Why do they still have billionaires tho? I can’t imagine a reason to not tax them for 99% of their wealth, unless they’re the ones controlling the legislation.
According to the Chinese news south South China Morning News there are 81 billionaires across China’s congress, and it’s advisory board. According to Hurun Report there are 209 people across these bodies that have more than 100 million dollars. According to a variety of Chinese sources the majority of the people making up these government bodies have more than 1 million dollars. It is widely agreed China’s legislature, if not the richest, would be in second place.
To make a comparison the 50 richest people of the US congress are worth a combined 1.6 billion, and China’s top 50 are worth 95 billion. China also has a per capita amount of congress members that exceeds the US significantly in millionaires.
The richest person in US congress is Darrell Issa with 355 million
The richest person in China’s congress is Zong Qinghou with 19 billion
Billionaires simply buy American congress members. And it’s a lot harder to bribe a billionaire to do your bidding. So they keep politicians barefoot and pregnant so that they’ll always be ready to lick boots for pocket change.
The US is a notoriously wealthy legislature, so I used it to show that China’s is worse in that regards. I did this after giving information about the wealth of the Chinese legislature from Chinese sources.
I suspect you are barely literate if you took showing how much wealthier China’s congress is, than the US’s, as “but what about the US”, rather than a demonstration of why they have a strong billionaire class.
Good job saving it, at least you figured out your first reply was a bunch of bullshit and managed to retcon it into something resembling a coherent sentence.
The fact that you still have to add insults to it also tells me you might be projecting a tad about literacy. That’s okay though, it’s never late to educate yourself.
“According to the Chinese news south South China Morning News there are 81 billionaires across China’s congress, and it’s advisory board.”
This sentence means that according to Chinese estimates there are 81 billionaires in China’s legislature. That is a lot of billionaires in a legislature. To show that this is a lot I will later compare it to the US, as a demonstration of just how much it is.
“According to Hurun Report there are 209 people across these bodies that have more than 100 million dollars.” Same as before, but this time people with over 100 million dollars, which is a lot as well.
“According to a variety of Chinese sources the majority of the people making up these government bodies have more than 1 million dollars.” This is a third point showing that China’s congress is very wealthy.
“It is widely agreed China’s legislature, if not the richest, would be in second place.”
This sentence is saying that the consensuses is that China is the most, or the second most, wealthy legislature in the world.
“To make a comparison the 50 richest people of the US congress are worth a combined 1.6 billion, and China’s top 50 are worth 95 billion. China also has a per capita amount of congress members that exceeds the US significantly in millionaires.”
This compares the top 50 wealthiest of the US congress to the Chinese congress. The US being a well known legislature, who has an infamously large amount of wealth among it’s members, makes it a good example for this type of comparison. It shows China’s top 50 has much more wealth than the US’s top 50.
“The richest person in US congress is Darrell Issa with 355 million. The richest person in China’s congress is Zong Qinghou with 19 billion”
This is a comparison between the wealthiest individuals between the two legislatures, again showing China’s holds much larger wealth.
So, what part about this was so hard to parse, for you, that you came out thinking this was a “but what about the US” statement, rather than a comment saying how much wealth China’s legislature has, and that it is probably the wealthiest in the world, by using a comparison to the US’s legislature, another well known, and wealthy legislature?
Good job quoting the comment you’ve edited after my response, bud. Is it a deliberate tactic to pretend to argue against China but to be an asshole to make people side with China?
Because they have private property, and they have private property because the Marxist stance on social ownership and production is that it works far more effectively on developed industry. The commanding heights of the economy in China are publicly owned, while developing sectors are marketized so as to develop into a more fitting level for social ownership.
Why do they still have billionaires tho? I can’t imagine a reason to not tax them for 99% of their wealth, unless they’re the ones controlling the legislation.
According to the Chinese news south South China Morning News there are 81 billionaires across China’s congress, and it’s advisory board. According to Hurun Report there are 209 people across these bodies that have more than 100 million dollars. According to a variety of Chinese sources the majority of the people making up these government bodies have more than 1 million dollars. It is widely agreed China’s legislature, if not the richest, would be in second place.
To make a comparison the 50 richest people of the US congress are worth a combined 1.6 billion, and China’s top 50 are worth 95 billion. China also has a per capita amount of congress members that exceeds the US significantly in millionaires.
The richest person in US congress is Darrell Issa with 355 million The richest person in China’s congress is Zong Qinghou with 19 billion
Billionaires simply buy American congress members. And it’s a lot harder to bribe a billionaire to do your bidding. So they keep politicians barefoot and pregnant so that they’ll always be ready to lick boots for pocket change.
“But what about US” is not an answer to my question. Try again.
So you didn’t fucking read what I wrote then. Great.
I suspect I read more of it than you did, if your response is doubling down.
The US is a notoriously wealthy legislature, so I used it to show that China’s is worse in that regards. I did this after giving information about the wealth of the Chinese legislature from Chinese sources.
I suspect you are barely literate if you took showing how much wealthier China’s congress is, than the US’s, as “but what about the US”, rather than a demonstration of why they have a strong billionaire class.
Good job saving it, at least you figured out your first reply was a bunch of bullshit and managed to retcon it into something resembling a coherent sentence.
The fact that you still have to add insults to it also tells me you might be projecting a tad about literacy. That’s okay though, it’s never late to educate yourself.
“According to the Chinese news south South China Morning News there are 81 billionaires across China’s congress, and it’s advisory board.”
This sentence means that according to Chinese estimates there are 81 billionaires in China’s legislature. That is a lot of billionaires in a legislature. To show that this is a lot I will later compare it to the US, as a demonstration of just how much it is.
“According to Hurun Report there are 209 people across these bodies that have more than 100 million dollars.” Same as before, but this time people with over 100 million dollars, which is a lot as well.
“According to a variety of Chinese sources the majority of the people making up these government bodies have more than 1 million dollars.” This is a third point showing that China’s congress is very wealthy.
“It is widely agreed China’s legislature, if not the richest, would be in second place.”
This sentence is saying that the consensuses is that China is the most, or the second most, wealthy legislature in the world.
“To make a comparison the 50 richest people of the US congress are worth a combined 1.6 billion, and China’s top 50 are worth 95 billion. China also has a per capita amount of congress members that exceeds the US significantly in millionaires.”
This compares the top 50 wealthiest of the US congress to the Chinese congress. The US being a well known legislature, who has an infamously large amount of wealth among it’s members, makes it a good example for this type of comparison. It shows China’s top 50 has much more wealth than the US’s top 50.
“The richest person in US congress is Darrell Issa with 355 million. The richest person in China’s congress is Zong Qinghou with 19 billion”
This is a comparison between the wealthiest individuals between the two legislatures, again showing China’s holds much larger wealth.
So, what part about this was so hard to parse, for you, that you came out thinking this was a “but what about the US” statement, rather than a comment saying how much wealth China’s legislature has, and that it is probably the wealthiest in the world, by using a comparison to the US’s legislature, another well known, and wealthy legislature?
Good job quoting the comment you’ve edited after my response, bud. Is it a deliberate tactic to pretend to argue against China but to be an asshole to make people side with China?
Because they have private property, and they have private property because the Marxist stance on social ownership and production is that it works far more effectively on developed industry. The commanding heights of the economy in China are publicly owned, while developing sectors are marketized so as to develop into a more fitting level for social ownership.