|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 31, 2022 18:57:38 GMT
...exist? I've heard decent arguments for abolishing billionaires (horrible wealth inequality, exploitation of labor, being able to buy out politicians). Even someone that seems like a seemingly decent human being like say Bill Gates who donates tons of money to philanthropy has accumulated a bunch of his wealth from labor exploitation (much of the materials in his computers are mined by child laborers in Africa).
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 31, 2022 19:13:19 GMT
If by "abolishing billionaires" you mean start taxing wealth, I'd favor that.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2022 19:29:40 GMT
...exist? I've heard decent arguments for abolishing billionaires (horrible wealth inequality, exploitation of labor, being able to buy out politicians). Even someone that seems like a seemingly decent human being like say Bill Gates who donates tons of money to philanthropy has accumulated a bunch of his wealth from labor exploitation (much of the materials in his computers are mined by child laborers in Africa). I'm of the opinion that any system which allows billionaires to exist is deeply flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 31, 2022 19:38:08 GMT
...exist? I've heard decent arguments for abolishing billionaires (horrible wealth inequality, exploitation of labor, being able to buy out politicians). Even someone that seems like a seemingly decent human being like say Bill Gates who donates tons of money to philanthropy has accumulated a bunch of his wealth from labor exploitation (much of the materials in his computers are mined by child laborers in Africa). I'm of the opinion that any system which allows billionaires to exist is deeply flawed. Well bourgeois democracy pretty much allows for just that (it's hard to abolish billionaires when they pretty much run the system). Even social democracies like Sweden with high unionization and progressive tax rates still have billionaires (in fact Sweden actually has more billionaires per capita than the US). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2023 3:46:50 GMT
I don't think a society can get rid of billionaires, but we can stop glorifying them.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 1, 2023 12:59:37 GMT
...exist? I've heard decent arguments for abolishing billionaires (horrible wealth inequality, exploitation of labor, being able to buy out politicians). Even someone that seems like a seemingly decent human being like say Bill Gates who donates tons of money to philanthropy has accumulated a bunch of his wealth from labor exploitation (much of the materials in his computers are mined by child laborers in Africa). I think exploitation should be "abolished" since that's the actual ethical dilemma most of the time. I also think billionaires should pay more taxes. However, if someone is a billionaire because they built an empire by way of combining their natural talent with a well-conceived, well-executed business model (Oprah Winfrey), then I see no reason why she should be "abolilshed" or most of her money taken from her. Moreover, I'm for "freedom" to the maximum extent possible, so long as it is not inherently harmful to others. |
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jan 1, 2023 13:17:26 GMT
If by "abolishing billionaires" you mean start taxing wealth, I'd favor that. Laudable but not possible under the current U.S. Constitution. Even if it were possible, how do you value stuff every year. When Musk bought Twitter, he had to sell a bucket load of Tesla stock which greatly reduced its value AND he has to pay tax on the gains when he sold the stock. These people have amassed their wealth through shrewd work, innovation, and wise investing. They've paid hefty income taxes on their way up the food chain and they'll pay a hefty income tax when they sell their assets and/or estate tax when they die. If you're really pissed at Musk, Gates, or Bezos then don't buy their products. You're just jealous that you have to work while you think they just sit around and collect dividends. Their assets are putting people to work, paying dividends. If their money is sitting in a bank then it's being borrowed to buy houses, etc. The USA prospers because of the desire to get ahead. The general economy works best with the "indivisible hand" where everyone, acting in their own best interest, is moving the economy forward. If you really believe that the government should decide what's best for everyone, move to Cuba or North Korea. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 1, 2023 13:29:44 GMT
Short answer: NO.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 1, 2023 14:08:18 GMT
If by "abolishing billionaires" you mean start taxing wealth, I'd favor that. Laudable but not possible under the current U.S. Constitution. Even if it were possible, how do you value stuff every year. When Musk bought Twitter, he had to sell a bucket load of Tesla stock which greatly reduced its value AND he has to pay tax on the gains when he sold the stock. These people have amassed their wealth through shrewd work, innovation, and wise investing. They've paid hefty income taxes on their way up the food chain and they'll pay a hefty income tax when they sell their assets and/or estate tax when they die. If you're really pissed at Musk, Gates, or Bezos then don't buy their products. You're just jealous that you have to work while you think they just sit around and collect dividends. Their assets are putting people to work, paying dividends. If their money is sitting in a bank then it's being borrowed to buy