pages 259 261 and 262 - sometimes, I like to pretend I’m not attached to floor with a chain and the dungeon I’m in isn’t just a room with a single door set high up on the wall. I like to pretend I am free to walk around and explore, and one day while pushing my fingers between two rocks something gives and a section of stone pulls away to reveal the entrance to a hidden labyrinth. I would walk down the dark path heedless of danger, thinking anything is better than sitting in one spot for eternity. Carefully making my way through the maze I would eventually find the end and my just reward. This one says money, but I’m thinking maybe a shower and sunlight and/or freedom. And if there’s a case of mineral and vitamin rich health shakes that will stop my body from disintegrating, all the better.
In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn – that’s how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States. What this means is that the usual development narrative has it backwards. Aid is effectively flowing in reverse. Rich countries aren’t developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones.
The US-based Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Centre for Applied Research at the Norwegian School of Economics recently published some fascinating data. They tallied up all of the financial resources that get transferred between rich countries and poor countries each year: not just aid, foreign investment and trade flows (as previous studies have done) but also non-financial transfers such as debt cancellation, unrequited transfers like workers’ remittances, and unrecorded capital flight (more of this later).
What they discovered is that the flow of money from rich countries to poor countries pales in comparison to the flow that runs in the other direction.
In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3 trillion, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3 trillion flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2 trillion more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3 trillion – that’s how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3 trillion is roughly the GDP of the United States.
What this means is that the usual development narrative has it backwards. Aid is effectively flowing in reverse. Rich countries aren’t developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones.
In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn – that’s how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States
What this means is that the usual development narrative has it backwards. Aid is effectively flowing in reverse. Rich countries aren’t developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones.
GFI doesn’t include same-invoice faking in its headline figures because it is very difficult to detect, but they estimate that it amounts to another $700bn per year. And these figures only cover theft through trade in goods. If we add theft through trade in services to the mix, it brings total net resource outflows to about $3tn per year.That’s 24 times more than the aid budget. In other words, for every $1 of aid that developing countries receive, they lose $24 in net outflows. These outflows strip developing countries of an important source of revenue and finance for development.
In other words, some of the very countries that so love to tout their foreign aid contributions are the ones enabling mass theft from developing countries.The aid narrative begins to seem a bit naïve when we take these reverse flows into account. It becomes clear that aid does little but mask the maldistribution of resources around the world. It makes the takers seem like givers, granting them a kind of moral high ground while preventing those of us who care about global poverty from understanding how the system really works.Poor countries don’t need charity. They need justice.
This is a very 101 explanation using just numerical figures, but yes, wealthy Western countries have been robbing the rest of the world for centuries. Colonialism and imperialism are very real and are ongoing. Poor countries are poor because they’re being robbed.
Ariah Rastegar Who Worked for chelsea hotels chief executive ED Scheetz and real-estate investor Nate Paul,is striking out on his own to raise $250 million to $500 million for a fund that invests in income producing real estate assets like self storage facilities.
Can you describe an anarcho-communist world for me and an anarcho-individualist world. How would say an anarchist island defend themselves from an island with a government that has weapons and an army.
The main difference between communist anarchism and anarcho-individualism is the sharper systematic nature of the first one.
Anarcho-communism (aka Libertarian socialism) combines the individualistic striving for freedom to that towards social equality that characterize socialism.
Libertarian socialism seeks political freedom (self-management of workers, federalism, direct democracy) and communism, according to the aphorism of Louis Blanc “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, by positing economic freedom starting from needs of individuals (for areas, municipalities, for districts, business and various other federative means), to organize production to meet the (identified or estimated) needs without other limitation than the capabilities and demands of the interested parties (who have their own desires and ability to share and participate). Despite the interdependence of all human beings within the social collective group, individual freedom is safeguarded by the fact that everyone is acting voluntarily (unlike Marxist socialism where political or economic centralization, the state, continues to invade the sphere of the individuals).
