A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
I'll make the same argument that I made in another thread, but now that I've got Bernie on my side, maybe people will listen.
TAXING THE RICH DOESN'T MEAN RAISING THE TAX RATES.
It means regulation, oversight, and accountability. You can set the tax rate to any number you want, but it won't matter if no one is making them pay it. We have to hold them accountable first, and then we can bring the rates back up to something from the pre-Reagan era.
Funny that trump is trying to get rid of regulation, oversight, and accountability.
Funny how he prefers tariffs over taxes so he and his rich buddies don't have to pay out more from their end.
I agree the rich aren't being taxed right now, but why argue on what the phrase does or doesn't mean instead of argue how it can best be achieved? Or like Bernie does, argue why it is necessary?
Also
Tax wealth, not work
That's kinda why the rich are called "the wealthy" and not "the worky"
TAX WEALTH, NOT WORK
Everytime I hear arguments against wealth tax, gift tax, property tax or inheritance tax. It's the same argument, it's unfair towards the people who has worked all their life and want to leave their already taxed money to their family.
In Norway we have no inheritance tax and no tax on gifts. Most people have no taxes on homes either. We do have some wealth tax.
My main issue with the arguments against it is that its is lacking imagination. We make the rules, we can decide to make it fair. We can set a limit for when taxation occurs at a really high number. Just so that 98% of Norwegians get zero taxes on these things.
Zero taxes for inheritance up to 1 000 000 euros and then 75% on every euro above. Is possible.
Zero taxes on gifts up to 50 000 euros a year is possible.
No taxes on homes worth less than 1 000 000 is possible.
Bringing wealth with you when you permanently move out of the country is possible for values less than 5 000 000 euros for instance.
Then adjust for inflation every year (like we do with many of our welfare systems)
If we do this we can get rid of the wealth tax that the rich hate so much (because they are disadvantaged owners compared to owners of businesses in other countries)
No regular people will feel these taxes at all, and they make sure that the wealth is distributed over time. It's still possible to get rich, and remain rich. But your children can be rich but not insanely rich.
Exactly what the rates should be is up for debate, but this system is in my opinion a better one.
You can take this a step further and ask why we have this aggregation of wealth at all. Private wealth consolidation is a form of malinvestment resulting from a handful of individuals who are told they can effectively loot the economy unchecked.
Taxation "solves" the problem by clawing back some of that malinvestment. But if you recognize it as malinvestment from the outset, you can see arguments against having these private aggregators of wealth at all.
Instead of taxes, why not simply impose a maximum income? In baseball, you'd call it a salary cap.
Of course, but we are as a society so far away from that. It requires a bigger cultural shift than we are anywhere near. Even the thought of an inheritance tax is very unpopular.
Yes, even as a very social democratic country with a highly educated populace, we can be pretty stupid about taxes.
Also most really rich people have their wealth in assets and make their money as gains on those assets. So it does not really tax the most important people, except maybe some C-suites.
Just mandate a luxury tax on all things normal people don't buy. You can have wealth, but you cannot have anything normal people cannot have without paying. Oh you want to acquire a whole ass business? You want to donate millions for political influence? You want a Ferrari? Want more land or a huge house? You pay demoralizing amounts of luxury tax.
You can index the values to a multiple of the median salary instead of a fixed number.
This is in Norwegian, but most services is based on this number https://www.nav.no/grunnbelopet
Which currently is 124 028 NOK which is roughly 10 350 euros.
This number is referenced as G (Grunnbeløpet)
So for instance if I lose my job I can get up to 62.4% of a salary up to 6G. Which is the maximum.
Meaning the maximum payout is 744 168 (6G) * 0.624 = 464 360 NOK.
We have tons of calculations like this for all sorts of welfare services.
Every year in may this number is adjusted.
In the U.S. gift tax is exempt on the first $14 million you give. You just have to submit a tax form when you file your taxes. So someone can gift each of their 5 grandchildren a million dollar house, and then give them $1.8 million dollars in cash each before they die. And avoid any gift tax on any of that. Then get taxed an inheritance tax. There is no Federal inheritance tax. Which if you live in a state like Tennessee where I live, the inheritance tax is 0%. So you have now avoided paying any taxes passing down any amount of wealth you potentially have. If you are a billionaire and have an accountant that can't figure out how to bypass paying taxes you or they must be willfully choosing to do so in the U.S.
