The idea that increased taxation for the mega wealthy would be bad for the economy is something those liberals waiting for free market China actually say too, in a funny twist.
I was just using billionaire as a shorthand to the mega wealthy, meaning those who have ridiculously more wealth than the average person. It’s not actually strictly that number that I care about, it’s just easier to discuss.
The taxation rate (as in, allowing those mega wealthy to exist) is bad imo because there’s no sensible reason one in vidual needs to hoard that amount of wealth. And it’s through the exploitation of the workers. After a billion (or other ridiculously high amount, you can pick another) you could just distribute the extra wealth to the workers in higher wages. So what would be a good taxation rate after that set amount (whatever we decide on)? 100%.
So, to conclude, you do disagree with the socialist market economy of China, and instead would prefer a Gang of Four style economy based on equal poverty, and a rejection of Marxism in favor of dogmatic collectivization. You cannot have the socialist market economy without capitalists and therefore the creation of wealthy individuals, and without the socialist market economy China would be less developed and their working classes would be behind where they presently are. China already taxes, and already directs this towards social services and infrastructure.
I disagree with allowing billionaires to exist, since as we concluded, they’re not even necessary for the current Chinese strategy and imo that wealth belongs to the workers.
You disagree with capitalists, not billionaires. We already discussed how you feel that “billionaires” are arbitrary, and that your issue is with the “mega-wealthy,” ie capitalists. Capitalists are necessary for the socialist market economy, with privatization of small industries to accelerate socialization comes capitalists, and with capitalists come the comparatively wealthy. This is the tradeoff of the socialist market economy.
The Gang of Four preceded Deng Xiaoping and Reform & Opening Up. They tried to dogmatically collectivize as much as possible, regardless of the level of development, feeling that it was better to be poor in a more equal society than to accept some degree of inequality in favor of rapid development uplifting everyone.
I disagree wirh capitalists, especially ones that amass inordinate amount, including billionaires. I’m more fine with those having less wealth but a billion gets into ridiculous territory. You gotta set a cap somewhere.
There’s some inequality and there’s some being dirt poor while others have billions. That’s just too much for me tbh. Especially since it’s not necessary for the current strategy to allow that amount of wealth.
China already taxes their capitalists, you have picked an arbitrary level based on vibes as a goalpost. Either way, it’s nice to know you now at least have solidly taken the side of the Gang of Four, that actually gives us ground to talk on that isn’t entirely arbitrary and vibes-based. The path out of getting rid of capitalists is developing out of the conditions that give rise to them. Following the Gang of Four’s plan would result in slower development and harm the process of socializing production.
The fact of the matter is that the “dirt poor” do not exist anymore in China thanks to the social surplus generated by the socialist market economy. Under the Gang of Four everyone was dirt poor. They would have developed out of that later than the PRC has been able to. The mass existence of the dirt poor combined with underdeveloped productive forces is the historical, material basis of Reform & Opening Up.
I mean to me it’s a fine goalpost to say that a billion crosses the line from allowing capitalists to improve the economy etc. to unnecessary exploitation. If this Gang wanted a cap on a billion dollars or euros, I’m definitely down with Gang on this one.
For me, making massive socioeconomic decisions based entirely on vibes, feelings, and a sense of semi-religious purity is no way to run society. The Gang of Four, as I said, wanted to dogmatically collectivize everything, regardless of the level of development. They weren’t arguing for wealth caps. You keep focusing on arbitrary levels of taxation over the relations of production.
As for being against the Gang of Four, the reasons are fairly obvious if you’ve been following what I said. They were dogmatic and were perpetuating poverty in the name of purity. Reform & Opening Up is key to China’s success in eradicating poverty.
I don’t know if it’s some dogmatic purity since you’re still allowing wealth inequality and capitalists to hoard wealth, you’re just setting the limit somewhere.
I’d set it at wherever the necessary point is. If we believe that above billion isn’t necessary for the current strategy, I don’t understand why we can’t agree that maybe that could be one place for the cap tbh.
