patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,249,125 comments by 14,896 users - HeadSet, The_Deplorable online now
Billionaires are desperate to keep you from talking about the harm billionaires do, and a tax plan to stop it
invite response
2020 Nov 30, 8:26pm 2,402 views 96 comments
« First « Previous Comments 12 - 51 of 96 Next » Last » Search these comments
12
ForcedTQ
2020 Nov 30, 10:39pm
Patrick says
I get it Patrick, I guess I have a hard time with it based on the principle that I don’t see wealth as inherently bad and something to tax. I have a goal of having a few million invested by retirement so that I can provide for my family, my end of life, and pass a nest egg down to children. Nothing fancy as by the time I can retire a few million will probably generate a very pedestrian annual return.
@ForcedTQ
I'm not talking about people like us at all.
Should billionaires pay capital gains taxes?
How much wealth concentration would you allow? Would you be fine with one person literally owning everything?
I get it Patrick, I guess I have a hard time with it based on the principle that I don’t see wealth as inherently bad and something to tax. I have a goal of having a few million invested by retirement so that I can provide for my family, my end of life, and pass a nest egg down to children. Nothing fancy as by the time I can retire a few million will probably generate a very pedestrian annual return.
13
Patrick
2020 Nov 30, 10:40pm
Patrick
2020 Nov 30, 10:40pm
So you're saying that the new owner of Amazon stock that Bezos would have to sell to pay taxes would not be running Amazon as well?
I'm all for that. What we need to do is stop Amazon from eating everything.
The people you way are "not cut out to be homeowners let alone landlords" would not be the ones buying most of that Amazon stock. It would be other rich people.
I'm not against people getting rich, but I think there should be an upper limit in order to:
- stop monopolistic businesses (all billionaires seem to get there via anti-free market monopolies)
- give other businesses and people a chance
- slow down the ridiculous levels of political corruption caused by that wealth
- give the rich a motive to tell the Fed not to inflate
67 billionaires gave $1M or more to Biden's campaign, and I think none gave more than a million to Trump's.
Those 67 billionaires want more of those policies that let them run away with the ball.
I'm all for that. What we need to do is stop Amazon from eating everything.
The people you way are "not cut out to be homeowners let alone landlords" would not be the ones buying most of that Amazon stock. It would be other rich people.
I'm not against people getting rich, but I think there should be an upper limit in order to:
- stop monopolistic businesses (all billionaires seem to get there via anti-free market monopolies)
- give other businesses and people a chance
- slow down the ridiculous levels of political corruption caused by that wealth
- give the rich a motive to tell the Fed not to inflate
67 billionaires gave $1M or more to Biden's campaign, and I think none gave more than a million to Trump's.
Those 67 billionaires want more of those policies that let them run away with the ball.
14
Patrick
2020 Nov 30, 10:42pm
Patrick
2020 Nov 30, 10:42pm
ForcedTQ says
@ForcedTQ I agree and want exactly that as well! I would not want a wealth tax on anyone like you.
Not even close.
It would start at $100M and then be only 10% of the amount above that but below $200M.
I have a goal of having a few million invested by retirement so that I can provide for my family, my end of life, and pass a nest egg down to children. Nothing fancy as by the time I can retire a few million will probably generate a very pedestrian annual return.
@ForcedTQ I agree and want exactly that as well! I would not want a wealth tax on anyone like you.
Not even close.
It would start at $100M and then be only 10% of the amount above that but below $200M.
15
Zak
2020 Nov 30, 10:51pm
Patrick, he may be against it, but that doesn't mean he's making any kind of decent argument. On the other hand, a tax of over 50% for any reason(even billionaires wealth tax) is in my mind, counterproductive. A tax on wealth, even more so, is counter-productive. For the most part, the wealth of these individuals is held in stock of a company they are in control of in whole or part. For better or worse, money is a sign of productivity. People will only give you money if they find what you are selling valuable. It's a voluntary transaction. The person making money has set up a system of people, machinery, and other assets and contracts to deliver something of value to the world. Everyone shops at Amazon because it is better. It may be that.. let me rephrase... it is criminal that we have allowed chinese goods to come into the market and the manufacturing to relocate overseas. But that isn't Bezo's fault.. Same thing with Wal-Mart. If we want to tax something, it should be the import of chinese goods, not the wealth of the person who has figured out how to give an amazing shopping experience. Not that he's a saint, but if we took Musk's money, would he have been able to build Tesla or SpaceX?
On the other hand, as you clearly point out, Bezos didn't build Amazon in a vacuum. He's making a lot of money of the sweat of the workers in his warehouses. So why are we taxing the workers in the warehouse? Stupid... We need to eliminate the income tax.. Yes, on Bezos as well, even with his billions of dollars. If we are taxing the imported chinese goods, we are still collecting the same tax one way or the other, but we aren't burdening warehouse workers with the paperwork of income tax. Then we can keep capital gains taxes when wealth is SOLD still. There are 1000 ways to tax, and somehow we always get stuck with people fighting each other about income tax rates. This to me is one of those things that keeps people battling each other instead of fighting to make a better country. Just let people be free of the IRS unless they run a business.
Finally, as we build historic national wealth, we have some asinine situations in this country. We are the richest nation on the planet.... but we are 20 trillion dollars in debt, and paying interest on that money!?!? Why? Just print the dollars, and make banks find an actual endeavor to loan money to.
We create a national welfare fund for the elderly and sick, collect money from all the people to fund it, then invest the money in low yield bonds on an infinite timeframe!?!?! Why!?!? Invest in the Russel 2000, and in foreign markets! Create a social security surplus instead of funding hole!
The Soviet Union has fallen, and the cold war is over, but we continue to fund our military at 8x the next highest nation, while Europe doesn't even pay for its own defense!?!? Why? And then people have the chutzpah to point at European countries and talk about how their economies and healthcare systems are better taking care of the poor!??! That's ridiculous!
We shouldn't pick and choose who is worthwhile of taxes and who isn't. Business makes the money in the country, and the wealthy own their wealth in the businesses. Therefore.... tax business, and keep individual income tax out of it. If you tax something you will get less of it. Right now we are taxing labor. Funny.. we seem to be complaining about how no one is trying to work hard any more. Again, lets tax Chinese goods, and privacy invading data gathering. Maybe lets tax lawyers heavily as well.
