ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted December 14, 2023 ATRL Moderator Posted December 14, 2023 2 hours ago, WildHeart said: I believe we should tax rich much more but there is a massive difference between taxing high and taxing 99.9%. Latter only kills productivity and development which is a recipe for a disaster in the long run and it was, countless times by the societies of past who tried a similar approach. History disagrees with you. The United States was extremely strong when we taxed the ultra wealthy with just over a 90% marginal tax rate.
WildHeart Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bloo said: History disagrees with you. The United States was extremely strong when we taxed the ultra wealthy with just over a 90% marginal tax rate. We live in a much more globalized world today. In the pre-Reagan era, global economic integration was not as intense as it is today, and companies had more limited international activities. Nowadays, many companies have multinational operations and operate in a highly competitive global environment. If tax rates were raised to 90% as in the past, big companies can relocate to other countries. One of the biggest reasons why The United States remains attractive is the opportunities it provides. Can it sustain them with a 90% tax rate? Edited December 14, 2023 by WildHeart
ugo Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bloo said: History disagrees with you. The United States was extremely strong when we taxed the ultra wealthy with just over a 90% marginal tax rate. You can't tax that much otherwise the ultra wealthy just move out to other countries and then you're left with a country with no activity Some people claiming that doctors aren't part of the upper middle-wealthy class just to drag Taylor Edited December 14, 2023 by ugo
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted December 14, 2023 ATRL Moderator Posted December 14, 2023 6 hours ago, WildHeart said: We live in a much more globalized world today. In the pre-Reagan era, global economic integration was not as intense as it is today, and companies had more limited international activities. Nowadays, many companies have multinational operations and operate in a highly competitive global environment. If tax rates were raised to 90% as in the past, big companies can relocate to other countries. One of the biggest reasons why The United States remains attractive is the opportunities it provides. Can it sustain them with a 90% tax rate? This is a terrible and pretty baseless argument, honestly. We're a developed country. Apple is not going to ship up and move to the Global South if we tax Tim Cook. Why? Well, because being in the United States provides a litany of benefits from the tax-provided infrastructure and subsidies that many of these companies rely on to bootstrap their development. Taxing a billionaire a high rate isn't going to magically change that. These companies profit from existing in the United States because of its development. Now, you might say, "Well, they could move to another developed country." Sure. Well enough. But where to? To Sweden, where Spotify is headquartered, which has a MUCH higher taxation rate than the US? The board of a publicly traded company is not going to move overseas because the billionaires among them are fairly taxed. Additionally, even if they do, who cares? Let them go. That is no excuse to justify a system where people can amass ungodly amounts of money in a country where you have entire communities where children have brain defects because of lead being in their drinking water. [x] 3 hours ago, ugo said: You can't tax that much otherwise the ultra wealthy just move out to other countries and then you're left with a country with no activity We did tax that much and they're still here. Where would they go if we went back to that tax rate? Sweden? Germany? All of these places tax higher than us. A country in the Global South won't do because these companies rely on the development our taxes pay for to get by. Quote Some people claiming that doctors aren't part of the upper middle-wealthy class just to drag Taylor Comparing the money a doctor makes to a billionaire is so beyond laughable. Taylor is my most listened to artist of the past year. I generally like her a good amount. But my worldview on economic justice won't suddenly change because someone I have a positive opinion about is now a billionaire. Billionaires still shouldn't exist. It's telling you're only view this discussion as a "stan" thing.
Armani? Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 21 hours ago, Devin said: i mean she earned it. does the $$$ match the talent displayed on the tour is a different convo.
Armani? Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 I don't know how a artist would get a billion dollars from being on tour, if we're talking after the box office #s are distributed to all the workers, dancers etc
alexrex Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 18 hours ago, AMIT said: But that's the thing, the system IS working in the way it was intended to. It is not broken. The state(/government) is not broken, it is working how it's supposed to. It was put in place to benefit the people at the top and that's what it has always done, continues to do and will always do. Every single modern nation-state works for a given class of rich people, there are no exceptions. Well, yeah. But it could work in benefit of everyone if those on top didn't use it exclusively to their personal gain. And they're destroying the planet at the same time.
