I hope this works. The only way to save the economy and the society is by taxing the rich.
Think about it for a minute. The rich people hoard all the resources, financial assets, means of production and in the competition for resources they will (and are doing so) displace everyone else in the economy (and really from society also).
This means that those who are displaced have no means to participate in the economy. And not only that but also they will be pushed to the fringes of the society and exists in slum conditions. This will stiff the economy and hollow it out.
Let's say for arguments sake that the government taxes X hundred of millions of $ from the bezos/musks/gates/etc. and put that into the economy by
- indirectly or directly hiring people
- building infrastructure
- providing services for the citizens (education, health care etc)
- providing benefits to those who need.
All that money will immediately go back into the economy stimulating all kinds of economic activity. And essentially two weeks later that same X hundred million is back in the bank account of bezos/musk/gates and it can be taxed again!
By letting the uber rich hoard the wealth that wealth is essentially away from the economy providing very little economic activity.
In economy this is known as the "high propensity to spend". The "poor" (i.e. working/middle class people) have high propensity to spend, the rich have low propensity to spend.
Tax the wealth, not the work!
This has been done before and it can be done again!
Really rich people don't have a lot of money, they have a lot of assets that are considered to be worth a lot of money, typically companies. Companies are work. If you make the big owners ask for higher dividends, you tax the work indirectly.
You could of course tax the non-work wealth. Most of that is home ownership, few home owners consider themselves rich.
I wish these kind of comments were backed by some numbers. European welfare states are paid for by taxes on the middle class. The wealthy already pay taxes disproportionately and taxing the wealth itself has an obvious problem, it's stock not flow, so given government spending it will last you a few years at best. Then what?
The way to fix the economy is to bring one metric back to what it was when the economy supposed ly worked in the past - per capital government spending
Spending money doesn't grow the economy; the economy grows by saving and investment. Punishing people who successfully save and invest by giving money to people who prefer to spend everything they earn leads to less savings and investment, and lower economic growth, as the poor economic conditions of Brazil and Spain demonstrate.
Rich people don't "hoard" the means of production, they create it. Confiscatory policies lead to less business creation; if Gates, Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg and Page had not had the wealth to create the businesses that made them billionaires, those businesses wouldn't exist, the jobs and products they create wouldn't exist. Europe demonstrates this empirically with its complete lack of any big tech companies, a result of its hostile policies and cultural attitudes to entrepreneurship.
It won't. Richest people in the world are exceedingly wealth, but they're not that wealthy. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be taxed, they should, and much harder than is currently the case. We should move to remove the loop holes used and abused to make people like Bezos appear poor, in the eyes of the tax authorities, but it won't move much in terms of monetary value, because they're not that wealthy.
Let's tax Zuckerberg half of his wealth, that's roughly 2% of the US budget. That's a lot, but you can only do that once, maybe twice. You can certainly tax the wealthiest enough to fund quite a bit and if you pick the right things you can do a lot of good. It's just not enough to reshape society, which seems to be what most think would happen.
What I see as the biggest issue is the amount of societal damage these people are willing to do to amass their fortunes. I don't even care that Bezos is worth $250 billon, if he didn't exploit workers and deliberately destroys other business to accumulate that wealth. Same with Zuckerberg, he can be as rich as he likes, but he can't build that wealth of spying on users and generally being a dick. Musk... He can build all the cars and rockets he like, but stop undermining democracy through financial means.
Taxing billionaires hard won't stop their bad behaviour.
In modern societies:
top 1% of earners pay roughly 30% of taxes
top 5% pay 65% of taxes
top 10% pay 80% of taxes
while bottom 50% usually barely make 2% of taxes.
Heavy redistribution of wealth is already in place and it's not making things better.
I think increased automation and now AI are making wealth inequality problems inherently worse.
The existence (and prevalence) of food delivery work alone is a depressing portent in my view: If delivering food for objectively shitty pay is still a viable option for a lot of people, that signals to me that human labor has become borderline worthless (even in a wealthy/developed environment).
That makes the "american dream" (=> start from nothing, do a good job, become wealthy) increasingly less realistic.
I'm also afraid that this (preventing wealth inequality from getting out-of-control) might be a "practically unsolvable" problem for democracies in general (just like managing housing and public pensions): It is too easy to "sabotage" democratic progress for the negatively affected minority (and that minority is exceedingly powerful/well-positioned, too).
Automation is great and has made things undeniably better. In the 1800s, 30% of the US GDP was tree cutting. https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1939912893102760063 Before automation, nearly everyone was involved with agriculture. Today is much better.
Anything that increases productivity per person creates a potential for increasing wealth inequality, because the more each person can create, the more can be taken away from them by someone else. Pre-agricultural societies generally tend to be very egalitarian with no clear economic elites, but you start to see the wealthy elite class manifest in those of them where even without agriculture per-person yield is so high (e.g. PNW Salish) that it's possible for a few people to live off the surplus generated by the rest. Agriculture gives a massive boost to yields, and all societies that went down that route quickly lost their original egalitarianism. AI is just another step down the same road.
But note that this is a potential, not an inevitable outcome. This outcome is more likely because there is a positive feedback loop at play here: if you can somehow force people who generate wealth with their labor to surrender part of that wealth to you, you can use those resources to improve your ability to forcibly exploit others (e.g. by hiring more armed goons in a primitive society, or by bribing politicians who pass laws that are ultimately enforced by "public servant" goons in a more advanced society like ours). Simply put, wealth can buy power, and the resulting increase in power disparity can be used to extract more wealth from the people producing it. Thus the natural trend of technological advancement is towards income inequality ... but a society can still go against the current, it just takes a lot more effort on behalf of the citizenry.
Considering how everything is rigged in favor for the rich I don't have high hopes for this. But it would be great if they really come up with a system that makes sense and offers equal tax regimes for everybody. Right now if I'm not mistaken in Spain the most taxed people (in terms of ratio) are those who earn < ~300K per year.
> Right now if I'm not mistaken in Spain the most taxed people (in terms of ratio) are those who earn < ~300K per year.
You are mistaken. Currently, the higher income you have here, the higher tax rate you have, where the highest tax rate on income sits at 47%, which you get hit by when your income is above 300K/year. People between 60K and 300K sits at 45%.
And then there are regional differences, someone in Andalucía don't pay the same amount of taxes as someone who lives in Catalunya for example, where the top tax rate is 50%.
Even taking into account other taxes we have, you still end up paying more in taxes the more you earn, unless you start engaging in schemes to lessen your tax burden, obviously. Although the social security is capped, so it does increase slower once you go beyond the cap, but it doesn't start regressing which your comment hinted at.
Edit: important to note that the tax rates are all marginal tax rates, maybe that was a bit unclear.
Germany technically has a wealth tax. However, it is supended since 1997, because the methods of how real estate wealth was calculated were outdated and thus considered unconsittutional.
Tax is not collected, but the supporting law has never been revoked.
Interestingly, the court order in question demanded that real estate should be taxed higher than the status quo - instead, the conservative government decided not to collect that tax at all any more.
Wikipedia claims that this decision was partly due to the max tax rate being at 53% at the time. Today, it has dropped to 42%, but for some strange reason, the wealth tax has never been reinstated.
I've replied to a comment with this but I'll leave it here.
Reducing inequality in Brazil (even a tiny amount) is a DEAD SIMPLE problem that is not in any way related to the government taking more money from people (rich or poor), but, rather, in taking LESS money:
> The collection of federal taxes on the reserve base, shows that of the amount collected by the IRS of Brazil, the majority of the taxes are based on consumption, with approximately 53% on average of the funds raised by Revenue Federal Brazil and continue accounting for more than half of tax (52%) charged by the agency. This tax structure is even more perverse when we add the taxes collected at the state and municipal levels, which bring in the largest source of revenue. The tax burden on consumption is regressive. In Brazil those who earn up to twice the minimum wage spend 26% of their income to pay indirect taxes, while the tax burden for families with income higher than 30 times the minimum wage amounts to only 7%. Excessive taxation on consumption depresses demand directly affecting the economy, reducing the consumption of the middle and lower income families.
We're talking about a country where minimum wage is 260ish dollars a month, and a macbook costs TWICE what it costs in the US, where people make much more. We're structured in a way where only rich people have access to anything. You can tax said rich people more, but they'll just keep being the ones that can afford anything at all.
Yeah Brazil's issue isn't that it isn't taxing its people enough. As usual these things always just go after the middle class and sort people into destitute vs rich buckets. IE they exacerbate inequality.
The super-rich don't stay rich by just sitting on their money, they invest it.