Reading all the comments so far I have not seen one mention of taxing organized religious institutions. For something that (sadly) has so much influence of far too many lives it is far overdue to have them share the bounty from their tax-free windfall
I think it's perfectly fine for a religious organization to be tax exempt provided they provide the same level of service as other non-profit orgs. I also think we desperately need to overhaul the requirements and auditing practices of organizations claim to be non-profits.
I don't think a religious organization on its face deserves to be tax exempt.
I feel like we need a general rule that if the head of your organization makes an appearance in or owns a room where everything is literally plated in gold then you immediately lose non-profit status.
From his wiki:
In the 1980s, Icahn developed a reputation as a "corporate raider" after profiting from the hostile takeover and asset stripping of Trans World Airlines.
Freeloaders
You're gonna love this. We (Australia) give a bunch of gas away (no royalties), barely tax the companies on their profits, and then most of it gets shipped overseas so it's expensive here.
We're a third-world country in disguise.
(Gas is dumb and should stay in the ground, but it's even more stupid for us not to get any revenue from it)
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/gas-exports-56-given-to-corporations-royalty-free/
Too late we’re already an oligarch dictatorship
That's exactly how they win, by people going "well, it's already bad, not worth doing anything to make it better."
Where the wealth tax is measured in calibre.
Taxes won't work now anyway. A redistribution of wealth is required.
That's what tax is.
Tax is a redistribution of new wealth. A redistribution of existing wealth is required.
One of the arguments by the rich is that excessive tax hampers progress. Now we can all see why that is a critical safeguard to have.
They like to say these things that don't actually make any sense.
It's the same with the crying around Europe's mandatory USB-C connector.
"Oh it stifles progress" Apple protested.
Forgetting they had the same unchanged connector, and in fact data protocol on their devices for twelve years before Europe decided they wanted a standard, with all the freedom to improve it.
A standard, apple already adopted for everything not iPhone no less.
I remember being in uni when George W got elected the first time. I recall my uni friends were saying there's no point taxing the rich because they'll always find another loop hole. I guess we should realize they'd never stop. They're never like, "hmm that's enough".
I paid thirty fucking thousand dollars last year.
the children amputees with no surviving relatives in Gaza who received your contribution thank you
You misspelled “put their heads in a basket”
It’s too late for them to apologize with paying their fair share.
Unless that share is sanguine in nature.
The issue I have with this sentiment is that some percentage of the rich made active pursuits to deny our freedoms and destroy democracy; while others were…just quiet and uninvolved in politics.
What’s more, much as it makes sense to change our hyper-capitalistic society, this is the society we’re working within in order to make change. Even printing a poster that explains why capitalism is bad costs money. By that token, we will likely need some support from some wealthy people to make change. And yes, that support exists to some degree, and no, we don’t literally need to have “more money” than the opposition.
So maybe you were just shortening sentiments for the sake of a snarky post, which is fine. We can pursue better tax rates for wealthier people, while also pursuing criminal investigations and metaphorical guillotines for the Heritage Foundation. Literally seize all their money. If I’m to make one point though, you don’t want those quiet wealthy people to feel that the Heritage Foundation are their only friends.
I know, man. There’s lots of people I dream about taking a crowbar to. But when I’m done with the violent rhetoric in my head, I think of the most practical actions.
The issue I have with this sentiment is that some percentage of the rich made active pursuits to deny our freedoms and destroy democracy; while others were…just quiet and uninvolved in politics.
The act of acquiring a billion dollars worth of financial assets is itself an attack. If you have a billion dollars, you have systematically overcharged your customers, underpaid your workers, and leveraged your wealth to do the same.
There is a term for a predator that remains "quiet" and "uninvolved" in its prey's activities: "Parasite".
Is there a name for a phenomenon where most of the people in this country are for this, but it can't possibly be passed into law?
Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
Sound like the time to tax the rich was from 2016 to 2024. It's now time to do something else
Starting to see upvotes over 1k on lemmy is encouraging, glad to see we are still growing
Why do those who make the rules
Claim they have no control of the rules?
