4 ms·

I don't think we should cheer up and encourage what is effectively a one-world government to pass totalitarian laws. You know, even if you're a socialist, deep

I don't think we should cheer up and encourage what is effectively a one-world government to pass totalitarian laws. You know, even if you're a socialist, deep inside you that they'll never ever be going to stop at confiscating 2% of the billionaires' wealth yearly. It shall quickly become: "confiscate 2% of everybody's wealth yearly". Do you even realize the kind of totalitarian world we already are living in for such measures to even be thinkable? (btw it's the same kind of totalitarian world where the five eyes or nine eyes or whatever-eyed monster can team up to plan to ban E2EE). The OECD passing a law so that companies, worldwide, do pay 15% tax and socialist economists writing "15%, far too low" is the worst of the worst nightmare. That's basically a one-world, socialist (believe me, many didn't vote for that), government pulling the strings. I fear the horrible future my kid is going to live on a planet with such minded people.

lelandbatey 3y ago
That 2% wealth tax is for literally 3,000 people (or less). To quote: > A minimum tax on billionaires equal to 2% of their wealth would address this evasion and generate nearly $250 billion from less than 3,000 individuals. That seems like a very reasonable and focused policy with pretty big upside for affecting a very tiny proportion of the population, which is generally "the point" of policy proposals such as this.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  Lol. Look at the history of the US income tax
  - jerry80 3y ago
    Income tax is specifically prohibited under the original US constitution. The modern federal income tax was enacted in 1913 at 1% for incomes over $3,000 (about $93,000 in today's money). By WWII, we had universal payroll withholding. Thinking the government will be satisfied with taking only a little bit from the wealthy, is like thinking your drug addicted friend will be happy with only a small bump of heroin on weekends.
- the_optimist 3y ago
  “very reasonable for other people” == zero skin-in-the-game, easily disregarded. If the proposal became “unfocused,” and you were personally subject to a severe punishment, would you support it? We forbid global capture to prevent a dismal future of global conformity.

lelandbatey 3y ago

That 2% wealth tax is for literally 3,000 people (or less). To quote: > A minimum tax on billionaires equal to 2% of their wealth would address this evasion and generate nearly $250 billion from less than 3,000 individuals. That seems like a very reasonable and focused policy with pretty big upside for affecting a very tiny proportion of the population, which is generally "the point" of policy proposals such as this.

readthenotes1 3y ago
Lol. Look at the history of the US income tax
- jerry80 3y ago
  Income tax is specifically prohibited under the original US constitution. The modern federal income tax was enacted in 1913 at 1% for incomes over $3,000 (about $93,000 in today's money). By WWII, we had universal payroll withholding. Thinking the government will be satisfied with taking only a little bit from the wealthy, is like thinking your drug addicted friend will be happy with only a small bump of heroin on weekends.
the_optimist 3y ago
“very reasonable for other people” == zero skin-in-the-game, easily disregarded. If the proposal became “unfocused,” and you were personally subject to a severe punishment, would you support it? We forbid global capture to prevent a dismal future of global conformity.