It’s a classic outrage based clickbait article format.
Washington and Adams strongly believed parties shouldn’t exist in America because of this. Jefferson manipulated the situation to his advantage and won, enshrining the enshitification of American politics in just the way Washington and Adams feared it would.
Japans politics are terrible though.
In the US, both dominate parties are actually coalitions that would be separate parties in other countries. It isn't perfect, and these factions sometimes have serious disagreements, but within the Dems we generally believe we are stronger together. The Republican party is going through a serious reckoning between its traditional base and a more extreme wing. It won't surprise me if Democrats go through something similar in about another decade as Gen Z comes of age and wants to push their agenda faster than the traditional moderates within the party.
At some point we're beyond both civics and civility.
The DSA has what, 90,000 members?
At that time, America rejected Fascism and chose Socialism, and they prospered for the rest of that century, though by the end the process of dismantling the source of their own success was well along.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58888
We already spend a tremendous amount of our GDP on explicitly socialist programs, I don't see any value in framing that as a thing of the past.
We exist in very different realities; mine is informed by the reality I see around me in the physical world, yours apparently exists in links to economics papers. I suspect that we don't have the same day-to-day experience at all.
As to socialism and fascism... I did not say that only the two exist. I did say that one or the other is coming to America. The idea that this is all going to continue indefinitely, in the USA of all places, is absurd. You people hate aristocracies more than just about anything.
I'm so old I can remember when Democrats would be standing with the auto workers instead of snuggling up obscenely overpaid, incompetent Detroit executives but that's what they're doing now.
The democrats also notably have a lot of support among the poorest in society, and this base is a LOT of their electorate, so this really shouldn't be overlooked.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/maddow/blog/rcna107966
this took two seconds to google
https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/economic-perspective....
Took two seconds of google to see that US Auto Jobs went down after NAFTA and Mexican auto jobs went up after NAFTA
If Democrats successfully passed the Trans Pacific Partnership we would have seen another decline of US Auto jobs and an uptick in Vietnamese or South Korean auto Manafacturing.
I am however increasingly seeing the Democratic Party leave the middle class and start to pull more of their electorate from the fringes of the poor and wealthy, whereas republicans have more of a middle-class focus nowadays. So there has been a notable re-alignment with the democrats focusing more on the wealthy with the trend I suppose starting with Clinton.
A thing like this is mostly political posturing. No "billionaire tax" is going to happen this year or any time soon. There are plenty of Republicans who can ensure that, without any Democratic help. But centrist Democrats are trying to avoid the perception that it it's a likely thing, which they think will play badly during the next election.
There are more realistic things that Democrats do plan on, that billionaires don't like. They want to use regulations designed to rein in harm by large corporations, end tax cuts that benefit the wealthy more than others, shift rapidly away from a fossil fuel economy, etc. They also have a further left wing which wants to do even more, and there are genuine differences of opinion within the party.
The centrist wing, which is mostly in charge of the party, thus gets tagged both with being too liberal by Republicans and too conservative by their own left wing. Moderation is much less popular than political theorists would have you believe.
If someone has some income they can sock some of it away to pay the IRS. If you look at the case of Twitter, for instance, how do you tax it? Is it worth $44 billion, $22 billion or is it a Superfund site that has negative value? How does the owner get the cash?
(I think of how the business model of Premier League football seems to be something like: buy a team for $300M, lose $30M a year running it for ten years, sell it to someone else for $1B, at least you can tax a $700M capital gain - $300M of operating losses.)
The manipulations that people can make with capital gains are already bad enough but when you sell something there is a real price, there will be all kinds of crazy games with a wealth tax.
There is this doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
which tends to push people towards more dependency on property tax, particularly the idea that high property taxes might be a good thing if they drove people in San Francisco to abandon their single family houses. I posted an article from Jacobin advocating that a few weeks back and was shocked to get a swell of people blaming immigrants for high rent that and some other experiences make me wonder if YOShInOn and I should quit posting articles from Jacobin.
(That said, the left around Ithaca NY has gotten the idea that high property taxes cause high rents but that's because Ithaca has the unusual problem that so much of the land in Ithaca belongs to educational and other institutions that are tax exempt so the remaining landowners have quite the burden.)
It would be worth the last buying price for that owner, that is $44 billion. Gives an incentive to negotiate down as much as possible, instead of buying at inflated prices. The seller pays capital gains and the buyer pays a wealth tax on the asset.
It doesn't matter if Twitter is a negative income entity, if it is ascribed some value. It would essentially become the equivalent of a white elephant. There used to be a time in India when people who did not have an income but had lots of erstwhile assets (usually upper caste folks with zero skills) would sell off their properties just so they didn't have to pay wealth tax. That was essentially how my parents bought their first property.
The caveat is that enforcement is going to be a bitch, black money will proliferate in the market but if digitally maintained, collection could be streamlined.
I'd say a start would be what is the value it's being borrowed against? Quite often you see rich people getting loans based on the imaginary value of these ethereal assets. Seems like a good starting point for taxation.
I don't doubt that it's an accounting nightmare, but Elon Musk can afford an accountant who can apply the Generally Accepted Accounting Practices.
I have no doubt that games would be played, and that the IRS would constantly play cat-and-mouse with them. Arguably, we could solve the problem without a wealth tax just by funding the IRS properly to enforce the rules already on the books.
That's why things like this happen. Rules get written; wealthy people subvert them; new rules pile on more. It's not great, but it's better than the alternative of just giving up.
I actually have no idea whether a wealth tax is a net benefit. I just know that it's not going to happen in my lifetime (not with a Supreme Court guaranteed to find it unconstitutional), so I don't spend any time thinking about it on the merits.