houses, etc. The USA prospers because of the desire to get ahead. The general economy works best with the "indivisible hand" where everyone, acting in their own best interest, is moving the economy forward. If you really believe that the government should decide what's best for everyone, move to Cuba or North Korea. "These people have amassed their wealth through shrewd work, innovation, and wise investing." Well no that's often not the case, I'm pretty sure most billionaires already come from money. Musk's dad for instance was already a wealthy South African mine owner. Musk himself never actually invented anything lucrative (he didn't invent Tesla, he just bought it out). His actual inventions have been laughable failures. "They've paid hefty income taxes on their way up the food chain and they'll pay a hefty income tax when they sell their assets and/or estate tax when they die." That's often not really true either, thanks to loopholes and deductions, many billionaires actually pay LESS in in taxes than the average person: www.cbsnews.com/news/income-tax-rich-billionaire-8-2-percent-average/"If you're really pissed at Musk, Gates, or Bezos then don't buy their products." That's rather difficult to do when a billionaire owns a monopoly on an industry. For instance, if you don't like the current version of Windows you can use one of their competitors...oh wait except they don't have one (unless you wanna switch over to Mac). Fed up with Amazon? Well then you can go use um, well there uh, um...you see where I'm going with this right? "You're just jealous that you have to work while you think they just sit around and collect dividends" Well actually a lot of wealth is accumulated through "rent seeking behavior" (behavior where individuals or groups seek economic gain by lobbying for special favors from politicians, rather than creating value in the marketplace. When people engage in rent-seeking behaviors, they are actually taking money out of the economy instead of adding anything productive to it. And saying "you're just jealous" is being incredibly reductive, do you look at a single mom working several jobs talking about how difficult is it to get by and think "Hmm, they're just jealous!". Do you see how silly that sounds? "Their assets are putting people to work, paying dividends." You don't need billionaires for that (small and mom and pop shops and worker owned coops can do that as well) "If their money is sitting in a bank then it's being borrowed to buy houses, etc." Again you don't really need billionaires for that, if billionaires were abolished then the wealth would simply be more even disbursed amongst the general public and banks would just rely on that to give loans. "The USA prospers because of the desire to get ahead" What do you mean by "prosper"? You do realize majority of Americans don't even $500 in their bank account for an emergency right now? We have increasingly expensive housing costs, millions of people have to get side jobs just to make ends meet, and medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy. That's your idea of "prospering"? "The general economy works best with the "indivisible hand" where everyone, acting in their own best interest, is moving the economy forward." Uh yeah, except that's not really born out in data. You do realize since the Great Depression, many economists have recognized the failure of free market economics right? Oh it works best when everyone is "acting in their own interest"? Oh so when billionaires basically bribe politicians to do them favors (gut labor unions, keep competitors out, crack down on workers rights, keep wages low) that's them "moving the economy forward"? "If you really believe that the government should decide what's best for everyone, move to Cuba or North Korea." So strawman, gotcha. I notice people like you never use social democracies (which have higher progressive tax rates, higher minimum wage, much more unionization) like Sweden, Norway, or Denmark as examples of the "failure of socialism", gee I wonder why that is... |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 1, 2023 14:38:32 GMT
If by "abolishing billionaires" you mean start taxing wealth, I'd favor that. Laudable but not possible under the current U.S. Constitution. Even if it were possible, how do you value stuff every year. When Musk bought Twitter, he had to sell a bucket load of Tesla stock which greatly reduced its value AND he has to pay tax on the gains when he sold the stock. These people have amassed their wealth through shrewd work, innovation, and wise investing. They've paid hefty income taxes on their way up the food chain and they'll pay a hefty income tax when they sell their assets and/or estate tax when they die. If you're really pissed at Musk, Gates, or Bezos then don't buy their products. You're just jealous that you have to work while you think they just sit around and collect dividends. Their assets are putting people to work, paying dividends. If their money is sitting in a bank then it's being borrowed to buy houses, etc. The USA prospers because of the desire to get ahead. The general economy works best with the "indivisible hand" where everyone, acting in their own best interest, is moving the economy forward. If you really believe that the government should decide what's best for everyone, move to Cuba or North Korea. In spite of your assertion that a wealth tax is "not possible under the current U.S. Constitution" it is an easily demonstrable fact that there is no legal consensus on the question. As far as valuation goes, the question is tricky, but can, nevertheless, be worked out. It does not present some insurmountable problem. "Indivisible hand"? I suppose you mean "invisible hand". And ANY government intervention (all sorts of existing taxes and regulations) cuts against invisible hand economics, so don't try to say that a wealth tax would be some sort of singular and intolerable affront to it. And people who favor a wealth tax should move to Cuba or North Korea? In case you don't know it, those countries don't have a wealth tax. Examples of countries that do are Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Your overheated histrionics notwithstanding, suggesting that the U.S. should join that list does not make one an advocate for dictatorship. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 2, 2023 1:25:53 GMT
