I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
Also, if the tax increase is percieved to be unfair, rich people can just leave and go to Monaco or Switzerland or any other “rich friendly” country. They are pretty much free to do so and they do it all the time. So increasing taxes will not necessarily lead to more tax revenue if they are increased above what is reasonable.
I am so happy karma is not a thing here btw. I would be in an unenviable position otherwise.
To take your seriously for a moment: Lack of investment sounds like next generations problem.
There is a crisis in Europe because of lack of investment, are you sure it is not your problem?
I do in fact wish we had European problems. That would be a massive upgrade. We should be so lucky.
I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
It’s also not ideal for them to run rampant with unbridled greed.
fuck off with that neoliberal bullshit.
I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
Governments already do “investing”. Elon Musk is the wealthiest man in the world thanks to the US government subsidizing Tesla, SpaceX and Starlink. Your tax money is already going into allocating and managing capital in society, so how about instead of letting wealthy individuals choose how capital gets invested we let the government decide that? It’s neoliberal brainrot that wealthy capitalists, without any real oversight, should be the ones to dictate how capital is used.
Also, if the tax increase is percieved to be unfair, rich people can just leave and go to Monaco or Switzerland or any other “rich friendly” country. They are pretty much free to do so and they do it all the time. So increasing taxes will not necessarily lead to more tax revenue if they are increased above what is reasonable.
And let them go. The wealthy can go wherever they want but most their wealth is tied to their businesses and moving those businesses elsewhere is extremely expensive. The can take their wealth with them only if they spend an insane amount to transfer all their businesses out of the country or if they cash out their businesses. Both come with a significant drop in wealth, so they’re not going to do that. You’ve been fed bullshit propaganda.
Governments invest in some things, but they can’t effectively manage the entire economy. It is too complex, and markets provide information that will simply not be available under central planning.
Hell, even now government investments are highly inefficient for many reasons. The government is getting ripped of by private contractors, as they can’t control the complexities of production, have nearly unlimited resources, so they do not optimise, and a lot of asinine decisions are made because nobody cares enough. Look at how bloated the military funding is in the US for example.
I don’t feel like writing an essay so I’ll approach it a bit differently.
Governments invest in some things, but they can’t effectively manage the entire economy. It is too complex, and markets provide information that will simply not be available under central planning.
I’m not sure why you brought up central planning. That didn’t even cross my mind when I made my comment. I don’t think there’s anything else to address here because most of what you said seems to be in the context of central planning.
The government is getting ripped of by private contractors
Why do you think the wealthy aren’t getting ripped off? What are they doing that the government cannot do?
as they can’t control the complexities of production
And the wealthy can? And by wealthy I mean the wealthy individual, not the companies they own.
have nearly unlimited resources, so they do not optimise
unlimited resources is clearly hyperbolic because if they did have unlimited resources then who cares if they’re getting ripped or and are extremely inefficient, as long as the things get done. As for “optimizing”, optimizing for what? Should the government optimize for profit the same way companies do?
and a lot of asinine decisions are made because nobody cares enough.
Do you think companies don’t make asinine decisions? COVID showed that work from home is perfectly viable. It’s also an obvious cost cutting method because you don’t need to rent or own a huge office space, you get to downsize and save money. Most companies chose the more expensive option. For what?
Look at how bloated the military funding is in the US for example.
How do you think the military industrial complex came to be? Modern MIL came into existence during and after WW2 when private enterprises saw a huge market in war. The very people you claim should be making the decisions about capital allocation are the people who played an integral role in bloating the US military funding.
That’s an interesting point. The government tends to get ripped off because of negotiation issues. Private orgs can hire and retain the best negotiators, whereas govt can’t afford that and if they can, they’d still be vulnerable to accusations of cronyism to have the best of the private sector’s negotiators negotiating with the companies they’ve probably dealt with privately before and who they will likely be back with in the future.
This is one reason why competitive procurement is such a big deal and so complicated and time consuming.
We know from bitter historical experience that privatising public operations, especially natural monopolies like utilities, results in worse service and higher prices, coupled with sub-par investment. A private company can be bailed out if it goes bankrupt sending all its profits out to shareholders. A public org has an incentive not to waste taxpayer money.
the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes
You need to understand wealth as power, and the wishes of the wealthy being to exercise that power over others.
