[schmudde]

There is no innuendo. I explicitly stated the lowest hanging fruit - he barely pays taxes - as a simple example of how wealthy people use their influence to distort social systems. If you don't think that his effective tax rate hovers around 5% is a problem - well that's fine. I don't really want to debate the qualitative impact of vast concentrations of wealth on social systems and markets.

Quantitatively speaking, we can see that people in Musk's category of wealth have been increasingly effective at consolidating their wealth over the last 60 years. At least within North America and Western Europe. It looks like a deliberate effort to accumulate power - but it seems that you see this differently.

This concentration of wealth is certainly not necessary to launch a car brand. It has happened too many times over the 20th century to be true.

[zepto]

> he barely pays taxes - as a simple example of how wealthy people use their influence to distort social systems

That’s an innuendo right there.

Even if you are right that there are wealthy people (which ones?) Who have ‘distorted’ social systems (‘distorted’ from what ideal?), it’s innuendo to imply that Musk is somehow doing this, unless you have some specific evidence about his actions.

The tax system may or may not be wrong in some way which we can discuss, but that isn’t about Musk and his businesses.

Casting ‘billionaires’ as a group as all somehow bad in this way is a meaningless way to think about this. Frankly this is just political disinformation aimed at creating animus towards people rather than solutions.

A parallel would be a statement like “Activists lies harm our political discourse and increase polarization”. Equally just innuendo, and equally meaningless although superficially ‘truthy’ looking.

[schmudde]

You are willfully ignoring my quantitative statement and logical conclusion.

> people in Musk's category of wealth have been increasingly effective at consolidating their wealth over the last 60 years

This is an empirically observable fact.

> His effective tax rate hovers around 5%

This is a quantitative statement.

I combine these two facts with a theorem - these realities do not emerge by accident. They are the byproduct of an intentional effort.

Therefore:

> It is not an accident that someone can accumulate wealth and find ways not evade taxation through measures not available to other people in society.

No innuendo. Also - I explicitly refuse to inject innuendo into the argument, admitting that the "goodness" or "badness" of this sort of manipulation is difficult to prove. I think his 5% tax rate is a problem. You do not. Fine. But before we can even talk about solutions, we need to accept a baseline of reality.