The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

Yes, practically back to back we have another TOS mission - but it's not an Acacia mission. For the first time, Jay went off with another partner: Agent Dead of the Department of Emergencies, written by Miss Cam of OFUM fame.

Protectors of the Plot Continuum: Torment by Jay & Miss Cam

It's interesting that this mission sits here (which it does: this Wayback archive shows the publishing dates for both this and the previous mission), because it really doesn't fit: missions 18 & 20 should run back to back, one ending with 'let's go to lightsaber training', the other starting with 'we're at lightsaber training'. Miss Cam had been heavily involved in the PPC of late - she had just rehosted their missions & the spinoffs, had given the agents their minis, and now she cowrites the first Bad Slash mission with Jay. Given the very long gaps between 17 & 18, and 19 & 20, I wonder whether Acacia was too busy to write over the summer and Jay got bored. ^_~

hS

Neither gold nor silver nor government fiat (nor obscure mathematics on a blockchain) have any intrinsic value. What has value is a) stuff and b) work. The whole concept of currency is just an abstraction of those, so that I can obtain food from a shop without having to give them a sheep or stack their shelves in exchange.

A big issue with capitalism as it stands is that it keeps disconnecting money from stuff and work. Jeff Bezos, to continue the example, is being paid vastly more for answering a few emails than his workers are for doing 8-12 hours of physical labour. This is a general trend: the more you're paid, the less you actually do. In theory it's because physical work gives way to mental labour and expertise, but while that might hold true at certain levels (a lab manager could be said to do "more work" than a lab tech despite not running any experiments), by the time you hit billionaires it definitely doesn't.

The money =/= stuff split is just as bad: it's what leads to housing market bubbles, stock market collapses, and so on. The same piece of theoretically stuff (one millionth share in Amazon, maybe) gets traded around without this minute's owner actually being able to do anything with it other than sell it on for, hopefully, more money; and eventually you hit the point where nobody is willing to pay more, and it all crashes down again.

So yeah. Money is fake. Tell your friends. ^_~

hS

I'll leave it to someone better equipped than I am to explain how the value of the dollar has been determined since we got rid of the gold standard, but it boils down to "it depends" and "because we said so." But, that's not really relevant.

I'm not saying I think the government should take Bezos' money and use it to write checks to everyone else so they can spend it as they please.

I am saying that I believe everyone who's born into this world though no choice of their own (and sometimes no choice of their mother's, either) deserves quality health care, fact-based education, unrestricted access to information, safe housing, safe drinking water, food security, a planet to live on that isn't being rapidly driven to ecological crisis by unregulated industry pouring carbon and other waste into the environment, and other such universal human rights.

I'm also saying I believe the only way to ensure that every person in every state gets equal access to those things is for them to be provided by the federal government, i.e. socialism.

But in the absence of that, the only way for an individual to get those things is cash in hand, so, sure. Until we make a better way, I do believe that every person born into this world through no choice of their own deserves enough money to afford a decent quality of life, and I'd accept it in the form of checks from Bezos, Musk, etc. I don't care about making them not be selfish people anymore—that's between them and whatever higher power they believe in—but since they clearly are too selfish to give it up willingly, then yes, for the sake of basic human dignity, I believe it should be lawfully taken from them and provided to those who need it to improve their quality of life.

~Neshomeh

Um, okay? I don't think I get the point.

Wealthy people in California have money in offshore accounts or in other states in order to lower the amount of income tax they have to pay, while still living in California because of the lower property tax rate. They drive on California's roads, send their kids to California's public schools (public school funding depends on property taxes, so richer postcodes get better funding), and use California's already abysmal water supply during a drought to water their lawns and fill their swimming pools. They drain the state's resources, and still do not want to pay taxes.

Even if that is strictly true, emailing still literally something. Not necessarily something that makes sense with pay level, but nevertheless.

So you agree with me that he's getting overpaid to send emails.

Euh...but hasn't that been said every election? And what about the multitrillion debt? Would high taxes on billionaires resolve that?

Per your own article: The U.S. national debt is so big because Congress continues both deficit spending and tax cuts. Tax cuts on the wealthy cause us to have less money. Deficit spending functions under the idea that you put money into a project in order to get jobs -- see FDR's Works Project Administration.

Additionally Republican administrations have been known to worsen the deficit. Biden's plan will be fully paid for in 15 years through his tax increases. So yes. Taxes on billionaires will solve it.

Um, well, one of those articles was specifically from India, so I don't see how the US government can do much about that.

