Elon Musk explaining why “billionaires should not be taxed”

[Consept]

@captainamerica I didn't say anything against profits. This dialouge is going off in a lot of different directions and we seem to be talking past each other, you've said a lot but I don't actually know what your point is. Are you making the argument that wealthy, poweful individuals shouldn't be taxed?

[captainamerica]

On 10/01/2022 at 9:05 PM, Consept said:

I didn't say anything against profits.

I am referring to this:

On 02/01/2022 at 5:32 PM, Consept said:

I think I'd probably more accepting if musk had a basic income and used all the money for the betterment of society rather than even making a profit. 

 

[Consept]

11 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

I am referring to this:

 

It's out of context though I'm saying that as a potential criteria for making decisions in place of a government. As in if you make a lot of profit and also impactful decisions, these decisions you make can affect that profit positively or negatively, now you may not use this for your benefit but I think the temptation to is a risk. Its like if you're a judge and you have to make a legal decision in regards to a family member, obviously your judgement is going to be affected even if its unconsciously. 

In terms of just making a profit I don't have anything against it.

[Tech36363]

@Leo Gura Sir do you not understand elon musk does not make money out of thin air ? The tax money which elon is supposed to pay isn't his in the first place and it does not affect him personally if the taxes are high or low . Low taxes makes it easier for things to work . High taxes are a strain on the PEOPLE . 

WHERE DO YOU THINK ELON GETS THE MONEY TO PAY TAXES ? 

Its the end consumer who gets TAXED and not elon . The tax gets ROLLED ONTO THE CONSUMER , HENCE IF YOURE TAXING BILLIONAIRES YOURE TAXING THE COMMON PEOPLE BECAUSE AGAIN HE DOES NOT CREATE MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR , HE JUSTS ROLLS IT ONTO THE CONSUMER . 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Tech36363

[CuriousCreature]

I agree with Elon

[BlueOak]

'If you think of assets beyond a certain level .... you are doing capital allocation.'

All tax is capital allocation. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by BlueOak

[captainamerica]

On 06/01/2022 at 8:13 PM, captainamerica said:

Btw, I don't think the progressive leaders believe this. Only the certain voters. This is not what the Scientists are not saying.

AOC said the world is coming to end in 12 years for eg.

It is a common tactic. This technique is followed by visionaries and salesmen all the time.

You can take a group of people and give a vision very motivating to them but despite all the good execution along those lines, it does not stick. It looks like it will but it fails with an unimaginable consistency. 

An idea or a vision needs to have a sense of urgency to stick to a group of people over a long time. This is the key. 

Most of the time Progressives are using this fact to use Climate Change ideas to further a sense of urgency towards their economic vision to have certain voters like their ideas for the economy and win votes.

This is insightful:

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1479083279256993794

There is an abundance of such data. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

On 10/01/2022 at 9:05 PM, Consept said:

This dialouge is going off in a lot of different directions and we seem to be talking past each other, you've said a lot but I don't actually know what your point is. Are you making the argument that wealthy, poweful individuals shouldn't be taxed?

Not sure if you are referring to something from my posts above or maybe it is just a genuine misunderstanding that you are referring to.

I will assume it is just a simple misunderstanding.

To clarify, the title of this thread and the video linked is misleading. Elon Musk did not say that Billionaires should not be taxed. He is referring to the assumptions and claims of "Progressive" leaders in America. I know he is referring to the claims made by Progressive leaders in America because he hinted so in the latest interview by WSJ available on YouTube(from which the clip is taken) and he has discussed this in other interviews as well. Via Tweets as well.

He is not saying that billionaires should not be taxed. He is paying about 60% tax. Under progressive leaders like Elizabeth Warren he would pay about ~95% tax, maybe more. (60 percent federal tax + state taxes on top of the 60% tax in the first 10 years to about 95% over time). He is referring to the assumptions behind the claims made for it.

That's my point as well. 

 

 

Also, you mentioned the Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal. Decisions like this are not taken because Mark Zuckerberg is a Billionaire. The executive team and managers were aware of this as well. And in the other Big companies, corrupt decisions are taken even when there are no Billionaire founders or board members. Like At and T as an example (link posted below). Such decisions are taken literally all the time by Big Corporations without having a Billionaire Founder to support because the millionaire members of the executive team or the board of directors are corrupt. The only solution is regulation. In Big Corporations, these decisions will still be taken even after taxing away the founders. At the end of the day regulation is needed, that is the fix. Otherwise, all wealth has to be banned.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/biggest-isps-paid-for-8-5-million-fake-fcc-comments-opposing-net-neutrality/

Edited January 16, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

 

@Consept

I will not be able to continue this discussion due to time constraints. But I thank you for your time.

