Even the billionaires would be better off without billinaires. It their relative ranking was the same they would still have more money than they could spend but it would now come with clean air, water, land, better infrastructure, a healthier world, happier people to interact with.
That’s what capitalism is supposed to do. fReE lAbOuR
He’s right. Let’s see if people could live off 999 million in assets.
Billionaire says 'I don’t think we should have Zohran Mamdani ’
Luigi has entered the chat.
Here in the UK 78% of people support a 2% wealth tax on net assets worth more than £10 million yet our spineless neoliberal government is more focused on cutting disability benefits and bombing starving children.
Can’t they just get around a tax like that by borrowing cash (for their lifestyle) and using their assets as collateral?
Wealth includes assets. If you can borrow against it, it can be taxed.
In fact, taxing the assets makes borrowing against them even more expensive.
It will lead to more dark money. It’s very hard to accurately measure a persons net worth when their financials aren’t just a house and an IRA like the average person. Especially if they don’t want you to see it. You’ll never be able to implement that tax in a consistent way.
Thing is, that ability to evade that is intentionally built in. It has to be. We have KYC laws here and anything over 10K is tracked.
The fact that the ultrawealthy are able to manipulate money in ways so that it’s not tracked and/or not taxed has to be by design.
Yes, that’s the current situation, thanks for pointing that out. I don’t think people understand how much tax evasion they do, for instance as of 2016 there was £36 TRILLION in offshore tax havens, UK GDP is £25 trillion for comparison. Murder in the first degree can get you prison for life, but letting countless people die from poverty related issues at home while getting rich off of starving and killing kids overseas makes you a billionaire. Why do we accept that?
law is inherently flawed and easily manipulated by clever sociopaths. chaotic good FTW. let there be guillotines and morally sound citizens and nothing more.
Huh, curious, I could swear we Germans (and most other countries I’m sure) used to do just that until a glorious neoliberal government came along and abolished the tax.
This needs to become the mainstream opinion. Billionaires and ultra wealthy shouldn’t exist. There is no trickling down or any of that stolen wealth coming back into the hands of average people.
Greed needs to be treated as an addiction just like alcoholism or gambling.
The rich can do it without civil or criminal consequence?
They will just live in other countries if being a billionaire is illegal.
That’s the neat thing, they won’t. It’s pretty easy to apply a high tax on moving away. In fact the USA of all places do just that.
Also, what do rich people possess? Assets. Physical assets. A big part of that is real estate, owned privately or by companies they own. There’s no taking that with you. They can sell their assets and try to take the money with them, but that means the society they leave gets it’s assets back.
It doesn’t matter where they live. If the US exerts pressure on whatever country the money is in they can and would get that money back. They’re somehow able to freeze the accounts of Russian oligarchs so they’s no reason to believe they couldn’t do it with Bezo as well.
That’s fine, billionaires do not add to an economy, they drain it. So if they leave it will remove a useless burden on the economy and whatever country is dumb enough to take them in can deal with them instead. Meanwhile, if they are pulling money from our country we can find ways to tax it and prevent them from draining our resources (and yes, money is a resource like any other).
Lol, no. This is a strawman argument. Billionaires will absolutely not give up their precious connections and real estate to live on a private island or move away. Even if 50% would do that (lmao never) the tax would still be a huge benefit. Even without the money, not having these greedsacks meddling with local politics and laws would be a dream.
That’s the idea I think.
As long as they stop siphoning money from us, I’m fine with that
Hopefully the corrupt ones go to China or Vietnam because they’re not afraid to give corrupt billionaires the death penalty.
This guy sounds pretty based!
I like this guy
Never heard of him. He’s apparently going to be the next Mayor of NYC, if you haven’t either.
For now he’s a candidate from the Democratic party
Ok… so… who here thinks he’ll end up shot sooner or later?
NYC Mayor is his top track, he wasn’t born in the USA so that should limit his exposure nationally. He’s a convenient strawman for the right so I’d say that keeps him safe but there are guns everywhere so who really knows.
The natural-born limitation only applies to the President/VP, there is no such requirement for cabinet positions, Governorship, or Congressional seats.
Now, this guy still has a general election to win, and if he wins, he still has to prove he can do the job. But assuming he does all that, and he’s as capable as he says he is, then maybe in a decade New York will have this guy and AOC in the Senate instead of Chuck and Kirstin…
That’s exactly my point, since he can’t run for President, even if he’s governor of NY he’s still not really a threat to the power structure of the country, even Senator. He’d be Bernie 2.0 but unable to run for President. Not saying he wouldn’t be influencing politics but it’s a massive card off the table if he can’t run himself.
