That being said, aren't rich people the ones in control and making the decisions that determine the way the world is working?
I think the rich and powerful are often the ones that fix things, or maybe its the ones that fix things that become rich and powerful. I have no problems with people getting rich. I just don't want them playing by different rules and I don't dumb people gaining power through inheritance. Multi-generational wealth is more of an issue than some guy like Musk and Bezos gaining power. The Houston Texans is a small proof point on why dumb rich kids shouldn't be put in position of power. Here is one extreme position I have. I think the inheritance tax should be 80-90 percent over a few million bucks. No one should be able to inherit billions of assets.
There is nothing wrong with being rich, but pay your taxes, stop trying to lobby government to let you off the hook - being in this SAFE society allowed you to become rich - now you owe it to pay it forward. The problem is the wealth disparity, whereas CEOs salaries have outstripped inflation, the average workers have not, and now our middle class is getting crushed.... Unions need to impact this and flip it.... I mean why do you think Starbucks is paying MILLIONS to union busters????? Or Amazon the same?????? They gained an advantage by not having to pay taxes and pay off the politicians instead. Gotta stop that before the poor people revolt and start chopping off heads which has happened throughout history when the disparity has reached this level. DD
Everything is a matter of perspective. If you live in Maine, the entire country stretches out to the west. From California, it looks like the entire country is to the East. I think there's no middle anymore because compromise is no longer a viable option. It's hard to seek out common ground when being accused of compromise anmounts to a hanging offense during primary season.
I like the idea, and I also think it fails it some circumstances. One is the lottery winner or a breakthrough case. As this is a basketball board it might be easier to think of LeBron. Single mother raised and he now has money to change multiple generations. I think it is easy for the middle class to view the transfer of the wealth by the wealthy in disdain since they are in a cycle of mediocrity, but what about when the poor skips the middle class? Should LeBron's kids receive 10 - 20 cents on the dollar? Why can't they get an opportunity to set their family up for 5+ generations just like others have done in America. Is all wealth transfer the same? Second thought is this would be a nightmare since not all wealth is liquid. Family owned business transferred in death would be taxable to the recipients. If there is a family owned business like Walmart the Walton kids would be unable to pay the value of the company they inherited in cash to the IRS (or would have to leverage their stake to pay the IRS). While Walmart is extreme what would be the answer in that situation, it would impact more than just the kids.
That's my whole point, I don't believe in the lucky sperm club. I don't want multi-generational wealth. If little Lebron can't make it with a few million bucks from his dad, then F him especially when he could get into any school he wants to and his dad could help him start a business pretty easily.
While there are people on the left that annoy me, they aren't representative of the Democratic Party which is fairly centrist in most regards. The extreme positions that people try to paint it with are largely false and exaggerated.
Then I am probably more moderate on my take. From your view point there is no difference amongst the rich?
I want a meritocracy that rewards people that work hard or have talent, and not for who their ancestors are.
My business partner who is very active in the MN Republican part once told me something very telling. Candidates alway worry about the next election. So that means having to get through the primaries and / or convention endorsements. For the most part only the most politically active and partisan vote in those so not only are most candidates going to appeal to them they also come from that pool of politically active. Given gerrymandering there is less interest in trying to develop a broad based appeal to when your district is already leaning mostly one way.
IMO, the more politics, issues and govt is treated like teams and tribes, the worst it has gotten for the public. Instead of working to find the most efficient or effective solutions, it becomes a battle of ideology between two different opposing sides. Worst of all, a lot of these politicians whether Dem or Reb are simply grifters, incompetent or not great choices.
Here's a couple, not that I give a damn about the Washington Times. I'm far more interested in why you go to great lengths to attack Democrats and media coverage, no matter how mundane, pertaining to the Democratic Party, Democratic politicians, and Democratic leadership, while posting little at all, much less criticism, of the constant stream of lies pumped out by outlets like Fox claiming the 2020 election was "stolen" and the assault on the Capital on January 6th was either a "hoax" or simply some "innocent" Americans caught up in an "AntiFa" conspiracy. You don't seem at all concerned about the blatant assault on our system of government by the Republican Party, or else you don't believe such an assault is going on which, if that is the case, I find truly incredible.
dude, a 2018 post that doesn't quote anything and a City Journal piece that mentions the Washington Times? c'mon man!
