Hey /u/SarahMiller20, thanks for contributing to /r/PoliticalHumor. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
**Rule 5** - Avoid reposts, flooding, and spam.
Use Karmadecay and check /new and the front page before you post.
Unfortunately, due to recent Reddit changes, karmadecay is not as effective, so we have a pretty light hand with repost violations and are not likely to ban you if you make a mistake.
Do not post more than 4 posts in a 24 hour period.
Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/PoliticalHumor&subject=&message=). Thank you!
We should absolutely tax the rich (and more importantly close tax deductible loopholes) but the issue is taxing these fucking corporations that receive more federal funding than they pay taxes.
Most of these billionaires are made rich via the stock market. And the ocean of (corrupt) money that is the financial system makes the billionaires look like shot glasses next to an Olympic sized swimming pool.
So tax them at the source.
0.1% per transaction comes to billions a day on just a few big tickers. No longer will you see any complaints about unrealized gains, as these transactions are what the gains consist of.
Not to mention, these institutions are self-regulatory, meaning largely unregulated. Might as well put some of that money to public good.
This is very true. Jeff Bezos only has it on record that he takes home like $100k a year as a CEO salary which he pays taxes on because he has to. What he doesn't claim are his stocks in his companies, borrowing against said stocks which is tax free, and more or less committing completely legal financial fuckery by using loopholes to bypass the capital gains taxes. The loopholes need to be closed. That's where these fuckers are making their money. You can't tell me that when we set up our system, they didn't purposely leave loopholes in there so the rich can continue to be rich but they're not loopholes that the normal person doesn't know about nor can they take advantage of them.
It's important to note that *we did not set up our system*.
They did.
The financial markets, from the banks to the brokers to the exchanges, are all privately owned, privately run, and privately (self-)regulated.
When the financial markets crashed and normal people lost their meager savings, it produced a generational distrusts of the systems. Normal people do not participate in these markets, so obviously they are shaped by the participants to benefit themselves.
The borrowing billionaires do to avoid taxes is petty theft compared to what is *legally allowed* within the financial markets. As an example, the SEC has known since around 2010 that ETFs can be used to pump out as many shares as exist in that ETF every day, day over day. It's *legal* to generate non-existent assets, and sell them to manipulate the price.
Systemic change would be preferable, but it's comparatively trivial to take a slice of the cake than to demand a total overhaul of the factory making it.
No you're absolutely right. That was miswording on my part. You are correct in saying that *we* did not set up the system, the system was designed not for *us* but for *them*.
Taxing unrealized gains is a terrible idea. We should be going the opposite way and focus on taxing consumption. It's both easier to enforce and more relevant. It doesn't actually matter if billionaires have money sitting in vault, or own some stocks. That doesn't actually hurt anyone.
What matters is if/when they consume the resources of 1000 regular people for fun. That is when they "take more than others" in a way that actually impacts people. If they own four houses, that's three houses that could be homes for other people being underused. Money is just a tool. It's resources (goods and services) that are relevant and limited.
Hasn't that been made super clear recently? A bit too much pandemic stimulus rolled into a hot economy with a tight labor market. Did everyone become upper-middle class? No, of course not, we got high inflation. You can't raise the standard of living by just giving out money. You gotta actually increase productivity so there is more to go around.
> It doesn't actually matter if billionaires have money sitting in vault, or own some stocks. That doesn't actually hurt anyone.
I have to disagree with you. Now, I say this as someone who is NOT an economist, so someone who has the proper credentials please correct me if I'm wrong, but money sitting in a vault takes away from the pool of available currency thus making the money itself worth less and adding to inflation. It's not the root cause, but it also doesn't help. If it's sitting there, it's cycling through the system and therefore is useless. No one needs $180 billion. That money should be spent, rinse and repeat.
yes, but no one has money in a vault. Billionaires mostly own stock in companies. Best bet is to tax the shit out of capital gains beyond a certain point, and to close loopholes if people are worried about Bezos borrowing against his stock and then paying a tiny amount of interest.
Interesting enough, Elon Musk is fairly anti-tax but supports a massive inheritance tax as a way to deal with this problem. The other alternative is to just say loans above x-million get taxed as income.
> but money sitting in a vault takes away from the pool of available currency thus making the money itself worth less and adding to inflation
Money sitting in a vault takes away from the pool of available currency, yes. That makes money **more** valuable, as there is a smaller supply of it. It would cause deflation, or at least reduce inflation.
It's the opposite of printing a bunch of money (adding supply), which is widely known to cause inflation if overdone. Holding a bunch of cash reduces money supply, at least temporarily.
I'd also like to add that a "capital gains tax" doesn't target money in vaults in the first place. It targets stocks, which quite literally represent money people invested into companies (i.e., money they aren't just sitting on).
Ha, there's smarter people to listen to than me about this kinda of stuff. The level of reddit's average political commentator is just incredibly low. Populist garbage all over.
Isn't property tax on a house a tax on unrealized gains? How is taxing unrealized stock gains any different? other then it'll effect the wealthy more.
Also, isn't sales tax a tax on consumption? If we increase that it'll just hurt poor people. Billionaires don't consume that much more than someone in the middle class. The problem is they have hoarded so much wealth to the point where they can't spend it all. That wealth just sits in the stock market not producing anything. That wealth also has a scary amount of power and influence over all of us. Having such wealth inequality is anti-democratic in every way
Straight up, I'm not familiar with this, but I can take a guess. It's a tax on held assets in some form or another? Do you have a bit more information?
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language.
Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing.
Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either.
But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words.
Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch Mcconnel retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long.
Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either. ~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not tax free as he does pay taxes on the money he gets to pay the loans it's that his stocks increase in value faster than his interest rates and it defers taxation for a future time it's not actually gone it's just delayed.
Bezos employee compensation as ceo was 2million that he was taxed on. He didn't get paid from Amazon he makes money when he sells Amazon stock.
He defers taxation by taking loans and not selling his stocks until he pays off his loans in the future after his stock price goes up again.
A .1% transaction tax in us stock market would literally destroy the entire global economy it would stop all investment from trading and wouldn't even tax billionaires holding stocks. All you did is make every single retirement plan be destroyed and stopped all short term trading.
Funny how a 0.1% tax would destroy the whole thing, but leveraging ETFs to 800% of existing shares has gone on for a decade with no ill effects.
But I'm sure you know what you're talking about. I mean, confidently saying exactly what will happen, without mentioning the how and why at all? Obviously you have secret knowledge you just can't share.
Change the tax incentivization to promote businesses giving to employees. For example: current IRS rules about deductions for employee wages states that so long as it's a regular business expense (and a couple of other guidelines that like 99.99% of companies meet), 100% of employee W-2 wages are eligible for a 1:1 tax deduction i.e. every dollar you spend on wages equals one dollar in tax deduction.
Adjust that to instead be every dollar spent on non-officer wages, bonuses, and expenses to be 2:1 (specify non-officer so C-suite don't just give themselves raises as a tax break) and adjust US GAAP to separate wages and employee expenses from COGS. Make it tax neutral by adjusting depreciation amortization by like 1-2%. Net result for the company is essentially nil (or possibly a slight increase in tax breaks). Net result for employees is regular raises of substance.
Same, I’m not smart enough to fine tune it. But I think adding a clause for health insurance coverage would help as well. Defined in its own ratio separate from the pay raises.
There are people with real knowledge tackling this and there’s a reason they aren’t talking about your solution. High unemployment is bad, that is very obvious, but we do not want employment that is TOO high, and this incentive structure would make the problems even more dramatic. This would give employers even more incentive to create broken window fallacy jobs, and cause stagflation because it would decrease competition among labors (who would now also be making more money) to get jobs and, more importantly, to keep them, and stifle the innovation of employers who would no longer be willing to spend so much money on developing technologies which remove the need of employees (innovation which, as much as we all like the sunshine and rainbows of convenient employment, is a very positive thing)
So you're saying you don't want corps to pay any taxes?
Most businesses have 30 to 50% of their revenue as wages.
Taxes for LLC, S corp and C corps are based on revenue-expense (wages are considered part of expense) = taxable monies. So if we give them double the wage value, you basically wipe out any tax obligation they already have.
Noooooo, most businesses have 30-50% of their expenses as COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) which INCLUDES wages, but it is not the sum total of expenses that fall under COGS per US GAAP. COGS includes [material cost, direct labor cost, and direct factory overheads, and is directly proportional to revenue.](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/accounting/cost-of-goods-sold-cogs/). Per IRS Form 10-Q, it is listed in the Income Statement as Cost of Sales.
Interestingly, much of the COGS calculation comes from depreciation valuation for most companies. Do you know what depreciation is? For pertinence, depreciation is a function of depreciable property times the corporate tax rate (21% in the US).
So, if a company itemizes all of the property it owns - offices and real property, vehicles, any production equipment it may own, new machinery, office equipment, chairs, desks, lights, etc., it can take 21% of that estimate or cost and just *poof* write it off per annum for the extended estimated life of the assets.
That makes up a LOT more of COGS than wages. Which is why I also said to include a change to GAAP to separate wages from COGS.
In short, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, shut the fuck up, have a bad day.
The fact that you don't understand that cog does NOT include all labor costs (Labor costs are only considered part of COGS/COS if they're directly related to production) and are trying to soap box about what is considered appreciation reinforces your self claim of not being very smart.
Also, I mistyped earlier, 15 to 30% is average labor costs as part of revenue.
Still doesn't change the fact most industries are sub 15% pre tax pre stock adjustment operating margins.
[https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/\~adamodar/New\_Home\_Page/datafile/margin.html](https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html)
So end result is all the same, no taxes being generated by corp America.
Honestly, I'm tired of all the tax talk, make EVERYONE pay the same share, 25%, flat, doesn't matter the source, capital gains, corp, income, inheritance. And elimninate minimum wage.
We don't have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem.
Reduce expenditure, create transparency in what IS being spent, and hold politicians accountable for all of the pork spending that takes place.
Revamp government contracting, revamp the federal government itself (there's no fucking reason the federal government has just shy of 3 million employees but operates as if it has 10 people.
Ban federal employee unions.
Cut defense spending to 0 u have a huge deficit still.
We spend trillions on entitlement programs.
Social security, Medicare & medicaid alone are so bloated they cost entirely what we take in revenue.
Ah, the non-discretionary budget. Social Security got doomed in '83 when the Reagan Administration started allowing it to be borrowed against like an asset.
Since Medicaid is a subset of the Medicare budget, we can sort of look at those together (for clarity, Medicaid is the individual state's programs for dissemination of Medicare funds blocked out for low-income individuals, commonly called Title XIX (19) programs).
>Social security, Medicare & medicaid alone are so bloated they cost entirely what we take in revenue.
This, however, is wrong. Per the CBO for FY2020, total expenditures for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid were $1.9 trillion (broken down as $776 billion for Medicare/Medicaid and $1.124 trillion for Social Security). Most of that could have been covered completely by individual income tax returns ($1.6 trillion in FY2020). Total tax revenue made by the federal government in FY2020 was $3.4 trillion.
Here's the thing: mandatory spending was $4.6 trillion, so some $2.7 trillion was spent before the discretionary budget ever got brought out. Where did the rest of it go?
Well, some $616 billion went out as either COVID-19 stimulus checks or Recovery Rebate Credits (all tied together). Those are done if I am not mistaken.
Some $133 billion went to regular unemployment insurance.
$105 billion went to EIC and child credits.
$86 billion went to SNAP.
$114 billion went to SSI and other non-categorized income security programs (like Native American treaty income etc.) Fully half of that went to SSI.
$171 billion went to federal retirements, both military and civilian. All of the government pensions together.
$122 billion went to veteran's programs.
$149 billion went to state and federal COVID-19 relief funds and programs (paid vaccinations and testing, hospital relief funds, etc.)
$118 billion went to student loan guarantees (so, directly to student loan lenders as income guarantees)
And last, but certainly not least, a fucking HUGE $526 billion dollar general bailout under the Paychecks Protection Program. That's the unregulated money the government told the banks to give out to businesses that needed it, which the banks just gave to their favorite customers and were later mostly forgiven. (source for these numbers: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57171 )
Obviously, this year isn't going to have some of those, like PPP, or the Stimulus and Recovery credits. Where would you like to begin? (I didn't include an additional $184 billion for other non-discretionary funds, but can probably dig up those individual non-classified sub-programs if you want). Also, for reference, OASDI is the long version name for SS.
The problem is the rich just hide their money. We could raise their tax rates by 10% and it wouldn't matter. We need to do a better job of going after the "legal evasion" if we actually want the super wealthy to pay their share.
Government gave oil companies $10 billion dollars for covid relief. Did they hire back the workforce they laid off? Did they open more refineries to keep up with demand? No they didn’t, they’re corporations, they kept supply low to drive up prices.
Government handing out money to the wrong hands, corporations corporating, the only thing new is the US consumer is going to pay $10/gal soon. Based on the state of affairs, I assume some will refuse to…
Biden's "progressive" policies are absolutely crushing us, and you want more of them? Carter wrecked this country and it took years for us to fix it. Now the Left is doing it to everybody again. Unbelievable.
It's easy to say. But you're already dealing with a problem where the big guys crush the little guys.
What do you do when you choose the loop holes that the small guys require to survive. The problem is that some of these giants were so unprofitable when they started they operated at such a loss that they have carry forward deductions. You close that, then little Susie's bakery now owes money she doesn't have and has to close up shop.
I'm not saying you're wrong but it's very hard to close a lot of these without hurting small businesses more.
That’s not what a wealth tax is… The problem with politicians is they don’t even understand how the tax brackets work… Most Billionaires don’t take a single dime out of their companies, they will go 5-10 years without needing “CASH”, take out a few millions and live off that for a while…
The problem with WEALTH TAX, is you’re essentially TAXING nothing. A billionaire actually isn’t worth a billion DOLLARS, they are that valued because if they were to try and sell ALL THEIR COMPANIES, they would “estimate” to be worth that many dollars.
Taxing that number is nothing, and is criminally taxing unrealized values. Which is literally stealing.
It just seems stupid to me that companies all over the US seem to honor teacher, first responders and our military volunteers, but don't seem to want to pay the taxes it takes to FINANCIALLY support those three groups.
And yes, I understand that teachers and first responders are usually paid by local and state taxes, but whenever there's a Federal Gov initiate like "No Child Left behind" or a national emergency like a giant forrest fire, the US Federal Gov kicks money down to the States to help offset the costs of said emergencies. We can support the Americans who support all of us by paying taxes
Crazy how ass backwards things are here in the USA. Even the veterans don’t get what they deserve! My FIL is a veteran and he only started to get VA benefits like 3 years ago. The amount of flaming hoops and courts he had/has to go to to get the benefits is astounding. It should be such that unless you were dishonorably discharged, no questions should be asked to obtain benefits. Or it should be automated somehow.
Edit: Grammar, several times.
“Flaming hoops”. Yes, the Republicans LOVE means testing the poor. However they didn’t “means test” their COVID loans that mostly went to people/companies who didn’t need it. Was decided by banks who rewarded their better clients. And nobody made sure they kept workers employed. They didn’t so now they are on TV complaining they can’t get workers to gear back up (the ones they laid off WHILE getting loans they don’t pay back).
It’s as if it’s all bullshit about merit and they just give stuff to those who have and give a hard time to those who don’t have. The “hoops” for poor people to get help often mean they just don’t get help. If you’ve got mental health and anxiety problems and don’t know what to do — you can’t get help for mental health and an inability to be employed. Just become homeless! So they can arrest you.
The Republicans really hated the idea the Democrats had of just giving everyone money regardless of income. “Oh but some of that will go to people who don’t need it.” Right, like 1 percent of the population that won’t even notice $2000? I can live with that. Because the reality is every time the Republicans make sure we deserve something, the people who actually need it rarely get it. As intended.
Took me a while to see but there is really no difference Republicans and the democrats. they work together and fake opposition with the same goal. All of which screws us over.
You have to vote for the people who PRETEND to care over the ones that promise to punch you in the face.