On the other hand, as you clearly point out, Bezos didn't build Amazon in a vacuum. He's making a lot of money of the sweat of the workers in his warehouses. So why are we taxing the workers in the warehouse? Stupid... We need to eliminate the income tax.. Yes, on Bezos as well, even with his billions of dollars. If we are taxing the imported chinese goods, we are still collecting the same tax one way or the other, but we aren't burdening warehouse workers with the paperwork of income tax. Then we can keep capital gains taxes when wealth is SOLD still. There are 1000 ways to tax, and somehow we always get stuck with people fighting each other about income tax rates. This to me is one of those things that keeps people battling each other instead of fighting to make a better country. Just let people be free of the IRS unless they run a business.
Finally, as we build historic national wealth, we have some asinine situations in this country. We are the richest nation on the planet.... but we are 20 trillion dollars in debt, and paying interest on that money!?!? Why? Just print the dollars, and make banks find an actual endeavor to loan money to.
We create a national welfare fund for the elderly and sick, collect money from all the people to fund it, then invest the money in low yield bonds on an infinite timeframe!?!?! Why!?!? Invest in the Russel 2000, and in foreign markets! Create a social security surplus instead of funding hole!
The Soviet Union has fallen, and the cold war is over, but we continue to fund our military at 8x the next highest nation, while Europe doesn't even pay for its own defense!?!? Why? And then people have the chutzpah to point at European countries and talk about how their economies and healthcare systems are better taking care of the poor!??! That's ridiculous!
We shouldn't pick and choose who is worthwhile of taxes and who isn't. Business makes the money in the country, and the wealthy own their wealth in the businesses. Therefore.... tax business, and keep individual income tax out of it. If you tax something you will get less of it. Right now we are taxing labor. Funny.. we seem to be complaining about how no one is trying to work hard any more. Again, lets tax Chinese goods, and privacy invading data gathering. Maybe lets tax lawyers heavily as well.
16
richwicks
2020 Dec 1, 12:31am
richwicks
2020 Dec 1, 12:31am
Patrick says
- First there are already laws to prevent monopolies, they simply are not enforced.
- Second if monopoly laws were enforced other businesses would have a chance.
- Third political corruption starts with the government not the business, there are laws against that, which are not enforced.
- Finally, the Fed controls these businesses. If you want the system fixed, you eliminate the Fed.
You will not be able to reform the government because the government is corrupt and they like it this way just fine. Want to kill the Fed? That's easy if you get a coalition. If every American purchased 2 ounces of silver per year, that would deplete the entire world's production of silver. This would crack price controls, crash the stock market, and cause hyperinflation and that would collapse the government and the Fed. At current prices, this would cost every American about $45 in a year.
Of course, the government would just make it illegal to purchase silver unless it's for industrial use.
You can't reform a corrupt government, you have to force it to collapse.
- stop monopolistic businesses (all billionaires seem to get there via anti-free market monopolies)
- give other businesses and people a chance
- slow down the ridiculous levels of political corruption caused by that wealth
- give the rich a motive to tell the Fed not to inflate
- First there are already laws to prevent monopolies, they simply are not enforced.
- Second if monopoly laws were enforced other businesses would have a chance.
- Third political corruption starts with the government not the business, there are laws against that, which are not enforced.
- Finally, the Fed controls these businesses. If you want the system fixed, you eliminate the Fed.
You will not be able to reform the government because the government is corrupt and they like it this way just fine. Want to kill the Fed? That's easy if you get a coalition. If every American purchased 2 ounces of silver per year, that would deplete the entire world's production of silver. This would crack price controls, crash the stock market, and cause hyperinflation and that would collapse the government and the Fed. At current prices, this would cost every American about $45 in a year.
Of course, the government would just make it illegal to purchase silver unless it's for industrial use.
You can't reform a corrupt government, you have to force it to collapse.
17
PeopleUnited
2020 Dec 1, 3:00am
PeopleUnited
2020 Dec 1, 3:00am
richwicks says
This.
That is why our founders wrote the Declaration of Independence.
You can't reform a corrupt government
This.
That is why our founders wrote the Declaration of Independence.
18
BayArea
2020 Dec 1, 6:10am
BayArea
2020 Dec 1, 6:10am
Patrick, what about all the jobs amazon has created? What about all the money amazon stock has made me in recent years? What about all the convenience amazon has brought to my life? What about the pandemic safety net amazon created by being able to get nearly anything to my door without leaving my house?
19
Shaman
2020 Dec 1, 8:14am
Shaman
2020 Dec 1, 8:14am
Patrick says
I was with you up until this proposal.
I ask you one question: how hard would it be for a billionaire to expatriate?
My answer: not hard at all, and it would be absolutely guaranteed if they were threatened with a 20% wealth tax let alone a 100%. The tax needs to be sneakier than that. It can’t be an in your face expropriation of wealth. That might work on some wealthy people if it was low enough like maybe 3%.
Other than that, we can only do other things: like a return to the fair and balanced news doctrine.
10% wealth tax annually on wealth between $100M and $200M
20% wealth tax annually on wealth between $200M and $300M
....
100% wealth tax annually on wealth over $1B
I was with you up until this proposal.
I ask you one question: how hard would it be for a billionaire to expatriate?
My answer: not hard at all, and it would be absolutely guaranteed if they were threatened with a 20% wealth tax let alone a 100%. The tax needs to be sneakier than that. It can’t be an in your face expropriation of wealth. That might work on some wealthy people if it was low enough like maybe 3%.
Other than that, we can only do other things: like a return to the fair and balanced news doctrine.
20
NDrLoR
2020 Dec 1, 8:34am
NDrLoR
2020 Dec 1, 8:34am
Patrick says
Shaman says
Would you be fine with one person literally owning everything?The Hunt brothers tried it with silver to their undoing as the price crashed once they stopped buying. Would be funny to see the same thing happen to everything else when no one else could buy.
Shaman says
I ask you one question: how hard would it be for a billionaire to expatriate?Didn't something similar happen in Great Britain after the war when the welfare state was established and taxes were virtually confiscatory? Lots of wealthy artists left Britain because there was no longer any incentive to be productive at a high level.
