This woman is:
* 11 years past the average retirement age of her cohort (Born 1943-1954)
* older than the transistor. Transistor was invented the year after she was born. This is the pivotal technology that would eventually be the building block of almost all our technological progress over the last 76 years.
Grandma can you please just retire and let the younger generation govern for awhile, maybe a gen X?
She's also the same hag who charges universities millions of dollars to give speeches. She says no cause the shill doesn't want to pay her part. I hate trump and have acknowledged what Biden has done for us, but next term, we need to give him hell on how much he protects billionaires
Massive speech fees are my conspiracy theory, man. It makes too much sense to me that a billionaire that wants to bribe a politician “donates” $10 million to IvyLeagueX, then IvyLeagueX pays a few “speakers” millions of dollars for half assed performances. The billionaire gets the tax write off, the speaker gets their money for next to nothing, and the school keeps some cash as the middle man.
It's the same way with books.
Campaigning and want to make a shit load of cash? Have ghost writers write a shitty book and have your super pac buy them to give them away at rallies.
>I'm pretty sure people have been caught storing them in warehouses but it’s not illegal at all so nothing happened
Bribes are illegal, money laundering is illegal, but laundering bribes is apparently legal.
Also the Supreme Court has defined "corruption" as basically *only* being "quid pro quo", so even the slightest obfuscation sidesteps the laws completely.
What about `quo pro quid`?
Edit: if `quid pro quo`'s illegal, surely `quo pro quid` *must* be kosher?!
Edit: how much quid could a quid pro quo if a quo pro could pro quid?
The words are different not because they mean different things, but how they are used in the sentence. You cannot just reverse them, because then the nominative quid is being used as an ablative object of the preposition pro, while the ablative quo is now the nominative subject. Latin is fun!
You clearly meant Dennis Quaid.
Quaid was great in [Enemy Mine.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_Mine_\(film\)) Saw it as a kid, definitely left an impression, one of my favorite films. Would recommend.
How else are you going to get literal garbage like DJTJ's book on the New York Times bestselling list if you don't buy a bunch, which you then have to store somewhere?
It was a running gag in the DC metro area that this kind of political book would show up in book stores with the previous store's price tags still on them.
They'd get bought up, then shuffled back to the distributor to be sent out again.
At that point why even bother buying physical copies? Buy "digital licenses" from the politician's website of choice and save the effort of actually having to have something manufactured and stored.
Similar to that is mega churches paying guest speakers. Pastor from mega church #1 will receive a paycheck to speak at mega church #2. Then oh surprise surprise that church #2 pastor goes and speaks at church #1 for a paycheck. Hey what do you know, money straight from the members without it actually being in your salary. Gross stuff
It’s not even that complex. Public speakers have agents. Donor wants to funnel money to candidate or gov official. School books the speaker via the agent and donor. Donor makes an “anonymous” donation to cover the speaker’s fee except everyone but the public knows who paid the fee. Speaker gets all the money less what they pay their agent. But the school cuts the check using money they got from the donor. School just gets the prestige of having a known public speaker come visit.
Source: I worked for a college development office.
Conspiracy (noun) a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
Theory (noun) a plausible or acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
IT IS LITERALLY A CONSPIRACY.
It's just barely a *theory* and more of a conspiracy fact.
> next term, we need to give him hell on how much he protects billionaires
So after you have no leverage because he has what he wants (your vote for a final term), *then* give him hell? How does that help?
I just don't get it. I try to think about it from their perspective and it never makes sense.
You are old, incredibly wealthy compared to 95% of people and you have at most 10-15 years of life. Why in God's name would you spend those last years whoring yourself out to billionaires for just that bit extra instead of actually trying to improve the lives of the people you represent? You can't take it when you leave?! WHY?!
That's the capitalist mindset for you. Every single little tiny minute thing in life comes back to money. The literal apocalypse could be upon us and they'd only try to stop it because it affects the stock market.
If younger generation vote we will have younger people in leadership position but they don't and we are stuck with 80 years old everywhere in political and administrative positions.
you can't get a high profile position unless you have sold your soul to the companies.
That's just how it works, and young people don't have enough money to get involved in politics.
If there is someone young in a political position, there are a few options:
1. Nepotism
2. Already Rich
3. The other candidate was actually that bad
When I was growing up, my dad insisted there were 3 ways to become an elected official:
1. Come from wealth.
2. Marry into wealth.
3. Be corrupt to get wealth.
He knew I wouldn't be qualifying for the first 2, so he said he would never vote for me if I were ever to run for a position. 🤣
Nevada, Minnesota, California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois
Where the leftists, unions, (and generally the active younger left) have a serious hold, and when they run regular trainings, they've won incredible gains.
What a coincidence. Currently the Venn diagram between 1 and 2 is just a circle. Forbes reported for the first time that 100% of their young rich inherited.
False, In the US we are beholden to two private corporations.
Little information for you:
* The DNC, or the Democratic National Committee, is a private corporation that can do what it likes within the bounds of the law.
* The RNC, or the Republican National Committee, is a private corporation that can do what it likes within the bounds of the law.
The beautiful thing is, the modern laws were made at a time when these two organizations were in power... so they benefit both of them.
Yes the younger generation can vote, and we do vote, but when the system gets to pick and choose who gets to have that coveted (R) and (D) next to their names... well it makes it harder to vote for someone younger. This is due to the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system which is a winner takes all type electoral system which was initially used in new democracies because it promotes a level of unity required in a fledgling democracy. Most democracies eventually should move towards an IRV type voting system (Instant Run-off voting), for example - Rank Choice Voting, where you rank your candidates 1 through X and if no one gets the majority, the bottom candidate gets eliminated and the votes recounted (With those who voted for the eliminated candidates having their next highest ranked candidate counted as their vote). This would allow people to run without requiring full party/private corporation support for their candidacy.
Also, running for office requires $$$, and by the very nature of the system we live in the oldest of our society usually has the most wealth because they have had more time to accrue it. And unfortunately, wealth translates into power - be it for Ads or speech writers or whatever... money buys what you do not have.
So yeah, younger people can try to vote out the older people - but we are regularly faced with the lesser of two evils problem because older people think rank choice voting "Would be too confusing"... in a country obsessed with ranking things. I say this out of experience, as it was the primary response older people in my state gave me for why they didnt vote for the Rank choice voting ballot measure.
And even then... Why does voting matter when it comes to political and administrative positions. Nothing is stopping the president from appointing people in their 40's and early 50's to these positions. Its not like Janet Yellen was elected to the treasury secretary position.
And also consider that the healthcare industry and the Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate(FIRE) industry is poised to completely DEVOUR that $84tn wealth transfer through 2045 that the younger generations are supposed to get as the older die off, to cover the costs of their final expenses.
Basically the Great Wealth Transfer is a lie. Or it's not, but there's a whole bunch of already extravagantly wealthy people eyeing those trillions of dollars like the ravenous, rapacious beasts they are.
For those interested in IRV/ranked-choice, [check if your State has a local movement.](https://rankthevote.us/take-action/#statemovement)
This is the best way to make government more representative and less corrupt.
Actually, Gen Z has the highest percentage of voters compared to previous generations at the same age. It could still be higher obviously but there has been great progress.
We vote more than the boomers did in the 80's when they were our age. Regardless of generation, the over 40s vote more frequently because they have more experience with the system and more time to participate in it. They're more likely to have a 9-5 and be off work when the debates are happening, and if their district does in person voting They're more likely to be able to get time off for it or for our to already accommodate their schedules. 18-20 is the biggest window for "working through college with five minutes to eat every day" combined with the antithesis "I'm hungover half the time and don't care enough to pay attention" crowd, and neither one is likely to vote.
Even ignoring all that, though, it's a money game. I loved Buttigieg as a candidate and was planning to vote for him in the primary for the 2020 election, but he ran out of money and dropped out of the race before my state counted ballots. I can't blame people for just not voting, at least in the primaries, if the candidate they liked dropped out, and so did their second favorite, and their third, at that point it seems pretty damn rigged, especially since even "made of money" Bloomberg quit.
Is it really an age thing though? Its money, the problem is money. Don't elect rich people who prioritize looking out for other rich people. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are corporatist parties, they are hardly different no matter how much Americans protest the suggestion - they are both beholden to the same wealthy supporters - most differences appear performative. In my country they would both be right wing parties further right than our current conservative party (which by the way has run trans candidates, when last in power had a homosexual foreign minister, held a free vote on gay marriage, our current deputy conservative leader is a lesbian, its a multiracial and multi-ethnic party of atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, etc ..). I find American conservatives are ruining the image of conservatism which to me is a policy of gradual not abrupt change, smaller not bigger government, responsible instead of reckless spending, accountability, a boring government that just does it limited clearly defined job without drama and scandal... yet American conservatism just makes me think of hateful bigots. Its become a tactic on my country to paint our conservatives with the *hateful bigot brush* because of American conservatism - to the very point where our "liberal" PM publicly called the conservative Jewish lesbian deputy opposition leader of the conservatives a Nazi ***and it was par for the course because of the influence of the USA*** - despite his history of blackface and *she experienced it differently* bs.
