President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Are you a previously banned poster or another guy who "forgot" his password?
Jeff Bezos seems like one of the least likeable people on the planet, but for all the reasons I mentioned previously, I think a society that was truly committed to eliminating extreme wealth would focus on implementing changes that made it impossible for the next Jeff Bezos to arise rather than on implementing plans to seize the wealth of the existing Jeff Bezos. As impossible
+1
Him feeling compelled to out his foot fetish in his screen name smells of Mongi, but it's probably not him. I'm guessing Mongi is a foot guy, though, and probably pays prostitutes to barefoot kick him in the bare balls when vacationing in Colorado City.
I haven't been on these forums for 7 years maybe, long before it was bought from Mason. My account wasn't banned.
Screen name?
You openly post about forcibly taking money from someone who earned it following the rules (he built an online sales platform that people voluntarily chose to use, and a cloud platform that pioneered the tech at scale which powers 1/3 of the internet, not a drug cartel). Whose money is 99.99% not spent or for consumption, but represents the control of capital - you want to transfer that control to the government or vigilantes (or else are just idly fantasizing - but why would you fantasize about stealing from rich people or having the government do it?).
Where is the straw man?
Jeff Bezos seems like one of the least likeable people on the planet, but for all the reasons I mentioned previously, I think a society that was truly committed to eliminating extreme wealth would focus on implementing changes that made it impossible for the next Jeff Bezos to arise rather than on implementing plans to seize the wealth of the existing Jeff Bezos. As impossible
The accumulation of wealth in the hands of the proven capable of deploying it creatively to meet human wants, is the core thing that drives economic progress. Even communist China allowed it to happen (and didn't take off economically until they did, after decades of stagnation and poverty).
The lack of basic understanding of economic ecology on this forum is sad. You need accumulation of capital at all scales because economic output happens at all scales. If you don't have billionaires and capital sums under one person, you don't get SpaceX, and the public gets screwed with "public" companies in which capital ownership is distributed and run by profit-maximizing committee (or innovation-destroying government committee), and taxpayers pay 20x more than they should and get no innovation.
This is basic, basic stuff. Wanting to prevent extreme wealth is terrible for the poor.
The accumulation of wealth in the hands of the proven capable of deploying it creatively to meet human wants, is the core thing that drives economic progress.
The problem is that the things humans want is not always healthy.
Some people want to feed destructive addictions. Some people want to rape little girls. Some people want to buy government legislative outcomes. Others want to own slaves.
People are selfish. They tend to be focused only on themselves and their personal benefit without regard to the consequences of their desires on others.
My proposal was to leave him with 1 billion, so not 100%, but 99.6%. Would you be ok with that? The idea that anyone should ever have more than 1 billion dollars is patently absurd.
No, I would not be okay with that. 50% top effective tax rate works for me. (0% for <$100,000 annual income)
It might be 'absurd' for anyone to have more than a billion dollars, but I don't myself think a 100% tax rate for everything over $1B is the way to go.
You openly post about forcibly taking money from someone who earned it following the rules (he built an online sales platform that people voluntarily chose to use, and a cloud platform that pioneered the tech at scale which powers 1/3 of the internet, not a drug cartel). Whose money is 99.99% not spent or for consumption, but represents the control of capital - you want to tran
The entire post dude. I never suggested implementing an entirely different economic system, which you then attacked even more specific examples of. I suggested raising the tax rate on the extremely wealthy. I didn't even suggest the government should have direct access to this money (or if I implied it, I didn't mean to). I just don't think one man should have that money while people are literally starving right next to him. That person should be compelled in some way to do something with that money. It's not that complex. Calm your ultra-conservative reflexes down.
Those are not even remotely the same ballpark. The fact that you don't realize it this without me having to explain it is startling, really. It's literally one giant textbook straw man. If you want to discuss my suggestion of "taxing" someone with over 1 billion dollars at an extremely high level fine. If you want to talk about overhauling the entire socio-economic system at once into something specific that other countries have tried and failed at, do that with someone else. I didn't mention anything at all about that.
