Process
Status Items Output None Questions None Claims None Highlights Done See section below
Highlights
id590901800
Thomas Jefferson was arguing that the aristocracy was going to go away in the new republic, because of the availability of land, and we’re getting rid of all those hereditary laws
id590897531
the way our tax code has been sculpted, it allows money to accumulate in families and continue to accumulate and accumulate.
✏️ Even with the founding fathers having good intentions and a good setup to have a non-aristocratic system.. they didn’t manage to stop the accumulation of wealth, which is where everything falls apart. 🔗 View Highlight
id590897586
If you look at the current lifetime exemption from gift or estate taxes, meaning the amount of money you can give your kids tomorrow without paying any taxes on it, it’s about $26 million—a couple could give their kids that much money without paying a dime. Then beyond that, there are a million little ways to move money around, put it in different types of trust structures, to essentially over the generations create dynasties, and we’ve had a growing number of these in the United States. Dynastic wealth was never an American ideal, but it’s become an American reality.
id590897591
These dynasties have incredible political power. They’re trying to repeal the estate tax, they’re funding anti-minimum wage, all this stuff. So you can always talk about how their wealth harms us all. Dynastic wealth is used to generate more wealth.
✏️ The power of dynastic wealth 🔗 View Highlight
id590897315
You have this quite striking question that you ask in the book, which is whether you can get your congressman or a senator on the phone, whether you’ve interacted with them or can interact with them personally. And the reader might think, “Of course I can’t.” But you point out that the answer to that question is entirely dependent on how much wealth you have, because it is the case that there are plenty of people who can actually talk to their elected representatives.
✏️ The power of money and political influence 🔗 View Highlight
id590896997
the founders came up with all these checks and balances so that one part of the government didn’t get too out of control. There was always a way to rein them in, he said. But what they didn’t take into account was the accumulation of wealth and how that was going to affect the whole government system. So essentially, this is a fifth tier. You’ve got your branches, then you got journalism trying to keep things in check. And then you have this gigantic pile of money over here that’s going to have its way and there’s nothing to keep a check on that.
✏️ Element 1: Wealth An unexpected fifth tier of government: cash. Wealth and cold hard capital that skews influence whichever way it decides. Keep this in mind in conjunction with next highlights. Wealth + Fundraising + Lobbying 🔗 View Highlight
id590901864
Members of Congress serve very short terms, and they’re always fundraising all the time. There’s no end to it. The maximum that you can give to a given person, I think for couples, is $5,800 now. That’s the maximum that they can technically ask for, and you can give unlimited money to a political party. And so, there is a temptation for members of Congress to also raise money on behalf of their party because that gives them power within the party.
✏️ Element 2: Fundraising 🔗 View Highlight
id590897935
He used to be a lobbyist for Human Rights Watch, and so he says, “I don’t have any problem with lobbyists, I used to be one. We have a right to go in there and try to affect policy. It could be for good, it could be for ill.” And he says, “So I let lobbyists come to my office and talk to me. Sure, no problem.”
✏️ Element 3: Lobbying This is giving me another perspective on lobbying. I always want to be saying that lobbying leads to all the problems, but technically it doesn’t… not on its own. After all, lobbying is really the feedback loop of the state. Without it, other parties can’t raise issues or call attention to things (for good or bad). You can’t just cut out the feedback loop, or you stagnate. 🔗 View Highlight
id590898036
the problem is, when you mix lobbying with fundraising, there’s almost never directly a quid pro quo. But there’s always sort of an understanding. It’s like, you hear my point of view, we’re going to give this money, and keep it in mind when you’re voting
✏️ The problem with lobbying is when you also have fundraising. People can be very segmented about it, but basically there’s an understanding of “here’s what I’m lobbying for, here’s some money, and just remember all that when you vote next please and thank you.” Add this with how and where wealth accumulates, and you have yourself a good ol’ system now. Add this as another thing that is innocuous and just a tool, until you introduce capitalism into the mix (see how AI and capitalism don’t mix well either) followup 🔗 View Highlight
id590898739
if you tax investment gains at the same rate, why don’t you tax investment gains at the same rate as wages? So if I’m a rich guy, and I have $50 million free cash, and I put it in the stock market, the stock market goes up, and I sell that stock. I’ve done nothing, except had a bunch of money. And my tax rate for that money is much lower than if I had worked for that money. I think that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I ask people, so what’s your rationale for that? They say, you got to incentivize people to invest and whatever. Come on, man. Are you going to put the money under your mattress? You have to put it somewhere. Are you going to put it in the bank at 2% interest? No. They don’t want to sit and watch their money incrementally grow, they want to get another big payback.
✏️ So any money made through investment is taxed lower than money made through wages and work. The argument is that this is a way to incentivize investing.. but is that really an issue? Are rich people just keeping their money in bank accounts and making very little interest? Or are they naturally wanting to always make more and don’t need that incentive? Meanwhile, people that work for their money are getting taxed more than people who simply have lots of money and put it in stocks to make even more money, without lifting a finger. You’re taxing the little guy over his peanuts that he slaved over, versus the big guy who is sitting on piles of cash? 🔗 View Highlight