Their role in “allocating resources in society” is controlling the resources of society. But what is “rule” if not “control of the resources of society”? What is democracy if the rich have all of the power over society.
It’s a damn lie, is what it is.
Taxation is a demand by the demos to control the resources of society. That is, it is a demand for democracy.
Which means the rich can allocate themselves into a fucking hole, stuff their heads up their own asses, and suffocate.
So if the rich don’t like paying their fair share if the taxes, they’ll just move? And go where? Any country they’d like is going to have even higher taxes than are being suggested in America. In addition, Americans living abroad still pay annual income taxes to America, as well as the country they live in.
They’d likely have to learn a new langugage, a new culture, new food, etc. They’d be far from the things they love about America, all so they can save money on taxes that wouldn’t improve their already opulent lives one tiny bit. Do you really think a multi-billionaire, who already is so wealthy that neither he nor his descendents could ever spend it all, is going to leave the incredible comfort of America just to save a few million in taxes that they’ll never even notice?
Rich Americans are still Americans, and most people are happiest where they grew up. Sure, its fun visiting other places, but you are always going to be happiest in the culture you are most familar with, provided there isn’t a dangerous economic or political situation.
Most would be loathe to give up their American comfort for another place. Nobody is really suggesting that American Oligarchs give up their comforts, just that they should keep a little bit less of their nearly limitless hoard of treasure to keep the system that benefits them above all others healthy, so they can get even richer.
We are an unapologetic Capitalist society, but the Sociopathic Oligarchs are killing the Golden Goose with their enthusiastic unbridled greed, and we are trying to save them from themselves. By taxing them only SLIGHTLY heavier, we are preserving that system so they can continue to get even richer. If they insist on continuing down the fraudulent Trickle Down path, the system will eventually break, and installing the new system will likely include a very bad situation for the wealthy.
I’m guessing you expected the downvotes to be fair, but I’d try and actually engage with what you said, since you clearly took the time to think it through and express it well.
What you’re suggesting (that the wealthy classes play an important role in wealth distribution, that’s hampered by tax) is pejoratively referred to as “trickle down economics”[0] and slightly less critically referred to as “supply side economics”[1].
You might want to reduce taxes on the wealthy for some other reason, but the idea that it helps the economy is very poorly evidenced, and there’s quote a lot of evidence to the contrary.
It also seems to miss the fact that a lot of poor countries (take Nigeria[2]) have very low taxation, and many very wealthy countries (take Sweden[3]) have very high taxation.
My two cents are that, sure the rich might spend some money on things that benefit everyone, but it’s probably a lot less than the amount of infrastructure development taxation can fund.
There’s obviously complexities, but the idea that “people will just move” doesn’t seem to happen in reality. I’d also say that, excluding perhaps billionaires, being moderately wealthy in a equitable society with good healthcare, transport, roads, etc, is a lot more desirable than being more wealthy in a society with less of those things. But I guess that’s just my take, I don’t have any evidence for it.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
[2] https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/nigeria/individual/taxes-on-personal-income
I do not believe taxes need to be set as low as possible for the rich, I simply said the negative effects of increased taxation of the rich can offset the benefits at some point. The government should not wage war on the market economy, it should optimise it. But for the socialists it seems the economy is the enemy, and they think very little about the consequences.
But there is a more important point: efficiency. You say we do not need the rich to finance things, however, planned economics are less efficient than market economics because central management of such a complicated structure is very difficult. The rich are a lot more opportunistic and conform far better to the expectations(that are expressed in the market by price) of what investments are needed/more efficient than the goverment possibly can.
Well, in my personal experience and according to the people I know, people do move, and if they are sufficiently rich, it is hardly a problem. But I suppose it is not as cut and dry as that, and often it is more difficult for people to move.
taxes increase the more you earn, so its a sliding scale… you can still earn a boatload of money, invest multiple millions, and still not be multi-billionaire rich :)
You say we do not need the rich to finance things, however, planned economics are less efficient than market economics because central management of such a complicated structure is very difficult.
I’d question this one a lot- I agree central planning is bad for a lot of things, but it’s great for infrastructure like roads, water supply, transport etc. I think this bears out in the evidence as well- the USA has suprisingly poor water supply, education and rail transport, despite by some measures being the wealthiest country in the world. Compare this to infrastructure standards on Europe or China.
We could probably argue all day and longer on this, but please at least consider wealthy high taxation countries in Europe as a counter example. At the very least, I think they show a successful alternative to low taxation economies.
Three points. Firstly, in the 1950s, CEOs earned around 20 times what the lowest-paid employee did (including things like bonuses, shares, etc). Now the average is around 400, but can be as high as 2,000.
Secondly, in the US in the 1950s the highest tax band was 91%. Today it’s 37%.
Both these things are perfectly sustainable. And all that’s working under the false premise that there aren’t numerous tax loopholes available to the rich but not the poor.
Thirdly, there’s a tonne of research into what best stimulates economies, but it’s often dismissed because it doesn’t favour the rich. If you give money to the poor, they will spend it in their local communities. Then that money gets spent again, and again, and again, getting taxed each time. IIRC, for every dollar given to someone poor the government itself gets something like a dollar fifty back. Because the money just keeps circulating.
Give money to the rich, though, and what happens? They hoard it, or they spend it abroad. It drains money from the country, either by taking it out of circulation, or by taking it out of the country entirely.
The term “Trickle Down Economics” was coined by Will Rogers, but ironically, he wasn’t advocating for it, he was warning AGAINST it, in favor of "Trickle UP Economics:
The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.
He was 100% right, and we have proof. During the pandemic quarantine, the economy actually boomed, because the government did a couple of rounds of stimulus payments to all Americans, who spent it, thus STIMULATING the economy the way it was intended. Corporations like Amazon and Walmart had huge increases. The struggling delivery service business suddenly stabilized, and continues to be a viable business. Many people created successful home businesses that added to the economy. Others took the opportunity to learn new skills, and emerged from the quarantine with improved employment and compensation potential.
It proved that if you give the money to the people at the bottom, it will eventually get to the wealthy anyway, but at least it will grease the wheels of the economy as it moves through the system on its way to their hands. The wealthy would prefer that the government just hand them the money directly, it’s much more efficient for them than to wait for it to Trickle Up, but all they have to do is be a little patient, and they’ll still get their money, just after it has done some good for the economy first.
The current “Trickle Down” system is starting to crack, and it will break and collapse unless it is forced to hold together by oppression and violence, which is the path we are on now. If the Sociopathic Oligarchs don’t eventually embrace “Trickle Up Economics,” the real Free Market will replace the current “Trickle Down” system with “Robin Hood Economics” (Take from the rich, give to the poor), which the Sociopathic Oligarchs won’t like at all, since it usually includes punitive violence toward the oppressors.
Just a nitpick (I’m still against trickle down), but how do we know those sectors boomed from the stimulus, vs from people using those services more because they were quarantined? Video conference platforms also took off—that wasn’t from gen pop citizens spending their stimulus.
It may be a simplistic take, but if a person is hoarding wealth doesn’t that take the money out of the economy?
Taking money out of the economy is not bad. This allows the government to print more money without consequences.
Why do a small amount of individuals need to be the gatekeepers on so much wealth?
And what is the alternative? What would you prefer?
Capital is economic power. Should it be concentrated or not? Well, I will first say that I do not see a reasonable way to drastically reduce this inequality of power apart from socialism(as in planned economy, not welfare) which I reject for many reasons.
I would say it should be concentrated because: Most people do not have the desire or capacity to wield economic power. This has nothing to do with their intelligence or worth as an individual, but with their character mostly. It involves making many difficult decisions and significant responsibility, as you are at risk of losing your investments. You also need to show initiative which many people lack. If capital was evenly distributed most people would not have the foresight to invest but likely would just spend it to buy the things they need/want for the already mentioned lack of desire and initiative for entrepreneurship.
Also, there would be no or very little incentives to do well since you would have about the same amount of money as everyone else anyway, and this would destroy our economy, since it relies on capitalists altering the allocation of resources based on personal incentives and information granted by the market(expressed by price). If these incentive structures are weakened, this can make the economy unresponsive, which will make the resource allocation uneffective, probably even less effective than when the economy is managed by the state(socialism).
while i would argue with you on a few points, i just wanna say i appreciate the reasonable tone of your comment
I’ll argue! Most of this is simply wrong… but first I’m going to reject the premise of your argument.
