Cute, but it’s really more that she should be taxed at a higher marginal rate to pay for services that will be used by everyone… but maybe more commonly by those who pay much less in taxes. I think that’s what is usually meant by “redistribution”.
A very good point. And it would make her opinions on sharing wealth all the more germane.
There is also the little matter that she doesn’t control her fortune; she gets an allowance and that’s it. She is the subject of a conservatorship that greatly, greatly limits her ability to do anything with her money.
It is actually quite sad. Allegedly she has mental illness issues that make her unsuitable for controlling her money; so she has a court appointed manager who mismanages her money for her.
Frankly I wonder if some of her “money control issues” is that she wants to redistribute wealth and is good with starting with hers?
Love your posts, Thom and thanks for sharing the link to the original artist’s newsletter. But sharing with attribution isn’t stealing.
I don’t mean to pile on. But there’s a certain misogynistic stereotype of female pop artists, especially who had their break when they were young, that I discourage inadvertently feeding even when we don’t intend to and even when we don’t ignore that bias we’re all cultured in.
It seemed better to explain that point of view than snipe at someone for what we perceive as slipping into uncareful language. I hope I explained my point of view with respect for you and others.
I’m striking right now!
The boss doesn’t know it though.
Just kidding, I don’t actually have a boss, or a job.
Whoda-thunk-it, that that archaic meme would ever make a comeback?
I just meant that as in, she didn’t write the words herself. I didn’t mean to imply any loaded judgement about the action, though I see how that comes off.
Heard and understand! I think I used that word subconsciously to say that it was not her original work, but didn’t think through the full implications of that particular word choice. My bad.
Well said, and thank you.
So, not yourself then eh? Me neither but I don’t get pretentious about that. Oddly enough, because I find it hypocritical…
No worries. Knowing you’re a professional musician and knowing what I know of you from your posts, I was virtually certain you didn’t mean it to come across that way.
I think most people have self-contradictory positions, but some way more than others. Jimmy Carter, not so much. Me, certainly, and it is fair to call me on it when it happens.
My statements about Ms. Spears were made in ignorance of her financial guardianship, and it that light I think they were wrong.
from what ive heard her father basically had her psychiatrically committed years ago. and he’s still legally in charge of her business and her money, and she can’t do a thing about it.
i figure it’s no wonder she’s for redistribution of wealth. i’m sure she’d like at least some part of it herself
[ edit: … as already mentioned now by several others. oops. #freebritney ]
We really should’ve seen the signs.
I hate the kind of argument that people are using against Spears. It is like telling people who support higher rates of taxation that they are hypocrites unless they first donate all their savings to the IRS, or demanding that before faculty like me can advocate for free higher education we have to renounce our salaries and teach for free.
Why would their apparent lack of conformance to your criteria imply a lack of sincerity? (this is mainly rhetorical, but maybe I’m not interpreting correctly)
Perhaps more progress towards the stated ends can be made in ways that don’t involve the simplistically consistent prescriptions suggested.
I guess where I’m coming from in this reply is to say that the notions like “deserve”, “belief”, “consistency” etc. have always a bit specious to me - supposedly everyone agrees and knows what those things mean, but on more than superficial examination they sort of wither into incoherence.
It’s kind of like the stance you sometimes hear from self proclaimed anarchists against voting (because it somehow magically validates the corrupt system), (I mean come on! if you’re an anarchist why are you following some strictly limiting behavioral code of conduct of your own imagining!), shouldn’t an anarchist use any and all available means within their ethical limits? These arguments seem to have more to do with semi-consciously derived mystical ideas of spiritual-contagion, sin & karma than they do with any kind of social strategy.
Well, she’s not wrong. I’m free tomorrow anyway.
Good for her. I hope that attitude takes root and flourishes among the upper class without the lower classes needing to resort to class composting.
My personal beliefs are that anyone who has more than $10 million in wealth and property should be taxed until they are left with $10 million of wealth and property, and anyone with less than $10 million in wealth and property shouldn’t be taxed.
Perhaps I have the imagination of a poor person, but it seems like $10 million is enough for a person to live on for a year, and as tax time approaches they would be incentivized to pour the excess into the economy or let it go to the government.
It would require watching to make sure they don’t just pay themselves the money through side channels. Maybe stiff sentences for anyone caught doing that. Say, forfeiture of all of their wealth along with three years of public service in the fast food industry?
I’m well short of having $10 million, but I feel like if I were able to get there, I would be okay with that solution. But only if the tax money was going to things to improve the world around us, and not hidden Cayman accounts and military spending or a fucking stupid border wall.
Great euphemism, that.