Houston, we have a problem.

[onecaliberal]

https://masto.ai/@rbreich/112418964402378951

rbreich
Robert Reich
@[email protected]
813 US billionaires control a record $5.7 trillion in wealth.

The bottom 50% of Americans control $3.7 trillion in wealth.

When ~800 people control more wealth than half a country’s population, we have a very serious problem.

[TexasDem69]

1. I guess I wonder what the "problem" is

Other than these folks being super-nasty rich, and what the “solution” is.

[FHRRK]

3. HMMM, what could be corrected to allievate this situation?

For years there have been Liberal solutions to this problem.

But if you can't see the problem, then you aren't open to solutions!

[TexasDem69]

7. Educate me

Instead of insulting me.

What liberal solutions am I missing that are consistent with our form of government and economic norms?

[MadameButterfly]

8. End corporate welfare in the form

of tax breaks and loopholes, sought by lobbyists on behalf of said billionaires

End Citizens United which helps rich people secretly fund campaigns with unlimited $ that benefit them financially.

Campaign finance reform to allow non-wealthy people to run for office. IMO this should include limits on ones' own spending on a campaign so the Bloombergs of the world can't buy any more elections. Otherwise we become an oligarchy.

Stop giving more and more tax cuts to the wealthy while our taxes fund the roads and educate the citizens that make their businesses run.

End the spiral of deregulation which allows corporations to defraud consumers and make obscene profits at the expense of the enviornment, etc. which taxpayers then have to clean up.

Support public eduction at all levels and unions which give average people a chance to move up financially in the world and get paid fair wages for honest work.

Hold the Supreme Court accountable by creating ethics rules that are enforceable and impeach justices who accept lavish gifts from billionairs who have cases before the court

Make Net neutrality permanent so that we all have a level playing fieldj, not one that favors the wealthy whenever Republicans are in power.

Restore journalistic standards and apply them to social media so half the country is not voting based on alternative facts and unwittingly against their own finanacial (and other) interests.

i'm not trying to bombard you here, you seemed genuine in wanting to hear problems/solutions, and I could go on and on. This is just a start. I hope it is constructive.

[dmr]

19. Awesome post. Thank you!

[MadameButterfly]

21. Thanks!

[Justice matters.]

46. Super excellent list. Problem is...

To enact all or most of these solutions, a moderate-leaning-left Democratic POTUS plus a super-majority of leaning-left Democratic Representatives and a super-majority of Democratic Senators PLUS an expansion of the Supreme Court to 13 with 4 Justices nominated by the Dem POTUS and confirmed by the super-majority of Dem Senators are needed.

Almost impossible since over 100 million potential voters who would want these solutions if they were informed have given up voting or never voted to begin with, and are not interested to even register.

[MadameButterfly]

54. Almost impossible and almost true

but first you have to envision what you want before you can go after it.

Do we need a supermajority of Representatives or just a majority? A majority of Dem Senators NOT Manchin or Synema can end the filibuster then no supermajority needed there.
Of course changes in the constitution are another matter.

The end of slavery was similarly impossible. Hoping that this doesn't require a Civil War. A warming planet might do it.

Factor in young people replacing old people, a changing understanding of the world. There was a time when marriage equality was put on the ballot to bring in conservative victories. Now it does the opposite. The current electorate won't manage the changes I've listed above, but a future electorate might.

What we have to do now is preserve democracy long enough for the citizenship to evolve.

[Journeyman]

63. I admire your measured optimism. It's what we need more than anything these days . . .

and how true indeed: "first you have to envision what you want before you can go after it."

Or, to quote Mr Lincoln's opening words from his House Divided speech:

"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it."

[MadameButterfly]

75. a perfect brilliant common sense quote for a time of fake news, cult worship, and pessimism

Amazing that Lincoln could see so far ahead. Thanks for reminding me of it. I'll be using it going forward.

[c-rational]

51. Excellent post. Thanks.

[Brenda]

64. Just so you know.

Some people are not genuine.

