- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Devide
verb
Obsolete form of divide.
You must log in or register to comment.
What’s funny is that we don’t even need their money to pay for anything. We need to seize their means of production and dethrone them from their control of the state.
First you need to stop money from systematically flowing to the top or that dividing is only going to be a temporary measure.
How tho?
I’d argue there should be a flat out cap on wealth. Nobody should have 500 billion dollars. Not sure what it should be, but somewhere under 500 billion.
Would be nice, would still require a revolution.
Acceptable
You can have a soft cap with higher taxes as wealth goes up.
To name a few:
- the classic riot, violence and/or revolution
- the coup
- organizing through unions and have general strikes until things change
- sustained peaceful protest
- voting
- switching to a different (underground) economic system
- massive emigration
All come with some serious downsides of course.
or to sum it up: socialism
Tax wealth.
Would require either revolution or threat of it to pass to a meaninful degree.
Turns out that technically they don’t have wealth, just a lot of loans with paper assets as collateral.
No. Leave my IRA and 401k alone.
There is a reason every country that’s tried a wealth tax has abandoned it (or neutered it to the point that it’s primarily the burden of the middle class, completely defeating the ostensibly-stated purpose of getting more money from the wealthiest), learn some world history.
The reason countries abandon wealth taxation is because the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, doesn’t like it, and the justification is that it hurts the working class, the proletariat, even if that isn’t true.
No, they abandon it because the total tax revenue after implementation literally goes down instead of up, lol.
Just because 100 people will buy your product X at $10 and you make $1000, doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed to make $2000 if you sell X for $20 instead. That’s basically the same principle–raising taxes doesn’t necessarily lead to an increase in revenue. People react to changes in policy.
This is not speculation, it literally already happened. Stop speaking about this from your assumed expectations and learn the actual history.
I’m aware of how the economy works, we all took econ 101 and many of us went beyond that. You need to stop feigning superiority and assuming a lack of education on anyone pushing back against what you’re saying.
If I refer to the negative outcome of something already attempted multiple times, while people insist we should try doing the exact same thing in ignorance of those attempts and they outcomes, there is no “feigning” going on; I actually do know more.
And my analogy is directed at the people who have demonstrated their ignorance/naivete by insisting that raising taxes always leads to an increase in tax revenue, even though, again, knowledge of that history makes it clear that not only is that not a given, but that it literally caused the opposite every time previously attempted.
You need to stop feigning competence when you’re insisting we repeat others’ mistakes. Learn some history.
Are they worth over $10M? I mean $0.01B…
With votes, sadly.
If voting could dethrone the wealthy, they wouldn’t let us do it.
It’s not “their” money. It’s our communal wealth, stolen and privatised
It’s 100% their money. They control its rules, and it’s designed to make them rich at our expense. Their money is part of how they steal our wealth.
Isn’t that what taxation pretty much does? Takes money and redistributes it?
Not in the US at the federal level. Taxes are an anti inflationary device when dealing with a sovereign currency. It’s the last step of the fiscal year. Step one is literally printing money, step two is distribution of those funds, step three is to allow the money to circulate between businesses and people, and then step four at the end of the year is to levy taxes to combat inflation. They used to literally burn the dollars they collected, now they just zero out an entry in a ledger.
but how will we pay for <anything that’s not increased military spending>???
talk about social services and taxes are like a bake sale, talk about funding war and it’s what you describe
That’s more due to political will, than the economics of the system
oh competely agreed, I’m just pointing out the dishonest framing by politicians and pundits
I suppose OP is proposing a wealth tax.
I think it’s more about Socialism than taxation.
Yes, but I’ll do the dividing. Just trust me on this one
Yeah I’ll evenly spread out Elon Musk’s $200 billion.
You’re still winning the name game, btw. I honestly don’t think anyone’s gonna pass it
The rich will just come up with clever ways to get paid that avoids paying tax.
Land value taxes are immune to tax evasion. It’s assessed by the state instead of declared by the taxpayer.
People here use farm land to pay less tax, ie for inheritance.
How would you tax a software company that has remote work and runs on someone else’s servers?
The land they need could probably be a small single office room and a letter box.Edit: sentence structure
I wouldn’t. If they’re only consuming labor and no natural resources, then just a union is sufficient.
Stop letting them borrow against it.
No, no, no. Just like a tax on unrealized gains is a bad idea because of how much it would royally fuck up the stock market, including every 401(k). What they need to do instead is tax the ways used by the extremely wealthy to utilize their gains without technically realizing them, even if that sometimes means taxing debt (aka treating it as income when they borrow against it and taxing accordingly).
Yes, changing the status quo is going to require some sacrifice. But we have more to gain by seizing their wealth than we do by protecting our crumbs.
Isn’t that the definition of taxation and redistribution of wealth?
Yes but if we can’t spell divide I’m not sure I’d hold out hope for nuanced or accurate political commentary.
What have we got to loose?
We half nothing too loose but our chain’s.
I had multiple involuntary physical reactions to that sentence.
You win.
*are
No need to shame people for their spelling. You never know, the person in question might not be a native english speaker or could have dislexia.
Everyone in this thread should support an inheritance tax
It is not a “death tax” it’s a tax on unearned, undeserved income
Come on man you can’t even spell divide
Devide
verb
Obsolete form of divide.
Apparently, yes.
*Divide
I came here to lead, not to read!
It’s gold, not lead
But their nephew’s painting on the wall is worth a million bucks.
Yes, the same people who couldn’t get past the DNC to get Bernie nominated are certainly going to ge able to redistribute all the wealth.
How about capping the amount they can earn above their lowest paid employee? For them to rise they have to take everyone with them
They’d just ‘devide’ up their businesses into a chain of symbiotic entities defined by paygrade. Then the executive level can enrich itself insulated from us front line grunts.
Or to be realistic, maximum ten times more.
Let people dream a bit!
Devide