Anarchist communists believe that everyone deserves a home, the ability to move freely and that there must be no differences of possession or social hierarchy but all mankind should possess and enjoy any existing wealth on earth. The distribution of wealth could be made by direct and democratic popular planning (as in parecon), by the gift economy, or through barter.
Although there isn’t only one type of anarchist individualism, individualists are generally opposed to any form of social revolution, as we know it, and to all forms of aggregation that goes beyond the individual.
Despite the individualist tendency to claim acts of individual violence, individual take back, propaganda by the deed and criticism of organization (these anarchist-individualist trends included French insurrectional illegalism and Italian anti-organizing), gives more weight to the single entity rather the community, libertarian individualism should not be confused with ultra liberalism (also known as anarcho-capitalism).
“Individualist anarchism is clearly a unsophisticated form of socialism (a rural form of anarchism linked, especially in the U.S. to the self-employment of farmers)… while communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are industrial (or proletarian) forms of socialism.”
As regards economic issues, there are different positions. There are those joining mutualism (Proudhon, Emile Armand, the first Benjamin Tucker), egoists who despise the “ghosts”, such as private property and markets (Stirner, John Henry Mackay, Lev Chernyi, the last Tucker, Oscar Wilde), and those favorable to a collectivization of the means of production (Albert Libertad, the illegalists, Renzo Novatore). The anarchist historian George Woodcock sees in individualist anarchism the trend of a “lack of confidence of all co-operation, more than the bare minimum for an ascetic life.”
Godwin was utilitarian: he did not believe that all individuals were of equal value, as some of us “have more value and importance than others depending on our utility in bringing the social good.” Therefore he did not believe in equal rights, but the life of the most important person was the leading one, since it is favorable to the general good. Godwin was opposed to the government, because it violated the right of the “private judgment” of the individual in determining which actions maximize most gain.
The only apparent exception to this objection to cooperation is the spontaneous association that may arise when a society is threatened by violent force. The reason why he was opposed to cooperation, it is because he believed that it would interfere with the ability of an individual to obtain the greater good. Godwin opposed the idea of government, but wrote that a minimum state was a “necessary evil” and that it would become increasingly irrelevant and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge. He always expressly opposed democracy, fearing the oppression of the individual by the majority (although he believed that it was preferable to dictatorship).
Godwin supported individual ownership of property, defining it, in the book Enquiry, as “the empire to which every person has the right to produce by its activity.” However, he also argued that people would give to each other, from their own property, a surplus that could on occasion be useful to others, without involving the trade (ie the gift economy). So, while people had the right to private property, they are also enlightened altruists. However, benevolence was not to be applied socially, as it was a matter of individual freedom or “private judgment.” He did not support a market of goods or to assert collective ownership as is embraced in communism; his conviction was that individuals had to share with who was influential in the later development of anarchist society (but only on a voluntary, individual basis, and under judgment of the individual).
Proudhon endorsed the right of individuals to maintain the product of their work as their property, but believed that any property owned by others who had not produced it (as the capitalists), was illegitimate. Thus, he saw private property as essential to individual freedom but also a road to tyranny: the first called “possession” is the result of personal work, the second called “property” it’s reached when it comes to exploitation (profits, interest, rent, fees).
He supported workers associations to replace wage labor and (although he was against communism) opposed the ownership of land. Therefore he proposed an economic system that included individual possession (instead of private property) and an exchange economy (market) without profit called mutualism.
Mutualism is based on a theory of value in which when you sell your work or the product of your work, you should receive, in return, goods or services that incorporate “the amount of work needed to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility”. Proudhon envisioned a society in which each person could own a means of production, individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market. An integral part of this scheme was the creation of a mutual bank credit, which gave producers a minimum rate of interest, in order to cover only the costs of administration.
The Mutualists generally oppose the idea that individuals could receive an income through loans, investments, and rent, as they believe that these individuals are not working. For Proudhon it is necessary to establish an association between the workers because without this, we would be divided into subordinates and superiors, or two castes of masters and wage earners, and thus it makes it necessary for the workers, to organize into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, in order to not falling back into the feudalism.