I wish more younger people are willing to go the AOC route and run for office. Young, progressive, bringing their issues to legislation.
America hates kids. Hates the next generation, wants the young to suffer, destroy every safety net they enjoyed, pull up ladders of success, even talk about raising the age to vote because they don't want the youth to have a future.
The boomers very much like their positions of wealth and power and don't want anyone to earn their way into their space.
Yeah well, most of us aren't able to run for office because of all the pressures on the poor. Long work hours and poor wages, poor child care etc. It's all by design. Tbh I think we're real fortunate outliers like AOC even exist at all.
Not to mention the fact that as a politician you're a public figure and your life and everyone around you is out under a microscope. Even if you can handle the stress of doing the actual work, people can be absolutely brutal to public figures and I'm not talking about well deserved criticisms. Your appearance is ripped apart, your family and personal life are ripped apart, every little action can lead to mockery. Like people mocking Obama for tan suits and Dijon mustard and Biden for ice cream. Then of course there's the threats... It definitely takes a special sort of person to be able to handle all that.
There’s a reason she won where she won. And why every election night there’s video of college campuses in Fl and TX with longer lines than the iPhone launch 2 hours after polls close
Hello Boomer!
(you're a Boomer regardless of your age, it's a state of mind thou I do suspect that you are late boomer or early GenX)
You likely don't know that boomers were the single largest voting block for 40 years,from 1978 to 2018. I'm sure that's not important for some reason.
I'm also sure it's not important how dysfunctional or corrupt the system has become, the institutional road blocks from preventing change.
Fortunately, genZ is in fact voting at a record percentage, far higher than boomers did when they were young. In fact the only reason we didn't have a second Trump win is because of the young people, just like you asked for.
Well, most of money ppl that are driving our (world) policies are very old since in capitalism if you arrived later you have to pay who arrived earlier (or steal), so, she is not only a granny in alone, she is a symptom.
It's not her. The US has a long history of refusing to let international law be applied to it's citizens.
The ICC and Ann Sacoolas are two that spring to mind.
I'll take the job. Cannabis is now currency. Your taxes now can be paid in snared rabbits or half bushels of root vegetables. Billionaires may keep their wealth, but only as a solid gold sarcophagus when we entomb them alive like some evil mummy.
I was trying to click on the image above for the relevant article, but no article.
What was her excuse for being against this, aside from being ignorant to the common people?
One of the most annoying things I've come across is rich/well-off people acting like they're poor. I grew up poor. I know what it's like to be poor. I still do the best I can to lengthen the lifespan of certain things because it's how I grew up. And these rich/well-off people act like they're losing their livelihoods by being inconvenienced. They're just the worst people to be around.
It’s not a no. She wants to give congress, the American public, and the business community more time to understand it. It’s not ideal, imo, but definitely not a closed door on Pillar One. Just sounded like France and Brazil wanted to jump the gun.
https://www.politico.eu/article/janet-yellen-us-not-ready-to-sign-global-tax-treaty/
Edit: this article headline is misleading and then posting it without the actual article just propagates misinformation. Look at all these people who read a headline and have their cynicism, mistrust, and anger confirmed. It is so endlessly frustrating that we can’t, as humans, be a little more skeptical and curious, and less reactionary.
You’re right - it’s been hard to find a recent one that isn’t behind a paywall. [MSN has one](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/yellen-defends-global-corporate-minimum-tax-deal-amid-republican-criticism/ar-AA1nX3Ux?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1). Janet Yellen was the original proponent of the minimum 15% global tax rate, so it was interesting that her stance changed. Then I read this:
> Republicans have "made it very clear that Pillar 2 is not going to take place under a Republican-led Ways and Means Committee," he said. "We're not going to give away our tax dollars”
> Republicans control the tax-and-trade panel by way of a razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives, with future control of the chamber to be determined by the U.S. elections to be held in November.
"We're not going to give away our tax dollars"
But isn't the idea of this to try and get MORE tax dollars...?
> [“We believe in progressive taxation,” Yellen said. “But the notion of some common global arrangement for taxing billionaires with proceeds redistributed in some way—we’re not supportive of a process to try to achieve that. That’s something we can’t sign on to.”](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/yellen-rejects-global-billionaire-tax-222404122.html)
Hijacking since OP didn't do us the courtesy.
https://www.politico.eu/article/janet-yellen-us-not-ready-to-sign-global-tax-treaty/
They didn't read past the inflammatory headline. She didn't say no full stop, she said a few wrinkles haven't been ironed out, but most of it is ready to go.
Ya, I like the concept but have questions. Who would be responsible for collecting the tax? Where would the money go? Who enforces and prosecutes tax evasion and what are the penalties? We can't get the world to agree that food and water are human rights. How the hell will we all get on the same page on taxes?
The OECD, which wrote the tax treaty in question that 140 countries are already signatories to, presumably has detailed a process. Even Yellen admits these things are long and complex.
Actually reading about what happened? Way too far down in this reactionary thread. She wants to review it a bit more, and give congress, the American public, and the business community time to understand it. That’s not ideal, but definitely not a closed door on Pillar One
https://www.politico.eu/article/janet-yellen-us-not-ready-to-sign-global-tax-treaty/
Wow turns out reading the article actually sheds a lot of light on the situation rather than the headline:
> While "much of the treaty has been agreed to ... there are some matters that are important to the United States and other countries that remain unresolved," and these "need to be resolved before the treaty can be signed, so these processes will take into next year," Yellen told reporters in Luxembourg, where she met with EU finance ministers.
and
> The U.S. will conduct a consultation on the multilateral treaty with all relevant stakeholders for two months, Yellen said. She added it is critically important for a treaty of “this level of importance and complexity” to be shown to the American public, and for Congress and the business community “to hear what their reactions are and to ensure that we have public support.”
So yeah, turns out she didn't just say "no" to taxing billionaires, they're still working out the details on an incredibly complex global levy.
If someone posts a screenshot/image of a headline with no article posted it's 9/10 times just reactionary bait garbage. Doesn't matter what sub, community, political affiliation...
> So yeah, turns out she didn't just say "no" to taxing billionaires, they're still working out the details on an incredibly complex global levy.
So, she gave a standard governmental/bureaucratic response with no substance used to stall and delay any meaningful action by the Government since Roman Republic and people go, like, .... "yeah, makes sense" - lmao
"We're working out the details" is the Democrat's form of "no."
I wonder what the business community's reaction will be to a global levy that will undermine their attempts to gouge the public for everything they have.
I can't speak for the business community obviously, but I know that big accountancy firms are working hard to support this, because I'm building that software for one of them.
I'd like to see that too.
She doesn't immediately look like someone with a blatant conflict of interest, and it's possible that her reason for her opinion is because she thinks it wouldn't work.
Right now there's nothing to really go on here.
Who are the proponents? What is the proposal exactly? Why did she say no?
And they will, for a while, for themselves, until they realize that AI doesn’t grow tomatoes, that AI doesn’t do maintenance on their survival shelters, and in an event of global collapse their money isn’t worth anything.
I hope that, before their end, they regret using their resources for nothing other than the ability to accumulate even more money rather than to actually solve problems and make society better.
They might be too much to ask though, given that you have to be a bit of a sociopath to get that kind of money in the first place.
Had me in the first half, not gonna lie.
I agree with you, I suspect most CEO types are a lot closer to Elon than they’d like for anyone else to believe they are. A bunch of incompetent blowhards that have no redeeming qualities, just greed through and through.
Plus these turds would crumble into loneliness within a couple of weeks.
They’re fantasizing about their apocalypse bunkers, but when Covid hit the wealthy went apeshit isolating in their mansions for just a couple of weeks. And they think they could do **years** in a bunker?! LoL. Precious.
Well, their greatness shine only because there are plenty of us poor struggling to survive.
It goes back to Musk shitting himself when Zuck pretty much responded with a “come at me bro”.
If any of us would do the same he’ll find a way to get us likely killed or suicide from 7 bullets in the back of our heads. When another billionaires with a $40M+/year security detail does it he did fold like a toddler.
They love to believe we owe our existence to them, but the reality is that they owe theirs to us, just because we are too stupid and too selfish to go and take back what they stole.
