1646
submitted 1 week ago by not_IO to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 129 points 1 week ago

Taxing the rich built the strongest most wealthy nation in the world that landed a man on the moon.

Ever since then, the greatest thing they've done is manipulate number charts to convince everyone that they shouldn't tax the rich.

Twelve men on the moon. We did it six times, out of seven attempts.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

But then they've have to find something else to do with that money. In the old days, they just kept reinvesting it in the company's reputation and their employees. They wanted that same company to pay out them and their family for a hundred years.

Is that really what we want to encourage?

[-] duhbasser@lemm.ee 12 points 1 week ago

I get what you’re saying but yes, I think that’s what we want. When a company pays its employees a good salary the employee will stay for a couple of years. When a company pays its employees a great salary ($50-80k+ more than the avg in that area) it encourages employees to stay and work for that same company. You’re getting paid well, you have healthcare, if the company has good benefits(stock, pensions, long term investments), why leave?

Employees will be happier, product quality will increase, and the company is supplying the community in that area with more money and local taxes. We saw that in the 40’s, 50’s and then yea kinda down hill from there.

[-] meyotch@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 week ago
[-] GhostPain@lemmy.world 58 points 1 week ago

To answer your question, it's not.

The Republicans, as proxies for the 1% and Evangelicals, have been trying to break the Federal government at least since Reagan, if not longer.

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 week ago

They've been trying to break the federal government since before the nation was founded. These are the descendents of the same people that wanted to count "non-humans" like slaves towards their population but without giving those slaves the same rights as them.

[-] GhostPain@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

You're not wrong, but post WWII Republicans were more than willing to play along so long as big business got theirs.

IMO, it was when the CRA, the EPA and other "anti-business" initiatives came into existence that "small government" because a buzz word for them.

They made a completely wrong turn when they teamed up with Evangelicals in the 80's and let them into positions of power in the party in the 90's culminating in the bat-shit-crazies we have now.

[-] Fandangalo@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago

Imagine life was a game. You lived for 2025 years. You worked 260 days / year. You made the median US salary.

You would need to relive that process 3,145 times to match an Oligarch.

That amount of wealth is unethical while humanity suffers. No one can really fathom “1b dollars.”

[-] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Who has 105 days off in a year‽

EDIT I forgot weekends, man it's time to sleep.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] LMDNW@lemm.ee 44 points 1 week ago

They don’t want a faster bureaucracy, or more efficient government. The goal in cutting funding for public services is to decrease the quality of services so that they can then trick people into supporting private companies in being awarded the contracts to provide those services (cut costs in the short-term so that they can justify higher costs later).

The goal is to DESTROY government and REPLACE it with profit-driven private interests. Capitalists are the enemy.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago
[-] LMDNW@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago

I appreciate your response and that you also did the legwork to include the citable quote that I was negligent to omit.

Glad to help. You are sounding the alarm, but not in a way that people will listen.

Just like project25 these guys have already told everyone exactly what they are going to do. And it will happen quickly.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I wrote this on a similar post a day or two ago, so I’ll repost it here:

There were very few people this applied to.

The real reason is the corporate tax rate.

It was 52%. Today it’s 21%., and it’s effectively close to zero for many corporations with the tax loopholes used to avoid taxation. Shell corporations, deferring taxes, what have you.

So the US has lost more than 50% of the corporate taxes by % since the ‘50s.

E: the decline in tax % is pretty closely followed by the dramatic rise in CEO compensation. The wealth being funneled to the top by cutting corporate tax got us the billionaire oligarchs we’re dealing with today.

[-] slappypantsgo@lemm.ee 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Your comment is a bit misleading. Part of the point of why we need to raise the top marginal tax rate to 100% above $250,000 is because the accumulation of wealth is itself a threat to liberty and democracy. The New Deal was designed to save capitalism—the grand irony being that capitalists are so greedy they can’t even live with less in order to simply exist.

So yes, we need to raise all sorts of tax rates to previous levels and even higher when possible, no question. We just need to understand that these are guardrails on the way to socialism in order to have real freedom and democracy after capitalism is fully abolished.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I said that the cutting of corporate taxes was part of the rise in CEO compensation that led to us having oligarchs.

