Lefties trying to understand Smaug
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (61)
sorted by:
Not sure why the right feels compelled to simp for billionaires, who are largely truly awful people, but this meme just shows a lack of understanding of basic economics.
It's not so simple. Since they almost always hold their money in stock, you can't just "tax" it without destroying the economy. Billionaires all having to sell off a large portion of stock to pay taxes would destroy the stock market.
Similar things have actually happened in history. There was I believe a Roman tax that was essentially a net worth tax on landowners. So what happened? All the land owners had to sell all at once, crashing the prices & destroying real estate values. A small number of ultra-rich were able to take advantage of the situation to vastly increase their wealth by buying low. There was enormous economic damage, the taxes raised were far less than expected, and the result was greater wealth inequality.
Liberals always think they can just make shit happen through force of will, but they're fucking stupid and they always fuck things up. And even though my story comes from over 2000 years ago, the socialist dumbfucks still try to do it today.
My solution is death & gift taxes. Let the billionaires have their money. Once they die, then the government can feast on the corpse of the estate. I couldn't give less of a shit that Paris Hilton doesn't get to inherit billions, and I don't think taking away dead hand control of money would negatively impact risk taking and innovation at all.
No. Fuck no. Jesus christ almighty NO. Death taxes are literally the worst form of tax. Corporations don't fucking die. But mom & pop sole proprietorship shop owners do. What you're suggesting is more of what is already killing small agriculture and consolidating power in the hands of less than a dozen agricultural conglomerates. It's incredible how you can bring up that story and not connect dots about what your proposal would do.
Corporations die all the time by going bankrupt, at around 25 years on average. So most of them die earlier than people do.
In capitalism a corporation is a measure of meritocracy; if it outcompetes other companies it continues, if it gets fat and inefficient and makes poor decisions then it dies.
Look at Disney or Anheuser-Busch - they're doing everything in their power to die by making bad decisions.
What you're objecting to is capitalism where the meritocracy has been removed, like ours today. For example, consolidation eats the small proprietors instead of the other way around because the small ones can't succeed by being better, higher quality, more efficient because the large players just keep them off the shelves. Even a medium sized RC Cola can't compete with Coca-Cola because anti-competitive practices keep it off the shelves or very limited quantity.
Corporations do not pay a death tax every time the farm changes hands. If you do not see the difference there is literally no point in conversing with you.
That sounds like a great opportunity.
Not that I support it, because I don't think it's good policy, even though it does hurt billionaires.
Yeah, it's not exactly unlikely. And I think that many on the left are economically illiterate. That said, the right calling billionaires 'job-creators' and decent people is also cringe. It is possible to oppose counterproductive policies without praising them.
That was the cancer that was introduced into politics by the French Revolution: the belief in forcing through social and historical development through violence and terror.
Interesting, because the GOP has always attacked the estate tax. But does this not replicate your earlier concern? Imagine if Elon owns 70% of Tesla and then drops dead. If the government seizes it and then sells it, wouldn't it cause Tesla to crash and burn?
Yes because rich old donors literally paid them to. I don't think the same dynamic exists now because the issues have shifted so much. Republicans have to contend with populism now, and death taxes only affect the rich. R donors have much bigger problems to worry about than death taxes.
That said, I don't expect any legislation on death taxes. One of the problems with death taxes is that unless you're a communist, it doesn't produce revenues immediately. You need to wait. Congress is likely to assfuck our economy & debt to the point where they need to raise taxes in an emergency fashion.
No because the Fed already has trillions in stock on its books & buys & sells them. The Government would not have to sell any stock immediately. It could slowly sell it off over time.
Since people don't all die at once, the government liquidating assets from death taxes would be a trickle, instead of a tsunami hitting all at once.
Ah, well, as much as I like to call you a GOP partisan, you dissent from the GOP elite on some important points - for the better.
The good thing about death taxes is that it deprives billionaires. The bad thing about them is that it gives money to the government.
It doesn't matter how much money the government sucks up - it's always looking for more. I know this from personal experience. Countries that raised the age of retirement just threw the savings into 'climate change' idiocy.
I'm not an 'End the Fed' kind of guy, but I was very shocked when I discovered that the Fed buys stocks. How much of the current economy is just a bubble?
They base their world view on "owning the libtards."
>Standing against terrible logic means standing with those being criticised
Ah, binary thinking.
It's leftist policy that enables and empowers corporations. I will never agree with a post like this because agreeing implicitly requires agreeing with the idea of using the state to control companies as a whole, which ALWAYS fuck over the public and not the company. This is how you get companies that are "too big to fail", because the state will continually bail out these failures, because they need those jobs or want to protect their continually failing investment.
Billionaires and rampant wealth inequality is a result of leftist, statist policy. And what's amazing is that statists of all flavours will still support it without even fucking realising it.
The corps also act as powerful vanguards of states interests worldwide. Korea realized this when Samsung dominated the global smartphone market and they started changing the laws on their behalf. It's not only regulatory capture to help "capitalist fat cats", but a way to strengthen your nation's trading power and prestige. The US does it with all its largest multinats, as do other countries. The Corporation and the State are one in the same.
Yup. Which is why anyone who wants to stand against corporations should be standing against those that seek to monopolise power, AKA the state. Corporations can only exist through the state. Without the state, free trade is possible and businesses of all levels are on the same footing.
And contrary to the squeals from retards about historical examples, like the East India Company, the reality is that such enterprises were first and foremost bankrolled by the state, for the state.
And it's still the case to this day. Look at the companies that have the most leeway in swaying public opinion, namely social media companies, and all the major players are HEAVILY involved with state agents and/or funding. These are not private entities, they're state entities. It's not rich vs poor. Not corporation vs public. It's not even left vs right. It's the state vs the people. And those that object to stating said reality almost always seek to use the state against the innocent for their personal goals. And sure, many of those goals are noble, but at the end of the day, the argument still boils down to whether or not you believe that the ends justify the means. And in my experience, the statist always believes that it does.
Simp for? The only way I'm giving them money is when they get my tax dollars, and I don't have a lot of choice about that.