Stirner’s philosophy, sometimes called “Egoism”, is the most extreme form of individualist anarchism. Stirner wanted to “abolish not only the state but also the society as an entity for its members. Stirner backed up self affirmation and the Unions of egoists, or associations that were not systematic and would replace the State. A Union is understood as a relationship between egoists, that is constantly renewed with the agreement of all the parties through an act of will. Even murder is admissible “if it’s right for me,” since egoism will foster genuine and spontaneous union between individuals.
Stirner was opposed to communism, seen as a form of authority over the individual. In contrast to socialism Stirner believed that property is derived simply from the force: “Who knows how to take to defend the thing, to him belongs property.” And again: “What I have in my power, it’s mine. As long as I assert myself as holder, I am the owner of the thing.” His concept of “selfish property”, not only lacked of moral restraint on how to get and use things, but also included other people. According to the German philosopher, “greed, in its fullest sense, is the only possible basis of a communist society.”
In finding a compromise between absolute freedom (impractical) and determined freedom (which is not true freedom), Stirner choose individual freedom because freedom can only be absolute; if it’s not absolute but limited by institutions, it wouldn’t be freedom anymore, therefore one must not try to limit it.
Josiah Warren proposed a system to pay people with certificates indicating how many hours of work they did. They could exchange notes in the time shops for local goods that had the same amount of time in the production.
Thoreau defended simple life, such as the refusal against a materialistic way of life; self-sufficiency, was one of the main objectives, and the whole project was inspired by transcendentalist philosophy. Many have seen in Thoreau one of the precursors of ecology and anarcho-primitivism and according to George Woodcock this attitude may also be motivated by a certain idea of resistance to progress and rejection of materialist growth, which was in the nature of American society in the mid 19th century.
Joseph Labadie, American unionist and individualist anarchist, developed a non-violent version of individualism. Without the oppression of the state, Labadie believed that man would choose to harmonize with the great natural laws without stealing his fellow for interest, profit, rent and in order to pay taxes. However approving individualism, he supported community cooperation, as the community control of water services, roads and railways.
Federico Urales was critical of influential individualist thinkers as Nietzsche and Stirner that promoted an asocial and selfish individualism. Urales promoted, instead, individualism solidarity, seen as a way to ensure social equality and harmony. It was also very critical towards anarcho-syndicalism, which he saw as plagued by excessive bureaucracy and tending towards reformism. Instead, he favored small groups on the basis of an ideological alignment; he supported and participated in the creation of the Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI).
Oscar Wilde defended socialism as a way to ensure individualism: “With the abolition of private property we have, therefore, a real, beautiful and healthy individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things and symbols of things. He will just live. “To live is the rarest thing in the world. most people exist, that’s all.”
Other basic concepts of individualist anarchists are free thought (not depending on anyone but your own authority); sexual freedom (Émile Armand proposed the concept of camaraderie amoureuse to express free love: the possibility of voluntary sexual encounters between consenting adults); anticlericalism (make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide for himself on spiritual matters); naturism (that promotes a ecological world view, with small eco-villages and nudism as a way to avoid the artificiality of mass industrial society and modernity, considering the individual in its biological, physical and psychological nature, and trying to eliminate social constructions).
To illustrate the difference between individualism and anarchist communism we can tell a funny episode, a incident occurred to the anarchist communist Malatesta.
As reported by the anarchist historian George Woodcock, Errico Malatesta was involved “in a dispute with the individualist anarchists of Paterson, who had insisted that anarchism implied no organization at all, and that every man had to act exclusively on its impulses. Suddenly, as the debate was heated, the individual impulse of Giuseppe Ciancabilla ordered them to shoot Malatesta. Malatesta was seriously wounded, but stubbornly refused to name his assailant.
