PizzaMane

Why do you post articles that aren’t really relevant?

Looks like you didn't actually read, otherwise you would have been able to understand the relevance. I highlighted the important bits and even that wasn't enough for you to understand.

Since you have a thing for Elon. Let’s use Elon.

Why is it always with the insults and cherypicking with you? Grow the fuck up.

The other communities are celebrating it because we are landing things on the moon, and they're using a good source IIRC.

This post on the other hand is celebrating it because it's a private company, and is using notthebee.

So yeah, this one got downvoted and the normal ones got upvoted. Not a surprise.

The wealthy pay more than their fair share.

• "In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-richest person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes."

• "Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no federal income tax three years in a row."

• "The results are stark. According to Forbes, those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%."

• "No one among the 25 wealthiest avoided as much tax as Buffett, the grandfatherly centibillionaire. That’s perhaps surprising, given his public stance as an advocate of higher taxes for the rich. According to Forbes, his riches rose $24.3 billion between 2014 and 2018. Over those years, the data shows, Buffett reported paying $23.7 million in taxes. That works out to a true tax rate of 0.1%, or less than 10 cents for every $100 he added to his wealth."

• "Consider Bezos’ 2007, one of the years he paid zero in federal income taxes. Amazon’s stock more than doubled. Bezos’ fortune leapt $3.8 billion, according to Forbes, whose wealth estimates are widely cited. How did a person enjoying that sort of wealth explosion end up paying no income tax?"

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/propublica/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/

I don't know about you, but I sure as shit ain't getting a near 0% tax rate.

So yes, it’s fiscally responsible to give them a tax break.

• "Inequality has remained persistently high for decades, and a new report shows just how stark the divide is between the richest and poorest people on the planet."

• "The 2022 World Inequality Report, a huge undertaking coordinated by economic and inequality experts Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman, was the product of four years of research and produced an unprecedented data set on just how wealth is distributed."

• ""The world is marked by a very high level of income inequality and an extreme level of wealth inequality," the authors wrote."

• "The data serves as a complete rebuke of the trickle-down economic theory, which posits that cutting taxes on the rich will "trickle down" to those below, with the cuts eventually benefiting everyone. In America, trickle-down was exemplified by President Ronald Reagan's tax slashes. It's a theory that persists today, even though most research has shown that 50 years of tax cuts benefits the wealthy and worsens inequality.""

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad-is-inequality-trickle-down-economics-thomas-piketty-economists-2021-12

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/business-insider/

• "We find that major tax cuts for the rich push up income inequality, as measured by the top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The size of the effect is substantial: on average, each major tax cut results in a rise of 0.8 percentage points in top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect holds in both the short and medium term. Turning our attention to economic performance, we find no significant effects of major tax cuts for the rich. More specifically, the trajectories of real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate are unaffected by significant reductions in taxes on the rich in both the short and medium term. Our results have important implications for current debates around the economic consequences of taxing the rich, as they provide causal evidence that supports the growing pool of evidence from correlational studies that cutting taxes on the rich increases top income shares, but has little effect on economic performance (Lee and Gordon, 2005; Piketty et al., 2014; Roine et al., 2009). They also align with the causal findings in Rubulino and Waldenstrom (2020), but provide stronger and more generalizable conclusions, as our approach allows us to move beyond looking at tax changes in only handful of selected countries. There are several potentially fruitful avenues for future research that come out of our analysis. While our choice of dependent variable (including both capital and labour income) makes it less likely the results are being driven by tax shifting or avoidance, we do not specifically test the mechanisms at work. Follow up research could therefore assess whether the macroeconomic effects we find are being driven by the mechanism outlined in Piketty et al. (2014), which is that lower taxes on top incomes induce the rich to bargain more aggressively to increase their own rewards, to the direct detriment of those lower down the income distribution. The analysis could also be extended outside of the OECD to see if the findings hold in countries with lower fiscal capacity. Lastly, from a policy perspective, it would also be important to understand more about the extent to which individuals’ attitudes to taxing the rich are influenced (or not) by the provision of new information about its economic consequence"

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf

TL;DR: Tax cuts for the rich are a failure, they hurt the average tax payer by increasing wealth disparity.

Fiscal responsibility is important.

Except when it comes to giving tax breaks to the rich.

And does “purge” mean violence to you?

In this context yes.

Yes, you are auth-left.

No I'm not.

I am a liberal, but that’s all I am going to say about myself.

No, you're just a troll on a 1 day old account.

Did you just link to a comment I didn’t make?

Lemmy has shitty links, and yours got buried by downvotes. Read the third one down:

• "So true. There must be no forgiveness, no tolerance, no acceptance. Conservatives must be purged from this planet. "

The delusions of auth-left never ceases to amaze me.

I'm not auth left. But thanks for the insult, it's nicer to know that I'm dealing with a literal child.

No one hasn’t mentioned violence except you

You have a short memory

https://lemm.ee/comment/9485402

1. What are you even talking about?

2. Are you going to address what I said?

Mate, here’s a great example of you intentionally pissing everyone off.

... by simply existing evidently.

But you’re still managed to piss everyone off, while maintaining a thin facade of civility.

If bringing up straight facts is enough to piss people off, then you guys are the problem, not me or the facts.

you aren’t here to discuss or anything

Then why the fuck would I be putting in the tiniest bit of effort? Trolls don't put effort in.

The whole "what could have stopped X" question is a loaded one. But regardless, the answer is gun control, and U.S. law should learn from modern German law:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/germany-gun-control-laws-a4366996.html

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/london-evening-standard/

It's crazy how even this right wing sources seems to understand that gun control is necessary and a requirement for low gun death rates, given that they admit right at the begging of the article that they have amongst the lowest death rates out there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Total:

Germany: 1.04/capita

United States: 12.21/capita

Homicide only:

Germany: 0.06/capita

United States: 4.46/capita

If more guns & lax gun laws made us safe, we would should expect to see the opposite. Yet we don't, because anybody with half a brain understands that a tool whose purpose is to kill as easily as possible will make killing easier when it is around untrained people/people with insufficient reason to own it/people who store them poorly.

That's a 75x smaller gun homicide rate. We aren't going to get that small of a rate without gun control.

Inb4 somebody calls me a troll despite putting effort into this: fuck off

You cannot attack an ideology without attacking the people who make up that ideology. They cannot be cleanly distinguished from each other.

Quit your bullshit. Dunking on shitty beliefs does not equate to killing or hurting people like you were suggesting.

This means attacking the people.

Good job moving the goal posts. First it was purging. Now it's being made out to be social pariahs. Pick one, and quit equating scorn with violence.

You are mocking a call to violence in which there is none. They're saying conservatism (the belief, the ideology) needs to die.

Conservatives should be openly mocked and ridiculed for their cruelty and violence. They should be laughed out of office.