Patriotic Millionaires Protesting for Higher Taxes

The Patriotic Millionaires are a group of Patriotic Americans who are demanding they get taxed more. They don't want to add to their net worth at the expense of their fellow Americans. They can pay more and reject the false concept that they as wealthy Americans are the job creators who will leave the country with their money if they're asked to pay their fair share.

They have articles stating why the wealthy love high tax states, eliminating the tipping culture, support labor unions, and decrying corporate greed as well as advancing a desire for a 90% Marginal Tax Rate for millionaires.

These patriotic billionaires include Abigail Disney, a Disney Corporation heirass and their Chairman is Morris Pearl, the former managing director of Blackrock Investments.

Steven Moore recently approached them at a public event asking them to sign a pledge to pay a 90% tax rate voluntarily.



Sadly none of them signed that pledge and they blogged about that as well instead.

Husky_Khan said:

The Patriotic Millionaires are a group of Patriotic Americans who are demanding they get taxed more. They don't want to add to their net worth at the expense of their fellow Americans. They can pay more and reject the false concept that they as wealthy Americans are the job creators who will leave the country with their money if they're asked to pay their fair share.

They have articles stating why the wealthy love high tax states, eliminating the tipping culture, support labor unions, and decrying corporate greed as well as advancing a desire for a 90% Marginal Tax Rate for millionaires.

These patriotic billionaires include Abigail Disney, a Disney Corporation heirass and their Chairman is Morris Pearl, the former managing director of Blackrock Investments.

Steven Moore recently approached them at a public event asking them to sign a pledge to pay a 90% tax rate voluntarily.



Sadly none of them signed that pledge and they blogged about that as well instead.

Click to expand...

This is why we should forcibly take higher taxes from them.

King Arts said:

This is why we should forcibly take higher taxes from them.

Click to expand...

You really want wealth fleeing overseas, don't you?

LordsFire said:

You really want wealth fleeing overseas, don't you?

Click to expand...

Do you like sucking the dick of people who hate you and are ungrateful towards the nation? Is this some form of political machoism? Where could they flee where they will have both the type of life they enjoy in the west AND are able to be safe from an America is willing to use military force to get their assets back?

The only nations that have a lifestyle they would like are western nations however the only nations that can refuse demands of the US that are backed by threat of military force are China and Russia(nukes). Switzerland or New Zealand or whatever place will accept globo homo does not have the military power to stop a US that is willing to rape, pillage, and burn.

I dig the Boonie Hat and Business Casual look of the guy in the thumbnail. He came prepared.

If that's the Blackrock Guy, you know he's a planner.

King Arts said:

Do you like sucking the dick of people who hate you and are ungrateful towards the nation? Is this some form of political machoism? Where could they flee where they will have both the type of life they enjoy in the west AND are able to be safe from an America is willing to use military force to get their assets back?

The only nations that have a lifestyle they would like are western nations however the only nations that can refuse demands of the US that are backed by threat of military force are China and Russia(nukes). Switzerland or New Zealand or whatever place will accept globo homo does not have the military power to stop a US that is willing to rape, pillage, and burn.

Click to expand...

So not only are you resorting to incredibly base ad hominems, you're also displaying incredible ignorance.

What do you think a 'tax haven' is? Have you even heard of the term?

What do you think 'offshore accounts' are? Have you even heard of the term.

This isn't some 1800's piece where some rich industrial baron literally packs up his bars of gold and leaves the country. This happens right now, has been a regular and widely-known practice for decades.


A rich person starts a shell company, holdings company, whatever, in a tiny foreign nation like the Seychelles or United Arab Emirates, and transfers large parts of their assets there. It's easier than ever in the digital age. Said country taxes them somewhere between nothing and a few percent, and they get to forego tax rates in the forty percents and above.