Renzo Novatore, the individualistic counterpart of Malatesta stated that: “The masses that seem to worship Errico Malatesta are cowardly and impotent. The government and the bourgeoisie know this and sneer. We know that a hundred men - worthy of the name - could do what five hundred thousand organized men are not and will never be able to do.”
He declared: «Individualism as I feel it, understand it and mean it, it does not have as end neither socialism nor communism, nor humanity. Individualism has an end in itself.»
Is there any advice you can give to a chubby girl new to sugaring? Appearance wise, how can I make myself look sexy to rich old men. I know confidence is key, but maybe there is something else I can do?
You have to dress the part firstly, and this is the harsh reality that we shy away from discussing. Yes you can be plus size, but confidence isn’t enough, you have to be a attractive plus size. T
he problem is there’s hardly any high end fashionable/stylish clothes out there for plus size women (i’ve searched and searched and my heart can search no more) that is still very stylish yet high value, so utilise accesories to elevate your looks.
If you are new to sugaring I do not suggest you go out and buy a Chanel or Prada bag. But I would say you could start with small leather goods, sunglasses and scarves etc etc etc and work your way up.
When it comes to dressing, smooth silhouettes are key. Invest in good underwear. If that means going to get measured and fitted for bras then do it. M&S can do this for you if you book an appointment. Get yourself a plunge, t-shirt, push up and multiway bra. If you want, get some good shape-wear too (i personally dislike shape-wear as it makes me uncomfortable = awkward).
Now as for fabrics, steer away from very clingy materials especially in bright colours as they will highlight the bit’s you want to hide.I would stay away from bright patterns and prints. They nearly always look granny like.
Buy peplum everything! Peplum vests, tops, skirts, jackets, dresses. This is a God send. Peplums instantly add a heaping helping of femininity. The more structured, the more classy/stylish. Plus it hides a muffin top if you have one (just make sure the peplum is long enough) and makes your butt look curvier.
Don’t buy cheap shoes in materials like seude, calfskin (real or faux), or velvety-textures. They tend to show more in terms of bad quality. Instead opt for patent leather. Speaking of shoes, learn how to walk in heels. if this means you starting with the dreaded kitten heel (ew) or a wedge and work your way up to a 4inch without the platform, then do it. That’s how I learned.
As your income grows you can invest in better quality items. I suggest accessories first. I’d rather be in a £20 pair of jeans and a £2K handbag than £1K jumper and a £10 bag. After accessories, up your clothing game. Don’t be afraid to invest in quality pieces. Invest in your winter coat, leather jacket and a classy dress.
The best places to shop for plus size items at affordable/highstreet prices are Asos and Simply Be. Boohoo can be hit and miss. Trust me, I spent about £200 there recently and I’m returning about £50 worth of clothes but I shop there because they are fashionable in their plus size items vs somewhere like Ana Scholz that sometimes has a granny type feel. Forever 21+ is alright but they lie in-between fashionable and mediocre. Still, go in there every couple of months and have a look around, you’d be surprised what you will find that will look very high end.
If you are looking for evening dresses try Coast, Little Mistress and ChiChi London, their prices are affordable and the shaping of the clothes are for plus size women (rather than for skinny girls, just sized up). You could do like me and find a tailor, there are some great designers on instagram. Head over to my IG for loads of my followers recommendations.
If you have big feet and want high value shoes but can’t get your size in your fav designers, find a company that will let you design your own shoes and manufacture them for you. It’s not so pricey (depending on your perspective) and worth the investment in at least 1 timeless shoe. I design my shoes with Shoes of Prey and they have great customer service.
Don’t forget to keep upping your hair and makeup game as you go along. I’ve never worn weaves or wigs so I can’t give you any suggestions on that but if you want braid/ natural/ relaxed hair tips just ask.
