3 ms·

These people grind my gears. I'm thinking the WEF is probably the worst forum for governance discussions as the skills for becoming a corporate executive or a p

These people grind my gears. I'm thinking the WEF is probably the worst forum for governance discussions as the skills for becoming a corporate executive or a professor are not ones that confer sovereign legitimacy. I'm all for founders building things and making money, even getting into politics to serve their respective countries, but leveraging it to tell billions of other people how to live? No thanks. These tax advocates are really just advocating for a single world regime without competition because they know the real threat to their power is that nobody likes them or wants to live under them, so we take our capital and leave. Their response is to instiute "global" rules so that there is no escape from their unctuous posturing and inevitable oppression. After covid, fighting a war against these assholes and every name on the Davos invitation list is likely the next item on civilization's agenda. They aren't trying to help, they're leveraging crisis' of their own inventions for control. There is no reason to be meek about what a threat WEF has historically and continues to be to peoples rights to self determination. I remember the anti-globalization movement of the 90s, and it was against these specific WEF people and their phony institutes. It took 9/11 to derail that movement, and thanks to lockdowns co-ordinated through this exact policy shop, those movements are gaining momentum in earnest again, just this time they aren't liberal. Nations were not the reason for the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, every single one of those wars was started by men who did not respect nations and borders and thought they could get away with it. That's what WEF is. There are a lot of internet personalities we accept aren't appropriate for mixed company on civil forums like this, and I'd posit that Schwab and his WEF and IMF cronies are as provovactive and polarizing figures as any problematic youtuber. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," and you can see the level of co-ordination they use for taking over entire countries. This isn't about trolls and mean tweets, these people are a network in the business of subjugating nations. If you're hearing about it, it's one of their meticulously constructed lies. Take nothing at face value from WEF. They're bad news.

alecst 5y ago
Do you ever wonder if it’s possible that some millionaires actually do want to be taxed more, for the greater good of society? Or are you only able to imagine the shadowy claw-handed cabal of millionaires deceptively arguing for higher taxes so that they can take over the world. I’m serious. How are you so cynical.
- motohagiography 5y ago
  Honestly no, I have never once wondered that, because anyone who makes money necessarily knows how to deploy it with greater impact than the general revenue account of a government. At least if they just set it on fire it would reduce inflation. The only reason a wealthy person would want to pay more tax is as some hopeful implied contract that ensured they would be left alone and secure with the rest of their wealth. Even still none of them are that naive, because if what they're paying now hasn't reduced govt demand for their money, why should more? Yes, some billionaires have asked to be taxed more, but that's only because they deal with capital at a level of pure abstraction. It's meaningless to them whether you increment or decrement one of the many variables they manage, so long as you don't add new ones. Not only does it cost them nothing to say that, but it often yields 4 years of non-interferance in growing their capital. Regarding cynicism, I just think the merit we assign ideas should be based on something more than applause, and this "in tax we trust" astroturfing campaign doesn't meet that bar.
  - bananabiscuit 5y ago
    You are assuming earning money is a meritocracy. It definitely is not. Also the government’s role in spending money is to offset tragedies of the commons. No matter how well someone can deploy money, they have little incentive to deploy their own money to fix issues of the commons. However, it is possible for them to know that society as a whole would be better off if everyone was forced to contribute a fair share to those issues.
- neilwilson 5y ago
  Because it perpetuates the myth that taxes fund spending, when they don't. Surely after two years of countries finding ridiculous sums of money down the back of sofas by magic, as well as ten years of 'QE' it should be clear that there isn't really a shortage of money. https://new-wayland.com/blog/how-the-governments-super-platinum-credit-card-works/ https://new-wayland.com/blog/how-the-governments-super-plati...
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"some millionaires actually do want to be taxed more, for the greater good of society?" I'm sure there is actually a population of millionaires out there who want this. That being said, I suspect this is a small subset of millionaires and billionaires as a whole. It seems like the substantially wealthy who want to help the greater good turn towards philanthropy rather than donating money to the government. If you had significant wealth, wouldn't you rather donate it directly to the causes you care about? >"I’m serious. How are you so cynical." In just about every other situation, people distrust the 1% and assume they are conniving, ruthless, and up to no good. Am I suddenly to believe they have had a change of heart and are wholeheartedly endorsing something so progressive?
fineIllregister 5y ago
>These tax advocates are really just advocating for a single world regime without competition because they know the real threat to their power is that nobody likes them or wants to live under them, so we take our capital and leave. Most people don't have capital, and most people don't want to leave their country. If the only opposition is the anti-tax rich and people willing to emigrate, I don't think that's going to sufficiently motivate the "war" you're looking for. In fact, WEF's proposals seems like it would pretty popular among most people who aren't able to move themselves or assets out of the country, because those that do are seen as extractors who have an unfair advantage.