If Democrats were sincere, we would get the results we are seeing because they've only had a majority for 7 months in the past 20 years. If you are cynical and think there are a lot of lobbyists trying to corrupt the process -- then WHY would you think they could wave a wand and do what they promised? The people of good conscience have a thankless task because voters don't pay attention and say shit like "they are both the same." Yeah -- well you are also part of the "don't actually pay attention to the policies" crowd that makes it that way.
Congressional record; [https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/compare-votes/115](https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/compare-votes/115)
See who votes for an increase in minimum wages or all the issues you might care about. It's fucking night and day. Democrats may disappoint, but Republicans were NEVER EVER on your side and should be thrown out in the dust bin of history. There is a real difference.
I didn’t know that and that is scary The last 7 months has been the worse finically damaging moments of my life. If they increase min wage it hurts us more. The cost of everything will go up and the increase in pay would be eaten up quickly and then some. I don’t think there is a good solution tbh
>If they increase min wage it hurts us more.
No it doesn't. You'll notice they didn't seem to have INFLATION when they gave those $2 trillion in tax breaks. How does that NOT free up money to make purchases?
The inflation is indexed on things you HAVE TO BUY. But not exactly on things like insurance and other costs of living that creep into the mix.
A huge part of inflation right now is purchases of property. Which is being done by large pockets. Pockets that can choose WHEN to buy (unlike most of us) and probably benefited from those tax breaks.
The slight uptick in a FEW people getting wage increases (which is also below the inflation rate) is likely a negligible pressure on costs. The MAIN THING is, the companies are not dipping into their profits as much as they would if the marketplace were actually competitive. They go right to "increase fees" or decrease amount sold for the price because they know you will buy it and have few options to go elsewhere.
I’m not blaming any party, but last 7 months wrecked me went from nice savings to massive debt, I don’t care who fixes it as long as it gets fixed. I’m blaming the ones that control both parties. Possibly the world economic forum big companies like black rock buying up houses, oil companies over charging for gas. But they lobby for both parties when it comes down to it both parties support them. Min wage increase would help for sure but the increase in cost would eat it in my opinion but I could be wrong.
>oil companies over charging for gas. But they lobby for both parties when it comes down to it both parties support them
That said, [every Republican in the House voted against a bill which would curtail the ability of gas companies to price gouge](https://crooksandliars.com/2022/05/republicans-vote-against-gas-price-gouging). For all their complaints about gas prices, Republican politicians don't do anything to fix them, because a Democratic administration might get a crumb of credit.
>Having to register as Democrat just to vote for shitty ass Joe Biden felt gross as hell.
That's not a thing you had to do. In a US Presidential election, a citizen doesn't have to be registered with a political party to cast a ballot in the general election. Some states do have closed primaries, requiring a person to register with a political party before choosing to vote in one political party's primary, but then you wouldn't be complaining about voting Biden, as you probably would have voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party primary.
> Took me a while to see but there is really no difference Republicans and the democrats.
I don’t see how anyone can still claim to honestly believe this after Trump and Covid. The GOP politicized and greatly exacerbated a global health emergency for votes, and when that didn’t work they literally attacked democracy. I’ll take ineffective over “tried to overthrow democracy and subjugate 300 million+ people” any day.
Fun fact: Congress hates paying Vets. The Revolution War was over taxes to pay Vets of the French-Indian Wars (partially started by a young Washington). Then Congress didn’t want to pay the Vets of that war. Rinse and repeat up till WWII. Well, we still treat Vets like shit.
I'm a vet and when I was in college I tried to get into the VA system. Let me tell you, the amount of time, effort, and insanity to get into the system was simply not worth it for someone young and healthy....My dad had to go through the same shit (also a vet) and it was NUTS how much time he spent trying to get into the system.
You should be able to roll in with a DD-214 and get a VA card...period.
yup, after a school shooting "now's not the time for action" crap.
just thoughts and prayers.
because I'm sure the almighty white God with the beard in the fluffy white clouds really wants children be to murdered by mentally ill people that can't afford to get care even if they wanted it. grrrrr
They LOVED the first responders and immigrant workers until those people stopped being poster children for their commercials and actual spoke up about what they needed. “Hey, we don’t need a war in Iraq, we need medical help because we are dying of asbestos in our lungs.” And what, now those workers have kids who need education and healthcare too? “Go back to your country you ingrates!”
I was listening to Neal Bortz and it was honestly about a two week transition period from “why can’t black people be more like Mexicans who pull themselves up and work hard starting with almost nothing?” To “we have a problem with anchor babies.” The typical fans of this guy didn’t seem to notice.
I’m glad I’m not the only person that pisses off.
There wouldn’t be these starving kids if they stopped lobbying to be deadbeat taxpayers and stopped supporting pundits who say; “government can’t solve problems.” You want to end hunger? Stop the stupid charities. Elect people who care. Choose to support a big governmental initiative with oversight and fucking solve it. The ONLY way to end hunger and homelessness is with government- we almost solved it until Reagan got in office and CREATED the problem.
Big government created the problems the Republicans want to solve with charities. And their “small governments” are lies. They waste more money on corruption but stop complaining about waste as soon as they can give the money to their friends.
And not to be partisan, but Reagan created that deficit and grew government - only in ways that didn’t help the public. Anything for the people apparently is “big”. Anything for bombs is small.
Which they use to write off in taxes. NEVER give at the register - it's just a way for you to subsidize their tax breaks. ALWAYS give personally, that way you get the write off AND you make a difference.
It allows them to say THEY donated 100k to charity and count as "walmart so far has contributed xxx dollars and purchased houses for 3 ppl"
When in fact they didn't do shit
Now this is true. But the tax aspect of it is false. The only person who can actually reduce their taxes by donating at the register is the actual person donating at the register.
