|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43956 Posts
On April 25 2019 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
This feels a lot like Deja vu. So if we are going to go over it again, GH can you explain what it is exactly that you would want. Both from a revolution stand point and from a future government stand point. And also what you personally are doing to effect this change? I can think of many reasons why this is the wrong questions to ask, but so that people understand the point I'm arguing let me be clear. The outcome of a revolution or even feasibility of it is largely irrelevant to it's necessity. The apt question here is imo: without revolution, what happens? To which I say unmanaged climate catastrophe on a global scale. What say objectors to revolution?
That when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from. I’m not unsympathetic, I’m disillusioned.
|
On April 25 2019 09:25 JimmiC wrote:
The global community really needs to find away to all come together with some sort of tax solution. I think it is too easy for the ultra rich to move their money around if one country makes certain rules (they all still help mind you).
It is going to be very interesting to see what happens with Bill Gates and all the other super rich that have pledged to give all their money away and not just pass it down. That is going to be a crazy amount of money and should make some pretty major changes to hopefully the world.
Andrew Carnegie did exactly that. How many buildings did he finance by giving his money away? Buffett and Gates are trying to do the same. The thing is, they have too much and I highly doubt they have it set where it is distributed evenly to all of the cases that deserve to be financed. Where there is that much money, there will be corruption and someone will find away to abscond with a lot of it.
|
United States43956 Posts
On April 25 2019 09:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 09:25 JimmiC wrote:
The global community really needs to find away to all come together with some sort of tax solution. I think it is too easy for the ultra rich to move their money around if one country makes certain rules (they all still help mind you).
It is going to be very interesting to see what happens with Bill Gates and all the other super rich that have pledged to give all their money away and not just pass it down. That is going to be a crazy amount of money and should make some pretty major changes to hopefully the world. Andrew Carnegie did exactly that. How many buildings did he finance by giving his money away? Buffett and Gates are trying to do the same. The thing is, they have too much and I highly doubt they have it set where it is distributed evenly to all of the cases that deserve to be financed. Where there is that much money, there will be corruption and someone will find away to abscond with a lot of it.
Carnegie was a robber baron. The altruism of a robber baron isn’t a solution to the problem of robber barons. Bill Gates’ wealth is a result of a big difference in the cost of creating Microsoft products and the price at which users get them. A billion thefts. Giving back the money is not better than not taking it in the first place.
|
|
|
United States43956 Posts
On April 25 2019 09:47 JimmiC wrote:
But giving it away is a hell of a lot better than keeping it. So you can get all mad about what has already that happened that you can't change. Or you can focus on what you can.
Focusing on how much Bill Gates gives away is missing the point. If I showed up to a hospital and gave them a hundred chilled fresh human kidneys ready for transplant then, as much as the recipients might appreciate those kidneys, the main issue would be how I came by them.
|
So what now Kwark? How are the lower classes supposed to get the wealth of the upper classes? If virtue isn't enough because it is tainted by the means, then what is the solution?
|
Northern Ireland26718 Posts
That Gates comes up so much sort of tells its own story, his altruism is relatively atypical of that class of people.
On a wider scale I don’t really see real hardcore change happening until a cultural mindset that your successes are your own, and the exceptions deserve their wealth shifts
They’re pretty big cultural barriers, prevalent elsewhere but especially pronounced in the US
|
On April 25 2019 10:02 Wombat_NI wrote:
That Gates comes up so much sort of tells its own story, his altruism is relatively atypical of that class of people.
On a wider scale I don’t really see real hardcore change happening until a cultural mindset that your successes are your own, and the exceptions deserve their wealth shifts
They’re pretty big cultural barriers, prevalent elsewhere but especially pronounced in the US
Everything in this thread reeks of nihilism. To not be able to take tainted altruism in the benefit of society at large, just makes no sense. The only meaning anything has in the world, is the one we ascribe to it. So Carnegie was a robber baron. His symphony and university and library are well appreciated. Gates may have stole Microsoft and robbed the public for access, but his help in Africa and elsewhere is appreciated. You see a blemish and you throw the whole lot away.
