black321 wrote:
I don't think we need to return to the Mamdami discussion... which I think we're aligned with.

I will freely admit that I am far too focused on taxation, but it's where my career started (big firms, global clients, very wealthy individuals).  I worked for a tax planning genius and at that level it's really just a game.  He was referred from one friend to another...over and over.   This was to save tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Not to avoid tax on Billions.

I'm all for playing within the rules, but the rules no longer make sense.  We don't care that we're piling up massive debt.  Now, instead of playing the game and paying an amount of tax that resembles fair, they've decided to fix the game.  To get away with it, they need to "sell it" to the rank and file, and that's done by waving a flag and talking about the "American Dream" and the virtues of "Capitalism".   It's a scam.  Trickle down is a farce.  Billionaire benevolence is a joke.  It's not a secret, they're laughing about it over a $400 Japanese melon.  

 rgio wrote:

your tangling so many different thoughts and arguments...arguing something i'm not. this is a much broader discussion...apples and oranges. 
or do you want to bring this back to the original point, and support Mamdami, his positions and how to finance them? 

 rgio wrote:
Trickle trickle little star.

 black321 wrote:
You've hit the Kool-aid hard.

If you look at the 20 wealthiest Americans, the list is tech, consolidation, and importing.  Are Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Tik Tok advancements for society?  Do we need 3 Walton's on the list because Sam "thought big"? 

Social media is easy... let's look at Walmart.  They didn't create 1.6M jobs in the US, they consolidated 2M.  They also turned 500k of those jobs into part-time, which avoids benefits and lowers costs/raises profits.  In turn those 500k people turn to the government programs for insurance or go without.  Healthcare for everyone costs more because of that.

That is an infrastructure problem.  We are rewarding the use of the socially funded safety net to enable individuals that are already unreasonably rich to become even richer.

And as for the inheritance tax.... Sam Walton dies.... and his heirs are currently 3 of the 16 richest Americans.   Is it reasonable that 3 children should each be worth ~$100B?  I know that the Walton's do a lot of good for Arkansas, but on top of that should we lower their taxes?

There are 2 things to consider...

Bezos, Zuck, Musk.... they would all have done EXACTLY the same thing with a 50% tax rate on billionaires.  Oddly enough.... it's not really about the money until they have it, and then feel like you're taking it away from them.

Second, with the clear exception of Musk, it's incredibly rare for someone to deliver value twice.  Private Equity billions like Peter Theil are only possibly because we socialize the losses.  He's not creating anything....he's playing the lottery where the odds of winning are 1 in 10 versus whatever PowerBall is.

American's have been duped.  They are being played by their own greed and a belief in a system that somehow everyone who works hard can get ahead.  We say that, and then we get angry when Harvard won't admit more than 3% of the applicants, and WTF is going on with all of the foreigners?   If hard work is enough, why do we hate privileged and achievement in education and praise it like a religion in business?

Our fundamental brilliance is rewarding risk and innovation, but the equilibrium you suggest is a distraction, not a plan.  If it's a goal, how do we get there and what are the metrics we're going to attach to it to ensure success?

All hands on deck! Still got at least 3 months to demonize...

Don't vote for Mamdani. Because Trump.

 rgio wrote:

And the rich who use the infrastructure also provide value to society in the products and services they produce...the rest of us benefit. 
Again, the point is where is the equilibrium? 

 black321 wrote:
The sentences above and below are mutually exclusive.


The infrastructure enables the rich not paying their fair share.   We all have the option to become billionaires, and when that happens, the rate needs to reflect our good luck.  It current does not, and the infrastructure is the problem.

 islander wrote:

I think the average voter doesnt mind paying taxes if they are seeing results. Without results, they are probably happy keeping their wages, despite the rising debt.
You've argued about how the billionaires use the infrastructure to their advantage...and that's a good point...but we all have that option.
I'm not arguing against higher taxes on the rich...I think there is an optimal rate, which we are currently below. 
I think we can make up ground raising capital gains and estate tax rates (above some ridiculous level like say $100M, $200M?), as well as the income tax rate...mostly at the federal level. 

 black321 wrote:

Sorry, but this is BS. much innovation has been killed by the current CEOs who have bought and stifled competition.  I've been leadership in a large business and I've sat with many board members and CEOs. They aren't that special. You're a big free market guy - innovation will come when it's needed, we don't need sociopaths to make good products.  You solve the problem by appropriate regulation. And you don't let the regulation be decided by those being regulated. Similar with tax policy.

 buddy wrote:

More from CO, Denver has a housing pilot program that provides tax relief to entice developers...a better way to go.

 black321 wrote:


The current American way seems to be don't tax anyone (well except for tariffs). Give the rich all the breaks, and tell everyone else suffering to tug those bootstraps. I'm not saying he has the correct solution. I am saying his solutions will find traction when you don't offer an alternative - much like the maga non-solutions have taken hold. The middle is the way that has worked for decades, but people began to game the system and the middle has died.  