Excellent concisely worded list. Well done!

[MadameButterfly]

79. Yes, agreed

but when someone asks...and they rarely do.

Thanks!

[onenote]

66. How does net neutrality fit into this?

There were no net neutrality rules in 2008, and Obama was elected. There were net neutrality rules in 2016 and Trump was elected. There were no net neutrality rules in 2020 and Biden was elected.

[MadameButterfly]

77. If service is faster or better for the rich or other priveledged people

it will drive the little guy out of business. The fact that it didn't happen instantly in recent years as the laws went back and forth doesn't mean a permanent policy wouldn't have that effect--sooner or later. It's just another way for Republicans and especially Trump to help the rich and ruin the average guy. It doesn't have to be in favor of rich people--it could benefit certain industries, Republicans over Dems, we can't imagine the ways they'll come up with to use it, if they can.

[90-percent]

68. Compliments

Compliments on your awesome super post!

-90% jimmy

[jmowreader]

69. The problem isn't that we have "tax breaks and loopholes."

Listen close: Deductions and credits are GOOD! Seriously. They encourage the high-wealth taxpayer to spend his money in socially-constructive ways. For instance, we have a deduction that allows the taxpayer to write off the truck he delivers his merchandise in - but only for a limited period of time. If the taxpayer wants to continue to get that deduction, he has to buy a new truck. This has two benefits: it puts money into the bank accounts of all the people and companies that made the new one, and it takes an old truck off the road to be replaced by one that pollutes less and has better brakes.

The problem is that to make this work for everyone - to give the taxpayer the deduction he wants and the public the tax revenues it needs - the tax rate has to be a hell of a lot higher than it is now.

[MadameButterfly]

76. Some deductions are good and created for the good of society

and some deductions and more specifically loopholes are created by big donors and lobbyists to line rich people's pockets at society's expense.

Yes, as long as the tax rate can only go down and never up our tax rates will be too low. For the rich, at least.

[mjvpi]

10. Progressive taxation, which we had until Reagan.

It created the most vibrant middle class and the greatest economy the world has ever seen. There were still rich people, but with more money circulating n the middle class. The American dream. Remember? 40 hr work week. Only one person in a family had to work. My how that has changed, all so we can get back to the income distribution and a working poor that resembles 1900more than 1950.

[erronis]

12. But the wealth is generally not taxable under current code.

They've very carefully structured their income to be as much non-taxable as possible.

[MadameButterfly]

16. So we need to restructure the tax code so they can't do that

Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax, end off shore tax shelters, etc.

[Silent Type]

31. Warren's wealth tax would barely cover a months worth of our annual Deficit, much less do anything about Debt or

healthcare, infrastructure, jobs, education, climate, childcare, etc.

[airplaneman]

57. The solution is a Financial Transaction Tax - read Ellen Browns article below to understand it.

https://ellenbrown.com/2023/06/02/another-look-at-the-financial-transactions-tax-that-could-eliminate-need-for-all-others/#more-15638

An FTT tax of 0.25% would generate almost three times as much as we collect now and we could eliminate ALL Federal, State, and Local Taxes including Social Security and Gas Taxes paying only the 0.25%
Why:
Most taxes come from the material side of our economy which is the GDP of 25.8 Trillion
The Financial size is huge compared to the material side (think money making money) or 7625 Trillion
Do the math folks.
What we have now is NOT sustainable
Its probably not possible to only tax income and ever balance our budget.
The FTT could fund Climate Change, Medicare for All, Massive Infrastructure Projects to name a few.
The key is to spend the money on the right things and in the right way.
Corruption is the biggest obstacle in what we have now and we need to keep it out of a FTT system also.
-Airplane

[MadameButterfly]

59. Fascinating

I knew Bernie and Barbara Lee had proposed an FTT tax but didn't understand how much it could yield. I would love for hedge funds to pay their fair share--that's who's really benefitting from the stock market.

