America has a billionaire problem — we need a wealth tax to fix it
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
thehill.com /opinion/5322845-billionaire-governance-taxes-inequality/
Alan S. Davis, opinion contributor 4-5 minutes 5/29/2025
We are living through an experiment in billionaire governance.
President Trump has stuffed his administration with the wealthiest individuals in modern history and handed unprecedented power to billionaires like Elon Musk and 13 Cabinet members who are now actively leveraging their newfound power to further enrich themselves. At the same time, Republican congressional leaders are moving forward with a tax package that will disproportionately benefit the ultra-wealthy .
Transparently, I’m wealthy and I oppose this type of handout. Time and again, I have seen how the richest of the rich lobby for tax cuts they promise will trickle down. That has never happened and this time will be no different.
The good news is that the American public is souring on this arrangement and seeing through their greedy charade .
Approximately 300,000 American households with wealth exceeding $50 million are sitting on over $35 trillion — a total that is equivalent to the entire U.S. national debt and more than the value of all the goods and services produced in America .
Such excessive concentration of wealth is the biggest threat facing our nation. It bestows a dangerous degree of economic and political power on a select few and arms them with the ability to distort our democracy and our economy for personal gain.
As billionaires tighten their grip on our economy and political system, lawmakers must consider sweeping tax reforms to counter this threat. And they need not worry about raising taxes on middle-class Americans or even households earning above $400,000; the immense concentration of wealth at the very top means that focusing solely on the top 0.1 percent of Americans would generate substantial revenue while leaving 99.9 percent of Americans completely untouched.
One mechanism for achieving this goal is a wealth tax on the ultra-wealthy. The venerable Tax Policy Center recently released an analysis of a policy called the “Five and Dime tax.” This proposal would impose a 5 percent tax on household wealth exceeding $50 million and a 10 percent tax on household wealth over $250 million. This tax would raise $6.8 trillion over ten years, slow the rate at which our nation mints new billionaires, and reduce billionaires’ share of total national wealth from 4 percent to 3 percent.
Lawmakers would have options about how to spend the revenue this tax raises — on middle class tax relief, debt reduction, or high-return public investments, helping working families afford childcare, affordable housing, infrastructure, and strengthening climate initiatives.
Ultimately, taxes on the ultra-rich could transform American society for the better and grow our economy by discouraging unproductive financial behaviors and promoting fair competition — leading to a more dynamic and efficient system.
Critics will inevitably claim such a tax would promote high levels of avoidance or prove impossible for the IRS to implement. And while there are challenges for administering any bold proposal, the opportunity to rebalance our economy and democracy in favor of working families is reason enough to work through those hurdles.
The American people certainly agree. A recent poll of voters in California’s 13th District, which elected President Trump and Rep. Adam Gray (D) in 2024, found that nearly two-thirds support taxing billionaires and 63 percent back the Five and Dime tax.
After witnessing the consequences of billionaire governance firsthand under this administration, Americans understand what’s at stake. Now it’s time for lawmakers who care about our country’s future to embrace solutions that empower everyone, not just those at the top.
Alan Davis is a philanthropist, tax expert, and director of the WhyNot Initiative, the social justice program of the Leonard and Sophie Davis Fund. He is the co-director and co-founder of the Extreme Wealth Center.
Tags
Who is online
157 visitors
Not one billionaire would have their lifestyle effected by this tax. For that matter, no one with 50 million would have their lifestyle effected by this tax. But it would be the beginning of restoring some sanity to the topic of the abuse of great wealth.
[✘]
Relax. You and Trump will still be allowed to keep a few golf courses and casinos. You guys will be fine.
Who said anything about Trump..........................AGAIN
Deflection noted.
I am. Because he is likely part of the group targeted for these taxes. It’s not a deflection. He is literally an example of what this article is discussing. Musk, Bezos, etc. All those guys.
Part of this thread was removed for no value.
.
Thinking peasants with torches and pitchforks at the gates of hell might just be necessary to deal with the uber oligarchy that Trump and his "deep state" are using to screw with We The People!
"When Adam delved
and Eve span ,
Who was then the
gentleman ?"
John Ball (c. 1338 – 15 July 1381) was an English priest who took a prominent part in the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. Although he is often associated with John Wycliffe and the Lollard movement , Ball was actively preaching "articles contrary to the faith of the church" at least a decade before Wycliffe started attracting attention.
I'm thinking a diving board off the ramp of a USAF globemaster outside of the mid-atlantic shipping lanes ...
FFS here we go again with the "tax the rich" idiocy.
Always the answer. Gets them more to squander away on "special" programs...........or waste it whichever you prefer. (They sometimes are the same such is virtue signaling)
Oh, those little programs that only benefit the politicians and not a single citizen. Kind of like the "asylum seekers" that have been killing people all over the country and the Democrats flights to see an El Salvador citizen in prison.
If only they would pay their fair share determined by left wing takers everything would be OK. S/ Except if the government had more money they would not pay down debt, they would just give away more free stuff in order to buy votes. I mean, who doesn't like free stuff.
No you're right, why tax the rich, just tax the middle class and poor to cover those tax cuts. Make perfect sense if you're fucking retarded.
... and a fascist lover.
I’m for more taxes on the wealthy, but it is a little tricky exactly how you do it. Things like Income and Sales are liquid, so they’re easy to tax. Taxing general wealth could require the sale of assets to satisfy the tax. I have to pay tax on my property (house) every year, and it’s painful for me, but I just have the one house.
The wealth tax isn’t necessarily a bad thing considering the target class presumably has assets in abundance, but it ultimately might not be as lucrative as people hope. If you put a bunch of rich properties on the market, who is going to buy them?
Still, I think the extremely wealthy in this country could do more. Conversely, taxing the income of people who make say, $50K or less and either rent or only own the home they live in just seems stupid.
How do you tax wealth? What if that wealth was due to an accumulation of hard work or playing the stock market wisely? What if that person is retired and is content to live on their largess but don't plan to produce any more?
The supporters of such a tax would likely argue that the asset threshold would be set so high that those people wouldn't be affected.
Income.
Capital gains, dividends and interest.
passive income is still happening unless you sell everything and covert the cash to gold and bury it in the yard.
State and local governments already tax real estate based on some assessor’s estimate. The federal government could do likewise. We also already tax capital gains and interest on various accounts, so if you wanted to set tax rates based on the principal of those accounts, that data is already in the system.
Does it really matter how people accrue wealth?
Then at some point, their wealth will fall below the threshold for the wealth tax. We’re not talking about typical retirees. We’re talking about billionaires.
Taxes already work that way. It’s not that weird.
no...I had a thought and it vanished
but all good points
It's the only part of the idea that isn't.
Well, there are pirates and there are criminals....
and then there are Presidential pardons...
Yeah, I brain that way, too.
lol
it's getting worse as time passes
Start with an inheritance tax that takes everything above $ 5 000 000. That's still a pretty good head start.
Then tax real and financial property above $ 500 000 000. That's more than anyone can spend in a lifetime.
See? It's simple.
Hmmmmm......
So if somebody owns a small farm in Illinois, for example, where the average value per acre is $13,526 , they would have to pay 100% tax on the value of everything over 370 acres. They'd also have to pay 100% tax on all the tractors, equipment, livestock, barns, sheds, the house they live in, and any other improvements. We haven't talked about any bank accounts or savings they might have squirreled away over the years.
No worries, though, the investment bankers will be waiting in the wings. The great thing about investment banks is that they don't die, so they don't have to worry about inheritance taxes.
You have to understand, there are legions of democrats that can't see past their own desire and envy that they are willing to screw anyone to achieve their goals and never consider the unattended consequences.
I dunno about 'legions', and they certainly don't have the monopoly on the franchise.
It's probably fair to say that many of the things they support are incompatible with a deep understanding of money and how it works.
How many small farms are there in Illinois?
[deleted][✘]
Quite a few, apparently.
How many went out of business because of trumps trade war the first time he was in office?
Oops....
That's about half of one percent of the state's population. (You know as well as I that this segment has been diminishing for a long time.)
If we (vox populi) believe that this population is of social/cultural importance - a very woke idea - then a carve-out is always possible.
What about other small family businesses?
Exactly.
The first point being that this is far from simple.
The second point being that these idiotic "tax the rich" schemes always benefit the super rich at the expense of people who aren't.
Who should we tax ? the poor ?
You are a libertarian, we all get that. But libertarianism is a failed ideology.
As far as I know, it's never been done.
Maybe we could try spending less money, John.
But let's don't pretend this is about revenue. We don't start the article with a phrase like "billionaire problem" if we're talking about tax revenue. Those numbers fail spectacularly.
You wish.
But we'll add that to the now impressive list of different labels you've tried to assign to me whenever you can't manage a reasonable response to whatever topic we're discussing.
We went for decades with punitive inheritance taxes. At one point the rate was 77% with a $60,000 exemption.
It did nothing but screw over the people with illiquid assets who were too broke to hire a team of tax attorneys.
We could, but do we really want to? Most of the stuff we spend money on is stuff we, as a society, think is worth spending money on. I think most people wish we could spend more on a wide variety of things. There’s nothing inherently wrong about the government spending money. The real issue is generating the revenue to pay for it.
You dont say you are not a libertarian, you just dont want to be described that way.
Surely you're not serious. Have you looked at the math?
There are enormous amounts of money spent that would struggle mightily to pass that measurement.
Last year we spent $2 million to study kids looking at Facebook ads about food. We spent $5 million on Ukrainian social media influencers. $3 million on girl centered climate action in Brazil. $1.5 million on motion sickness in kittens.
The Department of the Interior spent $12 million on a pickleball complex in Las Vegas, at $400,000 per court.
In 2024 the Biden Administration spent over $2 million to secure the border..... of Paraguay. The irony is just phenomenal.
Are these things that the majority of Americans would actually contribute to if given the choice and then presented with an invoice for their 1/347 millionth of the cost? Hell no.
The interest on the is expected to reach $1 trillion in 2025. That's about $2900 for every man, woman and child in this country. I guarantee you if we invoiced everybody for their $2900, and then the $2900 for each dependent, people would demand a balanced budget for 2026.
If that were true, the election would have turned out differently. Most people wish we wasted far less money than we do.
I would say the real issue is that the math on this doesn't begin to work out. If you seized all of the wealth of billionaires in the US (assuming you could actually get it, which we all know is nonsense), we would we would burn through that in far less than a year.
The other real issue is the unchallenged attitude that this is somebody else's money. That's partially a problem because it eliminates responsibility and partly because "generating revenue" always comes down to "how do we get more of somebody else's money".... as this article demonstrates clearly.
As Margaret Thatcher warned us decades ago... the problem is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
Not exactly. The "Five and Dime" proposal, at least according to this article involves the following:
Except they fail to consider that the ultra-rich and those who run multi-national corporations still have the option of legally hiding large chunks of their wealth in tax shelters or havens not available to the rest of us, as they currently do to avoid income, dividend, and capital gains taxes. The Five and Dime proposal will likely just be side stepped by an uptick in such tax avoidance methods and would require much higher levels of ascertaining/calculating "wealth" and then enforcing the new tax, neither of which the IRS is currently equipped to handle.
Hell the "tax gap" ( the difference between the total amount of taxes that are estimated to be owed and the amount actually collected on time) was about $600 billion in 2022 alone . That would account for $6 trillion over 10 years, but the IRS can't even close that gap.
How about we change/simplify the tax laws themselves and close the many legal loopholes that are available to those with wealth in excess of say $100 million, and multi-national corporations? I would venture a guess that the collection of these currently avoided taxes, even at current income, corporate, and capital gains tax rates would yield as much, if not more, tax revenue in 10 years than the article claims the Five and Dime proposal would.
Still struggling to participate on the actual topic?
I don't fit in one of your boxes and I'm not interested in your identity politics.
They fail to consider almost everything.
Let's start with the fact that most of this wealth is tied up in illiquid assets. Those would need to be sold. Who, exactly, would be in a position to buy??
Sorry, Jack... but I cannot take seriously any debate about taxes that includes the word "punitive". That word is a conclusion. It effectively ends any discussion.
I believe I just said that. The problem is the balance of spending and revenue - not that spending - all by itself - is bad.
You list a bunch of expenditures that you disapprove of. But you haven’t considered why someone thought they were worth spending money on. You only have a headline level of understanding for those projects, and your analysis is shaped entirely by your anti-spending bias.
Here’s a suggestion to save money. Shut down the military. We’re not supposed to have a standing army anyway. We’d save trillions.
But that’s one you want to keep, I bet. That one’s ok? Well, it’s still government spending. Has to be wasteful.
Or stop building shit. Highways, airports, rail, bridges, phone lines, water lines, internet. Just stop spending. Government spending = waste, right?
Sounds like you were looking for a way out.
How would you describe a 77% tax?
Fair enough. All governments spend money. But we spend like drunken sailors on their first shore leave in 10 years.
In 2024, we overspent revenue by 37%. That's $1.8 trillion dollars. That's about $5200 for every American (assuming 347 million of us).
That's not how much we spent, that's how much we OVERspent and had to borrow. The total per capita spend is nearly $20k. I guarantee you that if you started invoicing people for their actual share, we'd stop that shit in an hour.
The top 10% of Americans are already paying over 70% of the tax bill. Now, rather than inject half an ounce of fiscal responsibility, you want them to pay more. It's crazy.
Gimme context, Jack. Ex nihilo, your questions are meaningless. I think - hope - you know that.
If you want a genuine conversation, you'll have to avoid this kind of gotcha fishing expedition. I'd enjoy a good discussion, but it's up to you.
I'm not sure what context you're looking for.
We could start with the fact that we don't tax anything else at anywhere near that rate. Current estate tax rates are 40% after exemptions.
We could add that the 2023 revenue from estate and gift taxes combined was less than $40 billion, or less than one half of one percent of the federal budget. If we doubled the revenue collected it's still insignificant.
77% - When, on what, on whom?
As I stated, we had a 77% inheritance tax after a $60k exemption on the estate of every American.
I also provided a link to the Tax Foundation so you could verify the data.
I don't see any post with that info.
Sorry.
3.1.24.
Very interesting table. More for what it implies (but doesn't actually say) than what it does say.
It shows "maximums", but doesn't show their application. What are the median numbers? What is dispersion?
The table implies a heavy burden... but doesn't actually show it. A billionaire's heir who receives "only" $ 10 000 000 at birth because an inheritance tax took $ 990 000 000 off the top - that's a 99% rate - is still starting life with ten million dollars. Probably gonna be OK.
The first thing I do with an entity I don't know is look at its "About Us" page. Digging a little, I found this:
(I admire the people who write this stuff, supplying different assurances to different audiences, sometimes diametrically opposed.)
Depending on how you read this, it says whatever you like. The last sentence is... dubious. The first sentence is a declaration of creed - taxes have in fact been used to encourage/discourage since forever.
So... I come away with the impression that this table is anti-tax (therefore pro-rich) propaganda. Definitely worth examination, though, because "know your enemy".
I used to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal for that reason... but with the rise of Trump the WSJ is just middlin' conservative - nowhere on today's political spectrum.
There are a lot of problems with that logic. First, it assumes the assets are liquid and can be sold easily at fair market value. That's rarely the case with large estates. Many of the items included in large estates can only really be sold to other very wealthy people (yachts, art collections, etc) who may or may not be interested. Others, like family businesses, can be sold to hedge funds, private equity groups, or investment banks, who know it's a forced tax sale and will offer a fraction of the value.
So in our zeal to take things away from wealthy heirs, we end up unwittingly enriching hedge funds.... who never face inheritance taxes and who skillfully avoid income taxes with a skill the rest of us can only imagine. I'm pretty sure that isn't the win we were looking for.
Which is the first argument against wealth taxes or very high inheritance taxes. The primary goal of such things, as expressed by their staunchest advocates, is to take money away from wealthy families. Revenue is simply an afterthought.
It says we've tried periods of very high inheritance taxes, which was the original point in response to the assertion that we had never tried anything like this before.
Perhaps. But fundamentally... the kid's probably gonna be OK...
I'm sorry... but I have difficulty sympathizing with the "problems" of the ultra-rich. I haven't worried about my yacht for years because the skipper takes care of everything...
My solution, of course, would be to tax the hedge fund.
I'm not sure if that goal is "primary", but certainly it's present. IMNAAHO, there's something "wrong", "sick" in a society where one child is at mortal risk from birth while another is vastly wealthy. Perhaps I take Christ too seriously. The Good Samaritan. The love of money is the root of all evil. And all that... I see ordinary people working in food banks, but I don't see ultra-rich there. There's something sick in that imbalance. So... yes, some people, including me sometimes, occasionally may see reducing the imbalance by "taking" as a moral deed. Righting a wrong.
Not really. It implies that, but "maximums" are meaningless if we don't know how they're applied. I mistrust implications divorced from meaningful context. When this is done by intelligent people, as here, I assume that it's intentional; sleight-of-hand.
I'm not explaining the math properly.
Person dies, leaving behind an estate valued at $50 million. Under your proposed plan, the heirs would have a $5million exemption and then owe 100% tax on the remaining value of the estate... so $45 million. US law says they have 9 months to pay the tax
But the estate contains a $5 million art collection, a $5 million yacht, the family home valued at $10 million, and then a $30 million family business.
But none of those are things that usually sell quickly. They can all be put up for auction, but then the heirs are collecting far below the assessed value. Let's say they manage to get 80% of the assessed value. The estate would have $40 million in cash, but a liability of $45 million, so the heirs get nothing at all.
The private equity group that buys a $30 million 4th generation family business for $24 million does extremely well.
You've made that clear. But you've set your hypothetical exemption far below the threshold for "ultra rich".
It's very obviously primary. Let's stop pretending otherwise. You'll notice the title of the article is not "America has a poverty problem", or "America has a revenue problem". No, those ideas are clearly afterthoughts. This is all just a poorly disguised plan solely to take down wealthy people by any rationalization necessary.
Sorry, but going after rich people isn't ever going to change that. It's just trying to balance the wrong side of the equation.
You'll remember the Good Samaritan used his own money. He didn't go around and confiscate somebody else's. There is nothing stopping you from using your own money to improve the lives of the poor. However I suspect if we were talking about your money, you would demand more efficient and conscientious stewards than the US Govt.
How would you recognize them?
You touch on one of the big problems with these ideas and why they run into such resistance. There is absolutely nothing "moral" about making one person's life worse just so you can feel better about how bad other people's lives are.
The morality is found in improving the lives of the poor, not inflicting damage upon the rich.
Interesting post.
Yes. IMNAAHO, what I say about the ultra-rich is also true for the "modest billionaire", perhaps to a lesser degree... or perhaps not. I follow and understand the "problems" you cite for rendering wealth more liquid, but as I said, I have little (or rather "no") sympathy for such "problems of the rich". Let them eat cake!
I doubt that Christ intended "he used his own money" to be the central message of his parable. More like he gave his money. Most of Christ's message is about charity and inclusion. He was very, very woke.
I absolutely agree with this... but I'm not sure I read the same thing you wrote... In America today, I see very little - read "no" - damage for the rich, and no - read "very little", if you insist - improvement in the lives of the poor. I see the current administration working very studiously to make poor people's lives worse.
(I see you have another post. I'll continue there)
Let's clarify the math here.
Your estate tax threshold was $5 million. A person needs 200 times that wealth to be the most "modest billionaire" on the planet.
While that probably seems a trivial distinction in your mind, it's a central point of objection to people who focus on numbers.
So do you understand where the wealth envy accusations originate?
It's definitely part of the central message. The parable is told in response to the question "who is my neighbor?" The Samaritan is specifically identified because he came from the race the Hebrews of the day considered the most vile, unclean and contemptible.... yet he behaves far more righteously than the supposedly righteous people in the story. Part of that righteous behavior is most definitely the use of his own funds.
Of course he wasn't. Look, anytime anybody tries to use Jesus to validate their politics, it's just nonsense. That's always been true of the evangelical right (who have been pissing everybody off with that for decades) and it's certainly true of the new "woke" evangelical left. Jesus would never have run around complaining about misgendering someone or organizing a boycott of a business that didn't meet some standard of ideological purity, any more than he would have stoned an adulteress.
The "woke" movement of today is just a rebrand of the Pharisees of Jesus' time and the "Moral Majority' of the 1980s.. It's awash in self-righteousness, which is why everybody hates it.
It seems like you did. I think we're in reasonable agreement here, even if we've arrived along different paths.
We're in fundamental agreement on most of this. Let me add some additional points.
I'm interested in your thoughts.
my paternal grandfather went thru the depression with his family of 5. afterwards the family joke was that since he always had instant access to $500 cash, that he had money stashed in his home and yard. when he died my uncle and 2 cousins went to his house, dug up his yard, pulled up the carpets, and knocked holes in the sheetrock. never did hear if they found anything ...
I feel no envy whatsoever. I feel something more like disdain. 'Course... I'm financially comfortable, if far from "rich" as most Americans understand the word. If I were poor, I might feel envy, along with disdain.
I feel disdain because these people could do a great deal of good, without much impact on their own lifestyle. IMNAAHO, - in MY opinion - this is odious egoism.
No envy at all.
There is no "woke MOVEMENT". That's a figment of MAGA conspiracy theory imagination. There are, fortunately, lots of people who feel empathy for others less fortunate. I sincerely hope that I am one of them.
"Self-righteousness" is often in the eye of the beholder. What concrete examples can you give? I can give unlimited examples of despicable indifference to suffering. Despicable.
Let's invert that: the rich could help the poor without damaging themselves in the slighest. They don't. That's despicable indifference.
(The preceding is a generalization. "All generalizations are worthless, including this one.")
If that's true, then the rich are even more culpable: they know best how to help the poor, but they do everything possible to do nothing.
That may be. We're not doing much... but clearly we're accomplishing very little. There must be a better way. What would you recommend?
I don't doubt you. But nobody ever admits they have wealth envy.
And there wasn't a "moral majority" movement in the 1980s, either. It was the Holy Spirit....... C'mon now.
Of course there is. You think the Biden Administration included trans kids in Title IX "just because"? Or that it's some magical coincidence that the same group of people move seamlessly from tearing down Robert E Lee statues to protesting for gender neutral bathrooms to rationalizing CEO murders to freeing Palestine? They're part of the movement.
You asked for an example and then supplied one in the same paragraph.
Of course they do. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. The Gates Foundation, the Buffet Foundation, The Lilly Endowment, The Walton Family Foundation, The Kellogg Foundation, The Ford Foundation, The Hewlett Foundation... The list goes on for miles.
Then we have things like donor advised funds for people who don't want to deal with having their name on the money or don't want to duplicate other charities. Click here for more info on how that works.
We're not even trying. We have developed a "validate the victim and protect them from all accountability" ethos, and it stretches far beyond money. Constantly saving somebody is much more emotionally gratifying than teaching them not to need saving.
A friend had to do his parents probate after they passed and left him a cluttered bungalow in Glenolden PA.
His father repaired and collected classic vacuum cleaners, Hoover, etc. There were several dozen in the attic and fifty in the garage.
His mother collected magazines her whole life.
Dave got a 30 yard dumpster and first emptied the garage, complaining every day about the dust coming off of all of the vacuum cleaners making him ill.
Inside the house his wife was going through books and magazines looking for that rare find or winning lottery ticket.
They were overwhelmed and in a fit of rage started throwing hands full of magazines in the dumpster all at once when Davey yelled STOP as 10s and 20s wafted down from above...
Realizing that his mother had been squirrelling money away in books and magazines for years, they had to bring all of the books and magazines back into the house to search them properly.
It was a bonanza worth $23K.
But wait, while they were doing that with some family help, a grand son was looking for treasure in the attic...
he saw a shape in one of the vacuum cleaner filter bags that wasn't quite right.
Wads of cash, 1s,2s,5s and more.
Every other vacuum cleaner had cash, coin or keepsakes in the dirt collection bags.
Now of course the 50 vacuum cleaners from the garage are at the bottom of the dumpster under several feet of magazines old furniture, bedding. etc.
They had no choice, he rented a second dumpster to transfer the crap to
and he said the effort was well worth the price but we never quite found out what the final tally amounted to.
Need to know basis, lol.
LOL, that could have been a friend of mine who passed a few years ago at the ripe age of 87. I've been helping his widow and daughter with the estate and cleaning the house as both husband and wife are(were) packrats. He preferred to use cash rather than a credit or debit card so he kept cash in the house. But in the later years his memory was starting to go and he wouldn't remember that he had cash hidden in the house. We found $47k in various envelopes hidden around the house. Now all safely locked up in the bank but it's been fun finding all the treasures he had collected over the years.
Actually, some of those magazines and certainly some of those vacuum cleaners had value. Put em' on the internet and someomes trash is sometimes anothers treasure, but, most of the time now the other persons trash, and heck, a 30 yard dumpster probably in the $600 range in that area, as long as under 3 ton or so. Sure they did ok
Many also reinvest in their own or other new businesses creating jobs, growing the economy, and widening the tax base. Rarely is that impact considered or quantified.
Same here with my mother-in-law. When she passed my wife found thousands of dollars in cash and gold stashed all around the house and in about a dozen file cabinets.
I'm beginning to like Gemini!
What?
Do you consider righteous and self-righteous to be synonyms?
I always consider myself to be pitifully naive... but...seriously??
If there weren't tax breaks for these people, do you really imagine they'd be giving so much? OK, Gates a Buffet may be exceptions...
So... I ask again,
I consider the labeling of people who you don't think share your particular morality as "despicable" as self righteous, especially when you accuse them inaccurately.
I'll leave your level of naivete up to you, but it seems like the points may be doubling back on themselves. On the one hand, they don't pay much in taxes, and on the other hand, they pay so much in taxes that it's better to just give money away. I'm not sure those work out if we put them together.
The tax breaks are undoubtedly an incentive, but giving money to charity is definitely not the best way to shelter it.
I normally oppose drastic action, but at this stage, I'm willing to entertain it. Some ideas:
That's just an attempt to impose your own particular morality. If I use the same adjective to describe someone whom you also consider despicable, then you won't consider me self-righteous.
I have to think about your list of things to do for the poor. Most are good at first glance. Certainly vocational ed. Not sure about the emergency fund. Birth account looks interesting.
Have you nothing to Reply about the family values movement?
I tend to have a more widely accepted threshold for "despicable" (child molesters, rapists, mass murderers, etc), but OK, I see your point.
I kinda look at it like how we protect people from other self-destructive behaviors. We mandate motorcycle helmets and we outlaw heroin to protect people from themselves. This is just another way to do that.
I didn't come up with that. There are several pretty smart people who have been suggesting it for a while.
I don't think the use of the word "movement" is limited to something conducted or advanced by one or more organized groups. That can be the case, surely, but as often as not those organizations arise out of the broader shift in societal values.
So sure, there were organizations that got behind the family values movement (and had probably been lurking around for decades waiting for the chance), but they simply capitalized on an emerging change in social attitudes. BLM and Occupy were born out of similar shifts. They just weren't as well run.
In contrast, there wasn't an organized structure to The Enlightenment, or the fall of communism, just like there isn't an organization behind the "passport bros". Those movements are marked by observable shifts in individual beliefs and/or behaviors.
Some good ideas
I like this idea but the higher math is critical to a proper education in science and engineering. We are in desperately short supply of engineers, especially electrical/power engineers. Surely there are other state required less important curricula that could be displaced by the financial curricula.
Amen to that!
Interesting idea. If it were to replace the current Child Tax Credit ($3,000/year), then it would actually save the Government money.
That's why I said for kids not on the honors math track. Kids on that path need the algebra and trig, because that's where our engineers/chemists/doctors are coming from. Kids who are not on that track in HS aren't going to become engineers anyway, so we should be teaching them something they can use.
Math. It seems they push elementary kids through math too fast. They don't become competent and confident in their math skills, so the next level becomes difficult and something kids will avoid.
Agreed, but I think ALL the students need the financial curricula you described, even those on a higher math track. I recall having some of that in junior high and first couple years of high-school, although I was on a fast track and that was back in the mid/late 70's. My point was that there is plenty of other state required curricula today that could be rolled back to make way for the financial curricula for ALL students.
In California high-schools for example, there are 3 year-long courses of each English and Social Studies (and soon will be adding ethnic studies) required, and only 2 year-long courses of each Math, Science, and PE to qualify for graduation. There is also 1-year requirement for visual or performing arts and foreign language coursework. Starting in 2030 there will be a Personal Finance course requirement that is only 1 semester. Certainly they could trim some perhaps from the English or Social Studies requirements and expand that financial coursework to cover more of what your post was recommending. It would have a much more practical benefit in their lives in the long run IMHO.
I find it interesting that American and World history and Civics are part of the "Social Studies" curricula yet students are graduating from high-school with a woefully poor understanding of history and government.
Agreed, and we can fit it in for them elsewhere.
It's much wider than just your use. Here on NT, "hater", for example, describes anyone who disagrees, without reference to their actual affections. Thus, any and all contrary opinions may be dismissed without ever thinking about them. When a Usual Suspect labels me a "hater", they probably don't believe what they're saying, but they thus allow themselves to avoid thinking.
These people - look at my (Gemini's) list again; these people had direct access to the White House during every Republican Administration. I don't think BLM ever reached that status
.
False symmetries are another way of avoiding thinking about reality. The family values MOVEMENT, an organized, long-term association of like-minded social injustice warriors, had direct and intimate contact with Republican lawmakers for decades.
There is nothing on the left that is even vaguely as influential.
Perhaps this is one of the Democrats failings: they are incapable of establishing long-term lobbying organizations to accomplish their objectives.
Yet another feeble attempt to rationalize wealth envy.
I'm torn between sighs and eyerolls. How do people as stupid as Alan here get published?
Oh FFS (sigh). 300,000 of us eat ourselves into an early grave every year, but the real threat is the share price of Google. Just FFS (eyeroll).
(sigh) Riiiiiiight. Because they're just going to sit still and let you take their money. They don't have the ability to shelter i or move it overseas, no no. The limit of their sophistication is their savings account. (eyeroll)
Yes. Coffee or a bagel. (eyeroll)
(sigh) Unproductive... like investing. Riiiiiight. People who are utterly clueless about money should probably not publish editorials about it.
(eyeroll) Riiiiiight. Because the thing billionaires love most in the world is their investments plummeting because some dumbass changes the tariffs every 25 minutes. This is definitely what "billionaire governance" looks like. (double eyeroll)
The purpose of a wealth tax is to reduce the political power of the billionaires and ridiculously rich, and most importantly extreme inherited wealth. Why should ANYONE be allowed to influence elections or other political decisions just because they were born or married into ultra wealth ?
Then why is it justified with all these fairy tales about how the money could be spent?
The real purpose of a billionaire tax is to make people with wealth envy feel a tiny bit better for a few minutes.
You sound like the MAGA guys who complain about George Soros.
ouch!
"Allowed", he said. Allowed by whom? The government? The Constitution? So it's OK to confiscate it for the common good?
Well, it's pretty much been that way since antiquity. Those that have the gold and silver and jewels usually rule. Wealth has power and influence, it's always been that way, and there is no chance that will ever change. There are more rich progressives than right wingers. Didn't the Greek government try something like this several years ago with disastrous results?
In most advanced democracies, campaign spending is limited and strictly controlled. America is the outlier.
I don't think you'd get a lot of opposition to campaign finance reform in America. The problem is that the system can only be changed by the people who benefit most from not changing it.
Not for me. For me, it’s about revenue for government and balance in the macroeconomy. Extreme maldistribution of wealth is a sign of a sick economy.
The answer to corruption, bribery and crony capitalism is not taxation. It’s reform and law enforcement.
I actually don't have any wealth envy. But I do think it's entirely reasonable that those with absurdly great wealth use it to better all of society. Just a few yachts could put a lot of ordinary people through college or pay for their healthcare.
People contribute to society in many different ways, and not all of them are financially lucrative. But this country has developed an ethos that somehow super rich people are better people. They aren't.
Ever had a paycheck signed by someone who wasn't rich or better off than you?
Does Uncle Sam count?
If you have a point, just make it.
They're not better, simply more successful and productive. Why does the left want to punish successful people, a great many of whom are generous in sharing their wealth
I see nothing wrong with rich people owning a yacht or a big fancy house. Somebody had to build that yacht or house. And I believe most of them hire people to captain the boat and take care of their house. They're putting people to work. I like to think that the people that work for the rich people are making a decent salary....
Jealousy. They'd rather everyone have less than a few people have more (so long as they aren't one of the few people) Witness the perks every socialist leader rewards themselves once they have the opportunity to do so.
Everyone wont have less because people with more than 50 million dollars have to pay taxes on the 51st million.
People who will be subject to this wealth tax will still be rich after the tax . What is your objection then ?
Just playing Devil's Advocate
Unless you're secretly Alan S Davis, I was not referring to you. Alan here has an issue.
Why would that be limited to those with "absurdly great wealth"? If something is worth doing with tax dollars, it should be worthy enough for everybody to help pay for it. I'm sure you see the problem with this recurring theme of trying to get somebody else to pay for everything.
I'm also sure you see the inherent danger in setting tax policy based on ideas like "people think they're better than we are" or putting down an "ethos".
We're one step away from "making them pay their fair share".... which is always some mysterious number nobody can ever seem to define.
I just wish our tax system taxed the rich with the same income tax percentage that they tax the employee making a decent salary.
Only if you define “successful and productive” based solely on how many dollars you control.
It’s not about punishment.
A great many are not. Regardless, why are you so urgently fighting to protect them?
Neither do I. But there are needs in society and they can forego an extra yacht to help pay for it.
That’s not realistic. Reality is that most people work hard and are either merely comfortable or barely getting by. Adding a tax burden to people who do everything they can just to minimally eat and have a place to sleep is stupid. Adding it to people who have a million in loose change in their couch cushions is just smart. If you need money, are you more likely to ask your cousin on welfare? Or your rich uncle?
We define it all the time. Then we redefine it. I am speaking of the tax rates, which change all the time, based on what someone thinks is fair or necessary.
I find it absurd that we worry WAY more about “fair” as it impacts the super rich. Of all wealth classes, they have the most wiggle room when it comes to taxes. For the rest of us, a small change one way or the other can be truly life-changing.
Of course it is.
Really subjective terminology here. You'll find families who say they're "doing OK" on $30k/yr and other families who say they're "barely getting by" on $90k/yr.
You've skipped right over the point here, which is "if something is worth doing".
You (plural) want to introduce a new tax, to tax money you've either already taxed as income or intend to tax again as realized capital gain. You justify this with the simple logic of "well.... they have it", ignoring the fact that most rich people became that way by putting their money to very good use, growing the economy, creating jobs, funding new businesses, etc.
It's not like the rich uncle isn't doing productive things with that money. And it's not like the government isn't utterly famous for doing unproductive things with money.
But the rich uncle conversation would be interesting.
You: "We need $5m more in taxes".
Rich Uncle: "OK...well... the company lost money last year, so there's no income"
You: "Yeah, but you have other money"
Rich Uncle: "I already paid tax on that"
You: "We don't care. We want more and it pisses people off that you have some when they don't."
Rich Uncle: "What did you do with the $10m I paid you last year"
You: "We spent $5m paying Ukrainian social media influencers, $10k on a group of bearded ladies ice dancing for climate change, and then $12m on pickleball courts in Vegas."
Rich Uncle: "That's more than $10m"
You: "We had to borrow some. Anyway, pay up."
Rich Uncle: "Don't tell me the Pentagon needs more $1000 hammers"
You: "Don't be silly. They have plenty. It's the nails. There $100 a piece"
Rich Uncle: "Fuck off".
And we can fondly remember the days when these servants could be whipped if they displeased the Master...
The democrats haven't changed at all, and they think the republicans are bad for wanted to go back to the 1950's when democrats long for the 1850's
isn't fantasizing nice/
spent it on trumpcoin, used it to fire and rehire and fire again federal workers... blah blah blah
now it is time for you to say something that really means nothing
You would be the expert.
The examples I gave were actual US Govt expenditures.
Did we spend US govt dollars on Trumpcoin? If so, then absolutely add it to the list.
Exactly my point, yes.
When we stop wasting so much of the money we already take in, we can start talking about raising taxes.
You mean like 4.2.21?
you walk right up to the line of criticising what is occurring right now and switch to something else
there is more than likely enough wasteful government spending going on to make you feel as if you are right in saying the above. when i look around me at the people who could not ever afford a lawyer to plead their case for workmans comp, disability, or whatever, i see a disparity between the rich and the poor, and the amount of succor that is obtainable through all avenues from/to the government. what the current administration is trying to achieve is as follows; if you can achieve an end by tort then you are welcome to it, as long as you can somehow secure the legal representation necessary to achieve such ends. most people do not have such means. this is de facto government by the rich, for the rich, and of the rich. this is not 'the people'. this is government of the 1 percent.
i don't envy the rich. i just want them to pay society and government for the pleasure of operating within the confines of society and government. everybody else does. i pay at least 30 percent of what i earn 9total income0 to various agencies. i would like to see the people who can afford this much more than i do the same. when they do, that is when you can start bitching about how much a fucking toilet seat is.
What?
There is absolutely enough wasteful government spending going on to make me actually right in saying that.
I don't think you understand how plaintiffs' attorneys work.
What the current administration is trying to achieve is to push well beyond the boundaries of the law and force the courts to reign them in.
That predates the current administration by several decades.
The top 1% of Americans earn 22.4% of total AGI and pay over 40% of all federal income taxes. They are already paying.
The bottom 50% of Americans earn 11.5% of total AGI, but only pay 3% of total income tax. (2022 figures) That's ONE HALF of Americans paying a total of 3% of federal income tax.
I am rather wealthy, not really rich but I do pretty well....it's not envy, it's just wanting people who have benefitted from the bosom of the USA to pay their fair share.
Do you think you pay your fair share?
Remember, there are many leftists out there that believe you do not and think you should be taxed more.
Are you ok with other liberals determining if you are paying your fair share?
I wouldn't mind paying more, if I am honest.
Fair play to you.
But that doesn't answer the question.
The top 1% of earners already pay 40% of federal income tax. Just exactly how much more is "fair"?
I’m sure there is a way you can donate to reduce the debt.
If you are honest
Nothing more heartwarming than worthless takers demanding the rich give their money to them. If you lack the intelligence to generate your own wealth, get together with a group of like-minded worthless takers to vote for someone who will steal it for you.
You're a "taker," too, whether you want to admit it or not. And if we got down to a point where you were missing something you thought was essential, you'd be pretty pissed and start demanding that the rich pay more taxes.
That's a liberal take on it. Not all inclusive.........at all. It's the easy way out.......that never comes to fruition..
Your clichés aren't making much of a point.
Who's to decide how much the "rich" are supposed to pay. The government?
Yes. That’s who decides how much everyone pays. We don’t have nearly this much outrage and hand-wringing over how much the 99% pays in taxes. But talk about raising taxes on the 1%, or even 1% of the 1%, and suddenly we have a moral, existential crisis on our hands.
Neither are you bullshit posts claiming to know what others are thinking,
I'm going to go out on a limb and says its because no one is proposing implementing confiscatory taxes on the 99%'s wealth.
You daredevil, you.
They are. We already tax the property and income of people living paycheck to paycheck. The bills in Congress right now will lower taxes on the wealthy and pay for it by increasing the costs for the 99%.
What is with your infatuation with the word “confiscatory?”
So we're treating everyone the same, instead of calling a small minority of people "a problem" and setting out with the primary purpose of making them poorer.
Are you talking about making billionaires “poorer?” You’re really going to assign any version of the word “poor” to billionaires?
So what you are saying is that they is not that many really rich people to make a difference.
Nope. Didn’t say anything like that.
Absolutely.
Thank you for illustrating the point.
We don't create taxation in this country just because you don't think somebody should have as much of something as they do. You asked about the obsession with the word "confiscatory". Well... there you have it.
I work in public transportation.... I have a passenger that rides...at least 3 times a day. He is unemployed..no job, no money, lives off the government...100% trump supporter. Sits in the back of the bus bitching about those, "dirty liberals", always, "taking free shit". The bus service I work for is free, (government funded). So Tuesday he is back there complaining that those dirty liberals are getting free phones, food, clothing, housing, education, showers..... I piped up...."And free bus rides".
The next day he was on the bus...........AGAIN....and he made a point to tell me how much he appreciated our service.
That's real world....
Excellent
There is nothing immoral, unfair or unreasonable about confiscatory taxes on extreme wealth (50 million plus). The tax is not on all 50 million, it is on whatever portion is over 50 million.
It is not immoral, or stupid , at all. But in a country where a lot of people irrationally fantasize that such wealth is right around the corner for themselves it would require a major attitude shift by the populace that we have not seen yet.
[✘]
removed for context
Wow, just wow, there is a HUGE group on the left that are now claiming it's moral to steal from someone simply because they have too much in their opinion, talk about a huge group of society who have completely lost their way.
Taxation is not stealing. Pick up a book.
It's veiled stealing. Read some history.
No it isn't. When the king takes your shit and just keeps it, that's stealing. Taxing the rich so the money can be spent on all of society is not stealing. Everyone - even someone like Elon Musk - is using someone else's money.
Unless you just live like an animal in the woods, you are benefitting from taxes. And then, you have a responsibility to contribute, if you have the means.
This is a poor legal argument
Besides the snark, history is not the law, it is the story of the law, the good, the bad and the unintended consequences of a society.
Don't like the tax, move. That's one thing the states and Feds haven't obstructed yet too much.
See if you can figure out the relevance of this to the subject of taxation
After reading the comments in favor of confiscatory taxes, that's funny. Physician, heal thyself.
By what law or rule or regulation is it my responsibility to contribute? Who or what agency determines how much?
So it all comes down to Marxism.....
"From each according to their ability, to each according to his needs"
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia
Private property (money in this case) does not exist without a government to say it is so. When you take part in the government protecting your money you are giving consent to be taxed to fund that government.
In our country, Congress determines that. Is this news to you?
Oh my lord. This bizarre kneejerk response is soooooo tired. All taxation is Marxism? Or only when we raise taxes on the Musks, and Bezos, and Trumps of the world?
Or Christianity.
So the less you make, the harder you work, the more you should pay? Are you fucking serious? LOL
christianity is an easy one to get around , by simply not being any form of a christian .
not a christian? then your not bound to their teachings and tenants , OR morality .
i really do not see where morality and christianity 9or religion in general0 are that closely related. over the centuries there have been many acts claimed in the name of religion that, looking back on them, are not classifiable as moral or just. when we look at the current administration, we see much religious posturing with no substance behind it, especially in consideration of taxes relating to the big beautiful bill now making its way through congress
True... but most Americans claim to be Christians. CLAIM to be...
You really think that "confiscatory taxes" are OK??
Of course. All taxes are confiscatory. Otherwise they would be donations.
Does the government want people to be prosperous only as a source of tax money?
In the comments, I see all the desperate attempts to save the super rich from paying more taxes that they will barely feel. It’s bizarre. If only these champions of the mega-wealthy would put 1/100th of that energy into protecting the meager assets of people living paycheck to paycheck.
So glad you brought it up. Well let's do it, then.
Let's make a law garnishing the wages of every American, setting aside 10% of gross pay into an emergency fund until it reaches the equivalent of 3 months worth. Withdrawals are only allowed for a set of federally approved designated emergencies. Once that emergency fund is at the required levels, the 10% goes into an IRA, invested in a broad based instruments containing an age appropriate mix of US stocks and bonds.
Let's make another law capping the total credit limit for all combined revolving debt instruments to be 20% of previous year's AGI or total assets. Auto loans to be capped at 50% of AGI.
Let's make another law setting a maximum allowable DTI ratio at 35%, and prohibit credit card issuers from giving new cards or increasing limits if 10% of the increased limit would push the person over that threshold.
How about a law requiring a financial education course equivalent to 3 college credit hours before any American is eligible to take on any debt of any kind.
That's a start. I'm sure we can think of more.
We need to form a NEEDS administration with a NEEDS secretary, do you need a 90" TV? they already want to outlaw trucks, so if your population density is above X, no trucks of any kind, What is your BMI? we may need to set a limit on food purchasing, alcohol monitoring, and obviously the death penalty if you smoke.
The Trump toad Reince Priebus was on tv a little while ago, and when asked about the tax cuts for the rich brought up the old Mitt Romney assertion that 40 some percent of Americans dont pay taxes.
Most of that 40 percent are senior citizens whose sole income is Social Security, the disabled, students, stay at home parents, and children. The rest are people who work but make very little money, and those on "welfare".
Taxes can only be paid by those who have money, and taxing the poor only makes them poorer. Are we supposed to have a country where the policy is to make poor people poorer?
People who make so much money that they become the "target" for tax hikes should thank their lucky stars that they live in a society that allows them to become wealthy, and suck it up and maybe forego that 4th vacation a year.
15% of American households making between $75k and $100k paid no federal income tax in 2022.
Find more statistics at Statista
Taxing anybody makes them poorer.
People claim not to have wealth envy, but then say shit like this.
Jack...
I hope you know the unimportance of income tax. If you do, then your question is disingenuous. If you don't... then it's dumb.
Again, this appears to be a gotcha fishing expedition. Such things do you no honor.
If it's unimportant, why do we have it?
It does account for 54% of total revenue. That seems important.
Jack...
I'm trying to be patient... but it's not easy. I have to assume that you're far more ignorant that I believe you to be. I believe that you know a lot, but if that's true then you're being duplicitous. So I really don't know how to deal with you.
So... I'll let you do a little research into income taxe... and payroll tax... and who pays what. If you're interested in a serious conversation, do that and then get back to me.
How very sweet of you.
Well we all know what happens when we assume.
I'm trying to explain this in a way you'll understand. It's also not easy, so I appreciate your kindness and patience.
I'm well versed in payroll tax, Bob. I've paid it on my employees for almost 30 years now. I know how much it is, where it goes, the problems we're facing with it, the myths surrounding it, and why those aren't true.
Now, you've jumped into a conversation here where I replied to John. Welcome, BTW. Glad to have you.
John specifically referred to a data point saying that "40% of Americans don't pay taxes". The original assertion from years ago refers specifically to federal income taxes, and the figure at the time was higher. John relays Priebus' quote accurately, where he fails to specify the "income tax" part. You'll notice in my comment 9.1, I do not repeat that error.
John's point, however, is not about the difference between "tax" and "income tax". His point relates to the demographics of the people in question. To refresh your memory, he says this:
So John appears to understand and draw the logical conclusion that Priebus was referring specifically to federal income tax. He appears to make the point (I'll let him correct me if I'm wrong) that the people comprising the 40% are not paying income tax because they are economically vulnerable and therefore we should not ask them to do so.
Knowing John as I do, I suspect he would also not hesitate to argue that the implied vilification of these people is morally objectionable, and I would guess he takes exception to phrases we see all too often here on NT like "worthless takers".
Each of these views is defensible, IMO, as are several points he's made in other posts, such as his observation that there really isn't a lot of tax revenue to be collected anyway from people with no money.
While his initial statement is not wholly inaccurate, it does omit other people I think most of us would agree should probably be asked to shoulder some of the income tax burden, including the 15% of households making between $75k-$100k, and certainly the six figure households.
On a side note, expanding on your introduction of the topic of payroll tax, there is a common myth that all working Americans pay payroll tax. That's not actually the case. A statistically significant number of people fall in the income range where the tax credits the receive when they file their returns more than offset what was withheld from their checks for income and payroll tax combined. I confess that is something I did not realize until I started helping my sister-in-law file her taxes and saw it first hand.
Now, if we're going to have a serious conversation, let's stop talking about nonsensical ideas like "the unimportance of income tax". Depending on the source and the year, it generates between 2-2.5 times the amount of revenue as social insurance taxes.
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what you really want. Since the rest of your post is pretty good I guess I should ignore your leading in with snark.
You've probably paraphrased John fairly well. Or paraphrased me, because I might well have said the same.
I presume these people aren't paid much, so I agree that vilifying them for not paying income tax is worse than disingenuous. This is why I used "the unimportance of income tax" to insist that it's a terrible indicator of social engagement. Obviously it's important for revenue.
Physician, heal thyself.
I usually respond in kind. You offered condescension and snark, so you got it back. It's certainly not my preferred way to converse, so I'm hoping we'll stop that moving forward.
TBF, you and John do tend to align on multiple issues. For my part, I usually understand the underlying reasoning behind John's points, but he and I tend to disagree on possible solutions.
In this instance, as in many, I agree with some of John's points but disagree with others. I don't view poor people as "worthless takers" and I really dislike the phrase when I see it. I don't believe that we should be looking at poor people as some sort of tiny revenue source.
No, they don't make much. Frankly, I don't vilify anybody for the amount of tax they pay, as long as they're following the law. You can't fault people for not paying more than they owe.
I do think the way we view taxation in America is unhealthy and in stark contrast to the principles upon which our country was founded. We've developed a bad habit of divorcing the concepts of self governance and government expenditure.
I feel like we've lost sight of the fact that government money is our money. As you point out, the overwhelming majority of us contribute at least something to the federal coffers. But as soon as it gets there, we act like it just becomes part of some ethereal brew that reproduces indefinitely and somebody else should pay for whatever we want.
But that's just not how the math works, nor is it how "government of the people" should work.
I do believe every American should pay some amount of income tax, even if it's only a few dollars. There is a fundamental principle in question. If we're all in this together, we should all contribute something. It may be $10/yr. Whatever. It should be something.
Every person in this country enjoys the peace ensured by our military. Every person benefits from our transportation infrastructure. Everybody benefits from safe food and clean water. Even those with little to no money benefit from regulated banks and financial markets, the same way that even people who don't use them benefit from public schools or hospitals or public housing. These things exist for the good of everyone, so everyone should have some ownership in them.
That's very interesting because I'm sure you're giving me your honest opinion... but I wasn't even talking about you. I was talking about myself:
I come to NT to talk to people. Some people are interesting, some are not. Some are a waste of even the few seconds needed to read one of their posts. So I'm constantly evaluating how I spend my time here. There are quite a few members whose posts I skip automatically.
I used to have serious anger-management problems. I've spent a decade, now, working on that. Among my projects - pretty high on the list - has been "never interpret a person's words - take them at face value". When I imagine/guess a person's motives for what they say, I react to what I imagined/guessed rather than what they actually said. Imagination leads to debating with myself, which is unproductive and just plain dumb. In my defense, this behavior is almost universal in our species and endemic here on NT.
Back to business.
That's true. And not. The degree to which different people benefit from "public services" is so variable that "every person... enjoys" becomes tenuous. Go back through your list of benefits, comparing rich and poor. "Safe food and clean water" seems obvious... but the ultra-rich have staff who buy food and water from known, safe sources; standards, and the cost involved in applying them is wasted money. Public health, public education... all are superfluous to people who never use them.
Even "defense". What does a world-wide military bring to our bottom-10th percentile? Our top-10th?
IMNAAHO, the ultra-rich live in a different world. They define the rules for both their world and ours.
You addressed me by name. And it isn't just my opinion. Anyway, that was then, and we're now moving forward.
Not only that, but the type of benefit is highly variable, depending on the service in question. For example, a poor person benefits from Parkland Hospital here in Dallas because they can get care for free. I benefit because there is less disease in my city.
Not at all. It's no coincidence that very wealthy people have always been among the biggest advocates of public health and education.
It's not like these people live on Mt Olympus or something, removed from ever interacting with mere peasants.. Most of these people have employees. Lots of employees. They need good public education systems to ensure there are people to hire. They need customers, preferably capable of earning enough money to afford their stuff. They understand all that.
They know that public health, education and social safety net programs keep society productive and keeps upheaval away. Look... most of these people are Democrats for a reason.
None of us live in an occupied country. We haven't had war on American soil in 80+ years. So we are all enjoying peace, even if we don't remember enough history to understand that.
That's exactly the opinion voiced by some of the most fervent conservatives on this site. The same people who talk about "globalists" and their love for tariffs are firmly convinced the billionaires and "liberal elites" live in a different world.
Fascinating implications. Care to elaborate?
Good point. So perhaps we're looking at a litmus of some sort. What you say here is logical... and meanwhile the Republican Party (supposedly conservative and undoubtedly serving the ultra-rich) is gutting all these public services. Someone is giving them the order.
Are we looking at a schism among the ultra-rich?
That's important for middle- and upper-class people. I wonder if life is very different at the bottom in America or Lower Moldovalachia. I have no first-hand knowledge, but I'm pretty sure that "law and order" means something very different for different social-economic strata.
Perhaps because it's true. We perceive the contours differently, but the fundamental fact is there.
See 9.1.6. After this I'm moving on.
The Republican Party has not been the preferred party of most UHNWIs for decades.
I don't think so. No group is 100% aligned politically.
As bad as you may think poor people have it in the US, it's worse in the Donbas. It was worse in Warsaw and Paris and Amsterdam in 1943. It was far worse in Syria in 2014. Our military ensures we don't ever have to live under occupation or even with the threat of air raid sirens.
OK. Probably wise to not overdo a good thing. In any case, thank you very much for an enlightening conversation.
I've learned a lot, here. I simply cannot learn much from John or TiG, for example, because our worldviews are too similar. I'm not sure exactly "what" I've learned with you... but I will ruminate...
Here's something I hope you will think about, so we can have another worthwhile exchange some day:
Our moral premises, our moral postulates, are radically different, almost diametrically opposed.
As I said, I have a visceral mistrust of wealth, which I think is grounded in my Sunday-school, only-the-Gospels-are-worthy Christianity.
The adjectives and adverbs you automatically use around wealth, and the opposite ones you automatically use around taxes, leave me with the impression that you have a visceral admiration for wealth. It would be easy to think, "He has money, so he defends wealth", but listening closely, it doesn't seem so simple.
So, in case we ever connect again, I'd love to hear what you think is the source of your admiration for wealth. (As I said, nowadays I wouldn't allow myself to make guesses on such a topic.)
Are they? Really? I'm not so sure. I think we probably disagree on some topics and agree on others.
That's undoubtedly a place where we differ. I also think we probably differ greatly on our definitions of "wealth".
Interesting. I don't feel like I do, but I also don't think any of us are ever completely self aware.
That's not really the driver. I have done reasonably well financially, but for me, it's more along the lines of treating people fairly. It's like changing the rules in the middle of a basketball game because we're irritated that one team is "too far ahead".
That's an interesting idea. I know so many people who have a much greater "admiration for wealth" than I do, so I really don't see myself in that category. I would say I admire character, courage, honesty and discipline. There are vast numbers of people with those characteristics who are not wealthy at all, but nobody is likely to become wealthy without them.
When were the rules written?
"When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"
"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.
From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not anyone have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows:
Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
"Property is theft" - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
I have no problem with person possessions. I have a major problem with Sam Walton's kids.
Over thousands of years.
We don't confiscate people's property just because it pisses you off that they have it. We're not banning pickup trucks on that basis, either.
This post is kinda sorta dismissive, doncha think? Not a good way to end a conversation... but it works.