Just because you inferred something does not mean that I actually wrote or meant what you inferred.
Except you did.
I have been reading WaPo for decades but in recent years haven’t bothered with the Opinions pages. I did today and omg. We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.
No, I don't think that we should have billionaires. The reason I do not think we should have billionaires is that billionaires become billionaires because we have allowed our tax structure and corporate laws and labor laws and real estate laws to create conditions under which some people can avoid paying their fair share and foist the burden of their extreme privilege onto the other 99.99 percent of us.
And you did again.
How would you define "fair share"?
Also, billionaires become billionaires because they own a significant share of companies that explode in value. When Musk joined Tesla in 2004, it was worth mere millions with an initial investment of $7.5M. When it was taken public in 2010, it's market cap was ~$2.2G. Now it's over $1T.
I do not see how you can avoid having billionaires without making it impossible to own shares in companies that become very valuable over time.
They avoid all sorts of legal obligations, laws, etc. which is absolutely against what our country was founded on.
Which laws, for example?
That's what I object to. I don't much care about billionaires bidding against each other for some tacky mansion or another. I DO care that billionaires move into a neighborhood and take it over, impeding the usual and customary movements, etc. within said neighborhood for their own convenience.
There aren't enough billionaires in the US to take over entire new neighborhoods. The neighborhoods where billionaires like Bezos have their mansions have been super rich for generations. For example, Bezos owns the Jack Warner Estate (of the Warner Brothers fame) in Beverly Hills which was built in 1937. Bezos has hardly taken over a neighborhood filled with normal people with that purchase!
I do care that billionaires can buy elections and legislators etc. so that laws favor them vs the rest of us.
I agree that Citizens United was wrongly decided. That is not a sufficient reason to want to "eliminate billionaires" through a massive wealth tax though.
I do care that billionaires can purchase children and others.
Where can they do that? In the US, the 13th Amendment is still in force.
I do care that billionaires can purchase law enforcement. I do care that billionaires can avoid prosecution for crimes they commit.
Is there a particular case you are referring to here? Or is it just based on your prejudices?
I do care that billionaires are treated differently than you or I would be.
People are treated differently based on their circumstances. That is hardly exclusive to billionaires. 1%ers are treated differently than you (presumably) and I.
I do care that people who work more than 40 hrs/week still cannot afford housing and food and that for too many, decent health insurance is a fantasy. Because billionaires earn their money off of the poverty of these people.
There are some fulfillment centers nearby. The posted warehouse jobs pay $18.50-$20.50. That's hardly low wages, especially given that Metro Atlanta is a MCOL area.
Yes, a lot of people are struggling, but I think placing special blame on the billionaires is simplistic. For one, they create jobs. Not just warehouse jobs spread around the country, but also higher paying professional jobs. Same goes for Tesla and SpaceX. A lot of high paying engineer jobs were created.
Healthcare? Made much better with Obamacare, but there is much need for improvement. I think that efforts for government to pay more of the cost is misguided without efforts to better control costs. Doctors in the US make much more than those in other countries, and there are high costs associated with malpractice lawsuits - both cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and costs of "defensive medicine", i.e. ordering medically unnecessary CYA tests and procedures.
Housing? With increasing population and desire to have more space, housing costs necessarily increase.
I read NYT but no, I don't read all of the NYT and depending on what else is going on in my life (multiple significant issues right now within my family/friend group) I read more or less, depending on the day. I confess that if I read the word 'influencer' I figure it's just a bunch of nonsense that no one with sense would pay any attention to.
The chief problem is that many voters lack any sense.
That said, as much as I disagree with Piker, he is not the type of influencer where it's low effort content whose sole purpose is to shill for some product. He actually interviews newsmakers and such.
Kind of like what Hailey Bieber wore whenever she was last photographed.
Had to look her up to even have an idea who she was.
I mean: Charlie Kirk, a mediocre whte college drop out figured out that a lot of people have sufficiently low self esteem that they were happy to listen to some guy tell them that the fact that they are stuck in dead end jobs is not their fault but the fault of women and minorities who finished college and worked their way into better jobs/better pay.
When you have a system where certain people are given preferential access to college and professional/graduate schools based on their race and gender, then he has a point, no?
During the 1950's there was a huge expansion of business and much higher corporate tax rates.
What were corporate taxes during the 1950s? What was the actual rate of business growth? In other words, [citation needed]
Besides, it was a much different time: aftermath of WWII, most of European industrial base devastated, with US largely unscathed.
In the more contemporary era, US corporate tax rates are not very low. Obama-era corporate tax rate hike resulted in them being higher than most of the world.
Are you conflating Bezos the individual with Amazon the corporation?
Reem Riyashi
