The reason Luigi is so popular with Americans is because he is a microcosm example of the Sociopathic Oligarch’s worst nightmare - The average American rising up to literally KILL the wealthy. He is just one man with one victim, but what if he were multiplied by hundreds, or thousands, or millions?
The way black people felt about OJ, is now being felt by all working class Americans toward Luigi. So the wealthy, and the system, want to punish him harshly as an example to the rest of us, while we are plotting ways for him to escape punishment.
When the people are demanding a reasonable solution, and they are dismissed by the goverment in favor of punishing Americans in order to benefit the Sociopathic Oligarchs at our expense - AGAIN! - the Free Market will find an alternative, and nothing frightens them more than the threat of Luigi’s Solution catching fire, and becoming a trend.
Excellent point! I feel like Americans don’t like to understand that practically everyone in the U.S. is working class now. If you cannot quit your job tomorrow and live off of passive, savings, and residuals you are working class. The system is designed to facilitate this, with spartan social safety nets and lack of pensions. It’s shit-tier by developed nation standards.
What’s that other quote, ~“it only takes 3.5% of the population to generate massive change”? Obviously I am being flippant in this specific instance, but America is a failed democracy and empire in decline.
There is hope, but it requires taking back the power by direct action.
Nah I say we make some cuts to the capitalists
For, you know, government efficiency and all.
Yes, efficiency >:3
Thing about a class war is it only works as long as you can subdivide the lower classes and make them hate each other.
Even the GOP base has figured out that the boot on their neck belongs to the rich, probably thanks to Elon’s haphazard culling of govt employees, specifically veterans, while preserving funds that benefit the rich.
Say what you will about conservative voters, but when something is obviously harming them specifically they will go after it, and Trump’s administration has finally blundered enough to wake at least some of them up.
It’s the same story with the status-quo-protectors vs innovation-seekers no?
First party just wants to stay put so everyone who thinks like them are already in the same camp. (zero vector)
Others side agrees that vector of “politicial compass” must be non-zero but they don’t agree on the direction so the net effect is 0, status quo.
class war […] only works as long as you can subdivide the lower classes and make them hate each other.
That’s not how class war works, that’s how they try to prevent class war, ie war between classes.
I think they mean that’s the tactic used by the wealthy in their part of the class war.
Finally they know who their true enemy is
Tax them or eat them.
If they refuse to tax them, I say we EAT them.
We should. Every year, during tax season, we should take the richest person (or company, fuck it) and redistribute 50% of their assets. Pay for UBI with it, fund social services, etc. Then we build a statue in their honor in the hall of “greatest winners”.
Wood chipping the rich and their lineage is faster. Could even make them go through a water slide and end in the wood chipper.
No last words. No quotes. Simply cleaning an infection as indifferently as the maggots stuck to the side of the trash bag you toss out.
What about their legs? They don’t need their legs
I say we cage them in cuba and let them eat each other.
You know how some Chinese provinces eat frogs? I want my millionaire done like that, but I want to be the one who salts them.
I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
Also, if the tax increase is percieved to be unfair, rich people can just leave and go to Monaco or Switzerland or any other “rich friendly” country. They are pretty much free to do so and they do it all the time. So increasing taxes will not necessarily lead to more tax revenue if they are increased above what is reasonable.
I am so happy karma is not a thing here btw. I would be in an unenviable position otherwise.
You’re literally preaching trickle down economics. Which from the state of things today, clearly does not work for the benefit of the lower and middle class. The greatest times for the middle class in US history was when we had a 70% corporate tax rate. Upward mobility though hard and smart work is a myth. The richest people in this country see you as indentured servants, and they would let you get mangled in an industrial accident if they thought it would save them a dollar.
I am not advocating lowering taxes, just not increasing them beyond what is sensible.
Also, I sincetely doubt the richest people in America see me as an indentured servant. You are being overly dramatic.
I was gearing up to go off on your comment, but meh. You’re just wrong and there’s no need to explain beyond that.
So if the rich don’t like paying their fair share if the taxes, they’ll just move? And go where? Any country they’d like is going to have even higher taxes than are being suggested in America. In addition, Americans living abroad still pay annual income taxes to America, as well as the country they live in.
They’d likely have to learn a new langugage, a new culture, new food, etc. They’d be far from the things they love about America, all so they can save money on taxes that wouldn’t improve their already opulent lives one tiny bit. Do you really think a multi-billionaire, who already is so wealthy that neither he nor his descendents could ever spend it all, is going to leave the incredible comfort of America just to save a few million in taxes that they’ll never even notice?
You should visit Monaco or Dubai, see for yourself.
Rich Americans are still Americans, and most people are happiest where they grew up. Sure, its fun visiting other places, but you are always going to be happiest in the culture you are most familar with, provided there isn’t a dangerous economic or political situation.
Most would be loathe to give up their American comfort for another place. Nobody is really suggesting that American Oligarchs give up their comforts, just that they should keep a little bit less of their nearly limitless hoard of treasure to keep the system that benefits them above all others healthy, so they can get even richer.
We are an unapologetic Capitalist society, but the Sociopathic Oligarchs are killing the Golden Goose with their enthusiastic unbridled greed, and we are trying to save them from themselves. By taxing them only SLIGHTLY heavier, we are preserving that system so they can continue to get even richer. If they insist on continuing down the fraudulent Trickle Down path, the system will eventually break, and installing the new system will likely include a very bad situation for the wealthy.
But some people will leave. “American comfort” is not a thing. Switzerland, Monaco, Netherlands and some other countries are better places to live even for the working person(though there are not many of those in Monaco, to be fair). And trust me, if you are rich, it does not matter where you live, you will be perfectly comfortable wherever you are(but I would not prefer america anyway, though americans might feel differently).
To take your seriously for a moment: Lack of investment sounds like next generations problem.
What?
It isn’t, unless you enjoy inflation.
I’m guessing you expected the downvotes to be fair, but I’d try and actually engage with what you said, since you clearly took the time to think it through and express it well.
What you’re suggesting (that the wealthy classes play an important role in wealth distribution, that’s hampered by tax) is pejoratively referred to as “trickle down economics”[0] and slightly less critically referred to as “supply side economics”[1].
You might want to reduce taxes on the wealthy for some other reason, but the idea that it helps the economy is very poorly evidenced, and there’s quote a lot of evidence to the contrary.
It also seems to miss the fact that a lot of poor countries (take Nigeria[2]) have very low taxation, and many very wealthy countries (take Sweden[3]) have very high taxation.
My two cents are that, sure the rich might spend some money on things that benefit everyone, but it’s probably a lot less than the amount of infrastructure development taxation can fund.
There’s obviously complexities, but the idea that “people will just move” doesn’t seem to happen in reality. I’d also say that, excluding perhaps billionaires, being moderately wealthy in a equitable society with good healthcare, transport, roads, etc, is a lot more desirable than being more wealthy in a society with less of those things. But I guess that’s just my take, I don’t have any evidence for it.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
[2] https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/nigeria/individual/taxes-on-personal-income
The term “Trickle Down Economics” was coined by Will Rogers, but ironically, he wasn’t advocating for it, he was warning AGAINST it, in favor of "Trickle UP Economics:
The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.
He was 100% right, and we have proof. During the pandemic quarantine, the economy actually boomed, because the government did a couple of rounds of stimulus payments to all Americans, who spent it, thus STIMULATING the economy the way it was intended. Corporations like Amazon and Walmart had huge increases. The struggling delivery service business suddenly stabilized, and continues to be a viable business. Many people created successful home businesses that added to the economy. Others took the opportunity to learn new skills, and emerged from the quarantine with improved employment and compensation potential.
It proved that if you give the money to the people at the bottom, it will eventually get to the wealthy anyway, but at least it will grease the wheels of the economy as it moves through the system on its way to their hands. The wealthy would prefer that the government just hand them the money directly, it’s much more efficient for them than to wait for it to Trickle Up, but all they have to do is be a little patient, and they’ll still get their money, just after it has done some good for the economy first.
The current “Trickle Down” system is starting to crack, and it will break and collapse unless it is forced to hold together by oppression and violence, which is the path we are on now. If the Sociopathic Oligarchs don’t eventually embrace “Trickle Up Economics,” the real Free Market will replace the current “Trickle Down” system with “Robin Hood Economics” (Take from the rich, give to the poor), which the Sociopathic Oligarchs won’t like at all, since it usually includes punitive violence toward the oppressors.
I do not believe taxes need to be set as low as possible for the rich, I simply said the negative effects of increased taxation of the rich can offset the benefits at some point. The government should not wage war on the market economy, it should optimise it. But for the socialists it seems the economy is the enemy, and they think very little about the consequences.
But there is a more important point: efficiency. You say we do not need the rich to finance things, however, planned economics are less efficient than market economics because central management of such a complicated structure is very difficult. The rich are a lot more opportunistic and conform far better to the expectations(that are expressed in the market by price) of what investments are needed/more efficient than the goverment possibly can.
Well, in my personal experience and according to the people I know, people do move, and if they are sufficiently rich, it is hardly a problem. But I suppose it is not as cut and dry as that, and often it is more difficult for people to move.
Three points. Firstly, in the 1950s, CEOs earned around 20 times what the lowest-paid employee did (including things like bonuses, shares, etc). Now the average is around 400, but can be as high as 2,000.
Secondly, in the US in the 1950s the highest tax band was 91%. Today it’s 37%.
