“Eat the Rich” memes spread, but is it a political movement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 295
  • Views: 7K
  • Politics 
Callatoroy said:
AND

They have created millions of jobs and thousands of millionaires and contributed billions to charitable causes. Gladly take this system over any other in the world. Where else can a boy born in Keny…er…Hawaii grow up to be potus with a net worth of less than $1 million and now be worth almost $100 million.
Click to expand...
Anywhere it’s legal to write bestselling books?
 
It seems to me that "eat the rich" is really only focused on ultra-rich executives, at least at this point. There are plenty entertainers and athletes with net worths that dwarf the UHC CEO, but I don't believe they have quite the disdain. If this does spread, my guess (as an outsider and political moderate who believes this shit is stupid), is that the primary targets will be executives in healthcare and healthcare adjacent, banking, real estate. Industries where people feel they have been taken advantage of.
 
Zoo_View said:
Have you heard of FICA and excise taxes?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I to was including that in the SS in my mind.
Zoo_View said:
Have you heard of FICA and excise taxes?
Click to expand...
Yeah... I was including FICA in the SS part.
Not sure what you can do about the excise taxes, as they're not income/wealth based. If you buy a gallon of gas, you're going to, and should, pay the taxes to maintain the roads on which you're driving. What can you do? Issue a "I'm a poor person" ID card to exempt them?
And the nanny government can't resist onerous " sin taxes" as they're "for your own good".
I challenge you to name a more regressive tax than tobacco and alcohol taxes. Should we scrap them ?
 
finesse said:
Not sure that I consider tobacco and alcohol taxes regressive. The heavier the user, the more demands they are going to make on the system in terms of health care, accidents, etc. Why shouldn't they be paying extra?
Click to expand...
Because they're poor. Keep up! 😃

I think I've drug the conversation too far into the tax angle. I just think taxes are far from being a determining factor in the Eat the Rich movement, assuming it even exists . I'd bet most of those posting this stuff on the Internet are actually quite affluent.
 
BubbaOtis said:
Because they're poor. Keep up! 😃

I think I've drug the conversation too far into the tax angle. I just think taxes are far from being a determining factor in the Eat the Rich movement, assuming it even exists . I'd bet most of those posting this stuff on the Internet are actually quite affluent
Click to expand...
Poor is not an excuse for poisoning yourself. I don't care if you do, but I don't want to hear about either the damage to your health or bank account.
 
Paine said:
By the way, eat the rich has been around long before the UHC killing. Young(er) people have been saying it since at least 2015. This isn’t a new thing. And from my experience, the sentiment tends to hold across ideological/partisan lines among young people. We’ve been radicalized but nothing has set it completely off yet.
Click to expand...
Or even longer. This is where I first heard it.

The phrase “Eat the Rich” is often attributed to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a political philosopher and leader of the French Revolution. The original quote is, “When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich”.
 
Paine said:
By the way, eat the rich has been around long before the UHC killing. Young(er) people have been saying it since at least 2015. This isn’t a new thing. And from my experience, the sentiment tends to hold across ideological/partisan lines among young people. We’ve been radicalized but nothing has set it completely off yet.
Click to expand...
Yes, it had a growth period in 2020, as well, before fading a bit. But was wondering whether the embrace of “St. Luigi” is giving it purpose and a “martyr” to build around.

But it has been around since at least the French Revolution (“When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich”, widely but not clearly attributed to Rousseau), which is certainly an alarming origin …

@finesse beat me to it.
 
finesse said:
Not sure that I consider tobacco and alcohol taxes regressive. The heavier the user, the more demands they are going to make on the system in terms of health care, accidents, etc. Why shouldn't they be paying extra?
Click to expand...
Excise taxes are mentioned in the definition of regressive taxes, actually..
www.investopedia.com

Regressive Tax: Definition and Types of Taxes That Are Regressive

A regressive tax is one that's applied uniformly regardless of income, unlike a progressive tax which is based on income. It places a bigger burden on low-income earners.
www.investopedia.com www.investopedia.com

Ok, I'm done..
 
Paine said:
Which brings me to another thing I wanted to ask y’all who said this.

What exactly is so alarming about left wing populism?
Click to expand...
Ok, I'll take this on.

1. The reaction to Mangione is a good case study. I have no sympathy for UHC. Brian Thompson may have been a terrible person. But the embrace of Mangione as some kind of populist hero is extremely disturbing to me. Violence begets violence, and it almost never begets anything other than more violence.

2. I'll pose a question to you -- what did you think about the CHIPS Act? That might be the most anti-populist bill passed by a Dem-controlled Congress in recent memory. It will use taxpayer dollars to support an industry that is highly automated and unlikely to reinvest much capital in American communities. It may even have the effect of increasing the cost of "necessities" like phones and cars for working class Americans. But in my view, it's one of the most important bills passed under Biden's stewardship. Would a populist-controlled Dem Party support legislation like that?

3. I've written about this on here in the past, but in my view, populism can only be supportive of democracy in social structures characterized by relatively high levels of trust and low levels of partisanship. Scandanavian countries, for example, can employ populist policies to great effect. Same with Switzerland. In countries with relatively low levels of social trust and high levels of partisanship, populism is far more likely to lead to authoritarianism. It's easy to remember that Hitler came to power based largely on populist rhetoric, but so did Lenin. And I don't see any way you could argue that the US circa 2024 is more socially aligned with Denmark or Switzerland than it is with 1934 Germany.
 
StrangePackage said:
I know you think you're being sarcastic.

I also don't think you know what socialism is. But you are afraid of it, because you've been told to be.

Everyone is afraid of socialism until they need help.
Click to expand...
Because it has such a rich and successful history. Anything, literally anything that dumbs down innovation and de-incentivises people to work hard and be imaginative is a losing system. That includes everything from education to business. That concept is so simple that literally elementary students can grasp it in its basic form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top