9 ms·

Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich. If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply brok

Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich. If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.

serf 4y ago
> Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich. if you look at this as a problem with the rich, you're not being creative enough. Speaking as if we're assuming Musk gets away with this, this is a justice enforcement problem -- when all the mega-rich are gone the justice system that displays this level of corruption will just skim the highest payers available to them; they won't just give up these corrupt practices because there isn't a local billionaire to tap.
wronglyprepaid 4y ago
bmitc 4y ago
I continue to be super concerned about this. I do not understand how the U.S. government does not view these billionaires as serious ideological threats to democracy, the court system, national security, etc. Makes one realize just how bought out Congress is. Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax.
- nightski 4y ago
  Meh the government doesn't need more money to conduct frivolous and corrupt spending with. However it might be interesting to explore an option that required people who own a stake in a company that has grown beyond a certain size to be required to siphon off some of those shares to employees over time in a way where it was not conducted on the open market and would not affect share price. I also question whether corporate entities should be allowed to own shares and what the benefits are of that. Should private investment firms be allowed to accumulate massive stakes in public companies?
  - xpe 4y ago
    Even staunch libertarians agree that there are agreeable ways for a government to spend money. With that said, the parent commenter subscribes to what political philsophies and/or ethics? ...
  - bmitc 4y ago
    I don't think we should avoid something just because there are more problems. We should fix those other problems as well. The primary issue is that there is a single extremist party, not unlike those found in the Middle East, that is hell bent on undermining America for want of power. By systematically undermining education, public health and services, infrastructure, treating government projects as jobs programs, etc., they are creating a worse America and a sort of political Stockholm syndrome among their constituents. But there is indeed corruption across the board in America. Local governments are starved for money, and almost all of their funding comes from local property taxes, that is, normal people. So, these mega-rich are allowed to get unboundedly wealthy, while normal people have to pay to keep society running as a minimal level. The mega-rich's money, as well as corporations', needs to flow back through the system. It does no good to let it concentrate so heavily and ultimately do nothing while it sits there.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      IMO, neither party excels on educational topics and both 100% treat government projects as jobs programs.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - nightski 4y ago
      Is it ironic I don't even know which party you are referring to because it accurately describes both in my opinion? But I disagree in that I think we absolutely should avoid it because a larger federal government has been heavily correlated with less local funding (so much so that the SALT deduction was once a thing). It's given rise to globalization and large multi-national conglomerates. It creates a situation where power & money is too concentrated.
- QuarterReptile 4y ago
  >Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax. Your inability to conceive of a useful purpose for such a quantity of money does not justify prohibiting its existence. >I do not understand how the U.S. government does not view these billionaires as serious ideological threats to democracy, the court system, national security, etc Cooperation. A government that can't handle the idea of powerful citizens has all the tools it needs to make almost all those people (hard to banish all the Christian missionaries, and martyring them is the surest way to grow more) leave or fall in line, but I don't think many people look at Venezuela or North Korea as ideal places to govern in terms of democracy, the court system, national security, etc.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    > Your inability to conceive of a useful purpose for such a quantity of money does not justify prohibiting its existence. What inability and where was it demonstrated? Are you referring to a useful purpose if it was taxed or a useful purpose for individuals to have such wealth? If the latter, then I propose that an individual containing such wealth is less useful than it being returned. Those things and countries you mentioned have nothing to do with this discussion.