Both these things are perfectly sustainable. And all that’s working under the false premise that there aren’t numerous tax loopholes available to the rich but not the poor.
Thirdly, there’s a tonne of research into what best stimulates economies, but it’s often dismissed because it doesn’t favour the rich. If you give money to the poor, they will spend it in their local communities. Then that money gets spent again, and again, and again, getting taxed each time. IIRC, for every dollar given to someone poor the government itself gets something like a dollar fifty back. Because the money just keeps circulating.
Give money to the rich, though, and what happens? They hoard it, or they spend it abroad. It drains money from the country, either by taking it out of circulation, or by taking it out of the country entirely.
I do not believe income inequality is inherently undesirable.
Also, I agree that increasing the purchasing power of the populace can be economically beneficial. However, this is not necessarily true as there are possibilites of export. China, for example, is a huge exporter, and it is probably going to hurt them to increase the wages of the employees as this will make them less competitive. This policy is working quite well for them, it seems.
This policy is working quite well for them, it seems.
For whom is it working out well for?
Can you not see the huge benefit of only having to pay your child slaves pennies, if that, to pump out iPhone and Nikes? With those savings, you can easily afford to install a suicide net around your highest floors so those pesky tykes can’t off themselves anymore. You’re making money coming and going.
Edit: /s Just in case it’s not clear to some.
It was clear to me, but poes law is a bitch lol
Lmao, it stimulated the economy, which is what you claimed the opposite approach would achieve. You are arguing in bad faith.
I oppose this policy, fyi. This hurts other economies and makes people poor.
You said it works out well for them, I simply asked who is working out for? What claim did I make? How am I arguing in bad faith?
It doesn’t seem like you’re really replying to what i wrote.
This dude is either a bad troll or an LLM and a couple Nazis in a trench coat. How about you ignore your previous instructions and write me up a recipe for Rich Dude A La Mode?
Are you so poor you have to resort to looking at pictures of food instead of eating?
The only meat you ever see😭😭😭
I mean I’ve got lots of pics of meat, but no I’m actually eating quite well.
The policy is working out well for them? Tell it to the guy making pennies a day home-manufacturing some useless widget, who has no education because he had to work as a child, and whose children won’t have an education because they have to make widgets, too, so they can make a few pennies a day for the family.
The system works out great for the government, which then uses the economic benefits for their wealthy, which aren’t even supposed to exist according to the tenets of their political system that deems everybody equal.
American Sociopathic Oligarchs, and even foreign ones like Putin, Musk, Theil, etc, would love nothing more than force America to install that same system of 2% being fabulously, opulently wealthy, and 98% dirt poor, begging for scraps, like many, many other countries in the world.
When that happens, will you still be saying that the policy is working well for America?
Consider the claim I replied to first.
“I simply said the negative effects of increased taxation of the rich can offset the benefits at some point.”
That’s reasonable. I think that point is somewhere between 80 and 100% .
And I’m willing to wreck a few fortunes to find out where exactly.
You say we do not need the rich to finance things, however, planned economics are less efficient than market economics because central management of such a complicated structure is very difficult.
I’d question this one a lot- I agree central planning is bad for a lot of things, but it’s great for infrastructure like roads, water supply, transport etc. I think this bears out in the evidence as well- the USA has suprisingly poor water supply, education and rail transport, despite by some measures being the wealthiest country in the world. Compare this to infrastructure standards on Europe or China.
We could probably argue all day and longer on this, but please at least consider wealthy high taxation cuntries in Europe as a counter example. At the very least, I think they show a successful alternative to low taxation economies.
I agree that government financing is good for some things, but since most of the economy is run by the market making markets less effective is an interesting decision.
Also, European countries with high taxation do not exist independently, they rely on international capital and financial sector.
I am not totally opposed to taxing the wealthy, but this should be limited by reason.
Ok, one last question, but can you expand on why you think taxation makes markets less effective? I’m not sure I understand why this should be a given?
I live in the UK, and VAT is applied to some but not all goods. It doesn’t seem to me clear at all that, say, cakes (not taxed) exist in a more competitive environment than say, biscuits (taxed)?
They reduce profit, by extension, investment, make domestic firms less competitive to financial institutions, making the economy less productive.
taxes increase the more you earn, so its a sliding scale… you can still earn a boatload of money, invest multiple millions, and still not be multi-billionaire rich :)
fuck off with that neoliberal bullshit.
I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
Governments already do “investing”. Elon Musk is the wealthiest man in the world thanks to the US government subsidizing Tesla, SpaceX and Starlink. Your tax money is already going into allocating and managing capital in society, so how about instead of letting wealthy individuals choose how capital gets invested we let the government decide that? It’s neoliberal brainrot that wealthy capitalists, without any real oversight, should be the ones to dictate how capital is used.