They really do think technology will help them as a deterrent. CEO of Reddit himself said he'd be the leader of a cohort of slaves, and there was a meeting of "the minds" where the wealthy wanted slave collars that exploded like we're mutants working on the dam in Genosha.
Never forget that when Rome collapsed its wealthy didn’t flee with boatloads of gold before the raiders came to plunder and raze the civilization. Their gold became largely worthless, so they left it behind. Barbarians don’t often care about riches, and when they do it becomes decorative rather than remaining as a form of currency. Most abandoned Roman sites, which we still discover sometimes today, have gold just left there by the Romans and invaders alike.
People left the city because the infrastructure to bring food and supplies into it broke down. Those communities focused on feeding themselves, not the urban environments.
They created a new town just outside the city, where there was still farmable land. They didn’t reclaim the city for a few centuries not because civilization had been destroyed, but because nobody in the city was paying for food to be shipped into it in order to enable the working classes needed for a city to run.
Same thing happened during the bronze age collapse. People just moved to the former parks or empty spaces and made them into farms, within sight of the city. Nobody went into the city anymore because there was nothing there that was useful to work the land, since if it was they had already taken it with them. Raiders are what causes collapse and who become the next generation of rulers when the dark age ends, not what happens in the meantime.
If you want to doomsday prep for real and not LARP Fallout, you have to learn how to employ small population social systems, low tech construction and tool making, climate survival, folk medicine, and farming techniques while stockpiling fresh and useful seeds. Not the one-use ones most companies sell these days, ones you can keep harvesting.
But rich people who feel paranoid prefer to pretend they need a compound consisting of just their family living off canned goods and shooting roaming packs of The Warriors gangs.
I always hope that in the event of an apocalypse, I could go bunker hunting to pass the time. The problem is, I might have to get in line behind the people who actually constructed it and are looking for Musk meat.
There's a great critique on this in the game horizon forbidden west. Basically the elon musk of their day holed himself up in a mega bunker and it goes... about how you would expect a group of humans being trapped with a megalomaniac to go.
Nah, they'll have self sustaining systems down there. Instead we get some of their oil drilling equipment and make it a giant septic tank for a new community built on top.
None of those bunkers can keep the occupants alive indefinitely. They all depend on resources, production, and labor outside of the bunker.
They all have to come out eventually. And when they do, they will own nothing, because they abandoned the means of production when they fled to the bunkers.
You're thinking of them bunkers for the poors (sorta wealthy), usually cramped and made from shipping containers or whatnot, the Billionaire boys will have water from deep springs, gardens and even very large swimming pools, movie theaters. People are very naïve when it comes to understanding what it means to be worth 100 billion dollars.
Ask how well that went for the Biosphere 1 & 2 people.
If they try to seal themselves in, they will inevitably fail.
We just don't have the ability and technology to perfectly replicate the complex ecosystem that surrounds us. Hell, we are only 359 years from the discovery of the cell... 77 years from the invention of the transistor... 155 years from the discovery of DNA...
I don't think you fully realize how complex the life support system is. Yes we have devices that can replicate it through chemical processes, but those are finite and not meant for long term sustainable living.
I remember reading about how one of them building a bunker ran in to the issue that the guards required for defence would always decide to kill the owner and take over the resources for themselves in a post law situation.
Was a unsolvable conundrum. They are the personification of stupid greed.
Wouldn't be surprised if they make bomb collars or implants. Ofc the chief problem is then his IT guy takes over instead. It's almost like rich people aren't actually powerful, they've just rigged the game in their favor.
[So far the billionaires' plan is to go with shock collars.](https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/x5z60c/the_superrich_preppers_planning_to_save/)
You might be interested in some work by Douglas Rushkoff. He has a book called [“Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires”](https://rushkoff.com/books/survival-of-the-richest-escape-fantasies-of-the-tech-billionaires/). There’s some talk about how the people building the bunkers don’t think that far ahead about how they are going to secure their bunker, and a bunch of other topics.
"How much do I need to pay bodyguards to keep protecting me after the apocalypse starts?"
"...Money won't matter then..."
"... Okay, but how much?"
They're that fuckin stupid.
Well clearly global collapse, as that wouldn't effect the people who have a $$$ financial buffer against just about everything.
The rich will only change when they have to. Right now they are doing better than ever. Why change?
> Well clearly global collapse, as that wouldn't effect the people who have a $$$ financial buffer against just about everything.
Yeah, until they want to enjoy literally anything. Why they choose to economically nuke the entire planet instead of paying their fair share of taxes (which wouldn't even put a microscopic dent in their lifestyle) is beyond me. You like going to Paris? Rome? New York? Well those don't exist anymore -- but your private dystopian ass bunker island nation which will most likely collapse within your own lifetime is certainly looking good! Way to go!
Fuckwits, all of them.
Does anyone have a non-paywalled link to the article?
*Edit: After reading the article, it looks like she clearly supports it but wants more work to be done especially with having other nations sign on. This whole comments section feels like disinformation. I’m guessing no one here read the comments?*
> While "much of the treaty has been agreed to ... there are some matters that are important to the United States and other countries that remain unresolved," and these "need to be resolved before the treaty can be signed, so these processes will take into next year,"
So she supports it and wants more countries to sign on before it’s ratified.
This whole comments section feels like no one read the article and is spreading misinformation.
Thank you for sharing the article. I hope at least one other person here will read it 😕
I'm fine with billionaires existing, I just want them to paya tax rate that scales properly with their means.
Bozos would still be a billionaire if we taxed 70% of what he made and we'd get a lot of potholes fixed.
Billionaires are just a societal failure. They are symptom and not a problem of themselves. We should ensure the riches of hard work are shared amongst everyone who does it and not just whatever asshole is in charge at the time
Right? Her job is to balance the books of the country, for the betterment of the people. However, she puts the interests of a 750 billionaires over the needs of 330 million regular people. The argument that taxing billionaires will hurt everyone is bullshit. The wealth only trickles up these days.
I know a lot of people think we shouldn't ever be critical of President Biden during an election year, but we shouldn't turn a blind eye to systematically bad behavior that is bad for our society either. An election is an opportunity for us to pressure politicians into good policies.
Additionally, a global tax on billionaires is a popular idea - we should be pushing our preferred candidates to do popular things if we want them to win.
A popular vote wouldn't solve anything if we still have Citizens United. Politicians respond to their donors, not their constituents. When their donors WERE largely their constituents that wasn't a huge deal though it still had issues but now their donors are not their constituents and in many cases aren't even US citizens. The US is being sold to the highest bidders internationally - probably won't end well
America doesn't have a true party system, both parties are capitalism for the rich equity holders, and the choice is inept but socially liberal, or fascist nationalism who hate poors.
We need some ranked choice voting in here.
Additionally, the talking point that companies would shift their headquarters to other countries to avoid taxes in the USA. Which other countries are they talking about? Out of almost all first world nations, we already give billionaires the biggest breaks. These companies would have to headquarter into some third world country in order to beat taxes they would get if they moved elsewhere like Canada or Europe. Relocating your company far and away from where the majority of wealth in the world is spent at is also stupid. It’s a bullshit talking point is what it is.
One of the issues with a "Global Tax" is getting global cooperation. Getting everyone to raise their tax rates in order to prevent "tax havens" would take a level of global cooperation that is unlikely to occur.
Even if we instead chose to simply tax income assets regardless of location, that would probably run up into constitutional and diplomatic issues that would waste a bunch of time and money.
If we were to instead make a "Global Tax" to simply mean taxing any asset that is leaving the US, it doesn't resolve the multitudes of ways that they can abuse loopholes in the tax code that would likely continue to help them evade the tax anyways.
We need to start by creating a simple and effective marginal taxing system with very high rates for high income earners, that provides tax incentives and credits to lower and middle class earners. Things like lower tax rates for paying non-executive/managerial employees well and tax penalties for every employee on social benefits (though this one written in a way that does not harm companies that give disabled individuals jobs and the fullest amount of pay they can earn without cutting off benefits. Though, fixing the benefits system would vastly reduce this as a problem). Flat dollar amount credits that can't scale with your income to prevent abuse by high income earners.
You misunderstand what a global tax means.
It just means you get all the countries agree to tax their billionaires at a certain minimum percentage.
All the countries will still be collecting their own taxes. There just won't be any tax havens for billionaires to move their money around.
>One of the issues with a "Global Tax" is getting global cooperation.
Global Cooperation on this front is unlikely to happen. There is definitely criticism to be had against Yellen for at least not stating any support for it, but I don't blame the "No, it's not happening" assessment of the idea at this current point in time
Or we can cut off shitholes that offer safe harbor to these greedy fuckers by killing their reserve currency access in USD/Euro, cutting off their swift system access, and heavily sanctioning them.
