|
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 |
On February 10 2026 01:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2026 18:59 Gorsameth wrote:
You dont need to end the dollar or capitalism, the problem is wealth inequality. The higher % wealth you gather at the top the shittier life becomes for everyone below.
Close loopholes and increase taxes on high earners. Tax wealth, including stocks, to discourage hording. Cap salary, including bonuses and stocks to a multiplicative of minimal pay to avoid ceos making 10000x more the a floor worker.
Fixing wealth inequality would gona very long way to fixing most issues with modern capitalist society.
"Tax stocks" If you tax unrealized gains of publicly traded companies, you disincentivize companies to go public. You disincentivize investment and creation of such companies. You then keep the low and middle class out of the stock market which is one of the key ways to build wealth and build a retirement. Try to look past first order effects towards unintended consequences. That leaves private companies. Meanwhile the lower/lower middle class are already out of those because they can't get past the accredited investor rule. If you want to eliminate that you could theoretically democratize access to hedge funds and venture capital, but you would also democratize people blowing up their net worths. Now if you want to tax unrealized gains of privately traded companies (also), your issue is how to value the holdings to begin with before you can value the taxes. So just try public first because at least there we have publicly available stock quotes. In 7 years of taxing a 1 billion stock holding at 10% annually, you have reduced it to under $500 million. But by forcing the person to sell in order to pay taxes on it, you also drive supply up and therefore price down, making it worth even less. Essentially if you taxed unrealized gains at all, let alone more than inflation, you blew up financial markets. If you tax the unrealized gains of investment, you broadly discourage certain kinds of investing, when investing is the only reason that kind of value exists in markets to begin with. So make this tax per holding in each individual company, and not total overall wealth? Then Mr. Shiny Top Hat simply diversifies and stays wealthy, while not taking any of the risks that create new opportunities and huge new innovation, because it doesn't behoove him to. It doesn't pay. But we taxed him right? Maybe the government can do something useful with the money. They're good stewards of tax dollars, right.  Except the government doesn't have to actually get a return. The government can just lose money with no consequences to itself. They can spend money on things that don't work, and even things that will never work. They can overpay for everything. They can spend money to do nothing. Investors don't have the luxury of such irresponsibility. When you have massive stock in a billions of dollars company you made, you are not "hoarding," you're keeping control of the thing you made yourself. Making them give up their stake would not make everyone else rich. It would turn capitalism into why-botherism, It would make every large company have no leadership, and have the same vague directionless goals that plague modern governments by making everyone an equal partner in the company. We already have the equal partner system, it's democracy. Government and economic systems should be parallel but not mirror each other. In democracy one human votes, in capitalism one dollar votes. We don't need capitalism to also be one person one vote because it and democracy are nested within each other. The key misunderstanding you have is thinking capitalism is a zero-sum competition. It's not. It's cooperation. That's why people at the bottom of Africa and India have shitty lives despite that their 1% isn't so strong or hasn't gathered as much wealth. Like "hoarding" I just can't get over this. Control of companies is not mercantilism. There's no hoarding. You know what companies people didn't "hoard?" Enron. Sears. Radioshack. You cannot hoard something which has theoretically unlimited supply, which is stock in publicly traded companies, which is at some base level ultimately connected with how productive markets are and how much capital is moving through them. Literally make your own company. It's like saying someone else is hoarding their house. It's their house. Speaking of which, unlike value in public companies, property (real estate, land) is actually fixed and limited. That would be the thing to tax to discourage the hoarding of.
Thats exactly what they are going to do in the netherlands. Taxing unrealised gains on publicly traded companys.
You invest 1 million and you are lucky,your investment doubles and next year its worth 2 million. You must now pay 360k (36% of the profit)taxes. If you dont have the cash you have to sell some shares.
You keep your investment and next year it goes back to your purchase price. You file a loss and you will get tax credits worth 360k which last for x years (they are not indefinite).These credits are only good for this specific tax you cant use them to pay less of a different tax.
You are tired with investing after this rollercoaster and you decide to sell and never invest again.You realized zero return on your investment yet you are down 360k in taxes. In exchange you got 360k tax credit which you will never cash in because you quit investing. You started with 1 million and now you have 640k. The stock you where invested in didnt change over the 2 years you where invested.
The goverment is going to rake in so much money with this tax. People who quit investing will never cash in on their tax credits from the last bad year in the market. At least that is as far as i understand the tax plan,might be wrong though.
Its indeed going to price the lower and middle income out of investing while larger partys have plenty of options to avoid or delay taxes.
The tax is understandable,people who make money shoving stocks and options dont add anything to the economy. Contrary to someone who does work and pays taxes over his income. But the way its beeing implemented is horrible.
|
Just came across this horiffic story:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/09/irish-man-seamus-culleton-ice-detention
Irish guy, business owner from Boston, married to an American citizen was detained by ICE, they forged his signature trying to make it out that he agreed to deportation, he's been in 3 different facilities and so far 5 months in custody. Never committed a crime, business owner.
After a video call with her husband on Sunday night – their first in five months – Smyth told Culleton’s family in Ireland he had lost weight and hair and had sores and infections. “There’s no hygiene there. He’s been asking for antibiotics for the last four weeks,” his sister, Caroline Culleton, told RTÉ. The detainees were seldom allowed out for exercise or air, she said.
And this is just one guy, just vile behavior, spending money to detain and basically torture a guy doing everything right.
Super fun that a political movement who loves to tout issues with "big government" and freedom from oppression cheers this insanity on.
|
On February 10 2026 07:40 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2026 01:09 oBlade wrote:On February 09 2026 18:59 Gorsameth wrote:
You dont need to end the dollar or capitalism, the problem is wealth inequality. The higher % wealth you gather at the top the shittier life becomes for everyone below.
Close loopholes and increase taxes on high earners. Tax wealth, including stocks, to discourage hording. Cap salary, including bonuses and stocks to a multiplicative of minimal pay to avoid ceos making 10000x more the a floor worker.
Fixing wealth inequality would gona very long way to fixing most issues with modern capitalist society.