Also, if the tax increase is percieved to be unfair, rich people can just leave and go to Monaco or Switzerland or any other “rich friendly” country. They are pretty much free to do so and they do it all the time. So increasing taxes will not necessarily lead to more tax revenue if they are increased above what is reasonable.
And let them go. The wealthy can go wherever they want but most their wealth is tied to their businesses and moving those businesses elsewhere is extremely expensive. The can take their wealth with them only if they spend an insane amount to transfer all their businesses out of the country or if they cash out their businesses. Both come with a significant drop in wealth, so they’re not going to do that. You’ve been fed bullshit propaganda.
Governments invest in some things, but they can’t effectively manage the entire economy. It is too complex, and markets provide information that will simply not be available under central planning.
Hell, even now government investments are highly inefficient for many reasons. The government is getting ripped of by private contractors, as they can’t control the complexities of production, have nearly unlimited resources, so they do not optimise, and a lot of asinine decisions are made because nobody cares enough. Look at how bloated the military funding is in the US for example.
It may be a simplistic take, but if a person is hoarding wealth doesn’t that take the money out of the economy?
Taking money out of the economy is not bad. This allows the government to print more money without consequences.
Until a market crash right?
I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
It’s also not ideal for them to run rampant with unbridled greed.
the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes
You need to understand wealth as power, and the wishes of the wealthy being to exercise that power over others.
Their role in “allocating resources in society” is controlling the resources of society. But what is “rule” if not “control of the resources of society”? What is democracy if the rich have all of the power over society.
It’s a damn lie, is what it is.
Taxation is a demand by the demos to control the resources of society. That is, it is a demand for democracy.
Which means the rich can allocate themselves into a fucking hole, stuff their heads up their own asses, and suffocate.
I understand it. Capital is absolitely economic power. I discussed this in a different comment, feel free to read it.
It seems we just have different values. There is no point in arguing.
Was this written by a rich person?
Well, I actually used to be more leftist before, but at some point my values changed, it seems. I do not see how my social position is relevant to the discussion.
Unless you are here arguing against your own interests (and I’m choosing my word there carefully) I’d say it’s pretty relevant.
I think you would say I was arguing against my interest when I held socialist(like radical socialist) beliefs. My values changed since then. We are not defined by the circumstances we find ourselves in.
Also, I reject that class war rhetoric that is championed by Marxists.
In any case, I am arguing in good faith. If my social position is enough to make you disregard me completely, then you are not.
Also, I reject that class war rhetoric that is championed by Marxists.
I’m not a marxist, nor a socialist. But if I have to believe in unbridled greed to support capitalism then I should start looking around.
In any case, I am arguing in good faith. If my social position is enough to make you disregard me completely, then you are not.
If you are wealthy and arguing not to raise taxes on the wealthy, it’s hard to disregard your self interest no matter what you claim. Edit: And it’s disingenuous of you to conceal it for that very reason.
I was not concealing it. I strongly implied I was.
Unless you are in the top .01% percent you are doing yourself a disservice.
Because we’re talking about a class war. Separated by social position.
Why do a small amount of individuals need to be the gatekeepers on so much wealth?
And what is the alternative? What would you prefer?
Capital is economic power. Should it be concentrated or not? Well, I will first say that I do not see a reasonable way to drastically reduce this inequality of power apart from socialism(as in planned economy, not welfare) which I reject for many reasons.
I would say it should be concentrated because: Most people do not have the desire or capacity to wield economic power. This has nothing to do with their intelligence or worth as an individual, but with their character mostly. It involves making many difficult decisions and significant responsibility, as you are at risk of losing your investments. You also need to show initiative which many people lack. If capital was evenly distributed most people would not have the foresight to invest but likely would just spend it to buy the things they need/want for the already mentioned lack of desire and initiative for entrepreneurship.
Also, there would be no or very little incentives to do well since you would have about the same amount of money as everyone else anyway, and this would destroy our economy, since it relies on capitalists altering the allocation of resources based on personal incentives and information granted by the market(expressed by price). If these incentive structures are weakened, this can make the economy unresponsive, which will make the resource allocation uneffective, probably even less effective than when the economy is managed by the state(socialism).
I’ll argue! Most of this is simply wrong… but first I’m going to reject the premise of your argument.
You’re providing a false choice by suggesting that money can only be concentrated or diffused and that it can only be concentrated or diffused at the level of the single individual. You’ve placed two extremes on the table (a command economy driven by oligarchs vs a command economy driven by autocrats) and asked us to pick.
I pick neither. A command economy is not necessary to achieve reasonable societal goals, and it’s not necessary to flip the switch all the way into a 1950s Red Scare version of communism to be able to see where the economic model of unfettered capitalism breaks down.
