No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by emorobot on Sep 27, 2013 11:36:42 PM
"One-percenters shouldn't pay tax" wibbles Forbes magazine

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/0
9/17/give-back-yes-its-time-for-the-99-to-give-back-to-the-1/


Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%

It’s time to gore another collectivist sacred cow. This time it’s the popular idea that the successful are obliged to “give back to the community.”...

The same guy wants insider trading legalized:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/0
8/05/insider-trading-is-a-right-dont-shackle-the-knowledge-seekers/


The hostility toward insider trading is based not on any legal consideration but on a vicious perversion of morality: egalitarianism–the same twisted, envy-ridden idea of morality our President is now promulgating in speeches around the nation.

What a fucking weirdo! Yet this is the dominant ideology of the Anglo-American establisment. Survival of the fittest. Atlas Shrugged and all that. No wonder everything's fucked!

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Ebadlun - 03 Jul 2014 12:31:04 (#1 of 28)

Perhaps should have been put in a more popular folder...

EchoChamber - 03 Jul 2014 12:33:15 (#2 of 28)

Sounds like clickbait to me. I hope they paid you well for generating more traffic.

xDiggy - 03 Jul 2014 12:33:58 (#3 of 28)

The hostility toward insider trading is based not on any legal consideration

Like, you know, fraud.

I presume this guy is Forbes' equivalent of Samantha Brick.

Gotout - 03 Jul 2014 13:13:34 (#4 of 28)

Osborne probably scans Forbes looking for tips.

gordonthemoron - 03 Jul 2014 13:23:33 (#5 of 28)

99% tax for the 1% would be a start

LittleMissMuffet - 03 Jul 2014 13:35:11 (#6 of 28)

Congressional Medal of Honour for the highest earner. Fuck. Off.

EchoChamber - 03 Jul 2014 13:37:46 (#7 of 28)

Fraud, and market confidence/transparency.

pohove - 03 Jul 2014 13:39:56 (#8 of 28)

Apart from the zero tax demand, largely a rehash of

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/bori
sjohnson/10456202/We-should-be-humbly-thanking-the-super-rich-not-bashing-them.html

HorseEasyEast - 03 Jul 2014 14:03:56 (#9 of 28)

There's been a spate of this kind of bullshit opinion ever since the occupy movement fizzled out. What gets me is that these -- supposedly so clever, because they're rich -- fucking idiots don't seem to understand that it's a losing proposition to belittle, poke, and demean the vast vast majority of people.

It must be some elaborate troll/conn, no sane person would consider it a good strategy towards maintaining a position of privilege.

axolotl - 03 Jul 2014 14:06:19 (#10 of 28)

Who actually reads the shit?

GyratingTrampoline - 03 Jul 2014 14:07:08 (#11 of 28)

It's all about framing the debate. So now the options are:

1) tax the rich a lot

2) tax the rich a little bit

3) don't tax the rich at all



Put this way, 2) might seem to some like a reasonable compromise.

gordonthemoron - 03 Jul 2014 14:09:15 (#12 of 28)

come the revolution etc..........

TRaney - 03 Jul 2014 14:09:30 (#13 of 28)

Who actually reads the shit?

Wiki has a description of Forbes.com publishing model which might explain the prevalence of this kind of thing on their website

HorseEasyEast - 03 Jul 2014 14:09:43 (#14 of 28)

Not sure about that, many of these billionaires truly believe they are worth (from a societal value persp) > 10,000 regular folk.

xDiggy - 03 Jul 2014 14:10:06 (#15 of 28)

It's clearly all about getting lots of clicks on that website. Blame Twitter for ruining journalism.

TRaney - 03 Jul 2014 14:12:43 (#16 of 28)

Forbes currently allows advertisers to publish blog posts on its website alongside regular editorial content through a program called AdVoice, which accounts for more than 10 percent its digital revenue. The website also uses a "contributor model" in which a wide network of "contributors" writes and publishes articles directly on the website. Contributors are paid based on traffic to their Forbes.com pages; the site has received contributions from over 2,500 individuals, and some contributors have earned over US$100,000, according to the company

xDiggy - 03 Jul 2014 14:14:38 (#17 of 28)

That sounds like a recipe for balanced commentary. Wonder if Julie Beachball can scrape something together about the art of plutocracy?

JerkinMcGherkin - 26 Jul 2015 02:10:31 (#18 of 28)

City AM peddles a similar line, I gather.

emorobot - 26 Jul 2015 14:01:26 (#19 of 28)

I dunno, I guess it's just the folly of the age really. Utter selfishness - let's see how the next generation likes that.

Gotout - 14 Mar 2016 13:17:22 (#20 of 28)

The richest 1 per cent of Britons, have received more than a quarter of the £4trn increase in national wealth since 2000. Will Osborne help them to pay even less tax in his budget?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budg
et-2016-wealth-of-super-rich-soars-as-the-worst-off-lose-out-report-says-a6929341.html

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » Money