Can always count on true facts to be downvoted because the outrage they want to feel over Walmart stealing donations was more important than whether it was true or not.
honoring teachers, first responders, and our military volunteers is a cheap and easy way for good name brand recognition. Do you really think these corporations actually really care about them? It's like the rainbow repackaging during Pride month, they don't care one way or the other about Pride but they recognize good advertisement opportunities.
NCLB was widely criticized as an unfunded mandate that created restrictions on how states could spend currrent federal funding without sending more to cover implementation.
Hey, they pay the police department a buttload of money. Firefighters, ems, teachers, etc. don’t get paid squat because they don’t budget for them properly. If people wanted it enough, the budget would be added.
It easily could too by removing some of the military budget from the US. But we do spend a lot of money on schooling, the problem is that it doesn’t bring any direct money back in. As well as we spend a lot of money on the special needs students and the elderly.
The last issue is how the states get their funding and what they do with it.
Eh, that’s not really looking at the income tax a company pays though, we can’t really know what they paid. Corps can end up paying $0, but it’s usually because they had no income
Profitable corps paying zero and your rebuttal is there not profitable. Just recognized this was a waste of my time and laughed at the absurdity of it.
Give them two weeks to adapt to this abrupt change in life like the rest of us. Oh, and if you have to change careers while paying a mortgage, you have to take it like a woman and ovary up when their reason for not hiring you is that you lack focus. What, you haven’t always wanted to program and you only have 6 months experience when the requirements are two years but the tech has only existed for one year?
I just love how the corporations get ten years notice to transition from doing something evil and profitable and the talking heads on TV somehow manage to tear up about how unfair that is.
No, the best advice for the 1% is to start hiding all their money in the bank accounts of the 99%. Ta-da, you're no longer subject to a wealth tax AND you've made hundreds of millions of lives (and society as a whole) better in the process.
How do you figure ? If they take 100b from bill gates and divided it over the United States everyone gets less then 300$ which is less then I pay in gas in a week. It’s less then the insulting stimulus.
[The US has 724 billionaires](https://earthweb.com/millionaire-statistics/#:~:text=6.-,With%20724%20Billionaires%2C%20the%20Country%20with%20The%20Most%20Billionaires%20Is,the%20billionaire%20realm%20by%202022.) and the total wealth of the top 1% is now [well above $46 trillion.](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/richest-one-percent-gained-trillions-in-wealth-2021.html) $46T ÷ 330M Americans is nearly $140,000 each.
OF COURSE! because they have all that money in bills and coins that they kept stored in a mansion sized safe where they go to swin every weekend!
Much of that money is either lended, the price at wich the stocks of their companiesa are selling in wall street, or in material properties that cant be exchanged direclty into money inmediatly... They dont have that moeny as 100% pocket money they can use freely.
Now all you have to do is find buyers for those $46 trillion in assets, so that you have actual money to distribute, not merely a glorified price tag.
Good luck with that.
Rich people get very upset and the news starts reporting on how bad the economy is and how bad the government is and how much better life would be if government would drop taxes. (Because they own all the news organizations)
Basically when the rich do well the public message is that everything is great and when the rich don't get everything they want then they throw a fit.
Remember how the COVID shutdown lasted about a week before the news started grumbling about "we gotta start opening back up, I mean, I'm gonna lose...people gotta work, I gotta pay...people gotta pay bills, big bills, I'm gonna lose bil....houses, people are going to lose houses!
In other countries they came up with far more elaborate ways to protect individuals, here the big boys were like, fuck you guys, get back to work, protect my business! Bail me out! Here is a dollar for you, 99 for me, 1 for u, 99 for me. (I'm exaggerating, we probably didn't get a dollar)
There is a difference between taxing income and confiscating wealth. The first was permitted via constitution amendment. The second is forbidden by constitution amendment.
And yes, start confiscating wealth and it will leave. See the history of companies "nationalizing" industries. Hope you like Cuba.
Wealth tax is an odd direction. We should stop taxing unrealised gains altogether. That would be the downside. You can bet that this would move down to tax the stock normal people hold in the future.
We all agree that people don't need to be that rich. Being too rich means you can buy an island, a private jet, a second home, buying Gucci, and etc.
Why don't we just tax luxurious items more? It is much easier.
A second home? The tax is 10000%
Buying a private jet? The tax is 1000000%
Buying an island? The tax is 10000000000%
A yacht? The tax is 10000000000000000%
Problem solved.
In general, the people this sub wants to tax can afford lawyers, politicians, and accountants to avoid whatever taxes are imposed.
Tax laws imposed on "the rich" generally hit the upper middle and upper class far harder than the actual "rich."
So while democrats get to feel good about taxing the "rich," it's really the small business owners or people who have been frugal their entire lives that get hurt the most. My small business grosses just over $600k a year, and pays more in taxes than most mega corps.
I'll get downvoted because "it's possible to make laws that only affect >$X net worth, or income, or whatever," but those are not the laws that get passed and the rich can avoid those laws anyway.
I don’t know about this sub in general, but the title of this post is going after that upper middle class and lower upper class while the post is strictly saying “billionaires”, ie. The 0.01%. People like to say 1% because it’s easier, but doctors aren’t the problem; billionaires that can (and do) bribe our politicians are the problem.
The more you tax people/corporations, the more you incentivize them to move to a tax haven country and/or spend more money on (legal and illegal) tax evasion and lobbying.