On 10/01/2022 at 8:51 PM, captainamerica said:

On 06/01/2022 at 8:38 PM, Consept said:

But in theory you have used the US system and people to make your money, it wasn't done in a vacuum. Also this money that you are being taxed in theory should help others also become successful. 

That is the thing. We have hit one of the cruxes of this matter. Other people becoming successful.

I will make a post on it in some time. You review that and share your thoughts on it.

Sorry about this as well. I did think of an outline but cannot continue the discussion now due the time constraints I am facing.

[Windappreciator]

yes, problem with elon musk is, that he assumes once the taxing is done that everything else in life will stay the same way, government, companies etc.

this guy just doesn't grasp multiple societal variables.

its such ego bullshit, me me me me me me me

he doesnt even do what he is doing because of compassion or anything, its just a delusional egoic dream

Edited January 16, 2022 by Windappreciator

[captainamerica]

9 minutes ago, Windappreciator said:

yes, problem with elon musk is, that he assumes once the taxing is done that everything else in life will stay the same way, government, companies etc.

this guy just doesn't grasp multiple societal variables.

 

He does actually have a genius-level understanding of it.

The capital allocation efficiency in govt. vs private is 100x so so the companies being changed point is addressed there. 100x capital allocation efficiency is needed for sure for the survival of so many. 

And the govt. changing fundamentally is a fantasy as well if the current expenditures are looked at. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

3 hours ago, Windappreciator said:

its such ego bullshit, me me me me me me me

he doesnt even do what he is doing because of compassion or anything, its just a delusional egoic dream

Bullshit is when some of the actualized .org members are afraid of using the letter "I/I am" for communication. Due to believing in fake spirituality. 

Some of them are too dumb to realize that introverts communicate this way most effectively and the likes of Simen Sinek recognize this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozSjZ6iRKSA

Edited January 16, 2022 by captainamerica

[Windappreciator]

16 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

He does actually have a genius-level understanding of it.

The capital allocation efficiency in govt. vs private is 100x so so the companies being changed point is addressed there. 100x capital allocation efficiency is needed for sure for the survival of so many. 

And the govt. changing fundamentally is a fantasy as well if the current expenditures are looked at. 

it's not about numbers and fundamental change is neither fantasy nore is that needed to disqualify his non sense.

calling it fantasy is exactly the egoic delusion needed to keep shit like this alive. in addition you ban your mind from making any, allowing or even acknowledging change.

 

12 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

Bullshit is when some of the actualized .org members are afraid of using the word "I/I am" for communication. Due to believing in fake spirituality. 

Some of them are too dumb to realize that introverts communicate this way most effectively and the likes of Simen Sinek realize this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozSjZ6iRKSA

i don't know where you are getting this idea but the conclusion was not made by the use of the word "I"

Edited January 16, 2022 by Windappreciator

[captainamerica]

13 minutes ago, Windappreciator said:

i don't know where you are getting this idea but the conclusion was not made by the use of the word "I"

I know 

13 minutes ago, Windappreciator said:

t's not about numbers and fundamental change is neither fantasy nore is that needed to disqualify his non sense.

calling it fantasy is exactly the egoic delusion needed to keep shit like this alive. in addition you ban your mind from making any, allowing or even acknowledging change.

Fundamental change is possible. But what you are missing is that whenever/wherever transcendence happens good fundamentals are always followed. They are followed consciously or unconsciously but they are always followed. Transcendence is not an individual or collective hallucination. It may seem like that on the surface level. Whenever there is Transcendence, good fundamentals are always followed even if such is unknown or is noticed by a group of people. Good fundamentals are never escaped from, there are no shortcuts. Beneath the surface this can be observed 100% of the time, even if someone or some group is making a folly that somehow the influence of principles lying underneath is escaped from in a particular situation.  Good fundamentals may be represented in Principles, Logical Reasoning, Numbers, etc. Numbers are just symbols, look beyond 

Edited January 16, 2022 by captainamerica

[Windappreciator]

3 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

I know 

Fundamental change is possible. But what you are missing that whenever transcendence happens good fundamentals are always followed. They are followed consciously or unconsciously but they are always followed. Transcendence is not an individual or collective hallucination. It may seem like that on the surface level. Whenever there is Transcendence good fundamentals are always followed even if such is unknown to a group of people. Good fundamentals may be represented in Principles, Logical Reasoning, Numbers etc. Numbers are just a symbol, look beyond 

oh yeah trying to act smart are we, to preserve image alright.

my point is, i am looking at this guy and all that comes out of his mouth is disconnected shit and self jerk off living in his mind. nothing wrong with that but everything is wrong with that.

he lacks understanding of psychological  adaptation, because doesn't have that himself.