"Tax stocks" If you tax unrealized gains of publicly traded companies, you disincentivize companies to go public. You disincentivize investment and creation of such companies. You then keep the low and middle class out of the stock market which is one of the key ways to build wealth and build a retirement. Try to look past first order effects towards unintended consequences. That leaves private companies. Meanwhile the lower/lower middle class are already out of those because they can't get past the accredited investor rule. If you want to eliminate that you could theoretically democratize access to hedge funds and venture capital, but you would also democratize people blowing up their net worths. Now if you want to tax unrealized gains of privately traded companies (also), your issue is how to value the holdings to begin with before you can value the taxes. So just try public first because at least there we have publicly available stock quotes. In 7 years of taxing a 1 billion stock holding at 10% annually, you have reduced it to under $500 million. But by forcing the person to sell in order to pay taxes on it, you also drive supply up and therefore price down, making it worth even less. Essentially if you taxed unrealized gains at all, let alone more than inflation, you blew up financial markets. If you tax the unrealized gains of investment, you broadly discourage certain kinds of investing, when investing is the only reason that kind of value exists in markets to begin with. So make this tax per holding in each individual company, and not total overall wealth? Then Mr. Shiny Top Hat simply diversifies and stays wealthy, while not taking any of the risks that create new opportunities and huge new innovation, because it doesn't behoove him to. It doesn't pay. But we taxed him right? Maybe the government can do something useful with the money. They're good stewards of tax dollars, right. Except the government doesn't have to actually get a return. The government can just lose money with no consequences to itself. They can spend money on things that don't work, and even things that will never work. They can overpay for everything. They can spend money to do nothing. Investors don't have the luxury of such irresponsibility. When you have massive stock in a billions of dollars company you made, you are not "hoarding," you're keeping control of the thing you made yourself. Making them give up their stake would not make everyone else rich. It would turn capitalism into why-botherism, It would make every large company have no leadership, and have the same vague directionless goals that plague modern governments by making everyone an equal partner in the company. We already have the equal partner system, it's democracy. Government and economic systems should be parallel but not mirror each other. In democracy one human votes, in capitalism one dollar votes. We don't need capitalism to also be one person one vote because it and democracy are nested within each other. The key misunderstanding you have is thinking capitalism is a zero-sum competition. It's not. It's cooperation. That's why people at the bottom of Africa and India have shitty lives despite that their 1% isn't so strong or hasn't gathered as much wealth. Like "hoarding" I just can't get over this. Control of companies is not mercantilism. There's no hoarding. You know what companies people didn't "hoard?" Enron. Sears. Radioshack. You cannot hoard something which has theoretically unlimited supply, which is stock in publicly traded companies, which is at some base level ultimately connected with how productive markets are and how much capital is moving through them. Literally make your own company. It's like saying someone else is hoarding their house. It's their house. Speaking of which, unlike value in public companies, property (real estate, land) is actually fixed and limited. That would be the thing to tax to discourage the hoarding of. Thats exactly what they are going to do in the netherlands. Taxing unrealised gains on publicly traded companys. You invest 1 million and you are lucky,your investment doubles and next year its worth 2 million. You must now pay 360k (36% of the profit) of taxes. If you dont have the cash you have to sell some shares. You keep your investment and next year it goes back to your purchase price. You file a loss and you will get tax credits worth 360k which last for x years (they are not indefinite).These credits are only good for this specific tax you cant use them to pay less of a different tax. You are tired with investing after this rollercoaster and you decide to sell and never invest again.You realized zero return on your investment yet you are down 360k in taxes. In exchange you got 360k tax credit which you will never cash in because you quit investing. You started with 1 million and now you have 640k. The stock you where invested in didnt change over the 2 years you where invested. The goverment is going to rake in so much money with this tax. People who die or quit investing will never cash in on their tax credits from the last bad year in the market. At least that is as far as i understand the tax plan,might be wrong though. Its indeed going to price the lower and middle income out of investing while larger partys have plenty of options to avoid or delay taxes. The tax is understandable,people who make money shoving stocks and options dont add anything to the economy. Contrary to someone who does work and pays taxes over his income. But the way its beeing implemented is horrible.
My opinion, if they made a maximum amount of credits transferrable to personal income tax per year, say 50-100k, that works out pretty well for someone making a good amount of money, but is almost meaningless to someone making a gigantic amount of money from stocks/unrealized gains.
|
On February 10 2026 07:40 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2026 01:09 oBlade wrote:On February 09 2026 18:59 Gorsameth wrote:
You dont need to end the dollar or capitalism, the problem is wealth inequality. The higher % wealth you gather at the top the shittier life becomes for everyone below.
Close loopholes and increase taxes on high earners. Tax wealth, including stocks, to discourage hording. Cap salary, including bonuses and stocks to a multiplicative of minimal pay to avoid ceos making 10000x more the a floor worker.
Fixing wealth inequality would gona very long way to fixing most issues with modern capitalist society.
