828
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2026
828 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
87418 readers
3480 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
If they are rich they are almost always a right wing asshole. Why would anyone be surprised by this?
Wealth needs limits
I always say there should be a hard cutoff at a million a year and you should be taxed 100% at anything over that.
Even from a capitalist perspective this makes sense. Money pooling at the top is money not moving through the economy; 100% taxes encourage reinvestment and philanthropy to avoid the tax.
I'm not educated here - how is the money not moving through the economy? Billionaires and trillionaires surely keep their money in a bank / investment accounts right?
I'm not going to find them now, but if you're interested, there are a lot of studies that look at how money moves through the economy and which dollars are more impactful. While dollars saved do get reinvested in a roundabout way, their economic impact is pennies on the dollar compared to direct spending or investment into business. It's just far better for any market economy to prevent dollars from pooling into savings beyond simple prudence and is far better to put them directly to work via spending.
I think it would be more effective to have a hard wealth (both liquid and non-liquid assets) cutoff of somewhere between $10-50 million rather than a cap on an annual income.
Both
Wealth need not exist at all.
The point of wealth is heyying around limits. You cannot continue to have fungible personal wealth without corruption. It doesn't even work on a hypothetical philosophical level.
Yeah, literally 99.999% of products you buy in 2026 fund right wing fascism, and most of it you can't escape because they own the entire supply chain.
Ain't capitalism fun?
It really is a matter of degree, though. Even fancy perfume has horse piss in it. It doesn't mean you might as well wallow in the pigpen.
Per his blog he’s a “libertarian anarchist”.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
->libertarian.
I always read that as ‘far right, but kinda ashamed, or can’t get laid by claiming it so….’
It means "I want to do bad things without consequences" just like free speech absolutist means "I want to say bad things and no one is allowed to call me names".
In the US I've been saying "Libertarian is a Republican who wants to smoke weed." But seeing as they're not villianizing it much anymore the Libertarians really don't have a talking point left in the country.
Totes.
Libertarians are the most laughable spineless morons that I can think of. 99% hypocrisy and 1% innovation.