The only people it’s worth it for are the connected billionaires who can scoop up assets cheap while the rest of us end up as serfs.
Yea big gains for current billionaires which as far as trump is concerned are the only people he cares about
Trump would say shit tastes amazing, and his base would start eating shit every day until they get sick. They would never say he was wrong when he so clearly is.
Unhinged.
Trump says, “kill camps might be worth the cost.” Human rights activists disagree.
Worth the cost for what, exactly? everything was okay until you opened Pandora s box and started throwing worms literally everywhere.
Your government is in chaos, your country is in chaos, you even made the World mi chaos and now you want a recession because…?
everything was okay
It certainly wasn’t. Not that Trump is going to make anything better of course; it’s worse from here on out
…for his interests. He always forget to complete the sentence.
Trump hates America
It’s time to start selling off some or all of your stock if you have any.
The United States government just announced its gonna shake it’s own citizens down.
Crashing the economy is literally the point, then his rich asshole friends can acquire a ton of stocks and property while its value is low and when the adults fix it 4 years from now all his friends that got him elected will still win.
Yup. I sold $40K in stocks this morning. I figured 16% profit was pretty solid, I’m going to sit on this until after the blyat has completed his task.
Moved my retirement funds after I found out the index I was in invests in Tesla…
Thought about using the foreign index, just so I could make jokes about all my money being tied up in NICA like in Aqua Teen
I exchanged a bunch of US stock index funds for international stock index fund a week or so ago.
Moved a bunch of mine into SPAXX until I feel the bottom is close.
You can get a better rate, https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/vmrxx
Ooooh thanks for the heads up!
If you’re confident in decline, you can invest in inverse stocks. They go up when the main stock goes down. Think there are even inverse index funds.
I voted for Trump because he said he would AVOID a Recession! And I’m TOTALLY ON BOARD with a Recession NOW because I think for Myself!
Not only economists, but everyone with awareness who uses logical thinking.
Such headlines irritate me because it still offers a modicum of validity to crazy, upon casual reading.
“Environmentalist disapprove of spraying cyanide on crops” would be a more obvious example.
Except that the ultra rich ARE fine with a serious recession, they WANT one so they can buy up shit for cheap and consolidate power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is a 2007 book by Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein. In the book, Klein argues that neoliberal economic policies promoted by Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economics have risen to global prominence because of a deliberate strategy she calls “disaster capitalism”. In this strategy, political actors exploit the chaos of natural disasters, wars, and other crises to push through unpopular policies such as deregulation and privatization. This economic “shock therapy” favors corporate interests while disadvantaging and disenfranchising citizens when they are too distracted and overwhelmed to respond or resist effectively.
This is VERY rational from the perspective of the ultrawealthy (it is really the only strategy they actually want to use if possible) it is just murderous and cruel.
The US economy is about to crash, this is the goal.
And they will get away with it if the majority of people still find themselves unable to act years from now.
In this county, politics as normal has failed and cannot be redeemed at all. Something new has to happen; what I don’t know, a missing ingredient.
Somehow, I hope, even pray, that we will avoid a violent revolution. Which has got to sound just asinine, I know; but I figure Mango Mussolini is specifically trying to cause an uprising to give iron clad “justification” for implementing martial law (and cancelling elections, of course, for “security”).
I dunno, I guess I’ve got this utterly foolish notion that if the mask off fascist society fails to “gel together”, we could, I dunno, have a relatively peaceful dissolution of the federal government, leaving each state it’s own nation. I do not want this, it’s a fucked up resolution that will still cause massive poverty and unrest.
Better than being led into WW3 by a retarded Cheeto, however…😝
Have to commit since he doesn’t know how the fuck to fix it.
At least this one we see coming like a train with no brakes.
The rich pick up assets during g every crash, widening inequality. We need a wealth tax to start reversing some of those gains
We need a tax on unrealized gains over a certain amount (as to not screw the 99%).
Wealth tax over $10M or even 100M would still do massive good. If we can hit billionaires and reinvest that in the working class, the economy is going to go crazy
My dream policy would be a wealth tax that includes company ownership that could be paid with company shares. Any shares paid this way would go to an escrow that is controlled by the employees of the company, eventually trending companies towards becoming worker coops.
The 99% don’t have any unrealized gains to begin with. Even people near the top end of that scale who do have investments have all or most of them in retirement accounts where the gains eventually get taxed as income (traditional) or not at all (Roth) instead.
Nearly every homeowner has unrealized gains in their house value.