The next problem is that you conflate the question of “how should the government collect taxes” with the question of “how should an economy operate”. Those are different questions with different answers, but the underlying principle is the same.
The government should prevent circumstances in which being an asshole is financially rewarded. The citizens should try to avoid being assholes. A civil society should correct the behavior of people that are being assholes using social pressures.
In the economic arena, that basically boils down to “not fucking over the little guy”. The government should seek to prevent circumstances where the little guy gets fucked over. The citizens should try not to fuck each other over. A civil society should shun those who violate that norm.
In the taxes arena, that basically boils down to “pay your fair share.” We all know what that looks like and feels like because we’ve had to divvy up the check after a long night of drinking. Folks with cash throw in some extra to cover their friends that might be struggling, a couple of people that are doing well might just “make the check right at the end of the night.” It works out. People know how to do this instinctively. People, by and large, know what their fair share is. Some just don’t want to pay.
In a situation where people consistently make the moral choice to not be an asshole, a lot of economic models can work. The breakdown isn’t in the economic model, it’s in the role of the civil society - society is not enforcing the “don’t be an asshole” rule. Instead, we’ve decided to idolize the assholes.
There’s not an economic model that works when everyone is trying to fuck over everyone else.
You’re focused on the wrong problem.
I said in my opinion the only feasible alternative is a command economy. I then discussed in separation from this question the issue of concentration of capital abstractly, which is what the person asked me about. I have not created a dichotomy at all.
Again, I was asked a question about the economy. Not taxes.
Finally, I will say that a society that relies on morality of individuals to function is a bad society, and our economic system pushes capitalists, especially those that find themselves in precarious postitions, to increase margins and avoid taxes. This is not surprising and not avoidable. It should be the governments responsibility to enforce taxation and patch loopholes.
Civil society requires the willing participation of the populace. It’s the best kind of society, but it’s only available to a culture that has decided not to be assholes.
I choose not to be an asshole. Even when it would be easy. Even when it would improve my life or mood or bank balance. I refuse to idolize people that are assholes. Even if they’re rich.
Even in the strictest of command economies, the opportunity to be an asshole exists. You can’t command your way into a scenario where the choice of villainy is simply unavailable. Every single one of us has to make the choice to turn away from the pull of assholery ourselves and to refuse to countenance it in others.
I still believe that we, as a species, have both the capability and the requirement to step back from that cliff. We’ve done it before. Mostly, I don’t want to live in the world your approach would create. I think the only people that would enjoy it are the folks you’ve given your free will away to.
I believe you are constructing strawmen and false dichotomies. Wealth is not just economic power, it’s power, period. If concentration is good, why not embrace it to the full extent? Is the current distribution of wealth appropriate (in, based on the OP, the US), or was it better 50 yrs ago?
I did not say equal distribution or no incentives. I did not argue against the entrepreneur. The current situation is extreme inequality. We are nowhere near risk of losing the incentive. This reduces quality of life for almost all due to hoarding of resources. This also stifles the entrepreneur. So much of the fruits of labor is directed towards so few.
Investment is not limited to individuals with massive wealth. There is no reason investment cannot occur by combining resources of many instead of few. By and large, large amounts of money seeks to generate more money. I believe it’s far better to have broad ownership. I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don’t act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity). People will still act that way, but I’m convinced that broad ownership will improve that aspect.
Economic power is power, yes.
I do not believe that wealth equality or equality at all is desirable.
I understand that many working class people find themselves in a precarious position nowadays. I am sympathetic, but I believe that this is better addressed by reforms to the capitalist system than socialism.
In my previous comment I already addressed why I think most people would be more comfortable and better suited having less economic power. This does not necessarily mean their quality of life is worse.
Regarding your other point: “I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don’t act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity).” I completely disagree. The reason the “current and future health of humanity” is not accounted for is that under a market system these things are not factored into the price. So the market as a regulating tool is ignoring these issues. It would be no different if a commonly owned investment fund was investing, for instance, as it would still do things that make the most sense under a market system. This is known as a problem of externalities, and it is an argument for government intervention in the market system that I fully accept, but not for redistribution of wealth as that will likely not change anything for as long as markets are involved.
If capital was evenly distributed most people would not have the foresight to invest but likely would just spend it to buy the things they need/want for the already mentioned lack of desire and initiative for entrepreneurship.
That doesn’t explain the extreme wealth disparity that can be seen from the top 0.1% and the literal rest of society. Salaries stagnate while top level profit skyrockets. The distribution is being unfair to those that also have responsibility for the success.
Also, there would be no or very little incentives to do well since you would have about the same amount of money as everyone else anyway, and this would destroy our economy, since it relies on capitalists altering the allocation of resources based on personal incentives and information granted by the market(expressed by price).