[SQAAD]

Bullshittery everywhere. I didn't expect from robots to be full of shit though...

Edited January 17, 2022 by SQAAD

[captainamerica]

https://youtu.be/OVWjVQ8mtZ8?t=571

"revolution of ANY kind"

This is apparent in the behavior of certain groups. 

He explains a lot of political ideologies on his channel. 

Edited January 17, 2022 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

On 02/01/2022 at 4:19 PM, captainamerica said:

One phenomenon for eg. if you promise people free 10 K USD per year, incentives for politicians is created to promise 12K USD next year and come to power, next year another politician 15K, 20L,.... . And this never ends because more and more people, even conservative start wanting free money over time. So if we look at UBI from Systems thinking we have to consider this, not that it cannot be done but the consideration is a must.

Almost forgot to add:

The reason this is a problem in America is that the American govt. is addicted to reckless money printing. Instead of using proper measures the govt. can just start reckless printing of money and giving it to people in the form of Universal Basic Income.

This reckless money printing is devastating to the quality of life of an average person. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFShD7xGIe0 )  

UBI and this combining together will just hurt a lot of people.

This is one more reason why I like Andrew Yang. He talks about UBI and has the skills and understanding to implement it in a way that helps (and not devastates) the average person. As compared to the "Progressive" leaders in America who support Reckless Money Printing and are working with Stephanie Kelton.

Edited January 17, 2022 by captainamerica

[CuriousCreature]

On 1/13/2022 at 5:08 PM, BlueOak said:

'If you think of assets beyond a certain level .... you are doing capital allocation.'

All tax is capital allocation. 

No it's not in my opinion.

Tax is collecting money into one big pile.

Then when they decide what to do with that money it becomes resource allocation. But who makes that decision, what makes them qualified? In my country, very often, public spending is done very badly in my opinion. Also very often government spending is very inefficient, because there is a lack of skin in the game.

It doesn't seems to me that Elon Musk is about personal gain, he truly beliefs his goals about spacefaring civilization and sustainable future and with what he achieved so far, he seems extremely qualified.

[BlueOak]

4 hours ago, CuriousCreature said:

No it's not in my opinion.

Tax is collecting money into one big pile.

Then when they decide what to do with that money it becomes resource allocation. But who makes that decision, what makes them qualified? In my country, very often, public spending is done very badly in my opinion. Also very often government spending is very inefficient, because there is a lack of skin in the game.

It doesn't seems to me that Elon Musk is about personal gain, he truly beliefs his goals about spacefaring civilization and sustainable future and with what he achieved so far, he seems extremely qualified.

We are perhaps in the minority that we both want to see us to be multi planetary, the possibilities are literally endless in the infinity of space and so worth any investment in the here and now. I also wouldn't mind him getting money or at least optional assistance in doing this from any and everyone willing to contribute. I think at the moment they are not yet including enough people, in either fund raising or on a technical level actually producing what is required to overcome this monumental challenge. While it is broader than the last space race, I would like to see more optional assistance and inclusion.

Now you know my feelings on the man and the fact I like what he's doing. Proposing to take away peoples optional choice of contributing to this by letting him off his tax bill isn't at all fair and you have to expect people to voice that. People owe what they owe, and hey on capital, I was using his own quote to make a point. :D. Money is taken and allocated toward something, whether its 5 people, 50, 500, 5000 or 5 million. If you want to call money capital as Elon and I did, or a resource what is the difference. Money is a resource, I suspect for him more than most people. Also we should grant he pays more tax than a lot of the more parasitic tax dodgers out there.

Money is spent badly in your opinion, because your opinion counts for a minor fraction of the total opinions in your country. Alongside a million other issues which would require an entire thread dedicated to it and I suspect would have economists and infrastructure experts put us to shame with what really goes on in that statement. None of that is relevant to whether one person should be excluded from what i have to do myself, because he's doing something you agree with.