[Silent Type]

85. Would love for us to find a tax that would pay for everything. But Brookings says a 0.1% FTT would raise $80 B

a year. So a 0.25% tax would raise $200 Billion under Brookings and Congressional Budget Office (2020). That's what, maybe 2 months of Deficit at best.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-a-financial-transaction-tax-2/

That's nowhere near what Ellen Brown's predicts. So, who is right?

[airplaneman]

87. You need to read Ellen Brown article I cited she is very clear

[Silent Type]

88. I'll trust Brookings and the Congressional Budget Office.

[airplaneman]

89. I'm just trying to share information here. The Brookings article is talking about FTT on Stock Trades only

Ellen Brown gives the following chart of what to tax basically all financial transactions and not just stock trades.



-Airplane

[Silent Type]

90. Info and other viewpoints are fine. If there is some relatively painless magical way to fund our needs, I'm all for it.

I’m just skeptical. I’ll read a bit more.

Most certainly taxes need to be increased. How and how much is question. Then, question becomes how do we allocate revenues.

[brooklynite]

47. And until they sell their assets (and pay capital gains tax) that wealth is paper value.

[unblock]

53. Not really so for assets with quite liquid markets.

The value of a piece of art may be anyone's guess until it's actually sold, so it probably makes sense to defer taxation until then.

The value of publicly traded stocks, not so much. Futures contracts are marked to market, so you pay taxes based on the end of year value even if you didn't close out the transaction. For stocks where there's a liquid market, I don't see why they couldn't do the same.

That would prevent a bezos or a musk from deferring taxes almost indefinitely.

It would also eliminate the need for silly and inefficient contrivances like borrowing against shares to dodge taxes. Just sell what you need.

[MadameButterfly]

17. Majority rule would also help

End the filibuster, more proportionate representation in the Senate, end gerrymandering, re-establish voting rights, end the electoral college,

and the solutions you and I have listed above would naturally fall into place

Of course big money will do anything to stop that from happening

[bdamomma]

49. Great posts

MadameButterfly, those rich bastards just want to steal more money from us. Just greed and power, I hope they choke on it.

[TexasDem69]

73. All either impossible

Because they require amending the constitution (ending the EC, changing senate representation) or unlikely. People decry gerrymandering but then support it if it’s a blue state freezing put republicans.

As a general matter, I’d oppose changing representation at the senate level. That was a genius idea to make sure the states have equal say at the federal level, which they should.

[MadameButterfly]

78. Beware minority rule

There's another approach to changing the EC that is more likely.
Changing the constitution is a bear, but you must start with a dream.

Blue states should not unilaterally refrain from gerrymandering if red states are doing it. They have to make up for the imbalance created elsewhere if they can. Gerrymandering needs to be stopped everywhere. Really, are we going to tell the red state you go ahead and gerrymander, you don't have to worry about it going the other way? Even though they don't really, because blue state courts will follow the law. Blue states will benefit from fair maps everywhere, so corrupt red state courts and SCOTUS won't let that happen.

The representation in the Senate gives less than 40% of the country a majority in the Senate. How does the way our country is carved into states make that ok? How is the minority better than the majority? Our SCOTUS was appointed by presidents elected by a minority, senates elected by a minority and look what we have. We can't divide mega-states into smaller states because--politics. People are fleeing red states but they keep their senators.

Hitler was elected with 30% of the vote. Beware minority rule.

[paleotn]

20. Income tax policy to at least stop the flow, keeping the imbalance from getting worse.

With tax policy, I mean not only raising bracketed rates on earned income but taxing all income, earned, capital gains, carried income, etc., at the same rates no matter what the circumstances are. Dealing with the existing wealth gap may take generations to address, just as it did from the Gilded Age until roughly WW2. No easy answers there. All current proposals stand a huge chance of getting shot down by our reactionary SCOTUS.

But in my mind, we either address the problem or run a far greater risk of losing our democracy. We're rapidly approaching a time where a handful of people can literally buy our government several times over. Some would say we're already there. It will mean higher taxes for me but that's OK. I figure the Republic is worth it.

