@Enco remind me: Why do we need multi-billionaires?

Homepage Forums Politics @Enco remind me: Why do we need multi-billionaires?

This topic contains 26 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 2 weeks, 6 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #39339

    Unseen
    Participant

    Since you brought it up in the pitbull discussion, it’s apparently something you’re itching to teach us about, so here’s your chance. Why should we tolerate the gigantic shift of wealth to a very few and to the detriment of the rest of us?

    Like I said in the pitbull thread, we don’t want to have them pay for shit INSTEAD OF US, we want them to just show up ready to pay THEIR SHARE. In other words, to become citizens again.

    • This topic was modified 4 weeks ago by  Unseen.
    #39341

    Unseen
    Participant

    One reason the lower (than 1%) classes are losing ground is that the rich don’t put their money back into the economy. It sits in stocks, for example, or is hidden overseas. The rest of us are forced to put our money back into the economy to buy food, to pay for cars or transportation, to have shelter over our heads, to pay for medical bills, etc., etc., etc.

     

    • This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by  Unseen.
    #39343

    Davis
    Moderator

    Nobody on Earth needs more than a billion dollars for any reason. That doesn’t mean it should be confiscated, but they should pay fair taxes on their wealth, which many avoid though various means (some unjustly legal other not legal which the government unjustly doesn’t commit resources to stopping and prosecuting). The same goes for corporations, some of whom pay virtually no taxes on profits from other countries (with the US government currently wrangling other countries not to try and tax). For example: amazon, google, facebook pay an absofuckinglutely pittance of a tax to the UK on profits made in the UK. When they tried to raise taxes on it to what would have still been an extremely modest level, the US government threatened retaliations. I didn’t see a single libertarian complaining about this. Instead of agreeing that prominent individuals and corporations aren’t paying their fair share (which some libertarians claim is reasonable though they may disagree with what level should be fair) they instead show their rich people and corporation worship by defending such corporations as doing the noble and virtuous things they do: doing whatever they can to get away with not paying their fair share.

    If what is admirable is making profits at any cost and avoiding an even pitiful contribution in return at any cost…then why wouldn’t someone admiring this not accept or spend their stimulus cheque?

    • This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by  Davis.
    #39348

    jakelafort
    Participant

    The disparity in wealth defies a descriptor. Obscene, absurd, indefensible, shocking, outrageous? None of em capture the disparity and the cost in quality of life to the many of the pig at the trough, dominant male lion at his kill, go fuck yourself and have crumbs mindset of the elite wealthy. And even the philanthropists give a relative pittance.

    And then ya observe how many defend the status quo notwithstanding they’re furthering the interests of that tiny minority and subordinating the greater good. But their mindless ideology takes precedence. Woop de doo. It makes me think of qanon and antivaxxers who are ON THE CASE. Oh they question the shit out of authority. They KNOW shit is never on the level. And yet their skepticism stops at the door of the church. The one place the mindless masses ought to say this stinks to high fake heaven and rail against the authority of the church with its role in promoting horrible ethics. But no they want to suck jesus dong.

    It is just a matter of time and how we end as a species. I give us one percent chance of making it 150 years.

    #39349

    Unseen
    Participant

    The uber-wealthy depend upon corrupting the legislator class by feeding them the money they want (and think they need) to stay in office, because only by staying in office will they be able to get the money the uber-wealthy send their way and with which they, the legislators, enrich themselves.

    Our legislators sit on committees allowing them to propound legislation and set up regulations which they then act upon to increase their own wealth. In essence, they do legalized insider trading which they’d be unable to do if they lost their position. Hence the importance of staying in office using the money and inside info they get from the multibillionaires and the lobbyists of the big corporations.

    Not only is our system of government corrupt, it’s set up to foster and reward corruption in ways that largely shelter the corrupted from any major legal risk. The only reason not to be corrupt is a desire to be good, and there will always be people who’d rather be rich and/or powerful than good. And that’s why it’s good and necessary to restrain them.

    • This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by  Unseen.
    #39383

    Unseen
    Participant

    Maybe we should shift the tax base to include passively accumulating wealth as well as (and maybe instead of) paycheck income. Because you and I receive paychecks but many billionaires don’t or receive relatively little, they may escape taxes altogether, using it to accumulate even more wealth by, perhaps, borrowing against it to accumulate even more. A debt is a tax writeoff. See the insane beauty of becoming ultrawealthy?

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Unseen.
    #39385

    jakelafort
    Participant

    How bout not only tax churches but class actions against churches for fraud. Raise revenue and enhance the well-being of citizens. The accumulated wealth from centuries of ill-gotten gains and scot free rape. Makes too much sense.

    #39386

    I am all for taxing churches with congregations off over (say) 5000 members. I think around 2014 this idea was raised in the town of Nome in Alaska but did not materialize. Doing so would raise almost the same money to cover the cost of the food stamps programs. Imagine the churches paying to feed the hungry.

    #39388

    Unseen
    Participant

    We need @theencogitationer. Where is he when you need him?

    #39389

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I am all for taxing churches with congregations off over (say) 5000 members. I think around 2014 this idea was raised in the town of Nome in Alaska but did not materialize. Doing so would raise almost the same money to cover the cost of the food stamps programs. Imagine the churches paying to feed the hungry.

    ironically….some of that money gotten from people who are just on the edge of being hungry themselves.

    #39390

    Unseen
    Participant
    #39391

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Bezos does have that “dr evil” vibe as well.

    #39392

    jakelafort
    Participant

    So the M.O. of the big fish is to eliminate free markets. Big fish eat little fish until the bald megalomaniac has fished out the sea. Aah but there are endless seas within his purview. So much to do and so little time.

    I saw it in my law practice with Walmarts. They priced mom and pop businesses out of business. Fortunately they were free to file bankruptcy and try again.

    #39393

    Davis
    Moderator

    I am all for taxing any non-government organisation which is non-profit that has more than say, three employees who make more than $100,000 and ANY employee that makes more than 200,000. That would cover mega-churches, the catholic church, charities with overpaid directors etc. This is either an incentive to stop overpaying people (a serious problem in the NGO sector). As mega churches will just take the high salaries even if it means them being taxed…well at least the government makes money from it. Above all, governments should NOT be giving money to the church as they do in Belgium or Germany.

    #39394

    Unseen
    Participant

    We talk about how Amazon has put so many small businesses out of business, while the rest have to suck at Amazon’s teat to bring their products to market.

    What we aren’t talking about is how much Bezos has degraded the job market through the hyperefficiency of his operation.

    As for Amazon’s great-sounding benefits, the company has found the key to keeping these costs to a bare minimum: high turnover. Working for them is so unpleasant that many people last just weeks or months, not even long enough to take advantage of the vacation or education benefits.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by  Unseen.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by  Unseen.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.