"Tax stocks" If you tax unrealized gains of publicly traded companies, you disincentivize companies to go public. You disincentivize investment and creation of such companies. You then keep the low and middle class out of the stock market which is one of the key ways to build wealth and build a retirement. Try to look past first order effects towards unintended consequences. That leaves private companies. Meanwhile the lower/lower middle class are already out of those because they can't get past the accredited investor rule. If you want to eliminate that you could theoretically democratize access to hedge funds and venture capital, but you would also democratize people blowing up their net worths. Now if you want to tax unrealized gains of privately traded companies (also), your issue is how to value the holdings to begin with before you can value the taxes. So just try public first because at least there we have publicly available stock quotes. In 7 years of taxing a 1 billion stock holding at 10% annually, you have reduced it to under $500 million. But by forcing the person to sell in order to pay taxes on it, you also drive supply up and therefore price down, making it worth even less. Essentially if you taxed unrealized gains at all, let alone more than inflation, you blew up financial markets. If you tax the unrealized gains of investment, you broadly discourage certain kinds of investing, when investing is the only reason that kind of value exists in markets to begin with. So make this tax per holding in each individual company, and not total overall wealth? Then Mr. Shiny Top Hat simply diversifies and stays wealthy, while not taking any of the risks that create new opportunities and huge new innovation, because it doesn't behoove him to. It doesn't pay. But we taxed him right? Maybe the government can do something useful with the money. They're good stewards of tax dollars, right. Except the government doesn't have to actually get a return. The government can just lose money with no consequences to itself. They can spend money on things that don't work, and even things that will never work. They can overpay for everything. They can spend money to do nothing. Investors don't have the luxury of such irresponsibility. When you have massive stock in a billions of dollars company you made, you are not "hoarding," you're keeping control of the thing you made yourself. Making them give up their stake would not make everyone else rich. It would turn capitalism into why-botherism, It would make every large company have no leadership, and have the same vague directionless goals that plague modern governments by making everyone an equal partner in the company. We already have the equal partner system, it's democracy. Government and economic systems should be parallel but not mirror each other. In democracy one human votes, in capitalism one dollar votes. We don't need capitalism to also be one person one vote because it and democracy are nested within each other. The key misunderstanding you have is thinking capitalism is a zero-sum competition. It's not. It's cooperation. That's why people at the bottom of Africa and India have shitty lives despite that their 1% isn't so strong or hasn't gathered as much wealth. Like "hoarding" I just can't get over this. Control of companies is not mercantilism. There's no hoarding. You know what companies people didn't "hoard?" Enron. Sears. Radioshack. You cannot hoard something which has theoretically unlimited supply, which is stock in publicly traded companies, which is at some base level ultimately connected with how productive markets are and how much capital is moving through them. Literally make your own company. It's like saying someone else is hoarding their house. It's their house. Speaking of which, unlike value in public companies, property (real estate, land) is actually fixed and limited. That would be the thing to tax to discourage the hoarding of. Thats exactly what they are going to do in the netherlands. Taxing unrealised gains on publicly traded companys. You invest 1 million and you are lucky,your investment doubles and next year its worth 2 million. You must now pay 360k (36% of the profit) of taxes. If you dont have the cash you have to sell some shares. You keep your investment and next year it goes back to your purchase price. You file a loss and you will get tax credits worth 360k which last for x years (they are not indefinite).These credits are only good for this specific tax you cant use them to pay less of a different tax. You are tired with investing after this rollercoaster and you decide to sell and never invest again.You realized zero return on your investment yet you are down 360k in taxes. In exchange you got 360k tax credit which you will never cash in because you quit investing. You started with 1 million and now you have 640k. The stock you where invested in didnt change over the 2 years you where invested. The goverment is going to rake in so much money with this tax. People who die or quit investing will never cash in on their tax credits from the last bad year in the market. At least that is as far as i understand the tax plan,might be wrong though. Its indeed going to price the lower and middle income out of investing while larger partys have plenty of options to avoid or delay taxes. The tax is understandable,people who make money shoving stocks and options dont add anything to the economy. Contrary to someone who does work and pays taxes over his income. But the way its beeing implemented is horrible.
Sounds pretty reasonable. Add in an exemption for the first few dozen k, and exempt the primary residence (up to a few hundred k). Otherwise I have absolutely no issue with it. Pretty hard to do for private companies without reliable appraisals, though.
That said, the current Dutch system is probably much simpler. It taxes wealth based on an expectation that you make 2% (I think?) annually. If you make less then tough luck (does mean the subsequent year you have lower wealth expected to calculate the 2% over. The fixed rate is a bit dumb, just make the expected returns float (I'm sure some economists can think of an aggregation that makes sense and isn't a static fixed value), and add exemptions for some amount of wealth that means only the very upper echelons of the middle class (and all the upper class) need to worry about it at all.
|
On February 10 2026 07:40 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2026 01:09 oBlade wrote:On February 09 2026 18:59 Gorsameth wrote:
You dont need to end the dollar or capitalism, the problem is wealth inequality. The higher % wealth you gather at the top the shittier life becomes for everyone below.
Close loopholes and increase taxes on high earners. Tax wealth, including stocks, to discourage hording. Cap salary, including bonuses and stocks to a multiplicative of minimal pay to avoid ceos making 10000x more the a floor worker.
Fixing wealth inequality would gona very long way to fixing most issues with modern capitalist society.
"Tax stocks" If you tax unrealized gains of publicly traded companies, you disincentivize companies to go public. You disincentivize investment and creation of such companies. You then keep the low and middle class out of the stock market which is one of the key ways to build wealth and build a retirement. Try to look past first order effects towards unintended consequences. That leaves private companies. Meanwhile the lower/lower middle class are already out of those because they can't get past the accredited investor rule. If you want to eliminate that you could theoretically democratize access to hedge funds and venture capital, but you would also democratize people blowing up their net worths. Now if you want to tax unrealized gains of privately traded companies (also), your issue is how to value the holdings to begin with before you can value the taxes. So just try public first because at least there we have publicly available stock quotes. In 7 years of taxing a 1 billion stock holding at 10% annually, you have reduced it to under $500 million. But by forcing the person to sell in order to pay taxes on it, you also drive supply up and therefore price down, making it worth even less. Essentially if you taxed unrealized gains at all, let alone more than inflation, you blew up financial markets. If you tax the unrealized gains of investment, you broadly discourage certain kinds of investing, when investing is the only reason that kind of value exists in markets to begin with. So make this tax per holding in each individual company, and not total overall wealth? Then Mr. Shiny Top Hat simply diversifies and stays wealthy, while not taking any of the risks that create new opportunities and huge new innovation, because it doesn't behoove him to. It doesn't pay. But we taxed him right? Maybe the government can do something useful with the money. They're good stewards of tax dollars, right. Except the government doesn't have to actually get a return. The government can just lose money with no consequences to itself. They can spend money on things that don't work, and even things that will never work. They can overpay for everything. They can spend money to do nothing. Investors don't have the luxury of such irresponsibility. When you have massive stock in a billions of dollars company you made, you are not "hoarding," you're keeping control of the thing you made yourself. Making them give up their stake would not make everyone else rich. It would turn capitalism into why-botherism, It would make every large company have no leadership, and have the same vague directionless goals that plague modern governments by making everyone an equal partner in the company. We already have the equal partner system, it's democracy. Government and economic systems should be parallel but not mirror each other. In democracy one human votes, in capitalism one dollar votes. We don't need capitalism to also be one person one vote because it and democracy are nested within each other. The key misunderstanding you have is thinking capitalism is a zero-sum competition. It's not. It's cooperation. That's why people at the bottom of Africa and India have shitty lives despite that their 1% isn't so strong or hasn't gathered as much wealth. Like "hoarding" I just can't get over this. Control of companies is not mercantilism. There's no hoarding. You know what companies people didn't "hoard?" Enron. Sears. Radioshack. You cannot hoard something which has theoretically unlimited supply, which is stock in publicly traded companies, which is at some base level ultimately connected with how productive markets are and how much capital is moving through them. Literally make your own company. It's like saying someone else is hoarding their house. It's their house. Speaking of which, unlike value in public companies, property (real estate, land) is actually fixed and limited. That would be the thing to tax to discourage the hoarding of. Thats exactly what they are going to do in the netherlands. Taxing unrealised gains on publicly traded companys. You invest 1 million and you are lucky,your investment doubles and next year its worth 2 million. You must now pay 360k (36% of the profit) of taxes. If you dont have the cash you have to sell some shares. You keep your investment and next year it goes back to your purchase price. You file a loss and you will get tax credits worth 360k which last for x years (they are not indefinite).These credits are only good for this specific tax you cant use them to pay less of a different tax. You are tired with investing after this rollercoaster and you decide to sell and never invest again.You realized zero return on your investment yet you are down 360k in taxes. In exchange you got 360k tax credit which you will never cash in because you quit investing. You started with 1 million and now you have 640k. The stock you where invested in didnt change over the 2 years you where invested. The goverment is going to rake in so much money with this tax. People who die or quit investing will never cash in on their tax credits from the last bad year in the market. At least that is as far as i understand the tax plan,might be wrong though. Its indeed going to price the lower and middle income out of investing while larger partys have plenty of options to avoid or delay taxes. Th e tax is understandable,people who make money shoving stocks and options dont add anything to the economy. Contrary to someone who does work and pays taxes over his income. But the way its beeing implemented is horrible.