21
SoTex
2020 Dec 1, 8:51am
SoTex
2020 Dec 1, 8:51am
Patrick says
It always starts with the 'rich' people. But fucks the (what's left of it) middle class over in the long run.
It would start at $100M
It always starts with the 'rich' people. But fucks the (what's left of it) middle class over in the long run.
22
rocketjoe79
2020 Dec 1, 8:53am
rocketjoe79
2020 Dec 1, 8:53am
I don't think an upper limit on earnings is needed. For example, I don't think Elon Musk has done anything but fairly compete in his businesses. He set up what was supposed to be an IMPOSSIBLE compensation package to achieve at Tesla - and yet he has done it. Does he deserve to be limited in compensation? Taxed, yes, but not limited. Taxed to a certain total worth? How would he have been able to invest in SpaceX and Tesla if the profits for his windfall sale of Paypal had been taxed?
And let's remember, where do all the taxes go? To the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Can we trust congresscritters to reduce the tax burden on the average Joe? Oh, hell, no. They will spend these taxes on NEW programs to EXPAND government handouts and other boondoggles. For example, I love Space exploration. Musk has beaten everyone else to the punch on cost and delivery. But the government continues to fund the $16 Billion (so far) SLS Program even though it's been plagued by massive cost overruns and a decade of delays. Or how about the California High Speed Rail debacle?? What a joke.
And let's remember, where do all the taxes go? To the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Can we trust congresscritters to reduce the tax burden on the average Joe? Oh, hell, no. They will spend these taxes on NEW programs to EXPAND government handouts and other boondoggles. For example, I love Space exploration. Musk has beaten everyone else to the punch on cost and delivery. But the government continues to fund the $16 Billion (so far) SLS Program even though it's been plagued by massive cost overruns and a decade of delays. Or how about the California High Speed Rail debacle?? What a joke.
23
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 8:54am
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 8:54am
Zak says
I maintain that billionaires became billionaires by preventing the free market from working.
It is not really a voluntary transaction when Bezos has a near-monopoly on retail, or Microsoft and Apple have a duopoly on operating systems, Google has a near monopoly on search, Facebook a monopoly on social networking, etc.
To get that rich, you have to prevent competition, not beat it.Shaman says
Impossible with land, and near impossible with stock on US exchanges.
It's a voluntary transaction.
I maintain that billionaires became billionaires by preventing the free market from working.
It is not really a voluntary transaction when Bezos has a near-monopoly on retail, or Microsoft and Apple have a duopoly on operating systems, Google has a near monopoly on search, Facebook a monopoly on social networking, etc.
To get that rich, you have to prevent competition, not beat it.Shaman says
I ask you one question: how hard would it be for a billionaire to expatriate?
Impossible with land, and near impossible with stock on US exchanges.
24
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 8:55am
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 8:55am
BayArea says
Amazon has destroyed far more jobs than they created.
what about all the jobs amazon has created?
Amazon has destroyed far more jobs than they created.
25
🎂
Karloff
2020 Dec 1, 9:02am
Karloff
2020 Dec 1, 9:02am
I see the existence of the massive companies and huge concentrations of wealth more as a symptom of a broken system, rather than a tax issue.
When monopoly occurs, we need to look at why. Competition is what prevents this situation, and results in a greater distribution of the profits as well as eliminating a "too big to fail" scenario of a single, large, entity. Monopolies can occur naturally, but in many cases it is due to corruption of the regulatory and legal systems. One or more players realize they can unfairly disadvantage competitors by buying laws and regulations that provide barriers to entry, or result in disproportionate hurdles among the players. These laws are bought through politicians who will favor campaign donations over public interest.
Wage and operating cost arbitrage is another way they will tip the scales. Evading environmental and labor laws by doing work in other countries where such laws are lax or do not apply at all allows a player to subvert the system of protections we have built in order to garner more profit. Other players are then forced to do same, or go out of business as they cannot compete. Race to the bottom, and destruction of our economy is the result. Tariffs in proportion to the savings is an obvious solution to this, which the corporations will do their best to fight through courts. In the end, this requires a government that upholds the law and is entrusted to the country as a whole, rather than their own pocketbooks.
You have to remove the crooked politicians before anything can improve.
When monopoly occurs, we need to look at why. Competition is what prevents this situation, and results in a greater distribution of the profits as well as eliminating a "too big to fail" scenario of a single, large, entity. Monopolies can occur naturally, but in many cases it is due to corruption of the regulatory and legal systems. One or more players realize they can unfairly disadvantage competitors by buying laws and regulations that provide barriers to entry, or result in disproportionate hurdles among the players. These laws are bought through politicians who will favor campaign donations over public interest.
Wage and operating cost arbitrage is another way they will tip the scales. Evading environmental and labor laws by doing work in other countries where such laws are lax or do not apply at all allows a player to subvert the system of protections we have built in order to garner more profit. Other players are then forced to do same, or go out of business as they cannot compete. Race to the bottom, and destruction of our economy is the result. Tariffs in proportion to the savings is an obvious solution to this, which the corporations will do their best to fight through courts. In the end, this requires a government that upholds the law and is entrusted to the country as a whole, rather than their own pocketbooks.
You have to remove the crooked politicians before anything can improve.
26
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 10:49am
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 10:49am
Karloff says
I agree with all of that, but am pessimistic that our corruption can be ended as long as billionaires exist.
I think the best step toward ending corruption is to end the existence of billionaires first.
I see the existence of the massive companies and huge concentrations of wealth more as a symptom of a broken system, rather than a tax issue.
When monopoly occurs, we need to look at why. Competition is what prevents this situation, and results in a greater distribution of the profits as well as eliminating a "too big to fail" scenario of a single, large, entity. Monopolies can occur naturally, but in many cases it is due to corruption of the regulatory and legal systems. One or more players realize they can unfairly disadvantage competitors by buying laws and regulations that provide barriers to entry, or result in disproportionate hurdles among the players. These laws are bought through politicians who will favor campaign donations over public interest.
Wage and operating cost arbitrage is another way they will tip the scales. Evading environmental and labor laws by doing work in other countries where such laws are lax or do not apply at all allows a player to subvert t...
I agree with all of that, but am pessimistic that our corruption can be ended as long as billionaires exist.