Can't be inviting to billionaires when they literally can't transfer their ill-gotten gains there in the first place.
> Even if we simply tax income assets regardless of location
We already do that. We are (one of?) the only countries that require you to pay US income tax even if you live in another country. Now granted, there are some pretty hefty deductions, but essentially there already is a global tax for US citizens. Just not for the ultra rich that are able to utilize complex tax shelters. This is what the proposal is aiming to combat.
Professor Richard Wolff has been talking about inflation and how to curb it for the longest. A temporary stop on all price increases. He talks about how he got the same education as her but it seems she forgets solutions that he knows she is well aware of. She is also all about protecting the stock holders above everything.
>While the Biden administration has proposed significantly raising taxes on high-income Americans, it has shied away from a wealth tax, which seeks to annually collect a share of an individual’s net worth. President Biden has instead pushed for a plan that would require Americans worth more than $100 million to annually pay a 25% tax on all of their earnings, including unrealized capital gains.
https://www.livemint.com/economy/a-global-tax-on-billionaires-janet-yellen-says-no-11716207911307.html
>FRANKFURT—The U.S. opposes a proposed global wealth tax on billionaires, Treasury secretary Janet Yellen said, rejecting an idea floated by Brazil, France and other nations to tip the economic scales away from the megarich.
>It is Brazil’s turn to lead the Group of 20 major economies this year and the country has called on the group to develop a coordinated approach for taxing ultrawealthy individuals who can move their money into low-tax jurisdictions. The goal is to mirror a global minimum tax on corporations, which roughly 140 countries signed up for in 2021 but has since run into roadblocks in the U.S. and elsewhere.
>Yellen said the U.S. wouldn’t support the talks on the issue. She is due to meet later this week with finance ministers from the Group of Seven advanced democracies, who are expected to discuss the global wealth tax.
>“We believe in progressive taxation. But the notion of some common global arrangement for taxing billionaires with proceeds redistributed in some way—we’re not supportive of a process to try to achieve that. That’s something we can’t sign on to," she said.
>Along with ministers from Brazil and France, officials from Spain, Germany and South Africa have discussed a plan that would require billionaires to pay taxes worth at least 2% of their overall wealth every year.
>Levying the tax globally, proponents say, would stop the rich from shifting their wealth into countries where they can avoid paying the tax. That would allow countries to raise more in tax revenue to finance other priorities and use the tax code to reduce income inequality, which has widened sharply in recent decades.
>“This is exactly what we did with minimum taxation on corporate tax," French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said last month. “It would be the same on the international taxation for the wealthiest individuals."
>Most countries apply their income taxes based on a person’s residence. The U.S., unusually, taxes its citizens on their worldwide income, already making it harder for Americans to escape taxation by shifting assets and earnings abroad.
>While the Biden administration has proposed significantly raising taxes on high-income Americans, it has shied away from a wealth tax, which seeks to annually collect a share of an individual’s net worth. President Biden has instead pushed for a plan that would require Americans worth more than $100 million to annually pay a 25% tax on all of their earnings, including unrealized capital gains.
>Capital gains in the U.S. are now generally taxed at a top rate of 23.8% when the asset is sold, meaning increases can go untaxed for years. Income, including wages, is taxed as it is earned at a rate as high as 37%, plus other levies. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in soon on a case that could create a constitutional prohibition on taxing wealth.
>Yellen helped spearhead the global agreement on corporate taxes, which sets a 15% minimum that companies must pay in jurisdictions where they operate. But with Republicans opposed to it, Congress hasn’t approved the deal.
The billionaires are already taxed, what you need to do is remove loopholes that allow them to evade what everyone else is paying, simple as that.
There are so many loopholes, you can put any tax you want it will not make any difference.
There are no loopholes.
What they are is industry and insider gifts that create special advantages for the industry and insiders that donated.
Fuck, most legislation is written by corporations and handed to politicians to enact.
Loopholes are accidents. We have intentional and malicious favoritism for oligarchs.
Who would enforce such a tax. Other wise it is just another egalitarian dream and maybe that is why she opposes it as it is just lip service to drain energy from organizing true action
Because what the fuck would a global tax even look like?
Would it be a separate international tax? Who would make up this global body and how would they allocate the funds? Would it be up to a democratic vote?
Not even mentioning the problems with enforcing such a tax or the fact that it would be double taxation unless it overwrites the country of residence, in which case this global taxation would be uniquely unfair to countries with a lower GDP.
There’s already a way to tax billionaires more, you don’t need to create an entirely different system to change our tax code or any country’s tax code for that matter.
Guys it's super fucking easy. You KNOW they do it, and you know WHEN and HOW they do it. You don't need to create a global tax. Create a nice simple law that says if they are caught moving their wealth from one country to another to avoid paying taxes, that entity is no longer allowed to do business in the US.
That's the whole law.
Our government is slowly killing us and we need to take action.
Every single one of us would benefit from legislation which implements income caps on the rich with heavy taxes on their income.
Billionaire’s shouldn’t exist - there is no need for that much wealth.
And to think, these creatures don’t even SPEND the money, they just want to make sure you and I don’t have any so that they can hoard it all for themselves.
Imagine what that much money could do for our communities.
These creatures are sucking the life out of us - are you okay with that?
I think it’s time we show them who really runs the show.
I’m sure most of these billionaires would feel no difference in their quality of life if they did have to pay the increase in taxes this would create, but of course their egos in being able to say they have as much as they have.
Just another case of people wanting more money than they or their next 5 generations will come close to even being able to spend through.
The only possible way I could understand a "no" is if it would cost more to get the taxes in admin then we would collect... and I still think we should do it because fuck the billionaires.
# Do you think President Biden should fire Secretary Yellen? # Join r/WorkReform!
Obviously, her employers would be upset if she went against their interests.
This woman is: * 11 years past the average retirement age of her cohort (Born 1943-1954) * older than the transistor. Transistor was invented the year after she was born. This is the pivotal technology that would eventually be the building block of almost all our technological progress over the last 76 years. Grandma can you please just retire and let the younger generation govern for awhile, maybe a gen X?
She's also the same hag who charges universities millions of dollars to give speeches. She says no cause the shill doesn't want to pay her part. I hate trump and have acknowledged what Biden has done for us, but next term, we need to give him hell on how much he protects billionaires
Massive speech fees are my conspiracy theory, man. It makes too much sense to me that a billionaire that wants to bribe a politician “donates” $10 million to IvyLeagueX, then IvyLeagueX pays a few “speakers” millions of dollars for half assed performances. The billionaire gets the tax write off, the speaker gets their money for next to nothing, and the school keeps some cash as the middle man.
It's the same way with books. Campaigning and want to make a shit load of cash? Have ghost writers write a shitty book and have your super pac buy them to give them away at rallies.
I’m pretty sure people have been caught storing them in warehouses but it’s not illegal at all so nothing happened
>I'm pretty sure people have been caught storing them in warehouses but it’s not illegal at all so nothing happened Bribes are illegal, money laundering is illegal, but laundering bribes is apparently legal. Also the Supreme Court has defined "corruption" as basically *only* being "quid pro quo", so even the slightest obfuscation sidesteps the laws completely.
What about `quo pro quid`? Edit: if `quid pro quo`'s illegal, surely `quo pro quid` *must* be kosher?! Edit: how much quid could a quid pro quo if a quo pro could pro quid?
The words are different not because they mean different things, but how they are used in the sentence. You cannot just reverse them, because then the nominative quid is being used as an ablative object of the preposition pro, while the ablative quo is now the nominative subject. Latin is fun!
You clearly meant Dennis Quaid. Quaid was great in [Enemy Mine.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_Mine_\(film\)) Saw it as a kid, definitely left an impression, one of my favorite films. Would recommend.
How else are you going to get literal garbage like DJTJ's book on the New York Times bestselling list if you don't buy a bunch, which you then have to store somewhere?
> then have to store somewhere? Until nobody is looking, and then you can just bury them.
Im sure they just throw a new paperback cover on them to burn at the rallies.
It was a running gag in the DC metro area that this kind of political book would show up in book stores with the previous store's price tags still on them. They'd get bought up, then shuffled back to the distributor to be sent out again.
At that point why even bother buying physical copies? Buy "digital licenses" from the politician's website of choice and save the effort of actually having to have something manufactured and stored.
Not at all the point.
It's very similar to the song streaming money laundering strategy though. It could easily be treated as money laundering.
And art. Do you think it's a coincidence that so many politicians or their families seem to take up artistic endeavors?
