4 ms·
There’s many things we can do to address the problem without resorting to seizing all of their wealth in a single year. 1. A wealth tax of 1% (we pay property
by boredpeter 3y ago
There’s many things we can do to address the problem without resorting to seizing all of their wealth in a single year.
1. A wealth tax of 1% (we pay property taxes today this is no different) over a wealth of $10 million
2. End share buybacks (this is just stock price manipulation to enrich shareholders)
3. Tax corporations on the profits they report to shareholders, not the IRS. If corporations want to dodge taxes with nonsense ownership structures but want to brag about their profits to shareholders then fine, we’ll use that number instead
At the end of the day we don’t need billionaires to run corporations. Amazon would be fine without Bezos, as would Tesla, etc. There’s millions of competent people that exist that can run a business without privatizing all the wealth for themselves.
- WalterBright 3y agoFrance tried the wealth tax. It resulted in lower tax revenues, not higher. > There’s millions of competent people that exist that can run a business without privatizing all the wealth for themselves. So why aren't they billionaires?
- aaomidi 3y agoBecause becoming a billionaire requires stealing labor that you didn’t do, which goes against the whole comment they made?
- WalterBright 3y agoMaking a deal to exchange money for labor is not stealing. If you still think your labor is being stolen, start your own business, where you get to keep all the profits.
- boredpeter 3y agoIt does when all the land in a country is privatized and people can’t sustain themselves without being coerced into an employer-employee agreement where the employer has all the leverage.
- WalterBright 3y agoYou don't need land to sustain yourself. Japan has very little land, and is very wealthy. > the employer has all the leverage. You don't need land to start your own business. Besides, if the employer had all the leverage, all the employees in the country would be working at minimum wage.
- aaomidi 3y agoYour definition it isn’t. My definition it is. Affirmative consent can not be given in worker/employer relationships. Which makes the entire contract predatory.
- WalterBright 3y agoYou can make up definitions to mean whatever you want to, I see that rhetorical trick all the time. It doesn't work with me, though. > Affirmative consent can not be given in worker/employer relationships. Which makes the entire contract predatory. Another rhetorical trick: A is not equal to B, therefore A is not equal to B.
- Paul-Craft 3y agoYou think it's possible to have a fair deal where the literal life of one party (the worker) depends on the outcome, but not the other party (the employer)? Because that seems to be what you are saying here.
- nickpp 3y agoIsn’t that the case every time one buys any life essentials like food, drinkable water, clothing, shelter and heating/cooling? Are all of those unfair deals? Because that seems to be what you are saying here.
- Paul-Craft 3y agoI think you're getting it. Please continue. :)
- nickpp 3y agoThey are also all more affordable and more readily available than they ever been in the history of this mankind. I couldn’t be happier with these deals… I don’t think you are making the argument you think you are.
- boredpeter 3y agoSince when does running a business mean you have to be a billionaire? Do you think only businesses worth billions of dollars should exist? And all small and medium sized businesses shouldn’t?
- WalterBright 3y agoNone of your questions follow what I wrote. If "millions" of people are as competent as billionaire managers, why aren't those millions also billionaires?
- andrepd 3y agoYou are almost getting it :) EDIT: Sorry for the snark. The answer is: unequal access to capital, opportunities, connections, not to mention "intangibles" like education, safety, free time, comfort, lack of caring responsibilities, etc. Was 86-DOS superior to its competitors (or was Bill Gates a uniquely talented/hardworking individual)? Probably not, but he did have every advantage possible: most importantly lots of money and his mum putting in a word for him with IBM's CEO (and the rest, they say, is history ;))
- WalterBright 3y ago> Was 86-DOS superior to its competitors Having used it contemporaneous with MS-DOS, no, it was not. It wasn't as good, and several times more expensive. I assume you meant Gary's OS. Bill Gates actually initially declined the offer from IBM and SENT IBM TO GARY! To say Gary had no chance is just inaccurate. Gary muffed the deal, and IBM went back to Bill, and this time, Bill wasn't going to miss the opportunity. Microsoft was started for something like $5000. An advantage nearly every businessman in the US had.