I think the best step toward ending corruption is to end the existence of billionaires first.
27
Bd6r
2020 Dec 1, 12:10pm
Bd6r
2020 Dec 1, 12:10pm
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch says
I'd like to read AF's rants in real time, as soon as they are published
awaiting moderation
I'd like to read AF's rants in real time, as soon as they are published
28
Bd6r
2020 Dec 1, 12:11pm
Bd6r
2020 Dec 1, 12:11pm
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch says
Kamala Harris can slow them down by offering blowjobs...
ONLY TRUMP CAN STOP THE BILLIONAIRES!
Kamala Harris can slow them down by offering blowjobs...
29
Zak
2020 Dec 1, 12:30pm
> I maintain that billionaires became billionaires by preventing the free market from working.
For a billionaire to become so, they must first become a millionaire. It isn't until faaaar along the curve on the way to a billion dollars that these people start to get the kind of influence you are talking about. And you have to sell a LOT of stuff to get to THAT point on the curve.
Back to the wealth tax argument, wealth is held for these guys in corporate stock. So when you advocate "taxing wealth" you are really talking about taking away shares of a company. Shares of a company give you returns, but they also give you voting rights. So what you propose is to take away the ability of a person who owns those shares to influence the company. This is why it's a bad idea. The company got big BECAUSE these people are influencing it (among other factors). I really really like having amazon giving me the amazon experience for shopping, videos, server farms, alexa, fire tablet, etc..... Taking the driving force of bezos away from the company isn't something that a tax policy should do. The problem you have is not with Bezos driving the company, it's with how the wealth is concentrating.
But again, remember Bezos has 11% of AMZN.. what % DID employees get in the form of stock options? What is the combined wealth of ALL the people who built amazon. Sure Bezos is the big winner, but its not like there is no one else making a good salary at Amazon. And who owns the other 80%? Banks? Soveirgn wealth funds? Where are the calls to tax that? I think you are getting a bit of focus narrowing. Would you still be upset about the situation if the Social Security fund was holding 20% of Amazon stock because they bought it when it joined the Russel 2000 ?
Again, the real problem is not that Amazon was so successful in making an amazing product. It is that we allowed them to do so by buying offshore, and bringing products into our market that bypass EPA, OSHA, and FDA rules, while American products have to be produced under these tighter regulations, and higher mandated labor costs. Then we imposed an income tax on the working class that Amazon employed. Stupid Stupid Stupid.
For a billionaire to become so, they must first become a millionaire. It isn't until faaaar along the curve on the way to a billion dollars that these people start to get the kind of influence you are talking about. And you have to sell a LOT of stuff to get to THAT point on the curve.
Back to the wealth tax argument, wealth is held for these guys in corporate stock. So when you advocate "taxing wealth" you are really talking about taking away shares of a company. Shares of a company give you returns, but they also give you voting rights. So what you propose is to take away the ability of a person who owns those shares to influence the company. This is why it's a bad idea. The company got big BECAUSE these people are influencing it (among other factors). I really really like having amazon giving me the amazon experience for shopping, videos, server farms, alexa, fire tablet, etc..... Taking the driving force of bezos away from the company isn't something that a tax policy should do. The problem you have is not with Bezos driving the company, it's with how the wealth is concentrating.
But again, remember Bezos has 11% of AMZN.. what % DID employees get in the form of stock options? What is the combined wealth of ALL the people who built amazon. Sure Bezos is the big winner, but its not like there is no one else making a good salary at Amazon. And who owns the other 80%? Banks? Soveirgn wealth funds? Where are the calls to tax that? I think you are getting a bit of focus narrowing. Would you still be upset about the situation if the Social Security fund was holding 20% of Amazon stock because they bought it when it joined the Russel 2000 ?
Again, the real problem is not that Amazon was so successful in making an amazing product. It is that we allowed them to do so by buying offshore, and bringing products into our market that bypass EPA, OSHA, and FDA rules, while American products have to be produced under these tighter regulations, and higher mandated labor costs. Then we imposed an income tax on the working class that Amazon employed. Stupid Stupid Stupid.
30
ignoreme
2020 Dec 1, 12:46pm
Patrick says
This an extremely flawed argument. Firstly, even if I accept the premise that wealth inequality is unfair (I don’t) the solution of tax it all to give it to the government who will squander it is just dumb.
Yes, Bezos is worth many billions of dollars. Most of that money he has invested in Amazon. Trust me, it’s doing a lot more good there then whatever the government would do with it.
But secondly, the idea that someone could own everything can’t happen in true capitalism. The only way you make money in true capitalism is by producing something of value that someone else buys. It’s a trade, not a theft, and the size of the total economy grows when you do it.
Now, should the government do a better job with regulation? Of course. Make Bezos show country of origin for all the products he sells. Slap terriffs on China for cheating and messing up the environment. If you properly account for all the negative externalities capitalism works great.
Unfortunately, we now life in a country that either due to low information voters or outright fraud, China gets to pick the president, so I’m not too hopeful for the US anymore.
Would it be OK with you if one person owned everything, and everyone else owned nothing and had to pay whatever rent they demanded?
This an extremely flawed argument. Firstly, even if I accept the premise that wealth inequality is unfair (I don’t) the solution of tax it all to give it to the government who will squander it is just dumb.
Yes, Bezos is worth many billions of dollars. Most of that money he has invested in Amazon. Trust me, it’s doing a lot more good there then whatever the government would do with it.
But secondly, the idea that someone could own everything can’t happen in true capitalism. The only way you make money in true capitalism is by producing something of value that someone else buys. It’s a trade, not a theft, and the size of the total economy grows when you do it.
Now, should the government do a better job with regulation? Of course. Make Bezos show country of origin for all the products he sells. Slap terriffs on China for cheating and messing up the environment. If you properly account for all the negative externalities capitalism works great.
Unfortunately, we now life in a country that either due to low information voters or outright fraud, China gets to pick the president, so I’m not too hopeful for the US anymore.
31
Zak
2020 Dec 1, 1:02pm
The sad thing is, it's not a zero sum game. Because someone else has more doesn't mean that you have less. We talk about lack of access to medical care for instance. Today, you can go fill a prescription for antibiotics for maybe $25 with NO insurance. 100 years ago antibiotics did not exist. Precisely BECAUSE we have large pharma, a vaccine for Covid has been produced in under 12 months... How would they have accomplished this with no funded research teams if we restricted their business so they only get enough money from a pill to cover it's manufacturing cost?