You’re providing a false choice by suggesting that money can only be concentrated or diffused and that it can only be concentrated or diffused at the level of the single individual. You’ve placed two extremes on the table (a command economy driven by oligarchs vs a command economy driven by autocrats) and asked us to pick.
I pick neither. A command economy is not necessary to achieve reasonable societal goals, and it’s not necessary to flip the switch all the way into a 1950s Red Scare version of communism to be able to see where the economic model of unfettered capitalism breaks down.
The next problem is that you conflate the question of “how should the government collect taxes” with the question of “how should an economy operate”. Those are different questions with different answers, but the underlying principle is the same.
The government should prevent circumstances in which being an asshole is financially rewarded. The citizens should try to avoid being assholes. A civil society should correct the behavior of people that are being assholes using social pressures.
In the economic arena, that basically boils down to “not fucking over the little guy”. The government should seek to prevent circumstances where the little guy gets fucked over. The citizens should try not to fuck each other over. A civil society should shun those who violate that norm.
In the taxes arena, that basically boils down to “pay your fair share.” We all know what that looks like and feels like because we’ve had to divvy up the check after a long night of drinking. Folks with cash throw in some extra to cover their friends that might be struggling, a couple of people that are doing well might just “make the check right at the end of the night.” It works out. People know how to do this instinctively. People, by and large, know what their fair share is. Some just don’t want to pay.
In a situation where people consistently make the moral choice to not be an asshole, a lot of economic models can work. The breakdown isn’t in the economic model, it’s in the role of the civil society - society is not enforcing the “don’t be an asshole” rule. Instead, we’ve decided to idolize the assholes.
There’s not an economic model that works when everyone is trying to fuck over everyone else.
You’re focused on the wrong problem.
With the concentration of wealth and thus power being the ideal state, you appear to be arguing in favor of a landed aristocracy who are inherently better at ruling than everyone else because of their noble character. The peasantry would not know how or even want to wield power, and need to be guided by those with the right to rule. In this case it is the right mix of sociopathy and exploitation that defines nobility of character instead of strictly bloodline and Devine Right. This is a very interesting take.
I personally feel that along broad scopes, any human is equally capable of the desire and capacity to wield economic power. It is nurture and not nature that derives this. I would then argue that a level playing field with the Government enforcing strong anti-trust laws is a much better driver of economic force and growth. Healthy competition with no artificial barriers to market entry will allow the market to produce the best results.
Preventing monopoly, duopoly, and oligarchy will constrain the scope of inequality along with taxation without any need for a planned economy. I favor something like a land use tax, but there is much discussion to be had on that front.
Humans are semi-eusocial creatures, so greed must be properly channeled and cannot be allowed to run unchecked. Inequality at certain levels is expected and can/does increase drive for success, but must be tempered for optimal results.
If capital was evenly distributed most people would not have the foresight to invest but likely would just spend it to buy the things they need/want for the already mentioned lack of desire and initiative for entrepreneurship.
That doesn’t explain the extreme wealth disparity that can be seen from the top 0.1% and the literal rest of society. Salaries stagnate while top level profit skyrockets. The distribution is being unfair to those that also have responsibility for the success.
Also, there would be no or very little incentives to do well since you would have about the same amount of money as everyone else anyway, and this would destroy our economy, since it relies on capitalists altering the allocation of resources based on personal incentives and information granted by the market(expressed by price).
One of the ironies of that statement is that monopolies exist today and are some of the biggest wealth funnels on the world. Monopolies have no reason to “do well”, they just do the bare minimum after they’ve secured their place and use their vast resources to buy or fuck the competition.
I believe you are constructing strawmen and false dichotomies. Wealth is not just economic power, it’s power, period. If concentration is good, why not embrace it to the full extent? Is the current distribution of wealth appropriate (in, based on the OP, the US), or was it better 50 yrs ago?
I did not say equal distribution or no incentives. I did not argue against the entrepreneur. The current situation is extreme inequality. We are nowhere near risk of losing the incentive. This reduces quality of life for almost all due to hoarding of resources. This also stifles the entrepreneur. So much of the fruits of labor is directed towards so few.
