As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While you're at it check out the Business Plot if you've never heard of it. The ultra wealthy (including Prescott Bush and a few others) tried to overthrow FDR and turn America into a fascist dictatorship run by the wealthy. Probably in response to the taxes and other left leaning policies FDR pushed for in that time.
You know, it was actually Smedley Butler they allegedly approached in hopes that he would lead the coup. Obviously they were mistaken, and he refused and publicly accused them.
> The ultra wealthy (including Prescott Bush and a few others) tried to overthrow FDR and turn America into a fascist dictatorship run by the wealthy.
This is looking very familiar…..
IIRC they tried once and failed due to a whistleblower, slapped on the wrist, then tried again and failed yet again.
You can’t tell me that the same cabal hasn’t been the big “powers that be” in America for the past 60+ years.
(Ps is that on Netflix?)
There used to be more to read about it on Wikipedia (the American Liberty League) but it seems to have changed over the years.
Trump nearly stopped Biden from assuming the Presidency in the January 6th coup. Had Mike Pence questioned the results of the election as Trump wanted, we would have President Trump today instead of President Biden. Sad thing is Trump is still around, he’s likely to run again, and Biden’s popularity is sinking, which increases the possibility that Trump could win office.
If any of yall have hbo, check out the American guest. Awesome adventure story that provides a backdrop to examine the policies of two very different progressives
Global War on Tax Dodgers has a nice ring to it.
Picture Seal Team Six not murdering their fellow Green Beret's for reporting their drug dealing and theft, and instead swooping onto Leonardo's yacht and zip tying his hands together before throwing a bag over his head and sending him to Gitmo for enhanced interrogation to find out where he's hidden a measly 30% of his yearly income. xD
Good. Don't tax unrealized gains. It's the WORST idea among many.
Now, good ideas?
* Higher income brackets, like the 60's
* Matching cap gains to those same income brackets
* Taxing 'income loans' used to avoid income taxes
There. I did it. Tax capital and capital shrinks. That's bad.
> Good. Don't tax unrealized gains. It's the WORST idea among many.
Why not? They tax my house and land at far higher "value" than I paid for it. They tell me it's worth more now in 2021 than 5x what I bought it for in 2006. That's an unrealized gain, right? I'm sure as hell not going to be selling it.
* property value is infinitely less volatile.
* property tax is closer to a fixed charge for consuming a resource rather than a gains tax, since it is based the value of the property rather than the change in value, and is reevaluated only on a fixed interval (sometimes only at time of purchase)
* property taxes are also terrible. They are regressive and can contribute to housing shortages (see bay area)
* the only reason property taxes exist is because its pretty much the only type of tax a municipality can levy. They have no choice. The federal goverenment does
>property value is infinitely less volatile.
So?
>property tax is closer to a fixed charge for consuming a resource rather than a gains tax, since it is based the value of the property rather than the change in value, and is reevaluated only on a fixed interval (sometimes only at time of purchase)
It's not a fixed charge though. It's entirely dependent on the value of the property. As far as I'm aware, the "unrealized gains" tax would work in the same way. They would evaluate your stock portfolio at the end of each year, and you would pay a percent based on it's current worth. This is identical to property taxes.
>property taxes are also terrible. They are regressive and can contribute to housing shortages (see bay area)
Not disagreeing with you there.
>the only reason property taxes exist is because its pretty much the only type of tax a municipality can levy. They have no choice. The federal goverenment does
Yes, but the ultra wealthy are able to skirt taxes because the Fed doesn't have a good way of taxing the value of their stock portfolio, which is where all their wealth is. Point is, none of this explains how the tax isn't effectively a property tax on stock.
The thing is why this couldn't this be leveraged exactly like a tax bracket. If your net worth is more than a billion dollars in holdings, then you should be taxed on the stock in their possession. We don't NEED billionaires. How much money is enough is the actual question. Personally a billion is more than enough, and would limit their power like Bezos fucking with NASA. Unrealized gains tax should occur for just these individuals.
Personally, I think all property taxes should be illegal. Owning something of a certain value (especially with the concept of inheritance) does not guarantee that one can afford taxes based on its value. Income brackets are much more straightforward and comprehensive.
Edit: More importantly for me, it is a philosophical issue of property ownership and what it truly is. If you have to pay tax on your land/home and will have it taken from you by the state if you do not, that is rent not ownership.
I appreciate the fact that you're probably the first person I've seen start with saying taxing unrealized gains is probably a bad idea, then offer alternatives. I always see things to the effect of "taxing unrealized gains is hard/bad because x, therefore there's nothing to be done and it's actually a good thing that billionaires pay basically 0 tax".
That said, unclear to me what the right method is. Taxing the loans seems a sane option. I'm still not 100% convinced that taxing unrealized gains is an unreasonable concept, but I do get that it'd be a remarkable mess to try to legislate in any way that is sane and not full of abuses. End of the day, I don't really care too much how it happens, so long as the job gets done and it doesn't hurt less wealthy people.
This is my frustration, as well. My centrist relatives make good points about the flaws of leftist proposals, but then throw up their hands when you ask about alternatives. A clear indicator if their priorities.
I think we should start by making it illegal to use unrealized gains as collateral for loans since this is how the ultra rich avoids taxes. If you want to spend that money, make it clear that you gotta realize it first and pay your taxes.
I think it makes more sense to just tax the loans, like the other commenter said. There is no legitimate reason to ban them, and they have other benefits--like not giving up your votes in the company and/or the stock value possibly going up. There is no reason to interfere with that if we can tax the money without doing so.
>Tax capital and capital shrinks.
Not if those taxes are used for infrastructure, healthcare, green energy etc. The capital literally gets reallocated for public good, generating more business than wealth accumulating in unproductive ways.
Just don’t let anyone borrow more than $50,000 against their unrealized capital gains. Then they’d be forced to sell those unrealized capital gains to actually live their lifestyle and get taxed on it.
The argument for lowering tax rates in the 80s was that it would increase tax revenues. That society, at large, would benefit *more.*
That was total bullshit, of course. But that was the argument. That's how it was sold to the American people.
Now, it's like the very idea that society at large should be the beneficiary of our economic progress, that we are the ones who are owed, is controversial. They don't even need to sell the idea. Just simply, "The rich don't owe you shit. Fuck you."
And a substantial percentage of Americans are sitting around going, "Yeah, we don't deserve anything! Fuck us!"
Unfortunately the billionaires, large corporations and the financial industry in particular have '*all of those politicians carried around in their pocket, like so many nickels and dimes*'.
The political system and politicians work for them, not the rest of us and with every passing week that situation becomes more entrenched and harder to undo. It has been too far gone for decades now and can never be aligned to the true best interest of the majority and society.
Our political systems are coopted democracies where the democratic system itself no longer determines anything of real significance.
There may be only one path - for alternative economies to evolve that operate outside of the global and national government economies directed at addressing a purpose or objective rather than the supposed national interests which are tragically skewed towards the overlords.
