3 ms·
Obviously it’s a tax increase on working people to fund even more tax cuts for the already insanely wealthy, allowing them to buy up even more assets. Even if
by chgs 2y ago
Obviously it’s a tax increase on working people to fund even more tax cuts for the already insanely wealthy, allowing them to buy up even more assets.
Even if you have a $10m portfolio you’ll be next, once they’ve drained the $100k and $1m lot.
- jrs235 2y agoAnd folks who argue the situation harms the billionaires typically are thinking about it in dollar valuations as opposed to percentage of all wealth owned. If their portfolios shrink on paper to be only worth a tenth as much tomorrow (but everything dropped that same paper value amount) but their purchasing power goes up and are able to buy a larger percentage of all wealth, they are coming out ahead. As #47 said, only the weak (poor) will fail...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ItDoBeWimdyTho 2y agoTheir wealth may increase as a percentage of all wealth in America. For a long time that basically meant the same thing, because the dollar was the foundation of the international financial system. But that was because of the stability of the US government. When other countries disengage their financial systems from ours in favor of the yuan, being a billionaire in American dollars will be about as impressive as being a billionaire in Zimbabwe dollars.
- deanmoriarty 2y ago> Even if you have a $10m portfolio you’ll be next, once they’ve drained the $100k and $1m lot. What does this mean, in practical examples? Just trying to understand your point.