Unfairness of tax cuts for the rich explained in beer

anonymint (65) in politics • 7 years ago (edited)

The title of this blog can be interpreted in two different perspectives. This video will explain which interpretation is correct.

One perspective is that tax cuts for the rich are unfair for everyone else and therefor we should tax the rich more than the everyone else. The other perspective is that egalitarianism is something only ignorant people think is correct.

politics socialism

7 years ago by anonymint (65)

$0.62

10 votes

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

anonymint (65) · 7 years ago (edited)

Oh how correct Thatcher was every single point she made and I love the British parliament at that time. Nothing like that now. They don't joke and smile at each other any more:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/monetary-reform/thatchers-last-stand-against-socialism/

Looking back, Britain was a much more lovely culture then. What happened? (Ditto the USA is like a Frankenstein now).

Take the time to watch that short video. So nice to see.

They respect her. You can see it.

you can see she was their mama, now they are lost children

Good point!

$0.00

[-]

anonymint (65) · 7 years ago (edited)

I wrote on Medium:

If you want the country to be less polarized then stop writing, talking, and thinking about politics and social issues. And pursue a vocation that produces something other than polarization. Why does Medium send this shit to my email?

Civil rights is the way we treat each other. We teach that in the way we parent. But if we let the schools teach it, then they teach the kids this social justice warrior "hold up a sign" for powers-that-be who divide-and-conquer stuff. Detracts them away from the realism of being productive with their life and taking personal self-responsibility. They then feel entitled by social justice to blame society instead of looking at what they can personally do in reality of their daily life. Because holding up sign doesn't do anything other than empower those whose profit by dividing-and-conquering us. In 1990 for the Ross Perot campaign I went door-to-door just talking to strangers in Westlake Village, CA. I realized then that it's all about our culture, not about what an election can do. Culture can't be taught top-down because then it becomes a tool of manipulation by those at the top.

George Carlin summarized this well:

Take student loans for example. I believe it was Clinton and Obama who made these non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, thus trapping our youth in debt-slavery and sending them to schools to learn to hold up a sign about social justice. A college degree doesn't guarantee a job. Same as for housing, loans pull income forward making everything more expensive. Those who profit are the those who have money to loan and who can buy up everything for pennies-on-the-dollar when they debt bubble collapses in Minsky Moment deflation —i.e. the powers-that-be.

$0.00

[-]

dobby (25) · 7 years ago

I have some objections to this video. It heavily promotes the view that the wealthy are the only people that are worthy in society and that people with less money are bums and parasites living of the work of the rich.

The world and the economie are not like a bar. In reality we all pay the same amount of money for material goods, it's only the part of our income that is differently taxed. The bums in this example are the actual people responsible for the creation of material goods in society but the greatest rewards go to the organizers and not the producer. The rich man does not work 10 or 1000 times as hard as the bums nor does he produces as much material value. The capitalist construct of society enables him to extract large amounts of wealth and higher taxes on the wealthy aim to redistribute this. I understand that the wealthy will do all that is possible to prevent this, control of the media, control of politics, money, ...

Maybe you should apply some Indian tribe knowledge here. An Indian tribe would not give any person 100 tents to sleep, they would see to it that every person has what they need. Any over production can benefit the whole collective instead of 1 person. The Indian tribe does not need a system of taxes to accomplish this because goods are proportionally divided before hand. Right about now somebody is typing a reply about this being "communist", but that is black and white thinking. A economic system is merely a means of distributing societal value, yes communism failed but Indian tribes did not (not in the economic sense). There are many other possible ways to organise in a distributed and decentralised manner, especially in this techno/information age we live in to scale the Indian tribe economie.

$0.00