Wombat, I agree. The cultural mindset of American Exceptionalism is the brain rot that 85 % of the country falls under, or to. If we can't see that success wasn't made alone, but by a group of people acting in concert for the betterment of each, then we will continue to have this division and polarization of ideals.
|
United States43956 Posts
On April 25 2019 10:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So what now Kwark? How are the lower classes supposed to get the wealth of the upper classes? If virtue isn't enough because it is tainted by the means, then what is the solution?
I have no solutions. Get as much as you can as quickly as possible because the crisis GH warns us of is coming and you don’t want to be the first ones fucked.
|
On April 25 2019 09:25 JimmiC wrote:
The global community really needs to find away to all come together with some sort of tax solution. I think it is too easy for the ultra rich to move their money around if one country makes certain rules (they all still help mind you).
This is what happened when Hollande passed the 75% tax on the super-rich in France, the rich just moved to Belgium.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax
Which is why Cortez, Sanders etc 'Tax the rich' is pretty laughable, it will go the same way until there is a global agreement.And even then, it's likely some country will refuse to sign and will continue to house billionaires low tax to attract that wealth.
|
United States43956 Posts
On April 25 2019 10:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 09:25 JimmiC wrote:
The global community really needs to find away to all come together with some sort of tax solution. I think it is too easy for the ultra rich to move their money around if one country makes certain rules (they all still help mind you).
This is what happened when Hollande passed the 75% tax on the super-rich in France, the rich just moved to Belgium. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertaxWhich is why Cortez, Sanders etc 'Tax the rich' is pretty laughable, it will go the same way until there is a global agreement.And even then, it's likely some country will refuse to sign and will continue to house billionaires low tax to attract that wealth.
Nationalize portions of the companies, diluting the portion owned by rent seekers. Easy enough to do. Require that Microsoft issue stock at no cost to the government. Then it doesn’t matter how much tax is avoided on dividends because the number of shares has been increased and therefore the dividend per share already has the tax frontloaded into it.
|
|
|
United States43956 Posts
On April 25 2019 10:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 09:51 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 09:47 JimmiC wrote:
But giving it away is a hell of a lot better than keeping it. So you can get all mad about what has already that happened that you can't change. Or you can focus on what you can. Focusing on how much Bill Gates gives away is missing the point. If I showed up to a hospital and gave them a hundred chilled fresh human kidneys ready for transplant then, as much as the recipients might appreciate those kidneys, the main issue would be how I came by them. Correct I would be excited by all the kidneys they would save and than deal with how you got them, and make sure couldn't again. But that doesn't mean that you didn't just save the person who cures cancer. What are you that by the book asshole that throws away all the kidneys as a point of principal? Yes getting billions is a fault in our system that needs to be corrected. But I am please that some of the people that benefited from it are choosing to do something positive with it not just creating and empire for themselves and their family which many do. This is not a either or world, there is much grey pretending there isn't is even more ignorant than your overly dramatic example.
I'm not advocating that Bill Gates' wealth be thrown away. That wouldn't even make any sense because conceptually wealth can't be destroyed, burning money simply increases the purchasing power of the remaining money proportionately. The point of the metaphor is to show what's wrong with the "it doesn't matter where it came from as long as it does good" argument.
|
On April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
This feels a lot like Deja vu. So if we are going to go over it again, GH can you explain what it is exactly that you would want. Both from a revolution stand point and from a future government stand point. And also what you personally are doing to effect this change? I can think of many reasons why this is the wrong questions to ask, but so that people understand the point I'm arguing let me be clear. The outcome of a revolution or even feasibility of it is largely irrelevant to it's necessity. The apt question here is imo: without revolution, what happens? To which I say unmanaged climate catastrophe on a global scale. What say objectors to revolution? That when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from. I’m not unsympathetic, I’m disillusioned.
I somehow doubt their disillusionment will soften their blows unfortunately.
On April 25 2019 10:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 10:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So what now Kwark? How are the lower classes supposed to get the wealth of the upper classes? If virtue isn't enough because it is tainted by the means, then what is the solution? I have no solutions. Get as much as you can as quickly as possible because the crisis GH warns us of is coming and you don’t want to be the first ones fucked.
