• @expected_crayon
    link
    3769 months ago

    Yet he’s taking DoD money for Starlink in Ukraine. At what point do his antics turn from the craziness of a billionaire to espionage and being deemed a Russian asset?

    • @demlet
      link
      1379 months ago

      Musk openly stated that he spoke directly with Putin after the Ukraine invasion had started. The super wealthy have no loyalties and will sell anyone and anything to the highest bidder. I’ve said it before, every penny after $1 billion needs to be taxed at 100%. Time to reign in the oligarchs.

      • @Zombiepirate
        link
        English
        329 months ago

        But then who would create the underpaying jobs?!

        • @Noodle07
          link
          19 months ago

          The state love making those, I wouldn’t worryy

          • @Zombiepirate
            link
            English
            3
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Funny how that (along extreme wealth inequality and the destabilizing effects therein) could be improved by taxing billionaires.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        59 months ago

        Is that just liquid assets, or do you also want to tax them on stock they own in companies?

        • @demlet
          link
          89 months ago

          Honestly I don’t know. It’s really more the sentiment that I’m expressing. I’m aware that the wealthy are very good at playing shell games. No measures would catch everything.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          69 months ago

          You can definitely tax the hell out of dividends and sales. They are free to hold as many imaginary value tokens as they like, but the second they try to convert those tokens into actual currency, that should be heavily taxed. This goes for stock as well as cryptocurrency/NFTs.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                19 months ago

                There are lots of ways to sell assets in specific scenarios to reduce tax burden or eliminate the tax rate to 0%. For example, a billionaire can take a loan and pay the interest only for years. Then in a year with losses on investments then can sell some assets to pay off the loan and pay no taxes.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  29 months ago

                  Except if the money they are using to pay the interest and the money received from the sale of those assets is taxed appropriately. Interest on business loans should not be deductible, nor should investment losses. The government is not responsible for their poor business decisions. Of course, there can be delineations for investment loss write-offs based on total gross income from all sources. A small business owner or an individual that holds an investment account with an AGI under $1million or so would reasonably still have access to such write-offs or deductions, but anything over that $1million per year is free game, losses or not.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -119 months ago

        Agree in principle but the ultra wealthy would simply find new creative ways to hide their income.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          38
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Do not let perfect get in the way of good.

          Your reasoning here is irrational, and frequently repeated by many.

          “They will find another way, why even try! Gosh!”

          Okay, then we’ll block that way, and the next, and the next, and the next.

          This is iterative development and is how the whole world works. I cannot grasp why so many people have this defeatist attitude toward resolving problems.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            89 months ago

            Yeah any system that involves humans will require maintenance and adjustments by humans. Because humans always find a way to fuck things up. There’s this weird compulsion to demand a system that can’t be fucked up by humans. But it’s not possible. Also it’s not necessary… if a system involves humans it means there’s humans around to do the necessary maintenance and adjustments to that system.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            39 months ago

            Because people are lazy and want a singular solution every time and if they don’t get it most quit.

            Laziness is honestly our largest inspirational force and it should be celebrated to let us do more interesting and fulfilling work but instead instant gratification has ruined us and made people lazy and shitty.

        • @demlet
          link
          189 months ago

          Although you’re right, that sounds like an excuse to not do anything.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -49 months ago

            Suggestions have tried and failed numerous times. An easy example is closing loopholes in taxes. Another is reforming estate taxes and capital gains taxes.

            The problem is we have solutions already they’re not being done. Get off lemmy. Find representatives that fit your worldview and vote vote vote.

            The alternative which I feel is more likely is continue the slide to fascism everywhere until it reaches a head then on comes the bloodshed.

            We really need to do better teaching history in school because Jesus Christ online forums are full of people trying to reinvent the wheel and detached from the real world.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          149 months ago

          Comments like these are not only unhelpful, they hurt progress moving forward. Do you also apply this logic to domestic abusers (wouldn’t wife beaters just beat places you can’t see or use sexual assault? ), or speeders (won’t people just speed when no law enforcement are around?), or regular joe tax evaders? I’m going to assume not. It would be absurd to just thow up our hands and say “you know what? We’re never going to stop pedophilia, so lets put no laws or regulations in place to punish pedophiles.”

          I’m not going to claim that the original commenter’s solution is perfect or even very effective, but if we do nothing (and comments like yours are encouraging doing nothing) then the percieved problem will gwt worse. We reward the bad behavior and the bad behavior continues and gets worse. Something needs to be done whether it’s perfect or not. If you’ve ever created anything, especially something to be used or enjoyed by others, you know your first draft of it is shit. There are so many things that you couldn’t see until you put the work into it or release it to others and that’s okay. You learn, you revise, you plug the holes, you scrap and implement something new, you continue the process. The “rule of thumb” didn’t stop abuse, but it was a step. We still haven’t stopped abuse, but a lot of us keep plugging along, trying to stop it in our own ways (at individual, local, national, and international levels).

