Someone will object to this characterization, but when a guy like Musk literally makes billions on government contracts, then argues that he shouldn't be taxed, it's a sign of the problem.
Musk didn't really pull himself up by his bootstraps...he succeeded in an environment that is exceptionally friendly to the accumulation and multiplica…
Someone will object to this characterization, but when a guy like Musk literally makes billions on government contracts, then argues that he shouldn't be taxed, it's a sign of the problem.
Musk didn't really pull himself up by his bootstraps...he succeeded in an environment that is exceptionally friendly to the accumulation and multiplication of wealth. The amount he has now is so astronomical that gaining or losing billions really doesn't impact his lifestyle--but it might impact his ability to directly influence the public discourse.
I hate to go all socialist on this, but some kind of more fair tax structure is probably the answer. From those to whom much has been given, a great deal should be expected. And I'm tired of the argument that their "philanthropy" is how they contribute...first, I give to charities, AFTER I pay my taxes, and so should they. And second, a lot of their "philanthropy" is targeted to maintain and protect the economic system that allows them to prosper on such an enormous scale. How about a system where other less advantaged folks could prosper, too?
I agree with you, Jeff, and the idea that rich people should pay more taxes than they do is not socialist, it makes sense. People who have benefited greatly from our system here in the U.S. should do all they can, including by paying more in taxes, to make sure the system that supports their financial success continues to thrive.
I still think I should change my screen name to Carl Marks, or something ;-)
No, I use the socialism label very tongue-in-cheek...my insufferably right friends really do think anything short of robber baron capitalism is the Bolshies coming to get us, and the Know-Nothings in Congress all think the worst thing you can call a person is a socialist (a short course in political science for everyone in Congress wouldn't go far wrong, and I suppose for me too--I think that today the worst thing you could call a person is a Republican, in spite of voting that way for years).
Some of it is that contrary to Churchill's rule, I've slid almost inexorably to the left for some time. Some of it, I'm convinced, is that the populist taint in "Conservative" politics has made any meaningful governance well-nigh impossible, and discussion a waste of effort.
Whether these folks have somehow let go of the dream of opportunity for everyone, or they never really believed in it, is a fair question.
That is particulary ironic here in a very square deep red state in the west, where the MAGAts talk a lot about "makers" and "takers"...especially considering that 32% of our state funding comes from the Federal government, because our legislature can't bring itself to tax the income of our enormous population (as a percentage...nothing about our population is enormous, unless we're counting pronghorn) of rich ranchers & oilmen.
Rumor has it that Rs want the 50s. My reaction - GO FOR IT. CEOs only made 30 times their employees' incomes, stock options didn't exist, pensions were a thing for employees, regulations were a good thing, Rs actually believed in governing, unions were strong, workers were paid living wages, corporations believed in the public good, taxes were really progressive up to 90+%, TV and movies didn't celebrate the bad/rich/powerful, and news channels didn't tell deliberate lies, etc. Were there problems? Hell, yes. At the same time, there was hope, optimism, a sense that most people believed in education, progress, the Constitution, etc. The Rs don't want the 1950s - they want the 1850s of the southern aristocrats who ruled and everyone who wasn't one of them was an indentured servant or a slave.
Perhaps we could sit down sometime and share a couple bottles of Great Lakes Brewery's Burning River Pale Ale to discuss the good stewardship companies showed in the 50's.
True. I mean, a slogan of "1950's, but this time, for everyone!" wouldn't be too bad.
Still, even if that was your goal, we couldn't really do it again. The world is too different and we're too different. The 50's had a generation shaped and hardened by privation followed by war making their way in a world where only one power really escaped the ravages of that war.
People do not understand that you cannot have the 50s back unless you pretty much torch the rest of the world while taking essentially no damage to the US... AND you get rid of nuclear weapons except for the US.
Someone will object to this characterization, but when a guy like Musk literally makes billions on government contracts, then argues that he shouldn't be taxed, it's a sign of the problem.
Musk didn't really pull himself up by his bootstraps...he succeeded in an environment that is exceptionally friendly to the accumulation and multiplication of wealth. The amount he has now is so astronomical that gaining or losing billions really doesn't impact his lifestyle--but it might impact his ability to directly influence the public discourse.
I hate to go all socialist on this, but some kind of more fair tax structure is probably the answer. From those to whom much has been given, a great deal should be expected. And I'm tired of the argument that their "philanthropy" is how they contribute...first, I give to charities, AFTER I pay my taxes, and so should they. And second, a lot of their "philanthropy" is targeted to maintain and protect the economic system that allows them to prosper on such an enormous scale. How about a system where other less advantaged folks could prosper, too?
I agree with you, Jeff, and the idea that rich people should pay more taxes than they do is not socialist, it makes sense. People who have benefited greatly from our system here in the U.S. should do all they can, including by paying more in taxes, to make sure the system that supports their financial success continues to thrive.
I still think I should change my screen name to Carl Marks, or something ;-)
No, I use the socialism label very tongue-in-cheek...my insufferably right friends really do think anything short of robber baron capitalism is the Bolshies coming to get us, and the Know-Nothings in Congress all think the worst thing you can call a person is a socialist (a short course in political science for everyone in Congress wouldn't go far wrong, and I suppose for me too--I think that today the worst thing you could call a person is a Republican, in spite of voting that way for years).
Some of it is that contrary to Churchill's rule, I've slid almost inexorably to the left for some time. Some of it, I'm convinced, is that the populist taint in "Conservative" politics has made any meaningful governance well-nigh impossible, and discussion a waste of effort.
Whether these folks have somehow let go of the dream of opportunity for everyone, or they never really believed in it, is a fair question.
Not sure why a fair tax structure would be considered socialism.
Because it takes from the makers and redistributes to the takers. Argle bargle Marx blah, blah, blah.
That is particulary ironic here in a very square deep red state in the west, where the MAGAts talk a lot about "makers" and "takers"...especially considering that 32% of our state funding comes from the Federal government, because our legislature can't bring itself to tax the income of our enormous population (as a percentage...nothing about our population is enormous, unless we're counting pronghorn) of rich ranchers & oilmen.
Rumor has it that Rs want the 50s. My reaction - GO FOR IT. CEOs only made 30 times their employees' incomes, stock options didn't exist, pensions were a thing for employees, regulations were a good thing, Rs actually believed in governing, unions were strong, workers were paid living wages, corporations believed in the public good, taxes were really progressive up to 90+%, TV and movies didn't celebrate the bad/rich/powerful, and news channels didn't tell deliberate lies, etc. Were there problems? Hell, yes. At the same time, there was hope, optimism, a sense that most people believed in education, progress, the Constitution, etc. The Rs don't want the 1950s - they want the 1850s of the southern aristocrats who ruled and everyone who wasn't one of them was an indentured servant or a slave.
"corporations believed in the public good"
Perhaps we could sit down sometime and share a couple bottles of Great Lakes Brewery's Burning River Pale Ale to discuss the good stewardship companies showed in the 50's.
;-)
I love Burning River!
Yes, I was oversimplifying. :-) I'm afraid I'd be asleep by the time I finished the bottle. Have little tolerance for alcohol. :-)
True. I mean, a slogan of "1950's, but this time, for everyone!" wouldn't be too bad.
Still, even if that was your goal, we couldn't really do it again. The world is too different and we're too different. The 50's had a generation shaped and hardened by privation followed by war making their way in a world where only one power really escaped the ravages of that war.
That's what I said! ;)
People do not understand that you cannot have the 50s back unless you pretty much torch the rest of the world while taking essentially no damage to the US... AND you get rid of nuclear weapons except for the US.