This is where the "which side are you on" mantra comes from.
|
United States43956 Posts
On April 25 2019 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
This feels a lot like Deja vu. So if we are going to go over it again, GH can you explain what it is exactly that you would want. Both from a revolution stand point and from a future government stand point. And also what you personally are doing to effect this change? I can think of many reasons why this is the wrong questions to ask, but so that people understand the point I'm arguing let me be clear. The outcome of a revolution or even feasibility of it is largely irrelevant to it's necessity. The apt question here is imo: without revolution, what happens? To which I say unmanaged climate catastrophe on a global scale. What say objectors to revolution? That when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from. I’m not unsympathetic, I’m disillusioned. I somehow doubt their disillusionment will soften their blows unfortunately. Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 10:09 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 10:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So what now Kwark? How are the lower classes supposed to get the wealth of the upper classes? If virtue isn't enough because it is tainted by the means, then what is the solution? I have no solutions. Get as much as you can as quickly as possible because the crisis GH warns us of is coming and you don’t want to be the first ones fucked. This is where the "which side are you on" mantra comes from.
Consider the practice of decimation of the Roman Legion. Divide it into groups of ten, have them draw lots, and then the nine lucky members beat the unlucky tenth to death with clubs. It might have been rational for the group to collectively refuse, after all, it's five thousand heavily armed soldiers, it's pretty hard to make them do anything they don't want to do. But they're all hoping that they won't be the unlucky one, the only ones arguing for solidarity and resistance are the ones who have already drawn short straws, and their luckier comrades gain nothing from listening to them. They've already survived the decimation, the last thing they need is another display of insubordination.
The game is fucked. It's individually rational for the members of the group to oppress itself.
|
On April 25 2019 13:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2019 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
This feels a lot like Deja vu. So if we are going to go over it again, GH can you explain what it is exactly that you would want. Both from a revolution stand point and from a future government stand point. And also what you personally are doing to effect this change? I can think of many reasons why this is the wrong questions to ask, but so that people understand the point I'm arguing let me be clear. The outcome of a revolution or even feasibility of it is largely irrelevant to it's necessity. The apt question here is imo: without revolution, what happens? To which I say unmanaged climate catastrophe on a global scale. What say objectors to revolution? That when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from. I’m not unsympathetic, I’m disillusioned. I somehow doubt their disillusionment will soften their blows unfortunately. On April 25 2019 10:09 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 10:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So what now Kwark? How are the lower classes supposed to get the wealth of the upper classes? If virtue isn't enough because it is tainted by the means, then what is the solution? I have no solutions. Get as much as you can as quickly as possible because the crisis GH warns us of is coming and you don’t want to be the first ones fucked. This is where the "which side are you on" mantra comes from. Consider the practice of decimation of the Roman Legion. Divide it into groups of ten, have them draw lots, and then the nine lucky members beat the unlucky tenth to death with clubs. It might have been rational for the group to collectively refuse, after all, it's five thousand heavily armed soldiers, it's pretty hard to make them do anything they don't want to do. But they're all hoping that they won't be the unlucky one, the only ones arguing for solidarity and resistance are the ones who have already drawn short straws, and their luckier comrades gain nothing from listening to them. They've already survived the decimation, the last thing they need is another display of insubordination. The game is fucked. It's individually rational for the members of the group to oppress itself.
This is why education (not indoctrination) is so important. That the US government systematically imprisoned and assassinated anyone trying to teach may have damned us all.
A proper education assures them the whole of the lot has drawn the short straw and it's time we turn our clubs from each other to our oppressors.
|
On April 25 2019 10:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 09:25 JimmiC wrote:
The global community really needs to find away to all come together with some sort of tax solution. I think it is too easy for the ultra rich to move their money around if one country makes certain rules (they all still help mind you).
