- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
There are some rich people who recognize that higher taxes are actually good for them in the long-term by increasing growth and decreasing income inequality (which in the long-term, leads to rolling heads). But it’s a Prisoner’s Dilemma style situation - if they, as individuals, donate additional wealth to the government, nothing happens except that their own wealth makes a tiny little drip in the ocean, and their competitors then benefit at no cost to themselves. But if the government imposes a uniform levy on them all, then the cost and the benefits are evenly applied, instead of one ‘suffering’ (and I use the term very loosely) and the others slightly benefiting.
My point here isn’t to lionize them, because ultimately most of them are voicing this opinion out of personal interest, not morality. But it is probably a sincerely held personal interest, rather than pantomime.
There are plenty of selfish reasons for everyone to act in solidarity. I don’t care if they do it for moral reasons, just as I don’t give a shit if my neighbor does. They should do it because it’s better for them and it’s better for all of us. Voting for solidarity can be a selfish thing and that needs to be okay too.
Here’s where it feels like pantomime - the comment above you says this
The 2020 election cycle saw $5.7 billion in political spending on the presidency, and $8.7 billion in the congressional races.
Princeton showed policy decision is basically made by wealthy donors. The wealthy are holding the levers by which they WOULD be taxed additionally and are not currently. Polls are virtue signaling, call me when the tax code changes.
Logan Roy is condemning the rich, that’s ironic.
I had to check in the article when I saw the thumbnail because I thought that looked too similar to Brian Cox.
The 2020 election cycle saw $5.7 billion in political spending on the presidency, and $8.7 billion in the congressional races.
Proponents for and against Ohio Issue 1 spent $100 million to promote their respective sides.
The $0.66 stamps affixed to your letters are a start, folks, but they will not save you from the guillotines.
Why is Logan Roy there?
90% not 2 %
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“We are also the people who benefit most from the status quo,” they said in a letter titled Proud to Pay, which they will attempt to deliver to world leaders gathered in Davos in Switzerland on Wednesday.
A new poll of the super-rich shows that 74% support higher taxes on wealth to help address the cost of living crisis and improve public services.
A survey, conducted by Survation on behalf of campaign group Patriotic Millionaires, polled more than 2,300 respondents from G20 countries who hold more than $1m (£790,000) in investable assets, excluding their homes – putting them in the richest 5%.
Guy Singh-Watson, the British farmer-turned-entrepreneur who founded vegetable box delivery company Riverford, said: “This poll seems to show that the whole world, including the richest people, wants to tax the super-rich.
A “modest” 1.7% wealth tax on the richest 140,000 people in the UK could raise more than £10bn to help pay for public services, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) suggested last year.
The richest 250 families in the UK are sitting on combined wealth of £748bn, according to the latest Sunday Times rich list, an increase from £704bn the previous year.
The original article contains 530 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
How do we know this isn’t a smoke screen?