[MadameButterfly]

34. We need to win the presidency and reform the Supreme Court

or they'll shoot down anything a Democratic government will try to do. If they can't install Trump as dictator, they're happy to preside instead.

[MadameButterfly]

35. Thanks for being willing to accept higher taxes

for Democracy. Amazing how many wealthy people can't understand the benefit of a healthy economy if only for their bottom line, or understand that freedom has benefits that even their money can't buy.

[Joinfortmill]

72. With all due respect, that's your job.

[Dave says]

30. Really? Anyway, Piketty recommends ...

… a wealth tax. I think Reich does, too. I agree with them.

[Meadowoak]

45. The solution is, they need to pay the same taxes

We do, and that they shouldn't be able to buy politicians. Or write their own laws.

[aggiesal]

50. With that kind of money, they can control the message by buying ...

TV's stations, Radio Stations, Newspapers, Magazine Periodicals ...
At one time, nobody was allowed to own more than 1 TV station or Radio station in a market.
Now 1 person can own as many TV & Radio stations as they want. So they can control the message in any market.
I don't know when that changed, but it smells a lot like something Reagan would have done.

Back in 2008, when Obama was campaigning in Ohio, he met Joe the Plumber (not that he was a plumber), but he tells Obama, that he doesn't agree with giving money to the people that need it (i.e. welfare).
I was screaming at the TV, that Obama should say "The money isn't going down, the transfer of wealth is actually going to the wealthy that don't need it, due to GW McIdiot's tax break for the wealthy."

[MadameButterfly]

55. We've needed trustbusting for a long time, especially in media

and here's wishing owners weren't increasingly conservative.

We could use a man like Teddy Roosevelt again. Of course it took an assassination to put him in office. Think, miracle, to get us our next trust-buster.

[live love laugh]

61. They already did that.

[happy feet]

62. Did you forget your sarcasm emoticon?

[getagrip_already]

82. The problem is the bottom 50% clearly control too much wealth....

Almost $4 trillion? Wow, that is far too much for the miscreants and drug abusers to responsibly manage.

It should be far lower I say!

We should tax them more! Sales taxes! Use taxes! Rent tax! No free parking! No mass transit! No minimum wage! No child labor laws (they don't go to school anyway)! Debtors prisons! Forced domestic labor! Indentured servants! The debts of the parents are owed by the children! Company stores and housing! Euthanasia for the nonproductive!

Those are the things this country needs. Not more money for the rabble.

[kcr]

83. Starts with a T. Ends with an S

With a big old X in the middle. The rich should pay their fair share. But you know that.

[Faux pas]

2. Kickin'

[nocoincidences]

4. Obvious,

Eat the rich.

[erronis]

13. Only if you are on a high fat, low fiber diet.

About the only way I could see some of them served as a dish is with an apple in their mouths and roasted until most of the fat dripped off.

Oh, the other way is to send them to one of their meat-packing-processing plants where they can be rendered into the crap that is served in fast-food places.

[paleotn]

22. California rich people. They're the lean and free of nasty chemicals.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

25. CA has money woes.

And it's hard to imagine Elon was the only arse hole to ditch us.

[Permanut]

5. Just you wait..

It's gonna trickle down, right?

[onecaliberal]

6. Sure it will; second Tuesday of next week.

[paleotn]

23. Is that anything like getting pissed on?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. I've been saying serious for years and it's gotten worse. It's unsustainable. It won't last. . . . nt

[Evolve Dammit]

15. It could easily last under a Drumph election

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

11. 100% Wealth Tax on Estate Amounts Over $10 million.

End trust funds, shell companies, off-shoring and the like under penalty of death. Half goes to the Treasury, half gets distributed to each citizen equally in two payments, June and December. Just in time for that summer vacation and holiday shopping. That's the #1 campaign platform in my next Presidential run. Oh, and give any heirs a pair of bootstraps that they can pull themselves up with.

