5 ms·

I’m curious what you mean by “making it harder for the competition or newcomers”. How exactly would they achieve that by lobbying for more effective taxation of

by zapita 7y ago

I’m curious what you mean by “making it harder for the competition or newcomers”. How exactly would they achieve that by lobbying for more effective taxation of the super-rich?

Loughla 7y ago
This is an argument against taxing the super rich that I just have never understood. Don't tax the mega-rich, because I will be that one day, and it is a disincentive for me to work hard if I can only be a billionaire instead of a multi-billionaire. I just don't get it.
- brobdingnagians 7y ago
  Nah, that's not my argument. My argument is that a tax against billionaires tends to increase the culture around "taxing more" and leaks out to taxing their corporations or subtly changing the structure of the market so that the incumbent corporation can handle it just fine, but newer ones have a difficult time getting to the point where they can compete. I'm never going to be in the mega-rich basket, and frankly, I don't want to be. But a lot of them are very good at subtle PR and lobbying to change things that benefit themselves even while making it look like they are doing something opposite. I don't trust them, especially when they are doing something that looks "against their interests" when they've never seemed to do that before in either their public or personal lives. Here's a simple example of what I mean. The billionaires pushing this tend to have certain political ideas and tend to be active in politics. If they give just their money, then they have limited political effect. But if they can get _all_ billionaire's taxed and then lobby to use _that_ money to further their political ends (including for things those other billionaires don't agree with), they can amplify the power they have to make their pet social policies. I'm not interested in helping them do that.

5 ms·

I’m curious what you mean by “making it harder for the competition or newcomers”. How exactly would they achieve that by lobbying for more effective taxation of

by zapita 7y ago

I’m curious what you mean by “making it harder for the competition or newcomers”. How exactly would they achieve that by lobbying for more effective taxation of the super-rich?

Loughla 7y ago
This is an argument against taxing the super rich that I just have never understood. Don't tax the mega-rich, because I will be that one day, and it is a disincentive for me to work hard if I can only be a billionaire instead of a multi-billionaire. I just don't get it.
- brobdingnagians 7y ago
  Nah, that's not my argument. My argument is that a tax against billionaires tends to increase the culture around "taxing more" and leaks out to taxing their corporations or subtly changing the structure of the market so that the incumbent corporation can handle it just fine, but newer ones have a difficult time getting to the point where they can compete. I'm never going to be in the mega-rich basket, and frankly, I don't want to be. But a lot of them are very good at subtle PR and lobbying to change things that benefit themselves even while making it look like they are doing something opposite. I don't trust them, especially when they are doing something that looks "against their interests" when they've never seemed to do that before in either their public or personal lives. Here's a simple example of what I mean. The billionaires pushing this tend to have certain political ideas and tend to be active in politics. If they give just their money, then they have limited political effect. But if they can get _all_ billionaire's taxed and then lobby to use _that_ money to further their political ends (including for things those other billionaires don't agree with), they can amplify the power they have to make their pet social policies. I'm not interested in helping them do that.