this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
720 points (96.3% liked)

Political Memes

5501 readers
2003 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 61 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I actually disagree with a straight wealth tax, I believe the approach of adequately taxing the wealthy needs a more two pronged approach, which I happen to have pitched already, so I'll just copy paste that comment here to explain what I think will work instead:

I believe someone suggested loans collateralized on stock and other such speculative assets be taxed as realized gains, which should go a long way to stop the absolutely mindbogglingly obscene displays of mega wealth we've been seeing as of late.

As for income, there should be nominal brackets established at the 20th, 40th, 60th, 80th, 95th, and 99th percentiles of income for a given year, with 20th, 40th, and 60th percentile income taxed at the percent of national wealth each of those brackets owns, income in the 80th and 95th brackets being taxed at twice their respective shares of the national wealth, and income above the 99th income being taxed at three times their share of the national wealth. Then have a half a percent multiplier for every multiple of twenty times the median income of the 0-20 percentile bracket an income crosses.

Doesn't just tax the rich, it directly makes it their class interest to spread the wealth to lighten the crunch on their top dollar. The rich literally can get their own tax cuts by sharing the wealth.

It actually even incentivizes the ultra rich to police each other since one of them building up the riches too much hits all of them, meaning the rich will be eating each other whenever one of them steps out of line!

[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

While I definitely agree with the approach, would it not make sense to also run a wealth tax alongside this, to ensure that assets aren't just stored outside of the US?

I'd be all for all of the below:

  • Taxation on loans taken against collateral above x
  • A cap on executive pay, especially in instances where an executive is paid more than the company takes in income. This would stop instances like Musk getting paid a fuck-ton when their company has very little income.
  • A wealth tax to take a percentage of wealth, with yearly audits of accounts held by wealth management firms to ensure that no one is fiddling with the books.

The problem with some of the listed names is that they don't own their companies. Bezos hasn't owned Amazon for 3-4 years now, and he's been dumping stock for years. If we only taxed against specific types of collateral, the rich would just move to something else.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 43 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Can somebody please fix the bar scales? Nothing corresponds to anything else, and as such the difference between "millions" and "billions" is indicated by just 1 letter. Not to mention, there is no source for the data or indication why their rates are different (3.05% for Musk and Bezos, 0.309% for Gates).

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Indeed! This chart is crap. How are these values even calculated? Is this a flat tax on their networth? Nobody gets taxed like this, at least that I'm aware of - people get taxed on their profits.

I'm completely for taxing billionaires (individuals and corps) heavily on their profits, but let's use proper arguments, not intentionally misleading bullshit.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 7 months ago (16 children)

people get taxed on their profits.

yes but a wealth tax is a tax on what you own or what you could buy, aka your net worth

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lauha@lemmy.one 29 points 7 months ago (7 children)

How is 4% "fair share" when I am paying 24%

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.de 28 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I assume that you pay tax on your income, not your wealth/assets, so that is something different.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 18 points 7 months ago (4 children)

But these aholes take loans out on their wealth, thus effectively using this wealth as cash. Cash that is not taxed.

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.de 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I don't question that their income from what ever source should be (highly) taxed. However the wealth tax should be on top to fix the errors made in the past (and are currently made) leading to such accumulation of assets. The question is how should non-liquid wealth, such as estates, shares and bonds, be taxed.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] moon@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago

Yes, but you also pay tax on everything else including housing and every day goods via Sales tax. And as a percentage of wealth I'm sure that adds up to way more than 4%

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

4% every year, perhaps?

Anyway, this graph assumes something between 3.0 and 3.1%, and exactly 10 times less (decimal point error?) for Gates.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 19 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I cannot see why anyone should ever have more than 10 million dollars. How much is the billionaire's fair share? Enough to bring them down to 10 million.

We could quibble on 10 million. Maybe it should be 1 million. But that is a separate end less interesting question.

[–] moon@lemmy.ml 16 points 7 months ago

Agreed. It's also a question of power: no one should have enough money to amass that much power. It's barely an exaggeration to say that the Koch brothers bought themselves a political party and doomed the entire planet to climate catastrophe. No one should have that much money.

[–] Brosplosion@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

10 million dollars is not as much wealth as it was ten years ago.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

I personally really hate the term "pay their fair share" because if it's implications. I would much rather hear something like "pay like the rest of us" because it's about percentages, not actual dollars.

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The only gripe I have with this is settling for billionaires paying ‘their fair share’. That would have been acceptable if they paid that while hoarding these unimaginable levels of wealth.

At this point; the amount they should be due to pay should be punitive - to discourage anyone from attempting anything similar in the future.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You can’t just vote for politicians who want to tax the wealthy more money because how else can I get trans kids out of middle school basketball?

[–] ApostleO@startrek.website 11 points 7 months ago

I'd love to tax the kleptocrat class and pay to fix some of the country's problems, but I'm worried a woman and her doctor might do medicine deemed heresy by my twisted interpretation of a book of fables I never actually read (and may not even believe). Also the gays and brown people scare me, and somehow the only way I can save myself from them is to give Elon Musk ownership of San Francisco.

/s

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how high we could get the standard deduction without even impacting their quality of life?

[–] penquin@lemm.ee 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

One billion is 1000 millions. If you spend 10 millions a year, that's enough for 100 years. They don't need any of the money they have.

[–] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Nobody could survive on only 10 million a year!

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Give me that money and I'll prove it!

[–] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

No, no, I could never be so cruel to you.

[–] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] eltrain123@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You have any idea how expensive insurance is on a Ferrari?!

[–] subignition@kbin.social 4 points 7 months ago

...At least six?

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Neat part is that Bill Gates has been saying he wants taxes to increase for the ultra-rich, he is on board, if only all of them thought that way

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

I wonder how quickly he'd change his mind if we also removed the ability to ~~launder funds~~ donate money for tax breaks from your bank account into your foundation's bank account.

[–] ApostleO@startrek.website 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Something tells me Bill is saying that publicly, then discreetly paying lobbyists to oppose such moves.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Bill Gates is a higher class of billionaire. He funnels money through philanthropy and charities. Lonnie just lights it on fire. They are not the same. What I mean is that Billy Boy is doing exactly what you said because he’s much smarter than Lonnie.

[–] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 7 months ago

Charities that he controls. He's shifted power to nonprofit companies, getting additional protection from taxes in order to push his ideas. For example you may be for nuclear power or against it, but he's able to get one built. Isn't that the sort of thing the people should decide?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (4 children)

But it only takes $50k to buy a congress person, so this will never happen.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Who the fuck is doing Bill Gates' taxes and how do I get them to do that but on my much more modest income.

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Whoever designed the "charts" is in on it, I know that much

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

Nearly all of us pay more than these clowns do, when considering the percent of our incomes. And most of us are losing savings or being forced to budget to the extreme these days.

Fuck the ultra rich that never give back. People like Musk are a fucking scourge to our entire society.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] summerof69@lemm.ee 7 points 7 months ago

Bill Gates looks like a loser with his 372kk compared to other guys.

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Why such a % difference between Gates (0.3) and Bezos(3)? Is it based on the last year's income?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago

Just give their wealth to the workers they exploited to gain it.

[–] dogsoahC@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

Fuck the "fair share". Seize their stupid asses away from under them. Followed by the means of production.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

This is a much nicer version of the same meme I put up here last week (not complaining, it really does look nicer).

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Bezos looks kind of like Putin in that pic.

[–] Cuberoot@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why is Gates' rate so much lower than the other guys'?

[–] yannic@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago

My guess is that tax-deductible philanthropy is factored in here.

load more comments
view more: next ›