Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷

49.7K posts

Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷 banner
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷

Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷

@MEVANS72

Dad, Church of Jesus Christ of LDS. Vote Blue. Realtor®. BLM. "Difference is a teacher. Fear difference, you learn nothing." H. Gadsby. He/him.

Orem, UT Bergabung Mart 2010
6.3K Mengikuti1.7K Pengikut
Tweet Disematkan
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷@MEVANS72·
He is right. I’ve spent the last three years learning as much as I can about the collapse of Russia, and Elon Musk’s recent comment about privatizing American assets to pay off our debt is the same move that the KGB et al. made in the 90s that created the Oligarchs.
Dave Troy@davetroy

1/If this country collapses, it will be because of cognitive dissonance and our refusal to believe what we don’t wish to believe. Putin is using Musk to attempt a strategic takeover of the United States, in partnership with China. They will default on US debt and…

English
65
1.8K
4.2K
187K
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷@MEVANS72·
We can also grow the pie by taxing billionaires. Done right, they can grow the pie for society (& thus create stronger consumers) & continue to grow their own wealth. McKenzie Scott started with $32 billion, has given away $26 billion so far, & is still worth between $32B & $42B
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷 tweet media
English
503
17
65
15.8K
Jeff Hard Author
Jeff Hard Author@AuthorHard·
@MEVANS72 You and those who advocate confiscating wealth would do much better encouraging those billionaires to contribute to your favored causes.
English
1
0
0
32
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷@MEVANS72·
@rodsteele11 I don’t disagree with you. Government waste is appalling. On the other hand, my aged family members rely on Medicare and Social Security, both government funded programs. I’m guessing you have relatives similarly situated. Those programs are insolvent as soon as 2032.
English
7
0
0
99
Rod Steele
Rod Steele@rodsteele11·
@MEVANS72 Yes, because governments have a long history of being great at managing money 😂
English
1
0
4
100
SanchoPanzy
SanchoPanzy@SanchoPanzy·
@MEVANS72 I don’t think many advocates of federal wealth taxes are aware that they’re pushing a policy that almost certainly wouldn’t survive the courts. If they were, they’d be advocating something else.
English
1
0
1
86
MPH
MPH@M9558750394349·
@MEVANS72 She is very generous with money she did not earn.
English
2
0
25
394
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷@MEVANS72·
@colorisoseph Precisely! That’s my point! All of these billions are generated by engines of wealth. Those don’t go away with taxation. A 1% or 2% or 3% or 4% tax on their wealth, however, generates billions of dollars for society. At no meaningful cost to the billionaire.
English
4
0
0
73
Street Herbert
Street Herbert@colorisoseph·
@MEVANS72 Ms. Scott started with $32B, gave away $26B and is still worth $32B because Jeff Bezos kept working.
English
1
0
1
74
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷@MEVANS72·
@AnneOnimus Not mutually exclusive. If you are tied to an engine of wealth creation — such as McKenzie Scott is — then you can be taxed at one or two or three or four percent of your wealth … and your wealth will still grow. So where’s the downside?
English
1
0
0
109
Anne Onimus(XY)
Anne Onimus(XY)@AnneOnimus·
@MEVANS72 Had you taxed him more, he probably could not have grown the pie as much as he has.
English
2
0
4
132
SanchoPanzy
SanchoPanzy@SanchoPanzy·
@MEVANS72 Congress can’t tax their wealth. That would be a direct tax and would have to be apportioned among the states. So it would have to either be some kind of indirect tax or an additional tax on income (which is exempted from apportionment by the 16th Amendment).
English
1
0
6
409
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷@MEVANS72·
@AmericaRus2024 Not mutually exclusive. If you are tied to an engine of wealth creation — such as McKenzie Scott is — then you can be taxed at one or two or three or four percent of your wealth … and your wealth will still grow. So where’s the downside?
English
17
0
0
355
America”R”Us
America”R”Us@AmericaRus2024·
@MEVANS72 Elon already pledged to give most of his wealth away (and ahs given away over $7 billion, plus paid over $12 billion in tax). You don't want that. You want the government to take it so it can be funneled to the oligarchs and donor class.
English
2
0
18
373
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷@MEVANS72·
@chrisstets Not the billionaire pie. If you are tied to an engine of wealth creation — such as McKenzie Scott is — then you can be taxed at one or two or three or four percent of your wealth … and your wealth will still grow. So where’s the downside?
English
3
0
0
196
Chris Snarksen
Chris Snarksen@chrisstets·
@MEVANS72 Eating the pie and growing the pie are opposites. That's how pies work. Hope this helps.
English
1
0
7
224
Jeff Hard Author
Jeff Hard Author@AuthorHard·
@MEVANS72 McKenzie Scott donates her money voluntarily to organizations she supports. You advocate confiscating her money and running it through the bloated, corrupt government machine. See the difference, Matt?? Or don't you?
English
1
0
5
103
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷@MEVANS72·
@pugster92475174 Yes! Exactly: the economics of wealth creation are such that if you are tied to an engine of wealth creation — such as McKenzie Scott is — then you can be taxed at one or two or three or four percent of your wealth … and your wealth will still grow. So where’s the downside?
English
23
0
0
545
pugster
pugster@pugster92475174·
Redistribution does not grow the pie. It only changes the size of the slices. To grow the pie you have to produce more. Taxes and the majority of government intervention reduce production. Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than all other economic systems combined.
English
1
0
38
582
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷@MEVANS72·
@paul_paulpa Yes! Exactly: the economics of wealth creation are such that if you are tied to an engine of wealth creation — such as McKenzie Scott is — then you can be taxed at one or two or three or four percent of your wealth … and your wealth will still grow. So where’s the downside?
English
0
0
0
140
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷@MEVANS72·
@BertieleBunyip Yes! Exactly: the economics of wealth creation are such that if you are tied to an engine of wealth creation — such as McKenzie Scott is — then you can be taxed at one or two or three or four percent of your wealth … and your wealth will still grow. So where’s the downside?
English
6
0
0
315
Bertie the Bunyip
Bertie the Bunyip@BertieleBunyip·
@MEVANS72 Really, take a little time to understand the economics of wealth creation. It is not a zero sum game. You probably also think state employees pay state taxes. Taxes on entrepreneurs grow the financial pie the same way termites grow your house.
English
1
0
12
333
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷@MEVANS72·
Greater love hath no non-billionaire as when a fellow non-billionaire dares to suggest taxing the billionaires. 😂 I got ratio-ed hard by white non-billionaires. 😂
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷@MEVANS72

We can also grow the pie by taxing billionaires. Done right, they can grow the pie for society (& thus create stronger consumers) & continue to grow their own wealth. McKenzie Scott started with $32 billion, has given away $26 billion so far, & is still worth between $32B & $42B

English
0
0
1
184
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷 me-retweet
Rev. Benjamin Cremer
Rev. Benjamin Cremer@Brcremer·
Rev. Benjamin Cremer tweet media
ZXX
236
2.9K
20.7K
270.2K
Matt Evans 🇺🇸 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🪷 me-retweet
Acyn
Acyn@Acyn·
Julia Roberts: Renee Nicole Goode is not a symbol. She is an American woman, a queer woman who was doing the very best she could do to be good in an unjust world. And I am honored to celebrate her life and her legacy tonight, because the life she gave is our responsibility to carry.
English
1.2K
5.9K
36.6K
1.1M

Jelajahi

@GloriaPatri1234 @M9558750394349 @AuthorHard @rodsteele11 @SanchoPanzy @colorisoseph @AnneOnimus @chrisstets