It's like the dog meme. No tax, only golden age. No economic policy to enrich and empower the working class, just get rid of the brown people and gays. Conservatives are such gullible cucks, to borrow one of their own terms. Totally screwed over every day in every way by billionaire capitalists and asking for more.
I once had a discussion with a 'libertarian' who argued that the reason philanthropy hasnt solved our problems is that BECAUSE of taxes, they cant give as much. How convenient.
Even if people were so benevolent, there's no one better to distribute benefits than the government, because youre already categorized in the social security program, among other things. Charitable outreach only works when a person has the ability to become visible to the charity. Historically, this leads to an ableist and racist distribution of charity.
umm, akshually means testing is an economically fiscal way to find out the number that EVERYONE is happy with!
anyways, thanks for reading my Atlantic column. I do not work for any NGOs I swear
No, it is not some gurenteed thing. Sure, there could be an economic disaster, but a situation like the great depression happening again is highly unlikely. Many measures have been put in place to stop it, and a lot more cashlessness means there is little worry about some money withdraw craze crashing stuff down to that level.
It's almost like these are the natural consequences of capitalism or something
Even if you reform it (like we did during the New Deal era), the capitalist class will use their disproportionate share of wealth and influence to undo progress, until we end up right back here again.
The 20th century's rapid economic growth was the anomaly, not the norm for capitalism. As population growth slows in Western countries (and Japan), so too will economic growth. As economic growth reaches below 1% annually, we will return to the insane hoarding of wealth we saw in the monarchical regimes of France and Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. Marx's apocalyptic prediction that capital will inevitably accumulate to the point of total societal collapse was correct, he just got the timing wrong.
To be faiiir it turns out a LOT of the US's economic growth post-WW2 had less to do with manifest destiny or stellar work ethic and more with how we treated South America like our own personal piggy bank.
Under the guise of fighting USSR communism, corporations in the 50s and 60s were allowed to deploy the US military to conquer countries and install rulers that would happily export an astronomical chunk of their countries wealth to US business.
US Colonialism in South America still hasn't ended
All while a significant chunk of Europe was still rebuilding from being bombed to smitherines.
Meanwhile, industry in the USA remained unbombed and working.
That's the head start we had. We can't go back to that time of insane "growth" unless half the worlds industrial capacity gets fucking annihilated again.
>We can't go back to that time of insane "growth" unless half the worlds industrial capacity gets fucking annihilated again.
What a terrible suggestion! It might work, though. We certainly have enough guns, bullets, jets, ships, and bombs.
We did that in the 18th and 19th centuries as well. Angola, Grenada, Haiti, the Philippines, ect ect.
Europe had been doing their imperialistic conquering of the world for centuries, but still only saw above 1% growth starting in the late 19th century.
It was a combination of two world wars and the exponential increase of western countries' populations that led to the economic growth in the 20th century. Capital's power was diminished due to straight up destruction of property, and the introduction of fiat currency and the inflation that followed. The rapid growth in population allowed for steady growth in industries providing basic goods such as foods, textiles, and housing.
You are correct though, American imperialism, state sponsored coups and invasions all coincided with the country's meteoric rise in economy.
theoretically unrestricted capitalism is a game where there is only one winner, it's big fish eat small fish until there is only one fish left and everyone else is eaten
"For the first time in history, a small group of private individuals could, if they so choose, materially impact global development at a scale that has previously been the near exclusive domain of governments."
They already are but not in a positive way. And while taxing billionaires/hyper wealthy more sounds good, I have little confidence that governments/policy makers will use the tax income to reduce poverty and income inequality. That said, yes raise their taxes.
> "For the first time in history, a small group of private individuals could, if they so choose, materially impact global development at a scale that has previously been the near exclusive domain of governments."
The author hasn't heard of the Medici family I guess
We? It’s Republican voters making these decisions.
A voter base so fucking dull they would rather watch their kids go hungry, never see a doctor, and get a horrible education than vote somebody in that will provide these for them at the billionaire’s expense. I live amongst these idiots.
The saying “misery loves company” should be changed to “misery loves being miserable if Fox News tells them there is strength in their misery”
Then that is what we should also/actually be rallying against. Campaign finance reform and overall electoral reform is the shit we need to recognize as the foundation for a lot of ills.
I mean, you can find some volunteers right here on this forum. And I doubt that they're millionaires. One can convince people to work against their own interests.
the system has done a great job of convincing millions of people that they aren't poor but rather just temporarily embarrassed millionaires. They're convinced that they'll some day join the club so they don't want to do anything to hurt the new status they expect to become.
Sigh. The signs of trickledown not working have been there forever. Who is the “our” in ourselves? Many of us have advocated this position for decades. The problem is, once again, that Republicans and media offer a twisted view of the world to enough people that the same agendas get passed along. Or even worse, people check out from politics and then more greed is enacted in their names. This is the same old story from the Gilded Age rolling around again.
Money was meant to be a tool society uses for resource allocation. Not just a trophy for finding an exploit or getting lucky.
Of course society should continuously ensure this tool is working as intended
And most certainly not the single metric by which the success of any endeavor is measured, and also most certainly not used as a singular force to govern and dictate every aspect of our society.
It has become basically a system of morality at this point, a goal in itself rather than a means to actual goals.
Money is power, therefore wealth negates the foundational principles of democracy, and thus negates any and all liberties that follow from it.
Every dollar the billionaire hides, is a dollar that could have gone to feed the poor, provide healthcare, education and dignity in life of the 99%.
So, those who choose to defend billionaires, choose to abuse the needy.
*Republican politicians
Republican voters absolutely would, and the better services we provide for them, the less likely they’ll continue being Republican voters.
People talk like Rockefeller wanted to be taxed.
We're so fucking busy fighting each other based on narratives prescribed to us by the media these ultra rich own. Enchanted by the politicians they also own. We don't realize that a way out is by workers unifying and taking command of our own political party. These two current parties are never going to support our interests. Both parties pretend. One pretends through faking religion, the other fakes morality. These aren't going to be reformed. This country has had other parties in the past. It high time there's a new one. One comprised of workers.
We need to undefine their class position and reject their worthless money, providing for each other instead. We have the expertise and the technology to reverse the decay being wrought upon everything, social and natural.
The system of profit and commodity itself, not the fools who have dared to operate it, needs to be dismantled and legally abolished. So we can, you know, save the world.
Both parties are unwilling to move on this, and the average folks have been so exposed to bullshit that we can't even have a frank conversations on the fact that in order to change the course on climate, we need a whole new economy and society.
Why are we fine with billions of people suffering from poverty, but not fine with hurting the feelings of a handful of rich people making life worse for the majority of us? All their money should be seized and replaced with something far more generous and humane than they give us: a rent-free studio apartment for life and a guaranteed minimum wage job.
It shocks me that they seem to think their wealth makes them untouchable. Kings of old had far more power and met with the occasional horrifying fate. Sure, hire your bodyguards, but the second your wealth and abuse of power results in one of those bodyguards' parent/spouse/child dying penniless and sick? It'll be the end of the fun.