alecst 5y ago

Do you ever wonder if it’s possible that some millionaires actually do want to be taxed more, for the greater good of society? Or are you only able to imagine the shadowy claw-handed cabal of millionaires deceptively arguing for higher taxes so that they can take over the world. I’m serious. How are you so cynical.

motohagiography 5y ago
Honestly no, I have never once wondered that, because anyone who makes money necessarily knows how to deploy it with greater impact than the general revenue account of a government. At least if they just set it on fire it would reduce inflation. The only reason a wealthy person would want to pay more tax is as some hopeful implied contract that ensured they would be left alone and secure with the rest of their wealth. Even still none of them are that naive, because if what they're paying now hasn't reduced govt demand for their money, why should more? Yes, some billionaires have asked to be taxed more, but that's only because they deal with capital at a level of pure abstraction. It's meaningless to them whether you increment or decrement one of the many variables they manage, so long as you don't add new ones. Not only does it cost them nothing to say that, but it often yields 4 years of non-interferance in growing their capital. Regarding cynicism, I just think the merit we assign ideas should be based on something more than applause, and this "in tax we trust" astroturfing campaign doesn't meet that bar.
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  You are assuming earning money is a meritocracy. It definitely is not. Also the government’s role in spending money is to offset tragedies of the commons. No matter how well someone can deploy money, they have little incentive to deploy their own money to fix issues of the commons. However, it is possible for them to know that society as a whole would be better off if everyone was forced to contribute a fair share to those issues.
neilwilson 5y ago
Because it perpetuates the myth that taxes fund spending, when they don't. Surely after two years of countries finding ridiculous sums of money down the back of sofas by magic, as well as ten years of 'QE' it should be clear that there isn't really a shortage of money. https://new-wayland.com/blog/how-the-governments-super-platinum-credit-card-works/ https://new-wayland.com/blog/how-the-governments-super-plati...
BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"some millionaires actually do want to be taxed more, for the greater good of society?" I'm sure there is actually a population of millionaires out there who want this. That being said, I suspect this is a small subset of millionaires and billionaires as a whole. It seems like the substantially wealthy who want to help the greater good turn towards philanthropy rather than donating money to the government. If you had significant wealth, wouldn't you rather donate it directly to the causes you care about? >"I’m serious. How are you so cynical." In just about every other situation, people distrust the 1% and assume they are conniving, ruthless, and up to no good. Am I suddenly to believe they have had a change of heart and are wholeheartedly endorsing something so progressive?

fineIllregister 5y ago

>These tax advocates are really just advocating for a single world regime without competition because they know the real threat to their power is that nobody likes them or wants to live under them, so we take our capital and leave. Most people don't have capital, and most people don't want to leave their country. If the only opposition is the anti-tax rich and people willing to emigrate, I don't think that's going to sufficiently motivate the "war" you're looking for. In fact, WEF's proposals seems like it would pretty popular among most people who aren't able to move themselves or assets out of the country, because those that do are seen as extractors who have an unfair advantage.