    - towaway15463 4y ago
      It’s rather ironic that a discussion of Elon Musk prompted you to make that assertion.
      - QuarterReptile 4y ago
        It's so many layers of delightfully nested irony. Give more money to the federal government so they give more big tax credits for Tesla purchases, but Tesla can't exist any more in this fantasy world where nothing outside of the federal government can grow beyond $500 million in scope.
        bmitc 4y ago
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
  According to the Laffer curve it should probably be 70% or so to maximize government income, but yes. If you tax them 100% they'll just stop working or bail to another country, and then you collect zero tax revenue from them. At 70% most of them will just suck it up and pay. (I realize France is a counterpoint here, but I'd argue it was a half-assed attempt, and they have neighboring French-speaking tax havens that have no real U.S. equivalent.)
  - bmitc 4y ago
    Thank you for the reference to the Laffer curve.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    The Laffer curve is a fact-free zone except for at it's two end points. The reality is that nobody knows for sure what the curve of revenue vs. tax rate looks like other than at those two end points, which makes the entire concept completely useless.
    - double_nan 4y ago
      It’s fascinating. Not only that is fact free, but it’s based on an assumption that the purpose of the government is to collect maximum tax value from the citizens. Is it thought?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        It's not based on this assumption at all. In fact, the Laffer curve is named after an economist who did his best to provide "intellectual heft" to politicians who wanted to reduce taxation as far as possible (and maybe a little further than that), later summarized by one of them as "shrink[ing] the government to the point where we can drown it in the bathtub".
    - scarmig 4y ago
      The most amusing thing about the Laffer curve folk is they mention it, and a breath later will talk about cutting taxes so they can drag the government to a tub and drown it in the bathwater: they don't even pretend to believe that we're at the point on the curve where cutting taxes will increase revenue.
BobbyJo 4y ago
In very direct, real terms, assets are power. They represent resources to do things. The problem here isn't that wealth is power, it will always be power. The issue is that a single person has been allowed to accumulate too much.
- avalys 4y ago
  Musk owns about 25% of Tesla, mostly after investing about $50M in Tesla's early funding rounds. His wealth today comes largely because Tesla (under his leadership as CEO) has become a company that investors now believe is incredibly valuable, and they've driven up the stock price. At what point in this process did Musk "accumulate" this ownership of Tesla, and exactly what do you propose should have happened to stop him?
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    Musk has sold billions in stock at this point, so this whole "it's stock that's increased in value independent of Musk" line of thinking is a bad misdirection.
    - spullara 4y ago
      And every time he has sold he has paid huge taxes on those sales.
      - azinman2 4y ago
        It’ll entirely be long term gains, so I wouldn’t say huge as a percentage. I would also venture all kinds of other things are being written off to reduce the tax burdens. Typically people like Musk don’t sell stock but use it as collateral to take out low interest loans, which avoids taxes.
      - xdennis 4y ago
        It should be payed every year, not just when sold. Joe Nobody pays property taxes every year, not just when he sells his meager house.
kolinko 4y ago
As someone who grew up in a communist country with literally zero rich prople - it’s not about wealth, it’s about power and influence. We’ve had just as many, if not way more, people above law as in capitalist countries.
- camjohnson26 4y ago
  Putin is rumored to be the richest person in the world, but of course you’ll never see him listed on Forbes because he hides it. https://fortune.com/2022/03/02/vladimir-putin-net-worth-2022/ https://fortune.com/2022/03/02/vladimir-putin-net-worth-2022...
  - kolinko 4y ago
    Putin doesn’t live in a communist country. During communism dignitaries didn’t have much money-wealth, or even true material wealth. But they were powerful nevertheless.

Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich. If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.

serf 4y ago

> Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich. if you look at this as a problem with the rich, you're not being creative enough. Speaking as if we're assuming Musk gets away with this, this is a justice enforcement problem -- when all the mega-rich are gone the justice system that displays this level of corruption will just skim the highest payers available to them; they won't just give up these corrupt practices because there isn't a local billionaire to tap.

wronglyprepaid 4y ago

bmitc 4y ago

I continue to be super concerned about this. I do not understand how the U.S. government does not view these billionaires as serious ideological threats to democracy, the court system, national security, etc. Makes one realize just how bought out Congress is. Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax.

nightski 4y ago
Meh the government doesn't need more money to conduct frivolous and corrupt spending with. However it might be interesting to explore an option that required people who own a stake in a company that has grown beyond a certain size to be required to siphon off some of those shares to employees over time in a way where it was not conducted on the open market and would not affect share price. I also question whether corporate entities should be allowed to own shares and what the benefits are of that. Should private investment firms be allowed to accumulate massive stakes in public companies?
- xpe 4y ago
  Even staunch libertarians agree that there are agreeable ways for a government to spend money. With that said, the parent commenter subscribes to what political philsophies and/or ethics? ...
- bmitc 4y ago
  I don't think we should avoid something just because there are more problems. We should fix those other problems as well. The primary issue is that there is a single extremist party, not unlike those found in the Middle East, that is hell bent on undermining America for want of power. By systematically undermining education, public health and services, infrastructure, treating government projects as jobs programs, etc., they are creating a worse America and a sort of political Stockholm syndrome among their constituents. But there is indeed corruption across the board in America. Local governments are starved for money, and almost all of their funding comes from local property taxes, that is, normal people. So, these mega-rich are allowed to get unboundedly wealthy, while normal people have to pay to keep society running as a minimal level. The mega-rich's money, as well as corporations', needs to flow back through the system. It does no good to let it concentrate so heavily and ultimately do nothing while it sits there.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    IMO, neither party excels on educational topics and both 100% treat government projects as jobs programs.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - nightski 4y ago
    Is it ironic I don't even know which party you are referring to because it accurately describes both in my opinion? But I disagree in that I think we absolutely should avoid it because a larger federal government has been heavily correlated with less local funding (so much so that the SALT deduction was once a thing). It's given rise to globalization and large multi-national conglomerates. It creates a situation where power & money is too concentrated.
QuarterReptile 4y ago
>Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax. Your inability to conceive of a useful purpose for such a quantity of money does not justify prohibiting its existence. >I do not understand how the U.S. government does not view these billionaires as serious ideological threats to democracy, the court system, national security, etc Cooperation. A government that can't handle the idea of powerful citizens has all the tools it needs to make almost all those people (hard to banish all the Christian missionaries, and martyring them is the surest way to grow more) leave or fall in line, but I don't think many people look at Venezuela or North Korea as ideal places to govern in terms of democracy, the court system, national security, etc.
- bmitc 4y ago
  > Your inability to conceive of a useful purpose for such a quantity of money does not justify prohibiting its existence. What inability and where was it demonstrated? Are you referring to a useful purpose if it was taxed or a useful purpose for individuals to have such wealth? If the latter, then I propose that an individual containing such wealth is less useful than it being returned. Those things and countries you mentioned have nothing to do with this discussion.
  - towaway15463 4y ago
    It’s rather ironic that a discussion of Elon Musk prompted you to make that assertion.
    - QuarterReptile 4y ago
      It's so many layers of delightfully nested irony. Give more money to the federal government so they give more big tax credits for Tesla purchases, but Tesla can't exist any more in this fantasy world where nothing outside of the federal government can grow beyond $500 million in scope.
      - bmitc 4y ago
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
According to the Laffer curve it should probably be 70% or so to maximize government income, but yes. If you tax them 100% they'll just stop working or bail to another country, and then you collect zero tax revenue from them. At 70% most of them will just suck it up and pay. (I realize France is a counterpoint here, but I'd argue it was a half-assed attempt, and they have neighboring French-speaking tax havens that have no real U.S. equivalent.)
- bmitc 4y ago
  Thank you for the reference to the Laffer curve.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  The Laffer curve is a fact-free zone except for at it's two end points. The reality is that nobody knows for sure what the curve of revenue vs. tax rate looks like other than at those two end points, which makes the entire concept completely useless.
  - double_nan 4y ago
    It’s fascinating. Not only that is fact free, but it’s based on an assumption that the purpose of the government is to collect maximum tax value from the citizens. Is it thought?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      It's not based on this assumption at all. In fact, the Laffer curve is named after an economist who did his best to provide "intellectual heft" to politicians who wanted to reduce taxation as far as possible (and maybe a little further than that), later summarized by one of them as "shrink[ing] the government to the point where we can drown it in the bathtub".
  - scarmig 4y ago
    The most amusing thing about the Laffer curve folk is they mention it, and a breath later will talk about cutting taxes so they can drag the government to a tub and drown it in the bathwater: they don't even pretend to believe that we're at the point on the curve where cutting taxes will increase revenue.

BobbyJo 4y ago

In very direct, real terms, assets are power. They represent resources to do things. The problem here isn't that wealth is power, it will always be power. The issue is that a single person has been allowed to accumulate too much.

avalys 4y ago
Musk owns about 25% of Tesla, mostly after investing about $50M in Tesla's early funding rounds. His wealth today comes largely because Tesla (under his leadership as CEO) has become a company that investors now believe is incredibly valuable, and they've driven up the stock price. At what point in this process did Musk "accumulate" this ownership of Tesla, and exactly what do you propose should have happened to stop him?
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  Musk has sold billions in stock at this point, so this whole "it's stock that's increased in value independent of Musk" line of thinking is a bad misdirection.
  - spullara 4y ago
    And every time he has sold he has paid huge taxes on those sales.
    - azinman2 4y ago
      It’ll entirely be long term gains, so I wouldn’t say huge as a percentage. I would also venture all kinds of other things are being written off to reduce the tax burdens. Typically people like Musk don’t sell stock but use it as collateral to take out low interest loans, which avoids taxes.
    - xdennis 4y ago
      It should be payed every year, not just when sold. Joe Nobody pays property taxes every year, not just when he sells his meager house.

kolinko 4y ago

As someone who grew up in a communist country with literally zero rich prople - it’s not about wealth, it’s about power and influence. We’ve had just as many, if not way more, people above law as in capitalist countries.

camjohnson26 4y ago
Putin is rumored to be the richest person in the world, but of course you’ll never see him listed on Forbes because he hides it. https://fortune.com/2022/03/02/vladimir-putin-net-worth-2022/ https://fortune.com/2022/03/02/vladimir-putin-net-worth-2022...
- kolinko 4y ago
  Putin doesn’t live in a communist country. During communism dignitaries didn’t have much money-wealth, or even true material wealth. But they were powerful nevertheless.