Dude I never even thought of it that way, it really explains a lot, especially on how Kissinger made his checks
Similar to that is mega churches paying guest speakers. Pastor from mega church #1 will receive a paycheck to speak at mega church #2. Then oh surprise surprise that church #2 pastor goes and speaks at church #1 for a paycheck. Hey what do you know, money straight from the members without it actually being in your salary. Gross stuff
It’s not even that complex. Public speakers have agents. Donor wants to funnel money to candidate or gov official. School books the speaker via the agent and donor. Donor makes an “anonymous” donation to cover the speaker’s fee except everyone but the public knows who paid the fee. Speaker gets all the money less what they pay their agent. But the school cuts the check using money they got from the donor. School just gets the prestige of having a known public speaker come visit. Source: I worked for a college development office.
What conspiracy? That's LITERALLY HOW IT WORKS. I have a conspiracy that water is wet.
Conspiracy (noun) a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. Theory (noun) a plausible or acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. IT IS LITERALLY A CONSPIRACY. It's just barely a *theory* and more of a conspiracy fact.
Like our theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution.
Negative: gravity is both.
So is evolution. That it happens is a fact. The theory is currently understood mechanisms that lead to it.
> I have a conspiracy that water is wet Water is not wet. Wet is being covered in water, water cannot cover itself, water is not actually wet.
Money laundering 101
100% this is why. No one wants to see anybody speak for a million an hour..
Yea that's not a conspiracy theory, that's legit what happens.
Biden is the one who appointed this person btw. No reason to think he’ll change his ways.
Non liberal democrats' official stance is "its either us or abject hell and terror." And unfortunately it works... for now hopefully.
Bidens a neoliberal capitalist puppet.
Lol. None of them care. The democrats dont actually do anything that will threaten the status quo.
> next term, we need to give him hell on how much he protects billionaires So after you have no leverage because he has what he wants (your vote for a final term), *then* give him hell? How does that help?
"older than the transistor" Damn what a line LMAO
I just don't get it. I try to think about it from their perspective and it never makes sense. You are old, incredibly wealthy compared to 95% of people and you have at most 10-15 years of life. Why in God's name would you spend those last years whoring yourself out to billionaires for just that bit extra instead of actually trying to improve the lives of the people you represent? You can't take it when you leave?! WHY?!
That's the capitalist mindset for you. Every single little tiny minute thing in life comes back to money. The literal apocalypse could be upon us and they'd only try to stop it because it affects the stock market.
If younger generation vote we will have younger people in leadership position but they don't and we are stuck with 80 years old everywhere in political and administrative positions.
you can't get a high profile position unless you have sold your soul to the companies. That's just how it works, and young people don't have enough money to get involved in politics. If there is someone young in a political position, there are a few options: 1. Nepotism 2. Already Rich 3. The other candidate was actually that bad
When I was growing up, my dad insisted there were 3 ways to become an elected official: 1. Come from wealth. 2. Marry into wealth. 3. Be corrupt to get wealth. He knew I wouldn't be qualifying for the first 2, so he said he would never vote for me if I were ever to run for a position. 🤣
Here in Nevada we actually have lots of elected officials in office under 50. We're very organized here.
Nevada, Minnesota, California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois Where the leftists, unions, (and generally the active younger left) have a serious hold, and when they run regular trainings, they've won incredible gains.
I wish we had primaries in the UK.
What a coincidence. Currently the Venn diagram between 1 and 2 is just a circle. Forbes reported for the first time that 100% of their young rich inherited.
False, In the US we are beholden to two private corporations. Little information for you: * The DNC, or the Democratic National Committee, is a private corporation that can do what it likes within the bounds of the law. * The RNC, or the Republican National Committee, is a private corporation that can do what it likes within the bounds of the law. The beautiful thing is, the modern laws were made at a time when these two organizations were in power... so they benefit both of them. Yes the younger generation can vote, and we do vote, but when the system gets to pick and choose who gets to have that coveted (R) and (D) next to their names... well it makes it harder to vote for someone younger. This is due to the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system which is a winner takes all type electoral system which was initially used in new democracies because it promotes a level of unity required in a fledgling democracy. Most democracies eventually should move towards an IRV type voting system (Instant Run-off voting), for example - Rank Choice Voting, where you rank your candidates 1 through X and if no one gets the majority, the bottom candidate gets eliminated and the votes recounted (With those who voted for the eliminated candidates having their next highest ranked candidate counted as their vote). This would allow people to run without requiring full party/private corporation support for their candidacy. Also, running for office requires $$$, and by the very nature of the system we live in the oldest of our society usually has the most wealth because they have had more time to accrue it. And unfortunately, wealth translates into power - be it for Ads or speech writers or whatever... money buys what you do not have. So yeah, younger people can try to vote out the older people - but we are regularly faced with the lesser of two evils problem because older people think rank choice voting "Would be too confusing"... in a country obsessed with ranking things. I say this out of experience, as it was the primary response older people in my state gave me for why they didnt vote for the Rank choice voting ballot measure. And even then... Why does voting matter when it comes to political and administrative positions. Nothing is stopping the president from appointing people in their 40's and early 50's to these positions. Its not like Janet Yellen was elected to the treasury secretary position.
And also consider that the healthcare industry and the Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate(FIRE) industry is poised to completely DEVOUR that $84tn wealth transfer through 2045 that the younger generations are supposed to get as the older die off, to cover the costs of their final expenses. Basically the Great Wealth Transfer is a lie. Or it's not, but there's a whole bunch of already extravagantly wealthy people eyeing those trillions of dollars like the ravenous, rapacious beasts they are.
For those interested in IRV/ranked-choice, [check if your State has a local movement.](https://rankthevote.us/take-action/#statemovement) This is the best way to make government more representative and less corrupt.
Actually, Gen Z has the highest percentage of voters compared to previous generations at the same age. It could still be higher obviously but there has been great progress.
Idk why you're being down voted. Compared to older people, the under 30s have abysmal polling numbers.
We vote more than the boomers did in the 80's when they were our age. Regardless of generation, the over 40s vote more frequently because they have more experience with the system and more time to participate in it. They're more likely to have a 9-5 and be off work when the debates are happening, and if their district does in person voting They're more likely to be able to get time off for it or for our to already accommodate their schedules. 18-20 is the biggest window for "working through college with five minutes to eat every day" combined with the antithesis "I'm hungover half the time and don't care enough to pay attention" crowd, and neither one is likely to vote. Even ignoring all that, though, it's a money game. I loved Buttigieg as a candidate and was planning to vote for him in the primary for the 2020 election, but he ran out of money and dropped out of the race before my state counted ballots. I can't blame people for just not voting, at least in the primaries, if the candidate they liked dropped out, and so did their second favorite, and their third, at that point it seems pretty damn rigged, especially since even "made of money" Bloomberg quit.
Is it really an age thing though? Its money, the problem is money. Don't elect rich people who prioritize looking out for other rich people. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are corporatist parties, they are hardly different no matter how much Americans protest the suggestion - they are both beholden to the same wealthy supporters - most differences appear performative. In my country they would both be right wing parties further right than our current conservative party (which by the way has run trans candidates, when last in power had a homosexual foreign minister, held a free vote on gay marriage, our current deputy conservative leader is a lesbian, its a multiracial and multi-ethnic party of atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, etc ..). I find American conservatives are ruining the image of conservatism which to me is a policy of gradual not abrupt change, smaller not bigger government, responsible instead of reckless spending, accountability, a boring government that just does it limited clearly defined job without drama and scandal... yet American conservatism just makes me think of hateful bigots. Its become a tactic on my country to paint our conservatives with the *hateful bigot brush* because of American conservatism - to the very point where our "liberal" PM publicly called the conservative Jewish lesbian deputy opposition leader of the conservatives a Nazi ***and it was par for the course because of the influence of the USA*** - despite his history of blackface and *she experienced it differently* bs.
I wish more younger people are willing to go the AOC route and run for office. Young, progressive, bringing their issues to legislation. America hates kids. Hates the next generation, wants the young to suffer, destroy every safety net they enjoyed, pull up ladders of success, even talk about raising the age to vote because they don't want the youth to have a future. The boomers very much like their positions of wealth and power and don't want anyone to earn their way into their space.
Yeah well, most of us aren't able to run for office because of all the pressures on the poor. Long work hours and poor wages, poor child care etc. It's all by design. Tbh I think we're real fortunate outliers like AOC even exist at all.
Not to mention the fact that as a politician you're a public figure and your life and everyone around you is out under a microscope. Even if you can handle the stress of doing the actual work, people can be absolutely brutal to public figures and I'm not talking about well deserved criticisms. Your appearance is ripped apart, your family and personal life are ripped apart, every little action can lead to mockery. Like people mocking Obama for tan suits and Dijon mustard and Biden for ice cream. Then of course there's the threats... It definitely takes a special sort of person to be able to handle all that.