Don't they? Between a person with a billion dollars in gold, and a person with a billion dollars invested in domestic or local businesses, I'd much prefer the latter, and assume the economy would also.
Granted, local and domestic businesses is a pretty big ask.
|
United States43758 Posts
On February 10 2026 07:40 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2026 01:09 oBlade wrote:On February 09 2026 18:59 Gorsameth wrote:
You dont need to end the dollar or capitalism, the problem is wealth inequality. The higher % wealth you gather at the top the shittier life becomes for everyone below.
Close loopholes and increase taxes on high earners. Tax wealth, including stocks, to discourage hording. Cap salary, including bonuses and stocks to a multiplicative of minimal pay to avoid ceos making 10000x more the a floor worker.
Fixing wealth inequality would gona very long way to fixing most issues with modern capitalist society.
"Tax stocks" If you tax unrealized gains of publicly traded companies, you disincentivize companies to go public. You disincentivize investment and creation of such companies. You then keep the low and middle class out of the stock market which is one of the key ways to build wealth and build a retirement. Try to look past first order effects towards unintended consequences. That leaves private companies. Meanwhile the lower/lower middle class are already out of those because they can't get past the accredited investor rule. If you want to eliminate that you could theoretically democratize access to hedge funds and venture capital, but you would also democratize people blowing up their net worths. Now if you want to tax unrealized gains of privately traded companies (also), your issue is how to value the holdings to begin with before you can value the taxes. So just try public first because at least there we have publicly available stock quotes. In 7 years of taxing a 1 billion stock holding at 10% annually, you have reduced it to under $500 million. But by forcing the person to sell in order to pay taxes on it, you also drive supply up and therefore price down, making it worth even less. Essentially if you taxed unrealized gains at all, let alone more than inflation, you blew up financial markets. If you tax the unrealized gains of investment, you broadly discourage certain kinds of investing, when investing is the only reason that kind of value exists in markets to begin with. So make this tax per holding in each individual company, and not total overall wealth? Then Mr. Shiny Top Hat simply diversifies and stays wealthy, while not taking any of the risks that create new opportunities and huge new innovation, because it doesn't behoove him to. It doesn't pay. But we taxed him right? Maybe the government can do something useful with the money. They're good stewards of tax dollars, right. Except the government doesn't have to actually get a return. The government can just lose money with no consequences to itself. They can spend money on things that don't work, and even things that will never work. They can overpay for everything. They can spend money to do nothing. Investors don't have the luxury of such irresponsibility. When you have massive stock in a billions of dollars company you made, you are not "hoarding," you're keeping control of the thing you made yourself. Making them give up their stake would not make everyone else rich. It would turn capitalism into why-botherism, It would make every large company have no leadership, and have the same vague directionless goals that plague modern governments by making everyone an equal partner in the company. We already have the equal partner system, it's democracy. Government and economic systems should be parallel but not mirror each other. In democracy one human votes, in capitalism one dollar votes. We don't need capitalism to also be one person one vote because it and democracy are nested within each other. The key misunderstanding you have is thinking capitalism is a zero-sum competition. It's not. It's cooperation. That's why people at the bottom of Africa and India have shitty lives despite that their 1% isn't so strong or hasn't gathered as much wealth. Like "hoarding" I just can't get over this. Control of companies is not mercantilism. There's no hoarding. You know what companies people didn't "hoard?" Enron. Sears. Radioshack. You cannot hoard something which has theoretically unlimited supply, which is stock in publicly traded companies, which is at some base level ultimately connected with how productive markets are and how much capital is moving through them. Literally make your own company. It's like saying someone else is hoarding their house. It's their house. Speaking of which, unlike value in public companies, property (real estate, land) is actually fixed and limited. That would be the thing to tax to discourage the hoarding of. Thats exactly what they are going to do in the netherlands. Taxing unrealised gains on publicly traded companys. You invest 1 million and you are lucky,your investment doubles and next year its worth 2 million. You must now pay 360k (36% of the profit) of taxes. If you dont have the cash you have to sell some shares. You keep your investment and next year it goes back to your purchase price. You file a loss and you will get tax credits worth 360k which last for x years (they are not indefinite).These credits are only good for this specific tax you cant use them to pay less of a different tax. You are tired with investing after this rollercoaster and you decide to sell and never invest again.You realized zero return on your investment yet you are down 360k in taxes. In exchange you got 360k tax credit which you will never cash in because you quit investing. You started with 1 million and now you have 640k. The stock you where invested in didnt change over the 2 years you where invested. The goverment is going to rake in so much money with this tax. People who die or quit investing will never cash in on their tax credits from the last bad year in the market. At least that is as far as i understand the tax plan,might be wrong though. Its indeed going to price the lower and middle income out of investing while larger partys have plenty of options to avoid or delay taxes. The tax is understandable,people who make money shoving stocks and options dont add anything to the economy. Contrary to someone who does work and pays taxes over his income. But the way its beeing implemented is horrible.
