Why do those who make the rules
Claim they have no control of the rules?
Quite simple, those that make the rules first had to get elected into that spot and needed money to get there, so now they are there the person ‘giving’ them comes calling saying they need the rules to look like such and such. But they promised something different to the voters, so they choose to lie so they can have their cake and eat it. Circle of
lifepolitics.
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”.
I’d counter with examples like Gabe Newell and Steam.
Gabe’s estimated worth is around $6bil. Steam is commonly regarded as the cheapest source of games, and has some of the highest average pay at Valve. There are absolutely arguments to be made around exploitation within the CS:GO gambling market, but that’s still probably not a majority of Valve’s business and income, and they’d have similar numbers regardless. They made a good product, and have generated value from it.
Fine, one exception, right? Except with low visibility on their own internal practices, there’s probably many other wealthy people like them - who have contributed something valuable, which puts them on the first rung of a machine that will, almost through comparatively little effort on their part, catapult their wealth.
There’s something to be said about what happens naturally through inertia, rather than due to willful malice. We are seeing lots of willful malice, make no mistake - but quite a lot of it is simple indecisiveness. A CEO who is shown a study by his shareholders that if you offer one raise, everyone will want one - and decides to just go with the suggestion not to give any raises. A wealthy person whose accountant has the idea of hiding taxes offshore, just because “everyone is doing it”.
These people would not be harmed by tighter restrictions on investment opportunities, closing the loopholes letting people borrow from themselves in so many absurd ways. But many of them are not nearly so active in the exploitation as you seem to suggest.
To extend the example to someone like myself; I would generally say I make more income than I need to survive. I’m no millionaire, but to support myself I don’t need much. I also have no workers underneath me. In these current times, I have done my best to locate worthwhile causes to give up some of that money to. But that act takes time and energy I don’t always have, and given my habits I have a LOT of mailers and spam from less reputable charities of many kinds. Bill Gates founded a charity, but it’s easy to imagine many billionaires won’t bother.
And to further extend my own example: I would be okay with paying more in taxes if it meant a safer world for people with less means than myself - people who often do more valuable work for the world like teachers, nonprofits, and social workers. The task of allocating that distribution and sending checks myself just isn’t something I know how to do easily. I do my best, but it’s stressful and I often worry about whether I’m getting exploited by bad causes.
Again - I’ll emphasize that everything you’re saying is horrible about billionaires is very true about a sizable number of them - probably most we could name. And, I think in a fair future system, it would be much harder to become a billionaire due to tax nets redirecting wealth to better causes. But I also think some current billionaires have been riding a wave of a broken system without actively wanting it to be harmful.
The point, though, is not to garner sympathy for a small minority of a small minority. The point is that their capacity to effect change through their wealth is important enough for the act of change that we shouldn’t actively antagonize them all by incorrectly grouping them. We’re coming for their wealth, yes, but not for their heads (unless they’ve cheated or stolen their way up). And that wealth is meant to be put to good use.
A lot of them make their money through exploiting labor via the stock market. That’s how Taylor swift became a billionaire. It’s the same thing you said but in a less direct way.
And newsflash, any of us with retirement accounts are making use of that same stock market.
It’s like blaming anyone with a smartphone for exploiting rare mineral mining. It is absolutely fair to hate the game instead of the players (even the successful ones), especially when so much of its designed to disconnect you from the elements of dehumanization.
I would say that fixing the taxes that the rich are (not) paying, would be more… Prevention for the future.
Heads in baskets is more, paying for the sins of the past.
I am not pro-violence, but putting heads in a basket worked out really well in France
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.
Honestly I can never tell if these tweets are real or not
Taxing the rich is the start, eating them is the finish.
Nah. Who wants to eat that filth? Let’s compost them so they can actually do something useful.
Starting to see upvotes over 1k on lemmy is encouraging, glad to see we are still growing
.
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.
Museuems?
Very few items in them are actually gold let enough to plate everything in there. I’m talking shit like the pope or queen of england giving some half hearted speech sitting on a golden chair/throne in front of a gold plated piano and holding a sceptre with enough gems in it to end world hunger.
I think if the churches wish to remain tax exempt then they need to not get involved in politics. No donation to any party, and no rallying for any politician on any level.
Technically this is already the law (in the US at least). And while Churches are generally careful about not donating, the rallying thing gets bent quite often. Arguments I’ve heard are generally of “free speech” and/or “churches are above the law, and we shouldn’t bind God to the laws of man.” Occasionally there are high-profile cases where the IRS does go after a church for boldly breaking the law, but it’s rare.
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?
Grapes of Wrath Car Freshener.
Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
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.
Tax wealth, not work.
It’s not even all wealth that is the problem. The problem is their wealth is held in financial assets designed to strip wealth from workers and deliver it to hoarders.
We need a securities tax, payable not in dollars, but in shares of the security. Exempt the first $10 million held by a natural person. IRS liquidators will sell off the shares slowly over time, such that the liquidated shares will never consist of more than 1% of total traded shares of that issue.
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”.
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/
Making the rich pay their fair share works great for my slogan: Make American Work for Everyone.
Tax the rich? Its far too late for that
Not big enough. We have the technology…
