this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
386 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19088 readers
4304 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's not nearly a high enough tax rate, but it's always good to take money away from billionaires.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Problem is, this kind of shit that is far far far from enough is enough to placate centrists and liberals who see it as a win and are happy to leave the system that enabled the vast inequality that this is so feebly trying to fix, in the first place, chug on uninterrupted.
This isn't even pocket money to those it is designed to impact, to think it would change their ways or the system in any way is absurd at best.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely. Liberals will see "new tax on billionaires" and break out the confetti, but it's literally "between the couch cushions" money to them. I don't know about them, but the money taken through my effective tax rate genuinely could impact my life for the better. At the very least, there's a chance radlibs will see through this one. I know something like this would have put me past the line back in the day.

The only one that's almost reasonable is the lowest tax bracket, which would be better at 4%. For the rest, I'd double it and add 2%. That's almost approaching something fair in the capitalist system

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

something fair in the capitalist system

that's the problem - there is no such thing, the unfairness is built in to the system, it's not a bug.
Which is why the whole system needs abolishing, and not just its symptoms addressed.

I hate to preach to the choir, I just feel like these things need repeating as often as possible..

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

But abolishing the system might hurt the economy. /s

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yea, bit of an oxymoron there lol my bad

[–] lasagna@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

Think of the tactics applied from the other side. It's seldom groundbreaking but often slow and gradual.

[–] Zaktor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It's a wealth tax, those are pretty aggressive rates.