Investment is not limited to individuals with massive wealth. There is no reason investment cannot occur by combining resources of many instead of few. By and large, large amounts of money seeks to generate more money. I believe it’s far better to have broad ownership. I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don’t act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity). People will still act that way, but I’m convinced that broad ownership will improve that aspect.
It might be necessary to concentrate wealth and thus economic power into a smaller amount of entities but why should so few have control over these entities? If the actual employees receive more benefits from a company doing well and a board of directors is not responding to the needs of a few shareholders but to the actual market need and the need of the company employees you would still have a concentration of wealth in the form of a company but with more participants. The employees would then have the incentive to provide quality labour because that in turn makes the company do well of which they profit directly.
Well, I actually used to be more leftist before, but at some point my values changed, it seems. I do not see how my social position is relevant to the discussion.
Unless you are here arguing against your own interests (and I’m choosing my word there carefully) I’d say it’s pretty relevant.
You’re literally preaching trickle down economics. Which from the state of things today, clearly does not work for the benefit of the lower and middle class. The greatest times for the middle class in US history was when we had a 70% corporate tax rate. Upward mobility though hard and smart work is a myth. The richest people in this country see you as indentured servants, and they would let you get mangled in an industrial accident if they thought it would save them a dollar.
I am not advocating lowering taxes, just not increasing them beyond what is sensible.
Also, I sincetely doubt the richest people in America see me as an indentured servant. You are being overly dramatic.
just not increasing them beyond what is sensible.
No, you openly said raising them currently isn’t a good idea, which is a fucking stupid Take that shows you’re totally clueless on the topic
Lots of companies have people dedicated to deciding at what point it is cheaper to ignore safety regulations and take the fines associated with their employees dying than it is to follow the safety regulations. Literally whichever makes more money they do it, they give zero shits about you. They will replace you in a heartbeat the MOMENT a machine can do your job for cheaper. It may be five cents a day cheaper and they will drop your ass in a heartbeat and let you starve with not a care in teh world.
What amount of taxes for the wealthiest people makes sense to you? Keep in mind that the top 10% of earners own 50% of everything.
You’re right that I was being dramatic about them seeing you as an intendentured servant. They don’t fucking care if you exist at all. You’re less than a slave to them, and that is the harsh reality. You’re the peasant sold with the land, but effectively cheaper than that. You’re expected to work and manage their capital, their investments, and if they don’t object, then you can eek out part of a meager existence on the scraps they can’t be assed to pay someone else to account for.
You think I’m lying, or being overly dramatic about that? Consider this. Last time I checked, which was over 10 years ago, each Walmart employee was on average, a $40k net loss to their Local community. Walmart’s heirs will never have to work a day in their life, their great great great great…grandchildren will be born rich enough to plop into this world and never need to put in the effort to wipe their own ass. Meanwhile we subsidize their workforce because those people make so little for their effort that they can’t afford the food, transportation, and housing to work their jobs without financial assistance (through taxes) from their neighbors. Amazon is the richest company on the planet, their CEO made so much money, that when he divorced his wife, the settlement was basically the GDP of the UK. His wife became the first Woman multi-Billionaire from that settlement. Meanwhile, the people working at Amazon warehouses can’t afford rent without a second job, and have to piss in bottles during their shifts to avoid the loss on in productivity for a 15 minute bathroom break. African slaves in the US got fucking bathroom breaks and a place to live; modern day Amazon workers don’t. Oh, and let’s not forget that Amazon warehouse workers were forced to work during a fucking tornado, and died because they were not allowed to seek shelter in time.
How’s that for “Overly Dramatic?”
This is completely false. US citizens must file taxes and are liable for income taxes no matter where they live.
Edit: I also know this because I recently filed my US taxes from my full-time residence in Germany.
Income tax is not really what’s relevant to the rich. It’s pretty easy for them to basically have no taxable income at all. (E.g. that thing Musk did some years ago where he polled Twitter on if he should sell some stock to actually have to pay taxes for once.)
Also, as far as I know, the USA tax your worldwide income even if you live abroad, and there’s an exit tax on your net worth if you renounce citizenship. This is the reason most US billionaires don’t live in e.g. Switzerland.