Timing wise odds are he’ll be in NYC long enough for Chuck to be replaced by someone else for 40 years. Kirstin seems firmly in her seat, so I’d say he’s most likely Governor after mayor, just a moonshot guess.
It might make some difference that while Bernie represents Vermont, Zohran would represent New York which is like the national headquarters of capitalism
The powerful regard speaking the truth as an existential threat, otherwise they wouldn’t seek to silence him.
But New York is probably the most world-wide well known city, and he’s running for mayor in it with some rather European-left sentiments. That’s no small thing.
Yeah but he can’t elevate nationally and that really limits his splash. If the right wing media keep hyping him up that increases his profile but ultimately he’s still only the mayor, even if it is NYC, he’s not eligible to run for President and that’s where the real danger would be.
So you’re looking at him maybe turning into Bernie 2.0 is he became a Senator but without the ability to run for President.
All these guys just say what the public wants to hear before election.
Behind the scenes, this guy wants to be a billionarie, and the way there is to make a political career, saying whatever is popular with the voters.
There is no risk of being shot because all this guy is doing is trying to get popular, just like every other political guy before him. He wont be able to get rid of billionaries even if he wanted to.
Possible, but we’ll happily take that chance. Candidates like this are rare and you will face the same worry about anyone. I dont think we can just give up. Theres nothing down the road of letting the cynicism win, except maybe fleeing to another country.
Yeah I have given up on the system but you are right, its not much to gain from that attitude. I just cant change it for myself. Too much experience watching these guys.
You make a fair point though.
What can you gain from that attitude?
Low expectations can be helpful.
This is after he won the election, though
He’s got the ‘real’ election ahead of him, and given that it’s likely there are two independents in the race, hard to say what that will be.
That said, being too cynical and just ignoring what he says as lying right off the bat isn’t going to do anyone any favors. Reward the mindset, punish betrayal if it happens. A healthy skepticism is good, but not a completely defeatist outlook.
I thought he was a nominee? Article says that anyway. But still, there is zero chance that any of these guys will make any changes that are helping the ordinary people and hurts billionaries. Its a system where they have money and power and most of the citizens do not.
People are desperate for hope, and thats why his strategy is working. It is simular to Trumps own strategy also. They all come out and act as if they represent the ordinary people, and everyone buys it every time.
Trump is doing exactly what he promised.
What did he promise?
To continue the fear campaign and deportation based on skin color… to hold up the status quo where industry is allowed to bypass all laws. To keep the poor man tricked into paying more taxes. Republican playbook as well as things written between the lines that are coming true. Project 2025…
Yes, but all those other politicians tend to not be so… “extreme” with their crowd-pleasing language.
Possibly, but they are also not getting this kind of publicity. American politics seems to be about being very extreme in your views, and they dont have to be true, just appear to be on the peoples side.
Not a strong stance to be anti-thief. I’ll take it though! We all need to speak plain sense more often.
not surprised considering his other views but glad to see his courage in sticking to his principles against a very biased media landscape. even his rap was fun af. this guy never misses.
He’s going to be assassinated, isn’t he?
Nah, the mainstream media will just stop reporting on him, the social media algorithms will be tweaked to hide him, and when it comes to the election, people will go “Ugh, who is that Muslim sounding guy? I’m voting for Barron Trump.”
Mossad, Maga fascists, NYPD, All the billionaires all gonna be chomping at the bit to kill this guy to set an example.
Then do surprise-Pikachu-face.jpg when the same is done against them.
They’re seeking the death penalty for luigi mangione
wtf
Popular American politician starts saying radical but good things tends to end in a certain way.
If you live in the past and your mindset got a little fucky. Off base.
Two US Democratic senators were just assassinated by a MAGAt impersonating a cop who carried with him a hit list of 50 other senators he was going to kill. This is not outside the realm of possibilities in this day and age.
“Hey, we may have assassinated non-white people in the past for saying communist things, but we’ve totally changed now!”
Totally? No changing? Yes. Be positive be real be changed for the better.
Umm, it’s not a moral failing to highlight historical facts. A historian of WWII Nazism is not, in fact, a Nazi. There is real historical precedence for the idea that radical ideas for social change has been met with smears and, if unsuccessful, real violence against the leader(s) of that social change.
Whether his ideas are successful, or not, the powers that run the world will stop at nothing to prevent their loss of power. I fail to see how pointing out that fact, and hoping this time is different while acknowledging that history, is somehow some moral failing of the OP of this comment chain.
