Gregory's ServerThree multibillionaires now own more wealth than the bottom half of America – 160 million Americans.
Don’t tell us we can’t afford a wealth tax on the super-rich.
|
85 comments
@rbreich how would we tax the super rich without the super passing the tax onto the bottom 160 millian americans @Structure7780 @rbreich are we supposed to just remain a hostage of the billionaire class? Purchasing other business to consolidate the entire private sector to a few duopolies that grant them the leverage to arbitrarily hike prices? The only way we can successful enforce taxes on the rich without retaliation is through legislation. Set federal caps on prices and minimum production quotas. When corporations own everything we need to survive, we need to hold them to the fire. @nicky_james @rbreich like you said we are hostages to billianaries. So how do we get out of that. Legistation is great expect for the fact that americal politicians are the most bribiable job in america. @Structure7780 @rbreich lol. You're not wrong about being the most bribable job. I think overturning Citizens United is a step in the right direction. One of the things I do for my dayjob is enact cultural change within organizations to help them adopt new technology and ideas. I think enacting a similar kind of cultural change, specifically targeting Republican voters, is a way to get us to passing more effective legislation.  @Structure7780 such a major issue. Happy holidays 🎁. Do you follow my daily review? @Structure7780 @rbreich Because they don't directly control the pricing of goods. They are individually unable to "pass it on.", as it would require steps that would violate existing anti-trust laws. @rbreich@masto.ai i am going to bookmark this, it should have some good arguments from both sides. although it is possible that the ultra-rich don't yet have sycophants all over the fediverse. either way... @walkingsue the truth will be unfolded soon. Happy holidays 🎁. Do you follow my daily review? @tmyerscough @rbreich we could start by fully funding the IRS, and put an army of people to work investigating his income sources and tax events. @rbreich We should go back to the 1946 tax rate for millionaires where it is 91% after $200k. Maybe update it to 91% after $1 billion. Tax rates were like that until Reagan and "trickle-down" economics.  @Stefan_S_from_H @pyager @rbreich Unlimited Free Speech isnt. Democracy is a marketplace of ideas Markets arent evil capitalism is Unrestricted lying as speech without consequences renders democracy impossible. @Stefan_S_from_H @rticks @rbreich In the U.S. it is unconstitutional to restrict someone's speech even if they are rich. Even without that, I think free speech is important for a functioning democracy. @rticks @Stefan_S_from_H @rbreich I think the problem isn't the U.S. Constitution or any constitution. That isn't the cause of unbridled capitalism or the fact the right is relying on lies and misinformation more and more. Democracy is the way to bridal capitalism and to set things right in a peaceful way. Walking away from democracy is not the way to a better society. Reference any tin-pot dictatorship for proof. @pyager @Stefan_S_from_H @rbreich The rules are rigged towards rural power, towards aristocracy and towards capitalism The 1789 constitution has outlived its usefulness. It cannot be patched anymore. It MUST be replaced and safeguards against Capitalism, Billionares, Fascism, Republicanism and every other ism the right stands for  @pyager @rticks @Stefan_S_from_H @rbreich Yes. More democracy, organize democracy, teach democracy, organize people to have more power, democratically. And dump the fillibuster which is not invited to any party the constitution is going to. @Stefan_S_from_H @rbreich That's a good point. A billionaire/millionaire business owner can decide to take a $1 salary. We do need a true wealth tax, even if that wealth is coming from investments or stocks. @pyager @rbreich I think setting the cutoff for 91% tax rates at $1B is far too high, too. You could probably not hurt many people if you set that rate at anything over $250k. You could safely set an income tax rate of 100% for any income over, say, $500k. At that point, the person will have earned $500k in one year, and only any marginal income above the first $500k they earn would be taxed at that rate. Eisenhower, Republican President after Truman kept most of Roosevelt's, Truman's tax levels, when asked why, said words to the effect, "Lazy money, We only tax lazy money. Upgrade your factory, invest in your business and we dont." But really, that was before a handfull of men started owning almost all of it. We need strong, robust, fair, taxation of wealth. @rbreich In the most literal of senses: we can't afford a wealth tax. Why? Because I don't have enough money to take our politicians off they payroll of wealthy elites. @rbreich someone thought my post is about defending billionaires. It's not, obviously billionaires can defend themselves. I'm defending all of us against those who would divide us into tribes in their quest for power. @mndatanerd exactly!! @rbreich Insist, demand, push, wealth taxes. Save the world. @kevinrns i agree with you on that. Thanks for the note. I got a feeling masto-fedi is going to be big, and free. @Rocosan definitely not the plan. @rbreich how do you plan to tax the super-rich? I really want to know. It's not a rhetorical question. I imagine it's not so straightforward as taxing normal people. Can this been explained in a short toot? @Stefan_S_from_H I’m open to discussion, direct your questions to my forum. @jtaylor you’re absolutely right. @rbreich at some point, wealth accumulation moves from something that is maybe neutral for society into something that is pathological for the person and malignant for society. I'm not smart enough to know where that point is, but we desperately need to find it and reset our national tax policy with it in mind. We need rich people to fully and really understand that the sun doesn't, in fact, shine out their backside. @mndatanerd it will better once again, It might only take time. @rbreich As long as we keep electing the rich to make the laws we will keep getting laws that favor the rich. @aliusratio @rbreich fun fact: I was once told by my state representative -- while I was fighting through job instability and poverty, no less -- that her husband made $750k/year as a health care executive, so "not all Democrats are poor." Agree that we can't keep electing rich people and expect anything to change, especially if they are winning under the supposedly progressive party's banner.  Americans need to take more personal responsibility for their lives ° start an oil corporation COME ON PEOPLE !! @rbreich .... Which, of course, will never happen, because you can't afford to run for office without corporate dollars. The point of corporate money isn't to sell a message, but to silence its critics by burying them beneath an avalanche of negative advertising. @newtonsommelier @rbreich Its totally possible to run for office if you don’t spend a billion dollars on the campaign. That is a uniquely American thing. Most other countries spend very little on their election campaigns and they are over and done with in a month or two (not 2 years). The whole American election process is crazy. @rbreich I would love if rich people paid like 80% tax, but realistically, we don’t even have go that far. We can start with forcing them to pay ANY tax at all. The main issue is really all of the loopholes that rich people use to move their money around to foreign bank accounts and tax havens. If we just closed all those holes, it would improve things greatly (let alone going farther)   @rbreich If by a wealth tax you mean seizing all wealth above a billion dollars I'm on board. @rbreich the US never had such tax, only income tax and that's why all rich like Musk gather their wealth and move to the US @rbreich @rbreich The problem that I am seeing with a wealth tax is that megabillionaires might decide to muck around with the stock markets in order to tank their own net worths when it comes time to audit them for the tax value. They would be incentivized to do it because it saves them money in taxes. And the only reason not to is for the bragging rights of who has the biggest wallet. Let's start by closing loopholes and raising the income taxes for the top bracket. Then worry about the hoard. @rbreich So, the people that took this land from the natives weren't actually fleeing for religious reasons, that was an excuse. They left and conquered this land years ago because they didn't wanna pay taxes anymore. The cycle repeats. And those rich folks that actually made the constitution, otherwise people of color and their own wives would have been in the constitution to begin with. As you see though, women and people of color weren't and still aren't because now we are going backwards. |
@rbreich You can't afford not to.