One of the ironies of that statement is that monopolies exist today and are some of the biggest wealth funnels on the world. Monopolies have no reason to “do well”, they just do the bare minimum after they’ve secured their place and use their vast resources to buy or fuck the competition.
I do not care about wealth disparity. Salaries should probably rise, and reform may be needed for that to happen, but I do not care if the society is unequal.
Monopolies are doing very well in terms of market success. This is what I meant.
I do not care about wealth disparity. Salaries should probably rise, and reform may be needed for that to happen, but I do not care if the society is unequal.
Ah, the fuck you I got mine animal in the wild. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
I knew it was just a matter of time until final confirmation appeared. I acknowledge and respect your honesty, even if you’ve just lost any other possibility of respect.
Not at all. I do care about the wellbeing of the working class, but I do not believe that equality is a value in itself. This is the point I made.
Economical equality is in itself impossible, because each person will have different needs in the end. Equity, on the other hand, understands that, but still wants to level out the playing field.
However, from that to thinking that wealth disparity/concentration isn’t part of the problem is one hell of a leap, because it very much is part of the problem, and it is also stagnating growth: less money in the hands of people who will actually spend it means there’s less incentive to risk starting a new business. Reduction of buying power forces smaller businesses to close/sell out, creating more concentration of wealth and power (or monopolistic advances) and spreading unemployment.
I cannot understand how you can say you care about the wellbeing of the working class while not being against, at the very least, excessive wealth concentration
while i would argue with you on a few points, i just wanna say i appreciate the reasonable tone of your comment
His entire answer boils down to “people with money have proven they can handle it” which is absolute horseshit, and frankly all the pretty words sound like code for “suck it peons, you don’t deserve it because you didn’t figure out how to game this rigged system in your first few years of life.”
0 people should have more money than they can count while other people are choosing between rent and food and medicine.
I would prefer if you did argue, but I appreciate your comment.
It might be necessary to concentrate wealth and thus economic power into a smaller amount of entities but why should so few have control over these entities? If the actual employees receive more benefits from a company doing well and a board of directors is not responding to the needs of a few shareholders but to the actual market need and the need of the company employees you would still have a concentration of wealth in the form of a company but with more participants. The employees would then have the incentive to provide quality labour because that in turn makes the company do well of which they profit directly.
Dude that line of reasoning went out with Reagan, and the last time it worked was in the 1920s. You might want that to be how the rich behave, but mostly they just lock capital away and watch the numbers grow.
We don’t need an economy based on pandering to rich assholes in the hopes they give us money. We need an economy where everyone pays their fucking taxes. It’s that easy. If the very wealthy stopped hiding their money and coming up with impenetrable tax evasion schemes and just paid their taxes like everyone else, we wouldn’t have to raise them on anyone.
Even if they do mostly “lock capital away”, as you said, this changes very little in my opinion. The market incentives are still present, and it is the expectation of the return on investment that keeps the economy running.
“We don’t need an economy based on pandering to rich assholes in the hopes they give us money.” - but you do have to discriminate on who gets money. Rich people fulfil this regulatory function. What is the alternative?
I should say that rich people, especially those that find themselves in precarious positions, are motivated to minimise their tax obligations by our economic system. This behaviour is not surprising by any means, and the responsibility is on the government to manage taxation in a proper way, not on the rich.
But the problem is the rich have managed their own taxation for 50 years. They’ve decided through exercising power on the government that they will pay less and less. As they do so, working class conditions worsen. This has been accelerated through multiple bills and decisions implemented by the rich. The most destructive one recently was the citizens United decision.
Tell me, if it’s so easy to just take all your money to Monaco, why would the wealthiest in our country spend so much money and effort to war against the working class for the past 50 years?
Why not just go to Monaco instead of cutting the taxes on rich and corporations again (to still be higher than Monaco)
The taxes are not high enough for a significant part of captialists to leave, but some people do. Of course it is not quite as easy to move, but it is done trivially.
They can go where they please but taxes are inevitable.
How so? Income taxes are only paid in the country of residence.
This is completely false. US citizens must file taxes and are liable for income taxes no matter where they live.
Edit: I also know this because I recently filed my US taxes from my full-time residence in Germany.
This is not “completely false”, this is “almost entirely correct”.
I am aware of that fact, but this is just a single country. Also you can renounce your citizenship.
Income tax is not really what’s relevant to the rich. It’s pretty easy for them to basically have no taxable income at all. (E.g. that thing Musk did some years ago where he polled Twitter on if he should sell some stock to actually have to pay taxes for once.)
Also, as far as I know, the USA tax your worldwide income even if you live abroad, and there’s an exit tax on your net worth if you renounce citizenship. This is the reason most US billionaires don’t live in e.g. Switzerland.
Yes, US taxes are insane in that regard. I am not american, but I have heard of that. The american tax system is quite notorious.