Dude that line of reasoning went out with Reagan, and the last time it worked was in the 1920s. You might want that to be how the rich behave, but mostly they just lock capital away and watch the numbers grow.
We don’t need an economy based on pandering to rich assholes in the hopes they give us money. We need an economy where everyone pays their fucking taxes. It’s that easy. If the very wealthy stopped hiding their money and coming up with impenetrable tax evasion schemes and just paid their taxes like everyone else, we wouldn’t have to raise them on anyone.
Even if they do mostly “lock capital away”, as you said, this changes very little in my opinion. The market incentives are still present, and it is the expectation of the return on investment that keeps the economy running.
“We don’t need an economy based on pandering to rich assholes in the hopes they give us money.” - but you do have to discriminate on who gets money. Rich people fulfil this regulatory function. What is the alternative?
I should say that rich people, especially those that find themselves in precarious positions, are motivated to minimise their tax obligations by our economic system. This behaviour is not surprising by any means, and the responsibility is on the government to manage taxation in a proper way, not on the rich.
But the problem is the rich have managed their own taxation for 50 years. They’ve decided through exercising power on the government that they will pay less and less. As they do so, working class conditions worsen. This has been accelerated through multiple bills and decisions implemented by the rich. The most destructive one recently was the citizens United decision.
Tell me, if it’s so easy to just take all your money to Monaco, why would the wealthiest in our country spend so much money and effort to war against the working class for the past 50 years?
Why not just go to Monaco instead of cutting the taxes on rich and corporations again (to still be higher than Monaco)
If they were competent at allocating resources, then the 2008 Financial Crisis never would have happened. They’re just the ones in charge, with no better information than anyone else. So we might as well just vote on how to spend the taxes.
An easy way to prevent capital flight is to increase Land Value Taxes.
What makes your position unenviable is not its score.
They are competent at allocating resources according to market tendencies, which, if the economy is mismanaged by the government, can cause damage lick the 2008 financial crisis. Crises are a well known trait of market economies, and successful government intervention should prevent them, as it has for quite a while.
Information that is provided by the market to capitalists and is expressed in price is exclusive to market actors. Price shows what should be invested in, what should be bought, built, etc. What is needed, to summarise. This is impossible under the command economy, and this is why since the economy is very complex it csn’t be effectively managed by the government.
They are competent at allocating resources according to market tendencies, which, if the economy is mismanaged by the government, can cause damage…
…and this is why since the economy is very complex it csn’t be effectively managed by the government.
So they’ll be competent once a thing that can’t be done… gets done? When/where do you think the wealthy did do a good job of managing society’s resources?
successful government intervention should prevent them, as it has for quite a while.
What year is this comment from? 2008? 2020? Right now?
Sorry bro but you’re stuck in the 2000s and coping hard. You immediately went from “they manage resources effectively” to “well um the govt messed up those resources, but not the stuff that went well, and I’m just talking about prices anyways”.
Nah I say we make some cuts to the capitalists
I’d rather see Elon spend life in Solitary Confinement. It would be the ultimate irony that the same government he did his best destroy takes away his freedom for life.
He should have it worse than the average prisoner though. Padded white cell with nothing in it, and maybe he has to wear a straight jacket on the weekends. He’ll also only eat Nutraloaf.
counterpoint: it would only be worth it as long as an audience finds it interesting. make sure none of his kids reproduce, just because he would hate that. hit him where it matters. everything he cares about; tear it down. make sure he’s forgotten, the genes he loves do not propagate, etc.
No his kids should be allowed to live their lives, Musk free. Odds are that they are victims too, and would like to distance themselves from their pathetic father. Vivian should be able to have a kid of her own, whatever the means, if she believes she can be a good parent.
So if we give him an always-on TV with access to any given news-media, does he see the world and despair that he isn’t out there ruling over a happier people? Or does he read it that everyone out there are fools and only I can fix this?
Not that it matters outside his fluffy 12x12.
If they refuse to tax them, I say we EAT them.
The dipshits will continue to vote GOP, don’t worry.
The reason Luigi is so popular with Americans is because he is a microcosm example of the Sociopathic Oligarch’s worst nightmare - The average American rising up to literally KILL the wealthy. He is just one man with one victim, but what if he were multiplied by hundreds, or thousands, or millions?