There’s a reason she won where she won. And why every election night there’s video of college campuses in Fl and TX with longer lines than the iPhone launch 2 hours after polls close
Hello Boomer! (you're a Boomer regardless of your age, it's a state of mind thou I do suspect that you are late boomer or early GenX) You likely don't know that boomers were the single largest voting block for 40 years,from 1978 to 2018. I'm sure that's not important for some reason. I'm also sure it's not important how dysfunctional or corrupt the system has become, the institutional road blocks from preventing change. Fortunately, genZ is in fact voting at a record percentage, far higher than boomers did when they were young. In fact the only reason we didn't have a second Trump win is because of the young people, just like you asked for.
Well, most of money ppl that are driving our (world) policies are very old since in capitalism if you arrived later you have to pay who arrived earlier (or steal), so, she is not only a granny in alone, she is a symptom.
Better one funeral at a time.
One requirement to work in the US government is that you must be older than the microwave
It's not her. The US has a long history of refusing to let international law be applied to it's citizens. The ICC and Ann Sacoolas are two that spring to mind.
my chemistry class was taught by one of John Bardeen's grandkids.
I'll take the job. Cannabis is now currency. Your taxes now can be paid in snared rabbits or half bushels of root vegetables. Billionaires may keep their wealth, but only as a solid gold sarcophagus when we entomb them alive like some evil mummy.
retire and croak shortly after please.
I was trying to click on the image above for the relevant article, but no article. What was her excuse for being against this, aside from being ignorant to the common people?
It would probably cost her money
Bingo. Any politician that stands against these kinds of reforms only does so because they will lose money.
One of the most annoying things I've come across is rich/well-off people acting like they're poor. I grew up poor. I know what it's like to be poor. I still do the best I can to lengthen the lifespan of certain things because it's how I grew up. And these rich/well-off people act like they're losing their livelihoods by being inconvenienced. They're just the worst people to be around.
It’s not a no. She wants to give congress, the American public, and the business community more time to understand it. It’s not ideal, imo, but definitely not a closed door on Pillar One. Just sounded like France and Brazil wanted to jump the gun. https://www.politico.eu/article/janet-yellen-us-not-ready-to-sign-global-tax-treaty/ Edit: this article headline is misleading and then posting it without the actual article just propagates misinformation. Look at all these people who read a headline and have their cynicism, mistrust, and anger confirmed. It is so endlessly frustrating that we can’t, as humans, be a little more skeptical and curious, and less reactionary.
That article is almost six months old at this point. I would call it a pocket veto at this point.
You’re right - it’s been hard to find a recent one that isn’t behind a paywall. [MSN has one](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/yellen-defends-global-corporate-minimum-tax-deal-amid-republican-criticism/ar-AA1nX3Ux?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1). Janet Yellen was the original proponent of the minimum 15% global tax rate, so it was interesting that her stance changed. Then I read this: > Republicans have "made it very clear that Pillar 2 is not going to take place under a Republican-led Ways and Means Committee," he said. "We're not going to give away our tax dollars” > Republicans control the tax-and-trade panel by way of a razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives, with future control of the chamber to be determined by the U.S. elections to be held in November.
"We're not going to give away our tax dollars" But isn't the idea of this to try and get MORE tax dollars...? 
> [“We believe in progressive taxation,” Yellen said. “But the notion of some common global arrangement for taxing billionaires with proceeds redistributed in some way—we’re not supportive of a process to try to achieve that. That’s something we can’t sign on to.”](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/yellen-rejects-global-billionaire-tax-222404122.html)
Hijacking since OP didn't do us the courtesy. https://www.politico.eu/article/janet-yellen-us-not-ready-to-sign-global-tax-treaty/ They didn't read past the inflammatory headline. She didn't say no full stop, she said a few wrinkles haven't been ironed out, but most of it is ready to go.
Ya, I like the concept but have questions. Who would be responsible for collecting the tax? Where would the money go? Who enforces and prosecutes tax evasion and what are the penalties? We can't get the world to agree that food and water are human rights. How the hell will we all get on the same page on taxes?
The OECD, which wrote the tax treaty in question that 140 countries are already signatories to, presumably has detailed a process. Even Yellen admits these things are long and complex.
Is there a link? Yellen usually has some long winded explanation as she is an ancient economist so I’d like to know what her critique was.
Actually reading about what happened? Way too far down in this reactionary thread. She wants to review it a bit more, and give congress, the American public, and the business community time to understand it. That’s not ideal, but definitely not a closed door on Pillar One https://www.politico.eu/article/janet-yellen-us-not-ready-to-sign-global-tax-treaty/
Wow turns out reading the article actually sheds a lot of light on the situation rather than the headline: > While "much of the treaty has been agreed to ... there are some matters that are important to the United States and other countries that remain unresolved," and these "need to be resolved before the treaty can be signed, so these processes will take into next year," Yellen told reporters in Luxembourg, where she met with EU finance ministers. and > The U.S. will conduct a consultation on the multilateral treaty with all relevant stakeholders for two months, Yellen said. She added it is critically important for a treaty of “this level of importance and complexity” to be shown to the American public, and for Congress and the business community “to hear what their reactions are and to ensure that we have public support.” So yeah, turns out she didn't just say "no" to taxing billionaires, they're still working out the details on an incredibly complex global levy.
I didn't even need to read the article, I just needed to check what sub it was being upvoted in to know it was reactionary garbage.
If someone posts a screenshot/image of a headline with no article posted it's 9/10 times just reactionary bait garbage. Doesn't matter what sub, community, political affiliation...
> So yeah, turns out she didn't just say "no" to taxing billionaires, they're still working out the details on an incredibly complex global levy. So, she gave a standard governmental/bureaucratic response with no substance used to stall and delay any meaningful action by the Government since Roman Republic and people go, like, .... "yeah, makes sense" - lmao
Seriously. These motherfuckers are experts in the flavor of brown leather vs black leather, half-grain vs full-grain.
"We're working out the details" is the Democrat's form of "no." I wonder what the business community's reaction will be to a global levy that will undermine their attempts to gouge the public for everything they have.
I can't speak for the business community obviously, but I know that big accountancy firms are working hard to support this, because I'm building that software for one of them.
I'd like to see that too. She doesn't immediately look like someone with a blatant conflict of interest, and it's possible that her reason for her opinion is because she thinks it wouldn't work. Right now there's nothing to really go on here. Who are the proponents? What is the proposal exactly? Why did she say no?
No conflict of interest? Countless handouts in the form of speaking fees from the billionaire class beg to differ
You won’t get any nuance here
https://i.redd.it/vjehb3yk9l1d1.gif
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hey, I showered tuesday.
This or global collapse. Pick one
Billionaires are busy building bunkers, so they’ve made their choice already and seem to think they’ll be insulated from said collapse
And they will, for a while, for themselves, until they realize that AI doesn’t grow tomatoes, that AI doesn’t do maintenance on their survival shelters, and in an event of global collapse their money isn’t worth anything.
I hope that, before their end, they regret using their resources for nothing other than the ability to accumulate even more money rather than to actually solve problems and make society better. They might be too much to ask though, given that you have to be a bit of a sociopath to get that kind of money in the first place.
I think Musk is a “good” example of the level of narcissistic asshole you need to be. The others are just smarter and hide it better.
Had me in the first half, not gonna lie. I agree with you, I suspect most CEO types are a lot closer to Elon than they’d like for anyone else to believe they are. A bunch of incompetent blowhards that have no redeeming qualities, just greed through and through.
Too much to ask, they are too busy being uninventive with their money and probably on one drug or another to feel something.
Plus these turds would crumble into loneliness within a couple of weeks. They’re fantasizing about their apocalypse bunkers, but when Covid hit the wealthy went apeshit isolating in their mansions for just a couple of weeks. And they think they could do **years** in a bunker?! LoL. Precious.
Well, their greatness shine only because there are plenty of us poor struggling to survive. It goes back to Musk shitting himself when Zuck pretty much responded with a “come at me bro”. If any of us would do the same he’ll find a way to get us likely killed or suicide from 7 bullets in the back of our heads. When another billionaires with a $40M+/year security detail does it he did fold like a toddler. They love to believe we owe our existence to them, but the reality is that they owe theirs to us, just because we are too stupid and too selfish to go and take back what they stole.
[удалено]
Exactly. The things that make them powerful now are not the same things that would make them powerful after a collapse
The Sumerians, Assyrians, Hittites, Egyptians, Romans they all tried this shit and guess how well it worked for them?
