4 ms·

One thing that would help is far more progressive taxation. No one in modern society should have the kind of wealth that enables leveraging politicians and publ

One thing that would help is far more progressive taxation. No one in modern society should have the kind of wealth that enables leveraging politicians and public opinion.

smabie 3y ago
because giving the government even more money will certainly solve the problem of government corruption!
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  It's not about giving the government more money. It's about redistributing from the class that buys politicians like I buy a candy bar, to the class that works two jobs to put shitty unhealthy polluted food on the table.
  - m00x 3y ago
    They would still be bought, but by other means. Even in Communism there is class division (if not more). Powerful people find ways.
    - classified 3y ago
      "It can't be perfect, so let's not even try."
    - thumbuddy 3y ago
      In anarchistic France when someone started acting like they were better than someone else a coworker would go on a smoke break with them and shoot them in the head. At least that's what I read... Not saying that's a successful model, but there are a lot of shades of grey between and surrounding our current system and the classic bogeyman "communism".
    - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
      >Even in Communism there is class division (if not more).// What do you mean by this? We've never had a completely Capitalist system, AFAIAA, because the logical ends to that are slavery and selling body parts just to survive. Which means rebellion by the proles and it's easier to get people to work endlessly for your ends if you give them a measure of hope. Similarly, we've never had a completely Communist system because the logical ends to that are redistribution of power from those in control to the people. This means those currently in control lose most of their power; if you empower people to force a change towards communist principles ... well let's just say that has never gone well. We can squash the wealth gap, and we can redistribute political power back to the demos ... but it's a very long road and means structuring society to combat individual greed, ultimately giving up the "American dream" of having others work at your minions to give you a millionaire life-style. Honestly, the greed we humans have for that is so powerful it acts as an almost insurmountable barrier to a fairer society/World.
- usefulcat 3y ago
  Giving the government more money is not a necessary result of progressive taxation. It's entirely possible to increase taxes on the wealthy without increasing government tax revenue by giving everyone else a (probably very modest) tax cut.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    The trick they pull is you guys are talking about progressive taxation, but you really need to be talking about increasing capital gains taxes.
  - Dig1t 3y ago
    Well that is a great idea, why don’t more people talk about doing that?
    - tempodox 3y ago
      Because everyone is just a temporarily embarrassed billionaire, and in what world do billionaires pay taxes?
      - thumbuddy 3y ago
        They never have because they pay to create the laws which have loopholes for them to operate however they want.
- callalex 3y ago
  Please explain to me how more progressive taxation formulas increase the expenditure budgets of governments? Typically the in and out are independent.
bendbro 3y ago
If we ban wealth, we should also ban career politicians. Otherwise we are just trading one unjust ruler for another.
- gnramires 3y ago
  I think tying politician salary to median income (or even some weighted average of median and the lower percentiles) could be very good for politics. Along with remaking the system for lobbying (buying influence), which should be done in a very careful setting (maybe a public or semi-public forum), to bring legitimate concerns to politicians and not buy influence... (cost should not be a significant barrier to reaching congress members as much as legitimacy!)
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  The problem with term limits is that they discourage the lower classes from getting involved in politics. Only the wealthy can afford to just take a 4-6 year break from their career.
  - bendbro 3y ago
    In this fantasy wealth is banned so that problem is solved. Perhaps we conscript our leaders via some random process?
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    > The problem with term limits is that they discourage the lower classes from getting involved in politics. I think that ship has sailed. > Only the wealthy can afford to just take a 4-6 year break from their career. Many elected political offices get paid a reasonably good salary, higher than median wages. Many people change careers after 5 or 10 years too. Even the commoners. So I'm don't buy this assertion.
  - kilolima 3y ago
    Women do it all the time...
    - 3y ago
cpursley 3y ago
Rich people don’t pay income taxes.
hajile 3y ago
We ALREADY have a more progressive tax system than almost any other country in the world by a large margin. In reality, that doesn't do a thing. The rich simply make up for you not paying taxes by paying you less. Finally, the rich pay capital gains rates and then only occasionally. If you want to fix the problem, abolish income tax and add a universal sales tax on everything. Rich people then pay the same amount of taxes as everyone else (or their money just sits there). You can then reduce taxes on things like food staples which disproportionately benefit the poor. In the process, taxing the sale of stocks would immediately reign in the biggest issues in the stock market too.
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  You believe that an income tax whose max bracket stops at $578,126, and where you stop having to pay medicare and social security taxes stop after $147,000 is progressive? You think that a flat capital gains tax lower than the top income tax brackets is progressive? That's... different.
- tasty_freeze 3y ago
  Your proposed fix would make the 1% completely happy. The poorest people spend 100% of their income and thus 100% of their income would be subject to that tax. Rich people invest and spend only a small portion of their income, and so only a small portion of their income would be subject to a tax.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    The taxes should reflect the luxury of the purchase. That was the entire goal of US federal taxes prior to the country-ruining 16th Ammendment.
  - hajile 3y ago
    When rich people invest, that means they are buying something. That thing gets taxed because they bought it. When they want to sell it to get a profit, someone has to buy it and pay taxes (factoring that tax into the equation also lowers selling price which is effectively a tax too). Poor people spend MOST of their income on their primary residence, food, utilities, and a couple other staples. You could simply eliminate taxes associated withe residences under X amount, taxes on staple foods, residential utility bills under a certain amount, etc. At that point, poor people would be paying few taxes while rich people would be forced to pay for all the things that make it worth being rich.

