559
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] rafoix@lemmy.zip 108 points 1 month ago

Rich workers get taxed progressively.

Rich capitalists do not get taxed progressively.

Washington Post is actively withholding information to push a narrative that benefits capitalists.

[-] frunch@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

So this is the darkness democracy dies in...

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

Yes, this is WaPo mission declaration

[-] Malyca@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

They got rid of it when he bought it I thought?

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

No idea, but if anything they doubled on it

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pirat@lemmy.ml 54 points 1 month ago

income tax is whack, tax wealth.

[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

Wealth tax should make capitalists happy: it encourages capital to be actively deployed & not passively hoarded. Make capital earn its keep.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

The problem with a wealth tax is the feasibility of the tax. Every time it's ever been tried it has failed. Expecting the IRS to be able to accurately appraise everything a wealthy person owns is a tall task. As soon as you allow an exception, the wealthy avoid taxes by putting their money into that exception.

[-] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago

Fun fact: wealthy people actively brag about their company ~~earnings~~ takings to their shareholders.

Hold them to that math. If they contest it, they agree to pay the IRS to contract additional labour to investigate subject to a refund if the reported amount is accurate, at which point they should be forced to payout the difference to all shareholders and pay an equal amount as a punitive fine.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Congratulations, you just replaced the wealth tax idea with corporate income tax. A much more feasible system.

[-] VAK@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Deconceptualist@leminal.space 5 points 1 month ago

So tax their income and asset movements to pay for an appraisal service? And carve out exceptions for non-luxuries like primary residence and farm equipment? Seems straightforward to me, but I'm far from an expert.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago

The solution then is to abolish private ownership so that people cannot become wealthy by exploiting the labor of others in the first place.

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

Every time it's ever been tried it has failed.

I don't buy that.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] OrganicMustard@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Por qué no los dos?

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Taxation of people with disgusting amounts of wealth in general is whack.

They're not giving up their wealth willingly. That's not how wealth works. It needs to be taken by force.

[-] Barley_Man@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

A big problem with wealth tax is that not all wealthy are what you think of as rich. Old grandma maybe lives in a nice house in a good area that her now dead husband bought for 2 pennies 60 years ago. Now that house is worth millions. That grandma is a multi millionaire, but she may have a very minimal pension. Wealth tax that house and she may have a larger wealth tax than her entire pension income and be forced to move out of her own home.

Another example would be many farmers. Most small farmers don't earn a lot. Some even go minus some years. But the land and machinery they own are worth extreme amounts of money if sold. Wealth tax them and they will go bankrupt.

So a wealth tax is a very uneven tax. It benefits those who don't save and those who own business which are not capital intensive. Why should a farmer pay a lot more tax than a work from home freelancer even though both may have the same income?

There are so many weird things that can happen. Imagine you own a small property of land. Then they discover oil on your property. Suddenly you are wealth taxed for an extreme amount of money even though you don't even want to let anyone drill for oil on that land. Maybe you will even be forced out of that land because suddenly you can't pay the wealth tax on it.

[-] obvs@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

A big problem with wealth tax is that not all wealthy are what you think of as rich.

YAWN.

This is repeated frequently, and it's hauled out to mislead people every time this discussion pops up.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] grue@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

Stuff like primary residences and farms have never been what the people proposing a wealth tax have been talking about, so bringing it up is damn near a strawman argument.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Tax cash flows, financialization of assets, etc. Tax the use of collateral for loans and make it work like an advance in capital gains tax (I would be fine with an exception for direct reinvestment in the asset like home renovation loans). Tax the things which create purchasing power.

[-] VAK@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Dude, you're mixing up asset and wealth. Also, this might be a shock to you, wealth tax can be progressive

[-] Barley_Man@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

Wealth = Total Assets - Total Liabilities

Say I own a farm and I have a tractor worth 500 thousand dollars but I also have a 400 thousand dollars loan on it. Then yes I have 500 thousand in assets but only 100 thousand in wealth contribution. However say I own farmland for 12 million dollars and I have no loans on that farmland (as is quite common if the farm was inherited) then for that 12 million worth of farmland, asset = wealth. Same is true for the grandma example if she doesn't have a loan on the house.

A progressive wealth tax is a good idea however I agree.

