Page 34 of 60 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 595

Thread: Billionaires Blast off

  1. Top | #331
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,511
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    41,064
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    But without the private sector that research does not become products and services you can actually use.
    That is only because the government gives the technology away.

    It is not free enterprise. It is crony capitalism.

    But the government can build a space shuttle.

    It can easily build a phone.

  2. Top | #332
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    26,014
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    29,048
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post

    Maybe not in an authoritarian State, but in a representative democracy, it does should.
    It doesn't change the fact that you're playing tax-the-outgroup.
    That's because the outgroup isn't paying taxes the way the ingroup is.
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

  3. Top | #333
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    26,014
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    29,048
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post

    How much progress is being hindered by most of the country being poorly paid and only a few billionaires making progress for their own ends? There are smart people in all walks of life that could make technological progress if they had the means and the time.
    Define progress?
    What kind of a bullshit question is that?

    This is a meaning of life question. I'm a socialist, because too great income differences leads to social and political instability. But I'm NOT socialist because I'm jealous of rich people. Rich people pushing the boundaries of the possible has historically been a great engine for progress and innovation. As is practical thingy's making life easier for the poor. We don't have to chose. We can, with today's technology, make everybody prosperous. It's within our means. But if we just take from the rich and give to the poor, then everybody ends up poor. It's not a viable option.
    Prove it. You seem to think it's a zero sum game.

    And you live in Denmark. It makes me wonder if you know what life is like for the working class in the US.
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

  4. Top | #334
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,511
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    41,064
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Prove it. You seem to think it's a zero sum game.
    What does that even mean?

    What people want is protections for the most vulnerable and those least able to protect themselves from the amoral inequities and exploitation of capitalism.

  5. Top | #335
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,930
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,836
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post

    What kind of a bullshit question is that?

    This is a meaning of life question. I'm a socialist, because too great income differences leads to social and political instability. But I'm NOT socialist because I'm jealous of rich people. Rich people pushing the boundaries of the possible has historically been a great engine for progress and innovation. As is practical thingy's making life easier for the poor. We don't have to chose. We can, with today's technology, make everybody prosperous. It's within our means. But if we just take from the rich and give to the poor, then everybody ends up poor. It's not a viable option.
    Prove it. You seem to think it's a zero sum game.

    And you live in Denmark. It makes me wonder if you know what life is like for the working class in the US.
    Oh, yeah, the rich really cared about their workers during the early days of the industrial revolution with 12 hour days and horrendous conditions for very little pay. Such compassion.

  6. Top | #336
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    26,014
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    29,048
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Prove it. You seem to think it's a zero sum game.
    What does that even mean?

    What people want is protections for the most vulnerable and those least able to protect themselves from the amoral inequities and exploitation of capitalism.
    It means the pie is almost always growing. Not static, as Dr Z seems to think. The rich however are taking huge chunks of that pie. The irony is is that if worker remuneration were better, the upper classes could still do great, having more customers to sell their goods and services to.

    But that's not good enough for them. So they fund think tanks to fight against unionization and for lower taxes for themselves. They fund ALEC that actually writes anti-labor laws and anti-tax laws and anti-regulation laws for the Republicans to introduce. They fight regulations in the courts systems.

    They may throw a little pittance to a charity here and there so they can call themselves philanthropists, but they're still just greedy capitalists.
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

  7. Top | #337
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    20,700
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    36,386
    Rep Power
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    But the government can build a space shuttle.
    It can easily build a phone.
    Then why didn't the governments in actually existing socialist countries do that?
    Without all the capitalist parasites to crony up the whole thing, USSR in the 80s should have had the world-best mobile phone network and phones that put Nokia to shame. Why didn't they?

  8. Top | #338
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    20,700
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    36,386
    Rep Power
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    That's because the outgroup isn't paying taxes the way the ingroup is.
    47% of Americans, as Mitt Romney famously pointed out, pay no (or negative) federal income taxes.
    On the other hand, Bezos paid almost a billion dollars over a five year period, Musk paid almost half a billion. I guess a 900 million is less than 0 in woke math.

    The outgroup is paying all the same taxes the ingroup is paying, i.e. on income - salaries and capital gains, but at higher rates and with no EITC and other "refundable credits".
    The Left want them to pay additional taxes on wealth (Warren, Sanders) or unrealized capital gains (that ProPublica hit piece) that the ingroup would not be subject to.

  9. Top | #339
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,465
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    16,120
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    That's because the outgroup isn't paying taxes the way the ingroup is.
    47% of Americans, as Mitt Romney famously pointed out, pay no (or negative) federal income taxes.
    On the other hand, Bezos paid almost a billion dollars over a five year period, Musk paid almost half a billion. I guess a 900 million is less than 0 in woke math.

    The outgroup is paying all the same taxes the ingroup is paying, i.e. on income - salaries and capital gains, but at higher rates and with no EITC and other "refundable credits".
    The Left want them to pay additional taxes on wealth (Warren, Sanders) or unrealized capital gains (that ProPublica hit piece) that the ingroup would not be subject to.
    Where did you get that information re: Bezos' tax payments?

    Because that's not what the IRS says:

    https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...-income-taxes/

    Bezos, chief executive of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, paid $973 million in taxes on $4.22 billion in income, as his wealth soared by $99 billion, resulting in a 0.98% “true tax rate.”

    Bezos filed a tax return in 2011 reporting he lost money because of bad investments, allowing him to claim and receive a $4,000 tax credit for his children, according to ProPublica.
    According to ProPublica, Bezos managed to not pay any taxes some years:

    https://www.propublica.org/article/t...oid-income-tax

    That $900M that Bezos paid? That was a federal tax rate of 0.98%

  10. Top | #340
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    20,700
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    36,386
    Rep Power
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Canard DuJour View Post
    The problem is ultra-rich individuals who don't want to pay taxes
    Nobody particularly wants to pay taxes. But they do pay taxes.

    and don't want the govt to spend without taxing.
    If you spend more than you take in, you either have to borrow or inflate the money supply, or both. Both are dangerous to rely too much on, so-called "Modern Monetary Theory" notwithstanding.

    Individuals who are so rich they can buy govt policies.
    Not really. Bezos could not even build HQ2 in Queens because a certain idiot congresswoman objected.

    They are a big part of why something like the Apollo programme is no longer politically possible.
    Something like the Apollo program is not politically possible because of what politicians (and their constituents) want, not because Bezos et al are not paying a wealth tax.
    If Warren's tax plan were to pass, the Biden administration would not spend the extra ca. $300G that it may bring in on increasing the NASA budget but on the Biden administration priorities that help those whom they see as their constituency - free child/elder care, increased child tax credits, perhaps cancelling $50k in student debts for poetry or art history graduates of some small private liberal arts college.

    If Bezos and Musk were not in this space, nobody would be.

    Or why we think we "can't afford" to tackle the existential threat of climate change.
    As I said before, Musk creating Tesla did far more to combat climate change than all the resolutions AOC and the rest of the Squad proposed in Congress.
    Her "Green New Deal" is not only ridiculously expensive (not even a small fraction of the $60T price tag could be funded even by stealing all the wealth of US billionaires ~($4.5T)!) but most of it (e.g. federal job guarantees) have nothing to do with climate. It is similar to Dems' $6T (later reduced to $3.5T) boondoggle that has the "infrastructure" moniker, but has nothing to do with infrastructure. The actual infrastructure spending i (almost) entirely contained in the much smaller bipartisan bill that may or may not go anywhere.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •