Skip to content →

Category: Uncategorized

Biden: Billionaires Tax

This keeps getting proposed in many countries, and never happens. Maybe, finally, it will, despite:

  • Is it the shadow government / deep state?
  • Or donor pressure?
  • Or admitting that the capitalist dream is flawed?

The Washington Post, citing five sources and an internal administration document, said the “billionaire minimum income tax” plan would establish a 20% minimum tax rate on all American households worth more than $100m.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/26/joe-biden-billionaires-tax

I like that simplicity. No ways around it – however your income is derived, at that level of income, you absolutely have to pay 20% income tax, which is way below what the middle class pay.

Impossible to argue against philosophically.

Comments closed

“Just Deserts” on a Desert Island

desert island – a remote tropical island, typically an uninhabited one

meritocracy: a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit

So, if Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos suddenly arrives naked on a desert island – alone – will their verve and smarts make them rich?

What if they arrive on an island, that has a dozen people but no technology?

10,000 people and no technology?

5 people and they have learned how to kill rats with a trap.

How many people does he need (non-billionaires) and how many generations of technology (that he had no part in), to even start to become rich and superior?

The very rich, no matter how smart or hard-working, needed all of us to get there, one way or another. All of us. One person less would mean (on average) less success.

So feel free to ask a billionaire how successful they could have been on a desert island.

Comments closed

Small Town Sway

I figure a reason for the political divisions in the US is the elected officials (who of course get to proclaim things in the press) who don’t require too many votes.

Like the banning of a book.

When you have 1 country x 52 states x 50 counties x 30 elected officials… multiplied by how everyone these days has a voice… shit will rise to the top, and biased news services find their fodder.

Comments closed

Height and Sea Tax

Simple concept.

If someone wants the superficial benefits of sea views or penthouse apartments – tax them!

All luxury should be taxed, because while it is desirable, it represents a disconnect, the meritocracy model has failed. Merit shouldn’t confer unfair advantages.

Comments closed

The Unalienable Right of a Home

Somewhere to retreat to, when things go sideways.

The nest where your parents are, or were.

We all fuck up to some degree and want to crawl back into our hole.

That hole is home.

Prince Andrew has just done that. Hidden in a castle. Home.

We should all have that, but if we re-emerge, we pay.

Comments closed

Mutually Beneficial Dual Citizenship

Typically I am envious of anyone who has dual citizenship. It provides more options in life, and perhaps allegiance to multiple countries.

Extrapolate that for effect – the more people who have allegiance to multiple countries would surely create a more peaceful, less divisive planet.

When I was in my twenties, I has a two year working holiday in the UK, and when I didn’t want it to end, but sadly I had to return to Australia/NZ. It crossed my mind that someone from the UK was in the same boat, not wanting to leave. On a one-to-one basis it would make sense to allow both parties to stay, as they would be more productive and happier being somewhere they want to be. And eventually awarding each a dual citizenship would strengthen the ties between the two countries.

Obviously Australia and the UK have pretty strong ties anyway, so how about countries that could do with stronger ties, could they have a similar scheme?

Take for example Fiji and Australia. Some Fijians come here to work in horticulture (because of pay differentials between the two countries). While few Aussies would want to work in Fiji, they might want to retire there. So formalise it, one-for-one swaps.

Maybe even three-ways? I’m thinking of how to introduce refugees into the mix… this is a stretch but indicative of direction of thinking required:

Venezuelan refugees come to Australia. Australians go to Germany to live, and work for a particular company. That company gets funding from the German government to invest in a factory in Venezuela that employs locals.

Two lots of people get to live in their new country of choice, Australia gets to fulfil their refugee obligations and Germany helps monetarily. And all three countries get to bond with each other more than they do now.

Consider it a more earthy and tangible version of the twin cities phenomenon, which exists for similar reasons but is mostly ceremonial.

As a side note, Australia was just as big, and just as empty of people (relative to capacity) as the US when each were invaded by the British. One grew to be a superpower because it had substantially more of productive land and could support more people. One day – bold prediction here – Australia will manage to make its deserts fertile, and be capable of taking in all of the world’s refugees, where they can live a subsistence life in peace, and not in tent cities.

Comments closed

Big Banks and Fines

This is from David Graeber’s book, The Utopia of Rules:

As profits from banks and credit card companies derive more and more from “fees and penalties” levied on their customers – so much so that those living check to check can regularly expect to be charged eighty dollars for a five-dollar overdraft – financial firms have come to play by an entirely different set of rules.

I once attended a conference on the crisis in the banking system where I was able to have a brief, informal chat with an economist for one of the Bretton Woods institutions (probably best I not say which). I asked him why everyone was still waiting for even one bank official to be brought to trial for any act of fraud leading up to the crash of 2008.

Official: Well, you have to understand the approach taken by U.S. prosecutors to financial fraud is always to negotiate a settlement. They don’t want to have to go to trial. The upshot is always that the financial institution has to pay a fine, sometimes in the hundreds of millions, but they don’t actually admit to any criminal liability. Their lawyers simply say they are not going to contest the charge, but if they pay, they haven’t technically been found guilty of anything.

Me: So you’re saying if the government discovers that Goldman Sachs, for instance, or Bank of America, has committed fraud, they effectively just charge them a penalty fee.

Official: That’s right.

Me: So in that case . . . okay, I guess the real question is this: has there ever been a case where the amount the firm had to pay was more than the amount of money they made from the fraud itself?

Official: Oh no, not to my knowledge. Usually it’s substantially less.

Me: So what are we talking here, 50 percent?

Official: I’d say more like 20 to 30 percent on average. But it varies considerably case by case.

Me: Which means . . . correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that effectively mean the government is saying, “you can commit all the fraud you like, but if we catch you, you’re going to have to give us our cut”?

Official: Well, obviously I can’t put it that way myself as long as I have this job . . .

Comments closed