When it comes to makeup, invest in your base. Do not underestimate the importance of a good base. This means spending some considerate money on your primer, foundation, moisturiser and all over face powder. For primer I recommend Becca Ever Matte if you are oily, or Smashbox photofinish for normal skin. My favourite foundation stick is the Makeup Forever Ultra HD Foundation Stick. My favourite Liquid foundation is Estee Lauder Double Wear and Gorgio Armani Luminous Silk (Revlon colorstay is the best quality drugstore foundation for oily skin, and Maybeline True Match for normal skin). For Moisturiser I would suggest either of the following three.
Embryolisse hydra-mat emulsion £25/$32 This is all you need really, and the best quality for this price range.
Onsen Daily Hydration (Loads of retailers online try and sell it for £200+/$300+ but please do not buy it unless you can get it for less than $100 (if not less thand $60), this means you may have to find a distributor and haggle or tell them you will review it on your blog or whatever. It’s my fav daily moisturiser but I wouldn’t use it if I had to pay the price they try to sell it at)
La prairie Extract of Skin Caviar Firming Complex this is a splurge, but if you can afford it or get daddy to pay for it. It’s worth it. feels amazing. Wouldn’t use it everyday thoug because of the price. It’s on the lower end of the scale at £114/$150 - 30ml but some la prairie face creams cost £700+ lol!!!
That’s a whole lot of stuff for you to start with.
Hi, I was actually wondering about the difference between income inequality and wealth inequality, can you explain how they're different and if one is more significant than the other and how? Thank you!
Okay, I’m going to try and roughly explain this to all y’all.
Income, despite being able to increase or decrease is relatively stagnant. For instance if you’re working a minimum wage job, your income may increase over time, but your income is still relatively the same. Or your income may decrease, or go to nothing, but we’re still [only, yes I know it’s ridiculous that I’m saying only] comparing this 0 to say 30 grand a year. Stay with me, because I know how ridiculous that sounds, 30 grand is a lot of money for a years worth of income, don’t get me wrong.
Now, lets take a comparison of say a person who is making about 30 grand a year, that’s their income, and then a person who is making 100 grand a year. If we’re comparing this inequality we see that the person who makes 100 grand a year is making like 70 grand more than the person who makes 30 grand a year. So this would show that the person is really [only, again stay with me I’ll get to the point] 70 grand ahead of the person.
Now lets factor in wealth, so I can explain why I’m using only, as yes, I’m aware how ridiculous it sounds.
The person making 30 grand can’t save their money, they aren’t investing anything because they’re living paycheck to paycheck. So their wealth, every year, is 0. They have an income of 30, and a wealth of 0. Every year they are saving 0, so every year they have this flat line of 30 grand a year.
Now the person making 100 grand, lets say they save 30 grand every year and put that in stocks, bank accounts, CDS, homes, land, etc. They do this every year, and these things also grow.
For convenience of showing this, I will assume neither get changed incomes, and the wealth will not grow on its own.
Income: Person 1: 30k Person 2: 100k
Wealth: Person 1: 0 Person 2: 30k
Income: Person 1: 30k Person 2: 100k
Wealth: Person 1: 0 Person 2: 60k
Income: Person 1: 30k Person 2: 100k
Wealth: Person 1: 0 Person 2: 120k
You see in year four the difference is no longer 70k, but much greater. This continues on. …
Now in reality, the wealth will actually grow at an even greater rate than this, and eventually their wealth becomes much greater than their income, and they can invest that wealth into things that will bring them greater wealth. This is why many billionaires do not have an income, and live off of their ever growing wealth.
Also, some people are born with wealth, and maintain and grow it as they age.
So when we only compare income we ignore many of the richest people in the world. You can be a billionaire and still have an income of 0.
Or you can be a baby and have an obvious income of 0 and a wealth of millions.
Or on the flip side, you could have an income of 30k and -300k wealth
Howdy! I'm young and I have a pretty good retail job at a home improvement warehouse that cannot be named. I have a 401(k) where they match the 3% contribution I give in my paycheck. I diversified with some money in a mutual fund set to mature when I retire, a higher risk fund, bonds and some common stock. What else can I do now (at 21) to ensure a bright and early retirement future?