The idea that increased taxation for the mega wealthy would be bad for the economy is something those liberals waiting for free market China actually say too, in a funny twist.
I was just using billionaire as a shorthand to the mega wealthy, meaning those who have ridiculously more wealth than the average person. It’s not actually strictly that number that I care about, it’s just easier to discuss.
The taxation rate (as in, allowing those mega wealthy to exist) is bad imo because there’s no sensible reason one in vidual needs to hoard that amount of wealth. And it’s through the exploitation of the workers. After a billion (or other ridiculously high amount, you can pick another) you could just distribute the extra wealth to the workers in higher wages. So what would be a good taxation rate after that set amount (whatever we decide on)? 100%.
I hope that answers your questions
So, to conclude, you do disagree with the socialist market economy of China, and instead would prefer a Gang of Four style economy based on equal poverty, and a rejection of Marxism in favor of dogmatic collectivization. You cannot have the socialist market economy without capitalists and therefore the creation of wealthy individuals, and without the socialist market economy China would be less developed and their working classes would be behind where they presently are. China already taxes, and already directs this towards social services and infrastructure.
I disagree with allowing billionaires to exist, since as we concluded, they’re not even necessary for the current Chinese strategy and imo that wealth belongs to the workers.
I don’t know the Gang of Four thing is.
You disagree with capitalists, not billionaires. We already discussed how you feel that “billionaires” are arbitrary, and that your issue is with the “mega-wealthy,” ie capitalists. Capitalists are necessary for the socialist market economy, with privatization of small industries to accelerate socialization comes capitalists, and with capitalists come the comparatively wealthy. This is the tradeoff of the socialist market economy.
The Gang of Four preceded Deng Xiaoping and Reform & Opening Up. They tried to dogmatically collectivize as much as possible, regardless of the level of development, feeling that it was better to be poor in a more equal society than to accept some degree of inequality in favor of rapid development uplifting everyone.
I disagree wirh capitalists, especially ones that amass inordinate amount, including billionaires. I’m more fine with those having less wealth but a billion gets into ridiculous territory. You gotta set a cap somewhere.
There’s some inequality and there’s some being dirt poor while others have billions. That’s just too much for me tbh. Especially since it’s not necessary for the current strategy to allow that amount of wealth.
China already taxes their capitalists, you have picked an arbitrary level based on vibes as a goalpost. Either way, it’s nice to know you now at least have solidly taken the side of the Gang of Four, that actually gives us ground to talk on that isn’t entirely arbitrary and vibes-based. The path out of getting rid of capitalists is developing out of the conditions that give rise to them. Following the Gang of Four’s plan would result in slower development and harm the process of socializing production.
The fact of the matter is that the “dirt poor” do not exist anymore in China thanks to the social surplus generated by the socialist market economy. Under the Gang of Four everyone was dirt poor. They would have developed out of that later than the PRC has been able to. The mass existence of the dirt poor combined with underdeveloped productive forces is the historical, material basis of Reform & Opening Up.
I mean to me it’s a fine goalpost to say that a billion crosses the line from allowing capitalists to improve the economy etc. to unnecessary exploitation. If this Gang wanted a cap on a billion dollars or euros, I’m definitely down with Gang on this one.
Why wouldn’t everyone be?
For me, making massive socioeconomic decisions based entirely on vibes, feelings, and a sense of semi-religious purity is no way to run society. The Gang of Four, as I said, wanted to dogmatically collectivize everything, regardless of the level of development. They weren’t arguing for wealth caps. You keep focusing on arbitrary levels of taxation over the relations of production.
As for being against the Gang of Four, the reasons are fairly obvious if you’ve been following what I said. They were dogmatic and were perpetuating poverty in the name of purity. Reform & Opening Up is key to China’s success in eradicating poverty.
I don’t know if it’s some dogmatic purity since you’re still allowing wealth inequality and capitalists to hoard wealth, you’re just setting the limit somewhere.
I’d set it at wherever the necessary point is. If we believe that above billion isn’t necessary for the current strategy, I don’t understand why we can’t agree that maybe that could be one place for the cap tbh.