|
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 July 11 2026 06:18 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2026 05:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 11 2026 02:24 dyhb wrote:On July 11 2026 02:10 Geiko wrote:On July 11 2026 00:49 dyhb wrote:On July 10 2026 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 10 2026 23:14 dyhb wrote:On July 10 2026 22:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 10 2026 21:42 dyhb wrote:On July 10 2026 17:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Blaming the immigrants / the blacks / the libs to convince working class Americans to vote against their interests and for the bottom line a class of ultra rich donors has literally been the whole agenda of the GOP since Reagan, but I’m not surprised you didn’t notice. It's also a pretty clever dodge when you're actually out of touch with working class interests, and are now a party of a highly-educated laptop class serving their own interests. The man at a table telling people what to think is the modern Democratic campaign consultant, and his message to the working class is that they're too poor, too uneducated, and too easily manipulated to actually know what's good for them. The sales pitch was doomed to fail. A sane party has to keep the middle class socialists in check. Bill Clinton did this with an authentic "I feel your pain" pitch and his understanding of Arkansas voters, and Obama did it with skillful broad-based oration for as long as he could. The same problem in Orwell's time resurfaced. You don't give a damn about the actual lives of less fortunate families than your own. You're just envious of the rich and burn with hatred for them. Connection to the family struggles brought on by gas prices and tariffs play second fiddle to how evil Elon is for making so much money and boy do we have to punish these rich and successful guys for having so much wealth and power! It's toxic. Granted, I believe some of you realize this at a deep level, but feel like doubling down is the only choice left available. I have zero envy for the rich and especially not someone like Elon. I have an amazing life, and he seems like a really miserable fuck. And tacky superyachts don’t inspire me. We live in an economic order that is broken to the benefits of a very few and at the expense of most folks. It’s just a fact that wages and quality of life has stagnated or declined for most people while a very small minority is getting exponentially richer. Those folks have a ridiculous amount of political power, finance politicians, and own most of the media. Again there is no conspiracy here, it’s a cold fact. This post is an improvement to your prior posts. Do you understand that "once you reach a certain threshold of wealth the brain of an average human gets broken" " they cease to care about anything other then maximizing their wealth and power" "people who believe they are the best and the smartest losing is the biggest fear in their life" " they get addicted to that" means you will fail to dodge the reasonable conclusion that you're driven by envy and hatred of the rich. We hear about the reverse in the popular media all the time: They're defending billionaires (how weird!), they're bootlickers, etc. They, like you, will protest that it's just economic cold, hard facts. Do they, like you, get out of jail free with that excuse? Now, the GOP havs had a platform that is insanely beneficial to the ultra rich. Tax cuts for billionaires, deregulations, maximization of corporate profit has been the core of their policies, since Reagan. No real argument here. To get people that they are actually fucking in the ass to vote for them, they have exploited the resentment of the working class to the “other”. You are in the shit because of the black welfare queens, or because Mexican take your jobs. Your community is falling apart because of the trans, or because of the liberal elites on the coast.
That’s not original. The far right does that here. Billionaire Bolloré owns a gigantic proportion of the media in France, and uses his empire to hammer into people’s head that wage stagnate because the Arabs are stealing our jobs, not because people like him are hoarding the growth of this country. I just have to break with you hard here. You're also exploiting the resentment of the rich to get an economic lower class to blame them (instead of, say, immigrants, a poor justice system and crime policing, a bad education system, economically-destructive policies, bad left-wing policies in general). The manipulation is just the reverse side of the same coin. You simply personally believe you're right (hopefully, you persuasively argue that you're right and they're wrong). That's why I put you in that center chair, and you're pointing at two working-class voters, and you're telling them that the rich are to blame for their problems. The words you used in the first post spectacularly carry the message that you're envious and hateful. You may not feel that it's true of you in your heart (of cold hard facts), but it's how the message carries to the audience. That's why I also talk about it as a disconnect. The messaging is disconnected from the audience and I'm pointing out the reasons why. You are the only one who think this is controversial. There is nothing Marxist there. You're better off saying it's right despite being overt Marxist false consciousness. The working class (proletariat) is being exploited by the rich elite (bourgeoisie), but the exploited class has been politically manipulated to hold beliefs and values that work against their true class interests. That's pure Engels false consciousness. Practical TL.net posters, who believe themselves quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some (historical thinkers). It's always the other guy that's stuck in some rehashed bunkum from Reagan, and never ourselves! I’m not the one who wrote about rich people brains being broken. Since you've replied to my reply to Jankisa, please feel free to differentiate your own thinking from his. I told him the Orwell quote that I think his post is an excellent illustration of, but maybe you agree with me in regards to that segment of his post. You chose to only voice disagreement with me. It’s not two sides of the same coin, because the rise of inequalities and the captation of the growth by a tiny clique of extremely rich people is just a fact.
The blacks / muslims / queer / jew / arabs being responsible for your problems is not. It’s fear, and base instincts exploited to serve an interest.
And again there is no envy. Billionaires are parasites and i despise people who are comfortable living in obscene opulence while most of humanity barely gets by. The world would be a much better place without them. But i would REALLY not want to be one of them. My life is a thousand times better than theirs and I don’t need a stratospheric amount of money, an army of people serving me, yachts and private jets to fill the void inside. Let me get this straight from your last three posts. A tiny clique of extremely rich people are responsible for problems of the working class, but high rates of immigration are not. You are not manipulating people to believe that a tiny clique of extremely rich people are the source of their problems, but other people are most definitely manipulating people to believe that immigration is the source of their problems. Billionaires are parasites and you despise rich people. You also aren't envious and hateful of rich people. I sincerely doubt that you could convince a teenager that you hold all those views seriously in a self-aware manner, much less a grown adult. In fact, I'd use your statements to test if a child can differentiate between fact and opinion. Person A says that the problems of the working class are primarily due to a tiny clique of extremely rich people that bear responsibility for the decline in their wages and quality of life, but they have manipulated the government and media to put the blame on immigrants and things other than themselves.
Person B says that the problems of the working class are primarily due to large-scale immigration and an out-of-touch educated elite that are driving down wages and quality of life, but that a group of people like Person A seek to instead put the blame on a tiny clique of extremely rich people.
Which of those two statements are statements of fact? Which of those two statements are statements of opinion?You're so out of touch that if you existed as a prominent American Democrat, then Republicans would have good cause to paste your quotes in a campaign ad. My opinions are facts, and your opinions are manipulation? Yes, every person on planet earth thinks that cold, hard facts are the foundation for their opinions. It's always the other guy whose opinions are in conflict with the facts. Who are you trying to fool by claiming otherwise? You obviously are intelligent enough to possess the capacity to separate facts like inequality and low-skilled immigration from opinions like what should change about society in order to improve the quality of life for working class people and how/to what extent society is broken and who bears ultimate responsibility. I could pretend it's a fact that you possess too much hubris to communicate realistic left-wing policy to a disillusioned working class person, but that's actually just my opinion. My opinion is born out of talking to too many progressive Democrats that pretend their shit don't stink, and it's probably unfairly influenced by my interactions with them. Some of us think that billionaires don't pay their fair share. Why would they ? They have enough money to buy influence and favorable tax laws. Simultaneously, we can also acknowledge that uncontrolled immigration is not a good thing. Some people think that the billionaire problem is more important than, others don't. Calling out someone because they might be envious of billionaires does nothing to prove they aren't right though. I don't contest anything you say here. You haven't called any of your opinions facts, and you haven't tried to delegitimize people that think other problems are bigger than the billionaire problem. The envy/hatred callouts hopefully create some recognition on the variety of opinions that are neglected, but see my long posts for that context. It wasn't you that needed that reality check. Dyhb, the problem is that envy or hatred are well defined concepts, and that’s not what animates our animosity towards billionaires. Your callout is just gratuitous and inaccurate. I despise billionaires, i believe you need to be a shit human being for wanting to hoard that amount of wealth and be comfortable with it. I believe they are a scourge on modern societies, and incredibly corrosive to democracy and a healthy economy. It’s not envy, it’s not hatred. You don’t achieve anything by telling people who don’t that they envy billionaires. I replied to you here, and I think that's what you should understand before you give a response. You've had issues separating how the message is received versus asserting that's not the way you feel it within your heart. That's the communication problem within the states, though it appears to be more exacerbated within our foreign onlookers. You allegedly don't hate the rich, yet you "despise" those "parasites," (and I'm not getting baited by forum trolls into an argument on the rationality of the emotions contempt, disdain, and hate)
No man, it’s just you projecting at that point.
|
On July 11 2026 06:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don’t know if the idea is that people on the right can’t fathom that you can’t secretly want to be obscenely rich. I have met many people who just couldn’t for the life of them imagine that anyone would not want to shit in golden toilets, or have a ferrari, or have an army of servant attending to their caprices.
Then if you say you object on billionaires and oligarchs, they conclude that it has to be envy.
I can’t talk for dyhb, but I’ve encountered that line of reasoning before.
It‘s less of an issue that rich people exist over an issue that some of them attempt to take a controlling role over society and politics (for me).
It‘s not an issue that remains isolated to the countries they reside in.
Thinking that stuff like super yachts or zero-g tourism is reckless for environmental reasons isn‘t really based on envy, it‘s like watching humanity fast-tracking the expiry date on the planet or its resources.
|
Gaben can buy as many super yachts as he wants and the people who knows who he is will cheer him on.
Because he provides a superior product, has good core values on business that he refuses to compromise on and except for his company he stays away from people's lives.
If billionaires follow these simple rules no one has problems with them.
|
Northern Ireland27305 Posts
On July 11 2026 18:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Gaben can buy as many super yachts as he wants and the people who knows who he is will cheer him on.
Because he provides a superior product, has good core values on business that he refuses to compromise on and except for his company he stays away from people's lives.
If billionaires follow these simple rules no one has problems with them.
I mean I wouldn’t go as far as ‘no one’, but it’s certainly considerably less than the hostility people feel for those who wield that influence to fuck over the small folk
|
On July 11 2026 18:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Gaben can buy as many super yachts as he wants and the people who knows who he is will cheer him on.
Because he provides a superior product, has good core values on business that he refuses to compromise on and except for his company he stays away from people's lives.
If billionaires follow these simple rules no one has problems with them.
I disagree. Firstly on general principle, but also because this doesn't really seem to be true at all.
Firstly, it seems more like Gabe Newell has more of a cult of personality going moreso than anything based purely on his company. He's more like Steve Jobs than Bill Gates.
Secondly, it is basically impossible to be a billionaire without some kind of controversy. You say he provides a superior product, and in some cases that's clearly true: as a game developer, Valve has a truly brilliant record. But as a service, Steam is more like Spotify or Amazon than a "fair" service: they provide extreme value to the consumers, but producers get squeezed. Sure, game developers have less sympathy than musicians, but the complaints of indie developers and the anti-trust lawsuits are fairly clear indications that not all is well in game distribution world with Steam as the de facto sole provider (for PC, anyway).
And thirdly, if "build a popular company and stay out of peoples' lives" were truly the motto for billionaires to live by, then why does Daniel Ek get so much shit? He built spotify, which is the steam of music. But he invested in a military company (clearly a more political statement than Gaben's investments into marine exploration and biotech) and was forced to step down from CEO of Spotify over it.
This isn't me supporting Daniel Ek. I'm not a fan of Spotify and I am definitely not a fan of billionaires extracting their wealth from other peoples' labor. I also think that even philanthropic billionaires like a Mackenzie Scott or Melinda Gates are a net negative to society: they get an outsized voice on what problems get money spent on, even if I broadly agree with both of those. Much better would be that they pay their money into a public fund and the public decides what societal problems are prioritized. And guess what, we already have a system for that, it's called government and taxes!
Daniel Ek spending on military is obviously problematic for many of the same reasons. European military startups seem like something that is very necessary in the current geopolitical reality, and I'm perfectly happy that there is investment in them. Helsing doesn't seem particularly problematic, especially in the particular industry of military technology. I just disagree with the general principle of some random dude having 600million euros available to spend at his own discretion on some particular startup.
And all the same goes for Gabe Newell. Sure, he isn't spending on anything controversial. It's just that he shouldn't have that much money, on general principle.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1353 Posts
Probably because history tells us after you build a big military, the forces conspire to make you use it. Either due to increased military buildup of, and tension with, your worried neighbours, the difficulty in economically justifying maintaining a massive military in times of peace, or due to profit motive of private companies who's business outlook is significantly improved if their buyers go to war.
One could argue, this is why the US is constantly at war. It's hard to justify, spending that much on the military unless you actually use it. And once you have it, well.. you tend to try and solve problems with the tools that you have.
On top of that, I'd be staggered if the major military contractors don't essentially sponsor a few of the war hawks in US politics and probably general political discourse, and so are a constant passive push towards military confrontation over diplomacy, you can see a big military and the use of that military being a mutually reinforcing symbiosis.
Maybe Europe is under militarized, given their involvement in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, and maybe more militarization might be more of a deterrent than something pushing towards more conflict. But you can see why people generally see investment in more military hardware as essentially a push for more military conflict.
Following that logic, you can see why people object to investing in military startups, which can be seen as actively making the world more conflict prone, as opposed to some yachts, which are at most, just wasting money on the frivolous.
|
I am definitely not a fan of billionaires extracting their wealth from other peoples' labor. I also think that even philanthropic billionaires like a Mackenzie Scott or Melinda Gates are a net negative to society: they get an outsized voice on what problems get money spent on, even if I broadly agree with both of those. Much better would be that they pay their money into a public fund and the public decides what societal problems are prioritized. And guess what, we already have a system for that, it's called government and taxes!
It really isn't about the individuals or even "billionaires" as a/competing cabal/s. It's a systemic issue where even if you took all their resources and blinked all the billionaires out of existence, the capitalist system would just replace them.
It's part of what is setting up Mr. Beast to be a future iteration of Trump while everyone watches it happen.
yeah people told me I was crazy the amount of people who tried to tell me that was illegal I was like bro I don't f***ing care
|
On July 12 2026 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote + I am definitely not a fan of billionaires extracting their wealth from other peoples' labor. I also think that even philanthropic billionaires like a Mackenzie Scott or Melinda Gates are a net negative to society: they get an outsized voice on what problems get money spent on, even if I broadly agree with both of those. Much better would be that they pay their money into a public fund and the public decides what societal problems are prioritized. And guess what, we already have a system for that, it's called government and taxes! It really isn't about the individuals or even "billionaires" as a/competing cabal/s. It's a systemic issue where even if you took all their resources and blinked all the billionaires out of existence, the capitalist system would just replace them. It's part of what is setting up Mr. Beast to be a future iteration of Trump while everyone watches it happen. Show nested quote +yeah people told me I was crazy the amount of people who tried to tell me that was illegal I was like bro I don't f***ing care https://twitter.com/voidedintern/status/2074121212448358532
Yeah, MrBeast being a future Trump is absolutely something i could see happen.
On a side note, i am one of those who believe the human brain is simply not equipped to deal with extreme power or extreme wealth. The moment humanity has invented the means to produce surplus in Mesopotamia, it has been hoarded by competent insane megalomaniac rulers at the expense of everyone else. We haven’t looked back since.
|
Canada11603 Posts
Here's the neat thing, you don't need to blink billionaires out of existence. Let them make their billions, I don't care. But do tax them a bunch. Not as punishment. Not to make them not billionaires. But simply because that's where you will raise a lot of revenue to run your government. Reverse the Trump tax cuts would be a great start to not keep adding to the debt... if a party still wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility. And then protect the institutions and laws from being corrupted by money.
Because as long as the average citizen can generate wealth, the government is funded and functions, and the laws are just, who really cares about billionaires? The worst of their excesses will be curbed by rule of law. And it is in the interests of billionaires to be taxed more and to have an uncorrupt government/law in the long term. In the short term, sure they won't make as much money, but long term if reform is unavailable and the average citizen cannot make ends meet, and the laws are corrupt and the government is non-functional, if you tell them to eat cake, they might take your head instead.
And while revolution might be the optimum outcome for some and so might wish to accelerate it, I would dread such a hellscape.
|
United States44269 Posts
It is logically sound that people with money are a better source of taxes than people without money.
It is also logically sound that people with money have more to gain from stable government than people without money.
Somehow we have a group of people who insist that only they should have money but don't see why they should pay all the taxes.
|
On July 12 2026 02:07 Falling wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Here's the neat thing, you don't need to blink billionaires out of existence. Let them make their billions, I don't care. But do tax them a bunch. Not as punishment. Not to make them not billionaires. But simply because that's where you will raise a lot of revenue to run your government. Reverse the Trump tax cuts would be a great start to not keep adding to the debt... if a party still wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility. And then protect the institutions and laws from being corrupted by money. + Show Spoiler +Because as long as the average citizen can generate wealth, the government is funded and functions, and the laws are just, who really cares about billionaires? The worst of their excesses will be curbed by rule of law. And it is in the interests of billionaires to be taxed more and to have an uncorrupt government/law in the long term. In the short term, sure they won't make as much money, but long term if reform is unavailable and the average citizen cannot make ends meet, and the laws are corrupt and the government is non-functional, if you tell them to eat cake, they might take your head instead.
And while revolution might be the optimum outcome for some and so might wish to accelerate it, I would dread such a hellscape. Yeah, that's a popular step for getting put back on the Hamster Wheel.
1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
It's also based on a misunderstanding of US history. The institutions and laws were always "corrupted by money". They were built and written by affluent, genocidal, land stealing, rapist, slavers to protect and expand their wealth.
In that way Trump is a pinnacle manifestation of the actual US ethos.
|
On July 12 2026 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2026 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I am definitely not a fan of billionaires extracting their wealth from other peoples' labor. I also think that even philanthropic billionaires like a Mackenzie Scott or Melinda Gates are a net negative to society: they get an outsized voice on what problems get money spent on, even if I broadly agree with both of those. Much better would be that they pay their money into a public fund and the public decides what societal problems are prioritized. And guess what, we already have a system for that, it's called government and taxes! It really isn't about the individuals or even "billionaires" as a/competing cabal/s. It's a systemic issue where even if you took all their resources and blinked all the billionaires out of existence, the capitalist system would just replace them. It's part of what is setting up Mr. Beast to be a future iteration of Trump while everyone watches it happen. yeah people told me I was crazy the amount of people who tried to tell me that was illegal I was like bro I don't f***ing care https://twitter.com/voidedintern/status/2074121212448358532 Yeah, MrBeast being a future Trump is absolutely something i could see happen. On a side note, i am one of those who believe the human brain is simply not equipped to deal with extreme power or extreme wealth. The moment humanity has invented the means to produce surplus in Mesopotamia, it has been hoarded by competent insane megalomaniac rulers at the expense of everyone else. We haven’t looked back since.
The surplus has been hoarded so much at the expense of everyone else in fact that the poorest in America live better than the kings of Mesopotamia.
|
On July 12 2026 02:53 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2026 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2026 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I am definitely not a fan of billionaires extracting their wealth from other peoples' labor. I also think that even philanthropic billionaires like a Mackenzie Scott or Melinda Gates are a net negative to society: they get an outsized voice on what problems get money spent on, even if I broadly agree with both of those. Much better would be that they pay their money into a public fund and the public decides what societal problems are prioritized. And guess what, we already have a system for that, it's called government and taxes! It really isn't about the individuals or even "billionaires" as a/competing cabal/s. It's a systemic issue where even if you took all their resources and blinked all the billionaires out of existence, the capitalist system would just replace them. It's part of what is setting up Mr. Beast to be a future iteration of Trump while everyone watches it happen. yeah people told me I was crazy the amount of people who tried to tell me that was illegal I was like bro I don't f***ing care https://twitter.com/voidedintern/status/2074121212448358532 Yeah, MrBeast being a future Trump is absolutely something i could see happen. On a side note, i am one of those who believe the human brain is simply not equipped to deal with extreme power or extreme wealth. The moment humanity has invented the means to produce surplus in Mesopotamia, it has been hoarded by competent insane megalomaniac rulers at the expense of everyone else. We haven’t looked back since. The surplus has been hoarded so much at the expense of everyone else in fact that the poorest in America live better than the kings of Mesopotamia.
But somehow not even top 10 in quality of life.. strange with the most gdp per person.
|
United States44269 Posts
On July 12 2026 02:53 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2026 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2026 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I am definitely not a fan of billionaires extracting their wealth from other peoples' labor. I also think that even philanthropic billionaires like a Mackenzie Scott or Melinda Gates are a net negative to society: they get an outsized voice on what problems get money spent on, even if I broadly agree with both of those. Much better would be that they pay their money into a public fund and the public decides what societal problems are prioritized. And guess what, we already have a system for that, it's called government and taxes! It really isn't about the individuals or even "billionaires" as a/competing cabal/s. It's a systemic issue where even if you took all their resources and blinked all the billionaires out of existence, the capitalist system would just replace them. It's part of what is setting up Mr. Beast to be a future iteration of Trump while everyone watches it happen. yeah people told me I was crazy the amount of people who tried to tell me that was illegal I was like bro I don't f***ing care https://twitter.com/voidedintern/status/2074121212448358532 Yeah, MrBeast being a future Trump is absolutely something i could see happen. On a side note, i am one of those who believe the human brain is simply not equipped to deal with extreme power or extreme wealth. The moment humanity has invented the means to produce surplus in Mesopotamia, it has been hoarded by competent insane megalomaniac rulers at the expense of everyone else. We haven’t looked back since. The surplus has been hoarded so much at the expense of everyone else in fact that the poorest in America live better than the kings of Mesopotamia.
That's what you're going with? Two things have happened and therefore one caused the other? The only possible way of improving living standards is giving all the money and power to a handful of oligarchs?
|
3-4000 years of technological advancement means that the poorest people should be happy with their lot in life while they are ruled by their billionaire overlords...
Because it sure isn't their personal wealth that makes their life hypothetically better then Mesopotamian kings.
(and that is before we start discussing if that statement is even correct.)
That sure is a take.
|
On July 12 2026 02:53 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2026 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2026 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I am definitely not a fan of billionaires extracting their wealth from other peoples' labor. I also think that even philanthropic billionaires like a Mackenzie Scott or Melinda Gates are a net negative to society: they get an outsized voice on what problems get money spent on, even if I broadly agree with both of those. Much better would be that they pay their money into a public fund and the public decides what societal problems are prioritized. And guess what, we already have a system for that, it's called government and taxes! It really isn't about the individuals or even "billionaires" as a/competing cabal/s. It's a systemic issue where even if you took all their resources and blinked all the billionaires out of existence, the capitalist system would just replace them. It's part of what is setting up Mr. Beast to be a future iteration of Trump while everyone watches it happen. yeah people told me I was crazy the amount of people who tried to tell me that was illegal I was like bro I don't f***ing care https://twitter.com/voidedintern/status/2074121212448358532 Yeah, MrBeast being a future Trump is absolutely something i could see happen. On a side note, i am one of those who believe the human brain is simply not equipped to deal with extreme power or extreme wealth. The moment humanity has invented the means to produce surplus in Mesopotamia, it has been hoarded by competent insane megalomaniac rulers at the expense of everyone else. We haven’t looked back since. The surplus has been hoarded so much at the expense of everyone else in fact that the poorest in America live better than the kings of Mesopotamia.
You’ve posted a lot of really stupid shit in that thread, but, geez, you are outdoing yourself.
|
On July 12 2026 02:53 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2026 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2026 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I am definitely not a fan of billionaires extracting their wealth from other peoples' labor. I also think that even philanthropic billionaires like a Mackenzie Scott or Melinda Gates are a net negative to society: they get an outsized voice on what problems get money spent on, even if I broadly agree with both of those. Much better would be that they pay their money into a public fund and the public decides what societal problems are prioritized. And guess what, we already have a system for that, it's called government and taxes! It really isn't about the individuals or even "billionaires" as a/competing cabal/s. It's a systemic issue where even if you took all their resources and blinked all the billionaires out of existence, the capitalist system would just replace them. It's part of what is setting up Mr. Beast to be a future iteration of Trump while everyone watches it happen. yeah people told me I was crazy the amount of people who tried to tell me that was illegal I was like bro I don't f***ing care https://twitter.com/voidedintern/status/2074121212448358532 Yeah, MrBeast being a future Trump is absolutely something i could see happen. On a side note, i am one of those who believe the human brain is simply not equipped to deal with extreme power or extreme wealth. The moment humanity has invented the means to produce surplus in Mesopotamia, it has been hoarded by competent insane megalomaniac rulers at the expense of everyone else. We haven’t looked back since. The surplus has been hoarded so much at the expense of everyone else in fact that the poorest in America live better than the kings of Mesopotamia.
Weird how rightwingers complained so much about inflation when Joe Biden was president, where were you to remind them of the bronze age kings?
|
On July 12 2026 02:23 KwarK wrote:
It is logically sound that people with money are a better source of taxes than people without money.
It is also logically sound that people with money have more to gain from stable government than people without money.
Somehow we have a group of people who insist that only they should have money but don't see why they should pay all the taxes.
It seems however that they still do?
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/
Share of Total Income Taxes Paid
Top 1% - 40.4%
Top 5% - 61.0%
Top 10% - 72.0%
Top 25% - 87.2%
Top 50% - 97.0%
Bottom 50% - 3.0%
|
On July 12 2026 05:03 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2026 02:23 KwarK wrote:
It is logically sound that people with money are a better source of taxes than people without money.
It is also logically sound that people with money have more to gain from stable government than people without money.
Somehow we have a group of people who insist that only they should have money but don't see why they should pay all the taxes. It seems however that they still do? https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/Share of Total Income Taxes Paid Top 1% - 40.4% Top 5% - 61.0% Top 10% - 72.0% Top 25% - 87.2% Top 50% - 97.0% Bottom 50% - 3.0%
Top 1% only accounts for about 27% of total tax revenue (not just federal income tax which are the numbers you decided to share).
At the same time, the top 1% have about 35% of the country's wealth.
Seems to me they aren't paying their fair share.
|
On July 12 2026 02:07 Falling wrote:
Here's the neat thing, you don't need to blink billionaires out of existence. Let them make their billions, I don't care. But do tax them a bunch. Not as punishment. Not to make them not billionaires. But simply because that's where you will raise a lot of revenue to run your government. Reverse the Trump tax cuts would be a great start to not keep adding to the debt... if a party still wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility. And then protect the institutions and laws from being corrupted by money.
Because as long as the average citizen can generate wealth, the government is funded and functions, and the laws are just, who really cares about billionaires? The worst of their excesses will be curbed by rule of law. And it is in the interests of billionaires to be taxed more and to have an uncorrupt government/law in the long term. In the short term, sure they won't make as much money, but long term if reform is unavailable and the average citizen cannot make ends meet, and the laws are corrupt and the government is non-functional, if you tell them to eat cake, they might take your head instead.
And while revolution might be the optimum outcome for some and so might wish to accelerate it, I would dread such a hellscape.
I think the more accurate description is that government itself desires to spend more than its means, so even very high taxes on the richest among us would immediately be used to grow the spending to many times the new revenue. It's maybe 1/3 of the goal to raise more revenue; the addition 2/3 is to limit spending. Both parties are bad at limiting spending, one party is worse than the other at raising revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