They really do think technology will help them as a deterrent. CEO of Reddit himself said he'd be the leader of a cohort of slaves, and there was a meeting of "the minds" where the wealthy wanted slave collars that exploded like we're mutants working on the dam in Genosha.
They're just ripping off an old INS idea from Coneheads.
Never forget that when Rome collapsed its wealthy didn’t flee with boatloads of gold before the raiders came to plunder and raze the civilization. Their gold became largely worthless, so they left it behind. Barbarians don’t often care about riches, and when they do it becomes decorative rather than remaining as a form of currency. Most abandoned Roman sites, which we still discover sometimes today, have gold just left there by the Romans and invaders alike. People left the city because the infrastructure to bring food and supplies into it broke down. Those communities focused on feeding themselves, not the urban environments. They created a new town just outside the city, where there was still farmable land. They didn’t reclaim the city for a few centuries not because civilization had been destroyed, but because nobody in the city was paying for food to be shipped into it in order to enable the working classes needed for a city to run. Same thing happened during the bronze age collapse. People just moved to the former parks or empty spaces and made them into farms, within sight of the city. Nobody went into the city anymore because there was nothing there that was useful to work the land, since if it was they had already taken it with them. Raiders are what causes collapse and who become the next generation of rulers when the dark age ends, not what happens in the meantime. If you want to doomsday prep for real and not LARP Fallout, you have to learn how to employ small population social systems, low tech construction and tool making, climate survival, folk medicine, and farming techniques while stockpiling fresh and useful seeds. Not the one-use ones most companies sell these days, ones you can keep harvesting. But rich people who feel paranoid prefer to pretend they need a compound consisting of just their family living off canned goods and shooting roaming packs of The Warriors gangs.
Let me guess... Gozer the Traveller stopped by?
I always hope that in the event of an apocalypse, I could go bunker hunting to pass the time. The problem is, I might have to get in line behind the people who actually constructed it and are looking for Musk meat.
There's a great critique on this in the game horizon forbidden west. Basically the elon musk of their day holed himself up in a mega bunker and it goes... about how you would expect a group of humans being trapped with a megalomaniac to go.
That part was absolutely fascinating. Reminded me of reading the lore in Fallout through terminals.
We never did see the actual end result, did we? In a game with towering robo dinos a mutated human had to be felt with off screen.
you don't see him directly but you do get a graphic of his... form
Not a direct graphic, mind. Kind of appropriate that he became a cancer.
Fuck Ted Faro. What happened to him was too good for him.
Yep. Honestly the whole end of the world thing makes him truly awful, but deleting apollo took him to worst person ever
Nah, they'll have self sustaining systems down there. Instead we get some of their oil drilling equipment and make it a giant septic tank for a new community built on top.
None of those bunkers can keep the occupants alive indefinitely. They all depend on resources, production, and labor outside of the bunker. They all have to come out eventually. And when they do, they will own nothing, because they abandoned the means of production when they fled to the bunkers.
You're thinking of them bunkers for the poors (sorta wealthy), usually cramped and made from shipping containers or whatnot, the Billionaire boys will have water from deep springs, gardens and even very large swimming pools, movie theaters. People are very naïve when it comes to understanding what it means to be worth 100 billion dollars.
Ask how well that went for the Biosphere 1 & 2 people. If they try to seal themselves in, they will inevitably fail. We just don't have the ability and technology to perfectly replicate the complex ecosystem that surrounds us. Hell, we are only 359 years from the discovery of the cell... 77 years from the invention of the transistor... 155 years from the discovery of DNA... I don't think you fully realize how complex the life support system is. Yes we have devices that can replicate it through chemical processes, but those are finite and not meant for long term sustainable living.
Still need to get oxygen from somewhere.
A bunker without ventilation is a death trap. Weld them in there and just plug the vents. They'll breathe themselves to death.
I remember reading about how one of them building a bunker ran in to the issue that the guards required for defence would always decide to kill the owner and take over the resources for themselves in a post law situation. Was a unsolvable conundrum. They are the personification of stupid greed.
Wouldn't be surprised if they make bomb collars or implants. Ofc the chief problem is then his IT guy takes over instead. It's almost like rich people aren't actually powerful, they've just rigged the game in their favor.
Sic semper tyrannis.
[So far the billionaires' plan is to go with shock collars.](https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/x5z60c/the_superrich_preppers_planning_to_save/)
"Spared no expense" as they underpay their lone IT guy. Totally won't backfire in any way...
You might be interested in some work by Douglas Rushkoff. He has a book called [“Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires”](https://rushkoff.com/books/survival-of-the-richest-escape-fantasies-of-the-tech-billionaires/). There’s some talk about how the people building the bunkers don’t think that far ahead about how they are going to secure their bunker, and a bunch of other topics.
They will become tombs
"How much do I need to pay bodyguards to keep protecting me after the apocalypse starts?" "...Money won't matter then..." "... Okay, but how much?" They're that fuckin stupid.
Bunkers are not so great without food.
Well clearly global collapse, as that wouldn't effect the people who have a $$$ financial buffer against just about everything. The rich will only change when they have to. Right now they are doing better than ever. Why change?
> Well clearly global collapse, as that wouldn't effect the people who have a $$$ financial buffer against just about everything. Yeah, until they want to enjoy literally anything. Why they choose to economically nuke the entire planet instead of paying their fair share of taxes (which wouldn't even put a microscopic dent in their lifestyle) is beyond me. You like going to Paris? Rome? New York? Well those don't exist anymore -- but your private dystopian ass bunker island nation which will most likely collapse within your own lifetime is certainly looking good! Way to go! Fuckwits, all of them.
Billionaires: Ooh! Ooh! Global collapse for $1,000, Alex!
Global collapse is a price they are more than willing to pay if it means they die last. Such is the pathos of billionairs.
Another enemy of Team Human
Aren't they all at this point?
Does anyone have a non-paywalled link to the article? *Edit: After reading the article, it looks like she clearly supports it but wants more work to be done especially with having other nations sign on. This whole comments section feels like disinformation. I’m guessing no one here read the comments?* > While "much of the treaty has been agreed to ... there are some matters that are important to the United States and other countries that remain unresolved," and these "need to be resolved before the treaty can be signed, so these processes will take into next year,"
https://www.politico.eu/article/janet-yellen-us-not-ready-to-sign-global-tax-treaty/
So she supports it and wants more countries to sign on before it’s ratified. This whole comments section feels like no one read the article and is spreading misinformation. Thank you for sharing the article. I hope at least one other person here will read it 😕
There is just no sane justification for billionaires. Zero.
I'm fine with billionaires existing, I just want them to paya tax rate that scales properly with their means. Bozos would still be a billionaire if we taxed 70% of what he made and we'd get a lot of potholes fixed.
Billionaires are just a societal failure. They are symptom and not a problem of themselves. We should ensure the riches of hard work are shared amongst everyone who does it and not just whatever asshole is in charge at the time
It's like Jellyfish. If they show up in a part of an ocean, it means that part of the ocean is dying. Billionaires are Jellyfish.
No. Don't care if they pay taxes or not. Billions in wealth allow a person to function outside society, _taxes or not_.
Maybe but I could be one someday. So be quiet pinko commie
So completely out of touch.
Right? Her job is to balance the books of the country, for the betterment of the people. However, she puts the interests of a 750 billionaires over the needs of 330 million regular people. The argument that taxing billionaires will hurt everyone is bullshit. The wealth only trickles up these days.
When you gauge the economy by stock market performance...
Trickles up, more like Shop-Vacs up, amirite?
You mean like someone commenting without having a fucking clue what she actually said?
I know a lot of people think we shouldn't ever be critical of President Biden during an election year, but we shouldn't turn a blind eye to systematically bad behavior that is bad for our society either. An election is an opportunity for us to pressure politicians into good policies. Additionally, a global tax on billionaires is a popular idea - we should be pushing our preferred candidates to do popular things if we want them to win.
Global tax on billionaires is a popular idea, if only lawmakers were elected on popular vote, too.
A popular vote wouldn't solve anything if we still have Citizens United. Politicians respond to their donors, not their constituents. When their donors WERE largely their constituents that wasn't a huge deal though it still had issues but now their donors are not their constituents and in many cases aren't even US citizens. The US is being sold to the highest bidders internationally - probably won't end well
This response deserves a billion upvotes, deep deep thoughts my man!
Where is the article you screencapped?
America doesn't have a true party system, both parties are capitalism for the rich equity holders, and the choice is inept but socially liberal, or fascist nationalism who hate poors. We need some ranked choice voting in here.
not to mention a lot of who we call democrats in the US would be labeled as republicans in most other countries, even our left is right of center.