Amazon is a multinational entity, so whatever is being reported on in India is behaviour across the board. Also:

Amazon has been repeatedly accused in the United States of copying product designs. In 2018, home-goods retailer Williams-Sonoma Inc filed a federal lawsuit against Amazon, accusing the e-commerce giant of copying its proprietary designs for chairs, lamps and other products for an Amazon private brand called Rivet.

Okay, I'm curious--what exactly would your ideal solutions to all those problems be?

Taxation at the same rate as in Nordic countries in order to create a similar Social Security net, less military spending, more spending on infrastructure, healthcare, and education would be a good start.

(Edited to be more clear that it's not a single president who worsens or reduces the debt, but rather an administration and its overall goals.

Edited again to clarify what the "Nordic taxation rate" is.)

Forbes points out that his "donations" are pledges. The payout is long and slow, especially compared to how his ex-wife's philanthropy is going. He rates 1 on the Forbes philanthropy score, the worst score possible. He also has not signed the Giving Pledge to donate the majority of his wealth during his lifetime or in his will, unlike his ex-wife.

Okay, fair.

California has the highest income tax in the country but lower than average property tax. Rich people own land in California but park their money elsewhere to avoid California's income taxes. This is... not tenable for California's infrastructure, given how much of the state's resources they use to maintain their properties (Like water. During a drought.)

Um, okay? I don't think I get the point.

That is business talk for sometimes the CEO will email him with a question. It means nothing.

Even if that is strictly true, emailing still literally something. Not necessarily something that makes sense with pay level, but nevertheless.

Yes, and we're going to get that money for infrastructure by raising taxes on the wealthy. Exactly my point.

Euh...but hasn't that been said every election? And what about the multitrillion debt? Would high taxes on billionaires resolve that?

Exploitation. Job loss. It's not that they can't switch jobs, it's that Amazon is eliminating retail jobs, not to mention it acts predatorily against independent sellers who use its marketplace. It is changing the job landscape not just for working class people who staff its fulfillment centres but also for small business owners who use its marketplace, and that change is not going in the direction that ensures the most amount of jobs for workers.

Um, well, one of those articles was specifically from India, so I don't see how the US government can do much about that.

Bluntly, yes.

Okay, I'm curious--what exactly would your ideal solutions to all those problems be?

--Ls

(Look at this webpage for a funny spelling error I found in the title. Cites does not equal cities.)

https://politiscales.party/results?dDE9MzEmdDA9MjYmYzA9NTUmYzE9MTAmYjA9NjQmYjE9MTAmbTE9MTcmbTA9NjkmcDE9NSZwMD00OCZzMD02OSZzMT01JmUxPTM2JmUwPTM2JmowPTY3JmoxPTUmZmVtaT0zOA==

And on compass https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-8.13&soc=-6.92

Yes, there are no good reasons to be rich. I don't think Jeff Bezos is really doing anything good with his money, but that's not relevant. To reiterate: I don't really like Jeff Bezos. Clear?

However, do we deserve the money? I'd say "Not really." I don't think that "You have stuff that you are wasting, everyone else wants that stuff, so we get to do what we want with it" is really a good argument.

As to that quote, I believe it is a rebuttal of rebuttal of rabbinical tradition that believed that rich people would automatically be saved. I would also say that there is a large difference between being less rich because you've given your money away, and having the government take it away. Forced selflessness isn't selflessness.

--Ls, not quite replying to all points.

Some sides of the HP fandom just really stan the Slytherins to the point of being apologists for Death Eaters, unfortunately.

What's the point of having a billion dollars?

I'm simplifying to a billion because I'm not a numbers person and that's about as much as I can get my head around. It also has the benefit of including all billionaires in the debate, not just the super-billionaires like Jeff Bezos and, for another, perhaps even crummier example, Elon Musk. (Read that article you linked about the top philanthropists. It's not actually very flattering to Bezos, either.)

So, what do these people actually do with all that money? Sure, they donate some of it. They can easily donate a million dollars to any given cause, and to most of us, it sounds like a lot, because we'll never have a million dollars in our whole lives. But out of a billion, that's just 0.1%. It's nothing to these people.

Sure, they turn some of it into material goods like expensive clothes and cars and heck even a rocket-ship, and you can argue that creates jobs. Again, though, we're mostly talking about spending on the order of millions here. You have to spend ten million just to make up 1% of a billion.

And what are they doing with the rest of it? Not much. They stuff it into bank accounts (some not even in their own country), put it in the stock market, buy up shares of other companies so they can make more money to stuff into more bank accounts and stocks... And what's the point? What actual good does this do anyone?

Seems to me what rich people mostly do is... to be rich. To go around saying "look at me, I'm so rich, you should pay attention to me because I have money and you don't."

In a word: Greed.

In another: Pride.

