• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Mamdani’s ‘tax the rich’ slogan is ‘just as hateful’ as racial slurs, New York real estate titan says

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
34,384
21,337
Orlando, Florida
✟1,648,723.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
"I want to make more money so I can have a nice car, nice house, and take nice vacations" shouldn't be considered on par with "I want the blacks out of my country"

Why is this "the two things aren't comparable" only a one directional thing.

If people are going to point out that a rich guy suggesting that people hating him is "on par with using ethnic slurs" is ridiculous, isn't the inverse comparison of "likes making money" to being a klan member equally absurd?

The issue isn't making money in itself. It's the love of money, the hoarding of money, and the lack of recognition of what wealth is actually for.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2012
31,463
31,140
Baltimore
✟960,321.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Remote work changed that a bit.

Kathy Hochul's plea of "go down to palm beach and convince them to come back" shows they recognize there's a problem.


Having to live in relatively close proximity to where the company was anchoring people to a certain area (similar to how the Bay area was the Mecca of the tech sector and people tolerated living there to be close enough to commute to the best jobs for it)


Pre-covid, a person making bank in NYC's choices were "stay in NYC so I can make this fat salary working for CitiBank at the corporate office, or I move to cheaper state, but make $45k/year at Chuck's Savings and Loan in a suburb of Indianapolis.

The ability to work from anywhere really exposed what places people did and didn't want to live in and peeled the mask off.

Being in the tech field for as long as I have, I personally know several people who moved to Cali for the really high paying tech jobs, and tolerated some of the negatives out there, but then when remote work became "the norm", they ended up moving elsewhere because they could keep their higher salary, but get a cheaper cost of living.

One of the former devs on my team (who rolled up to me at one point) makes more than I do now. She moved out to the bay area back in 2018 for dev role (that was basically the job she had here) for way more money, when her company went fully remote during covid and decided to stay that way, she moved back to Ohio in 2022, and lives pretty well down there in the Columbus area. (a bay area salary can fund a pretty nice lifestyle in northern Columbus lol - she has a pretty "boss" condo down there, compared to the $2700/month small apartment her and her husband had out there)

Hindsight's 20/20, I kind of kick myself for not doing the same. If I had known that I'd only have to tolerate Cali for 2-3 years for a 40% pay increase, and could move back, I would have done it.
Remote work changed things for folks making low-mid six figures, who are mostly not the target of “tax the rich.” It changed nothing for folks pulling down 7+ figures, who are the targets of it. They always had the freedom to work wherever and whenever they wanted.
 
Upvote 0

MarcusGregor

New year, new you...
Oct 1, 2025
323
584
26
South
✟34,642.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Remote work changed things for folks making low-mid six figures, who are mostly not the target of “tax the rich.” It changed nothing for folks pulling down 7+ figures, who are the targets of it. They always had the freedom to work wherever and whenever they wanted.
I feel like this is the problem with these discussions. People don't really understand the difference between how 95%+ of people make money and pay taxes vs. how people who are affected by these laws obtain wealth.

They're not getting a paycheck. Remote work? Really? They are exploiting the systems and economy that affords them the ability to hoard wealth using tax loopholes and incentives that were built by them through lobbying. They literally write the bills that our "representatives" present to Congress and vote in as laws.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
30,376
17,272
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟503,376.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
The whole objection around this incident is that "words are triggering" for people.

I want to posit something that may seem groundbreaking

What if the actions of the wealthy are the source of discontentment?

What if, you know, Luigi was actually (EDIT) angry at how his health insurance treated him and not because some goof online said "tax the rich"?

In fact, what if all workers are upset at how the system is completely rigged AGAINST them and in favour of the incredibly wealthy?
I mean, simply put, that is not a fact that is really up for debate.

Are workers not supposed to give suggestions on how to fix problems because the people who are actively working to SURPRESS their ability to benefit from the system, have to have a little cry?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

[redacted]
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
24,024
19,835
✟1,596,006.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Are workers not supposed to give suggestions on how to fix problems because the people who are actively working to SURPRESS their ability to benefit from the system, have to have a little cry?
We are clearly to know our place and shut up lest our betters get their feelings hurt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rambot
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
30,376
17,272
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟503,376.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
We are clearly to know our place and shut up lest our betters get their feelings hurt.
And I get that "they" would say it.

I just don't understand why "one of us" says that.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
30,376
17,272
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟503,376.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
There are children who die of malnutrition on planet earth.


Elon Musk just got 800 Billion dollars and is expected to be the first trillionaire sometime next year.


I haven't yet figured out how those people with hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars can look at the suffering in the world and shrug their shoulders while sitting on thier boat, on a boat inside their 3 yacht.
It's messed up weird. And it's weird people DEFEND this as good/normal/healthy
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

[redacted]
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
24,024
19,835
✟1,596,006.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
And I get that "they" would say it.

I just don't understand why "one of us" says that.
Delusions of their interests being in alignment with those of the oligarchs.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
30,376
17,272
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟503,376.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Delusions of their interests being in alignment with those of the oligarchs.
"

"John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."​



Maybe the truest statement about Americans that has been printed
 
  • Like
Reactions: iluvatar5150
Upvote 0

MarcusGregor

New year, new you...
Oct 1, 2025
323
584
26
South
✟34,642.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
"

"John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."​



Maybe the truest statement about Americans that has been printed
We're still living in The Grapes of Wrath.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
30,911
17,715
Here
✟1,624,925.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Remote work changed things for folks making low-mid six figures, who are mostly not the target of “tax the rich.” It changed nothing for folks pulling down 7+ figures, who are the targets of it. They always had the freedom to work wherever and whenever they wanted.


Interestingly, major declines of taxable income in large urban counties in 2021 were mainly driven by a handful of the very largest coastal cities that saw, in some cases, staggering flights of income. Manhattan alone lost more than $16 billion in federally-taxable income (spread across more than 37,000 returns) through net migration, equivalent to more than 13 percent of remaining residents’ combined taxable incomes.


$16B a year divided across 37,000 returns would average out to about $430k/year which falls in with your "mid six figures" number (though some were higher, some were lower)

When proposals like this are floated:

...threatening city homeowners with a 9.5% property tax hike should the governor decline to raise income taxes on people making 7-figures, is certainly going to impact the people in that six-figure area, and inspire them to leave.


And in places like San Fran:

Specifically naming legislation things like "The Overpaid CEO act"...gee, can't figure out why they'd want to leave or move their operations elsewhere.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
17,825
4,579
Louisville, Ky
✟1,142,048.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married

New York —
No one likes higher taxes. But New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s plan to tax wealthy residents’ second homes has elicited a highly emotional response from two of the city’s richest.

“Creepy and weird,” is what Ken Griffin had to say Tuesday at a conference about Mamdani’s campaign-style video touting the tax outside the hedge fund manager’s $238 million penthouse.

Steven Roth, the CEO of real estate giant Vornado, went further Tuesday on an earnings call.

“I consider the phrase ‘tax the rich’ when spit out with anger and contempt by politicians both here and across the country, to be just as hateful as some disgusting racial slurs and even the phrase, ‘from the river to the sea,’” Roth said, referring to the pro-Palestinian phrase that the Anti-Defamation League labels an antisemitic threat.



This could make for an interesting conversation...

While I would personally critique Roth's approach of comparing a current financial situation to an immutable characteristic like race, perhaps the door has already been kicked open for people to define their own "here's what should be considered protected classes based on my opinion and current situation" grading standard.

"Being real-estate savvy is part of who I am, I can't control it, I didn't choose to proficient at doing this" isn't any more ridiculous than some other claims we've seen over the past few years.
Boo-hoo. Feel sorry for those with far more than they need when poor people struggle to feed their children.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2012
31,463
31,140
Baltimore
✟960,321.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat

Interestingly, major declines of taxable income in large urban counties in 2021 were mainly driven by a handful of the very largest coastal cities that saw, in some cases, staggering flights of income. Manhattan alone lost more than $16 billion in federally-taxable income (spread across more than 37,000 returns) through net migration, equivalent to more than 13 percent of remaining residents’ combined taxable incomes.


$16B a year divided across 37,000 returns would average out to about $430k/year which falls in with your "mid six figures" number (though some were higher, some were lower)

When proposals like this are floated:

...threatening city homeowners with a 9.5% property tax hike should the governor decline to raise income taxes on people making 7-figures, is certainly going to impact the people in that six-figure area, and inspire them to leave.

yes, and?
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

[redacted]
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
24,024
19,835
✟1,596,006.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Boo-hoo. Feel sorry for those with far more than they need when poor people struggle to feed their children.
How could you possibly think of such trivialities as feeding the poors when a millionaire is made uncomfortable at the prospect of their taxes going up ?
 
Upvote 0

Richard T

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2018
4,080
2,434
traveling Asia
✟177,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It's interesting to hear "impartiality" used in the same argument as "tax this group more." An impartial tax system would apply the same percentage regardless of economic standing.

I admit to perverse amusement about the situation New York City is in, but it's clear that the new mayor hasn't realized something basic: If you tell your intended victim what you intend to do, don't be surprised if they go elsewhere. And when it comes to taxation, you can easily reach the point of diminishing returns, at which point it can become a feed-back loop spiraling down to collapse.
First, most of the truly wealthy are taxed lower on capital gains than they are on income. The rich too receive no tax on their more hefty benefit packages and the new child accounts certainly allow those who can fund these accounts to the max. The poor too often receive credits, EIC, Savers, etc. So there is a lot to clean up to get to a "proportional tax." As it is the middle class get squeezed. The government too gets revenue from fees. A rich person and poor person pay the same for their passport for instance, the same for speeding fines, the same for all kinds of government services from license fees, airport fees etc. A proportional tax would charge those fees on based on income, including fees for Medicare. (Medicare does charge the wealthy more) but this is not exactly proportional.
I believe it is Pastor Rick Warren that reverse tithes, giving 90% of his income away. Should we expect more similar to that from the rich? Not 90% but something more than average. "In America, the top 1% control 35% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% hold just $9,000 per person." Ranked: How Wealthy the Top 1% Are in Each Major Economy
Are we certain that is fairness? Is patent protection fair? Who gets to decide how long until it expires? This is an example of the structural system of government in the USA that panders the rich with corporate welfare. Again, the poor get transfer payments in the form of various types of welfare while the middle class again often gets the least.

If you want proportional, how do you account for marriage and kids? Are there still special breaks for larger families?

"While the poor receive more money in the form of survival-based assistance, evidence suggests the wealthy receive more structural value that enables the accumulation and protection of vast wealth." google ai

Are we certain the phrase "to whom much is given, much is required" does not mean a graduated tax for those who have the most? The Acts church pooled their money, one has to assume the rich gave far more than the poor to accomplish this.
Lastly, does American capitalism promote the love of money? Society does not have to be organized that way. Yes, ambition is good and should be rewarded. But why has this scaled up so much recently?
  • "Average Pay Ratio (281:1): In 2024, CEOs at the top 350 U.S. firms were paid an average of 281 times as much as a typical worker. This is a massive increase from 1978, when the ratio was roughly 31-to-1. [1, 2]
  • Long-Term Growth (1,094% vs. 26%): Between 1978 and 2024, top CEO compensation rose by 1,094% after adjusting for inflation. In contrast, the compensation of a typical worker grew by only 26% during that same 46-year period. Source: google ai, from the Economic Policy Institute.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
30,911
17,715
Here
✟1,624,925.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
yes, and?
...and... it makes people want to move away because it carries the same tone as an abusive father who says "sorry, but your brother made me so angry I had to slap you because I was mad, so you should really be upset with them for making me so mad that I had to do that"


What he's basically doing is a "Well, if those mean ol rich people didn't fight me on this and would have handed over their income willingly, then I wouldn't have had to tax you like this, so you should really be mad at them!" (acting as if there's no other option)
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
30,911
17,715
Here
✟1,624,925.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Boo-hoo. Feel sorry for those with far more than they need when poor people struggle to feed their children.

Follow up question. I used some of the premium analytics tools I have access to via my job, and decided to do a little analysis.

The combined net worth of the "1%" is around 50 Trillion.

If we could wave our magic wand and seized 100% of their assets and divided it evenly amongst the entire population:




1778370567327.png


So at that 8-10 year mark, which wealth level is getting targeted next?


Now I know the rebuttal from some will be "Nobody is calling for anything that drastic", so here's another analysis on the "softer approach" of seizing 25%, and then taxing all income over $5M/year at 90%

1778371047142.png



While outcome 2 isn't as bad as outcome 1, both demonstrate that "we're going to solve all of society's ills with Tax the Rich isn't the magic bullet people think it is.

And outcome 2 doesn't even factor in the stifling of innovation. If someone is already making $5M per year as a Chief R&D Officer for a pharma company, there's little in the way of motivation to develop that next big cancer treatment, nobody is going to give 100% to an effort that they only get to yield 10% of the benefit of.
 
Upvote 0

Stopped_lurking

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2004
1,415
563
Kristianstad
✟43,090.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Follow up question. I used some of the premium analytics tools I have access to via my job, and decided to do a little analysis.

The combined net worth of the "1%" is around 50 Trillion.

If we could wave our magic wand and seized 100% of their assets and divided it evenly amongst the entire population:




View attachment 379303

So at that 8-10 year mark, which wealth level is getting targeted next?


Now I know the rebuttal from some will be "Nobody is calling for anything that drastic", so here's another analysis on the "softer approach" of seizing 25%, and then taxing all income over $5M/year at 90%

View attachment 379304


While outcome 2 isn't as bad as outcome 1, both demonstrate that "we're going to solve all of society's ills with Tax the Rich isn't the magic bullet people think it is.

And outcome 2 doesn't even factor in the stifling of innovation. If someone is already making $5M per year as a Chief R&D Officer for a pharma company, there's little in the way of motivation to develop that next big cancer treatment, nobody is going to give 100% to an effort that they only get to yield 10% of the benefit of.
I thought Mamdani's preferred method was to use a higher tax rate for the part of the income exceeding some threshold. If we are going to do thought experiments why not use the one that someone wants to do?

Even so, is Mamdani suggesting to use the money for direct payouts? Why use direct payouts at all? At first glance, it would be good for the US budget to start paying off the debt, paying the rent on that eats a lot of money. If there is money over it can fund healthcare and social services. Or build better roads, energy infrastructure, communication infrastructure, or transportation, simply use the money to invest in the population in areas/activities where there is a benefit to the country as a whole.

ETA: What analytics tools is that?
1778370567327v2.PNG

The fact that there is no connection between the two parts ringed in white makes me believe that there is some generative AI at work here. What tool did you use? Lotteries doesn't create any significant inflation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

Abolish ICE
Sep 25, 2012
28,223
31,268
LA
✟707,382.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Follow up question. I used some of the premium analytics tools I have access to via my job, and decided to do a little analysis.

The combined net worth of the "1%" is around 50 Trillion.

If we could wave our magic wand and seized 100% of their assets and divided it evenly amongst the entire population:




View attachment 379303

So at that 8-10 year mark, which wealth level is getting targeted next?


Now I know the rebuttal from some will be "Nobody is calling for anything that drastic", so here's another analysis on the "softer approach" of seizing 25%, and then taxing all income over $5M/year at 90%

View attachment 379304


While outcome 2 isn't as bad as outcome 1, both demonstrate that "we're going to solve all of society's ills with Tax the Rich isn't the magic bullet people think it is.

And outcome 2 doesn't even factor in the stifling of innovation. If someone is already making $5M per year as a Chief R&D Officer for a pharma company, there's little in the way of motivation to develop that next big cancer treatment, nobody is going to give 100% to an effort that they only get to yield 10% of the benefit of.
You honestly think the guy making $5M a year at a pharma company is the same one developing the next big cancer drug?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rambot
Upvote 0

Tuur

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2022
4,219
2,009
Southeast
✟132,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
First, most of the truly wealthy are taxed lower on capital gains than they are on income. The rich too receive no tax on their more hefty benefit packages and the new child accounts certainly allow those who can fund these accounts to the max. The poor too often receive credits, EIC, Savers, etc. So there is a lot to clean up to get to a "proportional tax." As it is the middle class get squeezed. The government too gets revenue from fees. A rich person and poor person pay the same for their passport for instance, the same for speeding fines, the same for all kinds of government services from license fees, airport fees etc. A proportional tax would charge those fees on based on income, including fees for Medicare. (Medicare does charge the wealthy more) but this is not exactly proportional.
I believe it is Pastor Rick Warren that reverse tithes, giving 90% of his income away. Should we expect more similar to that from the rich? Not 90% but something more than average. "In America, the top 1% control 35% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% hold just $9,000 per person." Ranked: How Wealthy the Top 1% Are in Each Major Economy
Are we certain that is fairness? Is patent protection fair? Who gets to decide how long until it expires? This is an example of the structural system of government in the USA that panders the rich with corporate welfare. Again, the poor get transfer payments in the form of various types of welfare while the middle class again often gets the least.

If you want proportional, how do you account for marriage and kids? Are there still special breaks for larger families?

"While the poor receive more money in the form of survival-based assistance, evidence suggests the wealthy receive more structural value that enables the accumulation and protection of vast wealth." google ai

Are we certain the phrase "to whom much is given, much is required" does not mean a graduated tax for those who have the most? The Acts church pooled their money, one has to assume the rich gave far more than the poor to accomplish this.
Lastly, does American capitalism promote the love of money? Society does not have to be organized that way. Yes, ambition is good and should be rewarded. But why has this scaled up so much recently?
  • "Average Pay Ratio (281:1): In 2024, CEOs at the top 350 U.S. firms were paid an average of 281 times as much as a typical worker. This is a massive increase from 1978, when the ratio was roughly 31-to-1. [1, 2]
  • Long-Term Growth (1,094% vs. 26%): Between 1978 and 2024, top CEO compensation rose by 1,094% after adjusting for inflation. In contrast, the compensation of a typical worker grew by only 26% during that same 46-year period. Source: google ai, from the Economic Policy Institute.
In other words, you feel taxation on a scale that increases with net worth is justified. I'm feeling mean enough this morning to hope your state and local government does just that. The trouble with this sort of logic is that eventually the other person's money runs out, either because they left or because they went broke.

Have at it. The results won't be what you hope, but at least everyone can feel good about it.

A word about pay scales: Arguing disparity in pay between professions is essentially arguing that everyone can do the same work. That's not the case. Any doctor who's in good physical condition can dig foundations, but not everyone who digs foundations can be a doctor. Not everyone can be an effective CEO; how CEOs are paid is a reflection of that. I'm sure there will be disagreement there, but as with taxing the rich at a higher rate, have at it.
 
Upvote 0