And yeah, a snowball in hell (or it's materialist equivalent, 'cause I'm an atheist) has a better chance in a country where money is speech.

[Aussie105]

14. But that is the rule, surely?

All for me, none for you!

Perhaps an enforceable rule that makes companies distribute half of their annual profits to their workers, and not just filter it upwards (opposite of 'trickle down') to their top brass or feed it to stockholders?

Wouldn't it be nice if workers could actually buy the products they make?
(Or maybe just help them pay their bills and eat well?)

Check the workers driving out of any car factory. Do any of them drive the cars they make?

[slightlv]

18. There are several changes we could make in this country

to even out the disproportionality of wealth. I think the first is the tax code... it needs to go back to being the progressive tax code it was up until the 80's, when "greed is good" ruled everything.

But even "little things" need to be changed. We -must- take a good, long look at the 501c tax exemptions. Churches have blown it since *rump came on the stage. But I hesitate to lump all churches in with the bad ones. So I think there must be a more distinct winnowing down of definitions and actions to qualify for exemption. Also, we have to start pushing back on those that do "wrongly" get exemptions, either by applying those where what the church does is beyond the public good or because they preach politics from the pulpit. They also must be held to the high standard (?) of following all gov rules and regulations, with no preferences made that kick people out of the church or working there because of who they are.

Also, we need to go back to where the tax code was seen as favoring earned income, rather than unearned income. There's a lot fewer ways for loopholes to creep in if you do that, IMO. One way of looking at taxes (and the tax code) is as an indirect way to influence culture and morality in a society. When earned income is taxed to the max and demeaned by politicians, I think it has a detrimental effect on t hat society. Cutting out loopholes and making the tax code more simplistic should be a priority. Establishing a base tax for corporations that they -must- pay each year would, I hope, get us back to where corporations once again saw themselves as part of a community - rather than the free-wheeling, loyalty to no country, that they are today.

On 9-11, a coworker and I had a large disagreement. He was one of those who called himself a Libertarian; I'm a flaming Liberal and proud of it. Before the buildings pancaked, I predicted that business, corporations, and "moneyed elite" would use this tragedy as an on ramp to jack up prices and lead us into a new round of unaffordability of common goods. He disagreed. (ha!) He didn't believe in the Shock Doctrine; I did and do believe it even now, cynic that I am. I suggested that our company, and most others, would start decreasing wages while raising the prices of their goods.. and of course, that's exactly what happened. He considered this "good business"... and I begged to differ because I believe there must be a level of ethics that must be adhered to by anyone doing business. He was absolutely against Medicare for All, did not believe people were entitled to medical care, food, shelter, etc., simply by dint of being born. My opinion was everyone was entitled to a baseline of survival. I was pushing, even then, for something like the UBI. He flipped out at that! But our progressive ideas can be updated, refined, and put into action through a fair tax code, as well as a strong Social Safety Net. But that can only happen when people realize we're all in this society together, rather than every one of us being an individual out for only themselves and damn the rest of the world.

But my coworker symbolizes that hardcore Maga crowd, and I have no idea how to bring them peacefully into the fold of society. We have two fundamental differences in the way people look at the world. And there doesn't seem to be ways to build bridges across the divides. That's my basic sticking point, where I shake my head, throw up my hands, and admit I'm at a loss...

[MadameButterfly]

36. We want a baseline of survival out of humanity but

if compassion doesn't come easily to the other side, it can be argued that the economy does better and everyone gets richer if this baseline is applied. UBI really is profitable for everyone if the ripple effects are considered. If that's too hard a sell, Universal Healthcare and public education beyond high school are a start. Below that is Head Start, food stamps, child tax credit, etc. They all pay off in the end--for everybody.

But when insecure workers unsatisfied with their lives are afraid of someone else getting something free, they can't even wrap their minds around the equation. Often they don't even notice that they are the recipients of these "free" things. They rail against Social Security even while they receive it, socialized medicine until it saves their life. Their lives are filled with social media lies and hate speech. They are fed by leaders who know better, but for whom the cruelty is the point.

We won't win with just political arguments because they aren't listening to logic. This is deeply emotional. Until we find a way to give these people the hope, dignity, and emotional peace they want deep down, they'll take it out on others. I think this is why Bernie made more inroads into some right wing crowds than more moderate Democrats, despite his more extreme policies. But it will take more. Bernie's love, respect, honesty, plain-spokenness, but something else that we haven't seen yet. I'm watching for it in the enormous talent the is coming into the ranks.

[slightlv]

52. I agree with you Madame...

but that's the "divide" I was talking about. The two groups have such fundamentally different philosophies. And it does winnow down to "by your own bootstraps cruelty" and compassion and empathy. I go back and forth from trying to figure out where bridges could be built to wanting desperately for them to find their own piece of land, or island, someplace besides here.

I adore Bernie... and yes, he did make more inroads than any Democrat we've seen. Bernie has his own kind of charisma. It's not charisma as one usually thinks of it, but it does work for him in connecting with many different peoples.

[MadameButterfly]

56. Yes, I've had fantasies of the country splitting into two so we could

actually solve some things. But they would wreak their own havoc and pollution, warming planet, etc. has no borders.

There have always been despots, cruel and selfish people, I guess there always will be. But important to remember that they are all mentally ill on some level and unhappy. Even the Koch brothers. They don't know where real happiness lies. I think that gives us some hidden strength and hope.

So I guess I am like you, hoping that we'll find that bridge somewhere. I think more with loving better than fighting better, and at as early an age as possible.

[onecaliberal]

84. Yes on all points:. The problem is republicans.

That is why things are so awful. Republicans are about power and money for the few at the terrible expense of everything and everyone: even will to set the planet on fire for future generations.
They must be stopped.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

24. This was the goal for Constitutional Originalists.

Only the land owners voted.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/white-papers/on-originalism-in-constitutional-interpretation

[onecaliberal]

26. alito and roberts are determined to take us back to the 1800s

[SleeplessinSoCal]

27. next generation won't know we once had a healthy middle class.

I blame myself for voting for Reagan.

[onecaliberal]

33. I never voted for a recon. My dad was a WWII Veteran.

There were a lot of pivotal moments we could have turned that around to save us from where we are now. People just want to pretend everything is okay. If you’re a whole man, it most likely will be for you. The rest of us, not so much.

[Johonny]

28. If we cut rich people's taxes more

And raise taxes on the poor, that should solve the problem.

[live love laugh]

29. What percentage of the 800 are REPUBLICANS?

[MadameButterfly]

37. My guess

799

[Renew Deal]

41. If that's true, people would see that as a political advantage for them.

[onecaliberal]

44. They do.

[live love laugh]

60. Mine too. At least 90%.

Sure you have your Oprahs and Taylor Swift’s and a few more with a “paltry” $1 or $2B. But if the total sum of the wealth of the Republicans among the 800 was identified, it would be startling. Oprah would look like a pauper.

It’s why they’re boldly saying the quiet part out loud. It’s why nobody ever follows the money because they own the people who do. They own this country. And they are not going to relinquish control until they wrench every last dime from us selling off anything they can to further increase their wealth country be damned.

[MadameButterfly]

74. The dangers of Oligarchy

I so don't understand why, when people have that much money, their priorities don't change. The oil barrons could accept the inevitable end of the oil industry, retire with more money than they can spend, or use their profits to adapt to something actually helpful, and save the planet. But no. They have to destroy everything for everybody for even more money. Are they all malignant narcissists?

[live love laugh]

80. I wonder the very same things.

Wealth hoarding is still hoarding. Many of them are definitely very sick people.

[Mr. Evil]

32. This might be a stretch but,

Tell them the Earth is going to be blasted to smithereens by an asteroid. Then we pack 'em all into Bezos' and Musk's space ships and tell them that a colony has already been set up for them on Mars. 3... 2... 1... Bon Voyage! Oh... and, we keep the money.

[erronis]

39. That's the short plot line of "Don't Look Up" and also of the "Left Behind" series.

It takes some really dumb people to fall for these, but given Eloon and his ilk....

[Be The Light]

38. the problem is capitalism

It's a scourge on the planet.

[erronis]

40. Unfettered and unregulated capitalism.

That's why those that have too much want to try to stop regulations.

[onecaliberal]

43. K&R

Unrestricted of course.

[Ping Tung]

42. The American Dream....Capitalist version.

?w=3130&h=

[appalachiablue]

48. Rutger Bregman, Dutch historian said it at Davos 2019: PAY YOUR TAXES

[byronius]

58. So true. And I've talked with people that object to higher-end tax rates with the same logic as lower-end tax rates.

That's absurd. A billionaire upset by a fifty to seventy percent tax rate has lost all sense that they are part of a community. Higher tax rates for the wealthy is a basic component of social fairness and stability. High tax rates for the lower income levels while the wealthy pay little or nothing is destabilizing and damaging to any nation that fails to stop the practice.

So weird that this argument persists. Well, greed seems hard-wired and requires growth to overcome. It's the early days.

Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos would be better people if they had to pay more taxes.

[erronis]

65. Also check out this series in Propublica that outline how the wealthy hide money and avoid taxes

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-files-taxes-wash-sales-goldman-sachs
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-number-of-people-with-iras-worth-5-million-or-more-has-tripled-congress-says
https://www.propublica.org/article/democratic-senators-call-for-investigation-of-tax-avoidance-by-the-ultrawealthy

and of course, reported today:
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-irs-audit-chicago-hotel-taxes

[90-percent]

67. Post ww2

Post WW2, when the depression caused by upward concentration of wealth and the morbidly wealthy manipulating the stock. Market, the liberal FDR dems legislated for economic fairness. This took the form of progressive taxation and the best route for becoming rich was investing in the companies the rich controlled. There were still a lot of millionaires, but to get there, the best route was investing in the companies they owned, which benefitted ALL THEIR EMPLOYEES and created the middle class. Since the fifties, the rich have purchased politicians that make laws that make the rich more wealthy and cancel laws intended to make a level playing field. In short, the wealthy have captured our lawmakers to insure they make laws that mean more for then and less for us. And the wealthy have legalized corruption and insider trading for politicians. At long last, republican party. HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY?

-80% jimmy

[90-percent]

70. My horrifying hope

Is that nome(sp) attracts more republics in to shooting more of their pets on camera and bragging about it. A competition, like Bobo and Marge traitor green competing over which one can humiliate themselves by being more ignorant and being devoid of any self awareness about how much they continue to display their own ignorance and hypocrisy.

-90% ĵimmy

[Joinfortmill]

71. Yup, tax these M*fuckers.

[SupportSanity]

81. Organized - Billionaires gather yearly at a finance conference

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2022/07/01/whos-who-at-the-legendary-summer-camp-for-billionaires-in-sun-valley-idaho/KB

Who’s Who At The Legendary Summer Camp For Billionaires In Sun Valley, Idaho

The significant presence of advance security teams were a sure sign that something big was happening in the beautiful mountain resort town of Sun Valley, Idaho. Locals scrambled to prepare for a major invasion of the wealthiest moguls in the world for the 37th annual media finance conference hosted and funded by private investment firm Allen & Company.


The coveted invites to the gathering go out to the top 1% of CEOs and their families, investors, and brilliant scientific minds. They all mostly arrive by private jets, which resulted this year in a ground stop issued by the FAA due to extreme congestion. For five days, the moguls listen to speeches, sit in on panels about politics, healthcare, and the economy, and join in on group activities from golf to fly-fishing, hiking, and cycling. And don’t worry about the little ones; large groups of babysitters are provided while the adults participate in networking.

[BobTheSubgenius]

86. Frankly and honestly, I thought the proportions would be worse.

Obviously, I have very low expectations.