Marc Malone, Opting Out of The Great Reset |537|

These things are easy and popular to say, but what does it mean? Once you've killed off the billionaires, what about the hundreds of millionaires? The tens of millionaires? The millionaires? So on down the line. I've never read a practical, thoughtful response to this quandary.

It's really not as tricky as one thinks. Back when Eisenhauer was in charge and worrying about the very things all we "lefty commies" nowadays worry about- corporations and the weapons manufacturing industries taking over, they taxed people who made massive amounts of money 90% of their income. We never saw Americans flee the country then. Industry did very well. The middle class expanded and grew.
It's a very practical solution when you realize that most of the corruption in politics in America comes from billionaires trying to control the way a nation goes. Say goodbye to their disposable influence, and the corruption goes too.
J
 
It's really not as tricky as one thinks. Back when Eisenhauer was in charge and worrying about the very things all we "lefty commies" nowadays worry about- corporations and the weapons manufacturing industries taking over, they taxed people who made massive amounts of money 90% of their income. We never saw Americans flee the country then. Industry did very well. The middle class expanded and grew.
It's a very practical solution when you realize that most of the corruption in politics in America comes from billionaires trying to control the way a nation goes. Say goodbye to their disposable influence, and the corruption goes too.
J
No one paid 90% in taxes Jack. Well, no one with half a brain. The tax regulations in the 60's were chock full of deductions and other mitigating aspects. Your point is valid in that the marginal rate for top earners (the 0.01% ers for example) was higher then that it is now. Roughly 50% marginal rates vs something closer to 25-30% today.

Still, this doesn't address the tax code's inability to tax wealth (vs income). Capital gains rates have always been lower than income tax rates (at the higher margins) to my knowledge.

Finally, you avoided the question: Where's the line that defines "shouldn't exist" (your comment regarding billionaires)? I think its an interesting question.
 
No one paid 90% in taxes Jack. Well, no one with half a brain. The tax regulations in the 60's were chock full of deductions and other mitigating aspects. Your point is valid in that the marginal rate for top earners (the 0.01% ers for example) was higher then that it is now. Roughly 50% marginal rates vs something closer to 25-30% today.

Still, this doesn't address the tax code's inability to tax wealth (vs income). Capital gains rates have always been lower than income tax rates (at the higher margins) to my knowledge.

Finally, you avoided the question: Where's the line that defines "shouldn't exist" (your comment regarding billionaires)? I think its an interesting question.

You tend to go to the idea of actually killing them.
I say tax billionaires out of existence so they are millionaires. I made that pretty clear.
Your argument that there are deductions and loop holes isn't an argument against doing it.
It's an argument for the government doing it right!
J
 
You tend to go to the idea of actually killing them.
I say tax billionaires out of existence so they are millionaires. I made that pretty clear.
Your argument that there are deductions and loop holes isn't an argument against doing it.
It's an argument for the government doing it right!
J
Now do Power. How do you mitigate the fact that all those billionaires would just shift their asset value to legal agreement values. Like “control of…..” as opposed to ownership of..?
 
Now do Power. How do you mitigate the fact that all those billionaires would just shift their asset value to legal agreement values. Like “control of…..” as opposed to ownership of..?

Using the same laws that many countries have about how much money and gifts politicians can accept from outside sources.
By also making it illegal for people who work in the government to take a job in a sector that they had any influence in for five years (For fuck's sake I had to sign a document to get a job that if let go I couldn't work in the computer industry for 4 years afterwards. If it's good enough for the private sector it's good enough for the citizenry)

Right now politics in America is a revolving door of corporate graft and abuse.
These things aren't difficult to do. It just requires will.
J
 
You tend to go to the idea of actually killing them.
That was your term Jack. ;)

I say tax billionaires out of existence so they are millionaires. I made that pretty clear.
You hadn't. This is the first time you've set a threshold. Millionaires are acceptable I take it. Is that millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions?

The threshold is what interests me in these discussions. How they are set, what logic/rationale is used to determine it, etc.
 
That was your term Jack. ;)
Nope. Never ONCE is my solution to KILL THEM.

You hadn't. This is the first time you've set a threshold. Millionaires are acceptable I take it. Is that millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions?
Yup. I don't have a problem with wealth, just obscene wealth. Not sure why America is the only democratic nation that has no problem with it. Especially considering to get those billions you have to circumvent tax laws, use the public purse and destroy other's people lives to do so.
Name me a single billionaire that made their money without any of that.



The threshold is what interests me in these discussions. How they are set, what logic/rationale is used to determine it, etc.
The ethical rationale as depicted above. We do believe in ethics right? Morality? We recognize that anyone with more money than 95% of their neighbours has a very disproportionate means of affecting laws designed for everyone right? Or do you think it's' a good idea that Bill Gates is owning most of the Grade A farmland and putting local farmers out of business? Do you think it's right that he's put in charge of the health of other nations when he has ZERO experience beyond being a computer guy- and someone who bought out others and didn't make anything himself?
Do you think that it's moral that Amazon pays zero taxes and takes average Americans money to operate the most lucrative business on the planet?
Do you think Soros should have this money to interfere with the politics of other nations based on his own beliefs?
Don't you believe that people should actually live in a nation where their vote matters or just the richest peoples?
This shouldn't be a real head scratcher.
 
