5 ms·

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 p

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.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    I'm not sure it's ironic as much as it is either not paying attention or not being honest with the situation. One party being extreme does not make the other party the good party. It just means that one party is extreme, which is a fact. The Democrats are not a paragon of a political party. They are as inefficient, middle of the road moderate, corrupt, etc. as any political party. But the Republicans, or at least a powerful subset of them, have become an extremist group. And they are well-funded by conservative and libertarian ideologues who care about nothing other than power and money and can use their wealth to avoid any downsides in their quest. Once you start looking into the ideologies of people like the Koch brothers, Robert Mercer and his family, Peter Thiel, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, Sheldon Adelson, Ronald Cameron, Steve Wynn, and others, you start seeing very weird and strange beliefs that are incompatible with a functional society. The primary thread is that these people do not care about others. Just look at the Koch brothers' political donations and the businesses they run. Is it then any surprise why the Republicans might not care so much about climate change and policies to mitigate it? We have one extremist political party, and then the other, somewhat incompetent, party spends all their energy fighting back against the extremism of the other.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - nightski 4y ago
      I just do not agree that one party is more extreme than the other, sorry. I also don't believe you are being honest with yourself over the situation either. It's clear you have dug your heels into a particular set of beliefs and have no interest in discussing real solutions (instead just want to play the blame game). Frankly it is just not interesting discussion.
rlt 4y ago
> Meh the government doesn't need more money to conduct frivolous and corrupt spending with. I agree with that, but they could just, you know, lower taxes on the lower and middle class to balance it out.
- dopidopHN 4y ago
  Or do something useful and somewhat efficient with the money. Eg: good, reliable public school, roads, network infrastructures, renewable energy sources. I’m a US tax payer since less than a decade. My experience is that I pay a significant portion of my incomes to taxes that only marginally benefit me or folks around me. Recent uptick of direct distribution is nice. But a leadership in the stewarding of the land would be tasteful and send the right message IMO. It’s fascinating to see the Western European countries I’m familiar with being blinded by the economic might of the US but not realizing how little the average citizen benefit from it.

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.
- bmitc 4y ago
  I'm not sure it's ironic as much as it is either not paying attention or not being honest with the situation. One party being extreme does not make the other party the good party. It just means that one party is extreme, which is a fact. The Democrats are not a paragon of a political party. They are as inefficient, middle of the road moderate, corrupt, etc. as any political party. But the Republicans, or at least a powerful subset of them, have become an extremist group. And they are well-funded by conservative and libertarian ideologues who care about nothing other than power and money and can use their wealth to avoid any downsides in their quest. Once you start looking into the ideologies of people like the Koch brothers, Robert Mercer and his family, Peter Thiel, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, Sheldon Adelson, Ronald Cameron, Steve Wynn, and others, you start seeing very weird and strange beliefs that are incompatible with a functional society. The primary thread is that these people do not care about others. Just look at the Koch brothers' political donations and the businesses they run. Is it then any surprise why the Republicans might not care so much about climate change and policies to mitigate it? We have one extremist political party, and then the other, somewhat incompetent, party spends all their energy fighting back against the extremism of the other.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - nightski 4y ago
    I just do not agree that one party is more extreme than the other, sorry. I also don't believe you are being honest with yourself over the situation either. It's clear you have dug your heels into a particular set of beliefs and have no interest in discussing real solutions (instead just want to play the blame game). Frankly it is just not interesting discussion.

rlt 4y ago

> Meh the government doesn't need more money to conduct frivolous and corrupt spending with. I agree with that, but they could just, you know, lower taxes on the lower and middle class to balance it out.

dopidopHN 4y ago
Or do something useful and somewhat efficient with the money. Eg: good, reliable public school, roads, network infrastructures, renewable energy sources. I’m a US tax payer since less than a decade. My experience is that I pay a significant portion of my incomes to taxes that only marginally benefit me or folks around me. Recent uptick of direct distribution is nice. But a leadership in the stewarding of the land would be tasteful and send the right message IMO. It’s fascinating to see the Western European countries I’m familiar with being blinded by the economic might of the US but not realizing how little the average citizen benefit from it.