 Steely_D wrote:
This is the trap that the rich have set.   We aren't taxing them while they're alive. 

As of 2025, with a little estate planning, the first $28M is tax free.  As has been raised by Islander and discussed by me.... if you're really rich, you can avoid a great deal of that as well.   

The beauty of the tax code and the estate rules is that the rich have YOU making arguments of fairness about the estate tax, which ignores the reality that they didn't pay "their share" when they were alive.  VERY FEW people in the US get caught in the estate tax net, yet it just feels like communism because we're supposed to keep what we earn.

Somebody has to pay for the military, the government, the rules enforcement, and the general well-being stuff... but the Republicans have learned from the wealthy that most Americans are too stupid to understand that the rich aren't paying much at all.   They're learned that (as Islander said....) we're all a few months away from being billionaires, so when I make it, I sure as hell don't want to pay taxes to support others.   Screw 'em.

The beauty of America was that we support failure.  It's what makes us great.  You try something and it doesn't work out.... you can declare bankrutpcy and we don't hold it against you.  Nowhere else supports this broad a program.  The problem is that we've increasingly privatized wealth.  We no longer all share in the profits of success, while picking up the tab for failure.  Trump is the poster boy for socialized failure / privatized success.

As an aside.... I've almost never seen multi-generational money that has delivered normal, happy citizens.  They are almost always very strange.... very sad... very lonely people.   

 black321 wrote:

I'm not disagreeing that it needs to be taxed while they're alive, not at all. Crank it up so the nation can function and it doesn't make sense to them to keep hoarding, absolutely!

But why tax the kids? 

 Steely_D wrote:

they earned it, not their kids...I'm not saying tax everything, just the excessive amounts.

 Red_Dragon wrote:

Probably right in most cases...and i dont think i ever met a CEO who's psyche wasn't a bit off.  - I mean, you need a certain ruthlessness, good or bad, to exceed. Many of these folks ultimately provided something of value to society...I mean you enjoy your computer dont you? We wouldnt have these tools if you or I were CEOS.

The question is, how do you solve the big problem of capitalism: the excessive accumulation of wealth. 

 islander wrote:

as a country, I agree.
but if NY raises, and FL lowers...you're not solving a problem for the NY working class.

The growing inequality between c-suite and laborer is real. Good answers are more unions, ESOPS, coops...and raising cap gains rates. 

tax the rich so the gov can open its own grocery stores and make everything free is too simple, avoids the other half of the equation and is not the American way (not saying that in a flag waving way, but to reflect the wishes of what most people want).

 Red_Dragon wrote:

But designating someone as sociopathic or even immoral based on a number is a slippery slope. Remember that the stereotypical Mr Moneybags was a *gasp* millionaire!! in the past. Now, that doesn't seem like a reasonable sign of greed/immorality. It's just...owning a house in many places.

Someone like Bill Gates (about whom, I'll allow, I know very little) doesn't strike me as being someone other than a very bright guy in the right place at the right time - maybe like the guy with the patent on the zipper on your trousers. They developed a better mousetrap and profited heavily from that innovation.

Rather than saying "this year's threshold is $7.5B USD for the declaration that they deserve to be pilloried" it makes more sense to think about it on an individual basis. What did they do with their piles of gold? And, must we know what they do with it? Are we their mommies/bankers? Who are we to judge?

In fact, some of us could be very middle of the road, but heinous and sociopathic and immoral as well. 

 black321 wrote:

I disagree. No one "earns" a billion dollars, they exploit it from others - from the system. It's sociopathic and immoral.

 black321 wrote:
But...they "earned" it. Why should they not be able to divvy it up to heirs/causes? Using hyperbole, why is grave robbing OK?

 black321 wrote:

But what if the national.gov refuses to do it?