6 ms·

Isn’t this “problem created by” anyone who is rich then?

by yeukhon 8y ago

moises_silva 8y ago
And conveniently the definition of 'rich' for almost everyone is anyone who has more money than me.
emodendroket 8y ago
You certainly would not have to look very hard to find people who would argue that
selimnairb 8y ago
Yes. We should tax billionaires out of existence. This level of wealth and power accumulation is as unseemly as it is dangerous to our democracy and economy.
- stass 8y ago
  Taking other people money by force is even more dangerous for democracy and economy.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Taken to its logical conclusion, this idea means we shouldn't have any government at all.
    - chillacy 8y ago
      Not sure if that’s the line of reasoning. A well known danger of democracy is rule by mob. For instance a tough thing to get right is protecting rights of minority groups. If everyone voted for their own direct benefit, we’d just be locking minorities up and taking their assets with power of the majority. Luckily doesn’t seem to happen much.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        If the government taking things by force, or by the implied threat of force, is bad, then taxation is bad, and if you don't have any kind of taxation you don't have a government in any meaningful sense.
        chillacy 8y ago
        I think taxes are a bit better because you're also agreeing to pay your own money (vs only taking other people's money only as the original commenter said). I had a different reading of "taking other people's money by force" as meaning specifically voting to tax a minority group more just because you can. This is based on the GP comment being "We should tax billionaires out of existence" as opposed to "taxes are immoral" OP can clarify if necessary.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        That isn't taxing a "minority group." It's just progressive taxation, an idea almost everyone accepts to some extent. "Taxing billionaires out of existence" could be achieved simply by increasing marginal tax rates.
        leetcrew 8y ago
        billionaires are literally a minority group. they certainly don't need protected status, but, whether or not it is "good" to take their money, they can't effectively oppose this just by voting.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        The argument for preventing one person to amass that much wealth is at least in part that it gives them tremendous political influence. The preferences of Sheldon Adelson arte far more consequential than an average voter living in the same district, for instance. Appropriating the language of "minority" discrimination, which traditionally refers to marginalized groups, to talk about people who are very rich strikes me as distasteful.
jakelazaroff 8y ago
You could make that argument as well, but I'm specifically talking about Amazon's underpayment of workers and efforts to kill taxes that would fund efforts meant to curb homelessness, among other things. Some of the other replies to my comment have links to articles about these.

Isn’t this “problem created by” anyone who is rich then?

moises_silva 8y ago

And conveniently the definition of 'rich' for almost everyone is anyone who has more money than me.

emodendroket 8y ago

You certainly would not have to look very hard to find people who would argue that

selimnairb 8y ago

Yes. We should tax billionaires out of existence. This level of wealth and power accumulation is as unseemly as it is dangerous to our democracy and economy.

stass 8y ago
Taking other people money by force is even more dangerous for democracy and economy.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Taken to its logical conclusion, this idea means we shouldn't have any government at all.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    Not sure if that’s the line of reasoning. A well known danger of democracy is rule by mob. For instance a tough thing to get right is protecting rights of minority groups. If everyone voted for their own direct benefit, we’d just be locking minorities up and taking their assets with power of the majority. Luckily doesn’t seem to happen much.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      If the government taking things by force, or by the implied threat of force, is bad, then taxation is bad, and if you don't have any kind of taxation you don't have a government in any meaningful sense.
      - chillacy 8y ago
        I think taxes are a bit better because you're also agreeing to pay your own money (vs only taking other people's money only as the original commenter said). I had a different reading of "taking other people's money by force" as meaning specifically voting to tax a minority group more just because you can. This is based on the GP comment being "We should tax billionaires out of existence" as opposed to "taxes are immoral" OP can clarify if necessary.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        That isn't taxing a "minority group." It's just progressive taxation, an idea almost everyone accepts to some extent. "Taxing billionaires out of existence" could be achieved simply by increasing marginal tax rates.
        leetcrew 8y ago
        billionaires are literally a minority group. they certainly don't need protected status, but, whether or not it is "good" to take their money, they can't effectively oppose this just by voting.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        The argument for preventing one person to amass that much wealth is at least in part that it gives them tremendous political influence. The preferences of Sheldon Adelson arte far more consequential than an average voter living in the same district, for instance. Appropriating the language of "minority" discrimination, which traditionally refers to marginalized groups, to talk about people who are very rich strikes me as distasteful.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

You could make that argument as well, but I'm specifically talking about Amazon's underpayment of workers and efforts to kill taxes that would fund efforts meant to curb homelessness, among other things. Some of the other replies to my comment have links to articles about these.