3 ms·

> myriad representatives the populace voted for Unfortunately there is not much "myriad" in the candidate choices. To even reach a level of opportunity to com

by z9znz 4y ago

> myriad representatives the populace voted for Unfortunately there is not much "myriad" in the candidate choices. To even reach a level of opportunity to compete in an election means to already sell out to some special interests. It just costs too much money to run with any hope of getting elected. Both parties in the US cater to wealthy supporters, whether those supporters are actual humans, corporations as humans, or PACs. Those who want to protect their wealth spend a lot of money to ensure that all likely candidates will make or modify rules that benefit them. It is very reasonable for us to direct our ire toward the wealthy individuals who make very public efforts to affect policies (very selfishly). And with the recent tally of $880 million spent by billionaires on the recent midterm elections, it's even more clear where we should direct our attention.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
> It is very reasonable for us to direct our ire toward the wealthy individuals who make very public efforts to affect policies (very selfishly) Sure, but how does that apply in this case? Roth account legislation was passed in 1997, and PayPal was started in Dec 1998.
- z9znz 4y ago
  It doesn't really apply to TFA example, but that doesn't mean that there are not numerous (intentional) holes in the tax system which are designed to prevent wealthy people from having to give some back. There are so many ways to avoid paying taxes if you are wealthy, only a few of which have been publicized (Warren Buffett vs secretary, Mitt Romney and the Bain Capital leak, Panama Papers revelations, etc.) Regular people don't have those options; and a vastly greater percentage of their income (which is directly taxed already) goes into local taxes on gas, essentials, and any luxury purchases. When we see another reminder of how unfair these systems are, and we know that their design comes from the people who benefit from them (like Thiel), it is reasonable to direct our ire toward them. And finally, this doesn't even touch on the overt criminal tax avoidance that is well known to persist amongst this group. The Swiss bank leaks exposed some of these, and the US tax amnesty programs have further illustrated it. Even so, there's surely a lot more money hiding away that has not and never will be taxed.

by z9znz 4y ago

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> It is very reasonable for us to direct our ire toward the wealthy individuals who make very public efforts to affect policies (very selfishly) Sure, but how does that apply in this case? Roth account legislation was passed in 1997, and PayPal was started in Dec 1998.

z9znz 4y ago
It doesn't really apply to TFA example, but that doesn't mean that there are not numerous (intentional) holes in the tax system which are designed to prevent wealthy people from having to give some back. There are so many ways to avoid paying taxes if you are wealthy, only a few of which have been publicized (Warren Buffett vs secretary, Mitt Romney and the Bain Capital leak, Panama Papers revelations, etc.) Regular people don't have those options; and a vastly greater percentage of their income (which is directly taxed already) goes into local taxes on gas, essentials, and any luxury purchases. When we see another reminder of how unfair these systems are, and we know that their design comes from the people who benefit from them (like Thiel), it is reasonable to direct our ire toward them. And finally, this doesn't even touch on the overt criminal tax avoidance that is well known to persist amongst this group. The Swiss bank leaks exposed some of these, and the US tax amnesty programs have further illustrated it. Even so, there's surely a lot more money hiding away that has not and never will be taxed.