It's an absurd notion that you cannot tax unrealized gains. We already do when it comes to property taxes.
post
$365/mo. hardly pays for shit, but it's a start.
As I said, I agree the stock market should be abolished entirely, but that's an extremely difficult sell. This is a much more actionable policy at the present day, which may even get some traction given the bipartisan conversation on AI.
Well when I clicked on the link it loaded a couple minutes from the end, so.
If I had the power to force one bill through, I'd ban the stock market. Stock is fine for employees, makes for a great pension. But you can't own stock in a company you don't work for. If you want to invest in a company you don't work for, buy bonds.
There's no good reason for private ownership through capital investment. Private capital investment can happen without ownership.
Revolution now please?
Just as soon as we get about 30 million organized revolutionaries. Heck, call it 3 million if they're organized enough.
Probably gonna be waiting a bit for that tho.
Maybe, hopefully, still not a great situation. The problem with accelerationism is that it tends to overestimate how sensitive the proverbial frog is to the water temperature rising. Bread and circuses are a powerful thing, even when they're just relatively cheap instead of free. "Creating more socialists than socialists have in years" isn't a particularly high bar. I have my doubts that the quantity is statistically significant, being exposed to the average American on a daily basis.
I think broad success is going to come from finding people outside the "leftist" label that embody leftist ideals. I think there's too much online atheist energy for our own good, Christians can be a valuable asset if we can learn to leverage the teachings of Jesus. Red state voters have that dog in them, if you learn how to engage it. I think the main problem is that we let vocabulary get in the way of the message.
It will make the stock market grow slower. Almost definitionally. I don't understand why we've designed policy around that growth rate. But we definitely do. Anybody got a long read on why that happened?
actually keyes has a thing for that but they never want to do half his things. He basically says in bad times you spend and lower taxes and in good times you tax and save up. its really pretty sensible when you think about it. Congress never really wants to do half of it though. So they lower taxes and spend fine but never shift to saving and raising taxes.
I'd read this, but I don't trust myself to find the source. Do you have a link?
I like the idea of using tax money to create a series of corporations that run strategic industries like power, water, transportation, and critical industry.
Every citizen gets 1 share. Shares are not transferable. The corporations are run democratically by shareholder vote, and profit share is paid out. UBI.
It works within the current legal frameworks, no one is the loser because we aren't taking from one to give to the other, everyone has an interest in the success of the companies, and the company is not weaponise for political purposes or mismanaged to justify selling to the private sector.
Actually directly owning the means of production.
Fuck taxes. Taxes was the compromise and they broke that agreement. Throw all of these billionaires in prison and criminalize ownership, control or influence of wealth over a maximum.
Did you read the article? The tax is in the form of mandatory share dilution that can't be evaded. Obviously more thorough changes are preferable, but this is a system that could work immediately.
Of course not. It's the internet. Unless it includes all asset classes and deals with stewardship of imagined entities that own things (corporations, charities, non profits etc), I have doubts. Especially if the ppl most prolific at evading community accountability are not thrown in prison and barred from wielding power.
If your perspective is "Anything less than perfect isn't even worth considering" then this might not be the community for you. It's not that I disagree with your underlying sentiment of desiring actual meaningful change, but that's not what this community is about.
Anything less than effective isn't worth doing.
There's a difference between perfect and effective. Less than perfectly effective is still effective. Less than perfectly effective, when perfect is presently unobtainable, is what this community is about. This is less than perfectly effective.
So long as the players can keep playing, changing the rules of the game isn't an effective solution.
It's not perfectly effective. It accomplishes something.
Some of us don't want to live our lives on standby until the rules of the game change. Sure, we should change them, but that's a multi-generational task.
It isn't effective enough to be worth doing. I'm not chasing perfection, as you keep insisting, just recognizing history.
When has this kind of direct taxation through stock dilution been tried historically? I don't see any history to recognize here. The article explains how it couldn't be dodged like other taxes, so historical wealth taxation isn't relevant.
When has seizing assets ever been tried? Constantly.
You really should read the article. This isn't that.
I did read it, did you? It takes 1.5% of all companies in the form of stock or ownership, that are big enough, and gives it the citizenry every year. Seizes assets and give it to citizens. Then it gets sold to....whoever the fund manager decides, and it is all easily corruptible and that is exactly what would happen if it ever managed to pass, which it won't.
Then it gets sold to....whoever the fund manager decides,
No, it gets sold gradually onto the open market.
$1.4 trillion injected to a consumer base would cause mass inflation. We've already seen this with the "stimulus" checks. Money isn't real; the resources would have to be there in the first place. If they aren't, it will just cause an increase in demand without the actual supply, thus raising prices.
the problem there is it was money out of thin air. If taxes had been increase and we did not run with debt inflation would not be an issue. money gets put in and taken out.
This is the study you may be referencing to. It does not say what you think it does and instead puts the half the blame on Federal government spending. It does not break out this as just the stimulus sent to the average person.
Here we see an entirely different conclusion.
"the authors find that world import price inflation was mostly driven by global forces rather than country-specific supply shortages or demand surges."
I really like this way of doing it, direct redistribution of corporate wealth

all 49 comments