Big Tech Companies to Be Hit by 'Historic' International Tax Agreement

[IllinoisCorn]

Considering where the last 40 years have gotten us, I’m rather unconcerned about trying a different strategy.

We could try a different strategy. We could hit ourselves in the head with bricks, because that's about as useful a solution to mismanagement of public funds as continuously dumping more money down the hole on the backs of "the rich" and "corporations."

 

[vipergts2207]

How much do you think lower income people would benefit by this? Social security? Medicare? etc. Or are the increased taxes going to be used for the common good? Or projects that are invisible to those who may need help the most?

You’re asking me to tell you what the revenue will be spent on when I don’t have an answer to that question.

 

[vipergts2207]

I'm not angry at people for being wealthy.

Why would I be angry at people I don't know? Because they have more than me? Should the guy at the other end of town be angry at me because I have more than he does?

What a strange concept.

Don’t be so disingenuous. I’m not angry because people managed to make themselves wealthy. I’m angry that they then use said wealth to shape government policy to their whims and desires.

We could try a different strategy. We could hit ourselves in the head with bricks, because that's about as useful a solution to mismanagement of public funds as continuously dumping more money down the hole on the backs of "the rich" and "corporations."

You’re certainly free to that opinion.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

Don’t be so disingenuous. I’m not angry because people managed to make themselves wealthy. I’m angry that they then use said wealth to shape government policy to their whims and desires.


You’re certainly free to that opinion.

Guy, you said "Or how about we direct the anger at both the wealthy and the politicians."

How is quoting you disingenuous? If that's not what you meant, why say it?

Wealthy people, for the most part, try and keep as much of their money as possible. If that means offshoring money in a more tax friendly environment, so be it. How is it your concern, anyway? It's their money. They're not breaking any laws. The government will then move to close whatever loophole, and wealthy people will do it again. And on and on and so forth.

Non-wealthy people can do this too, by the way.

Coexist--don't hate ☮️

 

[vipergts2207]

Guy, you said "Or how about we direct the anger at both the wealthy and the politicians."

How is quoting you disingenuous? If that's not what you meant, why say it?

Wealthy people, for the most part, try and keep as much of their money as possible. If that means offshoring money in a more tax friendly environment, so be it. How is it your concern, anyway? It's their money. They're not breaking any laws. The government will then move to close whatever loophole, and wealthy people will do it again. And on and on and so forth.

Non-wealthy people can do this too, by the way.

Coexist--don't hate ☮️

Can you not follow a simple conversation? I’m not angry that they simply have money. It’s because they use that money to buy power and influence governmental policy. See the Koch brothers for example. If you can’t discern the difference between those two things, then perhaps this discussion is out of your depth.

 

[I7guy]

You’re asking me to tell you what the revenue will be spent on when I don’t have an answer to that question.

I’m not asking you anything. That was a rhetorical question.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

Can you not follow a simple conversation? I’m not angry that they simply have money. It’s because they use that money to buy power and influence governmental policy. See the Koch brothers for example. If you can’t discern the difference between those two things, then perhaps this discussion is out of your depth.

Establishing think tanks and donating money to causes you agree with is not the wealthy "abusing" the system.

I mean, do you dislike the wealthy people whose politics you agree with? Do you denounce George Soros or Howard Schultz or Michael Bloomberg?

I bet not. Because you agree with their politics.

Also---I bet if you looked into the Koch Brothers (one is dead now) you'd agree with a fair amount of the research and initiatives they fund. They are deemed a right wing bogie man/men by many on the left, but the left doesn't realize how much of their political agenda Koch agrees with. It's helpful to have a rich villain to attack for fundraising purposes, but smarter folks will not just nod like sheep--they'll look into it themselves.

Finally---it's also possible to have a good faith conversation without being nasty to total strangers. Truly. It can be done!

🕊️☮️

 

[vipergts2207]

Establishing think tanks and donating money to causes you agree with is not the wealthy "abusing" the system.