To be clear, this is not an apologist manifesto for the rich. There are systemic problems. I'm just pointing out that the solutions people are proposing are (or have the potential to be) quite counterproductive for society. I already mentioned in my earlier posts, the solution I see is eliminating the income tax for non-business owners, and taxing imported goods that undercut US jobs and manufacturing.
To be clear, this is not an apologist manifesto for the rich. There are systemic problems. I'm just pointing out that the solutions people are proposing are (or have the potential to be) quite counterproductive for society. I already mentioned in my earlier posts, the solution I see is eliminating the income tax for non-business owners, and taxing imported goods that undercut US jobs and manufacturing.
32
PaisleyPattern
2020 Dec 1, 1:59pm
Patrick, to 99% of the world, people like you and the other commenters on this thread with your aspirations to a “nice retirement“, with a few million dollars for your end of life and a nest egg to pass on to your children are the equivalent of the billionaires which you are referring to.
It seems some of the people on this site gladly invest in Fed bubble inflated real estate and tech stocks to pursue their own wealth goals yet feel justified in criticizing the system which created the wealth imbalances which create billionaires and first world wealth in general. A few million dollars of wealth is obscenely excessive and unjust to most of the worlds population.
The type of wealth which you feel is reasonable is well beyond the reach of the majority of the worlds population, and what you think is a reasonable goal they would feel justified in confiscating to help less fortunate people.
It’s all pretty relative, I’m sure those people would to tax the crap out of you so that they could afford medication for their kids, running water, not to die of illnesses in their 30s and 40s, to pay for education for their children etc.
It seems some of the people on this site gladly invest in Fed bubble inflated real estate and tech stocks to pursue their own wealth goals yet feel justified in criticizing the system which created the wealth imbalances which create billionaires and first world wealth in general. A few million dollars of wealth is obscenely excessive and unjust to most of the worlds population.
The type of wealth which you feel is reasonable is well beyond the reach of the majority of the worlds population, and what you think is a reasonable goal they would feel justified in confiscating to help less fortunate people.
It’s all pretty relative, I’m sure those people would to tax the crap out of you so that they could afford medication for their kids, running water, not to die of illnesses in their 30s and 40s, to pay for education for their children etc.
33
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 5:17pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 5:17pm
Dbr6 says
@Dbr6 I think you're about the only one. Most of it is disgusting and childish. Not funny anymore.
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch saysawaiting moderation
I'd like to read AF's rants in real time, as soon as they are published
@Dbr6 I think you're about the only one. Most of it is disgusting and childish. Not funny anymore.
34
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 5:20pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 5:20pm
ignoreme says
But the idea that three people could own as much as 160 million people can happen?
The only way an individual makes billions in capitalism is monopoly power, which means the end of the free market.
You can be for billionaires, or for the free market, but not both. They are exact opposites, always.
the idea that someone could own everything can’t happen in true capitalism. The only way you make money in true capitalism is by producing something of value that someone else buys. It’s a trade, not a theft, and the size of the total economy grows when you do it.
But the idea that three people could own as much as 160 million people can happen?
The only way an individual makes billions in capitalism is monopoly power, which means the end of the free market.
You can be for billionaires, or for the free market, but not both. They are exact opposites, always.
35
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 5:22pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 5:22pm
PaisleyPattern says
@PaisleyPattern I disagree. It not relative.
It's totally possible to make a million dollars by working and investing.
It is totally impossible to make a billion dollars by working and investing. The only way is to defeat the free market and to corrupt democracy so anti-monopoly laws are not enforced.
It’s all pretty relative
@PaisleyPattern I disagree. It not relative.
It's totally possible to make a million dollars by working and investing.
It is totally impossible to make a billion dollars by working and investing. The only way is to defeat the free market and to corrupt democracy so anti-monopoly laws are not enforced.
36
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 5:24pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 5:24pm
Zak says
@Zak The pharma industry would like you to believe that they spend money on reasearch, but they really don't.
Their biggest slice of their revenue goes to advertising.
Their second biggest slice goes to profit for shareholders.
Their research expenses are tiny compared to their revenue, especially since they routinely monetize taxpayer-funded research.
How would they have accomplished this with no funded research teams
@Zak The pharma industry would like you to believe that they spend money on reasearch, but they really don't.
Their biggest slice of their revenue goes to advertising.
Their second biggest slice goes to profit for shareholders.
Their research expenses are tiny compared to their revenue, especially since they routinely monetize taxpayer-funded research.
37
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 5:25pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 1, 5:25pm
ignoreme says
So like I said above, don't give it to the government. Give it directly to all the non-billionaires.
solution of tax it all to give it to the government who will squander it is just dumb.
So like I said above, don't give it to the government. Give it directly to all the non-billionaires.
38
PaisleyPattern
2020 Dec 1, 6:10pm
Patrick, it’s totally possible if you live in America, were born at the right time, have the benefit of the global reserve currency, the Fed juicing the economy, stocks and real estate, at the expense of future generations and the 80% of the population who didn’t acquire any assets before they were all grossly inflated.
If you happen have been born in most areas of the world, Asia, Africa, Central America etc. forget it, not possible, and if those populations could vote to strip Americans with a couple of million dollars of their wealth, they would do it in a heartbeat.
If you happen have been born in most areas of the world, Asia, Africa, Central America etc. forget it, not possible, and if those populations could vote to strip Americans with a couple of million dollars of their wealth, they would do it in a heartbeat.
39
mell
2020 Dec 1, 10:03pm
PaisleyPattern says
Not really. This is where the duck was more right than wrong. It's not a zero sum game, but wealth is still limited, even though you can create more you can't create it as fast as billionaires can siphon it. So yes it's possible but only at the expense of others. You can be a free market proponent and still have a limit on wealth after which it's just excess. I very much favor an excess wealth tax to balance budgets over all of those income tax raises on those making 100k-1MM per year and all those other hidden fees and surtaxes (and loopholes on the other side) only a boon to accountants and tax professionals.
