this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
815 points (95.6% liked)

Comic Strips

12737 readers
3286 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mrfriki@lemmy.world 94 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Can't shake the feeling that swapping panels 1 and 3 would make more sense.

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 12 points 9 hours ago

Clockwise from bottom left maybe

[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 8 points 9 hours ago

i think any order would work

[–] Dark_Dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 10 points 7 hours ago

That is the exact same thing...

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 116 points 13 hours ago

the amount of billionaire taint licking in this post is depressingly high.

the hilarious thing about these apologists is that the majority of the 1% wouldn't even piss on them if they were on fire. we are beneath them.

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 26 points 11 hours ago

Every healthy society requires a robust guillotine maintenance capability, ideally across all competencies.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 31 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Yes, kill them, by taxing them out of existence.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 minutes ago

Who will do this? Trump? Kamala? Superman?

This is not the way...

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I think people would be okay with taxing them away, as well. It could be fine to give an either-or option to each billionaire, even.

[–] Shizrak@sh.itjust.works 26 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

This would be ideal but I'm skeptical that it's actually possible. Bribes are cheaper than taxes, so I think they'd likely just prevent the taxes from happening by greasing the correct palms.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 24 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

Well yeah, that’s exactly what’s happened for at least the past 50 years. In 1968 corporations were paying 53% of their profits in taxes, and billionaires were paying 94% around that time! Btw, if you’re making billions, paying 94% still leaves you richer than most…

Contrast that to today, where the system is so obviously broken during a time when Amazon is paying less in total taxes than a fry cook at McDonald’s.

It would need to be done with actually no loopholes, and meaningful enforcement of consequences for those who would try to cheat (perhaps the guillotine).

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 17 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

one big issue is everyone goes "you can't tax stocks!" and then billionaires take a loan against the stocks with the unrealized gains as collateral. So we'd need to start classifying a loan as a realized gain of the collateral against this, with an exception for mortgages on primary domiciles, maybe also a "first million dollars are exempt," calculated on the full debt of the borrower, not per loan. I can't imagine anyone taking out more than $1M in debt against a properly they don't live in is not the rich we need to be taxing.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Yeah. Virtually anything with an exception for the first million dollars will both lose almost no tax revenue (as a percentage), and never ever touch the rest of us temporarily embarrassed not-quite-yet-billionaires.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Emi@ani.social 9 points 11 hours ago

Don't they already just avoid paying taxes by not having a salary and just using bank loans or something? So they have no actual money in the bank

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 64 points 14 hours ago

No, no, we can’t be mean to the rich, that will upset them 🥺

[–] narr1@lemmy.autism.place 21 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I support this idea. Invite most of the world's nations' leaders, too. I think the Met-gala attendees and G20 summit attendees might be a good starting point all-in-all. Then seize the means of production etc., you know how it goes.

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't AOC go to the Met Gala?

[–] saruwatarikooji@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, although IIRC she was sort of sponsored to go. She didn't pay for her seat or dress... I'm not sure we should hold that against her too much. Still don't like that she went but when someone else foots the bill? Fuck it, go have fun.

[–] narr1@lemmy.autism.place 1 points 17 minutes ago

Yeah, I mean, you gotta make some sacrifices for the greater good, you know? Plus she's a politician, right? Sooo...

load more comments
view more: next ›