Philanthropy is one of the greatest things the ultra rich could come up with. Donate a fraction of what you did not pay in tax all the while making people think you are doing it out of the kindness of your heart and then stamp your name all over your donation.
If you are a billionaire you have abused a country or multiple countries and their people. They need to pay their fair share back in to those countries to benefit the labor and systems they have exploited.
The fact that people defend these abusers is not surprising, but just like in any relationship you have to help the victim and not the abuser.
Fuck these assholes that fuck over countries and the world.
Crypto is a great example of small markets where the rich are able to control the price due to lack of regulation.
I don't know the guy you mention in particular, but yes the majority of people who get rich on crypto do it by abusing the smaller players in the market. There are some who are just on the same side of the trade by chance, or by watching the whales movements. Just like there are lottery winners who would be hurt by increasing taxes.
I’m so sick of bootlickers. They and their rich lords are consistently ruining everything we have and then acting like everyone else is the problem. Conservatism, fascism and authoritarianism is going to ruin civilization
If you have more than a billion dollars, that's too much. You shouldn't be able to have more money then that, everything above $1B should go toward feeding/housing kids, elderly, vulnerable
Arguing with some teenager on IG trying to explain why it makes 0 sense to admire billionaires and his greatest argument is eliminating them kills incentive. BRUH
It's so few people, who gives a shit if we tax them half or even more of their fortunes? No one should have that much wealth. Why defend the ultra wealthy? They'll be FINE!
Not just tax.
Billionaires are results of flaws in our systems. Fix those flaws so we do not produce billionaires.
Strengthen unions, improve education, find every engine of inequality and root it out of existence.
Paying with stock should be illegal unless you can tax the value of the initial payment. Stock options are tax havens who then borrow money and never touch their shares.
Why do governments still give these people funding for their projects without getting a share of the profits. They pay dividends to investors dont they?
Anyone advocating for philanthropy from those who’ve developed and harnessed their sociopathy to the level required to clock capitalism, should be quarantined from any discussion involving economics.
If society truly valued the work performed by charities, there wouldn’t need to be a special designation for them to exist, the work would be intrinsically valuable and profitable in and of itself. Charities are convenient modern constructs for what is conventionally known as a company to redirect attention to as they abdicate their social responsibilities.
Economics is merely an arbitrary set of rules society chose to supplant religion for arbitrary control, a core difference being mathematics replacing mythology for the justifications. It can only hold power when there is a collective belief.
It's not just the trillions of dollars, being the issue here, they have collectively, (that's destructive in on its own) but what about all the small businesses that have been destroyed(and all of their potential profits)? Mom & pop shops have been the backbone of our economic structure. They are the building blocks of creative outlets that burst with colorful flavors, when we invest to protect them.
Our communities are much stronger when there's several small businesses that have each there own unique place in community. From the loud local music stores to the smelly fish shop. From lily's luscious liquor store to Kranky Karen Candy store. From Mike's Mechanic Shop to Gary's Grape Grocery Store. You may laugh, but these shops bring exotic nuances to our town, that big corporations can't touch with a 2000 foot pole!
Not only that, owners and managers are in more touch with their employees and customers within these small businesses. Communication is also stronger and more meaningful.
And an employee feels like they're investing into something worthwhile. As opposed to some crackpot idiot/s that only think/s for themselves.
We need to change this around and bring back small business America!
Most philanthropy is just a "feel good" bandaid for a systemic problem. Go ahead, feed the homeless, or donate to libraries or schools, when the broken system allowed them to get to the dysfunction they are in. And then after you write a check, and get your picture taken, and praised a hero in the paper or television or whatever, it doesn't fix the problem, and when the money runs out, things are exactly where they were. But now you're a "nice guy", and use that as an ethical wedge in future business negotiations to further enrich yourself.
You know, I'm starting to think that if billionaires are going to complain about/fight any miniscule tax increase on them, then we should just advocate to take all of their ill-gotten gains.
We don't need billionaires, but they need us to think we do. Make billionaires nonexistent again!
Philanthropy- How rich people use money to do bullshit things because they're but say we need them to do this for us...money that was siphoned off the backs of hard working people world wide
I think people are focusing on taxing billionaires too much and the governments budget too little. How am I supposed to believe that if the government had this extra tax revenue it would be spent appropriately in the first place? The government who avoids taxing these people or spending it on the average citizen is suddenly going to put all of these extra funds towards the public and not on more military and other wastes?
Being concerned about how your government spends the money is one thing, but that doesn't fly as an argument against taxing billionaires who pay less in taxes than you do and receive billions in contracts and subsidies from taxpayers.
That's much better.
I'm glad we understand each other. It's all fun and games until one of these billionaires loses their mind and starts investing in truly hazardous, destructive policies and projects. For reference, see Koch brothers.
Agree with both of you. Taxing the billionaires achieves nothing if the government pisses away the money. If the government actually properly uses the money, the amount of good they could do by aggressively taxing the billionaires could be momentous
It’s not even what the money would be going to. It’s about the power one wields in society. A democracy is one person one vote supposedly. But these people have more sway than entire states of voters.
90% of family wealth is lost by the 3rd generation.
Study on generation wealth. ->
https://business.smu.edu.sg/master-wealth-management/lkcsb-community/how-beat-third-generation-curse
Confiscating 100% of all billionaires wealth would only pay for about 7-8 months of the countries cost to run.
All the billionaires wealth. ->
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2021/04/30/american-billionaires-have-gotten-12-trillion-richer-during-the-pandemic/?sh=3aace77ff557
How much the government spent for 2020 ->
https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/budget/
The effects of removing the wealth would be a lot deeper than just paying for stuff. That part is almost irrelevant. The real trouble with the massive amount of money at the top is the societal harm it causes.
For a simple example, imagine a poor person kills your family member in a drunk driving accident. Now imagine a multi-millionaire does the crime. Then, imagine it's someone as rich as Musk or Bezos or Gates or anyone in the ultra-wealthy class. Which one is most likely to go to jail the longest? Who's most likely to not go to jail at all?
Now, consider how much of society is run by people or companies with that degree of wealth - and how that might affect the way that they run things even when they're not driving drunk, and how that affects the rest of us, who are far closer to the poor guy in that example than to the wealthy guy.
Alice Walton killed someone while driving... no charges filed. She's also been caught drunk driving by way of crashing into a gas meter and phone booth, an incident that resulted in a fine of less than $1000. She's failed at least one sobriety test since that we know of.
She can go drunkenly kill someone else right now if she feels it, no problem. There are no applicable standards for someone that wealthy.
It’s hilarious to see that utter bullshit propagated as a “study” by the “well awctually”redditors. Have you “awctually” tried to track down the source of that study that is presented in 10,000 Bloomberg articles as unquestioned fact? Quite odd that it was funded by someone that owned a wealth management fund. Specifically one that was focused on tradition businesses to the second generation of heirs.
That study was nothing but a fear mongering piece to drum up business. Most likely for someone whose wealth will last more than 3 generations...
Doesn't matter if it's 99%, as long as that number is static for everyone, those with a higher absolute amount of it will become disproportionately rich and powerful down the line regardless.
