Yes, systems that are now failing them (this John Rogers Twitter thread summarises it nicely). The worst of them (e.g. the Dark Enlightenment sugar daddy Thiel) seem to have decided that their most desirable response to that is to help accelerate an apocalypse and then ride it out in the bunkers and compounds of their Heinlein-fueled adolescent dreams.
6 Likes
These bunkers are about their fear of us getting in, but what would happen if we barricaded all their entrances stopping them from getting out? They need us far more than we need them, and self management is the kind of thing that makes them have nightmares.
11 Likes
I think she has an economics degree, hasn’t she? She’s one of the few prominent American lefties I actually expect to achieve great things.
Yes, but they are a small minority.
5 Likes
I see a story idea for Jordan Peele’s reboot of “The Twilight Zone”: a Thiel-like horror of a billionaire is tricked into thinking the apocalypse is finally at hand, but once he gets to the compound and locks it down his retainers and security staff and blood boys slowly and quietly slip away to leave him confined alone in what has become a sociopath’s self-owned prison.
13 Likes
Insert “this” image here.
4 Likes
Estate taxes are assets taxes, and are a federal issue.
1 Like
Inheritance is income. Dead people don’t own anything.
5 Likes
I was puzzled why the likes of Thiel would want to hole up on an island in a compound that’s going to be fairly easy to find, and agree completely that not letting these financial vampires back out of their hides-holes is exactly what should happen.
6 Likes
2 Likes
If they’re not paying taxes now anyway, and they leave the country to continue not paying taxes… it’s a net gain, because they can pull that BS somewhere else? Thinking of billionaire investors who love to meddle in American politics. Would not hurt my feelings to see them gone.
4 Likes
Those who want to claim “it won’t work the rich will just cheat” need to explain:
Why the last several decades of tax cuts for the rich had any effect. If they always ‘just cheat’ then tax cuts for the rich should never have any effect. We just last year had another round of tax cuts for the rich and - behold - the deficit got a lot bigger!
Why the rich spend hundreds of millions of dollars year after year lobbying for tax changes. Are they just stupid? Wasting money trying to change laws they trivially avoid already?
Why the rich preferentially live in the highest tax parts of the US. CA, NY, etc. Why, its as if taxes aren’t that big of a deal. If you are rich maybe you live either where the business that gets you rich is or in whatever location you like best, rather than scrabbling for some tax advantage in Kansas.
The super rich want you hopeless. They want you to think nothing can ever change, so why not just relax and tut tut anyone who tries? It’s so much easier, and you feel soooo smart doing it, right?
5 Likes
Back when top marginal rates were very high it didn’t make a lot of sense to get paid more than the top tax rate. Cost the company $10 to get its top executives $1 more to spend.
One thing they did was expansive benefits. Company cars, expense accounts, parties, etc. Certainly it was a form of tax evasion, but it did something else. It tied the lifestyle of the executive to the continued long term success of the company. If that company goes under the exec didn’t walk away with tens or hundreds of millions in the bank, his car and club memberships, and expense account, and personal secretary went away. And those perks were nothing like the pay CEO’s get today. Orders of magnitude smaller. If that’s tax evasion under high marginal rates: bring it on.
Another thing they did was spread the money around. They couldn’t keep it, because of the taxes, but they could spread it across lower level employees and become popular. They could have the company give to local charities. They could help build amenities for their city or town. They weren’t as tempted to horde it all for themselves.
With corporate boards prevented by the tax code from turning into a ‘lets raise each other’s pay’ club perhaps they spent rather more time overseeing and less time sucking up to each other?
High earners were also perhaps more likely to simply take it easier. That 10:1 ratio making it just a bit too much bother to try to squeeze another million out. Maybe golf instead?
It was also a lot more expensive to bribe politicians and bureaucrats with super highly paid jobs.
IMO high top marginal tax rates are good through many avenues and bad through essentially none.
The few workaholic geniuses that exist and are being paid ocean-liner-loads of money now will still work if paid mere dump-truck-loads. Heck plenty of workaholic geniuses are professors, etc and already don’t get paid that much.
10 Likes
Guys everyone’s forgetting this fucking guy with the wannabe Reagan greaseback ^ scribbled some shit on a napkin that finally proved for good that you shouldn’t tax rich people more than they want. I thought everyone learned this in Econ 102?
2 Likes
And that is exactly what I was thinking of when I talked about CEOs counting coup on each other by other means.
1 Like
FABULOUS! YES!!! Going all the way back to Ronnie Raygun!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
