A) The Supreme Court believes allocating funds = free speech.
B) The regulatory rules that you need are not intuitive to most voters.
C) The Broligarchs will fight this tooth and nail.
But, still, a good concept that needs to be explored.
Great stuff for 2028.
(or perhaps fueling a study, “2029”, that details how we counteract the current study, “2025” … you know, the one that DJT claims to know nothing about.)
Great idea, but we can go much, much farther. I disagree that the "rich can still be rich". We've had quite enough of that; let's get very specific. We can go way past Dodd-Frank and complete the democratic revolution by changing the nature of corporations to incorporate all players impacted by the corporations. Moreover, reinvestment within public purposes can be enforced by taxing idle wealth rather than work. Let entrepreneurs engage the friction of community protection from the get-go. Create a competitive public banking system that turns public investment returns back to the public domain instead of private pockets.
I'd certainly prefer it to be simple. Elites seem to be good at monkeying with legislation and institutions, so I'm exploring deeper transformations ("greater democratization").
"In 1962 I was a Conservative. I believed privilege could only be justified by service, high taxes on very high incomes were necessary to prevent an entrepreneurial economy becoming a rentier economy, and Keynesian growth would finance public service improvements and a welfare state that steadily reduced inequality. I was suspicious of ideologically driven, large-scale change. These were the mainstream policies of the Macmillan government at the time. In 60 years I have moved from centre right to hard left without changing my opinions."
Jesse Ventura, former Governor of Minnesota, had an alternate view on the matter Mike discusses here. His view is that nobody can legitimately be a billionaire, because, while he didn't use this terminology, having a net worth of a billion dollars functionally requires rentierism of land and/or capital.
He brings up that the hardest jobs he's ever worked are the two worst-paying jobs he's ever had: being a US Navy SEAL, particularly the training, and before that working at the Minnesota Department of Transportation, running the jackhammer in road repairs.
His proposed fix, stated elsewhere, was a maximum wage: a million dollars a month. (A 100% tax on all income above twelve million dollars per year would certainly be a high tax on a very high income!) Because if you can't live comfortably on that sum, then you really need to reexamine your priorities, and if you still refuse, well, the French had an answer for that back in the late 18th century.
Instead of having to define primary and secondary sectors, and having to prevent companies from crossing sectors, why not:
Require that all voting shares be held by individuals; no more holding companies or other shenanigans. Disallow any one person or their immediate family from holding more than 5% voting shares in more than one company; or from sitting on the board or being an executive or ‘advisor’ of more than one company (this will hit hard, I think). You can have your ‘family’ business and invest in others, but not control others. There’s an issue with subsidiaries and parents, but that’s really an antitrust issue (many of the current parent companies should just be busted up).
I like the idea of not granting the ability of corporations and other businesses to make political donations, that I've seen Robert Reich and others put forth (I dont know who the original idea came from). Other than a sole proprietorship every business must register with their secretary of state and its the state thay grants them their powers. It has to be renewed on a continuous basis. If the state no longer granted these powers (as Montana is trying to do) to businesses, it effectively gets money out of politics. Further states have the right to regulate both businesses and elections organized in their states, further protecting this strategy.
"You can have controlling interest in one primary sector and passive investment in no more than two secondary sectors."
What's wrong with *no one* being allowed to have controlling interest in *any* sector? Isn't that part of the purpose of antitrust laws, which already exist and only lack enforcement? What's wrong with bringing down some antitrust enforcement on these behemoth corporations that have controlling interest in an entire sector?
"This reform doesn’t prevent wealth accumulation. Marc Andreessen could still be a billionaire."
And why not just reinstate 90% income taxes on everything (and I mean everything - no more unrealized capital gains loopholes) above, say 100x (or 1000x, if you like) the poverty line? (Admittedly, the poverty line itself, or at least the calculation of it, needs rethinking; there are arguments that it should be over $100K.)* And couple it with a one-time 90% tax on individual assets over an arbitrary threshold, to pay off the national debt? Maybe with a loophole that the "assets" can be plowed back into the economy in some other way to avoid the tax.
And finally, "corporate personhood" is a lie, and should be terminated with extreme prejudice.
Love the concept.
It needs work.
Biggest barriers:
A) The Supreme Court believes allocating funds = free speech.
B) The regulatory rules that you need are not intuitive to most voters.
C) The Broligarchs will fight this tooth and nail.
But, still, a good concept that needs to be explored.
Great stuff for 2028.
(or perhaps fueling a study, “2029”, that details how we counteract the current study, “2025” … you know, the one that DJT claims to know nothing about.)
Great idea, but we can go much, much farther. I disagree that the "rich can still be rich". We've had quite enough of that; let's get very specific. We can go way past Dodd-Frank and complete the democratic revolution by changing the nature of corporations to incorporate all players impacted by the corporations. Moreover, reinvestment within public purposes can be enforced by taxing idle wealth rather than work. Let entrepreneurs engage the friction of community protection from the get-go. Create a competitive public banking system that turns public investment returns back to the public domain instead of private pockets.
I think we solve it through estate taxation.
I'd certainly prefer it to be simple. Elites seem to be good at monkeying with legislation and institutions, so I'm exploring deeper transformations ("greater democratization").
"In 1962 I was a Conservative. I believed privilege could only be justified by service, high taxes on very high incomes were necessary to prevent an entrepreneurial economy becoming a rentier economy, and Keynesian growth would finance public service improvements and a welfare state that steadily reduced inequality. I was suspicious of ideologically driven, large-scale change. These were the mainstream policies of the Macmillan government at the time. In 60 years I have moved from centre right to hard left without changing my opinions."
Jesse Ventura, former Governor of Minnesota, had an alternate view on the matter Mike discusses here. His view is that nobody can legitimately be a billionaire, because, while he didn't use this terminology, having a net worth of a billion dollars functionally requires rentierism of land and/or capital.
He brings up that the hardest jobs he's ever worked are the two worst-paying jobs he's ever had: being a US Navy SEAL, particularly the training, and before that working at the Minnesota Department of Transportation, running the jackhammer in road repairs.
His proposed fix, stated elsewhere, was a maximum wage: a million dollars a month. (A 100% tax on all income above twelve million dollars per year would certainly be a high tax on a very high income!) Because if you can't live comfortably on that sum, then you really need to reexamine your priorities, and if you still refuse, well, the French had an answer for that back in the late 18th century.
Instead of having to define primary and secondary sectors, and having to prevent companies from crossing sectors, why not:
Require that all voting shares be held by individuals; no more holding companies or other shenanigans. Disallow any one person or their immediate family from holding more than 5% voting shares in more than one company; or from sitting on the board or being an executive or ‘advisor’ of more than one company (this will hit hard, I think). You can have your ‘family’ business and invest in others, but not control others. There’s an issue with subsidiaries and parents, but that’s really an antitrust issue (many of the current parent companies should just be busted up).
Our whole mess of a government intertwined with private interests is in violation of Walzer's spheres.
I like the idea of not granting the ability of corporations and other businesses to make political donations, that I've seen Robert Reich and others put forth (I dont know who the original idea came from). Other than a sole proprietorship every business must register with their secretary of state and its the state thay grants them their powers. It has to be renewed on a continuous basis. If the state no longer granted these powers (as Montana is trying to do) to businesses, it effectively gets money out of politics. Further states have the right to regulate both businesses and elections organized in their states, further protecting this strategy.
"You can have controlling interest in one primary sector and passive investment in no more than two secondary sectors."
What's wrong with *no one* being allowed to have controlling interest in *any* sector? Isn't that part of the purpose of antitrust laws, which already exist and only lack enforcement? What's wrong with bringing down some antitrust enforcement on these behemoth corporations that have controlling interest in an entire sector?
"This reform doesn’t prevent wealth accumulation. Marc Andreessen could still be a billionaire."
And why not just reinstate 90% income taxes on everything (and I mean everything - no more unrealized capital gains loopholes) above, say 100x (or 1000x, if you like) the poverty line? (Admittedly, the poverty line itself, or at least the calculation of it, needs rethinking; there are arguments that it should be over $100K.)* And couple it with a one-time 90% tax on individual assets over an arbitrary threshold, to pay off the national debt? Maybe with a loophole that the "assets" can be plowed back into the economy in some other way to avoid the tax.
And finally, "corporate personhood" is a lie, and should be terminated with extreme prejudice.
* https://www.yesigiveafig.com/p/part-1-my-life-is-a-lie