Even though I think the comment you replied to is wildly over-simplifying how things work:
> By whom? The people with > $100M net worth in Congress and their friends?
That is how taxes have historically worked, so why object this time?
> At which point do we realise politicians are not on our side?
That's the argument for democracy. I would like democracy to be better than it is, but fundamentally, this is what it's for: getting the politicians on our side.
By whom? The people with > $100M net worth in Congress and their friends?
At which point do we realise politicians are not on our side?
Even though I think the comment you replied to is wildly over-simplifying how things work:
> By whom? The people with > $100M net worth in Congress and their friends?
That is how taxes have historically worked, so why object this time?
> At which point do we realise politicians are not on our side?
That's the argument for democracy. I would like democracy to be better than it is, but fundamentally, this is what it's for: getting the politicians on our side.
There are 6 Senate members (out of 100) and 7 House members (out of 435) with net worth > $100 million.
What about their lobbyist friends?
[dead]
> By whom?
By the relatively small group of armed leftist activists ready to use violence until their goal would be achieved.
If only.
What a thoughtful take. So the humans with $99M get to keep their wealth? And the guy with $101M ends up with ~$500k. Makes a lot of sense.