...exist? I've heard decent arguments for abolishing billionaires (horrible wealth inequality, exploitation of labor, being able to buy out politicians). Even someone that seems like a seemingly decent human being like say Bill Gates who donates tons of money to philanthropy has accumulated a bunch of his wealth from labor exploitation (much of the materials in his computers are mined by child laborers in Africa). |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 2, 2023 8:49:49 GMT
No one who is a billionaire or multi-millionaire should consider themselves ethical…or anyone who has “blood money,” that is capital gained via exploitation of others. Like if you are getting money from an investment that is burning down the Amazonian forest for a few seasons of growing crops, that’s unethical. If you buy a business to shut it down or move the jobs to Asia to use slave labor.
There is a reason Jesus said what he did about the camel, the rich young man, and on worshipping the God Money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jan 2, 2023 12:10:32 GMT
(text omitted) In spite of your assertion that a wealth tax is "not possible under the current U.S. Constitution" it is an easily demonstrable fact that there is no legal consensus on the question. (Text omitted) "Indivisible hand"? I suppose you mean "invisible hand". And ANY government intervention (all sorts of existing taxes and regulations) cuts against invisible hand economics, so don't try to say that a wealth tax would be some sort of singular and intolerable affront to it. And people who favor a wealth tax should move to Cuba or North Korea? ... If it's easily demonstrable, then please demonstrate. I don't see it. Any legal consensus occurs because most people do not realize that Article I, Section 9, makes a wealth tax impossible and that the XVI Amendment allows an exception only in the case of "income". Yes, "Invisible". Thank you. My bad. I did not mean to imply that the wealth tax was a singular and intolerable event. It is just one more step on the road to socialism. As for the Cuba/NorthKorea remark, again, it's because those that want the wealth tax want more socialism and socialism doesn't work. If you take away the ability to surpass others, the general economy suffers. "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 2, 2023 12:43:13 GMT
If by "abolishing billionaires" you mean start taxing wealth, I'd favor that. The USA prospers because of the desire to get ahead. The general economy works best with the "indivisible hand" where everyone, acting in their own best interest, is moving the economy forward. If you really believe that the government should decide what's best for everyone, move to Cuba or North Korea.Ayn Rand? Reality doesn't function in absolutes. How'd that "best interest" work out in 1929? We live within a national boundary: A level of socialism is a necessity. Infrastructure is needed. Roads need to be built. Armies need to be funded. Regulation is needed. Ways to keep the "best interest" of one person ruining the interest of everyone is needed. Ways to curb money becoming political power is needed. You want to live in a plutocracy? Move to.... Oh yeah. There is none.... They don't work on a national level. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 2, 2023 12:45:20 GMT
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." Very stupid words meant to placate very stupid people. Edit: This might be too harsh... let's just say: "Overly simplistic words meant to placate simple people." |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 2, 2023 14:54:40 GMT
If it's easily demonstrable, then please demonstrate. I don't see it. If you don't see that its constitutionality is an open question, then you have made no attempt to even look. Simply Googling the words "Is wealth tax constitutional" will yield numerous articles by legal scholars explaining how it is constitutional. And you will also find numerous articles arguing the opposite. If you are unable to do this, let me know.That's just mindless sloganeering of the kind that opponents of Social Security and, later on, Medicare employed. Weigh the pros and cons of any proposal. Look at examples where a program is already in place - not point to countries where it isn't. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 4, 2023 15:15:48 GMT
