#Billionaires Income Tax Act

[ivygorgon]

No free rides for old money! - Pass The Billionaires Income Tax Act! (S. 3367)

I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed S. 3367 bill, which aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This legislation represents a crucial step towards achieving economic justice by seeking to eliminate tax loopholes that have allowed billionaires to defer taxes indefinitely. By doing so, we would be ensuring a fairer distribution of wealth and rectifying a system that has long favored the ultra-wealthy. Additionally, the bill modifies over 30 tax provisions, requiring billionaires to contribute annually. It's time to ensure that those with the most significant influence and wealth contribute proportionately to our society's well-being. Therefore, I urge you to support and pass the Billionaires Income Tax Act.

Billionaires have amassed vast wealth, often at the expense of their employees who struggle to make ends meet on minimum wages. It is only just and equitable that they pay their employees a living wage AND contribute proportionally to the betterment of our society.

Furthermore, if billionaires wield significant influence over our government and policy-making, they should demonstrate their commitment by financially supporting the very system that has allowed them to prosper. No longer should they enjoy free rides on the backs of hardworking taxpayers. It is past time to ensure that billionaires are contributing their fair share to the well-being of our country.

Passing the Billionaires Income Tax Act is not only a matter of fiscal responsibility but also a moral imperative. It is time to ensure that our tax system is fair and equitable for all, not just the wealthy few.

Thank you for considering my views on this important issue. I urge you to stand on the side of fairness and justice by supporting S.3367.

No free rides for old money!

📱 Text SIGN POZZVN to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW IVYPETITIONS to 50409

[sunshinestate323]

Who'd'a thunk people don't like being knocked down and robbed by the gluttonous traitorous psychos at the top of the corporate and industrial food chain...

CNBC is burying the lede in this headline though: McDonalds isn't raising the red flag for the long-term health and sustainability of humanity but for the short-term impact said looming crisis could have on their short-term profits, ergo their share price on Wall St. (and thence vis a vis their respective executive compensation packages).... picture scavengers strategizing how to hoard the biggest chunk of a rapidly diminishing pool of carrion and that's basically what this is about.

[robertreich]

Trump’s Tax Scam: Why Nothing Trickled Down 

The Trump tax cuts were a YUGE scam.

But this November we have a chance to end this trickle-down hoax once and for all.

Donald Trump’s biggest legislative achievement (if you want to even call it that) was the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The law permanently slashed corporate taxes and temporarily cut income tax rates mostly for rich individuals through the year 2025. The results were worse than I could have imagined.

Trump and his officials claimed the tax cuts would lead to corporations hiring more workers and would “very conservatively” lead to a $4,000 boost in household incomes.

What actually happened in the years since?

In AT&T’s case, the company saw its overall federal tax bill drop by 81%. It spent 31 times more on dividends and stock buybacks to enrich wealthy shareholders than it paid it in taxes. Meanwhile, it slashed over 40,000 jobs.

That was par for the course with Trump’s tax cuts.

Like AT&T, America’s biggest corporations didn’t use their tax savings to increase productivity or reward workers. Instead, they increased their stock buybacks and dividends.

Many of them, including AT&T, even ended up paying their executives more in some years than what they paid Uncle Sam.    

Those executives (along with other high earners) then got to keep more of their earnings because Trump’s tax cuts for individuals were heavily skewed toward the rich. The lowest earners? They got squat.

And many middle-income families saw their taxes go up.

And those supposed $4,000 raises, did you get one?

The bottom line is that Trump’s tax law fueled a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of the rich and powerful. Corporate profits have skyrocketed. U.S. billionaire wealth has more than DOUBLED since 2018.

The tax cuts have also added $2 trillion to the national debt so far, but that hasn’t stopped Trump and the so-called “party of fiscal responsibility” from doubling down on renewing them.

If Trump is reelected and Republicans take control of Congress, they’re planning to renew the expiring tax cuts for individuals that primarily benefited the rich. This would cost $4.6 trillion over the next decade, more than double the cost of the original tax cuts.

Trump has also threatened to lower the corporate tax rate even further from 21% to 15% — which would cost another $1 trillion.

It’s trickle-down economics on steroids.

All of this would cause the federal deficit and debt to soar — which Republicans will then use as an excuse to cut spending on government programs the rest of us rely on.

But the Democrats have their own tax plan. We can make it a reality this November. What would it do? Just the opposite of Trump’s tax plan.

ONE: It would increase taxes on wealthy individuals with incomes in excess of $400,000 a year, while cutting taxes for lower-income Americans.

TWO: It would make billionaires pay at least 25 percent of their incomes in taxes, still leaving them with plenty left over.

THREE: It would raise the corporate income tax to 28 percent, which is about what it was in 1990.

LASTLY, it would quadruple the tax on stock buybacks to get corporations to invest more of their earnings in workers’ wages and productivity instead of windfalls for investors.

So the real choice is between the Republicans’ plan to make the rich much richer, and the Democrats’ plan to make the rich pay their fair share and provide what Americans need.

Which do you want?

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Corporate Bullshit

I'm coming to BURNING MAN! On TUESDAY (Aug 27) at 1PM, I'm giving a talk called "DISENSHITTIFY OR DIE!" at PALENQUE NORTE (7&E). On WEDNESDAY (Aug 28) at NOON, I'm doing a "Talking Caterpillar" Q&A at LIMINAL LABS (830&C).

Corporate Bullshit: Exposing the Lies and Half-Truths That Protect Profit, Power, and Wealth in America is Nick Hanauer, Joan Walsh and Donald Cohen's 2023 book on the history of corporate apologetics; it's great:

https://thenewpress.com/books/corporate-bullsht

I found out about this book last fall when David Dayen reviewed it for the The American Prospect; Dayen did a great job of breaking down its thesis, and I picked it up for my newsletter, which prompted Hanauer to send me a copy, which I finally got around to reading yesterday (I have gigantic backlog of reading):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/27/six-sells/#youre-holding-it-wrong

The authors' thesis is that the business world has a well-worn playbook that they roll out whenever anything that might cause industry to behave even slightly less destructively is proposed. What's more, we keep falling for it. Every time we try to have nice things, our bosses – and their well-paid Renfields – dust off their talking points from the last go-round, do a little madlibs-style search and replace, and bust it out again.

It's a four-stage plan:

I. First, insist that there is no problem.

Enslaved people are actually happy. Smoking doesn't cause cancer. Higher CO2 levels are imaginary and they're caused by sunspots and they're good for crop yields. The hole in the ozone layer is only a problem if you foolishly decide to hang around outside (this is real!).

II. OK, there's a problem, but it's your fault.

An epidemic of on-the-job maimings is actually an epidemic of sloppy workers. A gigantic housing crash is really a gigantic cohort of greedy, feckless borrowers. Rampant price gouging is actually a problem of too much "spending power" (that is, "money") in the hands of working people.

III. Any attempt to fix this will make it worse.

Equal wages for equal work will cause bosses to fire women and people of color. Protecting people with disabilities will cause bosses to fire disable people. Minimum wages will cause bosses to buy machines and fire "unskilled" workers. Gun control will only increase underground gun sales. Banning carcinogenic pesticides will end agriculture as we know and we'll all starve to death.

IV. This is socialism.

Income tax is socialism. Estate tax is socialism. Medicare and Medicaid are socialism. Food stamps are socialism. Child labor laws are socialism. Public education is socialism. The National Labor Relations Act is socialism. Unions are socialism. Social security is socialism. The Fair Labor Standards Act is socialism. Obamacare is socialism. The Civil Rights Act is socialism. The Occupational Health and Safety Act is socialism. The Family Medical Leave Act is socialism. FDR is a socialist. JFK is a socialist. Lyndon Johnson is a socialist. Carter is a socialist. Clinton is a socialist. Obama is a socialist. Biden is a socialist (Biden: "I beat the socialist. That's how I got the nomination").

Though this playbook has been in existence since the nation's founding, the authors point out that from the New Deal until the Reagan era, it didn't get much traction. But starting in the Reagan years, the well-funded network of billionaire-backed think-tanks, endowed economics chairs, and latter-day propaganda vehicles like Prageru breathed new life into these tactics.

We can see this playing out right now as the corporate world scrambles for a response to the Harris campaign's proposal to address price-gouging. Reading Matt Stoller's dissection of this response, we can see the whole playbook on display:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-price-gouging-vs

First, corporate apologists insisted that greedflation didn't exist, despite the fact that CEOs kept getting on earnings calls and boasting to their investors about how they were using the excuse of inflation to jack up prices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/11/price-over-volume/#pepsi-pricing-power

Or the oil CEOs who boasted that the Russian invasion of Ukraine gave them cover to just screw us at the pump:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/15/sanctions-financing/#soak-the-rich

There are all these out-in-the-open commercial entities whose sole purpose is to "advise" large corporations about their prices, which is just a barely disguised euphemism for price-fixing, from meat-packing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/04/dont-let-your-meat-loaf/#meaty-beaty-big-and-bouncy

To rents:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/24/gouging-the-all-seeing-eye/#i-spy

That's stage one: "there's no problem." Stage two is "it's your fault." That's Larry Summers and co insisting that a couple of stimulus checks a couple years ago are responsible for inflation, because it gave you too much "buying power," and so the only possible fix is to jack up interest rates and trigger mass layoffs and sharp wage decreases across the economy:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/14/medieval-bloodletters/#its-the-stupid-economy

Stage three is "any attempt to fix this will make it worse." When Isabella Weber pointed out that there was a long history of price-controls being used to fight price-gouging, corporate apologists lost their minds and brigaded her, calling her all kinds of nasty names and insisting that her prescription didn't even warrant serious discussion, because any attempt to control prices would destroy the economy:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/podcasts/lately/article-the-millennial-economist-who-took-on-the-world/

You may recognize this as cousin to the response to rent control proposals, which inevitably trigger a barrage of economists screaming that this will not work and will actually reduce the housing supply and drive up prices, which is true, provided that you ignore all evidence and history:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/16/mortgages-are-rent-control/#housing-is-a-human-right-not-an-asset

And stage four is "this is socialism." Look, I am a literal card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America and I can assure you, Kamala Harris is not a socialist (and more's the pity). But that didn't stop the most eminently guillotineable members of the investor class from hair-on-fire, ALL-CAPS denunciations of the Harris proposal as SOCIALISM and Harris herself as a COMMUNIST:

https://twitter.com/Jason/status/1824580470052725055

The author's thesis is that by naming the playbook and giving examples of it – for example, showing how the "proof" that minimum wage increases will destroy jobs was also offered as "proof" not to abolish slavery, ban child labor, add fireproofing to textile factories, and pay women and Black people the same as white guys – we can vaccinate ourselves against it.

Certainly, we've reached a moment where the public is increasingly skeptical of claims that we can't fix anything because the economists say that this is the best of all possible worlds, and if that means that we're all going to boil to death in our own skin, so be it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/economism/#what-would-i-do-if-i-were-a-horse

In other words, after 40 years of subordinating politics to economics, there's a resurgence of belief in politics – that is, doing stuff – rather than hunkering down and waiting for the technocrats to fix everything:

https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/seeing-like-a-matt

Corporate Bullshit is a brisk and bracing read – I got through it in about an hour in my hammock yesterday – and, in laying out the bullshit playbook's long history of nonsensical predictions and pronouncements, it does make a very good case that we should stop listening to people who quote from it.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/19/apologetics-spotters-guide/#narratives

[15-lizards]

ASOIAF modern AU class/wealth distinctions bc in the wise words of Mod Sam from the Inn at The Crossroads Discord: “i love modern aus where theyre like oh yeah the lannisters are filthy rich and here's the starks, piling into a minivan to go to public school. they would not fucking do that”

Lannisters: Private jets and COO/CEO/CFO positions at the family company and plain white tshirts that cost $5000. 1% of the 1%. They’re the Roys we already know this no need to elaborate.

Starks: they’re a rugged type of Minnesota/North Dakota/Wyoming wealth. Land rich. Own ranches and mining operations and oil drilling companies. Ppl think they’re normal bc they look like average farmers until they get a tour of their 300,000 acres and private mountain. Seem down to earth but grew up breeding ranch horses, don’t really understand what a car note is, and Nedcat paid for all the starklings college apartments. Also wear normal looking vests and ranching jeans and boots that cost absurd amounts

Tyrells: masters at the “quiet wealth” bullshit. Wayyyy older money compared to the Lannisters, and aren’t aggressive/scrappy like them bc of it. Literal aristocracy like lords or barons or some shit. Multiple residences, family tradition of politics, and loads of passive income. Maybe run a newspaper or two and own some global shipping companies bc of their merchant roots or whatever. Margaery was at one of those international debutante balls for the ubër-wealthy.

Tullys: Not as rich as the Tyrells or Lannisters but still nothing to scoff at. Not upper middle class but more like lower rungs of the upper class. Family tradition of sending all the kids to boarding school (that’s where Lysa got pregnant 🙂‍↕️) and they have some nice yachts and the like. Have one really nice permanent house on the river, a summer house upstate, and an apartment in the city. Normal enough to blend in with most people at their school. Also made their money thru shipping lanes.

Martells: Southern oil barons. Nymeria emigrated over and immediately discovered oil on her apparently shitty piece of land. Thousands of acres dedicated to drilling and cattle ranching. Awful for the environment but greenwash the fuck out of their business. Good at being a man of the ppl despite literally being in the one percent. Very publicly donate to progressive charities and causes to offset the backlash they get from pay the people who work for them slave wages. People stan them on Twitter because they’re hot and not like other billionaires.

Baratheons: slightly newer money but old enough to have no excuse to act the way they do. Loud annoying displays of wealth. Made their fortune mostly because they were good at being overly aggressive when it came to the stock market or sales or smthn idk what they do. Robert buys an egregious house in Florida where him and some other rich repulsive republicans do Labor Day weekend on their yachts with women they paid to be there. Absolutely terrible at saving their money (except Stannis and kinda Renly) and quite literally have to have their accounts frozen by their investment bankers. Actively going bankrupt.

Greyjoys: Not even rich anymore. Had a sizable shipping company at one point before they got poached bought out by the Lannisters. Also they engaged in too much tax fraud and embezzlement so now no one wants to touch them with a ten foot pole. Still live in their dilapidated cliffside house that’s literally ab to crumble into the sea. Theon got to live with the Starks bc once the Greyjoys got audited Ned felt bad.

Targaryens: REAL old money that stretches back like at least 500 years. Have had multiple income sources over the years and almost all of it is blood money of some kind and extracted through violence :) Giant ass portraits of their ancestors in their multiple residences, they all speak Valyrian at home, and they don’t even go to school it’s just private tutors. Obscene wealth that isn’t even fathomable to most people. Famously bred race horses and hunting dogs for a while until there was some familial infighting about ownership of the racetracks and stables and that collapsed. Got audited and investigated twenty years ago and Aerys just killed himself instead of going to jail.

[phoenixyfriend]

I have a tax structure concept in my mind and I'm not sure if it would even function as a policy but. I am rotating it.

So one of the reasons a lot of wealthy people get away with paying minimal taxes is because a lot of their money is tied up in investments, so their net worth can be 2 billion but they're only paying taxes on the $400k they make in a year because they aren't actively selling the investments, right?

I think that a possible partial solution to this is that the tax rate is based on the net worth. You don't tax the investments themselves, necessarily, but if your net worth is… IDK over 10mil, your effective tax rate on your income is 90%, even if the annual income itself is something like 200k.

It still not a great solution to billionaires existing, but it does introduce some kind of penalty for amassing wealth.

It also, admittedly, has minimal effect on people who act as though they've made all of 10k because they supposedly lost more money than they earned. [Side-eyes Warren Buffet]

It's like… idk. It's a policy concept that I haven't thought through but has probably been trialed somewhere in the world.

It would probably result in them moving assets offshore to try and hide them from the government, or putting them into a 'philanthropic foundation' or something.

Thoughts? I haven't looked into whether it's been implemented with any success in other parts of the world.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 4, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Sep 05, 2024

Long tonight, folks, but it’s been quite a day. And even still, I did not mention the day’s horrific shooting at a Georgia school.

Today, Vice President Kamala Harris announced a series of proposals to help entrepreneurs create small businesses. Like President Joe Biden, she and her running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz, argue that small businesses and entrepreneurs are the “engines of our economy.” In a statement today, they noted that “small businesses employ half of all private-sector workers in America—creating 70 percent of net new jobs since 2019—and do trillions of dollars of business every year.”

The Biden administration has boasted of the record number of new businesses created since Biden and Harris took office. There have been 19 million new business applications in that time. Harris said she and Walz are setting a goal of 25 million new business applications in their first term. Their plan, they say, is to “kickstart…more young, small, and innovative firms.”

To make this happen, they propose raising the deduction for startup expenses from its current level of $5,000 to $50,000, noting that the average amount a new business spends to get set up in its first year of operation is $40,000. They also propose funding a network of new and existing “federal, state, local, and private incubators and small business innovation hubs” that will make it easier for small business and local suppliers to get technical assistance, funding, customers, and so on. 

They also promised to make low-interest and no-interest loans available for small businesses, to protect and expand the support of the Affordable Care Act for small business owners, and to guarantee that one third of federal contract money will go to small businesses. They promise to make it easier for small businesses to file taxes, reduce excessive occupational licensing requirements, and urge state and local governments to cut the red tape of burdensome regulations by streamlining them across jurisdictions. 

Harris and Walz said they are committed to making the investments that will build the economy while also paying for them and reducing the deficit. “They also know,” their statement said, that “we need to support America as a locus of innovators, entrepreneurs, and workers coming together to create a better future.  

Harris calls this a New Way Forward, but it is curiously close to the old Republican reforms of the Progressive Era, when entrepreneurs joined forces with workers and farmers to demand access to capital and a fair economic playing field after decades in which a few wealthy industrialists stacked the system in their own favor. When we look at that era, as well as the New Deal reforms of the 1930s, we tend to emphasize reforms designed to benefit workers and farmers, but members of those groups always allied with entrepreneurs shut out of the system by wealthy industrialists. The demand for securities and exchange law in the 1930s, for example, did not come from western farmers, but from entrepreneurs who knew they could not break into the system if established businesses made up the rules amongst themselves.

Harris recalled that Republican reform impulse when she said we must make the tax system fairer. She called for rolling back Trump’s tax cuts and implementing common-sense tax reforms for corporations and the richest Americans. She calls for setting a minimum income tax for billionaires, the corporate tax rate to 28% (it was 35% before the Trump tax cuts), and quadrupling the tax on the stock buybacks that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans.

She emphasized that no one earning less than $400,000 a year will pay more in taxes under her plans, and called for a tax rate of 28% on long-term capital gains for those who earn more than a million dollars a year. This is up from the current 20% rate, but less than the 39.6% rate Biden proposed in his 2025 budget. 

A Fox News Channel host applauded some of Harris’s ideas, saying, “When a political candidate comes up with what I think is a good idea, I have to call it a good idea. And a fifty thousand dollar…tax credit for startups or small businesses, coupled with less red tape, I’ve got to say, that is a good idea, regardless of her other tax ideas.” 

This was a nice endorsement of Harris’s policies, coming as it did after yesterday’s assessment by economists for the Goldman Sachs Group saying that the nation’s economic growth would take a hit if Trump wins, but will grow under a Harris presidency if she also has the support of a Democratic House and Senate.  

In her statement about economic policy, Harris called out Trump for supporting “himself and the biggest corporations” and noted that sixteen Nobel laureates have said that Trump’s policies would ignite inflation and trigger a recession by mid-2025. That recession, economists project, would cost more than 3 million jobs, explode the deficit, and raise costs. Harris pointed out that Project 2025 would cut funding for the Small Business Administration and make it harder for small businesses to get access to money. 

For his part, Trump has doubled down on the idea that the United States is a failing nation. For the past week he has been telling a story about a residential building in Colorado taken over by a gang from Venezuela. But it appears the story is entirely made up. Similarly, Trump on Friday said at a right-wing Moms for Liberty event that public schools in America kidnap children and operate on them to change their sex. This is bonkers, but it is bonkers in a way that deliberately demonizes Trump’s opponents.

Trump’s vision of the United States is one of darkness and carnage. As Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz said today, “It is a deliberate effort by some people to make them believe that our political system is broken. To make them believe that things are pessimistic. My God, every time I hear Donald Trump give a speech, it’s like the next screenplay for Mad Max or something. They are rooting against America.”

That bleak version of the United States, it turns out, echoes the talking points Russian handlers gave to their operatives working in the U.S. in an effort “to steer the U.S. public opinion in the right direction.” The Russians directed their U.S. employees to emphasize the following “campaign topics”: “Encroaching universal poverty. Record inflation. Halting of economic growth. Unaffordable prices for food and essential goods”; “Risk of job loss for white Americans”; “Privileges for people of color, perverts, and disabled”; “Constant lies of the [Democratic] administration about the real situation in the country”; “Threat of crime coming from people of color and immigrants”; “Overspending on foreign policy and at the interests of white US citizens”; “Constant lies to the voters by [Democrats] in power.” 

The target audience of the campaign was “[Republican] voters,” [Trump] supporters, “Supporters of traditional family values,” and “White Americans, representing the lower-middle and middle class.” The focus was in particular on “[r]esidents of "swing states whose voting results impact the outcomes of the elections more than other states. 

This information came out today when the Departments of Justice, State, and the Treasury announced sanctions against 10 individuals and 2 entities, and criminal charges against two employees of RT, a Russian state-controlled media outlet, who allegedly funded a company in the U.S. to hire right-wing social media influencers to push Russian propaganda before the 2024 election. 

While the indictment does not name the Tennessee-based company the Russians funded, it appears to be Tenet Media, a company registered by Liam Donovan and Lauren Tam, who is associated with The Blaze and Turning Point USA, as well as RT. The two appear to be married. The indictment alleges that the company’s two founders knew they were working for the Russians, but suggests the six commentators—Lauren Southern, Tim Pool, Tayler Hansen, Matt Christiansen, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson, all staunch Trump supporters—did not know where their massive paychecks originated. After the story broke, five of the commentators denied any knowledge of the source of the company’s funding; some insisted their words were entirely their own. 

One of the videos the company pushed at the request of the Russians was what appears to have been right-wing host Tucker Carlson’s visit to a grocery store in Russia where he praised the low prices (which even the company’s founders thought “just feels like overt shilling”).

Separately, the Department of Justice seized 32 internet domains that “the Russian government and Russian sponsored actors” have used to influence the 2024 election. In a malign influence campaign called “Doppelganger,” these domains produced fake articles that appeared to be from major U.S. news sites, to which influencers and fake social media profiles on Facebook, X, Truth Social, and YouTube then drove traffic. 

Russian operatives called in bold type for Russia “to put a maximum effort to ensure that the [Republican] point of view (first and foremost, the opinion of [Trump] supporters) wins over the US public opinion. This includes provisions on peace in Ukraine in exchange for territories, the need to focus on the problems of the US economy, returning troops home from all over the world, etc.”

One of the documents produced in the affidavit justifying the seizure of the internet domains called for trying to stir up a conflict between the U.S. and Mexico in order to distract from the fact that the U.S. economy is “very healthy” under Biden.

Tonight, in an interview with Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity, Trump appeared to think he is running against Joe Biden. An internal email leaked to the press from the Trump campaign showed managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles warning staff not to communicate with the press and suggested anyone doing so would be fired.

Today, Steph Curry of California’s Golden State Warriors basketball team and former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president. “Endorsing Kamala Harris is important for me and my family,” Curry said. “Knowing Kamala and having been around her, I understand she's qualified for this job."

“There was never a doubt that the courageous Liz Cheney would endorse Vice President Harris,” conservative judge J. Michael Luttig wrote, “because  Liz Cheney stands for America.  She is the very embodiment of country over party and country over self.  And she fears no one—least of all the former president.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[darkmaga-returns]

By now, we are all aware of the plans of the mad scientists and billionaires to cover (CO2 absorbing) pasture and crop land with onshore wind turbines and solar plants. We are also aware of the intent to remove livestock – cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens – so that we ear bugs and ay land not polluted with solar panels and wind turbines is returned to nature for “rewilding”. We have seen how, in the UK, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is a huge sponsor of wind turbines that kill birds.

Here is an article that highlights the continuing war on farmers in the UK – via the inheritance tax that taxes unrealised capital gains – forcing the farms to be sold if there is insufficient cash to pay the inheritance tax calculated by bureaucrats.

Pay particular attention to the verbiage here:

“Inheritors will have to pay 20% of the value of the agricultural and business property above £1million. Having tax exemptions currently costs "about £1bn a year for taxpayers", according to Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones.”

“Taxation exemption costs…”!!! Hey Mr Jones, it’s not your effing money! What you are doing is not “closing an exemption”, it is imposing a tax that did not previously exist! The argument here s that “society” is being cheated by people who have accumulated wealth in the value of farms – regardless of the ups and downs of the land owned by the farm or whether the value is in livestock or solar panels/wind turbines!

All taxation is theft. No money paid to the State is the State’s by right – it is a privilege granted by voters.

In my view, VAT is a tax imposed on the country in order for it to join the EU. The UK is no longer in the EU, ergo, VAT should be abolished. It acts as a trade tariff for imports and has increased the cost of living by its percentage rate.

Mind you, it is also my view that government spending, especially on health, needs to be reduced by at least half and that taxation should be simplified to abolish ALL customs and excise duties, tobacco or alcohol taxes, or road taxes, TV license fees and there should be a flat corporate and income tax rate of 15% with NO ALLOWANCES. Vote for me!

[hillaryisaboss]

I care about the issues, the policies, & the administration — I don’t care about age or a single 90-minute debate performance — I care about the performance as President.

Democrats are acting like our nominee just became a convicted felon & that we should abandon him… oh wait… Republicans rallied to Trump after he became a felon because they (for better or worse) like that Trump will continue gun policies that kill school children, ban abortion nationwide, ruin the climate & our planet, steal seats on the Supreme Court, give billionaires tax-breaks, & deny healthcare to millions of low-income children.

Trump refused to admit he lost the Presidency in 2020 & sent a mob to the White House to overturn the election results. I’ll pick “old” over *THAT* any day of the week.

[mariacallous]

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act brought a major overhaul to U.S. tax code. The corporate tax rate was slashed to 21% from 35%, individual income tax rates were cut, and the standard deduction was increased.

Now, analysis in 2018 found that the cuts would boost the economy, but the effect would fizzle out quickly. And the price tag would be huge. The bill is expected to add nearly $2 trillion to the deficit by 2028.

Many of the household tax reforms included in the bill expire in 2025, meaning that whoever wins the election will have the opportunity to either fight to extend the legislation or let it lapse.

Trump has shown interest in making his tax rules permanent. Biden would likely preserve some of the tax cuts, namely those benefitting households making less than $400,000 a year.

The cuts have the largest benefits for the wealthy and for small business owners, but there are also provisions that benefit middle-income Americans like the increased standard deduction and Child Tax Credit.

An important effect of extending the 2017 tax cuts is that it’s estimated to cost an extra $3.8 trillion over the next decade. Without significantly cutting services, the federal debt would balloon to 211% of GDP by 2054, compared to about 100% of GDP right now.

Trump has actually pledged to make even more tax cuts – if that happens, obviously the deficit would grow even faster and the debt would be even larger.

Biden’s proposed alternatives include several programs to lower taxes for those making under $400,000 a year while also raising taxes on corporations and wealthier Americans. Efforts to target corporations include raising the corporate tax rate to 28%, increasing enforcement of tax avoidance by multinationals, and quadrupling the stock buyback tax.

His plan would also affect the highest-earning Americans, including a 25% minimum income tax on billionaires. All together, Biden’s policies would raise about $5 trillion in revenue by 2034.

While there is some overlap between the two candidate���s goals, the long-term effects on the federal debt and deficits couldn’t be more different.

[no-passaran]

As environmental, social and humanitarian crises escalate, the world can no longer afford two things: first, the costs of economic inequality; and second, the rich. Between 2020 and 2022, the world’s most affluent 1% of people captured nearly twice as much of the new global wealth created as did the other 99% of individuals put together, and in 2019 they emitted as much carbon dioxide as the poorest two-thirds of humanity. In the decade to 2022, the world’s billionaires more than doubled their wealth, to almost US$12 trillion. The evidence gathered by social epidemiologists, including us, shows that large differences in income are a powerful social stressor that is increasingly rendering societies dysfunctional. For example, bigger gaps between rich and poor are accompanied by higher rates of homicide and imprisonment. They also correspond to more infant mortality, obesity, drug abuse and COVID-19 deaths, as well as higher rates of teenage pregnancy and lower levels of child well-being, social mobility and public trust. Bullying among schoolchildren is around six times as common in more-unequal countries. The homicide rate in the United States — the most unequal Western democracy — is more than 11 times that in Norway. Imprisonment rates are ten times as high, and infant mortality and obesity rates twice as high. These problems don’t just hit the poorest individuals, although the poorest are most badly affected. Even affluent people would enjoy a better quality of life if they lived in a country with a more equal distribution of wealth, similar to a Scandinavian nation. They might see improvements in their mental health and have a reduced chance of becoming victims of violence; their children might do better at school and be less likely to take dangerous drugs. The costs of inequality are also excruciatingly high for governments. For example, the Equality Trust, a charity based in London, estimated that the United Kingdom alone could save more than £100 billion ($126 billion) per year if it reduced its inequalities to the average of those in the five countries in the OECD that have the smallest income differentials — Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands. And that is considering just four areas: greater number of years lived in full health, better mental health, reduced homicide rates and lower imprisonment rates. Many commentators have drawn attention to the environmental need to limit economic growth and instead prioritize sustainability and well-being. Here we argue that tackling inequality is the foremost task of that transformation. Greater equality will reduce unhealthy and excess consumption, and will increase the solidarity and cohesion that are needed to make societies more adaptable in the face of climate and other emergencies. (...)

The scientific evidence is stark that reducing inequality is a fundamental precondition for addressing the environmental, health and social crises the world is facing. It’s essential that policymakers act quickly to reverse decades of rising inequality and curb the highest incomes. First, governments should choose progressive forms of taxation, which shift economic burdens from people with low incomes to those with high earnings, to reduce inequality and to pay for the infrastructure that the world needs to transition to carbon neutrality and sustainability. (...) International agreements to close tax havens and loopholes must be made. Corporate tax avoidance is estimated to cost poor countries $100 billion per year — enough to educate an extra 124 million children and prevent perhaps 8 million maternal and infant deaths annually. (...) Bans on advertising tobacco, alcohol, gambling and prescription drugs are common internationally, but taxes to restrict advertising more generally would help to reduce consumption. Energy costs might also be made progressive by charging more per unit at higher levels of consumption. Legislation and incentives will also be needed to ensure that large companies — which dominate the global economy — are run more fairly. For example, business practices such as employee ownership, representation on company boards and share ownership, as well as mutuals and cooperatives, tend to reduce the scale of income and wealth inequality. (...)

More in-depth explanation for the reasons behind the fragment I've included in this post can be found in the article linked above, as well as the sources for all the claims.

[tomorrowusa]

Trump's economic proposals make "voodoo economics" look totally legit.

And if you disagree with Trump, you're obviously a communist.

All U.S. economists are communists now, says the GOP. Who knew?

Apparently, nearly every economist in America is a communist now. At least so says the Republican National Committee. Anna Kelly, an RNC spokeswoman, recently declared: “The notion that tariffs are a tax on U.S. consumers is a lie pushed by outsourcers and the Chinese Communist Party.”

Never mind that Trump called Xi Jinping the "greatest Chinese leader in 300 years".

Kelly was responding to warnings from legions of economists that Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs would be paid by regular Americans. Their conclusion is based in part on the former president’s previous rounds of trade wars; multiple careful studiesfound that the costs of those tariffs were either mostly or entirely passed on to Americans in the form of higher prices. A more recent analysis estimated that his new tariff proposals would cost the median U.S. household an additional $1,700 per year.

Trump has some nitwits thinking that he will singlehandedly reduce the price of steak to 29¢ a pound. In fact, Trump policies would be a burden on consumers – except filthy rich ones.

But the modern GOP being what it is, party apparatchiks must defend every bone-headed idea their presumptive presidential nominee utters. Thus, critics must be “outsourcers” (which seems unlikely for most economists, who rarely own manufacturing plants) or, naturally, Marxists. The expected costs of Trump’s recent tariff proposals would be staggering. For example, his plan for a universal 10 percent tariff coupled with a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods would more than wipe out any savings most Americans would get from extending his 2017 income tax cuts, according to estimates from the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The bottom 80 percent of households would see a tax increase on net.

We have a chance to ditch Trump's tax breaks for the filthy rich if Trump isn't elected. Of course Trump would brefer to keep those tax breaks - that's why a majority of billionaires support him.

As a main source of revenue, tariffs are so pre-industrial. The Republican Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 made the Great Depression worse than it had to be.

Using high tariffs to replace taxes on the rich is regressive.

The math required for this to work would be nearly impossible. Right now, federal income taxes raise about $3 trillion per year. That means repealing them would leave a $3 trillion revenue hole to fill. But the entire value of all the goods we import each year is itself about $3 trillion. Not the tariffs, mind you, but the goods themselves. Trump could try to levy tariffs of 100 percent on every import, but remember that imports would decline as taxes on them rose. So even a global 100 percent tariff wouldn’t raise enough money. It would, however, cripple the U.S. economy, worsen inflation, make the tax system much more regressive and invite retaliation from our allies.

Trump is an idiot who declared bankruptcy six times. He is not an ingenious businessman but merely portrayed one on TV – with lots of help from editing of scenes.

[kick-the-clouds]

The Ultra-Wealthy are Parasites

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. It's not just a saying; it's a harsh reality that's tearing our society apart. Imagine a world where a handful of people have more money than they could spend in a thousand lifetimes, while millions struggle to put food on the table. This is our world, and it's getting worse every day.

Billionaires aren't just wealthy; they're wealth hoarders. Since 2020, the top 1% have snatched up nearly two-thirds of all new wealth created globally. That's like taking 63 slices of a 100-slice pie, leaving only 37 for everyone else. And this pie isn't getting bigger for most people. While CEO pay skyrocketed by over 900% from 1978 to 2018, regular workers saw a measly 11.9% increase. The math is simple: the gap is widening at an alarming rate.

The damage spreads like a disease through generations. Children born into poverty are likely to stay poor. Their parents can't afford good education or healthcare. They grow up in neighborhoods with fewer opportunities. The cycle continues, and the wealth gap becomes a chasm. It's a mathematical certainty: compound interest works for the rich, while compound disadvantage crushes the poor.

Environmental devastation follows the money trail. The wealthiest 1% produce twice as much carbon emissions as the poorest half of humanity. Climate change hits the poor hardest, creating a vicious cycle. Floods destroy homes. Droughts kill crops. The rich can adapt, but the poor suffer. Over time, this environmental injustice multiplies, creating climate refugees and exacerbating global inequality.

Democracy itself is under siege. Billionaires buy influence like it's on sale. They fund campaigns, lobby for laws, and shape public opinion through media ownership. One dollar, one vote becomes the unspoken rule. The will of the many is drowned out by the wallets of the few. Year after year, this erodes the foundation of our society, turning democracy into a plutocracy.

The numbers are staggering, the human cost immeasurable. A mere 5% tax on the ultra-rich could raise $1.7 trillion annually. That's enough to lift 2 billion people out of poverty. Instead, we watch as the middle class shrinks, with their share of income falling from 62% to 43% in just five decades. Each year this continues, millions more fall into despair.

It's not just inhumane; it's mathematically unsustainable. Like a game of Monopoly, it ends with one player owning everything. But unlike a game, we can't just reset the board. The devastation accumulates, compounding like interest on a debt we can never repay. Families fall into poverty. Communities crumble. Entire regions become wastelands of lost potential.

We must act now. Every day we wait, the problem grows exponentially. The math is clear, the story it tells is heartbreaking. We're not just losing money; we're losing lives, dreams, and the very fabric of our society. It's time to rewrite this story, to use math for good, to calculate a future where everyone has a chance to thrive. The alternative is too cruel to contemplate.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Here are just two of the corporate giveaways hidden in the rushed, must-pass, end-of-year budget bill

Yesterday, Congress finally voted through the must-pass, end-of-year budget bill. As has become routine, this bill was stalled right until the final moment, so that Congressjerks could cram the 4,000-page, $1.7 trillion package with special favors for their donors, at the expense of the rest of the country.

This year’s budget package included a couple of especially egregious doozies, which were reported out for The American Prospect by Lee Harris (who covered a grotesque retirement giveaway for the ultra-rich) and Doraj Facundo (who covered a safety giveaway to Boeing and its lethal fleet of 737 Max airplanes).

Let’s start with the retirement scam. The budget bill includes Rep Richie Neal’s [DINO-MA] SECURE Act 2.0, which gives savers with retirement funds until age 75 to cash out their retirement savings — netting an extra three years of tax-free growth for the lucky, tiny minority with substantial retirement savings. This follows on Neal’s SECURE Act 1.0 of 2019, when the age was raised from 70.5 to 72.

The tax-exempt retirement savings account is a Carter-era bargain that replaced real pensions — ones that guaranteed that you wouldn’t starve or freeze to death when you retired — with accounts that let people gamble on the stock market, to be the suckers at Wall Street’s poker table:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/25/derechos-humanos/#are-there-no-poorhouses

The market-based gambler’s pension is a catastrophic failure. Half of Americans have no retirement savings. Of the half that have any savings, the vast majority have almost nothing saved:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scf/dataviz/scf/chart/#series:Retirement_Accounts;demographic:all;population:all;units:have

All in all, America has a $7 trillion retirement savings shortfall:

https://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/IB_19-16.pdf

But for a tiny minority of the ultra-rich, tax-free savings accounts like ROTH IRAs are a means of avoiding even the paltry capital gains tax that you have to pay if you own things for a living, rather than doing things for a living. Propublica’s IRS Files revealed how ghouls like Peter Thiel avoided tax on billions in “passive income” by abusing tax-free savings accounts that were supposed to benefit the “middle class”:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/26/wax-rothful/#thiels-gambit

Meanwhile, Social Security is crumbling, thanks to a sustained attack on it by the business lobby and its friends in both parties. Progressive Dems had sought to amend SECURE Act 2.0 by inserting some clauses to shore up Social Security, and none of these were included in the final bill.

One of the fixes that died was the Savings Penalty Elimination Act, introduced by Senators Sherrod Brown [D-OH] and Rob Portman [R-OH]. This act would have tweaked the means-testing for Supplemental Security Income, which supports 8m low-income disabled adults and kids. Right now, you can’t collect SSI if you have $2k in the bank, a limit that hasn’t been adjusted for inflation since the 1980s (adjusted for inflation, $2k in 1980 is $7226.00 in 2022).

The $2k savings cap means that you have to be substantially below the poverty level to receive $585/month in SSI assistance — this being the only source of income for the majority of SSI recipients. Means-testing is a self-immolating fetish for corporate Dems and in retrospect, this betrayal seems inevitable:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/03/utopia-of-rules/#in-triplicate

(Notice how no one proposes means-testing billionaires when they get PPP loans or hundreds of millions in IRS “refunds” — like Trump, who paid substantially less tax than you did:)

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/21/trump-income-tax-returns-detailed-in-new-report-.html

And it was a betrayal: progressive Dems bargained with Neal and co not to publicly condemn SECURE Act 2.0 if they could get some concessions for the 8 million poorest disabled people in America. In the end, Neal rug-pulled them. Of course he did! This is Richie Fucking Neal, the best friend the Trump tax giveaway ever had:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/13/youre-still-the-product/#richie-neal

As with everything Neal touches, this screws poor people in multiple ways. First, it leaves the SSI cap intact. But it also creates a giant unfunded liability in the federal budget. Technically, there’s no reason this should lead to cuts. The US Treasury can’t run out of dollars, and giveaways to the rich are only mildly inflationary, since rich people put their money in the bank and mostly spend it on buying politicians, not goods.

But because of the delusion that currency producers like the US Treasury have the same constraints as currency users like you and me, Congress will need to come up with “Pay Fors” in future budgets to “make up for” the money they’re giving to rich people with SECURE Act 2.0. Dollars to toenail clippings, they’ll do that by hacking away at the tattered remains of the US social safety net.

Fear not, you don’t need to be a desperately poor disabled person or child to get fucked over by late additions to a 4,000 page must-pass bill! If you can afford to get on an airplane, Congress has something for you, too!

Remember when Boeing (the monopoly US airplane manufacturer that squandered $43b on stock buybacks and had to borrow $14b from the US public to survive the pandemic) told the FAA that it could self-certify its 737 Max airplanes, and then killed hundreds and hundreds of people with its defective planes?

https://pluralistic.net/2020/03/12/boeing-crashes/#boeing

The 737 Max was unsafe for many reasons, but one glaring factor was the fact that Boeing sold some of its core safety as “extras” — like they were downloadable content for your Fortnite character — leading to multiple crashes in which all lives were lost:

https://apnews.com/article/ethiopia-indonesia-accidents-ap-top-news-international-news-140576a8e9d4449eae646c8c479fdc3a

Boeing was forced to take the 737 Max out of service, but it eventually brought the plane back, “fixing” the problems by renaming the “737 Max” to the “737 8”:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/08/20/dubious-quantitative-residue/#737-8

Supposedly, Boeing has been diligently working on fixing the problems with its defective jets that can’t be addressed by a rebranding campaign. This wasn’t voluntary: the 2020 Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act required Boeing — and every other manufacturer whose aircraft were certified by the FAA — to meet new minimum safety standards by December 27, 2022.

Every manufacturer met that deadline, except Boeing, and someone amended the budget bill to give the company three more years to meet these security standards. Critically, the new security measures, when they come, will be certified by an FAA that Republicans will control, thanks to the House changing hands.

https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/government-spending-bill-waives-aircraft-safety-deadline/

Boeing is slated to ship 1,000 new 737 Maxes, which will fetch $50b for the company. Many of these planes will fly directly over my house, which is on the approach path for Burbank airport. Southwest Air flies dozens of 737 Maxes right over my roof every single day.

As Facundo points out, the FAA can ill afford any more hits to its credibility. It was once the case that if the FAA certified an aircraft, every other country in the world would waive any further certification, so trusting were they of the FAA’s judgment. That is no longer the case: today, the European Aviation Safety Agency does its own aircraft testing, holding jets that enter EU airspace to a higher standard than the FAA does for US planes.

It’s just another reminder that the US doesn’t have “corporate criminals” because the US doesn’t have any meaningful enforcement for corporate crimes. In America, we love our companies like we love our billionaires: too big to fail and too big to jail:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/12/no-criminals-no-crimes/#get-out-of-jail-free-card

Image: Ryan Lee (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/190784293@N05/50862532686

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Henry Wadey (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flames_%2858765896%29.jpeg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[Image ID: A living room scene, featuring a sofa in the background and a sofa in the foreground. A man's hand reaches into the frame to lift up the corner of the sofa. A broom enters the frame to sweep a pile of dirt under the rug. Mixed in with the dirt are a crashed WWI biplane with Southwest Airlines livery, and an old lady in a rocking chair.]

[stressed-depressed-and-bored]

People always say “who is going to pay for it?” as if it’s some profound “gotcha!”

The rich. The rich can pay for it. They did in the past and they can do it again.

In the 1930s and 1940s the United States was facing a debt crisis much like todays. The government was running out of money coming out of the Great Depression and going into World War 2, and the economy wasn’t doing too well. Everything was falling apart, much like it is now. What was the solution?

And it worked. The US working middle class and the economy did awesome well through the 50s and 60s. The working middle class was wealthier than ever before and wealthier than it’s ever been. Regular people like you and me. Public infrastructure flourished. States had the budgets to build free colleges. College used to be free by the way. It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan’s advisors warned him how “dangerous” an “educated proletariat” was (those are his words), that major universities started to see cuts in public funding and had to start charging tuition.

Today, the top 1% is only taxed at 43% and has been dropping since Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Reagan also set the precedent of ignoring labor and union rights, violating both domestic (NLRA, Wagner Act) and international (United Nations bill of rights) law. This too has only ever been made worse by Republican policy as time has gone on with yet more tax cuts for the wealthy. Look up the actual policies. Don’t take a politicians word, read their actual policy. They will and do lie to you.

Do y’all understand now why the US debt is going up so fast? It’s because Trump cut that tax rate even more, amassing a whopping 20% of our current total national debt within only 4 years. The debt ceiling was raised THREE TIMES during Trump’s presidency, the uppermost tax bracket was cut even more, and massive corporate bailout loans were forgiven. Research the PPE loans. This has been Republican policy for 40+ years.

The systemic deconstruction of the middle class and the government in favor of corporate control. We are living in a repeat of the Gilded Age of the Industrial Revolution. The railroads and the banks own and control everything, including the government.

These are facts. Read it in any history book.

Or you can just ban those books too and pretend it didn’t happen. That would be a mistake though.

If you wanna know how our economy has REALLY been doing for the last 40 years, I suggest looking into the Economic Policy Institute. Or ask any working class American how they have been doing lately, especially those of us who are young, trying to make it.

Our current struggle is not caused by the “Woke Mob” as propaganda outlet Fox News will tell you.

(Do any of you even know what “woke” means? It means you are aware and attentive to the fact that systematic societal issues and flaws exist. Wether it be race issues, income issues, whatever. Being “woke” literally means you’re not a sheep who follows along anything that the media and government tell you. Thats what it means. Literally look it up. I grew up as this word came to popularity. It’s been around for a very long time. The GOP is taking advantage of the fact that you don’t know what it is, and using it as a fear mongering tactic to channel your anger at your neighbor instead of the corporations pulling the strings. It is corporate propaganda).

Our current struggle is caused by the class warfare waged by corporate scum as they buy all of our politicians in return for bailing out the government’s debt. Both left and right, our politicians have been bought. None of them work for you. They work for the big corporations lining their pockets through unlimited lobbying.

So, when y’all say “I don’t wanna pay for it”- don’t worry, you aren’t going to be paying for it. The middle class will not be paying for it. The multi-billionaire corporations stealing your labor will be paying for it. The rich goons who increase the price of your groceries and lay you off all in the name of making a few extra bucks will be paying for it.

Do some research and you’ll see exactly why and when we got into this mess.

It’s not that complicated. It really isn’t.

Tax. The. Rich.

[destinyc1020]

I think people would be able to have more savings if wasn't for student loans tbh. That whole thing is so predatory to me as an outsider. Also don't actors have to pay managers, publicists, agents etc? Its not as simple as just getting paid 1M and keeping all of it from an acting job. Then the taxes come in, where the billionaires get loopholes and those in the in the middle and lower income brackets are paying more than their fair share because of it. Bottom line everything seems to lead back to greedy ceos tbh

THANK YOU! 👏🏾

Student loans are for sure predatory! 🥴 I didn't realize it when I was going to University at the time, but after you graduate and see your paycheck get eaten up for years having to pay student loan debt, you start to recognize. 👀

Thankfully, I didn't have to incur nearly as much student loan debt as some of my peers since I had a few scholarships and govt-funded programs, but I still incurred debt!

It seems silly that the group of ppl that are just now getting out into the work force with the least amount of experience, so the least amount of pay is also the group that is already starting BEHIND the start line cuz you're getting out of college with debt. 🙄😒

Makes no sense whatsoever.

You spoke a word with this entire ask Anon. 💯