ugo Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 1 hour ago, Bloo said: This is a terrible and pretty baseless argument, honestly. We're a developed country. Apple is not going to ship up and move to the Global South if we tax Tim Cook. Why? Well, because being in the United States provides a litany of benefits from the tax-provided infrastructure and subsidies that many of these companies rely on to bootstrap their development. Taxing a billionaire a high rate isn't going to magically change that. These companies profit from existing in the United States because of its development. Now, you might say, "Well, they could move to another developed country." Sure. Well enough. But where to? To Sweden, where Spotify is headquartered, which has a MUCH higher taxation rate than the US? The board of a publicly traded company is not going to move overseas because the billionaires among them are fairly taxed. Additionally, even if they do, who cares? Let them go. That is no excuse to justify a system where people can amass ungodly amounts of money in a country where you have entire communities where children have brain defects because of lead being in their drinking water. [x] We did tax that much and they're still here. Where would they go if we went back to that tax rate? Sweden? Germany? All of these places tax higher than us. A country in the Global South won't do because these companies rely on the development our taxes pay for to get by. Comparing the money a doctor makes to a billionaire is so beyond laughable. Taylor is my most listened to artist of the past year. I generally like her a good amount. But my worldview on economic justice won't suddenly change because someone I have a positive opinion about is now a billionaire. Billionaires still shouldn't exist. It's telling you're only view this discussion as a "stan" thing. They would move anywhere we’re talking about billion dollar worth companies
ugo Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 42 minutes ago, Armani? said: I don't know how a artist would get a billion dollars from being on tour, if we're talking after the box office #s are distributed to all the workers, dancers etc You could distribute 40 million to all your workers and it would be more than enough
WildHeart Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 2 hours ago, Bloo said: Now, you might say, "Well, they could move to another developed country." Sure. Well enough. But where to? To Sweden, where Spotify is headquartered, which has a MUCH higher taxation rate than the US? They have higher taxation rate at the moment. They wouldn't have if the US implements 90% tax rate. 2 hours ago, Bloo said: Additionally, even if they do, who cares? Let them go. That is no excuse to justify a system where people can amass ungodly amounts Top 3,647 US based companies worth 48.8 Trillion USD. Higher than the combined GDP of the US, China and Germany combined. How would the system change if you implement 2x tax rates with half the companies which result in... same budget at the end? Again, i don't have any problem with higher tax rates. It should happen. What i am saying is that things like 95% tax rate or "no billionaires" are not enforceable in today's world even in a developed country like the US, let alone developing countries. 2 hours ago, Bloo said: Billionaires still shouldn't exist. Top 10 richest people worth more than +100 Billion each. For such thing to happen, you have to tax them with what? 99% tax rate? Taking everything they own wouldn't change a thing at that point.
TipToe Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 That's a rhetorical question, right? Anyway, it's not her "job" that makes it somewhat "not right", being a musician and bringing joy to people (making them going broke in the process) is a fair way to make a living. She is part of a big machine with a lot of money injected on it, it's just how the system works and she's lucky enough the be one of that industry big players. Just like a soccer player, does anyone really think Neymar deserves 700k a week for running after a ball and rolling around the field, for example? The money keep on flowing nonetheless, he's just a tiny piece of a giant industry.
Strawberry Bubble Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 There is not an objective morality, it depends on you if you think that's correct or not.
Shelter Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 Most celebs don’t deserve the money they make. People saying they work hard for it, so you think normal people doing a long day don’t work hard, and most get **** all pay Same with footballers. The world is sad. I also think it’s gross how celebs don’t donate more or use their platforms more. The absolute greed of some of them, they milk their fans for every penny.
AMIT Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 4 hours ago, alexrex said: Well, yeah. But it could work in benefit of everyone if those on top didn't use it exclusively to their personal gain. And they're destroying the planet at the same time. The system as in capitalism? No, it could not, because that would go against its principles. It was made by the rich to further their own personal gain, so it is working as intended, including the environment destruction.
alexrex Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 30 minutes ago, AMIT said: The system as in capitalism? No, it could not, because that would go against its principles. It was made by the rich to further their own personal gain, so it is working as intended, including the environment destruction. More as the economic model that makes possible the exchange and the work opportunities. But well, it ends up being someone on top getting most of the revenue from the others. Well, I doubt the environment destruction was intended, since many people had no idea about what would happen afterwards when capitalism became the norm. Today they do, but it's because we have the studies and the information and the actual evidence about it
Beyonnaise Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 (edited) 19 hours ago, Psyduck said: She has done that plenty in her industry. Especially what she did to Olivia, stealing a piece of a song that she had zero part in writing, and no you can't copyright shouting, was despicable and so low and exposes her for the massive hypocrite she is, after going on a media campaign about how it's so important for artists to own their work. Taylor is cutthroat and ruthless and fiercely competitive about her #1 spot in the music industry, when Olivia broke records with Sour release she flipped like a switch and went on the offensive. Because here comes a girl who is just as talented a writer but much younger and prettier than she is. Taylor is still selling high school fantasies (re-recorded) to women despite pushing 40, while Olivia is actually age appropriate singing about the same things. Olivia is an existential threat to her so she attacked. It was SO low. Disgusting actually. The power difference is insane. She was already close to being a billionaire then in 2021 vs a brand new artist. Incredibly abusive and disgusting all around. Destroyed my opinion of her. She's a psychopath. I said what I said I give zero fucks. Olivia was never a threat to her and doesn’t even have a tenth of her songwriting talent. Clearly the public agrees, seeing as every Guts single bombed compared to her Taylor and Paramore ripoffs. Maybe if she was an original and entertaining artist in her own right instead of just leeching off of the most famous person in the world and crying about her man leaving her for the prettier and more talented Sabrina she wouldn’t be in this predicament. Edited December 14, 2023 by Beyonnaise
Psyduck Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Beyonnaise said: Olivia was never a threat to her and doesn’t even have a tenth of her songwriting talent. Clearly the public agrees, seeing as every Guts single bombed compared to her Taylor and Paramore ripoffs. Maybe if she was an original and entertaining artist in her own right instead of just leeching off of the most famous person in the world and crying about her man leaving her for the prettier and more talented Sabrina she wouldn’t be in this predicament. Please, Sour and Guts are just as well-written as Taylor's first two albums (released when they were of similar age). Why else do you think Taylor had her lawyers demand credit on "Deja Vu" if she wasn't threatened? It only happened after 'Sour' came out and broke records instantly. Taylor went into hostile mode the second that happened. And do you really think thee most in-control artist in the industry, Taylor Swift, would just let her publishing company do that without her explicit approval? There is NO justification for what she did. Outright theft, abuse and bullying. Edited December 14, 2023 by Psyduck
AMIT Posted December 14, 2023 Posted December 14, 2023 26 minutes ago, alexrex said: More as the economic model that makes possible the exchange and the work opportunities. But well, it ends up being someone on top getting most of the revenue from the others. Well, I doubt the environment destruction was intended, since many people had no idea about what would happen afterwards when capitalism became the norm. Today they do, but it's because we have the studies and the information and the actual evidence about it Because that is by design. That part is integral to how capitalism (and yes that's the name of it) functions, it is based on the exploitation of others' labor and of the natural resources for profits. Most people (aka not the capitalists) had no say in which economic system they were going to live under, it was imposed on them (us) and then propagandized to the masses in order to justify itself. There is no other outcome outside of total environmental destruction on a system based on infinite growth. It might not have been ''intended'' but it was inevitable with the way the system is ran. 1
Beyonnaise Posted December 15, 2023 Posted December 15, 2023 56 minutes ago, Psyduck said: And do you really think thee most in-control artist in the industry, Taylor Swift, would just let her publishing company do that without her explicit approval? “Olivia Rodrigo” and all of her songs wouldn’t exist without Taylor Swift. She even sampled New Year’s Day as a bid to poach Swifties. The desperate Disney Channel girl got exactly what was coming to her and Taylord got her deserved coin 1
Cesar Posted December 15, 2023 Posted December 15, 2023 her merch was definitely not made by people making a livable wage
ALΞX Posted December 15, 2023 Posted December 15, 2023 8 hours ago, Psyduck said: Please, Sour and Guts are just as well-written as Taylor's first two albums (released when they were of similar age). Why else do you think Taylor had her lawyers demand credit on "Deja Vu" if she wasn't threatened? It only happened after 'Sour' came out and broke records instantly. Taylor went into hostile mode the second that happened. And do you really think thee most in-control artist in the industry, Taylor Swift, would just let her publishing company do that without her explicit approval? There is NO justification for what she did. Outright theft, abuse and bullying. That girl ain’t gonna be around long. Get over it.
GraceRandolph Posted December 15, 2023 Posted December 15, 2023 9 minutes ago, ALΞX said: Why would it not be? Its earned. He goes into depth about why it's wrong:
ALΞX Posted December 15, 2023 Posted December 15, 2023 On 12/13/2023 at 10:44 PM, Psyduck said: She has done that plenty in her industry. Especially what she did to Olivia, stealing a piece of a song that she had zero part in writing, and no you can't copyright shouting, was despicable and so low and exposes her for the massive hypocrite she is, after going on a media campaign about how it's so important for artists to own their work. Taylor is cutthroat and ruthless and fiercely competitive about her #1 spot in the music industry, when Olivia broke records with Sour release she flipped like a switch and went on the offensive. Because here comes a girl who is just as talented a writer but much younger and prettier than she is. Taylor is still selling high school fantasies (re-recorded) to women despite pushing 40, while Olivia is actually age appropriate singing about the same things. Olivia is an existential threat to her so she attacked. It was SO low. Disgusting actually. The power difference is insane. She was already close to being a billionaire then in 2021 vs a brand new artist. Incredibly abusive and disgusting all around. Destroyed my opinion of her. She's a psychopath. I said what I said I give zero fucks. You’re a disgusting human being and probably a child mentally. Bless your heart. Let the adults talk from now on sweetie. You sound miserable.
Recommended Posts