Okay fine, I high-balled it. The same point stands, just lower it to a number you find more reasonable. $100M? $10M? I agree that it’s an unnecessary amount of money, but it’s far more manageable than the uncapped free-for-all that it is today.
Set it too low though and you’ll start to lose support, so make it high enough that even the highest echelons of the upper-middle class know it won’t ever effect them. The point is to target the owner-caste.
Oh, but a one-time wealth tax of anything over one’s first $billion followed by a net gains cap in the 8 or 9 digits is absolutely reasonable.
A lot of those are just millionaires or ten millionaires… or hundred thousandaires… I think the way to do this is to build/implement a new model of business and housing ownership, where it is democratically co-owned, co-run, co-managed… instead of everything being owned by capitalist proprietors/workplace dicatators/real estate investors
Ownership itself has to be democratized not just try to funnel money back down
No, if someone’s net worth is in the 6 or even 7 digits, then they’re not an oligarch. They’re upper-middle class and probably work to earn a living, they just make a really comfortable salary.
The owner-caste have at least a 9 digit net worth (hundred millions), but those are small fries as far as oligarchs go. More realistically, 10, 11, and 12 digit net worths describe financial oligarchs.
True, someone might own a small business and have a few hundred thousand, maybe a couple million to their name. But that’s not an oligarch and not what I mean by “owner-caste.” And they probably still actively work, at least to manage their business and maybe in operations too. They’re still upper-middle class.
But they’re not a private equity magnate, they’re not sitting on the board of investors at any major company, they don’t have their own foundations to launder money through to reduce tax liability.
I agree that we need to change the ownership model. But there’s a difference between private ownership and personal ownership, and the goal isn’t to abolish personal ownership. That’s counterproductive and makes us more dependent on systems.
Worker co-ops are a great idea to replace for-profit public corporations and private equity. But stealing Joe Shmoe’s mom&pop shop isn’t seizing the means of production. Small businesses aren’t the enemy, and acting like they are only gives credence to the “red scare” caricature of socialism that too many people already seem to believe.
Okay fine, I high-balled it. The same point stands, just lower it to a number you find more reasonable. $100M? $10M? I agree that it’s an unnecessary amount of money, but it’s far more manageable than the uncapped free-for-all that it is today.
Set it too low though and you’ll start to lose support, so make it high enough that even the highest echelons of the upper-middle class know it won’t ever effect them. The point is to target the owner-caste.
Oh, but a one-time wealth tax of anything over one’s first $billion followed by a net gains cap in the 8 or 9 digits is absolutely reasonable.
A lot of those are just millionaires or ten millionaires… or hundred thousandaires… I think the way to do this is to build/implement a new model of business and housing ownership, where it is democratically co-owned, co-run, co-managed… instead of everything being owned by capitalist proprietors/workplace dicatators/real estate investors
Ownership itself has to be democratized not just try to funnel money back down
No, if someone’s net worth is in the 6 or even 7 digits, then they’re not an oligarch. They’re upper-middle class and probably work to earn a living, they just make a really comfortable salary.
The owner-caste have at least a 9 digit net worth (hundred millions), but those are small fries as far as oligarchs go. More realistically, 10, 11, and 12 digit net worths describe financial oligarchs.
True, someone might own a small business and have a few hundred thousand, maybe a couple million to their name. But that’s not an oligarch and not what I mean by “owner-caste.” And they probably still actively work, at least to manage their business and maybe in operations too. They’re still upper-middle class.
But they’re not a private equity magnate, they’re not sitting on the board of investors at any major company, they don’t have their own foundations to launder money through to reduce tax liability.
I agree that we need to change the ownership model. But there’s a difference between private ownership and personal ownership, and the goal isn’t to abolish personal ownership. That’s counterproductive and makes us more dependent on systems.
Worker co-ops are a great idea to replace for-profit public corporations and private equity. But stealing Joe Shmoe’s mom&pop shop isn’t seizing the means of production. Small businesses aren’t the enemy, and acting like they are only gives credence to the “red scare” caricature of socialism that too many people already seem to believe.