A Tax on Capital is a Substitute for Revolution

 A tax on concentrated capital held by ultra-millionaires and billionaires is a satisfactory replacement for revolts like those of Haitians against slavery and the French against royalty and aristocracy where the masses yearn for a semblance of egalitarianism. With wealth so grossly concentrated in one percent of the people economics and Wall Street are basic threats to democracy, as much as was the British aristocracy in 1776.

 Concentrated wealth owns the broadcast media and controls internet social media sites preponderantly. Hence forms of censorship and repression are common. Like the impossibility of criticizing one’s employer corporations publicly and keeping the job, repressive controlling structures- part and full time controllers, limit public expression not only in repressive government forms like socialism, they also do so in nominally free enterprise systems like corporatism when wealth becomes concentrated so far as to bring into being an ad hoc aristocracy.

 Designing tax structures to address the problem of concentration of wealth and power shouldn’t be too difficult especially with the help of computers and artificial intelligence systems that would tax the real value of capital on a given day of the year and verify the value of capital and the commensurate tax on a given day of the year when payment is due electronically, say, with bit-coin or a federal crypto-currency.

 My opinion is that the masses should control at least 51% of the national capital, and that individuals should not have more wealth as a percent of national income than a tiny fraction in order to prevent inappropriate and threatening political influence. A certain percentage of people benefiting from or seeking to benefit from a repressive political system will always speak in defense of it. With government officials like Chief Justice Roberts and Senate Republicans so heavily invested in Wall Street it is challenging to foresee a prospect for solid legislative remedies in favor of the people of the United States.

 Since the 1970s the rich have divided and conquered the U.S. electorate with a number of policies that eliminated the strong white male middle class through promotion of cheaper, restive workers from minority and female portions of the economy that had neither awareness, coordination or temperament to defend a democratic and equitable tax system. The new majority simple wanted to bump out strait white middle class males in the economy rather than to rise to equality within the tax paradigm that had existed since F.D.R. had the balls to tax the rich and end the depression (unlike Barrack Obama who forced the permanent renewal of the Bush II tax cuts by refusing to let them sunset).

 There is no certainty that concentrated wealth is the most productive form of free enterprise. Free enterprise does not requires gross concentration of wealth. In a world with finite resources concentrating ownership of enterprise into an aristocracy can be counter-productive and inflexible as might be witnessed with the inability of government to find and adapt working global warming reduction systems. The new majority seems to be happy enough to just play dress up and put on white middle class male economic clothes instead of taking charge of the body politic in an F.D.R. kind of way and restoring a 70% tax on income of ultra-millionaires and billionaires and making a 3% annual capital tax upon the excess capital concentration of the ultra-rich.

 From a practical point of view the experience of living in a corporatism or socialist system may be similar if the economy is advanced. Even so the experience may be quite bad for independently minded individuals that like free speech. Recently I tested Obamacare to discover how it works for single males living on $600 of social security in Alaska. I discovered that Obamacare could be purchased for just $1000 a month and that would be quite a nice opportunity for the poor to imagine they could afford if they could have earned more money in a non-repressed life (Medicare medical would cost appx .275 monthly and leave the poor $600 a month guy about $375 a month for luxury goods like food, shelter, clothing, electrical connection, phone etc.). If the poor were meaningfully employed to given real opportunity to advance they might do better.

  President Obama created a nice system for middle-class women and homosexuals with a health care system that dumped all of their health information to corporations so they can examine the data and decide who and how to breed.

 Not only is the economy and corporate infrastructure too big to fail, it is also too big to allow violent revolt to end the existence of the 1%. The vast supremacy of government military over the citizenry makes real revolt very improbable. The government fundamentally is a servo-unit of the 1%. For pacifism to be a virtue it should be in defense of a free and unrepressed human condition rather than one of fatalistic subjugation. To allow islands of freedom or social classes to fall into subjugation under repressive dictatorships or classes of concentrated wealth should be anathema to a majority. A tax on capital and raising the income tax of the rich is a clear and present remedy to the challenges presented by inimical wealth.

 The inheritors of the former white middle class male American tradition still look to the Republican Party for hope in self-delusion since Republican leadership represents corporate wealth and the 1%. In recent years the masses of working class Republicans, disenchanted with the immorality of homosexual marriage, abortion and undermining of citizenship through mass illegal immigration have looked toward a splinter Tea Party/and Donald Trump billionaire in-party alternative. Looking to a billionaire to reform taxation means cutting taxes on billionaires and in the case of Donald Trump, electing an extremist global warming denier whom has biodiversity blindness. The complication of homosexuals on politics have made words like bye, and even morphemes like bi, disreputable and replaced with words like ‘bite’. Using rave jargon people don’t have much political circumspection. Actually there is about a zero percent chance of a good presidential candidate from either party in 2024.

 While Hillary Clinton operatives apparently did sponsor the false accusation of 2016 Trump-Russia campaign collusion leading to four years of extremist Democratic politic persecution of President Trump culminating in the January 6th riot at the Capitol in knee jerk reaction, the mass Republican movement blindly submits to Wall Street leadership that is very unRepublican philosophically speaking. Neither party has its oars in the water; each reinforce corporatism/socialism and the concentration of wealth and power in 1% of the people (actually a global plutocracy).

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clinton-campaign-ties-to-steele-dossier-durham-probe

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-grand-jury-indicts-lawyer-who-represented-clinton-campaign-2021-09-16/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41752908

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-dossier

 A successful revolt might resemble an anarchist apocalypse that would reign destruction upon everyone and grease the skids for a repressive dictatorship of some form dissatisfactory to about all except those that are in the pocket of repressive regimes. The point of good government in the modern sector is to assure that all of the citizens aren’t experiencing repression from corrupt networks or the power of concentrated wealth. A national minimum income free health care for the poor and free college education would go a long way to bring the U.S.A. into a modern political state rather than in-growing within a hybrid system of traditional repressive government and economics on a very large scale. If it were based upon sustainable, green ecological economic reform that would be better.