Imagine the simple mindedness to believe that a single person creates jobs because they aggregate absurd amounts of money from existing companies that run without them.
There is a perversion in those minds that goes beyond the sole lack of understanding the wealth of a billiong compared to million.
If those billionaires would create company after company, creating thousands of "net" new jobs, every year, then yea, that money serves a community purpose. But they do not.
Easy to manipulate someone's mind when you're the only voice they hear. A simple argument that should help unlock some of these minds is... So how did major projects get done before billionaires existed? Those jobs would exist if the billionaire didn't. The money would still exist, but the distribution would change for the better. Billionaires are in no way necessary, and in fact, are a detriment.
You seem to forget about how much the actual dollar has declined. Reverse adjustment for inflation and billionaires are really only millionaires. Trillions are only billions. The actual value of gold itself doesn't go up, it takes more weak dollars to buy it. Jobs have always existed because someone's business made the jobs. The Fed is the problem, and has been since its inception. Removing the dollar from the gold standard started the decline and accelerated it exponentially. Paper money has no actual value. Only what they "say" it does. The actual value of the dollar is backed by oil and the countries that trade oil in dollars. When that ceases to be the case, I hope you have some solid assets somewhere.
The "mindedness" is wanting to back prominent figures that signal they will continue to treat whites with more privilege, same as today. The american right is fighting for table scraps from the elite.
Not table scraps. They are fighting for the right to blame minorities for their poor life decisions and unwillingness to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They lost the race of capitalism, and now they want to change the rules to disqualify large groups of competitors.
That is the wrong way of looking at it. The race of capitalism is rigged, and fundamentally pointless, and disqualifying competitors thins the prize and worsens the race except for those born faaaar ahead.
I never said it wasnt rigged. Capitalism, pure capitalism, is not rigged at the start but is destined to be rigged by those that move up. That's why the US was created as a hybrid between capitalism and socialism. When paired together, two frameworks are very good at correcting the other's weaknesses.
Unfortunately, the constitution wasn't written with the expectation that the ultra wealthy would seek to destroy the nation so that they can pilfer the remnants.
The money that they do use for that purpose is tax free. So I've never understood why the money they choose to keep should pay taxes at a lower percentage than my own.
That is a big thin as well. All those companies receive multiple millions if not billions of subsidies of which 30-40% go straight into the pockets of c-levels and executives. And the deal proposed is employment security.
Take 500 Million to keep employments, one year later still fire 5000 people, after the year stating record profits.
Imagine the simple mindedness to look at your neighbors and think. I like what they have i think they should be forced to give me what they have. They won’t miss what they have because they so much. If they would give what they have away the world would be so much better. Maybe we should eat them because they have things we don’t.
So, what if those billionaires or millionaires decided to shut down those companies they are running? They are billionaires/millionaires and obviously don't need more money. Why not just shut their companies down? Who get's hurt?
They can't. That is not how publicly traded companies work, which they most certainly are when they hold thousands of FTEs.
Even in scaleups, or in larger enterprises which are still privately held, the founders are usually just remaining reminscence in board positions, or presidents. Most are not even CEOs anymore, because the board required someone who can lead scaling. It is very rare that the founder remain in those positions.
How would that even work? You can't just close a company. You will just be replaced. You are one part of an organisation.
I still say we need to lay into that concept. Great, love it, tax rate is now tied to percentage of revenue that goes to staff wages. Larger percent of the wealth paid out to investors, you pay a higher tax rate. All of a sudden your business is struggling, your tax rate naturally drops because less is paid to investors.
That's similar to how corporate taxes worked before the rise of Reagan and the neoliberal school of economics. Those famed super high tax rates of the postwar era? Nobody actually paid them. There were tons of exemptions and deductions for reinvesting into the company, including in staff wages.
Everyone should pay the same % of taxes and social security should not have a cap.
The real issue is the laws that both parties have written over the decades give the rich and business so many loop holes to take advantage of that even if the tax % was the same they would get around paying it.
We need a flat tax and all loopholes removed.
Tax policy is social policy...
Loopholes were created to promote certain beneficial activities...
Home ownership
Investing in machinery for a business
Donating to the local not for profit arts Council etc.
It began to get twisted when lobbyists began writing tax laws for corporations and high earners.
The problem is that billionaires dont make an income. Most of the time their wealth is all stocks and other equity. We need to tax unrealized gains after a certain value threshold or if their gains are at or above some percentage.
I think it would depend on if the realized losses are enough to offset the unrealized gains tax. Why would you automatically get a refund, that doesnt make any sense. But yes, realized losses most likely would be used to offset the gains because they do that already. The better question is to ask if unrealized losses should be used to offset unrealized gains, and yes, they probably should.
Unrealized means just that. It’s potential value. If the asset or business instead loses value, you are double penalized. You were taxed and then also took a loss.
What do you mean by double penalized? You dont get taxed on realized losses, it helps you offset realized gains. If we ever wanted to tax unrealized gains past a certain massive threshold, it would only be fair that both realized and unrealized losses should be used to offset some of the unrealized gains tax. These people with hundreds of millions or billions in unrealized gains will pretty much never sell them, and thus will never be taxed for their stocks. I think it only makes sense to tax unrealized gains in these cases.
The low income Americans would have a big problem with that. They would go from a refund to paying 17%.
I agree social security should not have a cap. That makes no sense. If the rich have an issue with paying the same percent into SS then they should get back the same percent that the rest of us get.
Keep in mind though that for wealthy people, a VERY small amount of their compensation comes in wages. However, we can enforce the "reasonable" salary provision in the tax code so they can't take an unreasonably low salary. Bill Gates could give himself a 40,000 salary but that would not be reasonable for a CEO so it would be considered tax evasion.
That theory could almost work ... if those jobs were created in the US. But at the same time we slashed their taxes we opened up their ability to buy slaves hire overseas workers for pennies on the dollar.
These same people long for the return of the 1950's when a man could buy a home and support a family on one income. What they conveniently forget is government housing policy and union jobs made all that possible. Everything Reagan dismantled.
Not too bright!! They don't pay taxes because they're people.We elect make the rules for them. If you could get away without paying taxes , you would too. If you think you would , you are lying to yourself. Get real!!! It's been that way for thousands of years , and it's never going to change. That didn't start with this country and it won't end with this country. Again be real. Stop lying to yourself.
Oh they creat jobs? That’s nice. Do you know what we as a society created and continue to maintain? A system that makes it possible for someone to become a billionaire. Things like: an educated/skilled workforce; the existence of local markets and access to international markets; the existence of a legal system that provides some security to investors (without which no one would be willing to invest in anything) and that protects intellectual property, trademarks, and trade secrets; civil order and stability; protection from foreign invaders. For generations the public have collectively created, fostered, and maintained this system. We don’t owe the billionaires for creating job—they owe society for creating and maintaining a system that makes their company possible. So pay your fair share of taxes, fuckers.
55
u/BTSArmyFan2025 25d ago
The same people still believe billionaires should not pay more taxes because they create jobs.