Patrick, it’s totally possible if you live in America, were born at the right time, have the benefit of the global reserve currency, the Fed juicing the economy, stocks and real estate, at the expense of future generations and the 80% of the population who didn’t acquire any assets before they were all grossly inflated.
If you happen have been born in most areas of the world, Asia, Africa, Central America etc. forget it, not possible, and if those populations could vote to strip Americans with a couple of million dollars of their wealth, they would do it in a heartbeat.
Not really. This is where the duck was more right than wrong. It's not a zero sum game, but wealth is still limited, even though you can create more you can't create it as fast as billionaires can siphon it. So yes it's possible but only at the expense of others. You can be a free market proponent and still have a limit on wealth after which it's just excess. I very much favor an excess wealth tax to balance budgets over all of those income tax raises on those making 100k-1MM per year and all those other hidden fees and surtaxes (and loopholes on the other side) only a boon to accountants and tax professionals.
40
Zak
2020 Dec 1, 10:46pm
@Patrick
> Their biggest slice of their revenue goes to advertising.
Their second biggest slice goes to profit for shareholders.
What good is a drug no one knows about? What good is a company that earns no returns for its investors? Are you mad at the ad agencies that charge Pharma the money to advertise? Why isn't it a public good to get the word out about life saving medications, given to Pharma (and the people) for free?
After 20 years, the patent on any drug expires. They can extend it with variations like extended release (XR), but the basic drug goes generic. Companies are then free to manufacture it without royalty. These companies make life saving drugs, and have a short window to make a profit doing an amazing thing for humanity that will benefit the entire world for a thousand years to come.... We want to destroy them for making a profit?!?? NO! We even invent systems of insurance to give people access to these drugs that they would never be able to afford on their salary, as a shared risk pool, and we do it independently from a forced taxation scheme. It provides hands down the best medical technology and care in the world. It's true, not everyone can afford it, and I agree we can do more to fund public support for those that can't. But Pharma isn't giving people cancer. They aren't creating genetic diseases in people. They are CURING these things, or making life liveable with them.
Trump just issued an executive order that allows US companies to buy drugs from foreign suppliers due to the price differentials drug companies are negotiating. How did upstanding Canada respond? Canada banned the export of drugs to the US to protect their subsidized pricing. Everybody knows the US is carrying the world, and the shame of their bullshit shows when they are exposed with these shows of pure vileness. Why is no-one condemning the Canadian government for disallowing poor US citizens access to affordable medicine?
> Their biggest slice of their revenue goes to advertising.
Their second biggest slice goes to profit for shareholders.
What good is a drug no one knows about? What good is a company that earns no returns for its investors? Are you mad at the ad agencies that charge Pharma the money to advertise? Why isn't it a public good to get the word out about life saving medications, given to Pharma (and the people) for free?
After 20 years, the patent on any drug expires. They can extend it with variations like extended release (XR), but the basic drug goes generic. Companies are then free to manufacture it without royalty. These companies make life saving drugs, and have a short window to make a profit doing an amazing thing for humanity that will benefit the entire world for a thousand years to come.... We want to destroy them for making a profit?!?? NO! We even invent systems of insurance to give people access to these drugs that they would never be able to afford on their salary, as a shared risk pool, and we do it independently from a forced taxation scheme. It provides hands down the best medical technology and care in the world. It's true, not everyone can afford it, and I agree we can do more to fund public support for those that can't. But Pharma isn't giving people cancer. They aren't creating genetic diseases in people. They are CURING these things, or making life liveable with them.
Trump just issued an executive order that allows US companies to buy drugs from foreign suppliers due to the price differentials drug companies are negotiating. How did upstanding Canada respond? Canada banned the export of drugs to the US to protect their subsidized pricing. Everybody knows the US is carrying the world, and the shame of their bullshit shows when they are exposed with these shows of pure vileness. Why is no-one condemning the Canadian government for disallowing poor US citizens access to affordable medicine?
41
PaisleyPattern
2020 Dec 1, 11:46pm
mell says
I agree that a distinction can be made between wealth derived from free market capitalism versus monopolistic Control of a market, which is often the outcome of a free market. There’s definitely a case for a blend of free market capitalism with some form of socially controlled restraint and market control. In that sense, The restraint could be in the form of a limitation on monopolies, or a limit to the fruits of the monopolies, which would deter the pursuit of them.
The point I was making is slightly off-topic, but it is that upper middle class wealth, as it is described in the original post, basically having a few million dollars, when viewed relative to the average wealth of all people on the planet, can also be seen as a form of obscene wealth.
Also that level of wealth comes as a result of benefiting from a very uniquely advantageous positioning in time and place, which allowed a small fraction of the US population to benefit from the United States dominance of world finances, Fed currency manipulation, and asset inflation. These benefits seen from the perspective of most of the worlds population, would also be judged as predatory and in need of some form of restriction, so that the entire worlds population could more equally benefit from the worlds resources.
PaisleyPattern saysPatrick, it’s totally possible if you live in America, were born at the right time, have the benefit of the global reserve currency, the Fed juicing the economy, stocks and real estate, at the expense of future generations and the 80% of the population who didn’t acquire any assets before they were all grossly inflated.
If you happen have been born in most areas of the world, Asia, Africa, Central America etc. forget it, not possible, and if those populations could vote to strip Americans with a couple of million dollars of their wealth, they would do it in a heartbeat.
Not really. This is where the duck was more right than wrong. It's not a zero sum game, but wealth is still limited, even though you can create more you can't create it as fast as billionaires can siphon it. So yes it's possible but only at the expense of others. You can be a free market proponent an...
I agree that a distinction can be made between wealth derived from free market capitalism versus monopolistic Control of a market, which is often the outcome of a free market. There’s definitely a case for a blend of free market capitalism with some form of socially controlled restraint and market control. In that sense, The restraint could be in the form of a limitation on monopolies, or a limit to the fruits of the monopolies, which would deter the pursuit of them.
The point I was making is slightly off-topic, but it is that upper middle class wealth, as it is described in the original post, basically having a few million dollars, when viewed relative to the average wealth of all people on the planet, can also be seen as a form of obscene wealth.
