Elon Musk explaining why “billionaires should not be taxed”

[Hulk]

On 1/1/2022 at 9:55 PM, Leo Gura said:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary wealth depends on his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair

Here's why billionaires should be taxed more: Because a society with huge wealth inequality becomes fundamentally undemocratic, unhealthy, and eats itself alive

Billionaires should be taxed more for the same reason cancer cells should be checked by the immune system.

A billionaire saying to tax him less is like a cancer cell saying, "Control my reproduction less, I will do great things."

I don't agree with this idea that wealthy people are portrayed like cancer, what if they are the immune. There is no scientific study that shows that they are harming or benefiting the system. These idea should be carefully must be examined.

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Hulk said:

I don't agree with this idea that wealthy people are portrayed like cancer, what if they are the immune. There is no scientific study that shows that they are harming or benefiting the system. These idea should be carefully must be examined.

Isnt the issue more about having a few unelected people making decisions that potentially could affect a lot of people? 

[captainamerica]

19 hours ago, Consept said:

Isnt the issue more about having a few unelected people making decisions that potentially could affect a lot of people? 

In terms of Wealth Inequality, by that logic, the rest of the world should tax America half of its GDP. Lol. 

But there is this thing called complexity. 

[Consept]

 

6 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

In terms of Wealth Inequality, by that logic, the rest of the world should tax America half of its GDP. Lol. 

But there is this thing called complexity. 

Lol you probably didn't mean it but that came across really patronising. 

Either way my point still stands if you want to engage it. To clarify I'm saying from an individual country perspective, within that country there will be rich people and there will be elected officials or system of government. The question is should the rich people make decisions that could affect the country or should the system prevent them from doing it and make the decisions themselves?

[captainamerica]

33 minutes ago, Consept said:

 

Lol you probably didn't mean it but that came across really patronising. 

Either way my point still stands if you want to engage it. To clarify I'm saying from an individual country perspective, within that country there will be rich people and there will be elected officials or system of government. The question is should the rich people make decisions that could affect the country or should the system prevent them from doing it and make the decisions themselves?

Why not? How does your point still stand?

• America is so rich it can single-handedly destroy the planet with climate change according to the Progressive's understanding of the effective rate of Climate Change. Why should others deal with it?
• America is so rich it can and does change geopolitics at its whim. Why should the other 7 billion people in the globe be forced to live with a country so rich it can afford a war 7400 miles away effortlessly?
• America has a highly disproportionate global resource(including Physical labor and even IT) use because an average citizen in America is so rich. 
• America is so rich it has more Military budget than the next 11 biggest countries combined. You don't even need me to say what wrong can happen due to that at a global level. 
• Even within its borders, the CIA has done a lot of stuff like the Gateway process for military usage. All because it has money to fund it. No other country comes even a 100-mile radius close in this arena. 
• And to top it all, America has so much money it can easily bribe the United Nations and other bodies that can prevent this from happening. What's stopping that?

Edited January 4, 2022 by captainamerica

[Consept]

Yes you're probably right America is too powerful but that power is still within a system. The question I put forward is should an individual rich person within a hypothetical country be able to make decisions over a system. Difference being in theory a system can be affected by individuals through voting or getting involved in politics, a billionaire isn't voted in he's just rich, you can argue about the system being effective or fair. So I'm not making a point  necessarily I'm just asking if power should be given to the rich to make decisions or should a government make them? it's an either or question. 

[captainamerica]

2 minutes ago, Consept said:

. The question I put forward is should an individual rich person within a hypothetical country be able to make decisions over a system.

The answer to your question is no. 

But my question is about your assumptions of the system and the fact that it is a complex matter that cannot be resolved in a binary thinking manner. Can an individual actually do that with wealth alone or there are there several other underlying factors and components in the system? That is the point. 

Because if it is as simple as wealth alone then:

53 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

In terms of Wealth Inequality, by that logic, the rest of the world should tax America half of its GDP.

[Consept]

@captainamerica so what would an individual need apart from being rich to be able to make decisions? 

[captainamerica]

On 04/01/2022 at 8:51 PM, Consept said:

Yes you're probably right America is too powerful but that power is still within a system.

America is an Individual country within the global system. 

On 04/01/2022 at 8:37 PM, captainamerica said:

Why not? How does your point still stand?

• America is so rich it can single-handedly destroy the planet with climate change according to the Progressive's understanding of the effective rate of Climate Change. Why should others deal with it?
• America is so rich it can and does change geopolitics at its whim. Why should the other 7 billion people in the globe be forced to live with a country so rich it can afford a war 7400 miles away effortlessly?
• America has a highly disproportionate global resource(including Physical labor and even IT) use because an average citizen in America is so rich. 
• America is so rich it has more Military budget than the next 11 biggest countries combined. You don't even need me to say what wrong can happen due to that at a global level. 
• Even within its borders, the CIA has done a lot of stuff like the Gateway process for military usage. All because it has money to fund it. No other country comes even a 100-mile radius close in this arena. 
• And to top it all, America has so much money it can easily bribe the United Nations and other bodies that can prevent this from happening. What's stopping that?