This isn't easy to do with all different types of assets, and there's costs involved in doing it, but different nations can serve as different levels of tax haven. IIRC, Google directed basically all of its EU income through Ireland, even though their 'office' there was barely used, because Ireland had one of or the lowest corporate tax rates in the EU.

'Tax the rich' is literally a leftist talking point, has been for decades, and you spouting it thoughtlessly is just another example of how little you understand of conservatism, economics, or why big government is bad.

The basic-bitch better solution is a flat tax rate that applies equally to everyone, no complicated web of exceptions and loopholes that the rich can take advantage of, or lobby to have added so that they can take advantage of.

LordsFire said:

So not only are you resorting to incredibly base ad hominems, you're also displaying incredible ignorance.

What do you think a 'tax haven' is? Have you even heard of the term?

What do you think 'offshore accounts' are? Have you even heard of the term.

This isn't some 1800's piece where some rich industrial baron literally packs up his bars of gold and leaves the country. This happens right now, has been a regular and widely-known practice for decades.


A rich person starts a shell company, holdings company, whatever, in a tiny foreign nation like the Seychelles or United Arab Emirates, and transfers large parts of their assets there. It's easier than ever in the digital age. Said country taxes them somewhere between nothing and a few percent, and they get to forego tax rates in the forty percents and above.

This isn't easy to do with all different types of assets, and there's costs involved in doing it, but different nations can serve as different levels of tax haven. IIRC, Google directed basically all of its EU income through Ireland, even though their 'office' there was barely used, because Ireland had one of or the lowest corporate tax rates in the EU.

'Tax the rich' is literally a leftist talking point, has been for decades, and you spouting it thoughtlessly is just another example of how little you understand of conservatism, economics, or why big government is bad.

The basic-bitch better solution is a flat tax rate that applies equally to everyone, no complicated web of exceptions and loopholes that the rich can take advantage of, or lobby to have added so that they can take advantage of.

Click to expand...

We should go back to the gold standard and wealth should be physical objects.

What assets? What if we say that person does not have ownership they can't literally pick up the land or factories, or buildings, or machines and drag them to the UAE. If we can gain physical custody of their stuff then their "assets" are imaginary and no one would respect their imaginary wealth.

You are the one who is ignorant about history and just repeating modern ideas from the 1900's. I'm advocating a return to a previous era in history where if we don't like tax havens we go burn it to the ground, kill the men and enslave the women.

King Arts said:

We should go back to the gold standard and wealth should be physical objects.

What assets? What if we say that person does not have ownership they can't literally pick up the land or factories, or buildings, or machines and drag them to the UAE. If we can gain physical custody of their stuff then their "assets" are imaginary and no one would respect their imaginary wealth.

You are the one who is ignorant about history and just repeating modern ideas from the 1900's. I'm advocating a return to a previous era in history where if we don't like tax havens we go burn it to the ground, kill the men and enslave the women.

Click to expand...

You're repeating marxist ideas, 'seize the means of production,' and then perpetrate barbarism on those who'd held them before.

How is 'drop the tax rate to a level where there's no need for tax havens' a bad idea? What flaws does it have? What negative effects?

LordsFire said:

You're repeating marxist ideas, 'seize the means of production,' and then perpetrate barbarism on those who'd held them before.

How is 'drop the tax rate to a level where there's no need for tax havens' a bad idea? What flaws does it have? What negative effects?

Click to expand...

You anti Christian libertarians are the craziest people ever.

How is what Ancient Rome did, or Medieval Kingdoms to disloyal nobles "marxist ideas"?

Marxism did not fail because they took away the wealth from the previous nobility but because they tried to distribute everything to everyone.

Almost all new regimes in history once they got into power killed off the males that were a threat then took their property and women and gave it to those who helped and are useful to the new regime they then become the new nobility. That is the essence of meritocracy instead you seem to want to stop it right now where the corrupt and incompetent are in charge. Maybe their ancestors were great and earned their wealth but they are not so they should lose it.

You can worship these pieces of shit all you want others will laugh when they molest your kids.

As for a flat tax rate in general that would be a great idea. But it would also be great to take away wealth from those who are disloyal and give it to those who are loyal.

King Arts said:

You anti Christian libertarians are the craziest people ever.

How is what Ancient Rome did, or Medieval Kingdoms to disloyal nobles "marxist ideas"?

Marxism did not fail because they took away the wealth from the previous nobility but because they tried to distribute everything to everyone.

Almost all new regimes in history once they got into power killed off the males that were a threat then took their property and women and gave it to those who helped and are useful to the new regime they then become the new nobility. That is the essence of meritocracy instead you seem to want to stop it right now where the corrupt and incompetent are in charge. Maybe their ancestors were great and earned their wealth but they are not so they should lose it.

You can worship these pieces of shit all you want others will laugh when they molest your kids.

As for a flat tax rate in general that would be a great idea. But it would also be great to take away wealth from those who are disloyal and give it to those who are loyal.

Click to expand...

I'm not a Libertarian, and I am a Christian.

That what Rome did at times is similar to what Marxists do makes no difference to how wise or stupid it is.

Further, your constant resorting to putting words in my mouth, and thoughts in my head, is petty and completely unconstructive for debate or discussion of any kind.

What you seem to not understand is that if you put 'loyalty or lack thereof to a specific political ideology' as a justification for seizing property, that power will end up in the hands of the worst kinds of people, who follow the worst kinds of ideology. It won't be Christians seizing the lands and possessions of globalists, it will be globalists, or marxists, or whatever the next flavor of horribly degenerate godless ideology is, using that law and power to seize the possessions of Christians and anyone else who won't toe the line.

If someone is actually directly committing treasonous acts, like Jane Fonda did? Absolutely bring the hammer down on them via due process of law. But just 'doesn't support the state-mandated ideology' is not adequate reason.

LordsFire said:

I'm not a Libertarian, and I am a Christian.

That what Rome did at times is similar to what Marxists do makes no difference to how wise or stupid it is.

Further, your constant resorting to putting words in my mouth, and thoughts in my head, is petty and completely unconstructive for debate or discussion of any kind.

What you seem to not understand is that if you put 'loyalty or lack thereof to a specific political ideology' as a justification for seizing property, that power will end up in the hands of the worst kinds of people, who follow the worst kinds of ideology. It won't be Christians seizing the lands and possessions of globalists, it will be globalists, or marxists, or whatever the next flavor of horribly degenerate godless ideology is, using that law and power to seize the possessions of Christians and anyone else who won't toe the line.

If someone is actually directly committing treasonous acts, like Jane Fonda did? Absolutely bring the hammer down on them via due process of law. But just 'doesn't support the state-mandated ideology' is not adequate reason.

Click to expand...

If I put words in your mouth I'm sorry. But can you tell me what I said that you did not say?

Marxism did not exist before the 1800's Taking property from people is not marxism otherwise taxes are marxism, and even legal fines are marxism. By saying taking wealth and power away from someone is marxism you are falling into libertarian ancap talking points.

Also the bolded part why do you believe this? This is a consevacuck lie that people on the right have swallowed hook line and sinker. Why won't it be Christian's seizing the lands and possessions of globalists? Why do you think Christianity and the right is so weak? It was not in the past. For hundreds of years Christians have seized property of heretics and it went well.

Why do you think it won't go well now? You realize negative thoughts like this can become self fulfilling prohpecies.

This whole conversation has already fallen into the trap that they want you to stumble into. Talking about wealth (without qualifiers) and talking about the government as a solution (rather than the root cause of the problem).

There's nothing wrong with wealth. There's only something wrong with ill-gained wealth. And when it's about that, the question isn't "how can we take their loot away?", because that's dealing with mere symptoms, which is precisely what they want you to do. You should instead do what they don't want you to do, which is look at causes. Here's the question you should be asking: "how did they get their ill-gained wealth in the first place... and how can we prevent that mechanism of plunder?"

Spoiler: the answer is "they got it through government patronage". So the solution of taxing the rich is never going to work, because that has to be done by the government, which they control. Radical as it seems, the only viable solution is to utterly dismantle the government and thereby terminate their cronyist system.

Don't delude yourself into thinking the government is our weapon against them. It's their weapon against us. We need to break that weapon. They try to scare you with bullshit stories about how the megacorps will take over without Big Daddy Government. Newsflash, folks: the big megacorps got so big due to the fact that they're all in league with Big Government. It's one monster, and it wants you dead. And to kill you, the cronies riding on the monster's back try to trick you into thinking that you can use the monster's left claw to destroy the monster's right claw. Result: you just get gutted twice as fast, by both claws. The monster laughs at your stupidity.

Skallagrim has described it pretty well, though his post is ambiguous on the concept of needing a certain minimally-sized government.

LordsFire said:

Skallagrim has described it pretty well, though his post is ambiguous on the concept of needing a certain minimally-sized government.

Click to expand...

I'm not fond of governments, but I don't expect we'll be rid of them anytime soon. So small one, I'll happily suffer, and consider a great improvement over the hulking terror that we see these days.

Skallagrim said:

This whole conversation has already fallen into the trap that they want you to stumble into. Talking about wealth (without qualifiers) and talking about the government as a solution (rather than the root cause of the problem).

There's nothing wrong with wealth. There's only something wrong with ill-gained wealth. And when it's about that, the question isn't "how can we take their loot away?", because that's dealing with mere symptoms, which is precisely what they want you to do. You should instead do what they don't want you to do, which is look at causes. Here's the question you should be asking: "how did they get their ill-gained wealth in the first place... and how can we prevent that mechanism of plunder?"

Spoiler: the answer is "they got it through government patronage". So the solution of taxing the rich is never going to work, because that has to be done by the government, which they control. Radical as it seems, the only viable solution is to utterly dismantle the government and thereby terminate their cronyist system.

Don't delude yourself into thinking the government is our weapon against them. It's their weapon against us. We need to break that weapon. They try to scare you with bullshit stories about how the megacorps will take over without Big Daddy Government. Newsflash, folks: the big megacorps got so big due to the fact that they're all in league with Big Government. It's one monster, and it wants you dead. And to kill you, the cronies riding on the monster's back try to trick you into thinking that you can use the monster's left claw to destroy the monster's right claw. Result: you just get gutted twice as fast, by both claws. The monster laughs at your stupidity.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this is silly nonsense it's like how liberals act about guns "It will never be used by you for your bennefit only against you by mentally ill shooters and criminals so lets get rid of all our guns!"
Government is a tool like any other you can use it's power for your bennefit, or it can be used against you.

King Arts said:

I'm sorry but this is silly nonsense it's like how liberals act about guns "It will never be used by you for your bennefit only against you by mentally ill shooters and criminals so lets get rid of all our guns!"
Government is a tool like any other you can use it's power for your bennefit, or it can be used against you.

Click to expand...

The anti-government position is, in your mind, equivalent to the pro-gun control position? That's a weird line of reasoning.

Big government = concentrated power. Small government = distributed power.

Gun control = concentrated power. Gun rights = distributed power.

This is not hard to understand.

Skallagrim said:

The anti-government position is, in your mind, equivalent to the pro-gun control position? That's a weird line of reasoning.

Big government = concentrated power. Small government = distributed power.

Gun control = concentrated power. Gun rights = distributed power.

This is not hard to understand.

Click to expand...

Gun control advocates see guns as super demon weapons where by touching one will make you a deadly mass killer.
Small government enthusiasts see anykind of powerful government as either automatically falling into the fourth reich that will oppress them.

Neither see the thing they are against as just a tool. Something that can be used for good or evil.
Guns can be used for many good purposes. A strong central government can do much good.

King Arts said:

Gun control advocates see guns as super demon weapons where by touching one will make you a deadly mass killer.
Small government enthusiasts see anykind of powerful government as either automatically falling into the fourth reich that will oppress them.

Neither see the thing they are against as just a tool. Something that can be used for good or evil.
Guns can be used for many good purposes. A strong central government can do much good.

Click to expand...

You completely miss the point. Centralised control of guns is dangerous for the same reason all centralised power is dangerous. A great concentration of power, aimed at a powerless populace, is ripe for abuse. Not a matter of 'if', but a matter of 'when'. All the good you think you'll do with it... it'll be turned to evil. Inevitably.

Like the ring of power; that was Tolkien's metaphor for this. You can't use that power for good. Not in the long term.

The only answer is to oppose great concentrations of power. What is the greatest concentration of power, by far? Government. I conclude that, essentially, big government is too dangerous to be allowed to exist.

King Arts said:

Gun control advocates see guns as super demon weapons where by touching one will make you a deadly mass killer.
Small government enthusiasts see anykind of powerful government as either automatically falling into the fourth reich that will oppress them.

Neither see the thing they are against as just a tool. Something that can be used for good or evil.
Guns can be used for many good purposes. A strong central government can do much good.

Click to expand...

This is the leftist fantasy, and history speaks out against it.

The thing you forget is this simple truth, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

If every man has a gun, then no man has exceptional power over another. If one man has all the guns, he has exceptional power over all others.

If the coercive power of the state is limited, each individual citizen has greater functional power. If the coercive power of the state is absolute, then everything any person does is subject to the whims of whoever holds that power.

And corrupt men with corrupt intentions always seek out power. They are willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get that power.

Let's use the various church organizations as an example of this.

Starting with the Catholic church, which has a horrific history of corruption, both current and past. It has taught blatantly anti-biblical things, it has hidden and supported rings of pedophiles, it has been a tool of the state, and at its height used the state as its tool to commit all kinds of crimes and atrocities. It deliberately kept people away from the knowledge of God, by discouraging or outright forbidding non-clergy from reading scripture, trying to gatekeep everything behind their own worldly power and authority.

The Catholic Church, however, was a source of power, prestige, and wealth beyond compare across the middle ages.

Let's look into more modern days, and denominations that hold no hard power, just soft power. Like the Episcopal church, for example.

Which was elevating openly homosexual bishops twenty years ago.

Which will put rainbow flags on their buildings.

Which has openly rejected the Bible as God's Word to 'stay with the times.'

And the Episcopal church is far from the only denomination to do such a thing.


If Christians, in a Christian denomination, comprised of Christian communities, with no hard power and only what wealth and prestige people voluntarily give up to the organization, cannot keep this secular degeneracy from not just infiltrating the organization, but taking over it, how on earth do you think that Christians can do that with government, which has much stronger draws and incentives to the power-hungry and corrupt?

Skallagrim said:

You completely miss the point. Centralised control of guns is dangerous for the same reason all centralised power is dangerous. A great concentration of power, aimed at a powerless populace, is ripe for abuse. Not a matter of 'if', but a matter of 'when'. All the good you think you'll do with it... it'll be turned to evil. Inevitably.

Like the ring of power; that was Tolkien's metaphor for this. You can't use that power for good. Not in the long term.

The only answer is to oppose great concentrations of power. What is the greatest concentration of power, by far? Government. I conclude that, essentially, big government is too dangerous to be allowed to exist.

Click to expand...

Except what you are saying is neo modern ideology.
Ancient Egypt did not disparage big government, neither did the Roman Empire, neither did Persia, neither did Medieval Kingdoms.

Their leaders had greater power than most modern presidents they had the power of life and death over the common man and it could be exercised on a whim.

Government must always exist because anarchy is a worse state that will just lead to warlords forming government anyway.