They also tax gains on securities that haven’t been sold in the US but Oblade doesn’t know that which is why he wrote all that stuff about how it’d never work.
|
On February 10 2026 07:34 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2026 06:58 LightSpectra wrote:
Your paraphrase of an Orwell quote is an internal criticism he used among other people of the same ideology that he thought were going about achieving their ideology poorly. It's not a criticism of socialism itself, let alone an endorsement of inaction about wealth inequality. You’re getting closer. Remember, you can examine Republicans from perceived party dynamics within the party, despite not being a Republican or aligned with the party’s goals in general. The redistributionist or anti-rich critique suffers today as it did during Orwell’s time for a similar reason. It’s advanced more out of hatred than compassion. You’ll notice that the post said nothing about the poor, and neither would I expect it to. That’s both visible from within center-left circles and from across the aisle. Orwell did, after all, publish his books publicly. I hope, for the future, that people here and in prominent public-facing roles learn that class prejudice and frankly envy are hurting the cause. It’s the conditions of the poor — let’s say topics like income mobility, availability and price of housing, food, education — that motivate expanded spending. Not that you’re focused on inequality qua inequality and wish that the rich be taken down a notch in order to decrease it. Like I said earlier, and despite attempts to otherize the rich to avoid confronting it, one persons success does not further immiserate those in a comparatively poorer position.
Sure, sure. Now can we talk about class warfare when it's rich people lobbying for tax cuts for themselves by cutting a trillion dollars from Medicaid? Is that "envy" too, or...?
|
Canada11466 Posts
So what are the chances the Moroun family paid to play via Crypto or some other back channel to retain their supposed exclusive rights to collect tolls that Trump is suddenly against a bridge that he endorsed in 2017 as a priority project? Or is he just a moron that can't remember what he did from one administration to the next.
He gets a bridge and Canada paid for it unlike his Wall that went nowhere that Mexico definitely didn't pay for. But this is taking advantage of America? Only if you hate trade and want to be a hermit kingdom... or really love the monopolistic control of the Moroun family at the toll bridge. America gets nothing? Ok, bud.
And 'did not use any American products, including our Steel.'
Liar. From the greatest liar in American politics.
"U.S. steel was used in the construction from the Michigan side of the river." according to Windsor Mayor Dilkens.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/trudeau-trump-gordie-howe-bridge-1.3980620
Article from 2017:
To make the project a reality, the Canadian government agreed to pay for all construction costs, including $250 million for the inspection plaza on the American side of the river, with a plan to recoup the costs through tolls.
|
On February 10 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2026 01:09 oBlade wrote:On February 09 2026 18:59 Gorsameth wrote:
You dont need to end the dollar or capitalism, the problem is wealth inequality. The higher % wealth you gather at the top the shittier life becomes for everyone below.
Close loopholes and increase taxes on high earners. Tax wealth, including stocks, to discourage hording. Cap salary, including bonuses and stocks to a multiplicative of minimal pay to avoid ceos making 10000x more the a floor worker.
Fixing wealth inequality would gona very long way to fixing most issues with modern capitalist society.
"Tax stocks" If you tax unrealized gains of publicly traded companies, you disincentivize companies to go public. You disincentivize investment and creation of such companies. You then keep the low and middle class out of the stock market which is one of the key ways to build wealth and build a retirement. Try to look past first order effects towards unintended consequences. That leaves private companies. Meanwhile the lower/lower middle class are already out of those because they can't get past the accredited investor rule. If you want to eliminate that you could theoretically democratize access to hedge funds and venture capital, but you would also democratize people blowing up their net worths. Now if you want to tax unrealized gains of privately traded companies (also), your issue is how to value the holdings to begin with before you can value the taxes. So just try public first because at least there we have publicly available stock quotes. In 7 years of taxing a 1 billion stock holding at 10% annually, you have reduced it to under $500 million. But by forcing the person to sell in order to pay taxes on it, you also drive supply up and therefore price down, making it worth even less. Essentially if you taxed unrealized gains at all, let alone more than inflation, you blew up financial markets. If you tax the unrealized gains of investment, you broadly discourage certain kinds of investing, when investing is the only reason that kind of value exists in markets to begin with. So make this tax per holding in each individual company, and not total overall wealth? Then Mr. Shiny Top Hat simply diversifies and stays wealthy, while not taking any of the risks that create new opportunities and huge new innovation, because it doesn't behoove him to. It doesn't pay. But we taxed him right? Maybe the government can do something useful with the money. They're good stewards of tax dollars, right. Except the government doesn't have to actually get a return. The government can just lose money with no consequences to itself. They can spend money on things that don't work, and even things that will never work. They can overpay for everything. They can spend money to do nothing. Investors don't have the luxury of such irresponsibility. When you have massive stock in a billions of dollars company you made, you are not "hoarding," you're keeping control of the thing you made yourself. Making them give up their stake would not make everyone else rich. It would turn capitalism into why-botherism, It would make every large company have no leadership, and have the same vague directionless goals that plague modern governments by making everyone an equal partner in the company. We already have the equal partner system, it's democracy. Government and economic systems should be parallel but not mirror each other. In democracy one human votes, in capitalism one dollar votes. We don't need capitalism to also be one person one vote because it and democracy are nested within each other. The key misunderstanding you have is thinking capitalism is a zero-sum competition. It's not. It's cooperation. That's why people at the bottom of Africa and India have shitty lives despite that their 1% isn't so strong or hasn't gathered as much wealth. Like "hoarding" I just can't get over this. Control of companies is not mercantilism. There's no hoarding. You know what companies people didn't "hoard?" Enron. Sears. Radioshack. You cannot hoard something which has theoretically unlimited supply, which is stock in publicly traded companies, which is at some base level ultimately connected with how productive markets are and how much capital is moving through them. Literally make your own company. It's like saying someone else is hoarding their house. It's their house. Speaking of which, unlike value in public companies, property (real estate, land) is actually fixed and limited. That would be the thing to tax to discourage the hoarding of. Interesting theories but you’re missing two extremely obvious things which are absolutely devastating to your argument. Kind of embarrassing really. For you to have spent all that time writing that and to have missed them.
Quark has discovered a truly marvelous proof of taxes on unrealized stock holdings being a good idea which his post is too narrow to contain.
|
United States43758 Posts
“If we redistribute wealth from the super rich to the rest of society that’ll keep the poor from participating in the stock market”
Will it? More than not having any money does at present? Because you’re arguing that the current system lets them participate and yet the poorest 50% of Americans own less than 1% of the SP500. So if you’re going to argue that taxing the rich will lock them out one has to ask, lock them out of what? They’re not in.