The entire post dude. I never suggested implementing an entirely different economic system, which you then attacked even more specific examples of. I suggested raising the tax rate on the extremely wealthy. I didn't even suggest the government should have direct access to this money (or if I implied it, I didn't mean to). I just don't think one man should have that money while
I'm not aware of any tax that the government didn't have direct access to. I think that's kinda built in to what makes something a 'tax.' I could be wrong though.
That said, I completely agree with your sentiment overall.
About a hundred years or so years ago William Jennings Bryan said: "No one can earn a million dollars honestly."*
*Which I suppose would be about $20M now adjusting for inflation
100% mongidig/Elway, trying his hardest to differentiate the posting style. I don’t know why the guy gets off on this cringe roleplay.
Sad!
If it's 100%, do you want a wager? Name your sum at 3-1 odds for me (since you're "100%")
The entire post dude. I never suggested implementing an entirely different economic system, which you then attacked even more specific examples of. I suggested raising the tax rate on the extremely wealthy. I didn't even suggest the government should have direct access to this money (or if I implied it, I didn't mean to). I just don't think one man should have that money while
That's because your proposal is showing you don't understand basic things about the world. I understand the instinct - I really do - billionaires next to the struggling is a visceral image - but compressing reality to such simple things is ridiculous. Let's use the same logic on other trains of thoughts:
1. Why should the government be allowed to have trillions of dollars when people can't eat?
2. Why should Congressman get paid $300K/year of taxpayer money when people can't eat?
3. Why should you get a middle class life when people struggle to survive? You should be taxed way higher
4. Why should you get the luxury of gambling (an economically useless activity) when people are working two jobs struggling to survive? Poker should be taxed at near 100%.
5. Why should anyone be allowed to develop satellites or luxury cars when people are starving in Africa?? Let's tax them at 100%.
6. Why should anyone get to eat beef and use up 1/3 of the world's grain supply when people go to bed hungry? Tax beef at 1000%.
Why billionaires, specifically? It's a bizarre. Billionaires consume very little relative to the vast upper middle class for example. Most billionaires' fortune is simply the control of productive capital, which is a massive net good for the poor. It is so easy to waste money. It is very hard to deploy it productively.
That person should be compelled in some way to do something with that money. It's not that complex. Calm your ultra-conservative reflexes down.
They are literally doing something with the money - the best possible thing - using it as productive capital to meet human wants. Bezos' company used their own capital - which you want to deprive them of - to pioneer the cloud platform that powers of 1/3 the world's internet services - including services for poor people. In your "tax over a billion", this might not have happened. It took a lot of vision and risk and intense capital accumulation to get there.
And there's nothing conservative about understanding the basics of economic ecology and the extremely important role of vast capital accumulators. That's just basic reality, man. Saying we should tax billionaires at extremely high rates is like saying we should kill all the bears or sharks or elephants. It's just profoundly childish and unscientific.
Those are not even remotely the same ballpark. The fact that you don't realize it this without me having to explain it is startling, really. It's literally one giant textbook straw man. If you want to discuss my suggestion of "taxing" someone with over 1 billion dollars at an extremely high level fine. If you want to talk about overhauling the entire socio-economic system at once into something specific that other countries have tried and failed at, do that with someone else. I didn't mention anything at all about that.
You are proposing a model that prevents the accumulation of capital and transfers that money to the government. What do you think high tax is? Your proposal is literally as I described it. That you cannot see that is concerning.
About a hundred years or so years ago William Jennings Bryan said: "No one can earn a million dollars honestly."*
*Which I suppose would be about $20M now adjusting for inflation
Also: '"There ain't no clean way to make a hundred million bucks," Ohls said.' (Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye, 1953. Bernie Ohls, a detective from the DA's office, is a regular character in Chandler's novels. Despite relatively low US inflation, $100m in 1953 would be getting on for $1bn now.)
If you don't have billionaires and capital sums under one person, you don't get SpaceX.
and?
If it's 100%, do you want a wager? Name your sum at 3-1 odds for me (since you're "100%")
Is this why people make dumb alts, to crap shoot lame prop bets?
Quit avoiding the already asked question and just tell us who you are, weirdo. Otherwise, I’m simply going to assume you’re mong because this is something stupid that he would do.
If it's 100%, do you want a wager? Name your sum at 3-1 odds for me (since you're "100%")
If you're not mongi, it's 100% you're a banned poster. The argumentative style combined with the length suggests you're lucy, but I didn't read enough of his posts to note the differences, and I don't think lucy liked to get kicked in the balls by a pretty foot.
I too laughed at this as if not having Spacex is somehow this massive net loss for society
If you're not mongi, it's 100% you're a banned poster. The argumentative style combined with the length suggests you're lucy, but I didn't read enough of his posts to note the differences, and I don't think lucy liked to get kicked in the balls by a pretty foot.
People eventually tell on themselves but this doesn’t appear to be either rapist or Lucy. Relative command of English says it isn’t the rapist and not posting 100 times/day says it’s not Lucy
If I had to pick one or the other I’m inclined to think it’s Lucy but that would surprise me
People eventually tell on themselves but this doesn’t appear to be either rapist or Lucy. Relative command of English says it isn’t the rapist and not posting 100 times/day says it’s not Lucy
If I had to pick one or the other I’m inclined to think it’s Lucy but that would surprise me
Luci would have to start slow to avoid immediate detection.
Cuepee was both articulate and also tended to write long posts. He's not banned, but hasn't posted in years.
That's because your proposal is showing you don't understand basic things about the world.
And yet you have not shown that. All you've done is battled strawmen.
1. Why should the government be allowed to have trillions of dollars when people can't eat?
2. Why should Congressman get paid $300K/year of taxpayer money when people can't eat?
3. Why should you get a middle class life when people struggle to survive? You should be taxed way higher
All excellent questions. Do you think these are absurd questions? I don't.
4. Why should you get the luxury of gambling (an economically useless activity) when people are working two jobs struggling to survive? Poker should be taxed at near 100%.
Fine. I don't gamble.
5. Why should anyone be allowed to develop satellites or luxury cars when people are starving in Africa?? Let's tax them at 100%.
6. Why should anyone get to eat beef and use up 1/3 of the world's grain supply when people go to bed hungry? Tax beef at 1000%.
I think you are starting to figure this out, my guy.
And you say *I* don't understand basic things about how the world works. First of all, I never said only billionaires should be taxed at high levels. This is simply yet another straw man. But billionaires are individuals who have exploited the working class to acquire absurd amount of wealth. None of the other things you mentioned are anything remotely close to that level of egregiously damaging selfishness.
They are literally doing something with the money - the best possible thing - using it as productive capital to meet human wants. Bezos' company used their own capital - which you want to deprive them of - to pioneer the cloud platform that powers of 1/3 the world's internet services - including services for poor people. In your "tax over a billion", this might not have happene
LOL at the rest of this straight ultra-capitalist/conservative propaganda bs. Just lol.
It is hardly a win that one hosting platform has a near 1/3 market share, it is a failure of regulation that endangers the internet and hinders free market competition.
But billionaires are individuals who have exploited the working class to acquire absurd amount of wealth. None of the other things you mentioned are anything remotely close to that level of egregiously damaging selfishness.
Ok. This gets to core of your lack of understanding.
How has Jensen Huang exploited the working class? His engineers are very well paid. He broke the back of intel and improved gaming hardware, servers, and AI, which is greatly helping the working class already.
How has Oprah exploited the working class? It's widely believed she helped them over her decades in public life. You're welcome to a different opinion of course, but that's what most people believe.
How has Rihanna exploited the working class? She made music and beauty products they liked and voluntarily bought and that made them happy. They voluntarily gave her money for these things.
Even Bezos - clearly a pig as a person, but that has nothing to do with his wealth. When the working class buy books cheaper from Amazon than they can get at the local bookstore, how have they been exploited, exactly?
You do not qualify your statement at all about billionaires. Do you wish to? Is it some billionaires or automatically all?
Do you think all people who build up large successful businesses from scratch are exploiting the working class?
And yes you're clearly communist-minded. You responses indicate that you think poverty or being the struggling working class is a bad enough thing that we should destroy capitalism to end. Except we've run that experiment a lot of time and your take is anti-science and anti-human and highly harmful to the poor and working class.
