Why do you persist in treating the rich differently? They are just people. They aren’t a special class of people that are better or smarter. They just have more money.
Treat everyone the same, and this comes out as “why tax people”. Well, that’s a complicated question with a pretty clear answer that I don’t think is worth repeating.
Stop assuming they’re better than you. They aren’t.
Civil society requires the willing participation of the populace. It’s the best kind of society, but it’s only available to a culture that has decided not to be assholes.
I choose not to be an asshole. Even when it would be easy. Even when it would improve my life or mood or bank balance. I refuse to idolize people that are assholes. Even if they’re rich.
Even in the strictest of command economies, the opportunity to be an asshole exists. You can’t command your way into a scenario where the choice of villainy is simply unavailable. Every single one of us has to make the choice to turn away from the pull of assholery ourselves and to refuse to countenance it in others.
I still believe that we, as a species, have both the capability and the requirement to step back from that cliff. We’ve done it before. Mostly, I don’t want to live in the world your approach would create. I think the only people that would enjoy it are the folks you’ve given your free will away to.
I’ll argue! Most of this is simply wrong… but first I’m going to reject the premise of your argument.
You’re providing a false choice by suggesting that money can only be concentrated or diffused and that it can only be concentrated or diffused at the level of the single individual. You’ve placed two extremes on the table (a command economy driven by oligarchs vs a command economy driven by autocrats) and asked us to pick.
I pick neither. A command economy is not necessary to achieve reasonable societal goals, and it’s not necessary to flip the switch all the way into a 1950s Red Scare version of communism to be able to see where the economic model of unfettered capitalism breaks down.
The next problem is that you conflate the question of “how should the government collect taxes” with the question of “how should an economy operate”. Those are different questions with different answers, but the underlying principle is the same.
The government should prevent circumstances in which being an asshole is financially rewarded. The citizens should try to avoid being assholes. A civil society should correct the behavior of people that are being assholes using social pressures.
In the economic arena, that basically boils down to “not fucking over the little guy”. The government should seek to prevent circumstances where the little guy gets fucked over. The citizens should try not to fuck each other over. A civil society should shun those who violate that norm.
In the taxes arena, that basically boils down to “pay your fair share.” We all know what that looks like and feels like because we’ve had to divvy up the check after a long night of drinking. Folks with cash throw in some extra to cover their friends that might be struggling, a couple of people that are doing well might just “make the check right at the end of the night.” It works out. People know how to do this instinctively. People, by and large, know what their fair share is. Some just don’t want to pay.
In a situation where people consistently make the moral choice to not be an asshole, a lot of economic models can work. The breakdown isn’t in the economic model, it’s in the role of the civil society - society is not enforcing the “don’t be an asshole” rule. Instead, we’ve decided to idolize the assholes.
There’s not an economic model that works when everyone is trying to fuck over everyone else.
You’re focused on the wrong problem.
Dude that line of reasoning went out with Reagan, and the last time it worked was in the 1920s. You might want that to be how the rich behave, but mostly they just lock capital away and watch the numbers grow.
We don’t need an economy based on pandering to rich assholes in the hopes they give us money. We need an economy where everyone pays their fucking taxes. It’s that easy. If the very wealthy stopped hiding their money and coming up with impenetrable tax evasion schemes and just paid their taxes like everyone else, we wouldn’t have to raise them on anyone.
Betting White House networks are too locked down to game on. If Elon is gonna live under the stairs, he needs his leet gaming setup.
No. When you create something that gets used for propaganda, you have three choices - speak out, stay silent, or support it. None of those options are apolitical.
I think you’ll see a combination of 2 and 3 out of agency leadership. #3 whenever possible, #2 if supporting Trump’s statement would touch off internal protests.
I think the overriding objective right now is to protect the workforce and I think the leadership in place is willing to do what it takes to achieve that goal. I don’t know if the workforce is willing to see the kind of pandering that will likely require, and I’m not sure even a maximum pandering platform will work.
One way or the other I think the agency may be fucked.
Not sure this was a thing he decided to do. M2M and the Artemis campaign have been relatively protected so far, and that’s largely rumored to be Free’s doing. My sense is that he wouldn’t voluntarily leave his post.
Leaders like Jim are in the “Special Executive Service” (SES) and can be reassigned basically at the whim the government (Ref: us code). In the past, SES have been encouraged to depart by being reassigned to an undesirable post or a post geographically inconvenient for them and their families. In general, executives treated in this fashion take the hint.
Jim is a methodical and thoughtful engineer that cared about and protected both his people and the mission. I’d say he deserves better, but it’s probably healthier for him not to have to participate in the dismantling of the agency he loved.
Ad astra.
Interestingly as of this moment it does not appear to have happened. Not clear why.
Not hard to guess why I’d be concerned. I think my answer is fair and consistent with the behavior of mods on other sites with similar communities. If it comes out on top of the votes, I’ll make the request and sell it as best I can. Best I can do.
(Note - folks may look around at the dizzying numbers of uses of the meatball or the worm in our popular culture. My bet is that the bigger corporations have an agreement, smaller ones are skating. I think it’s unwise to do anything that might poke the bear.)
I think honestly it’s not just the conflict of interest threat that warrants someone in public office divesting themselves. We’re seeing that it’s better for the companies too - keeps them insulated from the impact of unpopular decisions.