4 ms·

Ah yes, let's become even more dependent on the rich, this will fix our problems. If you want to transfer their wealth, then just transfer their wealth and be

Ah yes, let's become even more dependent on the rich, this will fix our problems. If you want to transfer their wealth, then just transfer their wealth and be done with it and declare nobody can ever be a billionaire or whatever. That's actually at least sane. Otherwise this (and many like it) is a dumb plan because it will make you more dependent on them, when 1. it seems nobody wants them to really exist in the first place, and we want to eliminate them - see below. 2. If you don't eliminate them, you are becoming more and more dependent on a smaller and smaller group over time. Ignoring the totally obvious problems with this, it doesn't work anyway. People don't want them to have any more political or other power than anyone else, but this is totally unrealistic if the vast majority of your funding ends up depending on them. Like, good luck with that i guess? It's also unreasonable anyway, the 5% partner in a 2 person small business does not get 50% of the say. It's only because of the amount of class warfare involved that anyone considers this position sane. If you don't want rich people to have power, stop depending on them. This is not different than anything else in the world (if you don't want Amazon to have power, stop depending on Amazon) If you do eliminate billionaires, now your plan is basically: 1. Heavily tax billionaires to the point that majority of tax revenue is dependent on them 2. Get rid of billionaires at some point. 3. ???? Governments don't ever save enough money to make themselves self-sustaining without tax/etc revenue, and personally, i do not want a self-sustaining government anyway. So how does this end well, exactly, except in a fairy tale?

triceratops 2y ago
> this is totally unrealistic if the vast majority of your funding ends up depending on them. Donors give money to buy influence. Taxpayers pay money to stay out of jail. There is no "dependence" here.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  ????? I was clear on the dependence - an ever increasing amount of the government's funding will come from these folks. You seem to believe that because they are required to do so, it somehow does not create dependence, but that seems very strange. For example: Your parents were required to feed you as a child, or they would go to jail. You were still dependent on them. Dependence and penalties for non-compliance are totally orthogonal.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    Unless children can send their parents to jail where you live (as opposed to the authorities doing it) that analogy just doesn't work. A more apt analogy would be children and household chores. In a functioning household with competent adults in charge, the parents aren't dependent on the children to do the chores. The parents can do them by themselves, or pay to have them done. They assign chores to children to instill in them a sense of duty and responsibility to the household (also to teach practical "adulting" skills, but that's beside the point). If the children shirk their chores, punishment is sure to follow. That's a long-winded way of saying that having rich people pay more tax doesn't give them any more influence on politics than they currently have. If anything it might leave them a bit less money to spend on lobbying.
linksnapzz 2y ago
It's especially silly, given that the sudden taxation of unrealized gains from the superrich would net the Treasury...100 billion dollars. Which sounds like a lot; until you look at the scope of Federal spending. A few weeks of funding the USG at the most. And then what?
Supermancho 2y ago
> If you want to transfer their wealth, then just transfer their wealth and be done with it The exact mechanics of this, is what is being discussed. > Heavily tax billionaires to the point that majority of tax revenue is dependent on them Being able to target the wealth, as it moves around but is still accessible - ie "I'm not a Billionaire, I have a very nice consulting job where I get unlimited per diem from this unrelated foreign corporation over there", is what is being discussed. Some people are getting into the specifics of targeting inheritance.

triceratops 2y ago

> this is totally unrealistic if the vast majority of your funding ends up depending on them. Donors give money to buy influence. Taxpayers pay money to stay out of jail. There is no "dependence" here.

DannyBee 2y ago
????? I was clear on the dependence - an ever increasing amount of the government's funding will come from these folks. You seem to believe that because they are required to do so, it somehow does not create dependence, but that seems very strange. For example: Your parents were required to feed you as a child, or they would go to jail. You were still dependent on them. Dependence and penalties for non-compliance are totally orthogonal.
- triceratops 2y ago
  Unless children can send their parents to jail where you live (as opposed to the authorities doing it) that analogy just doesn't work. A more apt analogy would be children and household chores. In a functioning household with competent adults in charge, the parents aren't dependent on the children to do the chores. The parents can do them by themselves, or pay to have them done. They assign chores to children to instill in them a sense of duty and responsibility to the household (also to teach practical "adulting" skills, but that's beside the point). If the children shirk their chores, punishment is sure to follow. That's a long-winded way of saying that having rich people pay more tax doesn't give them any more influence on politics than they currently have. If anything it might leave them a bit less money to spend on lobbying.

linksnapzz 2y ago

It's especially silly, given that the sudden taxation of unrealized gains from the superrich would net the Treasury...100 billion dollars. Which sounds like a lot; until you look at the scope of Federal spending. A few weeks of funding the USG at the most. And then what?

Supermancho 2y ago

> If you want to transfer their wealth, then just transfer their wealth and be done with it The exact mechanics of this, is what is being discussed. > Heavily tax billionaires to the point that majority of tax revenue is dependent on them Being able to target the wealth, as it moves around but is still accessible - ie "I'm not a Billionaire, I have a very nice consulting job where I get unlimited per diem from this unrelated foreign corporation over there", is what is being discussed. Some people are getting into the specifics of targeting inheritance.