"We can't tax rich people because they might leave instead of paying higher taxes"
-
"We can't tax rich people because they might leave instead of paying higher taxes"
Bro they're not paying taxes NOW, so what the fuck's the difference?
Tax the rich. They'll either pay their fair share in tax, or they'll leave and stop being a drain on the system. Both options are a win.
-
"We can't tax rich people because they might leave instead of paying higher taxes"
Bro they're not paying taxes NOW, so what the fuck's the difference?
Tax the rich. They'll either pay their fair share in tax, or they'll leave and stop being a drain on the system. Both options are a win.
"But they'll take the jobs with them"
A) No they won't. It's expensive as shit to uproot your entire operation, rehire, retrain, and reorganize entire production lines from the ground up, not to mention a gigantic pain in the ass.
B) Even if they do, that will leave a hole in the economy which can be filled by small business and entrepreneurs.
C) Even if it doesn't, trickle down economics is a filthy lie sold to you to keep you complacent. You can do better than a below minimum wage gig economy sidehustle. Demand better from employers.
-
"But they'll take the jobs with them"
A) No they won't. It's expensive as shit to uproot your entire operation, rehire, retrain, and reorganize entire production lines from the ground up, not to mention a gigantic pain in the ass.
B) Even if they do, that will leave a hole in the economy which can be filled by small business and entrepreneurs.
C) Even if it doesn't, trickle down economics is a filthy lie sold to you to keep you complacent. You can do better than a below minimum wage gig economy sidehustle. Demand better from employers.
@Lana One of the weird things I've been hearing more about in recent years is that "billionaires" don't actually have much money; they have bizarre convoluted debt systems that are prone to catastrophic collapse.
Anyway, it's been the case for generations that the rich don't have that much wealth that they could physically carry off with them; it's all contracts and legal fictions that say they have social power.
We could collectively say their money doesn't exist, and it will not exist.
-
@Lana One of the weird things I've been hearing more about in recent years is that "billionaires" don't actually have much money; they have bizarre convoluted debt systems that are prone to catastrophic collapse.
Anyway, it's been the case for generations that the rich don't have that much wealth that they could physically carry off with them; it's all contracts and legal fictions that say they have social power.
We could collectively say their money doesn't exist, and it will not exist.
@foolishowl "billionaires don't have money" is such a weird fetishistic take based solely on the fact that they clearly do since we call them billionaires.
-
@foolishowl "billionaires don't have money" is such a weird fetishistic take based solely on the fact that they clearly do since we call them billionaires.
@Lana I'm confused, but I guess I'm complaining about confusion, so it's legit.
I'm also kind of unhappy with all the focus on billionaires, since the people leveraging real estate to buy more real estate that's all kept off the market to drive up the price of real estate, for one example, aren't billionaires, but they're doing a lot of real harm.
-
@Lana I'm confused, but I guess I'm complaining about confusion, so it's legit.
I'm also kind of unhappy with all the focus on billionaires, since the people leveraging real estate to buy more real estate that's all kept off the market to drive up the price of real estate, for one example, aren't billionaires, but they're doing a lot of real harm.
this explanation i gave elsewhere might be helpful:
https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva/115152125082298897“ “billionaires” don’t have money perse, they have lines of credit they can monetize against their assets. so, it’s not income because they do not work for it. the money, the cash, comes from selling off or taking a loan against assets… their stocks can never depreciate to the exact amount of their loans and lines of credit. once that happens, that “liquidity” becomes debt. ”
-
this explanation i gave elsewhere might be helpful:
https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva/115152125082298897“ “billionaires” don’t have money perse, they have lines of credit they can monetize against their assets. so, it’s not income because they do not work for it. the money, the cash, comes from selling off or taking a loan against assets… their stocks can never depreciate to the exact amount of their loans and lines of credit. once that happens, that “liquidity” becomes debt. ”
Yes but if they can be described as "billionaires", they have access to billions of dollars of money, ipso facto.
-
Yes but if they can be described as "billionaires", they have access to billions of dollars of money, ipso facto.
"Billionaires don't actually have money, there's just a bunch of weird math rules surrounding ownership of property which lets them have access to and spend, billions of dollars of actual money" is such a weird take that seems to instantly forget the second part of its own sentence the moment it's said.
-
"Billionaires don't actually have money, there's just a bunch of weird math rules surrounding ownership of property which lets them have access to and spend, billions of dollars of actual money" is such a weird take that seems to instantly forget the second part of its own sentence the moment it's said.
this is what trips people: our value is based on how much money we make NOW against the debt we carry from the past.
capitalists decided they are the only ones who should benefit NOW from the FUTURE they could have, not their present or past.
as long as other capitalists buy into & have FAITH in the future peddled with stocks, capitalists can sell assets or have massive lines of credit NOW.
valuations are articles of faith, based on a future that may never come.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
