793
submitted 10 months ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

A new "millionaire's tax" in Massachusetts was expected to generate $1 billion in revenue last year to help pay for public education, infrastructure, and early childcare programs, but projections were a bit off, according to a fresh state analysis.

The state Department of Revenue estimated late last week that the Fair Share Amendment, which requires people with incomes over $1 million, to pay a 4% annual surtax, will add $1.5 billion to state coffers this fiscal year, which ends in June—surpassing expectations.

Universal free school meals, much-needed improvements to an aging public transportation system, and tuition-free education for community college students are just some of the programs Massachusetts' wealthiest residents have helped pay for after voters approved the law in 2022 amid growing calls across the United States to tax the richest households and corporations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 205 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

While Tax the Rich is fair and accurate, I wish we could point out that this isn't some undue burden. This is just reclaiming the surplus wealth they've extracted from the economy.

We can and should do far more, but this is a good start.

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 92 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Libertarians think taxation is theft. Be sure to tell them every time they use a road, a hospital, a sporting ground, drink clean water they are stealing from the government and any one who paid more tax than them

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 54 points 10 months ago

Also every time they use anything that involves radio transmission, eat food that is safe, breathe air that is clean, flush their poop into the sewer system, or work in a safe environment.

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 49 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I was gonna link to The New Yorker's Libertarian Police Department story again, but fuck it. I'm pasting the whole thing here.

-------------------------

I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”

“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”

“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”

“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.

Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”

He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”

“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

“Because I was afraid.”

“Afraid?”

“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”

He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 22 points 10 months ago
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

That's a joke, but I have talked to libertarians who think that if the road is full of potholes, neighbors should come together and pay for the road to be repaved.

[-] 4am@lemm.ee 32 points 10 months ago

Yeah, we should actually all pool our money together for the repairs and maintenance. I wonder what we could call such a thing? Hmm 🤔

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 17 points 10 months ago

A community, coming together communally, to pay for something the community uses, as a community? Hmmm, it's right on the tip of my tongue...

[-] Meron35@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Libertarians try not to recreate society challenge: impossible

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 12 points 10 months ago

Honestly, libertarians are free to do that now. Where I live there are loads of both potholes and libertarians. What’s stopping them from practicing what they preach and fixing the problem themselves? They’d get more street cred (literally) that way. Be the change.

But no. The real answer is it’s always someone else’s problem, and that’s why government exists.

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago

I tend to somewhat agree: if someone believes that infrastructure should be privatized, I think their neighbors should come together and use that person to build a new speed bump on the road.

[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

I grew up in a college town where repaving did actually work like that: streets didn't get repaired at all unless a majority of the homeowners voted to approve a surtax to pay for it. In areas that were mostly college student rentals, the scumlord "homeowners" always voted against the surtax and the streets were nearly un-drivable, more like uneven dirt roads with big chunks of broken asphalt embedded in them.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

I remember arguing with some guy on Reddit who thought the entire judicial system should be private and people would just go along with it because their reputation would be hurt if they didn't accept whatever punishment the private judges said they should get.

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

But... But... Chicoms! And social credits! And... And...

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

As long as the social credit score is from a private company it's cool. That's why we all love Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion

[-] 4am@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

Abritrationists

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 14 points 10 months ago
[-] zxk@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago
[-] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

They have no money. Spent it all on prepping supplies, child support, alimony, and court fees.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

Focus on the right wing libertarians, the leftist ones are somewhere between minarchists and anarchists depending on which one you talk to. They are also usually pretty chill, plus they like guns and are marginally more intelligent on what should be done with said guns.

[-] madeinthebackseat@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's beyond me why Americans, who scream about government taxation, can't see how large corporations essentially have added a hidden, ever increasing line item tax to their paychecks to extract wealth.

And then we fawn over billionaires donating their money to causes we perceive as beneficial to society - they're just returning stolen money without interest or penalty, which could have been better used when money was actually earned.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It’s beyond me why Americans, who scream about government taxation, can’t see how large corporations essentially have added a hidden, ever increasing line item tax to their paychecks to extract wealth.

It is largely because they see these price increases as consequences of some hidden government hand, while price cuts are attributed to a competitive marketplace. In short, its propaganda.

We train people, from an early age, to believe that competition brings prices down and regulation forces prices up. We don't learn about the profit motive as an upward price impulse or spend significant amounts of time on monopolies and their impact on marginal pricing. We absolutely 100% do not ever discuss the difference between Exchange Value and Utility Value when discussing economic productivity. The impact of speculative investments on retail prices is straight out never mentioned ever.

So all anyone has left to go on is "gas prices are up because the government did a war" and "computer prices are up because the government did a tariff" and "food prices are up because the government did a tax".

And then we fawn over billionaires donating their money to causes we perceive as beneficial to society - they’re just returning stolen money without interest or penalty, which could have been better used when money was actually earned.

Philanthropy is when a single incredibly rich guy gives money away for free.

Public Spending is when a soulless bureaucracy steals Peter to pay Paul.

Therefore, public sector bad and private sector good.

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 15 points 10 months ago

Yeah. This is a good first step. But it needs to go further. A lot of the wealth is not in direct income. We should be including in this capital gains, and perhaps imposing a similar tax on people with assets totally $10M+ or so. A lot of valuation comes at people holding huge assets and stocks, increasing in value and they take loans out on those assets to actually buy anything.

[-] zxk@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

You feel no burden when compound interest carries you on angel's wings

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Even removing the terms "surplus wealth" and "extracted" - which I don't necessarily disagree with in all instances but which isn't going to win anyone over - this still is not some undue burden.

I'd like to see this tackled as a simple conversation between discretionary and non-discretionary spending. A poor person struggles with even sales tax increases because they have little discretionary income. A rich person has vastly more discretionary income and thus is the least burdened by new taxation of any sort.

Gets around all the "fair tax"/"flat tax" arguments right from the jump.

[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

That's a great point and I'll remember it for the future.

this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
793 points (99.9% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3238 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS