Devide
verb
Obsolete form of divide.
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
964 points (98.3% liked)
Memes
46492 readers
578 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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:
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.
You're doubling down again, lmao. You aren't the god of econ 101, and are deliberately trying to make a false point, that being a wealth tax doesn't help just because it can be done poorly. Moreover, I'm a Communist, a wealth tax is insufficient for what I want, it's just a tool in a toolbox.
Yeah, it doesn't take a god to understand that something we already know doesn't work shouldn't be attempted again.
There is a reason that the could of countries that still have wealth taxes (read: didn't repeal them outright) changed them so that they're no longer aimed at the wealthiest, and they've become just another tax primarily shouldered by the middle class, defeating the whole stated purpose of getting more tax revenue out of the ultra-wealthy.
You say this as if what's being proposed in the US is materially different from the previously-failed implementations around the world.
It isn't. There has been no good answer to the question 'how do we keep this from being the catastrophic failure it was elsewhere?' from its proponents. They're just doing the infamous definition of insanity, just try the exact same thing and expect a better result, because reasons.
You didn't address any of my points, more handwaved thrm away. You're very silly.
All of your points involved putting words in my mouth, and evading the simple facts:
All you've done here is straw man me and accuse me of being condescending, while desperately evading the above.
Do you really think all those countries that implemented and then later repealed their wealth taxes, got rid of them because they were effective? Use your brain.
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.