          If you do care about this and want to contribute, but don’t like the presented solution, offer up your own or maybe point to resources of those advancing a cause from a different angle. If you’re here to shit on ideas because you don’t care or are trolling and want to actively hinder discussion, you can fuck right off. If you are trolling I’m okay with the offchance the overall message is recieved by someone else who needs it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -59 months ago

            I provide no solutions that haven’t already been tried and continue to be tried. Have you tried actions outside of lemmy like actually voting and promoting people who want to fix this? I love that a glib comment on lemmy has drawn a novel of a response when everything we say here means jack shit. I’m in the real world doing what I can to change it for the better.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              19 months ago

              It’s fitting that someone who’s idea of a novel is 3 barely paragraphs would make an incredible amount of baseless assumption.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          29 months ago

          We really need to rethink how ownership itself works. All assets should be in a public registry, and no country’s laws should recognize any claim of ownership not backed by the registry. For the sake of privacy, I’d make an exception for up to like $1 million in personal assets owned by an individual, but never for business assets and never for ownership of a company or shares of a company.

      • @FlexibleToast
        link
        -169 months ago

        Wealth taxes are fantastic in theory, but in practice have never worked. They’re too hard to implement. I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying, but I just don’t think a wealth tax is the answer.

        • @demlet
          link
          69 months ago

          I mean, the truth is that we’ve never found a way to prevent some people from hoarding huge amounts of wealth. Probably not a great sign for the future of our species.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            49 months ago

            There’s more good people than bad people. The only way the bad people win is by convincing the good people to give up.

            Yes shitty people will always be fucking up things for everyone else. But that doesn’t mean working to stop that is pointless. It’s more the opposite, it means we have to be continually working to stop the assholes from fucking things up for everyone.

          • @FlexibleToast
            link
            39 months ago

            It’s a seriously hard problem. The IRS already can’t keep up. In order to implement a wealth tax they would not only have to do what they do now, but also assess the value of every estate of every wealthy person. They would need experts in all sorts of things to even attempt to pull that off. Experts in fashion, jewelry, cars, planes, boats, art, etc… as soon as you let even one of those things slip through, that’s what becomes the new wealth sync. Previously it’s been attempted by they excluded art because that’s notoriously hard to assess the value of. So the wealthy bought and traded a bunch of art to hide their wealth.

            I got down voted for my previous comment, but it’s the truth. The concept is simple and if it worked I would be all on board. It’s the process for implementing it that is the hard part and has historically always caused a wealth tax to fail. It’s not a new concept, but there is a reason it isn’t used. I’m not saying we should do nothing, but that we should do something different. We could start with adding back some income tax brackets.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19 months ago

          Maybe but we were doing better at it before Reagan came along.

          But it isn’t a silver bullet. If we want to deal with the root of today’s problems we need to focus on a number of solutions around anti-trust, pro-labor, wealth tax, lobbying, campaign finance, etc.

    • @thann
      link
      English
      989 months ago

      Imagine if Lockheed martin “shut off” a jet because it was “getting too close to China”

      What would be the response by the DOJ?

      I would think the military would call that an act of treason and imprison or disappear any executives they thought were involved

      • theodewere
        link
        fedilink
        179 months ago

        no he’s in some SERIOUS shit for this, and it was just a given he was gonna stick his little dick in there

    • DarkenLM
      link
      fedilink
      769 months ago

      It would be hilarious for the US and/or the EU freeze his assets and punch his market influence to the ground if they accuse him of espionage.

      • @Zombiepirate
        link
        English
        119
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Nationalizing the satellites that we paid for as a national security asset sure seems reasonable here, seeing as he likely broke a contract when he disabled them.

        Imagine if Lockheed disabled an allied F16’s targeting computer during a mission; there would be hell to pay.

      • theodewere
        link
        fedilink
        159 months ago

        it’s more like a violation of War Powers Act or something, but yeah… he’s probably fucked…

    • Capt. Wolf
      link
      399 months ago

      I’ve said in the past that something was clearly wrong when he bought Twitter. His behavior was far too targeted. It’s all way too obvious.

      • Joker
        link
        fedilink
        89 months ago

        He’s my fun little conspiracy theory. If I could send the CIA to do my bidding, I would have punished him by manipulating him into buying twitter. You can’t nationalize SpaceX because it would signal the failure of privatized space exploration, but you can’t have that idiot out there as a walking national security disaster looking for a place to happen. The only option if he can’t be controlled is to get him out of the way until he retires or another private competitor can become the favorite. Twitter cost him a ton of money and his reputation, exposed him as a fool, and keeps him busy with unimportant bullshit. Everyone just shrugs it off as Elon being Elon. It’s really perfect.

    • @ChickenLadyLovesLife
      link
      English
      159 months ago

      Russian asset

      How dare you? This is libelous! He’s a Saudi asset.

    • Buelldozer
      link
      fedilink
      99 months ago

      Yet he’s taking DoD money for Starlink in Ukraine.

      He is now but at the time this supposedly happened he wasn’t.