If you want to retire early, you will need to open a brokerage account in addition to your 401(k). You cannot withdraw the money from your 401(k) until you are 59.5 years old without incurring a 10% penalty in addition to full income taxes on that money. Which would essentially mean giving up almost half of every dollar you withdraw early.
So, step 1: open a brokerage account. You can put money in and take money out of brokerage accounts whenever you want, as often as you want, with no penalties. A brokerage account allows you to invest like your retirement account but keeps that money under your control rather than locking it up. Why have a retirement account at all? Well, most are tax-advantaged, so it makes sense to max those first usually.
Step 2: figure out your number. Most people calculate the number they need to retire (early or not) by using some multiple of their current salary. Let’s say your current salary is $40,000 - traditional wisdom says you’ll need at least 25x’s that to retire, or $1,000,000. That’s a very quick and easy shortcut to the question “how much do I need to retire”. (you use 25x’s because history tells us you should be able to withdraw 4% annually and not deplete your principal during an average retirement)
Now, while that’s a good shortcut number, it’s not necessarily the best number. Instead, I would focus on how much you SPEND every year, not how much you make. If you only need to spend $2,000/month to cover expenses and have some fun money, or $24,000 annually, you don’t need to save $1,000,000 before retiring, you only need to save $600,000 (assuming the same 4% withdrawal) - way less than our shortcut provided.
Or maybe you’re making $40k a year, but spending $45k (going into debt every year to cover all of your expenses). If that’s the case, you need $1,125,000 to retire - more than our shortcut provided.
Hopefully that illustrates why it’s more important to focus on spending, not earning, when calculating your retirement number.
Step 3: research various investments. Know what you’re getting into. Know the pros and cons of every investment you buy. Each person invests differently, and for the most part, that’s okay, as long as you understand the risks and rewards and then shape your plan around those risks and rewards.
Me personally? I favor income-producing assets over equity assets. I like investments that pay me a dividend or royalty check every month/quarter vs a stock price that rises. I understand that over a longer period, on average, my income-producing investments will appreciate at a slower rate when compared to equity assets. But I also understand that over a longer period, on average, my income-producing assets will have less volatility. That helps me to not panic sell, that helps me to sleep better at night, and so I’ve traded a little bit of reward for a little bit of lower risk. That’s how I shaped my plan.
My plan won’t work for everyone. Someone else may want to be all equities and think I’m silly receiving dividends every month. They may not blink at 10% gains and 10% drops in the same week. You should do what makes sense for you and your plan.
There have been numerous studies done that show it doesn’t really matter too much what you invest in, so long as you are diversified, don’t panic sell, and stay invested. The vast majority of wildly different portfolios will usually end up in about the same place over a couple decades as long as you buy and hold. Period.
If you’re not sure what to invest in, but want to get your money into the market now (the old saying is “time in the market is better than timing the market”), then just buy a target date mutual fund from Vanguard. This is a great investment. The lowest fees anywhere. You are instantly diversified with thousands of US and global stocks and bonds. Every year Vanguard rebalances the mix for you automagically and over time they move you from mostly equities to mostly bonds, so your target date fund gets less risky as you get older. It’s the single best placeholder - and for a lot of people will be the only investment they ever need - while you do more research on other investment options.
Finally, step 4: If you plan on retiring super early (in your 30s or 40s), I highly recommend you set up some alternate sources of income. This is usually called passive income, though it’s rarely truly passive. This can come from a hobby (making and selling things on etsy or ebay), a royalty (designers and musicians make money every month from work they did in the past), a part-time gig (“job” sounds not-retired, so let’s use gig) that you love doing and happen to get paid for, etc. The 4% safe withdrawal rate is usually only applied to traditional retirements, those lasting about 20-30 years max. If you want to retire at the age of 30 or 40, one would hope you plan on living longer than 20-30 years and therefor you need to make your money last longer.
