The reason Luigi is so popular with Americans is because he is a microcosm example of the Sociopathic Oligarch’s worst nightmare - The average American rising up to literally KILL the wealthy. He is just one man with one victim, but what if he were multiplied by hundreds, or thousands, or millions?
The way black people felt about OJ, is now being felt by all working class Americans toward Luigi. So the wealthy, and the system, want to punish him harshly as an example to the rest of us, while we are plotting ways for him to escape punishment.
When the people are demanding a reasonable solution, and they are dismissed by the goverment in favor of punishing Americans in order to benefit the Sociopathic Oligarchs at our expense - AGAIN! - the Free Market will find an alternative, and nothing frightens them more than the threat of Luigi’s Solution catching fire, and becoming a trend.
Can you expand on how it’s comparable to OJ? The guy killed his (ex) partner. To me, that’s much different.
I like how luigi was being astroturfed by the grifters and MSMs until they realize they are making things worst by turning rabid right wingers agains tthem. all of the msms and grifters went quiet for a month. ALso it was drawing attention away from musk and TRUMP too.
Luigi isnt going anywhere. He still has a trial ahead, and it promises to be a full-fledged circus, potentially bigger than the OJ Trial which was a legal spectacle beyond description.
HitlerPig won’t be able to avoid Luigi’s spotlight, and he will be making daily special updates to air his ignorant opinions. I wouldn’t even be surprised if he shows up to watch the trial one day.
Love how he thinks the idea of taxing the rich is so ridiculous that merely repeating it back to the audience is a counter argument.
We really need to get the money out of politics.
“best I can do is a tax cut for those making over $250k”
To him it’s ridiculous because they give him so much money. He can’t fathom another point of view.
why just politics? punish them for, you know; destroying the world and taking so much of all our lives.
edit: if they push us so far that the common person is down for taking real action, make sure it can’t happen again.
It’s a hilarious failure to gaslight an entire town hall by himself.
Please provide the link, I want to see this for myself…
That’s a big red state.
Nah I say we make some cuts to the capitalists
Remember, upvoting this meme back on Reddit might earn you a ban now!
We don’t tax billionaires to fight the national debt. We tax billionaires to fight BILLIONAIRES.
(But whatever gets us there I guess.)
Tax the rich!
…And we voted in the wealthiest man in history and a narcissistic luxury hotel magnate, who openly touted a regressive tax plan, to do it?
I am not opposed to inreasing taxes necessarily, but people need to understand that the income of wealthy individuals is not used purely for the fulfilment of their needs and wishes. Rich people play a rather important role in allocating and managing resourses(capital) in society, and increasing the taxes will decrease the capability of rich people to invest, which is not ideal.
Also, if the tax increase is percieved to be unfair, rich people can just leave and go to Monaco or Switzerland or any other “rich friendly” country. They are pretty much free to do so and they do it all the time. So increasing taxes will not necessarily lead to more tax revenue if they are increased above what is reasonable.
I am so happy karma is not a thing here btw. I would be in an unenviable position otherwise.
Why do a small amount of individuals need to be the gatekeepers on so much wealth?
And what is the alternative? What would you prefer?
Capital is economic power. Should it be concentrated or not? Well, I will first say that I do not see a reasonable way to drastically reduce this inequality of power apart from socialism(as in planned economy, not welfare) which I reject for many reasons.
I would say it should be concentrated because: Most people do not have the desire or capacity to wield economic power. This has nothing to do with their intelligence or worth as an individual, but with their character mostly. It involves making many difficult decisions and significant responsibility, as you are at risk of losing your investments. You also need to show initiative which many people lack. If capital was evenly distributed most people would not have the foresight to invest but likely would just spend it to buy the things they need/want for the already mentioned lack of desire and initiative for entrepreneurship.
Also, there would be no or very little incentives to do well since you would have about the same amount of money as everyone else anyway, and this would destroy our economy, since it relies on capitalists altering the allocation of resources based on personal incentives and information granted by the market(expressed by price). If these incentive structures are weakened, this can make the economy unresponsive, which will make the resource allocation uneffective, probably even less effective than when the economy is managed by the state(socialism).
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.
With the concentration of wealth and thus power being the ideal state, you appear to be arguing in favor of a landed aristocracy who are inherently better at ruling than everyone else because of their noble character. The peasantry would not know how or even want to wield power, and need to be guided by those with the right to rule. In this case it is the right mix of sociopathy and exploitation that defines nobility of character instead of strictly bloodline and Devine Right. This is a very interesting take.
I personally feel that along broad scopes, any human is equally capable of the desire and capacity to wield economic power. It is nurture and not nature that derives this. I would then argue that a level playing field with the Government enforcing strong anti-trust laws is a much better driver of economic force and growth. Healthy competition with no artificial barriers to market entry will allow the market to produce the best results.
Preventing monopoly, duopoly, and oligarchy will constrain the scope of inequality along with taxation without any need for a planned economy. I favor something like a land use tax, but there is much discussion to be had on that front.
Humans are semi-eusocial creatures, so greed must be properly channeled and cannot be allowed to run unchecked. Inequality at certain levels is expected and can/does increase drive for success, but must be tempered for optimal results.
If they refuse to tax them, I say we EAT them.
What about their legs? They don’t need their legs