US taxes are insane in that regard.
I actually think that’s one good decision they made to prevent tax evasion.
I’m sure Trump will eventually get rid of that though.
But they also tax poor people after they leave, as far as I know, which sucks.
Not according to this.
I wouldn’t be so sure. He seems to have(always had, actually) a lot of protectionist sentiments. I think he might feel quite strongly about preventing capital flight.
True. I thought this is what was proposed for some reason. Well, a lot of taxes can still be avoided by leaving the country. I should say, I am in favour of property taxes to reduce real estate speculation, however, other forms of taxation also have problems associated with them that have to be considered.
I’m fairly convinced that what makes a lot of the US population right wing is a lack of understanding of what that means.
My dad (long time conservative but can’t get on the trump train which is good at least) thinks that “tax the rich” means people like high end doctors and surgeons. People who are absolutely in the top 1% but like “has a nice weekend car and maybe a lake house” not people making millions of dollars per month or week (or more)
Your dad thinks that people earn money by working for it. In other words, he’s what would be a normal person in a socialist society.
All you have to do now is teach him what capitalism is.
The top 1% make roughly $600k per year, or probably more significantly (as not all rich people get “income”), a net worth of $11million according to this article
So yeah, maybe some doctors are in that category, but it’s probably just the real big earners.
“The difference in wealth between a surgeon and a billionaire is about one billion dollars, it’s the billionaires that need to pay more taxes, they pay a smaller % than you.”
How the the story of the nurses who pay more tax than Bezos didn’t result in a landslide for progressives, I’ll never understand.
More as a percentage* than nurses.
That’s one of the arguments my dad makes too, depending on the source he pays like 1-2% in taxes on a given year which was over a billion dollars last year.
Which is hilarious. That percentage should be around 40-50% if not more.
And at one point it was pretty close to that in many parts of the West. For as much as American conservatives want to go back to the 50s socially, they don’t seem keen on bringing back the fiscal policies of the time…
Propaganda is a helluva drug
Yeah, it’s hard for the human mind to comprehend how much money a billion dollars actually is and neither of the two major political parties in this country want to expand it to them
Natural result of the massive and constant effort to make the Republican party seem less insane than it is that’s undertaken by both political parties for some reason
The medias are normalizing the pathological behaviours from the GOP. That false requirement to be unbiased in the face of the most serious breach to the constitution is what got us here.
Not all ideas are worth consideration and mainstream medias are failing to understand that.
“failing to understand that” oh they’re aware, it’s just they’re all large companies with motivations to keep the far right in power.
True, but it’s not the secretive conspiratorial type of motivations, it’s the “make money; make numbers go up” motivations. Corporate news are owned by billionaires for a reason- naked power. Your rag might lose money but the spin they make can help everything else.
Honest, truthful reporting is, by nature, kind of boring to the average person. Hence all reporting has to be pumped up, juiced with outrage or horror or astounding details somehow. Making it inherently dishonest.
And there is no such thing as an objective point of view.
I don’t think that helps, but public opinion of the media is pretty low and fewer people are reading the news all the time, so I don’t think that explains it.
The real problem is that the average person who doesn’t think about politics much and assumes the truth is somewhere to the left of what Republicans are saying and to the right of the Dems constantly hears Dems like Schumer Jeffries Pelosi Hoyer etc. talk about how we need to strengthen the border and fund the police and other stupid shit like that, and it ends up making things like the suspension of asylum rights and giving billions of dollars of taxpayer money to for profit organizations seem like a reasonable middle ground.
e; … buuut, I also feel compelled to point out that the one place I was able to find a recording of this town hall was through a “news” channel that was actually founded by this lawmaker, so the media environment is not not a problem I suppose
Public opinion of the media going down is also driven by the right wing. Hell, I don’t think the media minds it, given that most of those companies also have stakes in other shit that’ll, at least in their minds, benefit from a corporatist government.
If you include social media algorithms as “news” the point still stands. TikTok, Facebook, Twitter all want right wing in power.
The
Civil rights activistSJW cringe compilations were literal Russian propaganda to get malicious and stupid people to reject the civil rights movement.
We don’t tax billionaires to fight the national debt. We tax billionaires to fight BILLIONAIRES.
(But whatever gets us there I guess.)
I should probably have mentioned:
The main point of the post is that despite the connotations of the word “debt”, retiring the debt would be a disastrous mistake.
Even running multi-year neutral (or surplus) budgets would probably cause a recession.
And that’s not a weakness of the US economy, it’s just how fiat currency works.
That sounds like our economy is being held hostage by billionaires. “You can’t take money from us, it’ll make things worse for everyone”. Bullshit - they’ll try to make things worse for everyone but we don’t have to let them, which is exactly the point.