Another example. New York is the financial capital of the world. It impacts the world in all sorts of positive ways. But the impact it huge and disproportionate. 

@Consept So should the world tax America 50 percent of its GDP?

[captainamerica]

On 04/01/2022 at 8:37 PM, captainamerica said:

• America is so rich it can single-handedly destroy the planet with climate change according to the Progressive's understanding of the effective rate of Climate Change. Why should others deal with it?
•  

Btw, I don't think the progressive leaders believe this. Only the certain voters. This is not what the Scientists are not saying.

AOC said the world is coming to end in 12 years for eg.

It is a common tactic. This technique is followed by visionaries and salesmen all the time.

You can take a group of people and give a vision very motivating to them but despite all the good execution along those lines, it does not stick. It looks like it will but it fails with an unimaginable consistency. 

An idea or a vision needs to have a sense of urgency to stick to a group of people over a long time. This is the key. 

Most of the time Progressives are using this fact to use Climate Change ideas to further a sense of urgency towards their economic vision to have certain voters like their ideas for the economy and win votes.

[captainamerica]

On 04/01/2022 at 9:02 PM, Consept said:

@captainamerica so what would an individual need apart from being rich to be able to make decisions? 

Can you please define which kinds of decisions are we talking about here?

Decisions over the product or company are already regulated a lot for eg. SpaceX cannot even hire people who are not American citizens even if they have a work visa because the company is in this industry. The entire process and all of the launches are regulated as well. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by captainamerica

[Consept]

I'll answer your question but answer mine first, as its more relevant to the topic. What is the criteria, apart from being extremely wealthy, for an individual to be able to make decisions that affect a mass amount of people?

[captainamerica]

9 minutes ago, Consept said:

I'll answer your question but answer mine first, as its more relevant to the topic. What is the criteria, apart from being extremely wealthy, for an individual to be able to make decisions that affect a mass amount of people?

You may have missed the post that I made above. No problem.

Check the post. But let's discuss both at the same time because both are clearly relevant to the topic. I don't see how it does not have the same relevance if we think about it. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by captainamerica

[Consept]

I take your point which as I understand it is if the wealth is concentrated in one country, should that countries wealth be redistributed amongst other countries within the global community. 

A utopian answer might be that yes all wealth should be redistributed. But of course that would be a complex thing to just impart, having said that there is more responsibility on countries like the US to offer aid, military support etc to less wealthy countries. 

Regarding being taxed on an individual level for one each person within the system has tacitly agreed to it, so once you've made money you can't just turn around and say I don't want to contribute anymore, if you do then you are free to go to Puerto Rico or wherever and pay less tax if you choose. But in theory you have used the US system and people to make your money, it wasn't done in a vacuum. Also this money that you are being taxed in theory should help others also become successful. 

 

[Consept]

But yeah in theory, after a country has met is expenses etc if there's a profit then yeah you can have a tax I don't see a problem with that, I mean probably they'll make sure they spend all their money 

[BlueOak]

@captainamerica

People have difficulty speaking to you without getting angry because of wording like this:

foolishness
strawman
fairytales
manipulation
evil people
Naive people
Progressives brainwash innocent people

Watch: You are a foolish person who makes constant strawmans, lives in fairytales, manipulates others, is very naive and an evil person. You brainwash innocent people prone to listening to you. 

That's from the first two pages. If you genuinely want honest discourse not discussion of personality or emotional retort, remove this from your arguments. If anything doing that and taking the step back will help your arguments, because its very easy and natural for someone to dismiss what you are saying when talking to them in this manner. 

By the way we can all fall into this, I do. I am no saint but if I ever look back, I realise I undermined myself. Because I would never convince you of anything, i'd just be saying words to feel good.

Edited January 9, 2022 by BlueOak

[captainamerica]

On 09/01/2022 at 4:24 PM, BlueOak said:

@captainamerica

People have difficulty speaking to you without getting angry because of wording like this:

foolishness
strawman
fairytales
manipulation
evil people
Naive people
Progressives brainwash innocent people

Watch: You are a foolish person who makes constant strawmans, lives in fairytales, manipulates others, is very naive and an evil person. You brainwash innocent people prone to listening to you. 

That's from the first two pages. If you genuinely want honest discourse not discussion of personality or emotional retort, remove this from your arguments. If anything doing that and taking the step back will help your arguments, because its very easy and natural for someone to dismiss what you are saying when talking to them in this manner. 

By the way we can all fall into this, I do. I am no saint but if I ever look back, I realise I undermined myself. Because I would never convince you of anything, i'd just be saying words to feel good.

Is this the best that you can do?

 

 

 

 

“At the top, there are no easy choices. All are between evils, the consequences of which are hard to judge.”

~ Dean Acheson

While I do not 100% agree with the quote but it does say a lot about the gravity and ambiguity of Reality. Life is not rainbows and peaches and cream. There are indeed naïve as well as foolish perspectives that will get people hurt and even killed.