These countries should focus on encouraging investment there - by getting rid of bureaucracy and red tape, make it possible to hire across the whole EU a lot easier, without needing separate tax registration in every country, etc.
Lower the barriers to entry wherever possible - no long application processes for developments with endless consultations, no arbitrary minority language or qualification requirements, etc.
Income inequality is a good thing, but there needs to be equal access to education and opportunities and the lowest barriers to entry possible.
This is not so much about income inequality, but about making sure that the rich actually pay their taxes, or even more proportionally to their wealth when compared to lower income individuals.
Rich people will and should continue to exist. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is take advantage of loopholes and tax breaks just because they're wealthy. That alone should indirectly lead to lowering inequality, and, assuming we can trust that governments work efficiently and in equal interest of all their citizens (which is hardly a given), it should lead to a fair(er) distribution of wealth, instead of a growth of inequality.
In any case, it's easy to be cynical about this news, but it's a step in the right direction on paper. In stark contrast to what is happening in the US, for example.
Is this not the same trickle down mantra that has been pushed across developed countries for decades and has only widened the gap between rich and poor? In the US, where this line was pursued since the 80s, real wages for most Americans have stagnated while the top 20% have seen their wealth increase astronomically. Merely improving the regulatory and investment climate for a country does not magically benefit most citizens in a society -- thoughtful taxation is one to correct that.
The rich people are stiffling the economy and displacing a large swath of working people. This process will hollow out the economy and produce more poverty and more inequality.
For the wealthy people there are two ways to invest.
1. Invest in passive assets such as stock market, property, valuable items, gold etc.
2. Invest in new businesses.
What are they doing? Mostly 2. How do we know. Simple.. look at the real economies. The western economies are growing (barely) at around 1-2% per year. The wealthy (since pandemic) grow their wealth at 10-20% per year. Where is this growth coming from? Certainly not from new business development since the real economy is not growing. The only way it can come is by taking a bigger slice of the pie, i.e. displacing middle class by subsuming their wealth.
This is harmful to the economy and will lead to the collapse of the economy and the society.
They invest and then they extract ridiculous rents from their investments - leading to widespread burnout, perfectly fine businesses being closed and employees being laid off because they don't give double-digit returns, empty shop spaces because it would diminish their value to lower the rent, excessive appartement rents, etc.
And an economy oriented only along the wishes of the super-rich.
Money is the way you "vote" into the economy, and the more money is in the hands of a few, the less the economy actually adresses the needs of the many.
We've seen effectively zero interest rates for longer than many can remember. If there's no investment it's not because of lack of capital but because of lack of optimism. When generationally rich do invest in something outside the safe game of landlordship (which is primarily defined by limited supply making chart lines point northeast just by merit of more capital joining the game) it's usually not because of n aeed or greed, but because they already have so much invested in the easy game that they feel a desire to risk some tiny fraction of it in something more exciting.
Actually, there are plans to tax international investments at 1% [1] (i.e., making more money with money). This will basically stop bets on currency or commodities on the stock exchanges. Besides that, inheritance and wealth tax are also interesting fields for a regulation.
A lot of EU countries have enormous tax breaks for the rich.
There is a consensus that non-dom status (basically rich foreigners, very broadly defined, pay hardly any tax) in the UK needs to go. The main point made by people opposing this is that they can easily move to a number European (mostly EU) countries that have similar schemes and still only be a short flight away from the UK.
BRICS is just an acronym, it is void of any meaningful significance other than that.
Edit: "oh but it's an actual organization" yeah with still very little significance between pretending it's anything but a convenient proxy for the bigger members
Forcing rich people to invest in low return area might be better strategy. If they know how to make money productive, they can make that area grow faster so that gdp can grow faster.
This will ensure rich people money grows at higher rate only if gdp grows.
Asking government to manage money is very in efficient.
Like I said elsewhere, virtue signaling is moving the Overton window. It works pretty well for the alt-right, so we know it is working.
Reading the press release shows me that Spain and Brazil are aware that this is a hard problem. They are especially aware that a nation, or two nations, alone cannot solve it, thus they suggest a "global registry", which is basically a "abolish tax havens" again. Let's see how far we get this time, I wish them all the best.
Brazilian government is dumb as hell, just tax everything and waste money with idiot things and a lot of corruption, tax the rich will make then flee to another country like Arab Emirates or USA, so more money for then, less for the country, extremely common L of the Workers Party
Trevor Noah had a good take on the absurdity of stocks and unrealised gains with their Schrödinger's-cat-like qualities: https://youtu.be/Gqlbn2nPO-A?t=84
How are they going to do this? If they increase the tax burden on people's salaries, they'll start working informally (I live in Brazil and currently see that people look for various ways to escape income tax, whether by opening a company or choosing not to register formally (and they're not rich, but the state considers them rich, even earning ~$32k per year)). If they force companies to pay, the tax burden will be diluted into products/services, falling on the poorest. The right path is to reduce the size of the state - these policies will only make life worse for the poor. In a world with scarce resources, this problem has no solution.
The state is the solution to this type of problem. Reducing the size of the state only serves to take resources away from democratic control and into the hands of private entities.
Yeah, socialism always works. Look how well the retribution of wealth did for the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, even Russia today.
Socialism isn't the answer.
If you take away the individual rewards of success you are awarded with "SUCK-N-EXCESS,"
Look at some successful societies: Japan, New Zealand, Germany. Not socialist. Success was rewarded and societies benefited.
Absolutely? Wealthy Must Be Accountable Regardless Super Rich Lifestyle, Generosity Spreads Hopefully With Help!!! Mankind Needs Sensible Solutions Rich Or Poorer, Taxes Finance Programs For All People Needy?
If the rich won't run away, then Spain and Brazil don't need global action. They could just jack up taxes on the rich in their own countries. And since you've now pinky sworn that the rich will stay and pay the extra taxes, it won't have any adverse effects domestically.
[+] [-] samiv|9 months ago|reply
Think about it for a minute. The rich people hoard all the resources, financial assets, means of production and in the competition for resources they will (and are doing so) displace everyone else in the economy (and really from society also).
This means that those who are displaced have no means to participate in the economy. And not only that but also they will be pushed to the fringes of the society and exists in slum conditions. This will stiff the economy and hollow it out.
Let's say for arguments sake that the government taxes X hundred of millions of $ from the bezos/musks/gates/etc. and put that into the economy by
All that money will immediately go back into the economy stimulating all kinds of economic activity. And essentially two weeks later that same X hundred million is back in the bank account of bezos/musk/gates and it can be taxed again!By letting the uber rich hoard the wealth that wealth is essentially away from the economy providing very little economic activity.
In economy this is known as the "high propensity to spend". The "poor" (i.e. working/middle class people) have high propensity to spend, the rich have low propensity to spend.
Tax the wealth, not the work!
This has been done before and it can be done again!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
[+] [-] Arnt|9 months ago|reply
You could of course tax the non-work wealth. Most of that is home ownership, few home owners consider themselves rich.
[+] [-] sershe|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] logicchains|9 months ago|reply
Rich people don't "hoard" the means of production, they create it. Confiscatory policies lead to less business creation; if Gates, Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg and Page had not had the wealth to create the businesses that made them billionaires, those businesses wouldn't exist, the jobs and products they create wouldn't exist. Europe demonstrates this empirically with its complete lack of any big tech companies, a result of its hostile policies and cultural attitudes to entrepreneurship.
[+] [-] mrweasel|9 months ago|reply
It won't. Richest people in the world are exceedingly wealth, but they're not that wealthy. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be taxed, they should, and much harder than is currently the case. We should move to remove the loop holes used and abused to make people like Bezos appear poor, in the eyes of the tax authorities, but it won't move much in terms of monetary value, because they're not that wealthy.
Let's tax Zuckerberg half of his wealth, that's roughly 2% of the US budget. That's a lot, but you can only do that once, maybe twice. You can certainly tax the wealthiest enough to fund quite a bit and if you pick the right things you can do a lot of good. It's just not enough to reshape society, which seems to be what most think would happen.
What I see as the biggest issue is the amount of societal damage these people are willing to do to amass their fortunes. I don't even care that Bezos is worth $250 billon, if he didn't exploit workers and deliberately destroys other business to accumulate that wealth. Same with Zuckerberg, he can be as rich as he likes, but he can't build that wealth of spying on users and generally being a dick. Musk... He can build all the cars and rockets he like, but stop undermining democracy through financial means.
Taxing billionaires hard won't stop their bad behaviour.
[+] [-] tzekid|9 months ago|reply
Heavy redistribution of wealth is already in place and it's not making things better.
[+] [-] myrmidon|9 months ago|reply
The existence (and prevalence) of food delivery work alone is a depressing portent in my view: If delivering food for objectively shitty pay is still a viable option for a lot of people, that signals to me that human labor has become borderline worthless (even in a wealthy/developed environment).
That makes the "american dream" (=> start from nothing, do a good job, become wealthy) increasingly less realistic.
I'm also afraid that this (preventing wealth inequality from getting out-of-control) might be a "practically unsolvable" problem for democracies in general (just like managing housing and public pensions): It is too easy to "sabotage" democratic progress for the negatively affected minority (and that minority is exceedingly powerful/well-positioned, too).
[+] [-] barney54|9 months ago|reply
Automation is great and has made things undeniably better. In the 1800s, 30% of the US GDP was tree cutting. https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1939912893102760063 Before automation, nearly everyone was involved with agriculture. Today is much better.
[+] [-] int_19h|9 months ago|reply
But note that this is a potential, not an inevitable outcome. This outcome is more likely because there is a positive feedback loop at play here: if you can somehow force people who generate wealth with their labor to surrender part of that wealth to you, you can use those resources to improve your ability to forcibly exploit others (e.g. by hiring more armed goons in a primitive society, or by bribing politicians who pass laws that are ultimately enforced by "public servant" goons in a more advanced society like ours). Simply put, wealth can buy power, and the resulting increase in power disparity can be used to extract more wealth from the people producing it. Thus the natural trend of technological advancement is towards income inequality ... but a society can still go against the current, it just takes a lot more effort on behalf of the citizenry.
[+] [-] ta1243|9 months ago|reply
Work is not valued, wealth is.
[+] [-] rckt|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] diggan|9 months ago|reply
You are mistaken. Currently, the higher income you have here, the higher tax rate you have, where the highest tax rate on income sits at 47%, which you get hit by when your income is above 300K/year. People between 60K and 300K sits at 45%.
And then there are regional differences, someone in Andalucía don't pay the same amount of taxes as someone who lives in Catalunya for example, where the top tax rate is 50%.
Even taking into account other taxes we have, you still end up paying more in taxes the more you earn, unless you start engaging in schemes to lessen your tax burden, obviously. Although the social security is capped, so it does increase slower once you go beyond the cap, but it doesn't start regressing which your comment hinted at.
Edit: important to note that the tax rates are all marginal tax rates, maybe that was a bit unclear.
[+] [-] eclecticfrank|9 months ago|reply
Tax is not collected, but the supporting law has never been revoked.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verm%C3%B6gensteuer_(Deutschla... (Sorry, no translation available)
[+] [-] kleiba|9 months ago|reply
Wikipedia claims that this decision was partly due to the max tax rate being at 53% at the time. Today, it has dropped to 42%, but for some strange reason, the wealth tax has never been reinstated.
[+] [-] alpaccount|9 months ago|reply
Reducing inequality in Brazil (even a tiny amount) is a DEAD SIMPLE problem that is not in any way related to the government taking more money from people (rich or poor), but, rather, in taking LESS money:
> The collection of federal taxes on the reserve base, shows that of the amount collected by the IRS of Brazil, the majority of the taxes are based on consumption, with approximately 53% on average of the funds raised by Revenue Federal Brazil and continue accounting for more than half of tax (52%) charged by the agency. This tax structure is even more perverse when we add the taxes collected at the state and municipal levels, which bring in the largest source of revenue. The tax burden on consumption is regressive. In Brazil those who earn up to twice the minimum wage spend 26% of their income to pay indirect taxes, while the tax burden for families with income higher than 30 times the minimum wage amounts to only 7%. Excessive taxation on consumption depresses demand directly affecting the economy, reducing the consumption of the middle and lower income families.
We're talking about a country where minimum wage is 260ish dollars a month, and a macbook costs TWICE what it costs in the US, where people make much more. We're structured in a way where only rich people have access to anything. You can tax said rich people more, but they'll just keep being the ones that can afford anything at all.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Brazil
[+] [-] msgodel|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] GardenLetter27|9 months ago|reply
The super-rich don't stay rich by just sitting on their money, they invest it.
These countries should focus on encouraging investment there - by getting rid of bureaucracy and red tape, make it possible to hire across the whole EU a lot easier, without needing separate tax registration in every country, etc.
