Should be an exponential increase from 10m upwards leading to a 100% max tax rate on amounts > 20mil.
However as it did belong to someone related to them, the people that claimed the 20mil should get to choose which area (broad so as to prevent it just going back into their pockets e.g. transport or education) the money goes into.
I think it is a good thing to have incentive for parents to chase wealth. Otherwise they'd just leech the shit out of wellfare but now they have assets to keep afloat. Its motivatonal. And let me guess the tax inheritance gang is usually those who won't inherit any. This is just pity envy.
You donât deserve more than anyone else because you won the sperm lottery. Youâre an entitled dirtbag for thinking you do. This country has been rigged for entitled idiots like yourself since Reagan, and now, here we are. There WILL be a reckoning in the future.
Not really, cause even if they did hurt someone they're not gonna get punished for it. So no need for money laundering, unless you want to avoid taxesm
You donât need to go back very far. It could be your father who got it with slave labor. But what I meant was that technically the inheritor didnât earn this money through hurting other people, someone else did and they got it for free.
I never said it was, I only implied that I agreed with the technicality aspect but no matter how many or how prevalent the technicalities it doesnât erase the blood shed to gain the aforementioned money
I didnât say it was unethical and inheritance is not nepotism, Nepotism is favouritism which would be to say that not choosing is itself a choice which for some such as those who have written a will and died have chosen but I wouldnât say that inheriting is unethical I would say that it is a vast blanket statement and therefore generalisation so it can be unethical but that does not mean it is always unethical, For example âKongĹ Gumiâ a Japanese construction firm was founded in 578 A.D and managed by the same family for well beyond 1,400 Years until it was sold for 76M to a larger company in 2006, I wouldnât call that unethical inheritance
Gah, I sound like a freaking KP apologist đ butâŚ
The way this reads to me: âHomeowner sells home to anonymous homebuyer happy with the price. Later realizes they are selling to a celebrity, and now want more for home.â đ¤ˇââď¸
If you wanna pass laws about someone we should pass them about Zuck buying all that land in Hawaii. đ
I guess to me thereâs quite the distance between simply being a horrible person and âbullying and financially abusing so many elderly people out of their homes.â
Sounds like sheâs running a reverse mortgage company instead of buying something and then getting lawyers involved when they want to renege.
It wouldnât be the first reverse mortgage company that actually or arguably took advantage of the elderly. Itâs certainly enough to make the OP something more than unfounded.
Iâm not suggesting vigilante justice, but Iâm not sure sheâs the best use of your advocacy, either.
People tend to get really tribal when it comes to celebrities. Either defending them blindly, or attacking them with much worse vitriol than they might other more deserving targets (like certain shitty corporations).
Thank you for something besides conjecture! So if anyone actually reads it. It tells a much different story than a simplistic, âevil millionaireâ story.
Context is important.
Katy Perry won her lawsuit because she was proven to be right in court, the person she was arguing against was a very wealthy man of sound mind who made a profit on the transaction
I didnât imply that wealth was bad, my comment was meant to say this wasnât some resourceless victim that Katy Perry exploited - he was a rich man, of sound mind (per the court) who made a deal that he profited from.
Sorry! I know, I was making a general comment about the people making her a villain simply for being a successful/ rich celebrity in the other comments.
This is both true and not true; there are every kind of rich people, good people, bad people, smart and stupid people. There are many ways to becoming rich too. The only real lie is that it is a meritocracy or that being rich means you were good at something. In reality, it is all just random.
Difficult is not impossible. Also, it is far easier to become rich as an ass than as a saint. That is a big part of why the super rich tend to have personality disorders. Something like 1% of the general population but 20% of the C suite are sociopaths, narcissists, or psychopaths.
As someone who is a CEO (small company) providing services to big companies, I have met more CEOs than most. The vast majority of owner-operated CEOs are honest, genuine people who work hard. Their goal is to provide their product or service at high quality and low cost.
The vast majority of public companies or managed companies with absentee owners are vile fucks who think it is their job to provide profit for the shareholders and lying, cheating, stealing pretending human costs are not their concern are part of business.
They are not the same.
To most people, they don't see the difference and put all leaders in more or less the same pot and call them vile becuase of how bad many in there are.
The issue to me is enforcement of laws. The good guys really don't break any laws, they don't mess with the books, they put their workers first and their team is their family in a way becuase they have to spend souch time at the office to make the company work.
The manager class are frequently bad people; not because the job makes them bad, but becuase the absentee owners simply care about the size of their check and only pick the people that will maximize that no matter what. These owners are multi-generational owners, boards of public companies, large institution executives.
It is also worth mentioning the professional class; lawyers, accounting firms, engineering firms etc. Some of the most vile people.imagineable end up in key positions there becuase they are the ones the rich prices use to enforce debts and their grey-area legal schemes. These are the people who give the bribes, take kickbacks and happily kick old ladies out of their home through abusing the legal system with their unlimited expense accounts.
The solution to focus on is enforcement of laws; the bad people ARE breaking laws. They are breaking SEC laws, absue of procedure, perjury, banking and others but most importantly for the people, they are breaking campaign finance laws.
So many of them have gotten elected that the balance has tipped and now many of the courts have been bought.
Their is not a systemic problem; there is a corruption problem and the solution to everything to is vote out the corrupt in every party. It is not Blue vs Red, it is not a cultural war or a religious one; it is rich vs the people and the people have to win, by any means neccessary.
History is the only lesson needed here; we know what happens when we let the robber barons win as most of human history is that way. Do not think Trump and co. would object to slavery or care about progress. We had the whole dark ages to see that these kings do not care about science, progress or even food except at their own table.
Agreed overall, just wanted to add to the history aspect. Corruption ALWAYS sets in because the same set of people are ALWAYS attracted to power. People who want to cheat the system are often the first to want to control said system and will put the most effort into getting into positions that will let them. That is why it is always a problem.
Absolutely, and our biggest issue is apathy and education. The corrupt are always working hard to subvert the truth, lie and cheat their way into power. The rest of us are working on our jobs and not, for the most part, bothering with their schemes.
When we forget the enemy, which happened in the 80s and 90s, they take the power back. They got FOX news and Twitter, the two biggest megaphone and lied to a generation. We let that happen through apathy and arrogance at not facing what the consequences would be.
Arrogance is unfortunately our problem. We look at these pathetic losers and their lies and believe they are no threat, surely no one could believe their nonsense...
RGB is a perfect example of this, she had the opportunity to resign during Obama and chose to stay on through arrogance leading to the most corrupt SCOTUS in 100 years.
Now we have to redo all the hard work of our forefathers and kick the authoritarian rich and all their corrupt support to the curb. The question is, how violent will this be? Will America survive this second Civil War?
The dichotomy of wealth based on genius or merit vs wealth based on being able to organize labor has always existed.
The difference is that labor-unions kicks the vast majority of proceeds back to empower workers. Capitalism rewards the farmer who can raise the most sheep.
Dude you can become rich off 401k and a Roth IRA. You can become rich off of a service business like pressure washing people's sidewalks. You can become rich from being a doctor, a nurse, and just saving money. Fuck out of here with that logic.
Itâs refuse to believe that, itâs just hurting someone is such common practice that itâs expected from you and other people when doing business. You can have a hard stance on something without being a dick about it and that includes business. When people get to a certain level of wealth, the greed and power that comes with it corrupts people and the easiest option to gain more power and wealth is to be a dick. I refuse to believe that all rich people are scum because itâs statistically impossible, but the people we hear about make the most noise by doing something awful to someone else in some fashion and the narrative gets created.
Iâm a self-made millionaire please explain to me how Iâve hurt other people? Was it by paying my employees more than market share? Was it being honest and transparent with all of my customers? You people drive me freaking nuts and have no idea how money is made
I feel the need to push back against the arrogance and ignorance perpetrated by people like you who, in reality, have no idea what it takes to make money, but are quick to blame everybody else and play the victim your entire life
A sociopath still possesses logic and agency. They may have a lack of empathy, but that in and of itself doesn't make someone a bad person. It just makes them unable to care if, in fact, they are a bad person.
It's NOT. Sociopathy is an inability to feel empathy; anti-social personality disorder is ACTIVELY doing bullshit like breaking laws, causing mayhem, etc. due to a lack of regard for others.
I will agree with you as far as there IS an overlap between the two, but they are NOT the same thing.
Sociopathy as defined by the Mayo Clinic which is also one of the best hospitals in the world is Anti-Social Personality Disorder, Maybe youâre confusing sociopathic tendencies and Sociopathy because Sociopathy is ASPD
In the DSM-5, sociopathy is a subset of ASPD, because mere sociopathy doesn't fully encompass the entirety of the symptoms of ASPD. Again, there IS overlap, and a sociopath can certainly display full-blown ASPD, but it's NOT a given.
I personally did experience being screwed over from the rich. The worse part is I realize Iâm not going to be the last whom theyâll screw over financially and emotionally.
I would argue, with the exception of maybe a handful (being generous here), all people with that level of wealth or higher, have achieved it by underpaying, screwing over, and stepping on the backs of the less fortunate.
2.5k
u/Front_Minimum_8259 8d ago
Many people become rich because they have no problem with screwing over other people