4 ms·

If the average person was told they would have to pay 94% tax on high level income and other people could skirt it to remain billionaires there would be riots a

If the average person was told they would have to pay 94% tax on high level income and other people could skirt it to remain billionaires there would be riots and/or changes in how income is defined, so in the end I don't think it would matter. It would have to settle one way or another in short order, although it could get pretty bloody.

jleyank 4mo ago
For whatever reasons, there were weren’t riots in the 50’s. Perhaps the complex financial games weren’t present, or perhaps information flow was insufficient to reveal them. Or, maybe, income inequality was much smaller and there wasn’t ways to massively increase one’s holdings. There were riots in the 60’s but money wasn’t anywhere near the top of the cause list.
noncoml 4mo ago
I don't know how you simplify things so much... Do you want 94% tax on stocks? Why stop at stocks? How about property? Your house's net worth? The social equality shouldn't be based on how much poorer we are in comparison to Musk, but can the poorest of us afford food, shelter, education and healthcare? Can they afford it by having a decent work/life balance? Our economic system creates billionaires as a side effect, but is there any other out there that is better and doesn't create billionaires? At the end of the day, is our average citizen today better off than when they were in 1944? If you want people to listen that are the questions you should ask and how you should market "socialism". Not "eat the rich" bullshit.
- jleyank 4mo ago
  The average citizen in 1944 was in rubble, a factory, a jungle or on a beach in 1944. Compare it to, say, 1957.
- AngryData 4mo ago
  If my stocks, property, or house's net worth is valuated in the hundreds of millions, then yes that should be heavily taxed too. You can't get that rich without relying completely upon the society and government around you to enable such wealth generation. And people right now are hungry, living on the streets, not getting educated, and not receiving healthcare because of simple poverty. I don't know what world you live in where such things have been eliminated. Many people do not have the option for a decent work/life balance right now. Co-op businesses don't create billionaires and benefit all the workers rather than just a handful. And pointing to improvements in technology over time does not make today automatically better. Technology wouldn't stop improving if billionaires didn't exist. In fact I can't think of a single invention that wouldn't exist without them. How many people are dead and governments overthrown because some rich assholes wanted more and couldn't stand the idea of locals getting a few more cents in wages? I know someone with just a few million dollars to retire on after decades of work couldn't manage to get such operations pulled off.

jleyank 4mo ago

For whatever reasons, there were weren’t riots in the 50’s. Perhaps the complex financial games weren’t present, or perhaps information flow was insufficient to reveal them. Or, maybe, income inequality was much smaller and there wasn’t ways to massively increase one’s holdings. There were riots in the 60’s but money wasn’t anywhere near the top of the cause list.

noncoml 4mo ago

I don't know how you simplify things so much... Do you want 94% tax on stocks? Why stop at stocks? How about property? Your house's net worth? The social equality shouldn't be based on how much poorer we are in comparison to Musk, but can the poorest of us afford food, shelter, education and healthcare? Can they afford it by having a decent work/life balance? Our economic system creates billionaires as a side effect, but is there any other out there that is better and doesn't create billionaires? At the end of the day, is our average citizen today better off than when they were in 1944? If you want people to listen that are the questions you should ask and how you should market "socialism". Not "eat the rich" bullshit.

jleyank 4mo ago
The average citizen in 1944 was in rubble, a factory, a jungle or on a beach in 1944. Compare it to, say, 1957.
AngryData 4mo ago
If my stocks, property, or house's net worth is valuated in the hundreds of millions, then yes that should be heavily taxed too. You can't get that rich without relying completely upon the society and government around you to enable such wealth generation. And people right now are hungry, living on the streets, not getting educated, and not receiving healthcare because of simple poverty. I don't know what world you live in where such things have been eliminated. Many people do not have the option for a decent work/life balance right now. Co-op businesses don't create billionaires and benefit all the workers rather than just a handful. And pointing to improvements in technology over time does not make today automatically better. Technology wouldn't stop improving if billionaires didn't exist. In fact I can't think of a single invention that wouldn't exist without them. How many people are dead and governments overthrown because some rich assholes wanted more and couldn't stand the idea of locals getting a few more cents in wages? I know someone with just a few million dollars to retire on after decades of work couldn't manage to get such operations pulled off.