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

not all wealthy are what you think of as rich

proceeds to describe the rich

Like, not disgustingly, 1% rich, but rich nonetheless. You don't have to have a linear scale. We're not even proposing implementations, interesting how just the idea of taxing wealth is unacceptable to you.

Wealth tax that house and she may have a larger wealth tax than her entire pension income and be forced to move out of her own home.

Then sell the house, pay off your tax, and buy a smaller house or apartment?

This literally happens with inheritances all the time. Someone gets their parents' house, can't afford the tax on it, and have to sell it.

It's almost like the capitalist model of housing as investment assets is broken or something.

Another example would be many farmers.

Farmers get more money from the government than basically anyone else. That work from home freelancer is almost certainly funding the farmer, not the other way around.

Yet, as we've seen in times like the COVID pandemic, tons of them would literally destroy their food to keep the prices and by extension their profits up than give out surplus food for free or at cost.

It's almost like the capitalist model of food production is broken or something.

those who own business which are not capital intensive

Personal wealth and commercial assets are different things. But yeah, our paradigm of how businesses work are, again, broken.

Imagine you own a small property of land. Then they discover oil on your property. Suddenly you are wealth taxed for an extreme amount of money even though you don’t even want to let anyone drill for oil on that land. Maybe you will even be forced out of that land because suddenly you can’t pay the wealth tax on it.

Forced out of that land but with a couple extra zeros in your account? Look, I'm not saying I have no sympathy for them, but people, like Indigenous people, get forced out of their land with fuck all to show for it when someone discovers resources they themselves don't want to extract. So your hypothetical oil baron is pretty low on the sympathy scale.

Again, it's almost like....

TL;DR: I agree with you that a wealth tax would be broken and would fix very little. But because it's attempting to work within the bounds of a thoroughly broken system that cannot be fixed, period. Get rid of rule by capital.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] klep@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 month ago

Fuck this. Take their heads, then take their money.

[-] Avicenna@programming.dev 29 points 1 month ago

WP: "What else do you want, their lives?"

Reader: "Well actually now that you mention it..."

[-] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 month ago

Headline changed to..."Billionaire Media Owners Say To Not Tax The Rich!".

[-] UpperBroccoli 22 points 1 month ago

The rich pay nothing, they don't have taxable income. They just sit on their assets and when they need money, they take a zero-interest loan. No taxes on those.

[-] Formfiller@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It’s past taxes when they are raping and eating children. It’s prison, hanging and wealth cap time. Taxing is the most moderate of positions

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] WatermelonPaloma@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Billionaires are abominations.

[-] merdaverse@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 month ago
[-] mossberg590@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The Opinion "page" has always been a shit show. That is the point of it. It was always separate from the journalistic sections.

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Is it an opinion if it's written by the editorial board?

The point of an Opinion page is to present propaganda without accountability. They certainly aren't publishing articles from revolutionaries.

[-] BeardededSquidward 5 points 1 month ago

They like to not differentiate from opinion and facts so that way people will believe shitty opinions more.

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Wait who is the Washington Post owned by again I forget….

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

When you are above an arbitrary limit of wealth, you should pay 99% taxes, that applies to everything, including loans. Trying to get around it with loopholes, going against the spirit of the law, must incur jail and loss of assets.

Societies can't bear the burdens of a leech class. There should be no wealth gap.

[-] obvs@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Can we stop pretending that the Washington Post is a real newspaper anymore?

[-] AlexLost@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Did you mean all the job providers, who pay slave wages and want to replace us with AI?! Give yer head a shake there fella

[-] CptEnder@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I made $100,000 more in 2025 than 2024 and was taxed 17% less... Needless to say this isn't fair when people get taxed at $31k. Fuck this place.

I'm donating the difference, as I had also already planned to spend all of it on taxes.

Lmao, I wonder why.

[-] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

Nah, tax them at the same rate as the poor. Hard limit. “Everyone pays n% of all income, assets, and investments.” When the rich complain about paying 30-35% of everything they have every year, maybe it gets lowered a bit. Maybe they’re fine with 20%?

[-] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 month ago

That's like eliminating private property with extra steps.

I mean, I'm basically okay with that, but none of this "a third of your wealth per year" nonsense.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026
559 points (100.0% liked)

Inventing Reality

600 readers
19 users here now

When the media decides who you are rooting for.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS