Wealth of Elon Musk
2012: $2,000,000,000
2023: $248,800,000,000
Wealth of Jeff Bezos
2012: $18,400,000,000
2023: $160,900,000,000
Wealth of Mark Zuckerberg
2012: $17,500,000,000
2023: $105,200,000,000
Federal Minimum Wage
2012: $7.25
2023: $7.25
Three words: tax the rich.
@normalguy @Strandjunker bullshit
that never worked!
And how should it even work, if you only get to choose from what rich guy you're buying?
Another and less effect way
@Strandjunker Tax everyone, why "the rich" ? The problem is that "the rich" is too vague, to ambiguous of a term, where do we set the threshold ?
Make it just, make it correct, so that everyone can get behind the idea !
Tax everyone, a just and fair percentage, and that way, nobody can complain they are taxed too much, or more than the next person. Only way to get everyone to agree !
@prolamerdude @potpie @Strandjunker
Er... no.
@prolamerdude @potpie @Strandjunker
Because the amount the poor can bear compared with the rich is disproportionate.
If you are poor and all your income goes on basic food, lodging, and other essentials, any taxation will be catastrophic.
If people must be taxed it should be in proportion to their ability to pay.
But the rich should never be able to get so rich in the first place. There should be regulation, just as there is on monopolies and mergers.
Best to #SeizeTheMeans of production.
@pete @potpie @Strandjunker I think I understand the first point and I tend to agree with you. There should be a minimum threshold, like say above 1000€ you pay like 25% on everything else. So keeping things fair while being mindful of people that don't have enough income.
But the "in proportion to their ability to pay" is too vague, that's why tax loopholes exist, so that rich people find ways to "optimize" their apparent "ability to pay". Not a good, OR FAIR, way to look at things, imho...
@prolamerdude @potpie @Strandjunker that’s circular thinking.
Close the tax loopholes.
@pete @potpie @Strandjunker Absolutely agree that tax loopholes should not exist, and politicians only pretend to not know about them because of corruption, because their wealthy donors bribe the fuck out of them. Corruption is CANCER for a fair society.
But what part of my thinking is circular ? How is my viewpoint wrong ?
@prolamerdude @potpie @Strandjunker
I think people allow the rich to get away with things because they think “when I’m rich I want to be able to get away with it too”. Of course almost no one is rich.
So we end up living in societies which allow the accumulation of wealth within a few individuals, even though it’s bad for society as a whole.
@pete @potpie @Strandjunker I understand what you're saying, but for me, personally, I don't think that's where my viewpoint is coming from.
I know I'm never going to be a billionaire, and don't want to. I wish for a simple life, I want to be self-sufficient etc.
But I think if we were to plan for a "fair" society, these ideas are still interesting to discuss.
I can't find a "fair" explanation in my mind, on why and how could anyone decide what someone else does with their own money.
@pete @potpie @Strandjunker Monopolies are one thing, and I agree it is good to fight against them in the free market. But people having wealth is different than a monopoly, isn't it ?
Seize the means of production, what do you mean ? Like cooperatives ? Those already exist. How would seizing any means of production work, in a free and just society ?
@prolamerdude @potpie @Strandjunker
It’s not a free or just society. People become wage slaves, and zero hour contracts leave people without recourse or support.
@pete @potpie @Strandjunker I understand, and believe me, I have a whole list of things that are not ok with our society, in my simplistic and naïve view.
But what part, precisely, is not free or unjust ?
I want to not just look at the result, but at the root of it all.
The result is that people become wage slaves, but I want to look at the root cause, what is unjust, what is unfair ? That should be what we should be focusing on changing and improving
@prolamerdude @pete @potpie @Strandjunker because if you're taxing everyone 50%, then rich people are still stupidly rich, meanwhile poor people are starving
yay!
@prolamerdude @drazraeltod @potpie @Strandjunker
I've replied more than just "Er... no".
If someone earns just over €1,000, every extra €100 they earn, they will lose €25. This is 2.27% of their total income.
If someone earns €1,000,000, every extra €100 they earn, they will lose €25. This is 0.003% of their total income.
This is not fair.
@pete @drazraeltod @potpie @Strandjunker I know, but what I meant is that the last 2 replies were "Er... no." so my comment was about that.
You say it's not fair because of the way you presented the numbers.
But the person earning 1.000.000€ already pays 249.750€ in taxes, based on my example, which is 9990 times more taxes than 25€.
So an unreasonable person that would be on the polar opposite side of your political views, would simply say that is unfair. You see what I mean ?
@prolamerdude @drazraeltod @potpie @Strandjunker
I know, I presented it that way because it depends upon how you look at it.
Would you say someone who earns 1000 times as much, works 1000 times as hard, or is subject to 1000 times as much danger?
Is that fair?
@pete @drazraeltod @potpie @Strandjunker No, I am absolutely sure that is not the case. It would be humanly impossible to work 1000 times more than another person that works also.
Someone who earns 1000 times more can only do so through other means other than their direct work. For example : if, say, you help a company earn a lot of money, solely through your decisions, you can be paid very well. In this example it's not exactly "work", but just decisions you made that earned you that. [...]
@pete @drazraeltod @potpie @Strandjunker If, for example, you invest 10.000$ in something that has a low probability of success (you have 99% chance you lose all your money), but by chance it works out and pays x100, should you be taxed at a very high rate, just because that payout is high ?
I think you should be taxed at the normal rate as everyone, because in case you lost everything (a risk you were willing to take), nobody would have reimbursed you... The risk was yours, profit should also.
@prolamerdude @drazraeltod @potpie @Strandjunker
Well banks and large businesses justify their profits by saying they are taking risks, but when they get into trouble they get bailed out using public money.
Also, banks takes risks with our money, which we've lent to them. Then their interest rates lag behind the economy so they profit, while we struggle.
Is that fair?
@pete @drazraeltod @potpie @Strandjunker to answer your first point : I find "bailouts" absolutely appalling ! Either you say you want to be capitalist, in which case : you take risk, it doesn't work out, you lose ! Or you're socialist : government helps you out when in trouble, but when you profit, government wins also ! You can't have it both ways !
What Americans called "bailouts" were some of the most shameless displays of greed and corruption I've ever seen !!!
[...]
@pete @drazraeltod @potpie @Strandjunker [...] To your second point about banks' interests : I'm currently learning about finance and how economy works etc. (btw, current economic situation looks very bleak, maybe I'm just a doomer, but damn it feels like everything is over-leveraged and money is fake lol)
And I've been learning about interest a bit; from what I saw, banks propose a certain interest on deposits, but if people don't like it, they take their money out and buy bonds. [...]
@pete @drazraeltod @potpie @Strandjunker [...] and if I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what's happening right now in the US, hence why some banks are having problems, because liquidity is going out, people prefer taking advantage of the current fed rates of ~5%, instead of keeping their money in the bank so that those greedy fks can get rich, while they only give 1% ...
So is what banks are doing fair ? I think it's not necessarily unfair; it's not cool, and that's why people leave banks ...
@kaito02 @potpie @Strandjunker I looked it up.
I looked up the difference between equity and equality also, and I think I might not have understood everything well enough, because from what I've read, it felt like equity was unfair to some, unjust. Why would anyone root for an unjust system that does not treat everyone the same ? It feels like if the law was applied differently for different people, like we were not all the same. This feels wrong to me...
@prolamerdude @potpie @Strandjunker
So Muskrat gets to pay the same tax as a immigrant labourer doing stoop work in fields? That is fair how?
There is no justification of any kind for any single person having a billion dollars of wealth.
Any out the top 20 riches men (its always men) in the world could use billions of dollars to, for example, end world poverty and still be insanely wealthy. They don't, they build penis space rockets, bigger and bigger yachts and ruin social media sites.
Its not taxation that's needed. Its appropriation of funds and assets. If billionaires wont use their money for good we take it from them.
@prolamerdude
why do you believe that Progressive Tax is bad?
It would only make sense if everyone paid the same percentage of taxes and also paid for everything at the same percentage of their wealth. For instance, imagine if those with lower incomes paid $1 for a burger, while billionaires paid half a million dollars for the same item. What do you think about that?
@tsungi @robcornelius @potpie @Strandjunker I don't think it's bad, but rather I cannot wrap my head around how it can be seen as fair. I'm still trying to figure this all out, I'm sorry if I maybe don't express my opinions too well yet.
In the example you gave, that would mean having more wealth poses absolutely no advantage. The idea of say, for example, my parents sacrificing going on vacation, in order to save for a better life later on, would mean nothing, because everything would [...]
@tsungi @robcornelius @potpie @Strandjunker [...] be more expensive afterwards, just because they saved money.
So what good would that do ?
The idea with taxes, in my view, is that we all have something to gain from a well-functioning society : infrastructure, education, healthcare etc. So we should all give back towards society, the same amount, percentage-wise. For me, it's like saying "Thanks to this society, I have earned this much, so I give a quarter/a third of my income [...]
@tsungi @robcornelius @potpie @Strandjunker [...] towards the betterment and the maintenance of this society".
This is how I see taxes, basically.
If a burger costs 10 times more when I have 10 times more savings, for example, I have absolutely no incentive to save money. Or to invest. Or to do anything else other than spend my money as soon as I get my salary.
That sounds very simplistic and would never work in a real, functioning society composed of normal people, at least I can't imagine
@prolamerdude
as you mentioned in another thread that everyone should contribute back to socieity. I would understand it as that everyone should also take responsibility for the common good (our environement or just burgers as example lol).
But what percentage of this responsibility for the common good should everyone bear? (It sounds somewhat akin to the concept of Individual CO2 credits.)
There are also a lot of concerns.
For instance, how do the wealthy tend to get even richer? Is it through hard work, or do they take advantage of those less fortunate and shift environmental problems elsewhere?
Why is it that someone with capital can generate even more wealth, while an average worker often has little to save after paying for rent and food?
Do you believe that "smart" individuals deserve to be rewarded with more wealth, even if many of them may do more harm than good to others (how about speculation on real estate? and poors get poor)
In your non-progressive tax idea, do you think there's a need for basic income or a minimum threshold?
maybe you have anwsers and I would be very interested in it.
Your idea sounds like someone who already possesses substantial wealth and keeps safeguarding their assets without knowing how poor the majority are. This situation is somewhat analogous to individuals in developed countries critiquing overpopulation in third-world countries and urging them to contribute /the same/ percentage of sacrifices to address climate change.
@tsungi I think this is one of the most interesting replies anyone gave me.
I cannot write messages that long (how did you do it?), so I'm going to write everything and break it down in multiple conséquent replies.
Firstly, a bit of background on me so that we can skip assumptions on a personal level : I come from Romania, our parents were low-middle-class, started from nothing, they both used to work two jobs when, I used to only see them at night around
[...]
@tsungi [...]
11pm or so when they got home, in order to save money in hopes of havin a better future.
We emigrated to France around 13 years ago, and as wedidn't have enough money, I used to look in bins for things people threw away that were still good. That's basically where I come from, I had some dark moments.
I worked during my studies (never had any government help, but that's because of myself, I didn't know that concept existed since it doesn't exist in Romania,
[...]
@tsungi [...]
so I never applyed for it), evenings and week-ends, finished 6 years of studies, with 2 bachelors and a Master's, and have been working on my own ever since I was old enough, basically. Have had a period of 10 years when I only saved and never went on vacation, because that's what my parents taught me, that's what they sacrificed their lives for, so that we could have a chance at a better life.
I'm writing all this, not for anyone
[...]
@tsungi [...]
to feel sorry for me or in the concept of "I had it hard so other people can do it too", but just so that I can explain to you that I'm not rich nor come from a rich family. I value hard work, saving, and living in a country where government is not corrupt all the way to its core and where if you work hard enough, you have a real chance to live a good life.
And regarding my current situation, I am currently in my thirties, I am probably lower middle class
[...]
@tsungi [...]
here in France, and have no urge to become rich; I only wish to live a tranquil life and to become self-sufficient, little by little.
I have a small amount of money put aside, and have been learning about how to best use that money in the future, how money works, how financial markets work, how to not fall in financial traps etc. I would love to be able to use that money for good in the future. So that's one of the reasons why I consider saving a good thing,
[...]
@tsungi [...]
and why I cannot comprehend people that talk about a "wealth tax", it seems so backwards to me...
So this is me.
Now, onto the points you made.
Yes, I agree that everyone should contribute back to society : anyone that earns even a single dollar, does so in part thanks to the fact that we have a functioning society (there are exceptions but let's say 99.9%) : simple example : if there was no infrastructure, absolutely nothing can
[...]
@tsungi [...]
function, no companies, no jobs, no nothing.
And I think, (again, in my very simplistic point of view) that the most fair way to express that contribution, would be a certain percentage of what you earn.
Now, that would not necessarily imply that "everyone should take responsibility for the common good", that is a different, more complex issue, at least in my view. What do you mean by the common good ? Who decides what that is ?
So that is absolutely not what I meant.
[...]
@tsungi [...]
I meant it more like a duty, or someone "owing" something in return for the very functioning of the society, which allowed them to earn value through their work or their company etc. But I didn't equate that to a "responsibility", neither did I relate the concept of "common good". I believe every person only has a true "responsibility" towards their children, parents, their family, basically. That comes before all else.
[...]
@tsungi [...]
But "common good" is a vague term and I don't think it should be pushed or forced upon anyone unless they wish for it willingly.
Individual CO2 credits are another, very complex issue. I don't have enough of an informed opinion in order to comment on that; there are an enourmous amount of questions that I would need to find an answer to, before cristalizing a definitive point of view on that. For example, who decides what a "credit" is ?
[...]
@tsungi [...]
Does planting a tree give me credits ? Do companies that are forced to use petrol for example, need to pay for "credits", or are the prices of goods and services they offer simply going to incorporate those costs ? Who decides all of this ? Would the creation of electric cars be credit-positive, or credit-negative, given how many rare earth metals they use ? And a whole list of other questions ...
[...]
🌻A
Andrea Junker 
Matthias
Normal Guy
Cegorach
KenWouldJef
Ana
Nick in NY
Pro Lamer Dude
potpie
Pete
Kaito
dr elmyra
RobCornelius
tsungi