In Tax We Trust
intaxwetrust.org
intaxwetrust.org
These tax advocates are really just advocating for a single world regime without competition because they know the real threat to their power is that nobody likes them or wants to live under them, so we take our capital and leave. Their response is to instiute "global" rules so that there is no escape from their unctuous posturing and inevitable oppression. After covid, fighting a war against these assholes and every name on the Davos invitation list is likely the next item on civilization's agenda. They aren't trying to help, they're leveraging crisis' of their own inventions for control. There is no reason to be meek about what a threat WEF has historically and continues to be to peoples rights to self determination.
I remember the anti-globalization movement of the 90s, and it was against these specific WEF people and their phony institutes. It took 9/11 to derail that movement, and thanks to lockdowns co-ordinated through this exact policy shop, those movements are gaining momentum in earnest again, just this time they aren't liberal. Nations were not the reason for the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, every single one of those wars was started by men who did not respect nations and borders and thought they could get away with it. That's what WEF is.
There are a lot of internet personalities we accept aren't appropriate for mixed company on civil forums like this, and I'd posit that Schwab and his WEF and IMF cronies are as provovactive and polarizing figures as any problematic youtuber. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," and you can see the level of co-ordination they use for taking over entire countries. This isn't about trolls and mean tweets, these people are a network in the business of subjugating nations. If you're hearing about it, it's one of their meticulously constructed lies. Take nothing at face value from WEF. They're bad news.
The only reason a wealthy person would want to pay more tax is as some hopeful implied contract that ensured they would be left alone and secure with the rest of their wealth. Even still none of them are that naive, because if what they're paying now hasn't reduced govt demand for their money, why should more?
Yes, some billionaires have asked to be taxed more, but that's only because they deal with capital at a level of pure abstraction. It's meaningless to them whether you increment or decrement one of the many variables they manage, so long as you don't add new ones. Not only does it cost them nothing to say that, but it often yields 4 years of non-interferance in growing their capital.
Regarding cynicism, I just think the merit we assign ideas should be based on something more than applause, and this "in tax we trust" astroturfing campaign doesn't meet that bar.
Also the government’s role in spending money is to offset tragedies of the commons. No matter how well someone can deploy money, they have little incentive to deploy their own money to fix issues of the commons. However, it is possible for them to know that society as a whole would be better off if everyone was forced to contribute a fair share to those issues.
>"I’m serious. How are you so cynical." In just about every other situation, people distrust the 1% and assume they are conniving, ruthless, and up to no good. Am I suddenly to believe they have had a change of heart and are wholeheartedly endorsing something so progressive?
Surely after two years of countries finding ridiculous sums of money down the back of sofas by magic, as well as ten years of 'QE' it should be clear that there isn't really a shortage of money.
https://new-wayland.com/blog/how-the-governments-super-plati...
Most people don't have capital, and most people don't want to leave their country. If the only opposition is the anti-tax rich and people willing to emigrate, I don't think that's going to sufficiently motivate the "war" you're looking for.
In fact, WEF's proposals seems like it would pretty popular among most people who aren't able to move themselves or assets out of the country, because those that do are seen as extractors who have an unfair advantage.
I would approach any plan that claims it can decrease inequality via taxes with a highly critical eye.
Progressive taxation is very effective at decreasing inequality. What is your alternative?
It sort of reminds me of what "Die Linke"("the left") party in Germany did in Berlin.
A long long time ago they sold publicly owned apartments for pennies.
A year ago they introduced rent control, which is primarily hurting small private landlords and makes the big landlords just wait it out instead of renting at an absurd price point.
So small landlords sell to big landlords because renting out apartments was banned, landlords sell their apartments because that is the only thing allowed by law.
Once enough small landlords exited the market, rent control was pulled out raising the value of properties back to its original level.
Finally, the government bought huge amounts of apartments from the big real estate companies. Effectively paying them to decimate the small landlords.
I don't know if this was planned but if I was an investor in those companies it would be awfully convenient. How can anyone call this chain of events successful? The fact that "Die Linke" party is against a land value tax which could have avoided all of these bad policy ideas does not inspire confidence. Either they are incompetent, were manipulated or they are hypocrites. I can imagine all three to be the case but I would personally bet on manipulation by special interests because applying reverse psychology to lobbyism does not sound very difficult.
That's the first thing. The second thing is:
> I am against a tax system that punishes hard working individuals and gives a free pass for those already wealthy and big corporations.
This is exactly the problem a progressive tax system is supposed to solve.
This has a <1 correlation with wealth (richness) and poverty.
You can control a lot of assets with relatively low income via debt (the interest of which doesn’t isn’t taxed, frequently), and can have relatively few assets with high income (a sports player, for example, in part because their careers have intrinsically low shelf lives due to physical requirements).
Related to that last point, progressive income taxes also charge people differential tax burdens based on the “density” of their earnings, even if they have the same lifetime earnings. (Compare a football player who makes all his money from 20-25 to a surgeon who makes the same amount of money from 30-65. Because the football player makes more money per year, he’ll pay higher taxes than the surgeon even if they make the same overall income. This is despite the fact there is 0 ability of the football player to maintain his income at 65.)
The above poster would probably view capital gains tax increases as also doing the same thing. Additionally, these policies are often paired with other social spending (like Cal’s phase-out of asset tests for Medicaid, that privilege the older, asset owning strata at the cost of younger, income rich but asset poor strata).
LVT, wealth taxes, or even sales taxes do not have these features and, perhaps coincidentally perhaps not, have been beyond the pale politically for a century.
Everything about this screams inauthentic and produced by some think-tank or policy group. Not just the names of these "organizations", but the quality of the website and the tone of the messaging. I highly doubt a bunch of actual disparate millionaires got together and organically produced this.
I would love to know who is actually responsible for this. I sense it is probably a small handful of people who make these kinds of groups for a living.
I once saw an interview with a switzer "Tax Me Now" supporter who inherited her wealth without ever having to do anything for it. I guess it's that disconnect to the own wealth, the missing feeling of having deserved it, that enables this stance. Unfortunately, on the other side it means that "geniuses" like Bezos, Musk, etc. may even have a stronger conviction for their good will in human history and project it onto the world.
No nation needs the tax money of the rich, because the rich are not hiring the people the public sector wants to hire. It's the people that are doing the hiring, and competition for resources with the public sector that need to be taxed. The only operational purpose of taxation is to free up real resources so the public sector can hire them.
Count your money billionaires. We don't need your electronic blips, and we certainly are not going to assuage your guilt for failing to invest in the future.
We also know how the government's credit card works. https://new-wayland.com/blog/how-the-governments-super-plati...
Negative interest rates on cash would eliminate cash hoarding and prevent the rich from withholding money from the economy which is currently forcing the central bank to loosen monetary policy to keep the money in circulation stable.
A land value tax would absolutely destroy the housing market and stock market because lots of companies (think of franchises like McDonalds) are real estate companies in disguise that let someone else do the work while they own the land and lease it out to subcontractors.
In both cases, the value that was "destroyed" wasn't really there, it was a collectively shared hallucination.