Having some sort of (even really small) income to supplement your investments will help a lot. For example, if you can rent out a spare room in your house, or cut lawns if you like being outside, or work at the library if you like being inside, etc making just $300/month, that’s the same as having an additional $72,000 invested in a fund paying a 5% dividend. When you think of small income drips in that way, you can see how powerful even “gig”ing a few hours a week can be.
Hope that helps. Please let me know if you want any more information on any of the above. Walls of text don’t go over well on tumblr, and believe it or not, this is the short version of all this. So ask away!
Why Either Trump’s and Cruz’s Tax Plans Would Be the Largest Redistributions to the Rich in American History
The tax cuts for the rich proposed by the two leading Republican candidates for the presidency – Donald Trump and Ted Cruz – are larger, as a proportion of the government budget and the total economy, than any tax cuts ever before proposed in history.
Trump and Cruz pretend to be opposed to the Republican establishment, but when it comes to taxes they’re seeking exactly what that Republican establishment wants.
Here are 5 things you need to know about their tax plans:
1. Trump’s proposed cut would reduce the top tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent – creating a giant windfall for the wealthy (at a time when the wealthy have a larger portion of the nation’s wealth than any time since 1918). According to the Center for Tax Policy, the richest one tenth of one percent of taxpayers (those with incomes over $3.7 million) would get an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million each every year. Middle-income households would get an average tax cut of $2,700.
2. The Cruz plan would abandon our century-old progressive income tax (whose rates increase as taxpayers’ incomes increase) and instead tax the amount people spend in a year and exclude income from investments. This sort of system would burden lower-income workers who spend almost everything they earn and have few if any investments.
3. Cruz also proposes a 10 percent flat tax. A flat tax lowers tax rates on the rich and increases taxes for lower-income workers.
4. The Republican plans also repeal estate and gift taxes – now paid almost entirely by the very wealthy who make big gifts to their heirs and leave them big estates.
5. These plans would cut federal revenues by as much as $12 trillion over the decade – but neither Trump nor Cruz has said what they’ll do to fill this hole. They both want to increase the military. Which leaves them only two choices: Either explode the national debt, or cut Social Security, Medicare, and assistance to the poor.
Bottom line: If either of these men is elected president, we could see the largest redistribution in American history from the poor and middle-class of America to the rich. This is class warfare with a vengeance.
When Owen made it back home that evening, he found his wife sitting
on the couch between his two oldest sons.
“Hey, dad,” Lucas greeted him, looking back to the TV right after with a grin
on his face. “You have to come watch
this with us.”
“What are you watching?” Owen asked while taking off his coat,
noticing how the three of them looked involved with the scenes on the TV.
“It’s a thriller about radioactive spiders who develop super strength
and try to take over the world from the human race.” Thomas informed without taking his eyes off the screen, speaking
“What?” Owen asked, unable to
believe that was actually a movie plot. He sat down beside Lucas and looked at
the screen, horrified. “This is ridiculous,” He added after two minutes, noticing the
awful visual effects of what looked like a B type movie. “Why are you even watching that?”
This masterpost has links for various academic content, from studying to homework help to assistance on assignments.
As this is 12 pages long, we would say that the “Ctrl + F” keyboard shortcut is your friend.
If you have a link that’s not here (we’re in need of links for the non-American and IB sections), the link given is now behind a paywall (aka you have to pay to see everything) or any of the links are broken, please send a message to the /r/teenagers FAQ ask box.
The report that everybody’s talking about this morning is Oxfam’s opus on global inequality, which leads with an eye-popping statistic: The richest 85 people own more wealth than the bottom half of the world’s population.
Yes, that equation works out to: 85 > 3,000,000,000.
Before we dig into the document, a programming note about wealth inequality. Wealth isn’t income. Salary is income. But investments—stocks, houses, or equity in a business—build wealth. Wealth comes from the money you don’t immediately spend. Since poor people spend more of their income immediately, and rich people save/invest more of their income immediately, it’s predictable that wealth inequality be much worse than income inequality.