But it’s even simpler honestly because right now the ownership is concentrated in the super rich and they’re not forced to sell because the wealth just compounds indefinitely. And you’re arguing that the best way to make sure everyone gets a slice of the pie is to let the guy who has the pie hang onto it and not share it. It’s just not a functional argument on any level. If you tax it you force people to sell to cover gains which creates availability for buyers. If you provide favourable tax treatment for hoarding indefinitely that makes it hard for anyone else to break in.
“Look, the best way to make sure nobody goes hungry is if one person has all the food and refuses to share it, that way the value of the food stays high”
But in any case, ASC 320-10 exists.
|
Northern Ireland26473 Posts
On February 10 2026 10:49 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2026 07:34 dyhb wrote:On February 10 2026 06:58 LightSpectra wrote:
Your paraphrase of an Orwell quote is an internal criticism he used among other people of the same ideology that he thought were going about achieving their ideology poorly. It's not a criticism of socialism itself, let alone an endorsement of inaction about wealth inequality. You’re getting closer. Remember, you can examine Republicans from perceived party dynamics within the party, despite not being a Republican or aligned with the party’s goals in general. The redistributionist or anti-rich critique suffers today as it did during Orwell’s time for a similar reason. It’s advanced more out of hatred than compassion. You’ll notice that the post said nothing about the poor, and neither would I expect it to. That’s both visible from within center-left circles and from across the aisle. Orwell did, after all, publish his books publicly. I hope, for the future, that people here and in prominent public-facing roles learn that class prejudice and frankly envy are hurting the cause. It’s the conditions of the poor — let’s say topics like income mobility, availability and price of housing, food, education — that motivate expanded spending. Not that you’re focused on inequality qua inequality and wish that the rich be taken down a notch in order to decrease it. Like I said earlier, and despite attempts to otherize the rich to avoid confronting it, one persons success does not further immiserate those in a comparatively poorer position. Sure, sure. Now can we talk about class warfare when it's rich people lobbying for tax cuts for themselves by cutting a trillion dollars from Medicaid? Is that "envy" too, or...?
Won’t somebody please think of the billionaires?
I mean as with almost all conceivable viewpoints, yeah I’m sure for plenty it is a case of envy.
I dare say for the vast majority, it’s a disdain for people who already have more capital than any of us will accumulate in a lifetime (or many), leveraging the power that brings to make even more.
Maybe, just possibly. Someone like Elon Musk has more money than god and could basically spend his time doing anything he bloody wants, and he chooses to ruin social media platforms, poison political discourse and make government more ‘efficient’
It’s class warfare because it is class warfare, and one where most of the punches are thrown down, not up.
|
On February 10 2026 13:33 KwarK wrote:
“If we redistribute wealth from the super rich to the rest of society that’ll keep the poor from participating in the stock market”
Taxing the stock market to discourage it will reduce the stock market, by virtue of it having been discouraged by being taxed.
If you give that money to the government, the government will spend it to benefit the corporations that control the government. Not a step up.
On the other hand, even if in magic land you took it and did lossless redistribution to the bottom 50%, they would largely not bank it in the S&P 500. They would use it on consumer spending. They would use it to fix their car or for a deposit. They would get a new computer or set of tools. A select few will all-in GME calls. This is why they call government checks "stimulus" and not "invest-a-bux."
The bottom 50% do not need investments, they need better and more stable jobs first, and they need the drive to work them. But they also need better access to fathers, safer communities, and worse access to drugs. Trying to raise their percent in the S&P500 is like giving dessert to Oliver Twist when he hasn't eaten a meal for a week. People invest when they have steady surplus income. They can have that by being smart and reducing spending, and also by earning more money. But in the long term. There is no long-term fountain of wealth by taxing equity markets. The well dries up. You think everyone will be a beautiful shareholder of the Mag7 when actually the stock market will just look more like Japan or Germany and the exceptionalism of US innovation and dominance evaporates.
On February 10 2026 13:33 KwarK wrote:
Will it? More than not having any money does at present? Because you’re arguing that the current system lets them participate and yet the poorest 50% of Americans own less than 1% of the SP500. So if you’re going to argue that taxing the rich will lock them out one has to ask, lock them out of what? They’re not in.
I see you like publicly traded companies. Do you want to remove the accredited investor requirements for private equity or not?
People in the bottom 50% who do not own a single share in Apple or Tyson Chicken:
-Use iPhones and eat at KFC and have Jimmy Dean sausage for breakfast
-own homes near Cupertino that appreciate in value
-work at the Genius Bar and at companies supplied by Tyson or for companies that serve the B2B chain that Apple is a part of
-drive on roads paid for by actual taxes on corporations, not on made-up penalties against investors invented by people jealous of the rich
-work at businesses founded by people who took their Apple stock, either having worked there or not, and founded something else
The more you discourage investment, the less Apples and Tysons you get, which is worse for everyone.
On February 10 2026 13:33 KwarK wrote:
But it’s even simpler honestly because right now the ownership is concentrated in the super rich and they’re not forced to sell because the wealth just compounds indefinitely. And you’re arguing that the best way to make sure everyone gets a slice of the pie is to let the guy who has the pie hang onto it and not share it. It’s just not a functional argument on any level. If you tax it you force people to sell to cover gains which creates availability for buyers. If you provide favourable tax treatment for hoarding indefinitely that makes it hard for anyone else to break in.
Selling drops price. It increases "availability" (lol) by making the coveted thing that we want to make poor people own more of because it's expensive... cheaper. I think you're the same guy who couldn't figure out that stock buybacks drive up price because they reduce the shares outstanding.
Poor people owning 2% of 25 trillion even in the best theory where everything goes your way is not better than poor people owning 1% of 50 trillion.
The same people are not the 1% forever. They are not forced to sell because it's not wealth until they sell. If you incorporate KwarkCo and issue 1 billion shares of stock and sell me one for $50 you haven't created a pile of $50 billion of wealth that you are now sitting atop and are evading rightly-owed taxes on.
On February 10 2026 13:33 KwarK wrote:
“Look, the best way to make sure nobody goes hungry is if one person has all the food and refuses to share it, that way the value of the food stays high”
The value in buying food is you eat it to survive. The value in buying a stock is hopefully NOT that it becomes worthless and you shit it out in 24-48 hours.
If one person had all the food, in a matter of time, depending on the perishability of the food, they would have a useless pile of expired and rotted food. It is fundamentally against the interests of the "hoarder" to over-hoard just like it's in the long term interests of the investor to keep the money working by investing it.
|
I find myself agreeing with oblade for once 
Most people see the problem, “big wealth inequalities = bad,” and jump straight to whatever quick-fix solution comes to mind, like “tax the stocks,” without thinking through the implications.
I think we can all agree that someone having hundreds of billions is a bug, not a feature, of modern capitalism. We can also agree that huge and growing wealth disparities are neither desirable nor sustainable in the long run.
At the same time, we should be able to agree that radically changing incentive structures by heavily taxing what fuels the economic engine is a dangerous idea if it is not implemented carefully.
|
United States43758 Posts
Well if we're going with the incentives argument then do it properly. Raise taxes on the poor and redistribute to the rich. That way nobody will want to be poor and everyone will want to be rich.
Of course that's actually the current situation, we tax someone who works for a living at a far higher rate than someone who inherits wealth or receives dividends. And even they pay more tax than someone who gets unrealized capital gains. But I'm sure we can push it further. Being poor is surely just a question of misaligned incentives and has nothing to do with the value from the labour performed going to a rentier capitalist.
Tax the stocks isn't a quick fix solution, it's the only solution. It can be derived from first principles.
The problem is an oligarchy is concentrating ownership in their own hands through endlessly compounding growth. In this case ownership is measured in stocks.
The way to fix the concentration is redistribution. Therefore we reach the inevitable conclusion, the state must intervene to curb the compounding growth by redistributing some of it. When the state says that some of the increase in value has to go to the state that's a tax.
If you'd prefer to phrase it another way then go ahead, as long as you're agreed that the state needs to seize a portion of the growth in the ownership.
|
United States43758 Posts
On February 10 2026 16:10 oBlade wrote:
The bottom 50% do not need investments. Trying to raise their percent in the S&P500 is like giving dessert to Oliver Twist when he hasn't eaten a meal for a week.
This was particularly good.
"You see the problem with redistributing ownership of the means of production is that the workers don't know what to do with the means of production. They'd be there working in the factory and getting a portion of the profits from their labour and they'd be like 'what's going on, I don't understand'. You wouldn't give a starving man dessert, they wouldn't know what to do with it. They'd look at you like 'what could I possibly do with this cake, don't you know I'm hungry?' If you redistribute wealth all you're going to achieve is making the rich less rich and the poor less poor. It's absurd."
There was also a lot of nonsense about how they don’t need a share of the profits of their labour or a say in how the companies are run, they need better paying jobs, job security, stability, and a sense of having a stake in their society and community. We should focus on those things rather than giving them any ownership or money.
|
Cue the argument for capital flight into the Laffer curve debate and where we're actually on it.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1233 Posts
On February 10 2026 16:45 Geiko wrote:I find myself agreeing with oblade for once Most people see the problem, “big wealth inequalities = bad,” and jump straight to whatever quick-fix solution comes to mind, like “tax the stocks,” without thinking through the implications. .... At the same time, we should be able to agree that radically changing incentive structures by heavily taxing what fuels the economic engine is a dangerous idea if it is not implemented carefully.
Firstly, i don't think investment, especially in the stock market is the load bearing economic engine that you seem to be stating. Especially the way most people are invested, eg via buying shares on the market.
It's not like your money is being invested towards whatever it is the company makes/sells/does. It just goes the schmuck who sold the shares you bought, the underlying company being sold doesn't see any of it. The benefits to the company are indirect, in that it raises the long term value of shares for companies who are directly selling those shares eg through IPOs or share offerings, so that money is easier to raise. You are in no way directly investing into the productive company that is, hopefully, doing something productive. The overwhelming probability is that you are instead 'investing' into someone who's trying to make a buck by speculating, eg, not doing anything productive.
Secondly, unless you tax REALLY punitively, it's not going to stop someone investing. There is a limit to how productive you can actually be with your labour. At a certain threshold of starting capital, investing is going to outscale that limit, even if you pay more tax.
I've never met this speculative investor who refuses to make easy money investing, just because they are going to pay a bit more tax. What are they going to do? Not make money just to spite to tax system? I have met many an investor who will complain about how much tax they will pay, but at the end of the day, when profit is still on the table they will invest anyway.
If you are worried it will drive people, specifically away from the stock market, just extend this as 'tax the stocks' to tax all capital gains (yes capital gains taxes already exist, this is in no way a new, novel idea). They are going to invest their money somewhere. If you go too overboard on this rate of taxation, and tax to the point that it's no longer profitable to invest (and that's pretty much what it would take for these people to stop investing, despite all their whinging), then god forbid they might have to work and do something productive for once.
From there, if you want to incentivise certain types of investment, like directly into (and to) productive companies through IPOs or into specific industries. Or if certain things you feel shouldn't be treated like investments just for making money (eg like homes you actually live in). Then exemptions or tax breaks can be made for these things, and you have yourself a system.
On February 10 2026 16:45 Geiko wrote:
I think we can all agree that someone having hundreds of billions is a bug, not a feature, of modern capitalism. We can also agree that huge and growing wealth disparities are neither desirable nor sustainable in the long run.
Depends what you define as 'modern capitalism' i guess. If it's the kind of free market worship that certain types advocate for. Then this is very much a feature of the system. Consolidation of wealth (and therefore wealth disparity) is a natural effect of just letting the free market do what it does.
If your definition of 'modern capitalism' is specifically defined in a way that treats wealth disparities as undesirable, then what do we have a disagreement on here? That is a type of capitalism that necessitates specific intent and policies to stop the free market from just doing it's own thing, and intentionally combating wealth disparity (or at least limiting it).
|
On February 10 2026 18:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2026 16:10 oBlade wrote:
The bottom 50% do not need investments. Trying to raise their percent in the S&P500 is like giving dessert to Oliver Twist when he hasn't eaten a meal for a week. This was particularly good. "You see the problem with redistributing ownership of the means of production is that the workers don't know what to do with the means of production. They'd be there working in the factory and getting a portion of the profits from their labour and they'd be like 'what's going on, I don't understand'. You wouldn't give a starving man dessert, they wouldn't know what to do with it. They'd look at you like 'what could I possibly do with this cake, don't you know I'm hungry?' If you redistribute wealth all you're going to achieve is making the rich less rich and the poor less poor. It's absurd."