You have Donald Trump as a president and masked goons snatching people off the streets.
You’re right it’s changing, and it’s not for the better.
Well too late and they control the government and most of society so whaddaya wanna do about it?
Alright, now I HAVE to donate to his campaign.
Here’s the link for those who need to do the same after hearing this: https://www.zohranfornyc.com/
Centrists already hated him, and now he said their gods shouldn’t exist.
“Centrist” is just a masquerade for Republicrats to pretend to still be on the left.
Just because the US has only 2 real options to vote for doesn’t mean people can have different opinions. It isn’t for nothing that in a country like The Netherlands we have like 40 parties, including centre parties.
I’m pro LGBTQ, anti-israel, against consumerism/capitalism, pro socialism. Pro government control on key infrastructure (water, gas, electricity) and better housing and support services. Pro climate policies, pro taxing the rich.
But I’m also against fossil fuel bans, against bans on firearms, pro military for defence, pro free-speech, pro strict immigration, against ‘PC’ culture, against trans-women in women’s sports, pro merit success.
Am I left or right? …Or centrist?
Let’s take the obvious “Pro military for defense” first since that’s the most insane thing to think is a contentious political issue.
There are 30% of people in the US that think aliens are real and have visited their asshole but you will not find 5% of people in america that oppose the military as a concept.
What you’re doing here is being manipulated by people who want you to think some of these things are Important Issues™
The trans women in sports is a great example of propaganda. It was cooked up by a conservative think tank. How many people are affected by this “problem”? Maybe 200? And in most cases sports organizations themselves often have rules in place like “how long you’d have to have been on hormone therapy to qualify.” That is already more or less a solved problem for most the people it actually affects. People playing sports didnt come up with the “trans people in sports issue”, a think tank did.
So what you are …is manipulated by think tanks and propaganda and in a way that causes you to oppose people who otherwise have common interests with you.
There’s only two real political philosophies and they can be summed up as “fuck you, I got mine” and “we’re all in this together.” I will tell you right now only the “fuck you, I got mine” group has any real interest in dehumanizing people by say, having the government ban trans people from public spaces and public activities like sports.
but you will not find 5% of people in america that oppose the military as a concept.
Thats just your speculation. And do you mean people oppose the US having any military at all? 90% of the countries have a standing army, and the ones that dont are mostly small island countries.
Why is that the line you draw?
And yet the comments and downvotes shows how contentious it is which I knew it would be when I wrote it.
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Personally I agree with you. I always vote left and am more of a “we’re in in together” mindset.
Either way, thank you for you insight!
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Says the person who brought it up.
It was simpily an argument for me being centrist and therefore legitimate centrist existing.
It clearly worked in demonstrating what a centrists opinions are like and no one has so far argued I fall on one side or the other.
Sure. just bring up divisive right wing talking points. And then call yourself a centrist.
It tracks.
And yet the comments and downvotes shows how contentious it is which I knew it would be when I wrote it.
Probably extra contentious because it’s trans discrimination on Pride weekend. And there’s the fact that some research (backed by the International Olympic Committee) suggests that trans-women may perform worse than cis-women.
Even if more research comes out that shows otherwise (entirely possible considering that it’s hard to get a decent sample population of elite trans athletes as there are so few), discrimination is not a solution. The simplest solution would be to get rid of gendered leagues and group athletes by measureable athletic abilities. Probably would make most people with an actual vested interest happy, with exception of those who want to keep paying women less.
Oh wow, I did not know that! For both points. It’s great to see more research, I skimmed a little but I’ll read it right after this comment.
I like the idea of athletes competing against one another purely to see who is best overall. But I’d be worried that could possibly be more discriminatory. Such as in bouldering there was recently a controversial issue with a short climber not being able to compete in some climbs due to certain starting holds being too far apart. So something like weight classes but that considers a lot more depending on the sport?
Thanks so much for your reply and your linked study! I’m really happy for comments like yours.
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Not to surprising, since it is a standpoint that lays the foundation for oppressing and dehumanising one of the most vulnerable groups if society.
First it was just Trans people in sport, then it is trans people in bathrooms and the next step is eradicating trans peoples existence from public spaces.
Which is very sad and I’m not for that.
The only point I was making was for fair competition in women’s sport, and broader still that centrist exist with non black and white opinions.
I believe we are as a society, getting better at accepting people. In my country we’re decently accepting I think, although there is still the intolerant person here and there. Overall I do hope one day everyone is accepting of everyone else.
Thanks for your thoughts though.