If you dislike my perspective then you are welcome to keep to yourself. There is no tax on keeping your mouth shut if you got nothing to say. Thank you.

Edited January 10, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

On 06/01/2022 at 8:41 PM, Consept said:

But yeah in theory, after a country has met is expenses etc if there's a profit then yeah you can have a tax I don't see a problem with that, I mean probably they'll make sure they spend all their money 

Countries don't have profits.

They have good economics and bad economics. And Wealth.

If we assume your conception of Wealth being the only factor for misuse then, US can hypothetically just stop reporting the CIA experiments and still continue them and not even report them as "expenses" etc. Same goes for other things, they can just stop reporting or publishing about it.

Apart from that, the US has an unfunded obligation of 150 Trillion dollars. (You may check below for the sources.) This will take the USA 50-100 years of economic growth to cover. Billionaires have a total wealth of 4 trillion dollars so there is no short cut available as well. It will take 50-100 years. The US is not going to meet its expenses anytime soon, yet the US does so many things because of its good Wealth. The Wealth is the factor that enables it not "profits" and according to you it is the only factor so here we are.

In 2021, govt. collected 4 Trillion Dollars and spent 6.8 Trillion dollars. In 2020, Govt. collected 3.5 Trillion Dollars and spent 6.6 Trillion dollars. In 2019 1 Trillion dollars extra from collection. And this trend you can observe before all the way.

If we go by the logic that the country will just increase its spending then you will need to tax every individual and business 50% of their wealth.  Assuming that wealth alone is the problem.

On 06/01/2022 at 8:06 PM, captainamerica said:

On 04/01/2022 at 8:37 PM, captainamerica said:

Why not? How does your point still stand?

• America is so rich it can single-handedly destroy the planet with climate change according to the Progressive's understanding of the effective rate of Climate Change. Why should others deal with it?
• America is so rich it can and does change geopolitics at its whim. Why should the other 7 billion people in the globe be forced to live with a country so rich it can afford a war 7400 miles away effortlessly?
• America has a highly disproportionate global resource(including Physical labor and even IT) use because an average citizen in America is so rich. 
• America is so rich it has more Military budget than the next 11 biggest countries combined. You don't even need me to say what wrong can happen due to that at a global level. 
• Even within its borders, the CIA has done a lot of stuff like the Gateway process for military usage. All because it has money to fund it. No other country comes even a 100-mile radius close in this arena. 
• And to top it all, America has so much money it can easily bribe the United Nations and other bodies that can prevent this from happening. What's stopping that?

Another example. New York is the financial capital of the world. It impacts the world in all sorts of positive ways. But the impact it huge and disproportionate. 

 

Sources:

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/truth-in-accounting-u-s-national-debt-closer-to-123-trillion-nearly-796-000-per/article_60e10fcc-a1f8-11eb-8dc7-ff790d87d9ee.html

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/debt-in-perspective-analysis.pdf

https://alec.org/article/americas-national-debt-a-rendezvous-with-reality/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/10/10/your-pension-is-a-lie-theres-210-trillion-of-liabilities-our-government-cant-fulfill/?sh=36b1443965b1

[captainamerica]

On 06/01/2022 at 8:38 PM, Consept said:

I take your point which as I understand it is if the wealth is concentrated in one country, should that countries wealth be redistributed amongst other countries within the global community. 

 

Not my point at all.

On 06/01/2022 at 8:38 PM, Consept said:

But of course that would be a complex thing to just impart, having said that there is more responsibility on countries like the US to offer aid, military support etc to less wealthy countries. 

But again it begs the question.

The US has a military budget which is more than the next 11 biggest countries combined.

Who/What components are stopping the US from misusing the Military or any other aid that it will give since it has so much wealth? This is assuming your assumption that wealth is the only component that determines.

On 06/01/2022 at 8:38 PM, Consept said:

Regarding being taxed on an individual level for one each person within the system has tacitly agreed to it, so once you've made money you can't just turn around and say I don't want to contribute anymore, if you do then you are free to go to Puerto Rico or wherever and pay less tax if you choose. B

I agree. You should not just turn around and say such a selfish thing.  But I don't see literally anyone saying that. Perhaps a minority of wealthy people say that, if you want to close the loopholes for those who do not pay taxes I am with you.

Elon Musk for example has a tax rate of 57 percent plus there are surcharges and added tax on exercising options I believe so it is about 60 percent tax.  He, and many others, are paying a 60 Percent tax, who is saying I don't want to contribute anymore?

On 06/01/2022 at 8:38 PM, Consept said:

But in theory you have used the US system and people to make your money, it wasn't done in a vacuum. Also this money that you are being taxed in theory should help others also become successful. 

That is the thing. We have hit one of the cruxes of this matter. Other people becoming successful.

I will make a post on it in some time. You review that and share your thoughts on it.

Edited January 10, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

@Consept

Let me ask you, you mention this thing about profits repeatedly so… Do you not like the idea of profits? Should profits be abolished?

Also since we are discussing wealth inequality in the US, what are your thoughts on this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFShD7xGIe0

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by captainamerica