several billionaires are leaving Norway.
owner of financial magazine Kapital explains the simple reason by giving an example: if billionaire Kjell Inge Røkke continued to live in Norway, he would be paying €40-50M/yr in wealth tax. nobody will pay €100k+/day just to be allowed to live in a country.
some people are fans of heavily taxing the rich, and we do that, but they just run away. there are always tax havens.
It’s more popular because when you say: ‘abolish the rich’, some people will always take that as making everyone equally miserable somehow. Instead, when we say ‘abolish the rich’, we mean that we want to make life better for everyone by banning the forces that prevent us from reaching this.
But because people are miserable now, abolishing the rich to make them miserable too doesn’t sound like an improvement for many. I think we should start saying: ‘abolish the rich to make our lives better’ to better get our point across.
We say “abolish the rich” to mean "abolish the idea of an owning class so you can’t have a tiny group of stakeholders getting rich off the labor of the workers in the companies the stakeholders own. The ultra-wealthy will just need to live like everyone else, which will be a reasonable “middle class” sort of lifestyle after the factories and warehouses and farms and stores and everything else that makes society tick are put in the hands of the people and used for the people. Unless they stand in the way of the revolution when it happens, in which case they get fucking eliminated.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !genzedong@lemmygrad.ml
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
If you haven’t already found it, this GitHub page is an excellent collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics, made by @dessalines and others.
It’s more popular because when you say: ‘abolish the rich’, some people will always take that as making everyone equally miserable somehow. Instead, when we say ‘abolish the rich’, we mean that we want to make life better for everyone by banning the forces that prevent us from reaching this.
But because people are miserable now, abolishing the rich to make them miserable too doesn’t sound like an improvement for many. I think we should start saying: ‘abolish the rich to make our lives better’ to better get our point across.
Agreed.
We say “abolish the rich” to mean "abolish the idea of an owning class so you can’t have a tiny group of stakeholders getting rich off the labor of the workers in the companies the stakeholders own. The ultra-wealthy will just need to live like everyone else, which will be a reasonable “middle class” sort of lifestyle after the factories and warehouses and farms and stores and everything else that makes society tick are put in the hands of the people and used for the people. Unless they stand in the way of the revolution when it happens, in which case they get fucking eliminated.