Also that level of wealth comes as a result of benefiting from a very uniquely advantageous positioning in time and place, which allowed a small fraction of the US population to benefit from the United States dominance of world finances, Fed currency manipulation, and asset inflation. These benefits seen from the perspective of most of the worlds population, would also be judged as predatory and in need of some form of restriction, so that the entire worlds population could more equally benefit from the worlds resources.
42
Misc
2020 Dec 2, 12:05am
The peasants are always dumbfounded when the uber-wealthy cannot pay their bills. I have a feeling a great many ponzi schemes are gonna blow up in 2021 and I think some big ones are.
43
HeadSet
2020 Dec 2, 6:12am
HeadSet
2020 Dec 2, 6:12am
Misc says
Is that right? Or will they get another Ben Benanke to bail out all the rich (including bonuses) with tax payer money.
The peasants are always dumbfounded when the uber-wealthy cannot pay their bills. I have a feeling a great many ponzi schemes are gonna blow up in 2021 and I think some big ones are.
Is that right? Or will they get another Ben Benanke to bail out all the rich (including bonuses) with tax payer money.
44
ignoreme
2020 Dec 2, 7:01am
Patrick says
That’s an even worse idea. At least if the government had it they could possibly direct the money towards important projects that the free market isn’t addressing well.
I’m too lazy to use exact numbers, but let’s say you did your plan. Firstly, you’d force all the billionaires to sell off most of their assets which would crash the stock market. But let’s ignore that.
I’ll guesstimate that you might get 1 trillion from that (probably less since the billionaires can afford good accountants)
Split that amongst 300 million people and everyone gets 3 grand. Woopie, we can all take a nice cruise or pay for a year of community college. Except consumer prices would inflate, so you’d probably get less then that.
After that, you wouldn’t get much at all since all the billionaires would become Canadians.
So like I said above, don't give it to the government. Give it directly to all the non-billionaires.
That’s an even worse idea. At least if the government had it they could possibly direct the money towards important projects that the free market isn’t addressing well.
I’m too lazy to use exact numbers, but let’s say you did your plan. Firstly, you’d force all the billionaires to sell off most of their assets which would crash the stock market. But let’s ignore that.
I’ll guesstimate that you might get 1 trillion from that (probably less since the billionaires can afford good accountants)
Split that amongst 300 million people and everyone gets 3 grand. Woopie, we can all take a nice cruise or pay for a year of community college. Except consumer prices would inflate, so you’d probably get less then that.
After that, you wouldn’t get much at all since all the billionaires would become Canadians.
45
Bd6r
2020 Dec 2, 8:33am
Bd6r
2020 Dec 2, 8:33am
Misc says
Peasants will bail out the uber-rich, as usual. See 1998, 2008/9, 2020...and many before
The peasants are always dumbfounded when the uber-wealthy cannot pay their bills. I have a feeling a great many ponzi schemes are gonna blow up in 2021 and I think some big ones are.
Peasants will bail out the uber-rich, as usual. See 1998, 2008/9, 2020...and many before
46
Patrick
2020 Dec 2, 12:16pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 2, 12:16pm
Zak says
@Zak It isn't good because most of this advertising is designed to get patients to pressure their doctors to scam insurance companies. It's described pretty well here:
From https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/20/the-amish-health-care-system/
The advertising is not for the good of the patient, or to help doctors, or anyone else. It's to scam insurance companies for the benefit of Big Pharma, massively driving up costs for the rest of us when we want to get insurance.
There's a reason that Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America is in the top 20 bribers of Congress:
https://www.businessinsider.com/lobbying-groups-spent-most-money-washington-dc-2018-2019-3?op=1#pharmaceutical-research-and-manufacturers-of-america-17
The reason is to prevent laws which block these scams so that you and me and everyone else reading this has to fork over more money every year and get nothing extra for it.
Big Pharma == Pure Evil
Are you mad at the ad agencies that charge Pharma the money to advertise? Why isn't it a public good to get the word out about life saving medications, given to Pharma (and the people) for free?
@Zak It isn't good because most of this advertising is designed to get patients to pressure their doctors to scam insurance companies. It's described pretty well here:
I’ve written before about how a pharma company took clonidine, a workhorse older drug that costs $4.84 a month, transformed it into Lucemyra, a basically identical drug that costs $1,974.78 a month, then created a rebate plan so that patients wouldn’t have to pay any extra out-of-pocket. Then they told patients to ask their doctors for Lucemyra because it was newer and cooler. Patients sometimes went along with this, being indifferent between spending $4 of someone else’s money or $2000 of someone else’s money. Everything in the US health system is like this, and the Amish avoid all of it. They have a normal free market in medical care where people pay for a product with their own money (or their community’s money) and have incentives to check how much it costs before they buy it. I do want to over-emphasize this one, and honestly I am surprised Amish health care costs are only ten times cheaper than ours are.
From https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/20/the-amish-health-care-system/
The advertising is not for the good of the patient, or to help doctors, or anyone else. It's to scam insurance companies for the benefit of Big Pharma, massively driving up costs for the rest of us when we want to get insurance.
There's a reason that Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America is in the top 20 bribers of Congress:
https://www.businessinsider.com/lobbying-groups-spent-most-money-washington-dc-2018-2019-3?op=1#pharmaceutical-research-and-manufacturers-of-america-17
The reason is to prevent laws which block these scams so that you and me and everyone else reading this has to fork over more money every year and get nothing extra for it.
Big Pharma == Pure Evil
47
Bd6r
2020 Dec 2, 12:27pm
Bd6r
2020 Dec 2, 12:27pm
Patrick says
+ a lot of research leading to best selling drugs is financed by NIH or other gov't institutions. I recall that Taxol was developed by NIH/National Cancer Institute, the semi-synthesis was developed at Florida State University, and all of that was appropriated Bristol Myer Squibb, who earned untold billions.
Have to agree with @Patrick that drug companies are Pure Evil (TM)
Big Pharma == Pure Evil
+ a lot of research leading to best selling drugs is financed by NIH or other gov't institutions. I recall that Taxol was developed by NIH/National Cancer Institute, the semi-synthesis was developed at Florida State University, and all of that was appropriated Bristol Myer Squibb, who earned untold billions.
