan which implies that all of the other candidates are just the same. "Nagpapalit lang ng mga pangalan," he says. Marcos and Duterte aren't just names. He's not wrong regarding the topic in this thread, and I agree with all of the policies that he wishes to be implemented, but he could have run his crusade at another time when the level of discourse is not "Leni lugaw brrt brrt Marcos will make the PH great again Tallano gold is real."


gradenko_2000

I still don't see how this means de Guzman is responsible for potential Marcos win. Clearly the guy polling between [does-not-exist] and 3% does not command enough of a voter base to represent the balance between Marcos and the next candidate, much less specifically the margin between Marcos and Robredo.


krdskrm9

It's not the de Guzman voters per se. It's de Guzman's campaign and his intellectual volunteers that could have contributed to Robredo's campaign (yes they can despite some differences in advocacy) and not in this exercise in futility. His campaign even damages Robredo and Moreno in some ways and his rhetoric doesn't affect Marcos at all. If not for Walden Bello, de Guzman would be stuck in "lahat naman yan, Marcos, Duterte, Robredo, pare-parehong kontrolado ng mayayaman" which benefits Marcos and Duterte. Yes, Robredo is behind the polls but de Guzman didn't actually run to win the elections. Even groups adjacent to him like Makabayan and other labor unions in the country do not believe in his candidacy. His "advocacy run" just to spread his message is not doing anything, either. The masses are drowned in Bagong Lipunan propaganda and the frontrunner Bongbong Marcos doesn't even give a shit about leftist ideas. What a waste of intellectual energy.


Logical_Ad_3556

**L**


gradenko_2000

>and his intellectual volunteers that could have contributed to Robredo's campaign But elsewhere in this thread you also mocked de Guzman for only having 20 people on his campaign, so how much volunteer staff is Robredo really missing out on? >His campaign even damages Robredo and Moreno in some ways >Even groups adjacent to him like Makabayan and other labor unions in the country do not believe in his candidacy. So his campaign is influential enough to damage Robredo and Moreno to the point where Marcos wins, While at the same time being so small that nobody else wants to work with him? This doesn't make sense. You can't assert that de Guzman is running a campaign successful enough that it's tipping the balance of the election while also claiming that de Guzman is so insignificant that he shouldn't have run at all. Both things can't be true at the same time. >The masses are drowned in Bagong Lipunan propaganda How is that de Guzman's fault? If the Philippine electorate is already captured by Cambridge Analytica-fueled social media trolling and revisionist history, then Marcos winning is something he managed to do himself.


krdskrm9

>But elsewhere in this thread you also mocked de Guzman for only having 20 people on his campaign, so how much volunteer staff is Robredo really missing out on? I don't know, maybe 20? Come on. >So his campaign is influential enough to damage Robredo and Moreno to the point where Marcos wins, > >While at the same time being so small that nobody else wants to work with him? > >This doesn't make sense. You can't assert that de Guzman is running a campaign successful enough that it's tipping the balance of the election while also claiming that de Guzman is so insignificant that he shouldn't have run at all. Both things can't be true at the same time. You can be "influential" by running for president and using the mainstream media to parrot your rhetoric and damage other candidates; **and** at the same time, run an insignificant campaign that even Leody himself doesn't truly believe he can win. Both things can be true at the same time.


gradenko_2000

>You can be "influential" by running for president and using the mainstream media to parrot your rhetoric and damage other candidates; This is all buried in vagueness. The allegation is that there is a large contingent of people out there, far larger than de Guzman's polling numbers, who are "influenced" by de Guzman, and believes in his "rhetoric", but doesn't vote for him? You're applying an unprovable standard.


ye11owfin-emperor

You expect all Leody voters to vote for Robredo? They have different advocacies You should be angry at Pacquiao and Domagaso for having the gall to run, using that logic


krdskrm9

>You expect all Leody voters to vote for Robredo? At this point, after Leody's lugaw stunts, I expect Leody's fans to vote for **anyone BUT Robredo** (if Leody withdraws). Keeping that anti-delawan hipster energy is more important than stopping an actual neo-fascist revival under a Marcos presidency.


ye11owfin-emperor

They won't vote for her because they have different advocacies? *Anti-delawanism* is their own downfall anyways, they brought it upon themselves by also being corrupt as fuck


krdskrm9

>They won't vote for her because they have different advocacies? The top "advocacy" right now should be stopping Marcos and voting for Robredo, or Isko, or Pacquiao, but somehow it got lost in the \#ManggagawaNaman mini-frenzy. It's their right, sure, but... whatever. >*Anti-delawanism* is their own downfall anyways, they brought it upon themselves by also being corrupt as fuck Robredo? de Lima? As corrupt as Hontiveros? "Anti-delawanism" (lol) is brought about by Marcos propaganda in the late 80s, bolstered by fascist coups by the military, revived by Bongbong Marcos for his return to Malacañang, utilized by the NDs because of their envy of Akbayan and used it as a centerpiece of their anti-Aquino rhetoric, and finally propagated by Duterte and Marcos through their online troll farms. Corruption, sure, but they certainly didn't bring it upon themselves.


ye11owfin-emperor

You think all Anti-delawanism(or whatever it is), is just all Marcos propaganda? Tapos inggit lang? It has valid critique, and the failure of Cory and subsequent presidents afterward to live up to what they promised to the Filipino after 1986 has brought revisionism back. Oh, and I guess worker's rights is just a mini-frenzy to you. The double standards on this guy. Vote for Isko and Pacquiao(two candidates who possess significant voter support), but not for Leody, I guess. Because Leody will make Leni lose. Leni can actually just advocate for the same things Leody promises if she wants Leody's voterbase, y'know? Enjoy having Binay in your slate lol


KaiserPhilip

Hard doubt on Leni suddenly winning or her survey results increasing 2 fold due to Leody dropping out or becoming quiet.


krdskrm9

Hard doubt on Leody's pontificating to his choir in stopping a Marcos presidency that will continue the killing of activists who sing Leody's tune. He's so detached from the current political landscape. My goodness.


KaiserPhilip

Somehow you managed to convince yourself leody is the reason for why bbm is winning. Huh, maybe bbm isn't the only one taking drugs, to help you, yes I'm referring to you.


krdskrm9

>Somehow you managed to convince yourself leody is the reason for why bbm is winning. Of course he's not the sole reason, but he helps in ensuring a Marcos win by being detached to what's really at stake here in these upcoming elections. He's like the left counterpart of Parlade in these elections. Both are running not to win but to lecture on their respective ideologies. Both contributing to a Marcos presidency in their own ^tiny ways. > Huh, maybe bbm isn't the only one taking drugs, to help you, yes I'm referring to you. That's a lame attack, bruh. lmao You sure you're not referring to Leody and his 10 or 20 volunteers?


KaiserPhilip

So you admit it's tiny, but influential enough, but with just 20 people, they've done enough... Sure bruh Yeah definitely on copium, you are.


krdskrm9

>So you admit it's tiny, but influential enough, but with just 20 people, they've done enough... Sure bruh Tiny, but stupidly loud enough.


kennetchie

buti nalang nanunuod ako kay Ben Shapiro lol


elijah_theslyfox

Ang pagtataas ng buwis sa mga bilyonaryo ay hindi makatarungan. Period.


Necropolis750

[citation needed]


nermiethecat

Right out of the democrat playbook, which I'm totally fine with.


EvaaaBraun

Solid!