All those who voted for and signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” just lowered taxes for the USA’s wealthiest. What sense does that make at a time when even working, employed persons are increasingly having trouble making ends meet? It’s not like the richest need more dough; they have more than enough to live well. So then why is this being done? The only reason I can think of is to punish the poor. Their crime? Being leeches who are no good for the economy. But wait a minute: aren’t those the people who work long hours at shit jobs for shit pay? Our economy depends entirely on cheap labor willing to do arduous jobs that most people wouldn’t do.
In fact, it’s the rich who are no good for the economy. While their spending may help to improve the bottom lines of airlines, restaurants, hotels, fashion designers, real estate agencies, art galleries, and high-end architectural firms, beyond the relatively small amount of their money that actually “trickles-down” into the local economy, most serious wealth is diverted to tax havens such as Switzerland or the Cayman Islands. If that’s not the case, then it’s invested in technological sectors such as AI or robotics that will eventually make workers redundant; or in real estate assets that cause gentrification and drive out local residents; or in speculative financial products that have absolutely no social value whatsoever. The rich are totally useless. Why is it often said, then, that cutting taxes “creates jobs”? It simply doesn’t.
It is similarly said that the rich deserve to take and keep all winnings because they take huge risks with their investments. But isn’t it funny how much more often you hear of people gaining wealth from investments compared to losing wealth? If winning occurs more often than losing, then investing must not be as risky as it is made out to be. Oh, and then we are often told how the rich “are the drivers of innovation.” But how good are innovations such as AI and robotics that mainly serve to eliminate jobs? What good is wealth if it only leads to a worse society?
In fact, the rich are terrible for the planet. They consume disproportionate amounts of natural resources and emit way more pollution and CO2 (the main cause of anthropogenic climate change) than the rest of us. They drive huge gas guzzlers, fly around in private jets, and generally take up way more space while paying fewer taxes. The way I see it, the rich are a net burden; not an asset.
What really gets me, though, is the idea –held by some– that the poorest should simply be left to starve to death (it’s already happened or happening in war zones like Gaza, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and the Democratic Republic of Congo). The 1980 song “Kill the Poor” by the Dead Kennedys was satire, but today this idea is being proposed by some. So much for the notion of “noblesse oblige.”
Conclusion: if there were fewer rich people, the world would be a much better place. If they were simply obligated to pay their fair share of taxes, then they wouldn’t be so rich anymore, we all might start getting along a bit better, and the world would become a better place. And isn’t that what architecture is all about?
Criticalista 