People only become billionaires due to exploitation - massive profits are generated by global society and then shared based on ownership of the means of production rather than level of contribution or need. Abolishing billionaires by taxing them won't fix the problem though. The entire exploitative system that gives rise to them in the first place is the issue. However, if someone is a billionaire because they built an empire by way of combining their natural talent with a well-conceived, well-executed business model (Oprah Winfrey), then I see no reason why she should be "abolilshed" or most of her money taken from her. Where do Oprah's billions come from though? First, she got paid a very high salary by a TV company. So where did they get all that money to pay her? Advertising revenue for products and services produced by workers. How were people able to watch the show? On TVs built by factory workers, using electricity maintained by other workers, generated by fossil fuels extracted by other workers. What were the TVs built from? Raw materials extracted from around the world. The TVs were transported on roads built by workers, housed in warehouses manned by workers, sold in shops by other workers. And all these workers need food to eat and homes to sleep in, provided by other workers. And of course there are the workers the company uses directly - camera crews, sound crews, make-up, runners etc. All these workers are necessary for a TV company to make these staggering profits in order for them to pay Oprah such a high salary. Workers are almost always paid less than the value they produce in order for their employers to realise profits. So at this stage Oprah might not be exploiting anyone, but she was certainly benefiting indirectly from exploitation. But then the second stage of her business empire was taking her high salary and investing in her own business ventures - benefiting directly from exploitation to turn her millions to billions. It's not that Oprah is a bad person or untalented, but she'd never be this rich if workers were paid more fairly. There simply wouldn't be these excess profits to make her so. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 4, 2023 15:26:54 GMT
As for the Cuba/NorthKorea remark, again, it's because those that want the wealth tax want more socialism and socialism doesn't work. If you take away the ability to surpass others, the general economy suffers. Cuba compares quite well to most Caribbean countries and that's with the most powerful country in the world actively besieging it for most of its history. North Korea was more economically successful than the South until Western countries bombed all its infrastructure and sanctioned it to the hilt whilst also pumping money into the South. Those countries have their problems of course, but there's way too much going on there to simply use them as examples of socialism not working. |
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jan 4, 2023 20:10:27 GMT
I don`t have a problem with some people having more money than other people, but i do have a problem with what 95-99% of all wealth goes to a very small select group of people.
I do think there should be a limit to how much money a human being can have, i don`t think anybody needs to have tens of billions. I would say that 100-200 million is the most a person should be allowed to have.
There should be a more fair distribution of wealth.
I know people will disagree with this, but i don`t care.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 5, 2023 18:34:02 GMT
People only become billionaires due to exploitation - massive profits are generated by global society and then shared based on ownership of the means of production rather than level of contribution or need. Abolishing billionaires by taxing them won't fix the problem though. The entire exploitative system that gives rise to them in the first place is the issue. However, if someone is a billionaire because they built an empire by way of combining their natural talent with a well-conceived, well-executed business model (Oprah Winfrey), then I see no reason why she should be "abolilshed" or most of her money taken from her. Where do Oprah's billions come from though? First, she got paid a very high salary by a TV company. So where did they get all that money to pay her? Advertising revenue for products and services produced by workers. How were people able to watch the show? On TVs built by factory workers, using electricity maintained by other workers, generated by fossil fuels extracted by other workers. What were the TVs built from? Raw materials extracted from around the world. The TVs were transported on roads built by workers, housed in warehouses manned by workers, sold in shops by other workers. And all these workers need food to eat and homes to sleep in, provided by other workers. And of course there are the workers the company uses directly - camera crews, sound crews, make-up, runners etc. All these workers are necessary for a TV company to make these staggering profits in order for them to pay Oprah such a high salary. Workers are almost always paid less than the value they produce in order for their employers to realise profits. So at this stage Oprah might not be exploiting anyone, but she was certainly benefiting indirectly from exploitation. But then the second stage of her business empire was taking her high salary and investing in her own business ventures - benefiting directly from exploitation to turn her millions to billions. It's not that Oprah is a bad person or untalented, but she'd never be this rich if workers were paid more fairly. There simply wouldn't be these excess profits to make her so. Why are you telling me this over the internet? Do you have any idea how many factory workers and Amazon packers who get paid low wages are being exploited to ensure your ability to use a computer? I mean, I don’t think you’re evil for using a computer - I just think that using computers should be outlawed because many people have been exploited by the industry that manufactures them. And you’d never be able to afford one IF those parts manufacturers and shippers were paid more fairly. I sincerely hope you can read through the rhetoric! |
|
