tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post501721740363348335..comments2024-03-28T16:08:29.578-04:00Comments on Sardonicky: Tighty Whitie RightiesKaren Garciahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15612731479365562803noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-51557678714329697662014-06-12T18:17:58.394-04:002014-06-12T18:17:58.394-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Zeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-91504975379820043052014-06-12T18:15:28.886-04:002014-06-12T18:15:28.886-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Zeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-77148759518427840322014-06-11T11:35:06.208-04:002014-06-11T11:35:06.208-04:00@Zee
Hi Zee,
I meant the $7 million to be a life...@Zee<br /><br />Hi Zee,<br /><br />I meant the $7 million to be a lifetime wealth maximum, not an annual salary. I think the richest people in the world don't really have "salary;" they just own the exploitation process of people and Earth. So taxing salary is not as effective as taxing wealth.<br /><br />I came up with the $7 million figure by taking what my mom said is enough money for anyone to live well on ($1 million) and I multiplied it by seven. I multiplied $1 million by 7 because I knew whatever figure I came up with would be met with shock and anger by the greedy rich, and I wanted the figure to be enough that no-one could possibly claim hardship if subjected to the figure. $7 million is, like my mom told me about 30 years ago, is 7 times greedier than the most spoiled asses among us should ever accumulate, so the figure is actually an incredible compromise.<br /><br />Continuing to allow the limitless monetary exploitation of people and Earth will destroy our planet. There is not a single mathematical model of unlimited economic growth that allows for the diverse habitability of the planet, not a single model. When people are exposed to this reality, especially economists, they will inevitably say something like, "We have always faced dangers and we have always survived." <br /><br />Saying that we have survived, so we will continue to survive- is not reasoning, it is religion. And excuse me for not wanting your religious beliefs today to determine whether my grandchildren grow up in a war torn environmental disastrous planet.<br /><br />Plus, the people who believe the religion of endless growth and profit are simultaneously some of the greediest and stupidest people on the planet.<br /><br />We currently have capital controls. We can seize the Oligarchs of Russia's money and we can freeze and seize the assets of anyone the government deems to be a Terrorist™. <br /><br />The thing you have overlooked is that the US economy is behaving exactly like a parasite. It rewards horrible behavior, like hedge fund managing and it punishes the shit out of people who work at food kitchens. This economy gives sociopaths like Donald Rumsfeld and Lloyd Blankfein hundreds of millions of dollars and will simultaneously jail someone who tries to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline. We are stealing the planet from future generations and all of the other sentient creatures that share our planet with us. Isaiah Earharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915582508162317710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-88228038945144680732014-06-10T22:04:54.173-04:002014-06-10T22:04:54.173-04:00I think we could do very handily without the 1%; w...I think we could do very handily without the 1%; with a few exceptions they're a highly overrated bunch. One of those exceptions is Warren Buffet, a useful man I think. But so many of the others aren't worth rat shit.<br />Still the job can be done without sending them off to, say Singapore. A beginning would be to get the money out of politics.James F Traynornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-89552338216754321782014-06-10T20:04:52.201-04:002014-06-10T20:04:52.201-04:00@Isaiah Earhart--
As Pearl has remarked, the &quo...@Isaiah Earhart--<br /><br />As Pearl has remarked, the "squillionaires," as you have described them, have probably already squirreled away untold gazillions in wealth in various foreign "countries, islands, mattresses, <i> ad infinitum."</i> <br /><br />So let's say you pass a law to <i> now </i> tax them at the rate of 99% for all income above $7M? <br /><br />Are they really going to care? Or are they just going to turn in their U.S. passports and move to Singapore or Dubai or Brunei or wherever, cut themselves a great deal, and carry on as before?<br /><br />Even if you could <i> find </i> the "untold wealth" that they've already secreted away, how would you get at it, assuming that it was "legally done" under some previous legal loophole? What would you do? Some kind of retroactive "Bill of Attainder," which is explicitly outlawed by the U.S. Constitution? (I'm not saying that I'm an expert on <i> ex post facto </i> law here.) <br /><br />And if you chase off the 0.01-1% from our shores, who's left to tax the bejesus out of to pick the 99% up out of poverty? <br /><br />Personally, I'm not feeling wealthy enough to pick up the slack on my own. <br /><br />Doubtless, I've overlooked something here, but I'm curious to understand exactly WHAT.Zeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-28990276895855501282014-06-10T18:30:11.544-04:002014-06-10T18:30:11.544-04:00@Isaiah Earhart--
Just out of curiousity, how did...@Isaiah Earhart--<br /><br />Just out of curiousity, how did you arrive at the figure of $7M as the figure above which it is "just" to expropriate 99%?<br /><br />Not that I don't agree with you that $7M in annual income should be enough for anyone (it would certainly be more than enough for ME), but you speak with such authority that the number must have some moral basis other than that it makes you feel good?<br /><br />As always, just asking.Zeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-67607840599320532952014-06-10T18:04:59.861-04:002014-06-10T18:04:59.861-04:00Hi Pearl,
We need capital controls, and we need t...Hi Pearl,<br /><br />We need capital controls, and we need to tax all wealth over a certain amount at 99%.<br /><br />I think the amount should be set at about $7 million.<br /><br />If the squillionaires don't like the tax, they can leave, but they can only take $7 million with them. Think about how many sociopaths we could purge ourselves of? Just the thought of all those greedy narcissists leaving makes me smile.Isaiah Earharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915582508162317710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-45319215307787272612014-06-10T16:40:21.847-04:002014-06-10T16:40:21.847-04:00How could we possibly put caps on maximum wealth w...How could we possibly put caps on maximum wealth with all the loopholes now being used to squirrel away ill begotten wealth in various countries, islands, mattresses,ad infinitum. We would have to change the whole system to something better among other things but its worth a try. At least we must try and get a progressive tax system going with strict regulations. It doesn't work too badly in Canada.Pearlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-68624313336379127782014-06-10T13:38:48.030-04:002014-06-10T13:38:48.030-04:00Karen, you are brilliant.
I think it is time to i...Karen, you are brilliant.<br /><br />I think it is time to implement a maximum wage and, more importantly, maximum wealth. The current economic inequality is pushing societal destabilization- rapidly. I believe that the alternative to instituting a maximum wealth will be totalitarianism and ecosystem destruction. <br /><br />It seems that our political duopoly managed by the Oligarchy has chosen the latter for us. Isaiah Earharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915582508162317710noreply@blogger.com