Lower the barriers to entry wherever possible - no long application processes for developments with endless consultations, no arbitrary minority language or qualification requirements, etc.
Income inequality is a good thing, but there needs to be equal access to education and opportunities and the lowest barriers to entry possible.
[+] [-] imiric|9 months ago|reply
Rich people will and should continue to exist. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is take advantage of loopholes and tax breaks just because they're wealthy. That alone should indirectly lead to lowering inequality, and, assuming we can trust that governments work efficiently and in equal interest of all their citizens (which is hardly a given), it should lead to a fair(er) distribution of wealth, instead of a growth of inequality.
In any case, it's easy to be cynical about this news, but it's a step in the right direction on paper. In stark contrast to what is happening in the US, for example.
[+] [-] regentbowerbird|9 months ago|reply
The specific issue here is that revenue from capital is taxed less than revenue from labor, thus disproportionally impacting the poor & middle class.
Can you explain how taxing the rich even less will solve this issue?
[+] [-] lordleft|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bestouff|9 months ago|reply
That's your opinion. I fail to see how the differences were have today make sense and could be good for the society.
[+] [-] samiv|9 months ago|reply
The rich people are stiffling the economy and displacing a large swath of working people. This process will hollow out the economy and produce more poverty and more inequality.
For the wealthy people there are two ways to invest.
1. Invest in passive assets such as stock market, property, valuable items, gold etc. 2. Invest in new businesses.
What are they doing? Mostly 2. How do we know. Simple.. look at the real economies. The western economies are growing (barely) at around 1-2% per year. The wealthy (since pandemic) grow their wealth at 10-20% per year. Where is this growth coming from? Certainly not from new business development since the real economy is not growing. The only way it can come is by taking a bigger slice of the pie, i.e. displacing middle class by subsuming their wealth.
This is harmful to the economy and will lead to the collapse of the economy and the society.
[+] [-] aredox|9 months ago|reply
And an economy oriented only along the wishes of the super-rich.
Money is the way you "vote" into the economy, and the more money is in the hands of a few, the less the economy actually adresses the needs of the many.
[+] [-] usrusr|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] exiguus|9 months ago|reply
[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/econ/107_en.htm
[+] [-] v5v3|9 months ago|reply
Best not to hold your breath though...
[+] [-] graemep|9 months ago|reply
There is a consensus that non-dom status (basically rich foreigners, very broadly defined, pay hardly any tax) in the UK needs to go. The main point made by people opposing this is that they can easily move to a number European (mostly EU) countries that have similar schemes and still only be a short flight away from the UK.
[+] [-] raverbashing|9 months ago|reply
Edit: "oh but it's an actual organization" yeah with still very little significance between pretending it's anything but a convenient proxy for the bigger members
[+] [-] throwawayb2025|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] rebanevapustus|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Propelloni|9 months ago|reply
Reading the press release shows me that Spain and Brazil are aware that this is a hard problem. They are especially aware that a nation, or two nations, alone cannot solve it, thus they suggest a "global registry", which is basically a "abolish tax havens" again. Let's see how far we get this time, I wish them all the best.
[+] [-] octo888|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] owebmaster|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mvid|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] cucubeleza|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mafuy|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] solstice|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] msgodel|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] thisIsAtest25|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tsimionescu|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mathiaspoint|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] owenizzhr|9 months ago|reply
Look at some successful societies: Japan, New Zealand, Germany. Not socialist. Success was rewarded and societies benefited.
[+] [-] RweInNd2Dy4Us|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] ozgrakkurt|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] newsclues|9 months ago|reply
A millionaire is 1000x the wealth as someone with a thousand bucks.
As someone closer to a net worth closer to $1000, it sure is funny watching the rich millionaires complain about the rich billionaires.
I bet the millionaires don't think the wealth transfers and confiscation they support for the billionaires, will ever be applied to them.
[+] [-] s_dev|9 months ago|reply
Run your math again through a calculator.
[+] [-] guappa|9 months ago|reply
You're off by an order of magnitude.
[+] [-] mg794613|9 months ago|reply
- No, the rich won't run away.
- No, the rich are not carrying the country.
- No, caring for another or a lesser fortunate, isn't communism.
It's weird I have to say it, but some really need to hear it.
[+] [-] HamsterDan|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] ffsm8|9 months ago|reply