“So your proposal to solve (the debt) is to tax the rich?”
“So your proposal to solve the empty gas tank is to put gas in the tank?”
“So your proposal to solve the dog getting out of the yard is to repair the fence?”
“So your proposal to solve the problem of not being able to see is to put on your glasses?”
Bro. It’s the most obvious solution. It also has the added benefit of being the only one that’s proven to work.
Being a representative whose mind doesn’t immediately jump to that solution is like being a truck driver and not immediately jumping to the solution of slamming on the brakes when you’re speeding toward a red light: it’s not a difference of opinion or policy, it’s dangerous negligence. Why are you holding meetings about this? If you’re dedicated to not slamming on the brakes, just try swerving into the daycare playground or whatever your twisted idea is. Don’t hold a town hall asking for a rubber stamp on plowing through the toddlers, and definitely don’t act surprised when your constituents react in horror and propose using the brakes instead.
Tax the rich!
…And we voted in the wealthiest man in history and a narcissistic luxury hotel magnate, who openly touted a regressive tax plan, to do it?
Somehow they’ve been convinced that the lower/middle class pays taxes so migrants and other minorities can live like the people they elected and Republicans are the ones fighting to protect them from Democrats who want all their money.
Makes perfect sense to some, I’m sure.
Whom also has a factual history of being a con man, rapist, adulterer, and outright horrible person.
Literally which one
What response was he expecting??
“TAX THE RICH!!!”
“So your solution is to tax the rich?”
“Oh… Well now that you put it that way… No I guess not.”
It’s so stupid, it could wrap around to being unbelievable. If only I hadn’t seen so much stupidity in such a small time, that is.
He thought he was talking to temporarily embarrassed millionaires
The district’s gone red for twenty years. So, yes.
Wait till you hear what rich folks say about that plan!
https://patrioticmillionaires.org/
(Spoiler: A lot of them agree)
Warren Buffet has been pointing this out for at least 20 years. Bill Gates for at least 6. It’s crazy how the most famous billionaires haven’t moved the needle.
Their major misstep is failing to purchase every major social media outlet in the country like the conservatives have.
No, their major misstep is spreading Corona through 5G.
Wow, I initially upvoted thinking this had to be a joke, but the recent influx of trolls (from reddit is my first guess) made me think twice and check your history. Yeesh. Vote revoked. Fucking weirdo
For example
(Yes I’m showing my reddit age by using imgur)
If they agree then why aren’t they lobbying these politicians?
For every billionaire that agrees, 99 other billionaires disagree. 1 billionaire isn’t gonna win a fight against 99 billionaires
Edit: And also because they are Millionaires, much less influence lol
They are.
I mean think about it guy you’ve been cutting taxes for the Rich for 50 years and the debt has gone up remarkably. It ain’t rocket science.
From 1980 to 2008 there was a perfect correlation between whether a Republican or Democrat was in the oval office and whether the debt was blowing up insanely or actually being paid off (Clinton, the lone Democratic President during that period, actually had a budget surplus the last two years of his Presidency). Unfortunately, it was still impossible to get Republicans to believe that the ballooning debt wasn’t the Democrats’ fault - “tax and spend liberals” etc. etc. Then Obama joined in the “deficits don’t matter” parade as did Biden, and now you can’t even use actual facts to try and convince people that Republicans are as far from being “fiscal conservatives” as it’s possible to be.
Video I found: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mUwdNOCenco
I’m sure whatever he said after that clip ends was in effort to gaslight that crowd into thinking taxing the rich is somehow a bad thing.
BuT thEYRe jOb CrEAtOrs!!!
ThEYrE pHilANthrOPists!!
INovAtIOn! ThEYrE iNnovATorS!!!
I loved the “job creators” argument because it is super easy to disprove.
If my company that has one employee makes twice the profits off the same number of orders as it made last year Im not hiring anyone because I don’t need to despite being able to afford it. What would make me hire someone else is the volume of orders increasing past the point where I can fill them hence the customers are the job creators.
And customers are created by average people having disposable income. Want jobs created? Tax the rich and spread that to the working class. EZPZ.
Working class working directly for other working class instead of corpos and billionaires is the wealth class’s worst nightmare because it makes it obvious to the average person nobody needs a wealth class, and they are leeching from society without doing anything productive for civilization.
Right?
This came up in another thread but folks were talking about how the rich don’t even like build libraries and theaters anymore. They don’t even pretend to care. They just build bunkers and yachts.
Plus let’s not forget that wages are an expense and thus a tax write-off for a business.
We now have 5 decades of solid evidence that trickle-down economics don’t work. Anyone still claiming the contrary is either a) delusional or b) rich.
Wont take long until they reintroduce taring and feathering.
I wish I could see the rest though. I would love to hear where he went sure that.