Heck, I could make a case for all seven deadly sins here.

Let's not forget: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" according to no less a figure than Jesus the Christ. I don't have to believe he was a literal son of God to agree with him about that.

Meanwhile, as hS pointed out, a government could take 90% of a billion dollars and do something with it (while still leaving the wealthy absurdly wealthy with a hundred million dollars). And as Lily pointed out, in a democratic system, we the people get a say in what the government does. I think that's loads better than letting billionaires just sit on it like dragons on their hoards.

~Neshomeh

(He was the most philanthropic person in the world in 2020, by the way.)

Forbes points out that his "donations" are pledges. The payout is long and slow, especially compared to how his ex-wife's philanthropy is going. He rates 1 on the Forbes philanthropy score, the worst score possible. He also has not signed the Giving Pledge to donate the majority of his wealth during his lifetime or in his will, unlike his ex-wife.

Well, you kinda make my point that wealthy people buy land in areas that are low-tax. I don’t know exactly what point would make it “too much,” but, clearly high taxes are a deterrent.

California has the highest income tax in the country but lower than average property tax. Rich people own land in California but park their money elsewhere to avoid California's income taxes. This is... not tenable for California's infrastructure, given how much of the state's resources they use to maintain their properties (Like water. During a drought.)

As for the “crumbling infrastructure”, we just passed a $65 billion dollar bill that has funding for those things. Bezos does have a more than 65 billion dollar net worth.

Yes, and we're going to get that money for infrastructure by raising taxes on the wealthy. Exactly my point.

Who exactly counts as “Bezos’ friends?”

I don't think he's personable enough to have friends, but I was more counting his billionaire peers like Musk, Zuckerberg, etc.

Where are you getting the data that Amazon employees are being exploited and cannot switch jobs? Because that is kinda the crux of the debate.

Exploitation. Job loss. It's not that they can't switch jobs, it's that Amazon is eliminating retail jobs, not to mention it acts predatorily against independent sellers who use its marketplace. It is changing the job landscape not just for working class people who staff its fulfillment centres but also for small business owners who use its marketplace, and that change is not going in the direction that ensures the most amount of jobs for workers.

Bezos is an Executive Chairman, which means that he is essentially a consultant for the new CEO. That’s something.

That is business talk for sometimes the CEO will email him with a question. It means nothing.

Or do you assume all rich people are exploitive?

Bluntly, yes. Intergenerational wealth in the United States comes at the cost of centuries of exploiting Black people and other people of colour. Studies have shown that the concentration of wealth isn't connected to productivity but rather exploitation. Even during the pandemic, the rich only got richer and the workers were left behind. And finally, North America continues to hold most of the world's wealth, and because of inheritance tax codes, the heirs of billionaires won't get a better deal outside the US.

Let's also not forget recent scandals about the ultra-wealthy taking private jet trips for 17 minutes or emitting tons of carbon. So yes. They are exploitative, even the ones whose music I like.

~Lily, whose aunt terrorises the local Chinese-American Chamber of Commerce, so she knows something about dealing with crazy rich Asians.

The act of throwing beans (mamemaki) is meant to chase away demons and invite fortune. I'm not sure how people living in apartments, like Momo and her father here, usually work around this.

“[The PPC’s] members are proud to be able to discuss even difficult and controversial topics without falling into fighting.”

I don’t think we’ve had any flaming/personal attacks/whatnot. Though you are under no obligation to debate anyone.

—Ls

Agreed. Taxation is the worst form of money-raising, except for all the other ones that don’t work.

Specifically, I’m not anti-any taxation, just anti- what I consider over-taxation.

—Ls thinks that poll taxes are incredibly unfair.

Here is Bring Me All Your Elderly!, a hilarious Avatar: The Last Airbender in which the Gaang try to teach their Movieverse selves how to be them. The SPaG is perfect, the characters are generally in-character (if a bit exaggerated, and it is SO funny!)

Side note: there is a Bad Dialogue Flu concept that I’d like to use in a PPC fic. Should I ask the author for permission?

—Ls

I like that Momo’s throwing beans.

—Ls

I don’t think anyone needs to make him give away his fortune. Why should he? Why do we need to make him donate money?

(He was the most philanthropic person in the world in 2020, by the way.)

“Land...too valuable to leave.”

Well, you kinda make my point that wealthy people buy land in areas that are low-tax. I don’t know exactly what point would make it “too much,” but, clearly high taxes are a deterrent.

As for the “crumbling infrastructure”, we just passed a $65 billion dollar bill that has funding for those things. Bezos does have a more than 65 billion dollar net worth.

Who exactly counts as “Bezos’ friends?”