The ethical rationale as depicted above. We do believe in ethics right? Morality? We recognize that anyone with more money than 95% of their neighbours has a very disproportionate means of affecting laws designed for everyone right? Or do you think it's' a good idea that Bill Gates is owning most of the Grade A farmland and putting local farmers out of business? Do you think it's right that he's put in charge of the health of other nations when he has ZERO experience beyond being a computer guy- and someone who bought out others and didn't make anything himself?
Do you think that it's moral that Amazon pays zero taxes and takes average Americans money to operate the most lucrative business on the planet?
Do you think Soros should have this money to interfere with the politics of other nations based on his own beliefs?
Don't you believe that people should actually live in a nation where their vote matters or just the richest peoples?
This shouldn't be a real head scratcher.
I'm sensitive to the moral and ethical questions here Jack.

The question I'm more interested in is the practical.

Take this comment from your quote above: We recognize that anyone with more money than 95% of their neighbours has a very disproportionate means of affecting laws designed for everyone right?

How do we apply this? Down to what level? Take a rural community, call it one with 500 families. There's one family who's patriarch/matriarch was simply the best farmer in the area. Over time they came to be 20x more successful than the next most successful family. Should their accumulated wealth/production/income be redistributed so as to not violate the 95% threshold you provided above? Most people in the U.S. at least would not suggest the government step in and redistribute.

So where is the line drawn? After Gates, Bezos, and Soros how far down to you go?

This may only be an interesting question to me as you've seemed to not engage on this point. That's fine if you (and everyone else) don't find this worthy of discussion. I can certainly drop it. :)
 
I'm sensitive to the moral and ethical questions here Jack.

The question I'm more interested in is the practical.

Take this comment from your quote above: We recognize that anyone with more money than 95% of their neighbours has a very disproportionate means of affecting laws designed for everyone right?

How do we apply this? Down to what level? Take a rural community, call it one with 500 families. There's one family who's patriarch/matriarch was simply the best farmer in the area. Over time they came to be 20x more successful than the next most successful family. Should their accumulated wealth/production/income be redistributed so as to not violate the 95% threshold you provided above? Most people in the U.S. at least would not suggest the government step in and redistribute.

So where is the line drawn? After Gates, Bezos, and Soros how far down to you go?

This may only be an interesting question to me as you've seemed to not engage on this point. That's fine if you (and everyone else) don't find this worthy of discussion. I can certainly drop it. :)

Again, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to be dismissive or insulting, but I am completely surprised that this is a practical struggle for you. We already have had laws against corruption that have been removed. They worked very well when in place and you could see this by the wealth of the middle class growing as well as the top end. What we're looking at is a ridiculous spike of the very wealthy taking advantage of the rest of us because the rules and regulations have been stripped away.
Here's a link from PEW Research https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/

You keep wanting to apply this as some kind of strictly communist metaphor and I'm sorry that doesn't work when we have a history of this in America. Once again, I will point you to the difference between the Gilded Age and FDR's reformation. We didn't see this great communist takeover of America simply because effective and responsible legislation was in place.

You keep asking me who _I_ would go in and take money from. I wouldn't do it. This is a governmental readjustment from all the times corporations and the wealthy have STOLEN from us.
Hell if it were up to me Corporations wouldn't exist either, at least the unending "Corporations are people" bastardization of the term.
Do you know that corporations were designed ONLY to exist for a particular project and then they had to go away back to their original pieces?
Do you know that the whole idea of corporations AS people comes from a misreading of a law designed to make black slaves free?
Corporate Welfare is a blight on the American economy and capitalism itself.
https://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/research/corporate-welfare-in-3-charts/

I gave you practical measures:
1. Billionaires should be taxed down to millionaire status. Let's go with a random. No one should have more than a 100 million dollars of personal annual income. That's fair right?
2. Corporations shouldn't be given tax breaks, environmental breaks, and public funds. Period. If they can't survive pulling up their bootstraps they shouldn't exist.
3. There should be no such thing as "too big too fail". That alone creates corporate welfare.
4. Monies stolen from the public purse by corporations and billionaires should be taken back- by force if necessary.
5. Corruption in government should be considered as serious as any other felony crime. Money needs to be put back into both the IRS and taken away from DEA light drugs like marijuana to once again energize White Collar crime. These were THINGS in America's history.
6. The Wall Street banksters that held the economy hostage should be charged and jailed if found complicit. Banks should be broken up

These are very specific to help you.
7. It is illegal in most democratic countries for politicians of any level to have conflicts of interest. This is again, NOT NEW for America.

These are all starters. We can collect some of the smarter people for more effective reforms.
a. Matt Taibbi could work with others reforming Wall Street from the corrupt vampire squid that they are.
b. Thomas Frank and others could work on re-enforcing everything from corruptly drawn Gerrymandering and allowing for more open voting away from the two-party system.

Hell, this is us just getting started.
J
 
Here's your "Great Reset". Not someone with a Powerpoint in a European country. But late-stage capitalism corrupting a system until it smothers its populace.
 
I suspect Trudeau will be hoping Canada sets the pace.

We'll see. I still am blown away by people saying he's Castros son.
I have no idea why folks who tend to be on the conservative side have to have grand conspiracies to explain simple power and greed of an unregulated capitalist system.
It's almost like there is a requirement to have some overreaching belief that there's someone out there with Dr. Evil level abilities moving the strings of everyone. But we've had since the original Gilded Age to see this is what happens.
J
 
But we've had since the original Gilded Age to see this is what happens.
I think its a bit myopic to lay all this at the feet of "unregulated capitalism".

This phenomenon goes back to the dawn of civilization regardless of the form or specific "ism".
 
Back
Top