This is what happened when Hollande passed the 75% tax on the super-rich in France, the rich just moved to Belgium. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertaxWhich is why Cortez, Sanders etc 'Tax the rich' is pretty laughable, it will go the same way until there is a global agreement.And even then, it's likely some country will refuse to sign and will continue to house billionaires low tax to attract that wealth.
No it won’t, because the US isn’t France.
Belgium is an hour and a half hour away by train from Paris. Geneva is under three hours.
You get Canada and the US to tax the rich, and believe me, they won’t go to Australia or Ireland, because it’s half the world away, far from all their businesses, interests, networks and families.
That’s exactly why the european union is so damn important. At the moment we have a patchwork of tiny countries competing for who cuddles multinational companies and billionaires the most, while in the US, the situation is self inflicted and is the result of a whole party working exclusively to the benefits of a class of ultra rich donors, and those having an exorbitant political power.
|
Northern Ireland26718 Posts
I would personally ban those who move their money outside of their country’s tax regime from being able to donate to any kind of political party.
I mean it’s practically a silly idea and fraught with other problems, but on principle I don’t think those with the financial clout to influence policy including tax rates should be ones who already dodge as much as they can in that regard.
One of my big bugbears in the UK is we haven’t coordinate any real post-industrial strategy to spread jobs outside of London, which if anything is even more of a dominant brain drain than it’s been in the past.
Some don’t really understand why this is such an issue for me, but I get a pretty frequent ‘people want to work in London it’s a world cultural hub’ from the same people who argue that if you tax people more they’ll move to other countries.
Which is it I mean do people want to live in certain places for other lifestyle reasons or do they just move wherever tax is low?
|
Northern Ireland26718 Posts
On April 25 2019 15:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 10:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On April 25 2019 09:25 JimmiC wrote:
The global community really needs to find away to all come together with some sort of tax solution. I think it is too easy for the ultra rich to move their money around if one country makes certain rules (they all still help mind you).
This is what happened when Hollande passed the 75% tax on the super-rich in France, the rich just moved to Belgium. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertaxWhich is why Cortez, Sanders etc 'Tax the rich' is pretty laughable, it will go the same way until there is a global agreement.And even then, it's likely some country will refuse to sign and will continue to house billionaires low tax to attract that wealth. No it won’t, because the US isn’t France. Belgium is an hour and a half hour away by train from Paris. Geneva is under three hours. You get Canada and the US to tax the rich, and believe me, they won’t go to Australia or Ireland, because it’s half the world away, far from all their businesses, interests, networks and families. That’s exactly why the european union is so damn important. At the moment we have a patchwork of tiny countries competing for who cuddles multinational companies and billionaires the most, while in the US, the situation is self inflicted and is the result of a whole party working exclusively to the benefits of a class of ultra rich donors, and those having an exorbitant political power.
Of which I can imagine the UK bending over for even harder than we do now, we need a selling point when we’re out of the EU after all. Or ‘need’ to do that kind of thing.
|
On April 25 2019 15:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 10:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On April 25 2019 09:25 JimmiC wrote:
The global community really needs to find away to all come together with some sort of tax solution. I think it is too easy for the ultra rich to move their money around if one country makes certain rules (they all still help mind you).
This is what happened when Hollande passed the 75% tax on the super-rich in France, the rich just moved to Belgium. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertaxWhich is why Cortez, Sanders etc 'Tax the rich' is pretty laughable, it will go the same way until there is a global agreement.And even then, it's likely some country will refuse to sign and will continue to house billionaires low tax to attract that wealth. No it won’t, because the US isn’t France. Belgium is an hour and a half hour away by train from Paris. Geneva is under three hours. You get Canada and the US to tax the rich, and believe me, they won’t go to Australia or Ireland, because it’s half the world away, far from all their businesses, interests, networks and families. That’s exactly why the european union is so damn important. At the moment we have a patchwork of tiny countries competing for who cuddles multinational companies and billionaires the most, while in the US, the situation is self inflicted and is the result of a whole party working exclusively to the benefits of a class of ultra rich donors, and those having an exorbitant political power.
Thanks I was going to say that. Add to that the IRS, which WILL tax your income even when you are living somewhere else or have another nationality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