Where are you getting the data that Amazon employees are being exploited and cannot switch jobs? Because that is kinda the crux of the debate.

As to “he does no work,” Bezos is an Executive Chairman, which means that he is essentially a consultant for the new CEO. That’s something.

Lastly, how would the government tax one individual? If taxes are increased, does that not mean that non-exploitive rich people would be taxed too? Or do you assume all rich people are exploitive?

—Ls can definitely see how boycotting Amazon would be hard.

It's just that... she's married to Merlin and also the daughter of ~Mother Magic~ in this AU.

The blood purity obsession does exist in the books, but got kicked up to 11 and turned into an aristocracy thing. Lord Potter is a very popular subgenre of Potterverse fics, and generally involve turning Harry into a Gary Stu.

This time from Momo's side.

That's basically half the point of a government: they do the things that society as a whole needs, but which no individual will/can do. Like maintaining roads, or the likes of education, health, etc. (Yes, and the military.)

In English history, you find a lot of taxes being levied for specific reasons - a war, a castle, I suppose theoretically a road but the English kings never seem to have cared much about roads. They raised money by basically picking something and taxing it - maybe it's wool sales this time, or maybe the number of windows on your house. At various times they just taxed everyone the same amount, which I think we can all agree is much, much worse for the poor than the rich. (The widow's mite comes to mind.)

Given that my government is an omnishambles right now, I totally agree that "the government knows best" is a dicey proposition, but... what's the alternative? It would be lovely for everyone to just come together and fund currently publically-funded things out of the goodness of their hearts, but with Jeff Bezos sitting here with $150,000,000,000, 10+ houses and a superyacht, I think we can count that out. (Even if we couldn't, when rich people build things, they see them as theirs; there's a long history in the UK of toll roads which you have to pay to use so that the man who built it can turn a profit. I don't think "being able to leave your house" should be based on your income, myself.)

But if people won't use their money for good voluntarily, and you don't want the government taking it with the force of law behind them... what? You wind up advocating for everyone to hold all their possessions in common and use them by direct democracy, which is a beautiful form of primitive socialism that doesn't work either.

Someone - internet says Churchill - said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried." As far as I can see, that applies to taxation as well.

hS

However, that doesn't mean the government should effectively have the power to decide that they have too much. The government should not be able to tell an individual "You have enough money now, so the rest is ours". Even if Bezos is overpayed for his work, the government didn't do any work.

Who will determine whether or not Bezos has too much money, then? Since clearly Bezos does not believe he has too much money. Other people have already contextualised how much money he has in relation to the rest of us, and unless the Ghosts of Christmas exist, he's not going to suddenly decide he has too much money and give the excess away.

Second point: the rich will leave. If John Q. Billionaire will be taxed at 90%, what's to stop him from leaving the country before the bill that implements the 90% tax ecomes law? Why should he let the government takes his money?

Real estate holdings in the US are too valuable for them to leave. Most of the richest people in the world already hold vast swathes of their money in offshore accounts or in states without as stringent tax laws (South Dakota, Texas, Delaware, etc).

The United States' infrastructure is crumbling and its education system is failing. Teachers are underpaid and roads and bridges need updating (and don't get me started on building ventilation in light of the spread of COVID). Tax money goes to repairing these issues. Do I trust the current administration to allocate responsibly? No, not really. But I trust Bezos and friends with that money even less.

Also for your responses to me: Are you implying that he personally underpays Amazon workers? Because I honestly have no clue as to the statistics there. I don’t think Amazon has a workers’ union, but I don’t think the government needs to act as one. If he does run out of workers, then he’ll have no choice but to pay them higher (or outsource overseas). Or, customers could protest the unfair wages as well by boycotting.

Amazon workers are trying to unionize, and Bezos is pouring millions of dollars into union-busting efforts so that he can continue to exploit them. I have no faith in him deciding he'll pay his workers more. The labour in this case is for his fulfillment centres, which have to be on US soil since that's where the items are sorted to get to customers.

Boycotting Amazon is more difficult than you think, given Amazon also has web services that control a good deal of the Internet, not to mention all of its subsidiaries. If boycotting is your only line of defense against exploitative capitalism, you are going to run out of things to consume very quickly.

The government shouldn't have to be a worker's union, but capitalists putting profits over people means currently the only way for big corporations to play ball is legislating for regulation. I'm sceptical of the government, but at least I can have a say in who I put in charge of it.

By the way, what would you consider a “fair share” of taxes on a theoretical person who earns a billion dollars a year? In numbers.

hS has a point. Bezos could give away 90% of a billion and still have enough to live off of, considering he's making more money you and I will ever see in a year each minute.