Literally yes. Bill Gates knows more about capital than the random 50% worker. Not because that worker is bad or less of a person.
You can give the starving man cake today and then you'll both be shrugging your shoulders next week when the cake slice is half as big and in 2 weeks when there's no cake left. When your only motivation is being mad there are people with cakes to begin with and that they're bigger.
On February 10 2026 17:55 KwarK wrote:
There was also a lot of nonsense about how they don’t need a share of the profits of their labour or a say in how the companies are run, they need better paying jobs, job security, stability, and a sense of having a stake in their society and community. We should focus on those things rather than giving them any ownership or money.
Yes, teach a man to fish. We give people a share of the profits of their labor and a say in how companies are run. It's called stock options. Companies do that. Why would the government? For myriad reasons, I don't want to live in a country where I'm guaranteed a stake in your company, and I'm sure you wouldn't care for me to have a say in how it's run either.
On February 10 2026 17:55 KwarK wrote:
Well if we're going with the incentives argument then do it properly. Raise taxes on the poor and redistribute to the rich. That way nobody will want to be poor and everyone will want to be rich.
Of course that's actually the current situation, we tax someone who works for a living at a far higher rate than someone who inherits wealth or receives dividends. And even they pay more tax than someone who gets unrealized capital gains. But I'm sure we can push it further. Being poor is surely just a question of misaligned incentives and has nothing to do with the value from the labour performed going to a rentier capitalist.
The fact that equities go up is not because we tax poor people more, which we don't. It's because companies create value which attracts investment.
People who work for a living can inherit money. People who inherit money can also work for a living. In general we don't tax inheritance as income because the person who worked for it already paid taxes on it. (To the extent they didn't I will address later.) It's like saying we tax smokers more than realizers of long term capital gains. Yes but only by the specific act. Not by the class. The government is not waging class war against its own people. If Warren Buffett buys a pack of cigarettes he pays the same tax as Joe Blow. If Joe Blow holds a stock for over a year and sells it, he pays the same tax as Warren Buffett - Oh wait, I lied, he pays less than Warren Buffett because the US has tiers and not a flat tax for capital gains, and recognizes that Warren Buffett being rich already pays a higher rate.
Yes income is taxed more than no income. Is taxed more than inheritance. Assuming of course the person working for a living pays any tax at all, which they could easily not if their income is low enough. And once that "inheritance" reaches a certain amount the tax rate blows up on it. Except it's taxed at the point of estate rather than inheritance, but you're not dishonest enough to hinge your point on that.
On February 10 2026 17:55 KwarK wrote:
Tax the stocks isn't a quick fix solution, it's the only solution. It can be derived from first principles.
The problem is an oligarchy is concentrating ownership in their own hands through endlessly compounding growth. In this case ownership is measured in stocks.
They didn't concentrate ownership. They created it. Literally you think NVDA just fell from a coconut tree and Jensen won't share it. You have no framework for explaining why the pie is big and growing.
Yes 1% control 50% of equities. And 50% control 1% of equities.
The other 49% literally control 49% of equities. The 50th to 90th percentile have $12 trillion which is over 100k per household.
Here's two better and real solutions that aren't "Faithfully quoted arguments that aren't straw men" mixed with analogies about food:
1) Tax the loophole Thiel/Musk/etc. use by considering loans leveraged on unrealized gains as deemed realization
2) Carryover the original basis for realized gains after death in the estate tax
On February 10 2026 17:55 KwarK wrote:
The way to fix the concentration is redistribution. Therefore we reach the inevitable conclusion, the state must intervene to curb the compounding growth by redistributing some of it. When the state says that some of the increase in value has to go to the state that's a tax.
The idea that the absence of uniform distribution of things is a problem is a communist axiom. The assumption that different things are bad is just not one I agree with. But even if it were true, the idea the government is doing me a favor by pocketing some money for itself and its cronies by robbing Bill Gates is something I'm against it doing in the pretense of my name.
On February 10 2026 17:55 KwarK wrote:
If you'd prefer to phrase it another way then go ahead, as long as you're agreed that the state needs to seize a portion of the growth in the ownership.
Are you willing to have the state fully and directly refund decreases in the ownership?
Originally I was responding to someone whose idea was literally rich people hoarding is bad, tax them so they stop having so much money. Your idea of redistribution is a little more developed, but unless you physically redistribute shares directly, again how are you going to convert shares to cash, send some of the cash to poor people, and get them to buy shares? If your goal is people owning more of the means of production you have to have some reason your solution will actually lead to people owning more of the means of production. A reason other than hope.
Like I would be open if you had some kind of creative idea like a per-state sovereign fund but this doesn't seem fully thought-out.
On February 10 2026 16:10 oBlade wrote:
Do you want to remove the accredited investor requirements for private equity or not?
No answer.
|
On February 10 2026 16:45 Geiko wrote:
I think we can all agree that someone having hundreds of billions is a bug, not a feature, of modern capitalism. We can also agree that huge and growing wealth disparities are neither desirable nor sustainable in the long run.
Well, I don't agree. Capitalism isn't sentient. It's a system of distributing scarce resources. The only people who can intend for something to happen or not happen under capitalism are regulators, but those only exist and do their job fairly and competently if they're appointed to do so, and they only get appointed to do so if the majority of voters are well-educated, informed, and consistently voting for their own interests, which they aren't when billionaires own all the social media and a huge chunk of cable news, newspapers, and other information outlets.
"Voting with your wallet" might work sometimes for luxuries and entertainment, but not for control over natural resources and essential industries like healthcare, power, etc.
At the same time, we should be able to agree that radically changing incentive structures by heavily taxing what fuels the economic engine is a dangerous idea if it is not implemented carefully.
I don't see anyone here suggesting reckless structural changes just for the fucks of it. We should do what history has proven already works. The Nordic model is a good starting place because all of the countries who have implemented it consistently rank as the happiest countries in the world. And once we're there, we can start talking about further political and economic changes to get to an even better point.
|
United States43758 Posts
On February 10 2026 20:13 oBlade wrote:
Like I would be open if you had some kind of creative idea like a per-state sovereign fund but this doesn't seem fully thought-out.
State ownership of the means of production? Interesting proposal, tell me more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