Have to agree with @Patrick that drug companies are Pure Evil (TM)
48
Patrick
2020 Dec 2, 12:58pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 2, 12:58pm
My father-in-law was a professor in the medical school at a well-known university. It seems to me that he made a lot of money by providing the official Seal of Approval(TM) from well-known university to the drug industry for whatever new drug they were touting. I think they would give him "honorariums" for "objectively examining" the new drug.
49
Bd6r
2020 Dec 2, 1:00pm
Bd6r
2020 Dec 2, 1:00pm
Patrick says
+ speaking gigs. If you get in loop with drug companies, you can earn a fortune talking there and consulting them.
I think they would give him "honorariums" for "objectively examining" the new drug.
+ speaking gigs. If you get in loop with drug companies, you can earn a fortune talking there and consulting them.
50
Zak
2020 Dec 2, 2:51pm
>Have to agree with @Patrick that drug companies are Pure Evil (TM)
I agree that there is the traditional slimy sales bullshit that happens in Pharma, but its just like every other industry. Is "Big Food" evil because of corn syrup? The remainder of your complaints actually come from a different source though: income tax. As you mention, everything is driven through insurance, and the reason for this is because employer provided insurance is income tax deductible. Medical costs only recently have become "deductible" via FSA and HSA accounts under the 10% income base excluded for healthcare costs.
As Patrick notes, when there is a direct pay for service model for the majority of standard care, costs drop dramatically. The best way to facilitate this is to change the system so that ALL of your expenses to improve your life are automatically excluded from tax, and you don't have to try to funnel them through an insurance system for tax savings. The most straight forward way to do this is to just eliminate the income tax entirely. You get to spend your own money how you want without the myriad of government control schemes to influence your behavior. The taxes that would have been collected in aggregate can just be levied directly onto business (that would have paid them anyway via your salary).
It strikes me, that this is the conclusion the original framers of the constitution came up with, and hence is the reason they outlawed income taxes. We did just fine without them prior to WW1, and I say we go back to that model.
I agree that there is the traditional slimy sales bullshit that happens in Pharma, but its just like every other industry. Is "Big Food" evil because of corn syrup? The remainder of your complaints actually come from a different source though: income tax. As you mention, everything is driven through insurance, and the reason for this is because employer provided insurance is income tax deductible. Medical costs only recently have become "deductible" via FSA and HSA accounts under the 10% income base excluded for healthcare costs.
As Patrick notes, when there is a direct pay for service model for the majority of standard care, costs drop dramatically. The best way to facilitate this is to change the system so that ALL of your expenses to improve your life are automatically excluded from tax, and you don't have to try to funnel them through an insurance system for tax savings. The most straight forward way to do this is to just eliminate the income tax entirely. You get to spend your own money how you want without the myriad of government control schemes to influence your behavior. The taxes that would have been collected in aggregate can just be levied directly onto business (that would have paid them anyway via your salary).
It strikes me, that this is the conclusion the original framers of the constitution came up with, and hence is the reason they outlawed income taxes. We did just fine without them prior to WW1, and I say we go back to that model.
51
RWSGFY
2020 Dec 2, 2:54pm
RWSGFY
2020 Dec 2, 2:54pm
Zak says
Solves our Chy-Na problem too.
It strikes me, that this is the conclusion the original framers of the constitution came up with, and hence is the reason they outlawed income taxes. We did just fine without them prior to WW1, and I say we go back to that model.
Solves our Chy-Na problem too.
« First « Previous Comments 12 - 51 of 96 Next » Last » Search these comments
Sure, there are fawning fellating articles that go on and on about how generous billionaires are when funding programs that divide us further so we can't unify against them, but nowhere ever in the press will you find an article which flat-out states the truth that the billionaires are the problem, and in no way the solution.
This is why the news is nothing but deliberate divisiveness. It would be fun to catch the billionaires pulling the strings of the media, telling the nominal "editors" that divisive stories get top billing every night. Their slimy trail can't be that well hidden because it's all day every day in all the mainstream media.
And Americans in particular do not want to hear the nasty fact that wealth at that level is in no way a good thing for the country or for 99.9998% of its residents (literally). The American national religion worships billionaires as examples of what we should all want to be. Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Fuck the little people. "Taxes are for the little people." The US tax system is nuts. Why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate than income from actual work?
Who wants to hear about the lifestyles of the two hundred million people between the coasts impoverished by Bezos, who has pretty much wiped out US retail and US manufacturing by selling us all cheap shit from China? Or about how the 5 billionaires of the Walton family killed Main Street with Walmart, also selling cheap shit from China? Or about how Bill Gates set the computer industry back decades by selectively murdering the competition by giving away their products until they died? Or how Larry and Sergei at Google and Mark at Facebook wiped out all real journalism by wiping out the ads that supported it, and now manipulate our elections, spy on us, and sell that data to the highest bidder, or to the government. Those stories are not as much fun as hagiographies. They do not get printed.
Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett collectively have more wealth than the bottom 160 million Americans.
Three people.
Three.
They are all Democrats.
Behind every billionaire is a long trail of bodies, ruined small businesses, ruined lives, and extreme political corruption. It was not "hard work". Nobody ever did enough work to earn a billion dollars themselves.
It would be so fucking justified to limit maximum wealth per person to one billion dollars, and the economy would surge as smaller competitors would finally have a chance. All of us would be far better off, except for the 800 US billionaires.
And don't bother calling me a communist. I'm all for getting rich, rich enough to retire nicely, but a billion? "Behind every great fortune is an equally great crime."
Billionaires made an extra $600 billion or so from the pandemic by wiping out small businesses.
Here's my tax plan:
0% wealth tax on wealth less than $100M.
10% wealth tax annually on wealth between $100M and $200M
20% wealth tax annually on wealth between $200M and $300M
....
100% wealth tax annually on wealth over $1B
This tax plan would affect only the 5,000 Americans with assets of more than $100M.
So there would be a limit on how rich you can get in America: one billion dollars in assets. After that level, billionaires stop hogging everything and let others have a chance too. Does anyone really need more than a billion? Why? Certainly nobody ever earned that much money through their own efforts. At that level, it's all monopolies preventing the free market from working. If you like free markets, you can't like billionaires. They are opposites.
The biggest bonus: if we keep the limit at one billion dollars, the rich will have a huge incentive to keep inflation at zero. So the saving of the rest of us would be preserved against confiscation by the Fed's printing press.