this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
319 points (99.4% liked)

politics

24669 readers
2220 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

i don't want the feds to have money at all ever for any purpose because they use it to build concentration camps

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

Note that the inflation adjusted average rate of return on the stock market over the long run is ~8% (https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1980)

That means a 2% wealth tax on billionaires would not make them lose a single penny. Instead, it would just slow down the rate at which their wealth grows (while still growing exponentially).

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

You don't have to tax them directly. You can also tax things they enjoy.

This year, France increased taxes on private jets by 300%

https://www.fliteline.com/blog/understanding-frances-new-private-jet-passenger-tax

Billionaires didn't even notice.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

Luxury taxes are bad because supply is less elastic than demand, so the tax incidence falls on suppliers. In other words, the working class people building the airplanes pay the tax because the rich can just not buy them.

K.I.S.S. Tax wealth. Tax the only thing they really care about. Making them notice isn't just more satisfying; it's better economics.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That's not good enough because the vast majority of their wealth will never be spent. It will just be used to accumulate more wealth.

That's why all of these billionaires have real tax rates in the low single digits (or less). Even with opulent spending habits they keep most of their gains unrealized, so they are never taxed.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

Do we really have 3000 billionaires in this world? That's disgusting.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Take it all. The GOP has abused their time, funded by the rich. Do the same when it’s ours. Then the rich won’t have the same power to influence elections any more, and those who deserve a chance to thrive can finally have one.

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

It should be much higher, and not just billionaires. Add in 100 millionaires to the mix, and a lot of 10 millionaires too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

I honestly find it hard to believe that there is a meaningful difference in lifestyle if you make over $10m a year vs over $100m. So you can afford a bigger boat faster? Save and seethe on your new money dingy.

I fully support a unavoidable progressive tax that taxes every dollar above $10m in a year at 100% and nobody that hits that will suffer or be less motivated in the slightest.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Just enough to fund ICE

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 days ago (3 children)

A 100% wealth tax on every dollar $1 billion and up would solve a lot of problems and doesn't require guillotines.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Realistically, even if enacted, would be tricky to implement, and would definitely have to be done slowly not to shock the economy.

I think this also means creating a system where companies beyond a certain size cannot be privately owned and must be governed by large "committees", since beyond a certain evaluation, concentrated controlling entities would be forced to sell off.

Long shot research and development (e.g. think employing thousands for a decade, like drug development) could probably be harder to get started, but at the same time less corruptible due to spreading out power.

I do think spreading out power can be a good thing, but I have to acknowledge that would probably make the government much more powerful (i.e. corruptible) by comparison.

Also, a lot of wealth is tied up in non-liquid assets, so these billionaires would be forced/incentivized to hold more liquid value -- who'd want to hold something that can be capped one year only to have it fall the next?

So on one hand, a ton of market value disappears from the economy due to increased supply, yet on the other a ton of hoarded value is unlocked to circulate in the economy.

Anyway, don't know where I'm going with this, I'm not an expert by any means.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who needs a billion though? Cut that down to like 100 mil, or even 50.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Inflation-adjusted or the monkey's paw will curl a finger.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Every year, your total assets are assessed and every red cent required to bring you to below 1 billion dollars is taken.

IF you ended up getting taxed at this rate, a bench gets installed in a public park with a small placard having your name on it. You get to pick the park.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

NGL I would still totally want to be on that placard. Central Park, where all the other rich people can see it.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 days ago (2 children)

We could call it Guillotine Insurance 👍

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

If only they could appreciate the absolute and compounding value of that

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Cervical vertebrae security

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

Let us inquire about great inequities act