this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
636 points (94.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2020 readers
928 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 106 points 1 month ago (2 children)

IMO, it should incorporate a logarithmic target at homelessness in the entire nation. Those in the top brackets have no right to obscene wealth while anyone is lying in a gutter or going hungry.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 78 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The crazy thing is, there would still be obscenely rich people. They just wouldn't be quite as obscenely rich.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 71 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The real key is, they wouldn't miss it at all. Yet they hang on every bit of it.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 31 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is what I'm always saying. The more dollars you have, the less each one matters. Going from 40k to 50k is a big jump. Going from 400k to 500k is a bigger jump in absolute numbers, but will make far less of an difference.

I knew a guy who told me that "his family struggled, too" when both parents were bringing home mid six figures. I'm sorry but like what. Learn to budget.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 7 points 1 month ago

When money still means money to someone, it's definitely possible to have a lot coming in and yet still be budgeted bad enough that they could be living a paycheck to paycheck scenario. Or worse, living well past their means because of credit extensions, far in debt. For the very wealthy money becomes less of a thing to worry about and more one of many ways to leverage power and influence. These are the ones where a heavier tax doesn't hurt, because they simply have more than they can lose, even if they don't have most of it as tangible cash. That wealth line is far above the millionaire mark, and there's not a lot of them, but they hold most of the wealth of the world, and also the power they desire. They could change things without a loss, and they don't.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a common feeling among the children of well off parents when the parents are budgeting properly. What happens is that the parents do the smart thing and invest the extra and set aside an emergency fund. Having to dip into either one is psychologically a failure. They have a budget, and they only "struggle" because they want to stay within that budget.

That might mean having store brand mac and cheese for lunch and driving a ten year old Toyota Corolla. To their children, they don't seem well off. In fact, they're the only people who can be properly considered middle class. That is, instead of being one step away from being homeless, they're two steps.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

If I had kids I could see how they misinterpret things I say and anxieties I express as implying we're struggling. I was unemployed for a while last year and had to dip into savings. My new job pays less and our savings haven't been noticably growing so it's making me say things like "do we need this?" or "can we spend less on Christmas?" We still have a very large buffer (and we're fortunate to have it). But I could definitely see a naive child thinking it meant things were very rough for us.

[–] huquad@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

Are you asking them to have solid silver statues instead of gold? How dare you \s

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'd argue, since we are an empire and the world's super power both militarily and economically, we shouldn't have any billionaires or even hundred millionaires while people are dying of starvation/malnutrition anywhere in the world.

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I hate to break it to you, but as a resident of the former military and economic superpower, having a super wealthy elite class and a dirt-poor underclass is a feature of being said superpower.

A well-fed and housed underclass has no need to volunteer for a large enough military force to be present anywhere in the world within, these days, 48 hours.

And your elite hoarding the wealth in assets they trade and speculate on the stock exchanges gravitates more money into said exchanges from across the world. Without their capital invested in said markets they'd merely be competing with other markets around the world not dominating them.

My advice, enjoy your empire whilst you still have it and do what you can reasonably do to financially prepare for when it starts to dwindle.

[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

You forgot about using said military to destabilize the rest of the world and force migration to the metropole to replace your workforce

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

If the US ever collapses there are no financial plans that will help. The entire global economy will be gone.