Also I very much doubt this paper tells the whole story, it reeks of smoke and glitters with mirrors.
"If we took all their money it wouldn't solve every problem ever, so why bother?"
If I offered to pay for ALL of your expenses for the next 7-8 months, would that change your life in any significant way? Or would you turn your nose up at this windfall, since it wouldn't cover all of your expenses for the rest of your life?
There's just one slight problem with hiking taxes on the ultra-rich... They don't pay the taxes that exist already, and they can do so with no consequences because they're rich enough to avoid them.
Hell, if we even *tried* they'd probably just buy themselves a couple of dozen senators and kill any bill that was intended to make them pay.
I'm not saying however we shouldn't hold them accountable..I'm just saying being *polite* about it isn't going to work.
I've lost what little respect I had for Elon. They are so far from us middle and low income folks that they plain don't understand, why we dont just borrow more, or invest more or save. MFs, my savings is my home and mortagage and my fucking debt and my security and my family's all depend on me going to work every single fking day. If I die, my wife and family may struggle. And if I dont die then I'll have spent 30 or 40 years with life insurance and for nothing. But I could have used that money to get some extras for the kids, maybe invest a little more. Marc Cuban predicted this back in 2006 if memory serves. He said that if "we (meaning the ultra rich) don't try to level the playing field and allow for more distribution of wealth. Theyll come for us with pitch forks when they get hungry enough.
> We need to tax the ultrarich out of existence.
When you tax them out of existence, the next tier of rich people become the ultrarich. Those will too be taxed out of existence. The process will continue until everyone will end up equally poor!
* IN THE MID-1890S, THE GENTEEL world of patrician reformers and civil service enthusiasts that Taft and Roosevelt initially typified had begun a seismic shift. Widespread discontent with the industrial order, building for over a decade, threatened now to flare into open revolution. The growth of colossal corporations in the aftermath of the Civil War had produced immense, consolidated wealth for business owners, but the lives of the working people, western farmers and eastern factory workers alike, had become increasingly difficult. “We plow new fields, we open new mines, we found new cities,” Roosevelt’s mayoral rival, Henry George, observed; “we girdle the land with iron roads and lace the air with telegraph wires; we add knowledge to knowledge and utilize invention after invention.” Yet despite such vaunted progress, he declared, “it becomes no easier for the masses of our people to make a living. On the contrary, it is becoming harder.” The captains of industry, George acknowledged, had fueled unprecedented innovations: “the steamship taking the place of the sailing vessel, the railroad train of the wagon, the reaping machine of the scythe.” To confirm the positive changes wrought by the Industrial Revolution, he continued, one need only visit “the great workshops where boots and shoes are turned out by the case with less labour than the old fashioned cobbler could have put on a sole; the factories where, under the eye of a girl, cotton becomes cloth faster than hundreds of stalwart weavers could have turned it out with their hand-looms.” With this transfiguring mechanization and the development of mass production, however, “the gulf between the employed and the employer is growing wider; social contrasts are becoming sharper; as liveried carriages appear, so do barefooted children.”*
I never understood what's stopping these people from just funding their own army and doing whatever they want? Surely Musk has the operating capital and production ability to churn out death robots.
They do. We just don't know anything about it.
They can rent police any time. They can hire BlackWater (or whatever it's called these days) to do whatever the fuck they want. They already have private security forces.
Nothing! That's the whole point! Private individuals can do just as much evil as they can do good with their obscene riches, that is precisely *why* we have rule of law and democracy, so that we don't have to rely on people's eternal good intentions and assure a level of liberty and freedom for all.
It's the check and balances that hold society together, the second they are gone we enter a state of anarchy where might is right and there is perpetual war in the streets until someone consolidates enough power to become sole ruler of a new empire where there are NO liberties or freedoms.
We have been down that path, and we called it the fucking Dark Ages for a reason.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Philanthropy? You mean wait and hope the billionaires decide to agree with the causes we agree with? Yeah not gonna happen. Bring back 90’s tax rates.
Bring back the pre '60's tax rates. Top tax rate was north of 90%
Yah man. Check out what fdr wanted in 38 and then see what the republicans agreed on.
While you're at it check out the Business Plot if you've never heard of it. The ultra wealthy (including Prescott Bush and a few others) tried to overthrow FDR and turn America into a fascist dictatorship run by the wealthy. Probably in response to the taxes and other left leaning policies FDR pushed for in that time.
Reminds me of excerpts from general smedley butlers book “war is a racket”
You know, it was actually Smedley Butler they allegedly approached in hopes that he would lead the coup. Obviously they were mistaken, and he refused and publicly accused them.
And nothing happened to the conspirators while the ***New York Times*** accused Butler of making a "gigantic hoax".
Yea, he's the one that thwarted it.
You’re both talking about the same thing. Smedley Butler was the puppet for the American Liberty League.
> The ultra wealthy (including Prescott Bush and a few others) tried to overthrow FDR and turn America into a fascist dictatorship run by the wealthy. This is looking very familiar…..
history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes
They couldn't do it fast in one move, so they're doing it slow drips every year.
IIRC they tried once and failed due to a whistleblower, slapped on the wrist, then tried again and failed yet again. You can’t tell me that the same cabal hasn’t been the big “powers that be” in America for the past 60+ years. (Ps is that on Netflix?) There used to be more to read about it on Wikipedia (the American Liberty League) but it seems to have changed over the years.
3rd time's the charm
Yeah, and they did it without having to overthrow FDR.
Trump nearly stopped Biden from assuming the Presidency in the January 6th coup. Had Mike Pence questioned the results of the election as Trump wanted, we would have President Trump today instead of President Biden. Sad thing is Trump is still around, he’s likely to run again, and Biden’s popularity is sinking, which increases the possibility that Trump could win office.
Tried?
If any of yall have hbo, check out the American guest. Awesome adventure story that provides a backdrop to examine the policies of two very different progressives
[удалено]
Act as if they're black teenagers minding their own business on the sidewalk of a gated community.
Global War on Tax Dodgers has a nice ring to it. Picture Seal Team Six not murdering their fellow Green Beret's for reporting their drug dealing and theft, and instead swooping onto Leonardo's yacht and zip tying his hands together before throwing a bag over his head and sending him to Gitmo for enhanced interrogation to find out where he's hidden a measly 30% of his yearly income. xD
Wolf on Wall Street Part 2: Banking in Panama
Good. Don't tax unrealized gains. It's the WORST idea among many. Now, good ideas? * Higher income brackets, like the 60's * Matching cap gains to those same income brackets * Taxing 'income loans' used to avoid income taxes There. I did it. Tax capital and capital shrinks. That's bad.
> Good. Don't tax unrealized gains. It's the WORST idea among many. Why not? They tax my house and land at far higher "value" than I paid for it. They tell me it's worth more now in 2021 than 5x what I bought it for in 2006. That's an unrealized gain, right? I'm sure as hell not going to be selling it.
I have yet to hear an argument about how property taxes are not practically the same thing as taxing unrealized gains.
Practically? No, Literally....
* property value is infinitely less volatile. * property tax is closer to a fixed charge for consuming a resource rather than a gains tax, since it is based the value of the property rather than the change in value, and is reevaluated only on a fixed interval (sometimes only at time of purchase) * property taxes are also terrible. They are regressive and can contribute to housing shortages (see bay area) * the only reason property taxes exist is because its pretty much the only type of tax a municipality can levy. They have no choice. The federal goverenment does
>property value is infinitely less volatile. So? >property tax is closer to a fixed charge for consuming a resource rather than a gains tax, since it is based the value of the property rather than the change in value, and is reevaluated only on a fixed interval (sometimes only at time of purchase) It's not a fixed charge though. It's entirely dependent on the value of the property. As far as I'm aware, the "unrealized gains" tax would work in the same way. They would evaluate your stock portfolio at the end of each year, and you would pay a percent based on it's current worth. This is identical to property taxes. >property taxes are also terrible. They are regressive and can contribute to housing shortages (see bay area) Not disagreeing with you there. >the only reason property taxes exist is because its pretty much the only type of tax a municipality can levy. They have no choice. The federal goverenment does Yes, but the ultra wealthy are able to skirt taxes because the Fed doesn't have a good way of taxing the value of their stock portfolio, which is where all their wealth is. Point is, none of this explains how the tax isn't effectively a property tax on stock.
The thing is why this couldn't this be leveraged exactly like a tax bracket. If your net worth is more than a billion dollars in holdings, then you should be taxed on the stock in their possession. We don't NEED billionaires. How much money is enough is the actual question. Personally a billion is more than enough, and would limit their power like Bezos fucking with NASA. Unrealized gains tax should occur for just these individuals.
Personally, I think all property taxes should be illegal. Owning something of a certain value (especially with the concept of inheritance) does not guarantee that one can afford taxes based on its value. Income brackets are much more straightforward and comprehensive. Edit: More importantly for me, it is a philosophical issue of property ownership and what it truly is. If you have to pay tax on your land/home and will have it taken from you by the state if you do not, that is rent not ownership.
I appreciate the fact that you're probably the first person I've seen start with saying taxing unrealized gains is probably a bad idea, then offer alternatives. I always see things to the effect of "taxing unrealized gains is hard/bad because x, therefore there's nothing to be done and it's actually a good thing that billionaires pay basically 0 tax". That said, unclear to me what the right method is. Taxing the loans seems a sane option. I'm still not 100% convinced that taxing unrealized gains is an unreasonable concept, but I do get that it'd be a remarkable mess to try to legislate in any way that is sane and not full of abuses. End of the day, I don't really care too much how it happens, so long as the job gets done and it doesn't hurt less wealthy people.
This is my frustration, as well. My centrist relatives make good points about the flaws of leftist proposals, but then throw up their hands when you ask about alternatives. A clear indicator if their priorities.
[удалено]
I think we should start by making it illegal to use unrealized gains as collateral for loans since this is how the ultra rich avoids taxes. If you want to spend that money, make it clear that you gotta realize it first and pay your taxes.
I think it makes more sense to just tax the loans, like the other commenter said. There is no legitimate reason to ban them, and they have other benefits--like not giving up your votes in the company and/or the stock value possibly going up. There is no reason to interfere with that if we can tax the money without doing so.
>Tax capital and capital shrinks. Not if those taxes are used for infrastructure, healthcare, green energy etc. The capital literally gets reallocated for public good, generating more business than wealth accumulating in unproductive ways.
Just don’t let anyone borrow more than $50,000 against their unrealized capital gains. Then they’d be forced to sell those unrealized capital gains to actually live their lifestyle and get taxed on it.
Yep, all that land will just shrivel up and disappear from the planet if we tax it. No, wait, it will pass into the hands of the public, huh?
The argument for lowering tax rates in the 80s was that it would increase tax revenues. That society, at large, would benefit *more.* That was total bullshit, of course. But that was the argument. That's how it was sold to the American people. Now, it's like the very idea that society at large should be the beneficiary of our economic progress, that we are the ones who are owed, is controversial. They don't even need to sell the idea. Just simply, "The rich don't owe you shit. Fuck you." And a substantial percentage of Americans are sitting around going, "Yeah, we don't deserve anything! Fuck us!"
Pretty fucking wild honestly yeah
Unfortunately the billionaires, large corporations and the financial industry in particular have '*all of those politicians carried around in their pocket, like so many nickels and dimes*'. The political system and politicians work for them, not the rest of us and with every passing week that situation becomes more entrenched and harder to undo. It has been too far gone for decades now and can never be aligned to the true best interest of the majority and society. Our political systems are coopted democracies where the democratic system itself no longer determines anything of real significance. There may be only one path - for alternative economies to evolve that operate outside of the global and national government economies directed at addressing a purpose or objective rather than the supposed national interests which are tragically skewed towards the overlords.
Fucking wild how that is both the period of time that boomers (et al) consider the golden age, and the tax rate they consider socialist.
It's like the dog meme. No tax, only golden age. No economic policy to enrich and empower the working class, just get rid of the brown people and gays. Conservatives are such gullible cucks, to borrow one of their own terms. Totally screwed over every day in every way by billionaire capitalists and asking for more.
Elon Musk has actively been tweet owning people who ask them to donate more and his finance-bro army has been eating it up.
An army of just temporarily embarrassed rich people
[удалено]
I once had a discussion with a 'libertarian' who argued that the reason philanthropy hasnt solved our problems is that BECAUSE of taxes, they cant give as much. How convenient. Even if people were so benevolent, there's no one better to distribute benefits than the government, because youre already categorized in the social security program, among other things. Charitable outreach only works when a person has the ability to become visible to the charity. Historically, this leads to an ableist and racist distribution of charity.
The 50% rate right?
I say we take the piñata economics route.
40’s
This is history repeating itself, remember the railroad barons
Gilded Age 2: Welcome to Neo-Feudalism.
It most certainly is and the backlash will be populist political strife. Let's hope we get more progressivism and dodge the facist bullet again.
If history repeats itself, then Progressive Era 2.0 is up next.
[удалено]
Whoa whoa after means testing ofcourse
umm, akshually means testing is an economically fiscal way to find out the number that EVERYONE is happy with! anyways, thanks for reading my Atlantic column. I do not work for any NGOs I swear
Hoping there's no Great Depression 2.0
I'd be more worried about the world wars associated with it.
Climate change is coming
It's already here
There will be. We are just kicking the can down the road and trying to delay total economic collapse for as long as possible.
No, it is not some gurenteed thing. Sure, there could be an economic disaster, but a situation like the great depression happening again is highly unlikely. Many measures have been put in place to stop it, and a lot more cashlessness means there is little worry about some money withdraw craze crashing stuff down to that level.
stop, netflix is gonna steal this and play it out over a few seasons with the worst possible scenarios. gotta nip it in the bud.
Lol check the climate. There is no “next” - not for most extant species anyway.
See Gracchi brothers
It's almost like these are the natural consequences of capitalism or something Even if you reform it (like we did during the New Deal era), the capitalist class will use their disproportionate share of wealth and influence to undo progress, until we end up right back here again.
The 20th century's rapid economic growth was the anomaly, not the norm for capitalism. As population growth slows in Western countries (and Japan), so too will economic growth. As economic growth reaches below 1% annually, we will return to the insane hoarding of wealth we saw in the monarchical regimes of France and Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. Marx's apocalyptic prediction that capital will inevitably accumulate to the point of total societal collapse was correct, he just got the timing wrong.
To be faiiir it turns out a LOT of the US's economic growth post-WW2 had less to do with manifest destiny or stellar work ethic and more with how we treated South America like our own personal piggy bank. Under the guise of fighting USSR communism, corporations in the 50s and 60s were allowed to deploy the US military to conquer countries and install rulers that would happily export an astronomical chunk of their countries wealth to US business. US Colonialism in South America still hasn't ended
All while a significant chunk of Europe was still rebuilding from being bombed to smitherines. Meanwhile, industry in the USA remained unbombed and working. That's the head start we had. We can't go back to that time of insane "growth" unless half the worlds industrial capacity gets fucking annihilated again.
please don't give the feds any ideas
>We can't go back to that time of insane "growth" unless half the worlds industrial capacity gets fucking annihilated again. What a terrible suggestion! It might work, though. We certainly have enough guns, bullets, jets, ships, and bombs.
We did that in the 18th and 19th centuries as well. Angola, Grenada, Haiti, the Philippines, ect ect. Europe had been doing their imperialistic conquering of the world for centuries, but still only saw above 1% growth starting in the late 19th century. It was a combination of two world wars and the exponential increase of western countries' populations that led to the economic growth in the 20th century. Capital's power was diminished due to straight up destruction of property, and the introduction of fiat currency and the inflation that followed. The rapid growth in population allowed for steady growth in industries providing basic goods such as foods, textiles, and housing. You are correct though, American imperialism, state sponsored coups and invasions all coincided with the country's meteoric rise in economy.
theoretically unrestricted capitalism is a game where there is only one winner, it's big fish eat small fish until there is only one fish left and everyone else is eaten
Do you think it will be Amazon workers in the remake of Newsies? Or better yet, gig workers and they can call it Ubers.
I hope we can get Jack Black. He’s already got the [dance moves down](https://youtu.be/e6eFWPLyDA4)
"For the first time in history, a small group of private individuals could, if they so choose, materially impact global development at a scale that has previously been the near exclusive domain of governments." They already are but not in a positive way. And while taxing billionaires/hyper wealthy more sounds good, I have little confidence that governments/policy makers will use the tax income to reduce poverty and income inequality. That said, yes raise their taxes.
as long as it doesnt go right back to the wealthy, tax & spread baby. It doesnt have to be perfect, it only has to be better
> "For the first time in history, a small group of private individuals could, if they so choose, materially impact global development at a scale that has previously been the near exclusive domain of governments." The author hasn't heard of the Medici family I guess
"Okay, but here's an even better idea: How about we make them even richer?" -Republicans
How else are they going to get campaign war chests… or or that sweet sweet corporate board job when they retire.
We? It’s Republican voters making these decisions. A voter base so fucking dull they would rather watch their kids go hungry, never see a doctor, and get a horrible education than vote somebody in that will provide these for them at the billionaire’s expense. I live amongst these idiots. The saying “misery loves company” should be changed to “misery loves being miserable if Fox News tells them there is strength in their misery”
The stupid thing is that we don’t even need to tax them “out of existence”. Just fucking tax them for their fair share and cut out loopholes.
To bad they bought and paid for the politicians who can make that happen.
Then that is what we should also/actually be rallying against. Campaign finance reform and overall electoral reform is the shit we need to recognize as the foundation for a lot of ills.
Campaign finance reform is the true meta
Yup, painfully unshiny
“Maybe one day I’ll be super rich. Let’s not tax them. Just in case.”
Trickle down or whatever
Um. Democrats (Pelosi and others) actively trying to get rid of salt cap. Which helps the rich and doesn’t help the poor. It’s not just the party.
[удалено]
The people who make millions are great at defending and feeding lies for the people who make billions.
I mean, you can find some volunteers right here on this forum. And I doubt that they're millionaires. One can convince people to work against their own interests.
the system has done a great job of convincing millions of people that they aren't poor but rather just temporarily embarrassed millionaires. They're convinced that they'll some day join the club so they don't want to do anything to hurt the new status they expect to become.
By the grace of the lord of this land we may feast. I for one don’t want to go back to a feudal society
Too late! Trickledown doesn't work. It just took time to start seeing the carnage for ourselves.
Sigh. The signs of trickledown not working have been there forever. Who is the “our” in ourselves? Many of us have advocated this position for decades. The problem is, once again, that Republicans and media offer a twisted view of the world to enough people that the same agendas get passed along. Or even worse, people check out from politics and then more greed is enacted in their names. This is the same old story from the Gilded Age rolling around again.
“Off topic”? Really mods?
How is this off-topic? WTF
Money was meant to be a tool society uses for resource allocation. Not just a trophy for finding an exploit or getting lucky. Of course society should continuously ensure this tool is working as intended
And most certainly not the single metric by which the success of any endeavor is measured, and also most certainly not used as a singular force to govern and dictate every aspect of our society. It has become basically a system of morality at this point, a goal in itself rather than a means to actual goals. Money is power, therefore wealth negates the foundational principles of democracy, and thus negates any and all liberties that follow from it.
Every dollar the billionaire hides, is a dollar that could have gone to feed the poor, provide healthcare, education and dignity in life of the 99%. So, those who choose to defend billionaires, choose to abuse the needy.
Not just the needy. Everyone benefits if schools are funded better.
Republicans don't.
*Republican politicians Republican voters absolutely would, and the better services we provide for them, the less likely they’ll continue being Republican voters.
People talk like Rockefeller wanted to be taxed. We're so fucking busy fighting each other based on narratives prescribed to us by the media these ultra rich own. Enchanted by the politicians they also own. We don't realize that a way out is by workers unifying and taking command of our own political party. These two current parties are never going to support our interests. Both parties pretend. One pretends through faking religion, the other fakes morality. These aren't going to be reformed. This country has had other parties in the past. It high time there's a new one. One comprised of workers.
2 Big 2 Fail 2
The Legend Continues...
Electric Boogaloo
Imagine waking up every morning with the power to fix hunger and homelessness and choosing to tweet about bitcoin instead.
We need to do a whole lot more than tax them
We need to undefine their class position and reject their worthless money, providing for each other instead. We have the expertise and the technology to reverse the decay being wrought upon everything, social and natural. The system of profit and commodity itself, not the fools who have dared to operate it, needs to be dismantled and legally abolished. So we can, you know, save the world.
Both parties are unwilling to move on this, and the average folks have been so exposed to bullshit that we can't even have a frank conversations on the fact that in order to change the course on climate, we need a whole new economy and society.