I mean, do you dislike the wealthy people whose politics you agree with? Do you denounce George Soros or Howard Schultz or Michael Bloomberg?

I bet not. Because you agree with their politics.

Also---I bet if you looked into the Koch Brothers (one is dead now) you'd agree with a fair amount of the research and initiatives they fund. They are deemed a right wing bogie man/men by many on the left, but the left doesn't realize how much of their political agenda Koch agrees with. It's helpful to have a rich villain to attack for fundraising purposes, but smarter folks will not just nod like sheep--they'll look into it themselves.

Finally---it's also possible to have a good faith conversation without being nasty to total strangers. Truly. It can be done!

🕊️☮️

Actually, I think it'd be great if billionaires on neither side could buy policy. The country was founded on one man one vote, not one dollar one vote.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

Actually, I think it'd be great if billionaires on neither side could buy policy. The country was founded on one man one vote, not one dollar one vote.

It really wasn't.

States choose presidents, not individual voters.

For the first 100 some odd years of this country, senators were appointed; not elected.

Pure 1 man 1 vote democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

That's why this country was founded on a republican form of government, so minorities are protected and not eaten by a rabid majority.

In other words....guard rails.

If what you posit is true, Jeff Bezos could buy all the laws he wants. But he can't "buy" laws. He can lobby for laws and you can too. He might have more money than you, but you might have more supporters for your idea, and what matters more to a politician, people marching for a cause in the street or Bezos' $$?

 

[vipergts2207]

It really wasn't.

States choose presidents, not individual voters.

For the first 100 some odd years of this country, senators were appointed; not elected.

Pure 1 man 1 vote democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

That's why this country was founded on a republican form of government, so minorities are protected and not eaten by a rabid majority.

In other words....guard rails.

If what you posit is true, Jeff Bezos could buy all the laws he wants. But he can't "buy" laws. He can lobby for laws and you can too. He might have more money than you, but you might have more supporters for your idea, and what matters more to a politician, people marching for a cause in the street or Bezos' $$?

And who chose the people running said states? Voters. Senators were appointed by those who were elected. Supreme Court Justices aren’t elected directly by voters either, but they’re appointed and confirmed by those who were elected.

And did you really ask whether politicians care more about money or people? The answer is quite obviously money. Look at McConnell’s backtracking after he told corporations to stay out of politics a few months ago.

“He clarified Tuesday that he did not have a problem with companies spending money on behalf of candidates and political parties, which immediately opened him to charges of hypocrisy. "I'm not talking about political contributions," he said. ‘Most of them contribute to both sides. They have political action committees. That's fine. It's legal. It's appropriate. I support that.’”

McConnell backs away from warning businesses to stay out of politics

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday backed off his stern warning that companies such as Major League Baseball, Delta and Coca-Cola should stay out of high-profile political …

thehill.com

Money means power. Why do you think billionaires want even more money? It’s not so they can buy yet another yacht or mansion. Bezos and his progeny could live supremely lavish lifestyles for generations with his wealth. Billionaires can already buy basically anything they want. The reason they want more money is so that they can buy power through political influence and advertising. When you’re a billionaire you can afford to give tens or hundreds of millions in political contributions. You'll still be insanely wealthy. Meanwhile the rest of us have to use our money to eat and put a roof over our heads.

"Blue Origin spent $625,000 lobbying the Senate in the first three months of 2021, according to lobbying disclosure records."

Senate Preparing $10 Billion Bailout Fund for Jeff Bezos Space Firm

Bezos’s Blue Origin lost its bid for a major NASA contract to Elon Musk, but the Senate is ordering the agency to give a second one now.

theintercept.com

There's a great example of one of the problems with the status quo. Bezos using his unimaginable wealth to lobby for $10 billion in tax payer funds for his private company. Maybe he should use ~5% of his net worth to fund it himself.

Or another example where NIH money goes to fund drug development for companies who will then price the drugs at unaffordable levels and with no return on the tax payer investment.