this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
623 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3942 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
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 37 points 8 months ago

If it hurts you, it's the right thing. Cry some, leeches.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Why would you take away these creations from them??? /s

https://www.twwyachts.com/yachts-for-sale/support/

Image

Support yachts are the finest way to improve your yachting experience. Not only you will be able to increase the number of guest & crew accommodations, but also the amount of water toys & tenders that are within your fleet. Upgrapding the mothership to obtain the same results usually comes at a much heftier cost than a support vessel. In addition, the support yacht will be able to resupply the mothership while at anchor and make sure that you never run out of food, wines and all the supplies you may ever need.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (6 children)

I'd prefer the Mao Tse Tung method for dealing with billionaires

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Leting them be billionaries?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 123 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (10 children)

It's nuts for them to rail against this because when Biden said 25% minimum, I was like, "that's it‽"

I get taxed at 25% already and I'm making $125k.

25% is nowhere near enough. Anyone making over 400k individually should be taxed closer to 50%.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Where I'm at it's like anything over 95k is close to 50%. 25? Must be nice.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 77 points 8 months ago (2 children)

there should be a 100% tax for anyone who has a billion dollars or more.

That level of wealth is not compatible with existing in a society.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 8 months ago (10 children)

I think the biggest problem isn’t the tax rate, but the fact that the billionaire class can circumvent the tax system entirely.

Own billions of dollars in stock, don’t ever sell any, don’t pay any taxes on that growth. Maybe some dividends get taxed or something.

Need pocket money though. Take out a loan for $100 million using a little bit of your stock as collateral. You don’t get taxed on taking out debt.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago

Billionaires: "I DO think we should be taxed more."

puts money into lobbying against tax increases

[–] [email protected] 40 points 8 months ago

Did you expect an addict to thank you when you take away their drug cold turkey? Billionairism is a mental disorder, like addiction, and it should be handled with the same care. The kind of care that only billionairs can afford in the US, I must add.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

State of the Union Tax Proposals

Oh, so it's about the vague promises he made in a speech, not actual policy? Excuse me if I don't rush to celebrate how marvelously progressive he's being just yet 🥱

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is ragebait content from democrats. 25 percent minimum income tax on anyone worth at least $100 million is still grossly unfair. 50 billion in a year is a pittance for the owning class. Removing loopholes and including expenditure as a factor is needed to fix income tax.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's a bit better than the 8% they currently pay. Some of them pay nothing. I think we should go back to the Eisenhower era 90% marginal rates, but baby steps, I guess?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

This is the right approach.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Biden claimed in his State of the Union address that the 25 percent minimum tax on the ultra-rich will raise $500 billion over 10 years. “Imagine what that could do for America,” he said.

Maybe I'm not good at comprehending numbers at this scale but does this seem kind of low to anyone else? I mean, that's a lot of money in absolute terms but the government spent $6.3 trillion in FY 2023 alone.

We should still do it obviously. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good and all that.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I’m surprised it’s that high. The reason their effective rate goes down, is getting money by ways that are either special cases in the tax code or aren’t “income”. Until you fix those, wealthy people will still have the lowest tax rate.

…although apparently the tax rate for long term capital gains is already 20% for the wealthy. I didn’t know that

[–] [email protected] -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

$500 billion is a sizable chunk of that $6.3 trillion, and it's still only a 25% tax rate, and then only the "ultra-rich."

If one considers something more reasonable, like a 70% tax of income over $100,000, then you're talking about more substantial amounts to really start catching up to top economies.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

500 billion over 10 years is not a sizeable chunk of a single year total.

They spend more than that a year on "defense".

[–] [email protected] 36 points 8 months ago

No, it sounds correct. Taxing billionaires' income is fine, but the real money would come from actually taxing corporations more.

See, they only have income in certain circumstances, so the amount raised from an income tax would not be very high. You can raise corporate taxes by a little bit and get much more.

That way the income is taxed before it gets to anyone. It doesn't matter if they have a billion dollars. Plus it encourages investment in the company (wages, new products, better quality, etc.) because business costs are tax write-offs.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

They must be good then.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 8 months ago

"Won't you please stop and think of the billionaires?"

"For just $5,479,452.05 a day, you can support a multibillionaire who needs you TODAY."

🎶🎶 "We are the world... we are old white men... We are the ones that have yachts that need second yachts to land helicopters on... so you start giving us your change... If you don't, we'll fucking find a way to kill you." 🎶🎶

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 39 points 8 months ago (1 children)

For $10,000 a year, billionaires can pay me to give a shit.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The same billionaires who frequently say “we’re not actually taxed enough”?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Probably not the same billionaires.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago

Good. Fuck em.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›