One thing that would help is far more progressive taxation. No one in modern society should have the kind of wealth that enables leveraging politicians and public opinion.

smabie 3y ago

because giving the government even more money will certainly solve the problem of government corruption!

RhodesianHunter 3y ago
It's not about giving the government more money. It's about redistributing from the class that buys politicians like I buy a candy bar, to the class that works two jobs to put shitty unhealthy polluted food on the table.
- m00x 3y ago
  They would still be bought, but by other means. Even in Communism there is class division (if not more). Powerful people find ways.
  - classified 3y ago
    "It can't be perfect, so let's not even try."
  - thumbuddy 3y ago
    In anarchistic France when someone started acting like they were better than someone else a coworker would go on a smoke break with them and shoot them in the head. At least that's what I read... Not saying that's a successful model, but there are a lot of shades of grey between and surrounding our current system and the classic bogeyman "communism".
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    >Even in Communism there is class division (if not more).// What do you mean by this? We've never had a completely Capitalist system, AFAIAA, because the logical ends to that are slavery and selling body parts just to survive. Which means rebellion by the proles and it's easier to get people to work endlessly for your ends if you give them a measure of hope. Similarly, we've never had a completely Communist system because the logical ends to that are redistribution of power from those in control to the people. This means those currently in control lose most of their power; if you empower people to force a change towards communist principles ... well let's just say that has never gone well. We can squash the wealth gap, and we can redistribute political power back to the demos ... but it's a very long road and means structuring society to combat individual greed, ultimately giving up the "American dream" of having others work at your minions to give you a millionaire life-style. Honestly, the greed we humans have for that is so powerful it acts as an almost insurmountable barrier to a fairer society/World.
usefulcat 3y ago
Giving the government more money is not a necessary result of progressive taxation. It's entirely possible to increase taxes on the wealthy without increasing government tax revenue by giving everyone else a (probably very modest) tax cut.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  The trick they pull is you guys are talking about progressive taxation, but you really need to be talking about increasing capital gains taxes.
- Dig1t 3y ago
  Well that is a great idea, why don’t more people talk about doing that?
  - tempodox 3y ago
    Because everyone is just a temporarily embarrassed billionaire, and in what world do billionaires pay taxes?
    - thumbuddy 3y ago
      They never have because they pay to create the laws which have loopholes for them to operate however they want.
callalex 3y ago
Please explain to me how more progressive taxation formulas increase the expenditure budgets of governments? Typically the in and out are independent.

bendbro 3y ago

If we ban wealth, we should also ban career politicians. Otherwise we are just trading one unjust ruler for another.

gnramires 3y ago
I think tying politician salary to median income (or even some weighted average of median and the lower percentiles) could be very good for politics. Along with remaking the system for lobbying (buying influence), which should be done in a very careful setting (maybe a public or semi-public forum), to bring legitimate concerns to politicians and not buy influence... (cost should not be a significant barrier to reaching congress members as much as legitimacy!)
RhodesianHunter 3y ago
The problem with term limits is that they discourage the lower classes from getting involved in politics. Only the wealthy can afford to just take a 4-6 year break from their career.
- bendbro 3y ago
  In this fantasy wealth is banned so that problem is solved. Perhaps we conscript our leaders via some random process?
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  > The problem with term limits is that they discourage the lower classes from getting involved in politics. I think that ship has sailed. > Only the wealthy can afford to just take a 4-6 year break from their career. Many elected political offices get paid a reasonably good salary, higher than median wages. Many people change careers after 5 or 10 years too. Even the commoners. So I'm don't buy this assertion.
- kilolima 3y ago
  Women do it all the time...
  - 3y ago

cpursley 3y ago

Rich people don’t pay income taxes.

hajile 3y ago

We ALREADY have a more progressive tax system than almost any other country in the world by a large margin. In reality, that doesn't do a thing. The rich simply make up for you not paying taxes by paying you less. Finally, the rich pay capital gains rates and then only occasionally. If you want to fix the problem, abolish income tax and add a universal sales tax on everything. Rich people then pay the same amount of taxes as everyone else (or their money just sits there). You can then reduce taxes on things like food staples which disproportionately benefit the poor. In the process, taxing the sale of stocks would immediately reign in the biggest issues in the stock market too.

RhodesianHunter 3y ago
You believe that an income tax whose max bracket stops at $578,126, and where you stop having to pay medicare and social security taxes stop after $147,000 is progressive? You think that a flat capital gains tax lower than the top income tax brackets is progressive? That's... different.
tasty_freeze 3y ago
Your proposed fix would make the 1% completely happy. The poorest people spend 100% of their income and thus 100% of their income would be subject to that tax. Rich people invest and spend only a small portion of their income, and so only a small portion of their income would be subject to a tax.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  The taxes should reflect the luxury of the purchase. That was the entire goal of US federal taxes prior to the country-ruining 16th Ammendment.
- hajile 3y ago
  When rich people invest, that means they are buying something. That thing gets taxed because they bought it. When they want to sell it to get a profit, someone has to buy it and pay taxes (factoring that tax into the equation also lowers selling price which is effectively a tax too). Poor people spend MOST of their income on their primary residence, food, utilities, and a couple other staples. You could simply eliminate taxes associated withe residences under X amount, taxes on staple foods, residential utility bills under a certain amount, etc. At that point, poor people would be paying few taxes while rich people would be forced to pay for all the things that make it worth being rich.