The only point I was making was for fair competition in women’s sport
Which you don’t seem to have researched, or you would have known about the standards already in place to keep competition fair.
I’m pro LGBTQ
against trans-women
Right
In women’s sport, I just don’t think it’s fair to women to compete against trans-women* who are stronger than them. I only beleive that out of fairness, but I think people have every right to do what they want with their bodies and be accepted for who they are.
Where another person’s rights begin, another’s ends type of thing.
** EDIT: Clarifycation of ‘trans-women’ at the astrick, was just ‘women’ before
You’re right, it’s completely unfair for women to compete against women who are stronger than them. For the weightlifting they should test every woman’s strength, and only the weakest woman competes. That’s fair.
and,
We definitely shouldn’t let trans women compete in women’s chess, because of the biological advantage/s
That is not what I am saying. You’re trying to make an enemy out of me when I am not, it’s almost a strawmans argument you just made.
https://womeninsport.org/transgender-inclusion-womens-sport/
After 12 months: In studies which recorded the retained muscle mass/strength, there was an average of 25% residual advantage for transgender women at 12 months treatment compared with reference a group of females. After 12 months of testosterone suppression, transgender women remained 48% stronger, with 35% larger quadriceps mass compared with the control population of females. After more than two years of follow-up on testosterone suppression recent research citing retrospective data from military personnel in the US has shown that transgender women retain an advantage in running speed, at a residual of some 12% faster than the known normative values for females.
What is your opinion on this, truely? This organisation literally supports trans-women being in sport but has to admit that they are uniquely stronger and faster than born-women. It’s an unfortunate reality but I personally believe that we can support transgender women without disenfranchising born-women. I’m just being pragmatic about it.
And for clarifycation, I don’t think there should be classes in chess.
There are a number of other genes linked to athletic outcomes that are way more influential than “12% above average”. Steroid usage is rampant in top teir sports for instance and people with like genetic kidney conditions that overproduce some hormones have a far greater advantage.
The people doing the sports should be making the rules about sports, not a bunch of armchair theorists with calipers. Most the guys who have A LOT OF OPINIONS on how to gatekeep womens sports don’t actually watch any women’s sports.
That is not what I am saying.
No, it is what you said. It’s just not what you mean. It’s not my fault the two are separate. It’s your responsibility to speak clearly if you don’t want the silly things you say to be mocked.
I’m pro LGBTQ
against trans-women in women’s sports
No, you’re not pro lgbtq. You’re a TERF at best
against consumerism/capitalism, pro socialism. Pro government control on key infrastructure (water, gas, electricity) and better housing and support services. (…) pro taxing the rich
pro merit success
??? Do you understand what any of those words mean? “Pro merit success” directly contradicts each of the social policies you claim to support.
Pro climate policies
I’m also against fossil fuel bans
You’re either lying about one of these or you somehow think we can stop climate change without stopping the most significant cause of climate change?
Does the complete lack of internal consistency in your worldview not bother you at all? You have no defined political leaning, you have a bunch of emotionally driven contradictory political opinions that you clearly have little to no understanding of.
Given that description, I’d guess you probably call yourself a centrist and vote conservative.
Dead wrong, I’ve always voted left. And yes, I do consider myself a centrist, that’s exactly why I commented because I think the ‘you’re either with us or against us’ mentality is doing more damage than it helps.
I’m only against trans-women competing against women because they would have a competitive advantage. I’m even for athletes using hormones, stereroids and drugs in sport (in seperate divisions perhaps) and then the rules on who is in who’s class can really be thought out properly, but currently most trans-women have a clear advantage based on current sport (and biological) evidence. I don’t think it’s fair competition is all. I know some pretty cool trans people and one of them even admits to similar feelings of it being unfair.
I’m pro social policies because I think everyone deserves a roof over their head, food, water and basic amenities. But I’m also pro merit purely to reward people to achieve more and be better. Some people will never be as capable as others are but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have a basic living standard. Something like UBI would be a perfect solution to my understanding. I’m not American but when Bernie Sanders was a candidate I was rooting for him.
Pro climate because we need to fix it and fast, we do way to much damage to the environment. Against outright bans on fossil fuels because we simply are not there yet. My country is unfortunately nowhere near renewable and our outback has hardly any electricity, we need fuels to do anything out there. Trucks, trains and ships sometimes can’t work without it. Not to mention that lithium although amazing is causing more greenhouse gases mining and refining it than what electric cars are offsetting. Electric cars literally aren’t doing anything because the batteries die before they make up for their production. Carbon batteries are coming but mass production is difficult to scale. Cargo ships emit around a quater of all green house gasses and I personally think thats where we could really cut down on it by either fitting cargo ships with nuclear reactors which some military vessels have or just reducing consumerism. Currently most CO2 emissions is from electricity of which in most countries (such as mine) residential makes up only about 10%. The onous is not so much on the individual person but on companies and business, we need more incentives/punishments for corporations to be more considerate.