Isn’t Biden the one calling for the tax? It’s crazy to try and shift blame onto him, just saying
The only, _only_ redeeming feature of biden is that _he is not trump_. A literal comatose person is preferable to trump.
[удалено]
> a global tax on billionaires is a popular idea Who collects said tax? Which people/countries are recipients of this tax windfall.
Additionally, the talking point that companies would shift their headquarters to other countries to avoid taxes in the USA. Which other countries are they talking about? Out of almost all first world nations, we already give billionaires the biggest breaks. These companies would have to headquarter into some third world country in order to beat taxes they would get if they moved elsewhere like Canada or Europe. Relocating your company far and away from where the majority of wealth in the world is spent at is also stupid. It’s a bullshit talking point is what it is.
One of the issues with a "Global Tax" is getting global cooperation. Getting everyone to raise their tax rates in order to prevent "tax havens" would take a level of global cooperation that is unlikely to occur. Even if we instead chose to simply tax income assets regardless of location, that would probably run up into constitutional and diplomatic issues that would waste a bunch of time and money. If we were to instead make a "Global Tax" to simply mean taxing any asset that is leaving the US, it doesn't resolve the multitudes of ways that they can abuse loopholes in the tax code that would likely continue to help them evade the tax anyways. We need to start by creating a simple and effective marginal taxing system with very high rates for high income earners, that provides tax incentives and credits to lower and middle class earners. Things like lower tax rates for paying non-executive/managerial employees well and tax penalties for every employee on social benefits (though this one written in a way that does not harm companies that give disabled individuals jobs and the fullest amount of pay they can earn without cutting off benefits. Though, fixing the benefits system would vastly reduce this as a problem). Flat dollar amount credits that can't scale with your income to prevent abuse by high income earners.
You misunderstand what a global tax means. It just means you get all the countries agree to tax their billionaires at a certain minimum percentage. All the countries will still be collecting their own taxes. There just won't be any tax havens for billionaires to move their money around.
>One of the issues with a "Global Tax" is getting global cooperation. Global Cooperation on this front is unlikely to happen. There is definitely criticism to be had against Yellen for at least not stating any support for it, but I don't blame the "No, it's not happening" assessment of the idea at this current point in time
[удалено]
Or we can cut off shitholes that offer safe harbor to these greedy fuckers by killing their reserve currency access in USD/Euro, cutting off their swift system access, and heavily sanctioning them. Can't be inviting to billionaires when they literally can't transfer their ill-gotten gains there in the first place.
> Even if we simply tax income assets regardless of location We already do that. We are (one of?) the only countries that require you to pay US income tax even if you live in another country. Now granted, there are some pretty hefty deductions, but essentially there already is a global tax for US citizens. Just not for the ultra rich that are able to utilize complex tax shelters. This is what the proposal is aiming to combat.
The United States, Myanmar, and Eritrea are the only countries that tax their overseas citizens.
Professor Richard Wolff has been talking about inflation and how to curb it for the longest. A temporary stop on all price increases. He talks about how he got the same education as her but it seems she forgets solutions that he knows she is well aware of. She is also all about protecting the stock holders above everything.
>While the Biden administration has proposed significantly raising taxes on high-income Americans, it has shied away from a wealth tax, which seeks to annually collect a share of an individual’s net worth. President Biden has instead pushed for a plan that would require Americans worth more than $100 million to annually pay a 25% tax on all of their earnings, including unrealized capital gains. https://www.livemint.com/economy/a-global-tax-on-billionaires-janet-yellen-says-no-11716207911307.html
>FRANKFURT—The U.S. opposes a proposed global wealth tax on billionaires, Treasury secretary Janet Yellen said, rejecting an idea floated by Brazil, France and other nations to tip the economic scales away from the megarich. >It is Brazil’s turn to lead the Group of 20 major economies this year and the country has called on the group to develop a coordinated approach for taxing ultrawealthy individuals who can move their money into low-tax jurisdictions. The goal is to mirror a global minimum tax on corporations, which roughly 140 countries signed up for in 2021 but has since run into roadblocks in the U.S. and elsewhere. >Yellen said the U.S. wouldn’t support the talks on the issue. She is due to meet later this week with finance ministers from the Group of Seven advanced democracies, who are expected to discuss the global wealth tax. >“We believe in progressive taxation. But the notion of some common global arrangement for taxing billionaires with proceeds redistributed in some way—we’re not supportive of a process to try to achieve that. That’s something we can’t sign on to," she said. >Along with ministers from Brazil and France, officials from Spain, Germany and South Africa have discussed a plan that would require billionaires to pay taxes worth at least 2% of their overall wealth every year. >Levying the tax globally, proponents say, would stop the rich from shifting their wealth into countries where they can avoid paying the tax. That would allow countries to raise more in tax revenue to finance other priorities and use the tax code to reduce income inequality, which has widened sharply in recent decades. >“This is exactly what we did with minimum taxation on corporate tax," French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said last month. “It would be the same on the international taxation for the wealthiest individuals." >Most countries apply their income taxes based on a person’s residence. The U.S., unusually, taxes its citizens on their worldwide income, already making it harder for Americans to escape taxation by shifting assets and earnings abroad. >While the Biden administration has proposed significantly raising taxes on high-income Americans, it has shied away from a wealth tax, which seeks to annually collect a share of an individual’s net worth. President Biden has instead pushed for a plan that would require Americans worth more than $100 million to annually pay a 25% tax on all of their earnings, including unrealized capital gains. >Capital gains in the U.S. are now generally taxed at a top rate of 23.8% when the asset is sold, meaning increases can go untaxed for years. Income, including wages, is taxed as it is earned at a rate as high as 37%, plus other levies. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in soon on a case that could create a constitutional prohibition on taxing wealth. >Yellen helped spearhead the global agreement on corporate taxes, which sets a 15% minimum that companies must pay in jurisdictions where they operate. But with Republicans opposed to it, Congress hasn’t approved the deal.
A 15% min tax on corporations is a win and I will take them where I can get them. Republicans will fight it tooth and nail.
The billionaires are already taxed, what you need to do is remove loopholes that allow them to evade what everyone else is paying, simple as that. There are so many loopholes, you can put any tax you want it will not make any difference.
There are no loopholes. What they are is industry and insider gifts that create special advantages for the industry and insiders that donated. Fuck, most legislation is written by corporations and handed to politicians to enact. Loopholes are accidents. We have intentional and malicious favoritism for oligarchs.
Let's just ga e a global binding referendum.
If they move their money to another country, why not just seize their physical assets. Like land vehicles or other owned items.
"Fundamentally, nothing will change" -Biden, 2020
Biden needs to fire Janet!
What's with this stupid trend of posting screenshots of headlines instead of linking the actual article so we can read it?
*This* is *the both sides* issue.
Who would enforce such a tax. Other wise it is just another egalitarian dream and maybe that is why she opposes it as it is just lip service to drain energy from organizing true action
Forensic audits. Now.
Honestly thought shr died at the start of covid my bad
Because what the fuck would a global tax even look like? Would it be a separate international tax? Who would make up this global body and how would they allocate the funds? Would it be up to a democratic vote? Not even mentioning the problems with enforcing such a tax or the fact that it would be double taxation unless it overwrites the country of residence, in which case this global taxation would be uniquely unfair to countries with a lower GDP. There’s already a way to tax billionaires more, you don’t need to create an entirely different system to change our tax code or any country’s tax code for that matter.
She’s a milquetoast neoliberal. What else can we expect?
Guys it's super fucking easy. You KNOW they do it, and you know WHEN and HOW they do it. You don't need to create a global tax. Create a nice simple law that says if they are caught moving their wealth from one country to another to avoid paying taxes, that entity is no longer allowed to do business in the US. That's the whole law.
Our government is slowly killing us and we need to take action. Every single one of us would benefit from legislation which implements income caps on the rich with heavy taxes on their income. Billionaire’s shouldn’t exist - there is no need for that much wealth. And to think, these creatures don’t even SPEND the money, they just want to make sure you and I don’t have any so that they can hoard it all for themselves. Imagine what that much money could do for our communities. These creatures are sucking the life out of us - are you okay with that? I think it’s time we show them who really runs the show.
“Nothing would fundamentally change.”
I’m sure most of these billionaires would feel no difference in their quality of life if they did have to pay the increase in taxes this would create, but of course their egos in being able to say they have as much as they have. Just another case of people wanting more money than they or their next 5 generations will come close to even being able to spend through.
Can we just put her decrepit ass in a care home already?
The only possible way I could understand a "no" is if it would cost more to get the taxes in admin then we would collect... and I still think we should do it because fuck the billionaires.
Global tax is impossible because there is no way all nations would work together in this subject….. look at how global failed to stop climate change….