Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Jeff Bezos: Philanthropy Is HARD WORK" video.

@jonathanlubarsky2782 Banks consider stocks to have current value. They can take out lines of credit, against their stock, to live on. Money in hand, without paying taxes on it.
6
If they simply paid all that hoarded wealth to their employees, then you wouldn't have to blame the system for not taxing their wealth.
5
@jonathanlubarsky2782 Sure, there is another way. Have the government also consider stocks to have current value, and tax them. Or, don't allow banks to consider stocks to have current value, and make them have to sell to get money in hand, and pay taxes on what they sell. Having so much wealth piling up at the top, means it's not being put back into the economy. Wealth being hoarded at the top, by both corporations and billionaires (about $4t each) is why trickle down doesn't work. They should be paying their employees a larger cut, as well.
2
@jonathanlubarsky2782 Tesla could have handed each of their 110000 employees, $450000 in stock, and still handed over $6b to Musk, just in the last 4 years.
2
@jonathanlubarsky2782 Wow, yeah, no possible way to set retirement accounts as special, like with a 401(k). What are you talking about? People pay money for the stocks. Corporations buy back stocks, using money that came from people. Increased earnings, from money spent by people, causes stocks to increase in value. Corporations are hoarding about $4t of that money. You know "trickle down" was a complete failure, right? No. If you give $4t to the masses, they'll spend it ... on corporations. Then you tax it back, again. Rinse and repeat.
1
@jonathanlubarsky2782 Why are you magically making all stocks worth less? Arguing we need the super rich, to create jobs, and shit, is the "trickle down" argument. There simply used to be more smaller businesses, and even more people (than the 2/3 now) working for smaller businesses, before giant corporations. There's no "need" for billionaires. The bottom 50% own about 1.5% of total wealth, and pays about 3% of total taxes. The top 1% owns about 30% of total wealth and pays about 30% of total taxes. The poor are actually paying twice as much in taxes, as a percentage of their wealth.
1
@jonathanlubarsky2782 You literally argued that we "need" those rich people. Explain exactly what you meant by that, without making a "trickle down" argument. People pay property tax, every year, without selling said property. "Property tax" actually used to tax all property owned, not just land and home. It used to be a kind of wealth tax. Where am I losing you? Retirement investments can be specifically protected. The only way they'd lose money is if the stock values dropped. How are you magically making the stock values drop? Which one of these people, or corporations, you're defending doesn't f*ck others over? Bezos is a union buster. Musk is a union buster. "Inflation" isn't a force of nature. It's businesses raising prices. They're doing it now, while making record profits. Headline: The wealthiest 1% has taken $50 trillion from working Americans and redistributed it, a new study finds.
1
These super rich shits, living off stocks, aren't paying as much in taxes, as you make out. It is the lesser rich, with large taxable annual incomes, paying most of the 1%'s taxes. Nobody needs billionaires to continue existing, just to pay taxes. The rest of your argument was about them going to trickle down their wealth, by creating more businesses, jobs, and other bullshit, which they aren't really doing. Their wealth increased by $1.7t over the pandemic. Where's the $1.7t in new businesses, raised wages, expanding current businesses, charities, etc.? They need consumers with money, to exist. Plenty more taxes in other countries, and they keep their businesses there. Nothing you blathered changes the fact that property taxes tax property, annually, not on sale, when the value is realized. Nor did you change the fact that "property tax" used to tax all property, and was effectively a kind of wealth tax, which worked just fine, before income taxes. Why would it lower the value of the stock? It would put more stock up for sale, each year, and the value would depend on demand. It would be a way for others, including retirement plans, to buy more of the stock. Inflation doesn't simply magically rise with money supply, all on its own, dimwit. People with more money want to buy more stuff. Instead of keeping prices the same and increasing supply to meet the new demand, businesses raise the prices until demand drops to meet supply. The problem was, first, allowing for supply to drop so much, during the pandemic, and giving more money to businesses than consumers. If they had given the money to consumers, they would have kept demanding stuff from businesses, who would have then kept up supply. If you hand the money to businesses, then they get paid for not having to sell/supply anything, and they can let supply drop. You're basically arguing that people need to be paid shit, so they can't demand more.
