You're viewing part of a thread.
-
Ah so you’re saying that it’s perfectly fine to have billionaires?
If you can’t see what is wrong with a system that creates billionaires then there isn’t much left to talk about.
-
I think the main difference is she is mostly a billionaire via her own productivity. Everyone else on the list got there because they are capitalizing on other peoples labour, doing little to no actual work themselves.
She still reaps the benefit of other people's work, but she is essentially still the product of her own labour.
-
Ah but she is capitalizing on other's labor, she 100% has employees in at least some fashion, be they housekeepers, pilots, tour bus drivers, shirt makers (probably literal sweat shops contracted out tbh), vinyl pressing plants, CD pressers, printers for the art for those, probably a roady or two to hump equipment of some sort, she is employing some people. Some of those are likely third parties who are in turn exploited by their boss capitalizing on their labor, making her a degree of separation from the exploitation in that case but still she benefits and profits directly off of their exploitation.
-
No, not through her own productivity. At the start of her career, she had numerous song writers who were arguably exploited in that they are not getting a cut of her earnings. Even now, she doesn't play every instrument on a track. She has a whole team of producers. In concerts, she plays with a band. None of those people are making a fraction of the ludicrous money she's making for "her own product".
But beyond that, like the other commentator said, she has tons of staff of whom are exploited at a paycheck.
And beyond that, all of the merchandise she puts out employs many, many different exploited individuals to make.
-
-
Just so you know, this is a textbook straw man fallacy.
-
Sounds like you need to look up the meaning behind what a strawman argument is because you’re way off.
-
You asked the question with specific emphasis that sets it up to be easy to argue against.
For example using the words 'perfectly fine' when you should very well understand from their previous statement that they don't think that to be the case, you exaggerated their stance in order to misrepresent it. This misrepresentation allows you to frame their position with a question that is easy to defeat instead of actually refuting their claim or answering their proposed question.
You also loaded the question, implying their position within your question and reducing their possible responses to extremes.
This is a high school debate club 101 straw man question, I was just letting you know, so hopefully in the future you can structure your arguments better.
For example, if I responded to you saying "so you think everyone who calls you out, just doesn't understand what a straw man is?"
It's exaggerating and purposefully misconstruing the point in order to ask a question that is easy to rebut.
And here's the definition: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
-
-
-
It’s a system where we’re free to give money to whoever we want in exchange for goods or services. Maybe you’d prefer a system where we all are forced to get the exact same thing!
-
How about a system where those who earn more pay their fare share of taxes? Eliminates the billionaires and still let's swiftys swift.
-
Unless you’re talking about a 100% tax rate beyond a certain point, then you’re still going to have billionaires (or whatever other arbitrary number you want to choose).
I personally think we should abolish all these complicated taxes and go with land value tax because the increase in the value of land is unearned wealth and the current system leads to gross inefficiency, not to mention tax loopholes.
-
There are a large variety of ways to tax the wealthy. I am no econimist and will not be able to tell you which is best. But honestly, if they are paying more than billions in taxes, then I am OK with them still being billionares.
-
-
-
-