The way black people felt about OJ, is now being felt by all working class Americans toward Luigi. So the wealthy, and the system, want to punish him harshly as an example to the rest of us, while we are plotting ways for him to escape punishment.
When the people are demanding a reasonable solution, and they are dismissed by the goverment in favor of punishing Americans in order to benefit the Sociopathic Oligarchs at our expense - AGAIN! - the Free Market will find an alternative, and nothing frightens them more than the threat of Luigi’s Solution catching fire, and becoming a trend.
Excellent point! I feel like Americans don’t like to understand that practically everyone in the U.S. is working class now. If you cannot quit your job tomorrow and live off of passive, savings, and residuals you are working class. The system is designed to facilitate this, with spartan social safety nets and lack of pensions. It’s shit-tier by developed nation standards.
What’s that other quote, ~“it only takes 3.5% of the population to generate massive change”? Obviously I am being flippant in this specific instance, but America is a failed democracy and empire in decline.
There is hope, but it requires taking back the power by direct action.
Mark Penn and Malcolm Gladwell (and many others, im sure) have both written about micro-trends, and how it takes such a small amount of the population - 2 or 3% - to reach a “Tipping Point,” and force major change.
Its the reason the Conservative Propaganda Machine works so hard to keep us so confused and at each other’s throats. They know that if even 3-5% of the population turns on them, they are royally fucked.
Can you expand on how it’s comparable to OJ? The guy killed his (ex) partner. To me, that’s much different.
the jury was sympathetic to Oj, because they saw how much injustice was done against black people, and still does. so they voted to acquit him, despite them knowing he murdered people. AA specifically celebrated that he wont the case , only prude white people dint like him winning.
OJ didnt kill his partner, he killed his ex-wife, but that’s not the point.
The point is that in both cases, the killer and the victim have taken on symbolic roles for different segments of society. In OJs case, he represented black citizens, especially those in LA, who had been brutally, systematically discriminated against by the LAPD for decades, while his white victim became symbolic of white crime victims at the hands of black criminals.
In Luigi’s case, he has come to represent the people who have been systematically discriminated against by corporations in general, but especially by the breath-takingly corrupt health care insurance system, while the corporate serial-killer CEO has come to represent the Sociopathic Oligarchs and amoral trans-national corporations who ruthlessly, sociopathically exploit every hard-working American. Obviously, the Sociopathic Oligarchs dont share the same perspective. Like all ultra-wealthy, they think that they are the victims, and that poor people get ALL the breaks.
It should be noted that neither set out to be a symbolic example for American society, or at least OJ didn’t. He was a fucking dickhead, who had the world by the balls, and just threw it all away in a stupid jealous rage, probably exacerbated by steroids.
Luigi may have hoped he would kick off a movement, and he has, but we don’t know what his motivations truly were because he’s not admitting to anything, as he should. He still has a chance to get acquitted based on his face not being seen in the murder video. That alone is enough for a juror to claim reasonable doubt, so he should keep claiming his innocence.
The bottom line is that we, as a society, apply these symbolic roles to these people, outside of their control. Those that deliberately try to set off a revolution, usually fail, like Charles Manson trying to touch of Helter Skelter (his designation for a race war) with his mass murders. Other examples of those who have been assigned symbolic societal roles include Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman, or the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, etc.
No not at all. OJs case was important in a lot of ways with regards to race and law in the us. It is nothing (ok im armchair, maybe a little bit) like luigies capping. OJ murdered his wife, no one exempts that but we agree law enforcement and the next parts of the justice system are racist as fuck so we maybe dont know or forgive OJ. Also he was in national lampoon.
Luigi def murdered that guy and no one cares about luigis specficis. We choose luigi.
I like how luigi was being astroturfed by the grifters and MSMs until they realize they are making things worst by turning rabid right wingers agains tthem. all of the msms and grifters went quiet for a month. ALso it was drawing attention away from musk and TRUMP too.
Luigi isnt going anywhere. He still has a trial ahead, and it promises to be a full-fledged circus, potentially bigger than the OJ Trial which was a legal spectacle beyond description.
HitlerPig won’t be able to avoid Luigi’s spotlight, and he will be making daily special updates to air his ignorant opinions. I wouldn’t even be surprised if he shows up to watch the trial one day.