1
@jonathanlubarsky2782 Btw, currency in circulation has gone from $1.8t to $2.3t, since the start of 2020. That's not even a 50% increase, let alone a 400% increase.
1
@jonathanlubarsky2782 You're clearly not very bright. If 20% was 100% of the money in circulation before 2020, and then 80% of the money in circulation was printed after, that's a 400% increase, dumb dumb. You're claiming 4/5ths of the money was printed after. If 1/5th was 100%, then 4/5ths more is 400% more. If you can't do very basic math, then nothing else you say is reliable. You're also completely ignorant, or completely dishonest, about Musk's stocks. It's not like he started with X amount of Telsa stock and that is what is now worth $200b. He has recieved multiple payments of stocks worth tens of billions. Tesla has just been taken to court over his last 4 year $56b compensation package. Tesla could just have easily handed that to its workers, who were the real people who reached the benchmarks. Other people have been f*cked over, to hand him hundreds of billions. I stopped reading your pure bullshit, after that.
1
@jonathanlubarsky2782 80 is 44.45% of 180, dimwit, not 80%. An 80% increase and 80% of the total, are two different things, dimwit. You're dumb as a stump, or a Trump.
1
@jonathanlubarsky2782 You are such a dishonest twit. The bonus was for Tesla valuation hitting certain benchmarks. If they didn't hit those marks there wouldn't be a bonus. If they did hit, or surpass, those marks, the stock would be worth what it's worth, now. Either no bonus, or current value bonus. Why don't the workers deserve the $50b? Why isn't $6b be enough for a single person?
1
@jonathanlubarsky2782 The point is that there was no bonus, that would have only been worth $50k per employee. The bonus was always going to be worth what it was worth. $50b divided by 110k employees, is a $450k bonus. I get that you don't grasp basic math, but do you grasp English? A "bonus" would be on top of anything else they made. It wouldn't be one or the other. There was $50b, that the company could have done with what they wanted. They did not give it to employees, so yes the employees missed out. They did not spread it amongst shareholders, so the shareholders missed out. They did not reduce their prices, so the consumers missed out. They did not invest it into expansion and hiring more people, as in your bullshit trickle down fantasy world, so hypothetical numbers of unemployed missed out. They did not donate it to charity, as in your bullshit trickle down fantasy, so hypothetical numbers of people suffering missed out. They did not cure world hunger, for a decade, so millions of starving people missed out. Nope. They handed it to one person. In what demented reality couldn't $50b have helped tons of other people? Those people all missed out, with the decision to hand that much wealth to one person. The majority of Tesla employees don't make $450k in 4 years, btw: "The median Tesla employee made $56,163 in 2018, the electric-car maker said in a proxy statement."
1
@jonathanlubarsky2782 No, you lying twit. You claimed 80% of the money in circulation was printed after 2019. "the Federal Reserve printed 80% of all US money IN EXISTENCE in the span of 2 YEARS " "The Fed printed 80% of all US money in existence in the span of 2 years" If there is currently 100 in circulation, that would mean "80% of all US money in existence" is 80, and that that 80 was printed in the last 2 years, dumb dumb. That would mean you started with 20 and added 80. 80 is 400% of 20, dumb dumb. Yeah, your "point" is to deflect to some irrelevant nonsense. The bonus was never going to be worth what you're claiming it was worth. Plus, you're an ignoramus, who apparently doesn't know that most Tesla workers only make $56k a year. Your deflection tries to make out like $50k is nothing, when it would almost double their annual salary.
1
@jonathanlubarsky2782 Dishonest twit. "The median Tesla employee made $56,163 in 2018, the electric-car maker said in a proxy statement. That figure includes salary or wages, performance bonuses, and stock awards for full-time, part-time, and temporary employees excluding CEO Elon Musk, the company said."
1