,
18 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ Taxing the rich is like audio compression.
#LearnMMT [THREAD]
Here is about ten seconds of an interview where the interviewee is very soft and the interviewer is extremely loud in comparison. (It's a recorded phone call.)
#LearnMMT [THREAD]
Here is about ten seconds of an interview where the interviewee is very soft and the interviewer is extremely loud in comparison. (It's a recorded phone call.)
2/ While listening to this, every time the interviewee speaks, you need to turn the volume up to max in order to hear them. And when the interviewer speaks, you need to jump at the volume knob to turn it all the way down. Otherwise you blast your ears and break your speakers.
3/ The problem is not that the soft parts are not loud enough. The problem is that the loud parts are just too damn loud.
The solution is not to increase the volume of the softer parts, but only to decrease the volume of the excessively loud parts.
The solution is not to increase the volume of the softer parts, but only to decrease the volume of the excessively loud parts.
4/ Reducing the overly-loud parts *reveals* the softer parts. You don't need to "move" the excess "stuff" from those who have too much, to those who have less.
Doing this stops the loud parts from blasting you out. It brings the loud and soft parts much closer together.
Doing this stops the loud parts from blasting you out. It brings the loud and soft parts much closer together.
5/ In audio production, this is called dynamic range compression, or just "compression." Specifically, decreasing the loud parts only is called "downward" compression. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_r…
6/ Here's what that same clip looks like after compression. Although the loud parts are still louder, they're not ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE louder. You no longer need your hand on the volume knob the entire time while listening.
The soft parts remain unchanged.
The soft parts remain unchanged.
7/ In other words, you don’t need to increase the least of us. You need to eliminate the obscene excess from those who have too much. This makes it so the least of us are suddenly visible/powerful/audible/etc, once again.
(before/after)
(before/after)
8/ Even after the excess of the super wealthy is removed (their power is reduced), they can still be heard just fine!
As it is, the super rich are so obscenely powerful, so very loud, our politicians have turned the volume knobs down to almost zero.
As it is, the super rich are so obscenely powerful, so very loud, our politicians have turned the volume knobs down to almost zero.
9/ Our politicians no longer realize that the rest of us – the many – exist. They need to take the time to turn up the volume and listen to *us*. They need to tell those who suck up all the oxygen, constantly shout and scream and talk over us, to tone it down.
10/ If they can’t or won’t tone it down, then perhaps we should just go ahead and do it for them.
And if our representatives won’t (or don’t want to) turn the power down of the super wealthy, then maybe we need to replace them with those who will.
And if our representatives won’t (or don’t want to) turn the power down of the super wealthy, then maybe we need to replace them with those who will.
11/ The point is this: It is impossible to “redistribute” wealth with federal taxes – and that’s okay. Here is exactly why this is true.
12/ Finally, reducing the obscene power of the super-wealthy will instantly empower the rest of us. But importantly, although critical, taxing the rich only solves wealth inequality. This is the cherry on top of the true, long-term solution:
14/14 FYI: The audio clip comes from the raw version of the excellent interview with @rohangrey, regarding #MMT and the history of money, by @eshaLegal and @historic_ly. Here's the full (compressed!) interview:
“Solves wealth inequality“ should be changed to “addresses wealth inequality.“ It’s only a step.
The importance of federal taxes in general.
To clarify, taxing the rich in this way does not *directly* “redistribute” wealth. That is, it does not take money from the rich and “give it” to the poor. But after that wealth is removed from the rich then, yes, the *remaining* wealth is indeed more equitably distributed.
This thread has been recreated and updated (@KeithCameron5):
