if we pass a law to take billionaire’s stuff, they’ll use the same law to take our stuff.
I think this isn’t particularly true in the medium term, and I think most people know that. That billionaires are unpopular is what makes expropriating their stuff politically feasible.
That billionaires are unpopular is what makes expropriating their stuff politically feasible.
That’s why when Robert Fico in Slovakia wanted to increase the taxes on the middle class, he called it a “millionaire tax”.
(The average voter is unbelievably stupid. The argument “it is called a ‘millionaire tax’, but in fact the law is written as an extra tax for people with monthly income between €2000 and €3000” is just met with dumb stares and repeating “but it is a millionaire tax, so it only applies to millionaires, and they already have more than they need, why are you concerned about it if you are not a millionaire?”)
This sounded a bit odd to me, as in I was surprised that you can get a tax passed that is this blatantly different from what its name states. According to this link the tax was created before the introduction of the Euro, when the amount in question would have been closer to a million in the previous currency
I agree on all three counts, but what I am talking about is the rhetorical strategy for trying to communicate the belief that it is very important in the long term to let people keep their stuff, to people who are proposing to take some people’s stuff right now.
I don’t think bad long term consequences would be hard to communicate in this instance (though it would not be easy in the middle of a protest). For example, I expect almost everyone who supports a wealth tax to also oppose the idea of corporate personhood; but these rulings started showing up in the 1800s, and the Citizens United decision showed up in 2010.
There’s a bit of line to walk so as to not misrepresent what OP is believes, but I feel like establishing a link between longer-term bad effects that billionaire tax supporters understand might be as simple as saying “Citizens United was in 2010 and. . .” gestures at things in general
I think this isn’t particularly true in the medium term, and I think most people know that. That billionaires are unpopular is what makes expropriating their stuff politically feasible.
That’s why when Robert Fico in Slovakia wanted to increase the taxes on the middle class, he called it a “millionaire tax”.
(The average voter is unbelievably stupid. The argument “it is called a ‘millionaire tax’, but in fact the law is written as an extra tax for people with monthly income between €2000 and €3000” is just met with dumb stares and repeating “but it is a millionaire tax, so it only applies to millionaires, and they already have more than they need, why are you concerned about it if you are not a millionaire?”)
This sounded a bit odd to me, as in I was surprised that you can get a tax passed that is this blatantly different from what its name states. According to this link the tax was created before the introduction of the Euro, when the amount in question would have been closer to a million in the previous currency
I agree on all three counts, but what I am talking about is the rhetorical strategy for trying to communicate the belief that it is very important in the long term to let people keep their stuff, to people who are proposing to take some people’s stuff right now.
I don’t think bad long term consequences would be hard to communicate in this instance (though it would not be easy in the middle of a protest). For example, I expect almost everyone who supports a wealth tax to also oppose the idea of corporate personhood; but these rulings started showing up in the 1800s, and the Citizens United decision showed up in 2010.
There’s a bit of line to walk so as to not misrepresent what OP is believes, but I feel like establishing a link between longer-term bad effects that billionaire tax supporters understand might be as simple as saying “Citizens United was in 2010 and. . .” gestures at things in general