Edit: Also, all these unrealized gains of the very rich would also be taxed when transacted, like the retirement funds, but there are loopholes. They can leverage that wealth without “realizing” the value.
Unrealized gains means that the investment vehicle has increased in value since it was purchased, but hasn’t been sold at that value. Every type of investment is going to have either unrealized gains or losses until it’s sold.
Has there ever been an effective wealth tax?
There’s also the option of additional tax brackets for those wealthy whose income still counts as income. Why do the tax brackets stop? Massachusetts has one set $1M that’s doing pretty well
That would be a better choice as we know income taxes do work.
The Netherlands has had one forever, and it is not in economic collapse AFAIK.
It’s not a question of collapse but rather whether said wealth tax causes more capital flight and or evasion/avoidance than it brings in. If enough wealth leaves your country that your tax base is lower and tax revenues are down then that tax isn’t working.
Im not familiar enough with the Netherlands economy or tax structure to talk about it
Yes, absolutely. Coming out of the great depression we clawed back so much, but that’s been slowly dismantled and we’re back in the roaring 20s now
Things are more complicated now, but there’s certainly ways to do this if we have politicians who will fight to carry out our will
Can you provide evidence of concrete examples of specific taxes or articles in the form of an academic economic journal that backs that claim? All of the economics and history of economics that I have studied suggests wealth taxes are very ineffective which is why historically speaking they get axed.
I mean… Fuck economic theory, the entire field is a mess of myths and narratives. There’s good work to be sure, but governments and organizations just find models that support what they want to do, no matter how much it conflicts with observations
There’s historical examples in this country, there’s modern examples like the Scandinavian model… Wealth was redistributed, there’s
I have no idea what you’re asking for. What even is a wealth tax “working” to you?
I mean I could pull up some economists who go over numbers and adamantly advocate for wealth redistribution, but I feel like nothing I give you is going to actually change your mind
Advocating for wealth distribution isn’t the same as a wealth tax. We typically tax income because that’s much more easily and fairly measured than wealth. A functional wealth tax would be one that didn’t cause greater rates of capital flight and tax evasion/avoidance than the amount of revenue it creates.
Frankly, you start off by declaring economic theory to be a “mess of myths and narratives” which doesn’t suggest you have an understanding of the subject. The fact I need to explain what a tax working is and correct you on the difference between supporting redistribution vs backing a wealth tax further supports the idea that maybe you shouldn’t be talking dismissively about a subject you don’t seem to be well versed on.
I never said anything about income tax… But again, these are real things that we used to have and they have elsewhere:
Tax brackets to to 90%+ on business profits - incentivize companies to reinvest in r&d while disincentiving investment
Tax inheritance and crack down on forever trusts
Progressively tax money moving in and out of the country, and close up tax loopholes (killing the tax filing industry would be a necessary prerequisite)
You could even revamp capital gains and certain types of loan to somehow figure into a progressive income tax
And most importantly - this has been done before. It has been done, you can pick apart suggested methods and come up with excuses for why it’s impossible… But it’s so clearly not. Everything else is an engineering problem
If you want to hear economists talk about it, Garys economics on YouTube popped into my feed a few days ago. He’s far from the only one, even Warren Buffett has gone through a plan where he says the full tax burden could be put on businesses
And if you want to know why I don’t respect economics… It’s not because I’m not read up on it, it’s because: how can you read up on it and still think taxing the wealthy is impossible? This has been written about by economists for decades, but it doesn’t matter because there’s more convenient economic theories to push far and wide
Buddy you started off with “fuck economic theory”. You clearly know almost nothing about the subject. Why are you trying to make claims about a subject you aren’t educated on?
We abandoned a lot of those taxes because they weren’t effective. Dropping the top rate from 90% to where it was in 1983 brought in more tax revenue as tax evasion and avoidance dropped. These are the kinds of things you would know if you had an education in macro
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
ARF ARF ARF I’m just asking questions
I asked if any wealth tax has been effective because I am unaware of any. The person who replied enthusiastically “yes” needs to back that because there could be an example I am unaware of. There is the possibility that I am wrong or mistaken.
The only person acting in bad faith here is yourself. You should ask yourself why that’s the choice you made.
I don’t know that I agree with the conclusions of the video. But TLDR just did a video outlining some history in UK and concluded ones off wealth taxes have worked and listed two examples
Im typically not inclined to cede credibility regarding economic claims to any non-academic source regarding economics. Who is TLDR?
edit: There’s zero reason to accept theor analysis as none of them are economists or have a background in the field. This is just a misplaced Appeal to Authority.
Anything is worth the cost when you aren’t the one paying the cost.