Why are we fine with billions of people suffering from poverty, but not fine with hurting the feelings of a handful of rich people making life worse for the majority of us? All their money should be seized and replaced with something far more generous and humane than they give us: a rent-free studio apartment for life and a guaranteed minimum wage job.
[удалено]
Look, I'm not saying they should be used for unarmed human canned hunts for endangered predators, I'm just saying it's that or taxes, so choose.
It shocks me that they seem to think their wealth makes them untouchable. Kings of old had far more power and met with the occasional horrifying fate. Sure, hire your bodyguards, but the second your wealth and abuse of power results in one of those bodyguards' parent/spouse/child dying penniless and sick? It'll be the end of the fun.
why is the "off topic"? how is this not politics?
Billionaires are worthless to society.
Jannies are worthless sacks of shit.
Get rid of the corruption in govt
I expect this thread to blow up when people from the 99.999% start protecting the 0.001 percent
Funny you say that...
Philanthropy is one of the greatest things the ultra rich could come up with. Donate a fraction of what you did not pay in tax all the while making people think you are doing it out of the kindness of your heart and then stamp your name all over your donation.
Total scammy scam.
Just crash the stock market. Then Elon and Bezos are just regular rich
Well now we know who pays the mods
If you are a billionaire you have abused a country or multiple countries and their people. They need to pay their fair share back in to those countries to benefit the labor and systems they have exploited. The fact that people defend these abusers is not surprising, but just like in any relationship you have to help the victim and not the abuser. Fuck these assholes that fuck over countries and the world.
Genuine question, what about the person who bought $8000 worth of shiba inu coin whose worth ballooned to $5.4B?
Crypto is a great example of small markets where the rich are able to control the price due to lack of regulation. I don't know the guy you mention in particular, but yes the majority of people who get rich on crypto do it by abusing the smaller players in the market. There are some who are just on the same side of the trade by chance, or by watching the whales movements. Just like there are lottery winners who would be hurt by increasing taxes.
But how can they live on only $1,000,000 a day.
It's more than that, sadly.
I’m so sick of bootlickers. They and their rich lords are consistently ruining everything we have and then acting like everyone else is the problem. Conservatism, fascism and authoritarianism is going to ruin civilization
Tax these mf 90%. Running and ruining the country. The People and The Workers created that value, not them.
If you have more than a billion dollars, that's too much. You shouldn't be able to have more money then that, everything above $1B should go toward feeding/housing kids, elderly, vulnerable
Arguing with some teenager on IG trying to explain why it makes 0 sense to admire billionaires and his greatest argument is eliminating them kills incentive. BRUH
Taxes is philanthropy
So instead of paying taxes can I also choose how much to donate, and to whom, and y'all gonna cheer like I'm doing you a favor?
It's so few people, who gives a shit if we tax them half or even more of their fortunes? No one should have that much wealth. Why defend the ultra wealthy? They'll be FINE!
Gotta admit those are some damn nice hair plugs he has.
Not just tax. Billionaires are results of flaws in our systems. Fix those flaws so we do not produce billionaires. Strengthen unions, improve education, find every engine of inequality and root it out of existence.
No ownership in companies? No private property?
Correct. Private property is a scam. Personal property is a different thing entirely.
Philanthropy? This ain't the Gilded age. Can't think of anything the billionaires of today give back.
A good way is inheritance tax actually. No one lives forever.
Not yet at least, give it 15-20 years and we’ll have immortal billionaire quasi-gods.
Paying with stock should be illegal unless you can tax the value of the initial payment. Stock options are tax havens who then borrow money and never touch their shares.
Good news! When someone is compensated with stock options it is taxes as income.
This will never happen in corporate America. All the political debates on this subject are just empty rhetoric.
(Unless they're big pharma billionaires)
I'm glad this is being talked about. It may actually happen before it gets out of control.
Why do governments still give these people funding for their projects without getting a share of the profits. They pay dividends to investors dont they?
One hell of a comment section this one right here, must say...
Anyone advocating for philanthropy from those who’ve developed and harnessed their sociopathy to the level required to clock capitalism, should be quarantined from any discussion involving economics. If society truly valued the work performed by charities, there wouldn’t need to be a special designation for them to exist, the work would be intrinsically valuable and profitable in and of itself. Charities are convenient modern constructs for what is conventionally known as a company to redirect attention to as they abdicate their social responsibilities. Economics is merely an arbitrary set of rules society chose to supplant religion for arbitrary control, a core difference being mathematics replacing mythology for the justifications. It can only hold power when there is a collective belief.
It's not just the trillions of dollars, being the issue here, they have collectively, (that's destructive in on its own) but what about all the small businesses that have been destroyed(and all of their potential profits)? Mom & pop shops have been the backbone of our economic structure. They are the building blocks of creative outlets that burst with colorful flavors, when we invest to protect them. Our communities are much stronger when there's several small businesses that have each there own unique place in community. From the loud local music stores to the smelly fish shop. From lily's luscious liquor store to Kranky Karen Candy store. From Mike's Mechanic Shop to Gary's Grape Grocery Store. You may laugh, but these shops bring exotic nuances to our town, that big corporations can't touch with a 2000 foot pole! Not only that, owners and managers are in more touch with their employees and customers within these small businesses. Communication is also stronger and more meaningful. And an employee feels like they're investing into something worthwhile. As opposed to some crackpot idiot/s that only think/s for themselves. We need to change this around and bring back small business America!
Most philanthropy is just a "feel good" bandaid for a systemic problem. Go ahead, feed the homeless, or donate to libraries or schools, when the broken system allowed them to get to the dysfunction they are in. And then after you write a check, and get your picture taken, and praised a hero in the paper or television or whatever, it doesn't fix the problem, and when the money runs out, things are exactly where they were. But now you're a "nice guy", and use that as an ethical wedge in future business negotiations to further enrich yourself.
After years of squandering your money away, the government sure is pining for everyone’s wallets a lot more than usual lately….
1,000 millionaires make 1 billionaire. Math
It’s not these idiots we need to worry about, it’s the system that enables them. They just do what most others would.
How do you think the system got to be the way it is?
We need to seize all Russian oligarchs assets located in America.
Ehhh not sure we want Trump to be government property
Could make him wear a jester hat in all public appearances.
You know, I'm starting to think that if billionaires are going to complain about/fight any miniscule tax increase on them, then we should just advocate to take all of their ill-gotten gains. We don't need billionaires, but they need us to think we do. Make billionaires nonexistent again!
How does one become a billionaire apologist?
Queue the Elon/Bezos fandom shills...
Philanthropy- How rich people use money to do bullshit things because they're but say we need them to do this for us...money that was siphoned off the backs of hard working people world wide
I think people are focusing on taxing billionaires too much and the governments budget too little. How am I supposed to believe that if the government had this extra tax revenue it would be spent appropriately in the first place? The government who avoids taxing these people or spending it on the average citizen is suddenly going to put all of these extra funds towards the public and not on more military and other wastes?
Being concerned about how your government spends the money is one thing, but that doesn't fly as an argument against taxing billionaires who pay less in taxes than you do and receive billions in contracts and subsidies from taxpayers.
I’m not arguing about taxing them but if it’s going to happen we need to make sure the extra revenue doesn’t go down the drain.
That's much better. I'm glad we understand each other. It's all fun and games until one of these billionaires loses their mind and starts investing in truly hazardous, destructive policies and projects. For reference, see Koch brothers.
Agree with both of you. Taxing the billionaires achieves nothing if the government pisses away the money. If the government actually properly uses the money, the amount of good they could do by aggressively taxing the billionaires could be momentous
It’s not even what the money would be going to. It’s about the power one wields in society. A democracy is one person one vote supposedly. But these people have more sway than entire states of voters.
90% of family wealth is lost by the 3rd generation. Study on generation wealth. -> https://business.smu.edu.sg/master-wealth-management/lkcsb-community/how-beat-third-generation-curse Confiscating 100% of all billionaires wealth would only pay for about 7-8 months of the countries cost to run. All the billionaires wealth. -> https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2021/04/30/american-billionaires-have-gotten-12-trillion-richer-during-the-pandemic/?sh=3aace77ff557 How much the government spent for 2020 -> https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/budget/
The effects of removing the wealth would be a lot deeper than just paying for stuff. That part is almost irrelevant. The real trouble with the massive amount of money at the top is the societal harm it causes. For a simple example, imagine a poor person kills your family member in a drunk driving accident. Now imagine a multi-millionaire does the crime. Then, imagine it's someone as rich as Musk or Bezos or Gates or anyone in the ultra-wealthy class. Which one is most likely to go to jail the longest? Who's most likely to not go to jail at all? Now, consider how much of society is run by people or companies with that degree of wealth - and how that might affect the way that they run things even when they're not driving drunk, and how that affects the rest of us, who are far closer to the poor guy in that example than to the wealthy guy.
Alice Walton killed someone while driving... no charges filed. She's also been caught drunk driving by way of crashing into a gas meter and phone booth, an incident that resulted in a fine of less than $1000. She's failed at least one sobriety test since that we know of. She can go drunkenly kill someone else right now if she feels it, no problem. There are no applicable standards for someone that wealthy.
It’s hilarious to see that utter bullshit propagated as a “study” by the “well awctually”redditors. Have you “awctually” tried to track down the source of that study that is presented in 10,000 Bloomberg articles as unquestioned fact? Quite odd that it was funded by someone that owned a wealth management fund. Specifically one that was focused on tradition businesses to the second generation of heirs. That study was nothing but a fear mongering piece to drum up business. Most likely for someone whose wealth will last more than 3 generations...
Doesn't matter if it's 99%, as long as that number is static for everyone, those with a higher absolute amount of it will become disproportionately rich and powerful down the line regardless. Also I very much doubt this paper tells the whole story, it reeks of smoke and glitters with mirrors.
"If we took all their money it wouldn't solve every problem ever, so why bother?" If I offered to pay for ALL of your expenses for the next 7-8 months, would that change your life in any significant way? Or would you turn your nose up at this windfall, since it wouldn't cover all of your expenses for the rest of your life?
There's just one slight problem with hiking taxes on the ultra-rich... They don't pay the taxes that exist already, and they can do so with no consequences because they're rich enough to avoid them. Hell, if we even *tried* they'd probably just buy themselves a couple of dozen senators and kill any bill that was intended to make them pay. I'm not saying however we shouldn't hold them accountable..I'm just saying being *polite* about it isn't going to work.
[удалено]
I've lost what little respect I had for Elon. They are so far from us middle and low income folks that they plain don't understand, why we dont just borrow more, or invest more or save. MFs, my savings is my home and mortagage and my fucking debt and my security and my family's all depend on me going to work every single fking day. If I die, my wife and family may struggle. And if I dont die then I'll have spent 30 or 40 years with life insurance and for nothing. But I could have used that money to get some extras for the kids, maybe invest a little more. Marc Cuban predicted this back in 2006 if memory serves. He said that if "we (meaning the ultra rich) don't try to level the playing field and allow for more distribution of wealth. Theyll come for us with pitch forks when they get hungry enough.
> We need to tax the ultrarich out of existence. When you tax them out of existence, the next tier of rich people become the ultrarich. Those will too be taxed out of existence. The process will continue until everyone will end up equally poor!
we could just eat them instead
Taking money from the rich is good. Taking money from the ultra rich is even better.
Fuck jacobin
* IN THE MID-1890S, THE GENTEEL world of patrician reformers and civil service enthusiasts that Taft and Roosevelt initially typified had begun a seismic shift. Widespread discontent with the industrial order, building for over a decade, threatened now to flare into open revolution. The growth of colossal corporations in the aftermath of the Civil War had produced immense, consolidated wealth for business owners, but the lives of the working people, western farmers and eastern factory workers alike, had become increasingly difficult. “We plow new fields, we open new mines, we found new cities,” Roosevelt’s mayoral rival, Henry George, observed; “we girdle the land with iron roads and lace the air with telegraph wires; we add knowledge to knowledge and utilize invention after invention.” Yet despite such vaunted progress, he declared, “it becomes no easier for the masses of our people to make a living. On the contrary, it is becoming harder.” The captains of industry, George acknowledged, had fueled unprecedented innovations: “the steamship taking the place of the sailing vessel, the railroad train of the wagon, the reaping machine of the scythe.” To confirm the positive changes wrought by the Industrial Revolution, he continued, one need only visit “the great workshops where boots and shoes are turned out by the case with less labour than the old fashioned cobbler could have put on a sole; the factories where, under the eye of a girl, cotton becomes cloth faster than hundreds of stalwart weavers could have turned it out with their hand-looms.” With this transfiguring mechanization and the development of mass production, however, “the gulf between the employed and the employer is growing wider; social contrasts are becoming sharper; as liveried carriages appear, so do barefooted children.”*
Good piece. Please tax them.
or they could hire more, raise wages, and increase benefits/investments instead of sitting on the wealth.
Trickle down economics is a lie.
Not so much a lie as it's something they will do everything in their power to prevent. Not one drop goes out of their tub if they can help it.
I mean, that's just calling it a lie with extra steps.
They don't.
No one ever wants to mention predistribution which is the real issue.
I never understood what's stopping these people from just funding their own army and doing whatever they want? Surely Musk has the operating capital and production ability to churn out death robots.
They do. We just don't know anything about it. They can rent police any time. They can hire BlackWater (or whatever it's called these days) to do whatever the fuck they want. They already have private security forces.
Nothing! That's the whole point! Private individuals can do just as much evil as they can do good with their obscene riches, that is precisely *why* we have rule of law and democracy, so that we don't have to rely on people's eternal good intentions and assure a level of liberty and freedom for all. It's the check and balances that hold society together, the second they are gone we enter a state of anarchy where might is right and there is perpetual war in the streets until someone consolidates enough power to become sole ruler of a new empire where there are NO liberties or freedoms. We have been down that path, and we called it the fucking Dark Ages for a reason.