Almost no issue is black or white. I do have defined political beliefs, I think most people oversimplify or don’t research topics before forming an opinion. And there there are people like the one I originally commented to who have turned politics and world issues into binary division, where instead of educating they attack and insult.
What is emotionally driven here?
And what do I have little understanding of?
You’re in the wrong place to present nuanced opinion in long form. I love the independence of Lemmy from the large corporations (likely astroturfing aside), but this place swings the Overton window back to the left so hard it breaks without any acceptance of different nuanced ideas. It’s as though the life you’ve lived and the subtleties that governed it are irrelevant.
Of course this develops the mindset that trying to engage is mostly pointless, which I’ve adopted, because ultimately these are all just words on a screen with no real connection to the person behind them either way. You can’t sway them and they don’t respect your attention to minutiae.
Yeah I’m really starting to notice this exactly. It’s sad to think that you either disengage or get unwarranted abuse hurlded towards you from every direction.
Maybe just getting off the internet entirely is the better option.
I liked your reference of the Overton window though haha
Gonna be honest, I’m not reading that slop. You open by telling me that I’m dead wrong, then immediately confirming that my guess as to your political leaning was half correct, which sets a very clear tone that you’re here to mudwrestle on the internet rather than engage in a discussion. If you want to try again I’ll talk to you, but I’m not interested in trading novels high on insults and low on reading comprehension with you.
Of all the things in your comment, getting right the “you probably call yourself a centrist” is the least significant part. You’re wrong in all the rest of your comment, which is the actually important part.
Whether someone calls themselves left, right or center is way less important than the policies they support.
Because guess what. You can’t fit the entire world in 3 political buckets and expect everyone in each bucket to have the same opinion as everyone else on that bucket.
As I said in another comment. The world is not black and white. There’s lots of shades of grey.
And each person has a different combination of shades of grey for each political topic.
I assumed being centrist was already clear.
Mudwrestle? I’m here to make a point, that not everything is back and white, left or right. But if you don’t want to discuss, fine by me. I didn’t insult you once so your insult is quite hypocritical and immature infact.
It sort of looks like you’re broadly supportive of progressive causes, but don’t support progressives in the actual “battles” that are being “fought”. The clearest example is you being “Pro climate policies”, but “against fossil fuel bans”. Basically, you want things to get better, but you don’t want things to be done to make them better. You want peace and quiet more than you progress, and you’re willing to cede basically all current issues to regressives in order get it. Of course, if regressives win, they’ll just want something else. And you’ll cede that to them too.
In summary: you’re pathetic.
Or some people just have nuanced opinions and see that topics can be multiple shades of grey instead of either white or black.
Nah, this is just a contrarian contest.
Contrarian about what? Who are the contestants? I don’t understand your comment.
Contradiction isn’t nuance
There is no contradiction.
Not wanting trans-women in sports doesn’t make you not support LGBT. T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women’s leagues are a subset of that.
You can reward people based on accomplishments and also tax the rich. You can also have social programs while still rewarding them.
You can improve the environment without a complete ban of fossil fuels.
T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women’s leagues are a subset of that.
Wow that’s revealing more than you probably wanted.
Thank you for understanding!
deleted by creator
That’s basically the Lib-Right/“Libertarianism”
Edit: Actually I don’t think that’s Libertarian. Its like mix of Libertarian and Auth-Right values
pro LGBT
against trans-women in women’s sports
You sound like an Idiot to me.
Not very helpful, why is that?
Because lemmy isn’t reddit and as a result has little patience for anti-trans bigotry.
deleted by creator
You’re a liar, that’s what you are. Can’t even properly set up the troll.
Huh!? This isn’t a troll, I’m an example of a centrist. The term ‘centrist’ exists for a reason, and plenty of people such as myself think this way although I will admit, I have met very few unfortunately.
What makes me seem like a liar?
The term ‘centrist’ exists for a reason
Yeah, it gives conservatives something to call themselves on dating sites.
So what else is new? I had an imaginary friend when I was little, I got over that. So can others.
no way. Kinda cool, and no judgement at all, tell us about the imaginary friend?
I think you may be misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m saying that centrists worship and obey billionaires.
It’s a lot harder when it’s part of their very identity.