That’s accumulation of wealth. There is nothing misleading about what I said. Both can exist at the same time, but cutting the corporate taxes is by far the greater loss to federal tax vs the relatively few billionaires.

[-] skozzii@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 week ago

The funny thing is the path to MAGA is taxing the rich, but the dummies are doing the opposite.

[-] 4am@lemm.ee 44 points 1 week ago

“Make America Great Again” was also Reagan’s campaign slogan:

It’s always been the calling card for letting the rich get richer and accumulate more power.

[-] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

it's called the MAGA approach to epistemology [ed. need a better more made-up word] or something and we blame it all on Bill Clinton.

"Let's" -- as if.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

It would already help if they would actually pay those 37%. But with the tax avoidance they can afford to get, they usually pay nothing at all.

[-] Bonus@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 week ago

IRS expects DOGE cost the country half a trillion dollars so far. Bankruptcy is the point.

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

What's absolutely crazy to me, the 50's were some of the best times economically in this country, every time we tax the rich less the country goes further to shit. More so when these non taxed assholes spend their non taxed wealth on corrupting politicians to tax them even less.

[-] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

The rich have simply become too powerful and they will never just give up that power willingly.

[-] Lumberjacked@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago

Less popular opinion. If we drive taxes up on the rich they’ll just get more creative with tax avoidance or move to Panama.

The ultra wealthy don’t pay income taxes and they didn’t in 1950 either. They’re mostly paying capital gains which was lower back then then it is now.

What we really need to do is remove all the massive loopholes in the current tax code and maybe do something like having progressive tax brackets on capital gains (some people are legitimately just using capital gains as retirement income).

Also, fund the IRS more. They’re not the evil tax man. They are finding the people who aren’t paying their legal fair share.

[-] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

What's so bad about the ultra wealthy moving out?

Genuine question.

[-] not_IO 3 points 1 week ago

sarcasm: that's why all countries in europe who do tax their rich have zero billionairs, they all fled to the us where you can't even study abroad without being detained and tortured

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nucleative@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Access to the domestic American market is what made most of these guys billionaires in the first place.

But the laws don't require them to return the favor.

A sensible solution would be to find a way to make the loopholes more expensive than returning some of those spoils in the form of some kind of tax.

Ideally that tax would create a positive feedback loop such as free higher education or other benefits to humanity that would continue to make the USA a better place to live and survive.

If the tax is too high or is used in a way that seems frivolous to the rich they will fight it so hard that it could never succeed.

[-] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 5 points 1 week ago

The same way cutting the budget of poorly performing schools makes students more successful.

[-] ScipioAtTheGates@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

Hack and slash your children's education away, they say

At higher marginal rates we see larger amounts of avoidance, evasion, and fraud. In 1983 the US cut their top tax rate and took in more tax revenue than they had under the previous higher rates.

This worked once. There is no reason to believe that further cuts would produce similar results. There are other things we should be doing to pursue greater income equality such as funding the IRS fully.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Instead of cutting it they could have just enforced it.

Plus the odds are fairly high that a significant number of wealthy people complied after the cuts as a tradeoff of good will from the masses for future cuts. If it hadn't worked out, they could have just gone back to cheating the system harder than they currently do.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 week ago

I feel like if we had spent the money lost to tax cuts on enforcing existing laws, like really throw the book at tax cheats, like put them in orange jumpsuits and make them rot in a cell, we'd have had better outcomes.

The ultra rich should be afraid.

[-] nekbardrun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

how much money would be worth if every person on earth ceased to exist?

What would happen with the economy in this scenario?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

BuTt they CreAte JerBs!

[-] Willy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

It doesn’t seem like the marginal rate is the issue as long as it’s about income.

What if it were about net worth. That’s why it seems the rich aren’t paying. Sure some people’s net worth drops like elons recently, but that could result in a refund from the previous year.

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Boomers: 1965 - that was like 30 years ago. Not taxing the rich isn't "new".

Gen Z: Well, ya, Washington had to tax them that much to pay off the debt from the revolutionary war. That was in 1976, right?

[-] aeternum 1 points 1 week ago

I bet Drumpf cuts taxes completely for the mega rich. You wait and see.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
1646 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

7311 readers
1572 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS