No such thing as high taxes on wealthy in capitalism

J.P. Morgan insisted that he and people like him should never pay more than 15% in taxes. But that is a totally ridiculous notion.

People like Morgan don’t want the money for the wealth primarily, no they want it for the power. And when they get such power (which is illegetimate power in every way) they set to work on using it to convert society into a system where all power is vested in arbitrary accumulations of private (illgotten) wealth. And this quickly destroys and collapses any capitalist society.

You see these people don’t actually contribute and relative to the societal wealth they lock up are unable to actually consume to circulate production. Their actual contribution is a massive net negative whereby everything is hallowed out and cheapened to the breaking point.

You see amongst the super wealthy an Edison or Bell would be exceedingly rare. People like Tesla are stunted by the wealth differientials. Even people like Ford, Jobs and Musk are exceedingly rare. But such people are always held up as loss leaders for parasites like the Morgans and Rockerfellers and Kochs. The parasites are mere money changers. Their power came from using money to abuse other people and if allowed they will completely corrupt a state with claimes about how their abuse of power and their theiving should not be limited and soon a societies entire productive means is locked by them and the society dies but also goes to hell over the lies they spread through their puppet organizations which appeal to people’s baser natures to keep the slide toward total corruption moving through division.

So, it would be perfectly fine to tax away the wealth these crooks steal and burn it vice redistribute it. They take it out of productive or meaningful circulation anyway. But at least burning it denies them the ability to abuse people with it and stops the foolish admiration by people who don’t know they’ve been stolen from.

Of course they contribute. By saving they can channel money in new productive investments which makes everything cheaper for everyone and increases standard of living. Elementary logic… For the most.

1 Like

So you are going to tax Morgan and Rockefeller and Koch, but not Ford or Edison or Musk?

How do you know the difference? Rockefeller didn’t make his money in banking - he made it in oil.

And who is the “you” that decides? The government? Silly – The government is owned and financed by loans from Morgan. If he taxes himself it just takes it out of one pocket and puts it in another. Then he can spend government money to crush his competition with laws and subsidies and government contracts to himself.

Bigger government makes bigger industry. Every time you propose Banning something or taxing something you propose making the beast you are trying to kill even more powerful… Because bigger government gives industry even more power.

You cannot oppress the powerful without making an even more powerful monster. The more powerful the monster, the higher the bids will be to control the monster.

1 Like

There’s one situation in which the scenario plays out well for Warren, and that is that he becomes the Supreme Ruler.
But unlike all the other powerful rulers, he’d be a just and righteous, while paying attention to CO2 emissions.

1 Like

That’t not a real contribution, you could use crowd sourcing or public funding. They are investing money that does not belong to them in the first place and money they should not receive the gains on. Other people’s money is not theirs to lose. So again, no real contribution, just gambling with other people’s money which should be taxed away. Just like with Romney. Did he make a contribution? No he got rich off of making society worse off. With working laws that money money would have been taxed away and he’d be in jail not running for President to further corrupt the society.

Yes working tax law makes exactly those kind of distinctions and they aren’t that hard to make. The so called constructive capitalists keep they opm the associate with to continue to do productive things that advance society vice harm it because its deemed more efficient than having government correct the distributions. The non constructive kind never get rich or go broke or to jail- very simple.

There is a universe of difference between a Harding Hoover world that will just end in civil war and and FDR type situation where graft and theft are contained for decades, If we could get replace every corporation with small cooperatives we could end this nonsense indefinitely.

You have failed to explain why Rockefeller is “Non productive” exactly?
And Ford isn’t?

If it is so easy you need to do a better job of it.

1 Like

“Public” doesn’t have money. It has to be taken from actual individuals who have it. Speaking of other people’s money…

Another mystery is who exactly could use this public funding. Some government apparatchik who apparently “deserves” to decide how money confiscated by the State is to be spent. Sounds great.

1 Like

Public Universites that do public reasearch and then keep the patent rights but distribute to all of industry likely ti be radically better than say a US pharma corp exclusive drug patent. So yes the cog is much better and more honest than say a patent in the hands of a Koch for their exclusive abuse.

There’s no need for public universities.
Anyone can donate money to private universities (or whatever you want to call them) that license their discoveries for free, similarly to the way MaidSafe does it. So, enough of the statist nonsense.

2 Likes

I like it. Go collegiate cooperative model!