4 ms·

I don't have any issue with ultra rich. I have many issues with some non-essential things that surround them: - mostly, the ability to not pay their fair share

I don't have any issue with ultra rich. I have many issues with some non-essential things that surround them: - mostly, the ability to not pay their fair share of tax. I don't want to see them taxed 300% or whatever, I want them to pay the same marginal tax rate as normal people - their outsized ability to finance politics. Political parties should have a fixed, transparent source of financing, from the state ideally, current system is basically legalized bribery. - their outsizes ability to be politicians. Smart middle-class (or below, income-wise) people simply cannot afford to run for parlament and leave their career behind for N years. But this means politicians are overwhelmingly rich and skew the representation in supposed democracy At least the first two are easy to fix.

karmakurtisaani 3y ago
It sounds like you have issues with the ultra rich. This is because you can't have ultra rich without the points you mention. Assume you were to set up solutions to the problems pointed out. The ultra rich would be immediately using their wealth and influence to better their position by working against the guard rails keeping those solutions in place. Why would they not?
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  It's like saying it is inevitable that armed forces will stage coups because they have guns, and civilian administrations don't. And yet in highly developed countries, it doesn't happen.
  - spacemadness 3y ago
    So how do you think these folks got ultra rich in the first place? You need to move the chess pieces in your favor. They didn’t just get that way through pure meritocracy. Your analogy doesn’t hold.
    - rich_sasha 3y ago
      It's a different argument. Are you now saying ultra rich are definitely crooks? Zuckerberg and other techno-royals are definitely ultra rich, and some aren't very nice people, but fundamentally they made their money in entirely legal and reasonable ways (through I'd argue in many cases tax appears to be underpaid). I'd argue they were mostly lucky, and probably also competent. But I don't feel that their wealth is somehow wrongly acquired.
      - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
        You don't have to insist all ultra rich are crooks. It's enough that even one of them wants to influence politics. How much influence can you buy with a net worth of 10 billion? With a few politicians in your pocket it turns into 20 billion in no time.
thefz 3y ago
I'd add a hard limit to the amount of pollution the ultra wealthy are allowed to get away with. You don't need a chopper/plane all the time and for sure that 120m boat is leaving some footprint.
JohnBooty 3y ago
- their outsizes ability to be politicians. Smart middle-class (or below, income-wise) people simply cannot afford to run for parlament and leave their career behind for N years. But this means politicians are overwhelmingly rich and skew the representation in supposed democracy Thank you for recognizing this. It astounds me how people don't want to financially reward our politicians in honest, transparent ways. In an ideal world, I believe we should pay our politicians like stars while simultaneously having iron-clad controls on their outside financial influences. Wildly impractical for sure, but why not e.g.: - Pay a US Senator $500,000 a year - Assign two full time agents to him with full access to their finances down to counting the fucking loose change in the senator's pockets whenever they feel like it. - Agent A and Agent B get a hefty bonus for spotting violations. Double the bonus for a thing the other missed. - The iron-clad financial influence rules extend to 10 years after they leave office and include extended family members and friends.

karmakurtisaani 3y ago

It sounds like you have issues with the ultra rich. This is because you can't have ultra rich without the points you mention. Assume you were to set up solutions to the problems pointed out. The ultra rich would be immediately using their wealth and influence to better their position by working against the guard rails keeping those solutions in place. Why would they not?

rich_sasha 3y ago
It's like saying it is inevitable that armed forces will stage coups because they have guns, and civilian administrations don't. And yet in highly developed countries, it doesn't happen.
- spacemadness 3y ago
  So how do you think these folks got ultra rich in the first place? You need to move the chess pieces in your favor. They didn’t just get that way through pure meritocracy. Your analogy doesn’t hold.
  - rich_sasha 3y ago
    It's a different argument. Are you now saying ultra rich are definitely crooks? Zuckerberg and other techno-royals are definitely ultra rich, and some aren't very nice people, but fundamentally they made their money in entirely legal and reasonable ways (through I'd argue in many cases tax appears to be underpaid). I'd argue they were mostly lucky, and probably also competent. But I don't feel that their wealth is somehow wrongly acquired.
    - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
      You don't have to insist all ultra rich are crooks. It's enough that even one of them wants to influence politics. How much influence can you buy with a net worth of 10 billion? With a few politicians in your pocket it turns into 20 billion in no time.

thefz 3y ago

I'd add a hard limit to the amount of pollution the ultra wealthy are allowed to get away with. You don't need a chopper/plane all the time and for sure that 120m boat is leaving some footprint.

JohnBooty 3y ago

- their outsizes ability to be politicians. Smart middle-class (or below, income-wise) people simply cannot afford to run for parlament and leave their career behind for N years. But this means politicians are overwhelmingly rich and skew the representation in supposed democracy Thank you for recognizing this. It astounds me how people don't want to financially reward our politicians in honest, transparent ways. In an ideal world, I believe we should pay our politicians like stars while simultaneously having iron-clad controls on their outside financial influences. Wildly impractical for sure, but why not e.g.: - Pay a US Senator $500,000 a year - Assign two full time agents to him with full access to their finances down to counting the fucking loose change in the senator's pockets whenever they feel like it. - Agent A and Agent B get a hefty bonus for spotting violations. Double the bonus for a thing the other missed. - The iron-clad financial influence rules extend to 10 years after they leave office and include extended family members and friends.