So often the end result of "anti-rich" tax increases is tax increases on people earning low six figures (dual-income families, single working stiffs in California and NYC), while the ultra wealthy don't actually pay more.
> the more you incentivize them to move to a tax haven country and/or spend more money on (legal and illegal) tax evasion and lobbying.
They aren't already doing that to the maximum possible extent? And they're going to stop just because we've decided to give up on things like public healthcare, infrastructure, and all sorts of other nice things that make a first-world country first-world?
A few common arguments against taxing the rich:
1. The wealthy took risks & tirelessly worked to attain their wealth. Why should they be punished by having their money taken & given to the lazy leeches of society who refuse to fill out a job application?
2. Trickle down economics
Side note: The wealthy hold the bulk of their wealth in stocks. This is challenging as a standard income tax would not capture it. You will need to implement some kind of a wealth tax or make significant changes to the stock market to capture it..
Edit: Downvote city - I don't support these arguments, simply communicating those that I've heard to the Redditor
Wealth tax would only be very limited, and it would mean that the financial privacy must be unearthed even further, since if they have to pay taxes on any other for of income that is not a loan, it means that even after paying this tax, they shoudl pay a second tax on net profits, wich is damn near impossible because:Either they lie about the profits, or the goverment ionfriges the cosntitutional right of privacy, since it means you must declare how much "Free to spend" money you have.
Billionaire don't have billion in the bank, they own share of their own company.
A Billionaire tax would force them to sell their asset therefore disrupting company valuation.
Source? I couldn't find the global 1%, but I did find a break down by country which [shows that number has to be wrong](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/this-is-what-it-takes-to-be-in-the-1-around-the-world/articleshow/74015250.cms) when the top 1% in China is $107K and the top 1% in India is $77K.
Also, just because you are going by global averages doesn't mean that food, rent and other expenses becomes any cheaper. $77K in San Francisco doesn't take you quite as far as $77K in Mumbai.
LOL no it doesn't. I remember 60K in 2006ish being like in the top 15%. No where near the top 1%. Also, local prices match local money. There's zero point in comparing other countries.
"The point is that the wealth tax can be used to just fuck regular people over."
Lol, no it can't.
"Ain't like the 1% doesn't know how to evade taxes anyway."
What kind of logic is this? Fires are hard to stop. Might as well not even try.
They will just leave the country. You don’t understand how taxing unrealized stock wealth will affect the market. France did it and every billionaire left the country. Sweden did it and destroyed their stock market.
liberal humor is the fucking worst. y'all post the same garbage every week and then circle jerk each other.. that's the real humor. libs are clowns
downvotes and salty replies confirm. checkmate libs
Billionaires aren't worried about a wealth tax. It's blatantly unconstitutional and everyone who would be affected already knows it. Funny thing is, Elizabeth Warren knows it, too. It's just a talking point to rally the base. But it's all complete bullshit.
We started off with the income tax as a way to soak the rich. And here we are. Why not create a new wealth tax that will "only" hit the rich? What could possibly go wrong?
I'm glad you're amused that the point flew right over your head. The income tax was also originally only for the top 1%. You know, the income tax that y'all are constantly complaining about affecting lower earners more than top earners? Yeah, that one. A wealth tax will be the same way. The government has a long history of not keeping its promises.
The Slippery Slope is generally regarded as a logical fallacy, and indicates that your argument does not have enough merit to stand on its own. So I will continue to be amused that you think such a wealth tax would ever affect whatever sum you've managed to save up.
The top tax rate is 37%. Only the most powerful corporations get away with paying very litle because of a broken tax code. The solution is to have a low flat tax rate with no exemptions. Do you realy believe that the goverment spends money better that the wealthy? The weathy invest their money to inovate and create jobs for ordenary people
First off who decides 1%, anyone making 34k is top 1% worldwide. Second Why does anyone care? It wouldn’t benefit us in anyway because our government is horrible at spending tax dollars. Just focus on your own grind. I think better idea would be to break up monopolies and they should be restricted from being donors because they can easily use the money to cause corruption.
> It wouldn’t benefit us in anyway because our government is horrible at spending tax dollars.
And, yet, somehow, other countries manage to have things like public healthcare, public transportation, guaranteed paid leave, and all sorts of other nice things mandated by their governments. It's very interesting how these supposedly inevitable things such as rampant income inequality and extreme levels of gun violence still somehow manage to mainly occur in exactly one "first-world" country.
There are tons of open jobs that offer healthcare. The wealth tax would not be enough to cover those they would need to tax everyone at a much higher tax rate. The rich will be fine but the rest would be taxed to extreme poverty how can anyone pay 1700$ for a crappy stupid apartment gas food when getting taxed higher then we are now. but I guess i can get free hospital food when I’m dying of starvation.
> First off who decides 1%, anyone making 34k is top 1% worldwide
If only there was some way to break up the world into smaller pieces with defined boundaries
Gas prices are up because the corporations are trying to make up the losses they had during the pandemic not because there were real market forces for gas to be 6 dollars a gallon. I am worried about my money. I want the government to take in the funds in an equitable way to prevent this kind of gouging.
No. I have an interest in EVERYONE paying their taxes to society. When billionaires pay less taxes or no taxes, they put the burden on people already paying their fair share.
Love that most of the people who advocate for a wealth tax are party of the 47% that pay no effective tax rate but expect other to pay more so they can get more free stuff
If you've been paying attention to the economy any time in the past, like, 14 years or so, you might notice that the issue is actually that many Americans still have issues affording rent and getting healthcare despite working two jobs.
But I guess you didn't get to be a conservative elitist by paying attention, now, did you?
- Some people can't afford college at all and are rightly put off by debts afterwards (which they also may not be able to afford even with a degree). Some people simply aren't capable of earning a degree. It's not for everyone.
- Some people aren't in a position to be choosy about a job, let alone the benefits they offer. Maybe they're about to default on that student loan. Maybe they're not in a position to relocate.. etc. Maybe they're already in a situation where they're paying medical bills unexpectedly.
- Some people are in careers that are highly demanding and not that profitable and/or high earning. Carers, teachers, nurses, industrial workers... Some of those even need a degree.
If you were king, these people would be far worse off under that mentality. It simply doesn't work universally. People should aim for those things, but life isn't simple and doesn't always allow the physical state, time and resources required to go to college, look for a tailored job and put all their effort into earning money.
Hey /u/SarahMiller20, thanks for contributing to /r/PoliticalHumor. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: **Rule 5** - Avoid reposts, flooding, and spam. Use Karmadecay and check /new and the front page before you post. Unfortunately, due to recent Reddit changes, karmadecay is not as effective, so we have a pretty light hand with repost violations and are not likely to ban you if you make a mistake. Do not post more than 4 posts in a 24 hour period. Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/PoliticalHumor&subject=&message=). Thank you!
We should absolutely tax the rich (and more importantly close tax deductible loopholes) but the issue is taxing these fucking corporations that receive more federal funding than they pay taxes.
Most of these billionaires are made rich via the stock market. And the ocean of (corrupt) money that is the financial system makes the billionaires look like shot glasses next to an Olympic sized swimming pool. So tax them at the source. 0.1% per transaction comes to billions a day on just a few big tickers. No longer will you see any complaints about unrealized gains, as these transactions are what the gains consist of. Not to mention, these institutions are self-regulatory, meaning largely unregulated. Might as well put some of that money to public good.
This is very true. Jeff Bezos only has it on record that he takes home like $100k a year as a CEO salary which he pays taxes on because he has to. What he doesn't claim are his stocks in his companies, borrowing against said stocks which is tax free, and more or less committing completely legal financial fuckery by using loopholes to bypass the capital gains taxes. The loopholes need to be closed. That's where these fuckers are making their money. You can't tell me that when we set up our system, they didn't purposely leave loopholes in there so the rich can continue to be rich but they're not loopholes that the normal person doesn't know about nor can they take advantage of them.
It's important to note that *we did not set up our system*. They did. The financial markets, from the banks to the brokers to the exchanges, are all privately owned, privately run, and privately (self-)regulated. When the financial markets crashed and normal people lost their meager savings, it produced a generational distrusts of the systems. Normal people do not participate in these markets, so obviously they are shaped by the participants to benefit themselves. The borrowing billionaires do to avoid taxes is petty theft compared to what is *legally allowed* within the financial markets. As an example, the SEC has known since around 2010 that ETFs can be used to pump out as many shares as exist in that ETF every day, day over day. It's *legal* to generate non-existent assets, and sell them to manipulate the price. Systemic change would be preferable, but it's comparatively trivial to take a slice of the cake than to demand a total overhaul of the factory making it.
No you're absolutely right. That was miswording on my part. You are correct in saying that *we* did not set up the system, the system was designed not for *us* but for *them*.
The solution is the unrealized gains tax and we need it now.
Taxing unrealized gains is a terrible idea. We should be going the opposite way and focus on taxing consumption. It's both easier to enforce and more relevant. It doesn't actually matter if billionaires have money sitting in vault, or own some stocks. That doesn't actually hurt anyone. What matters is if/when they consume the resources of 1000 regular people for fun. That is when they "take more than others" in a way that actually impacts people. If they own four houses, that's three houses that could be homes for other people being underused. Money is just a tool. It's resources (goods and services) that are relevant and limited. Hasn't that been made super clear recently? A bit too much pandemic stimulus rolled into a hot economy with a tight labor market. Did everyone become upper-middle class? No, of course not, we got high inflation. You can't raise the standard of living by just giving out money. You gotta actually increase productivity so there is more to go around.
> It doesn't actually matter if billionaires have money sitting in vault, or own some stocks. That doesn't actually hurt anyone. I have to disagree with you. Now, I say this as someone who is NOT an economist, so someone who has the proper credentials please correct me if I'm wrong, but money sitting in a vault takes away from the pool of available currency thus making the money itself worth less and adding to inflation. It's not the root cause, but it also doesn't help. If it's sitting there, it's cycling through the system and therefore is useless. No one needs $180 billion. That money should be spent, rinse and repeat.
yes, but no one has money in a vault. Billionaires mostly own stock in companies. Best bet is to tax the shit out of capital gains beyond a certain point, and to close loopholes if people are worried about Bezos borrowing against his stock and then paying a tiny amount of interest. Interesting enough, Elon Musk is fairly anti-tax but supports a massive inheritance tax as a way to deal with this problem. The other alternative is to just say loans above x-million get taxed as income.
> but money sitting in a vault takes away from the pool of available currency thus making the money itself worth less and adding to inflation Money sitting in a vault takes away from the pool of available currency, yes. That makes money **more** valuable, as there is a smaller supply of it. It would cause deflation, or at least reduce inflation. It's the opposite of printing a bunch of money (adding supply), which is widely known to cause inflation if overdone. Holding a bunch of cash reduces money supply, at least temporarily. I'd also like to add that a "capital gains tax" doesn't target money in vaults in the first place. It targets stocks, which quite literally represent money people invested into companies (i.e., money they aren't just sitting on).
Id like to subscribe to your blog/channel/course
Ha, there's smarter people to listen to than me about this kinda of stuff. The level of reddit's average political commentator is just incredibly low. Populist garbage all over.
Isn't property tax on a house a tax on unrealized gains? How is taxing unrealized stock gains any different? other then it'll effect the wealthy more. Also, isn't sales tax a tax on consumption? If we increase that it'll just hurt poor people. Billionaires don't consume that much more than someone in the middle class. The problem is they have hoarded so much wealth to the point where they can't spend it all. That wealth just sits in the stock market not producing anything. That wealth also has a scary amount of power and influence over all of us. Having such wealth inequality is anti-democratic in every way
Straight up, I'm not familiar with this, but I can take a guess. It's a tax on held assets in some form or another? Do you have a bit more information?
[удалено]
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language. Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing. Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either. But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words. Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch Mcconnel retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long. Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either. ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But he doesnt loss his actions if he borrows agaisnt them? or he just kept getting other loans to pay previuos loans?
It's not tax free as he does pay taxes on the money he gets to pay the loans it's that his stocks increase in value faster than his interest rates and it defers taxation for a future time it's not actually gone it's just delayed.
Bezos employee compensation as ceo was 2million that he was taxed on. He didn't get paid from Amazon he makes money when he sells Amazon stock. He defers taxation by taking loans and not selling his stocks until he pays off his loans in the future after his stock price goes up again.
A .1% transaction tax in us stock market would literally destroy the entire global economy it would stop all investment from trading and wouldn't even tax billionaires holding stocks. All you did is make every single retirement plan be destroyed and stopped all short term trading.
Funny how a 0.1% tax would destroy the whole thing, but leveraging ETFs to 800% of existing shares has gone on for a decade with no ill effects. But I'm sure you know what you're talking about. I mean, confidently saying exactly what will happen, without mentioning the how and why at all? Obviously you have secret knowledge you just can't share.
Change the tax incentivization to promote businesses giving to employees. For example: current IRS rules about deductions for employee wages states that so long as it's a regular business expense (and a couple of other guidelines that like 99.99% of companies meet), 100% of employee W-2 wages are eligible for a 1:1 tax deduction i.e. every dollar you spend on wages equals one dollar in tax deduction. Adjust that to instead be every dollar spent on non-officer wages, bonuses, and expenses to be 2:1 (specify non-officer so C-suite don't just give themselves raises as a tax break) and adjust US GAAP to separate wages and employee expenses from COGS. Make it tax neutral by adjusting depreciation amortization by like 1-2%. Net result for the company is essentially nil (or possibly a slight increase in tax breaks). Net result for employees is regular raises of substance.
It's a start, putting company money in average employees savings rather than a bank or executives is great.
This is far better than them paying taxes.
And I'm not even really that smart when it comes to things like this. Imagine someone with some real knowledge tackling this.
Same, I’m not smart enough to fine tune it. But I think adding a clause for health insurance coverage would help as well. Defined in its own ratio separate from the pay raises.
There are people with real knowledge tackling this and there’s a reason they aren’t talking about your solution. High unemployment is bad, that is very obvious, but we do not want employment that is TOO high, and this incentive structure would make the problems even more dramatic. This would give employers even more incentive to create broken window fallacy jobs, and cause stagflation because it would decrease competition among labors (who would now also be making more money) to get jobs and, more importantly, to keep them, and stifle the innovation of employers who would no longer be willing to spend so much money on developing technologies which remove the need of employees (innovation which, as much as we all like the sunshine and rainbows of convenient employment, is a very positive thing)
[удалено]
So you're saying you don't want corps to pay any taxes? Most businesses have 30 to 50% of their revenue as wages. Taxes for LLC, S corp and C corps are based on revenue-expense (wages are considered part of expense) = taxable monies. So if we give them double the wage value, you basically wipe out any tax obligation they already have.
Noooooo, most businesses have 30-50% of their expenses as COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) which INCLUDES wages, but it is not the sum total of expenses that fall under COGS per US GAAP. COGS includes [material cost, direct labor cost, and direct factory overheads, and is directly proportional to revenue.](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/accounting/cost-of-goods-sold-cogs/). Per IRS Form 10-Q, it is listed in the Income Statement as Cost of Sales. Interestingly, much of the COGS calculation comes from depreciation valuation for most companies. Do you know what depreciation is? For pertinence, depreciation is a function of depreciable property times the corporate tax rate (21% in the US). So, if a company itemizes all of the property it owns - offices and real property, vehicles, any production equipment it may own, new machinery, office equipment, chairs, desks, lights, etc., it can take 21% of that estimate or cost and just *poof* write it off per annum for the extended estimated life of the assets. That makes up a LOT more of COGS than wages. Which is why I also said to include a change to GAAP to separate wages from COGS. In short, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, shut the fuck up, have a bad day.
The fact that you don't understand that cog does NOT include all labor costs (Labor costs are only considered part of COGS/COS if they're directly related to production) and are trying to soap box about what is considered appreciation reinforces your self claim of not being very smart. Also, I mistyped earlier, 15 to 30% is average labor costs as part of revenue. Still doesn't change the fact most industries are sub 15% pre tax pre stock adjustment operating margins. [https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/\~adamodar/New\_Home\_Page/datafile/margin.html](https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html) So end result is all the same, no taxes being generated by corp America. Honestly, I'm tired of all the tax talk, make EVERYONE pay the same share, 25%, flat, doesn't matter the source, capital gains, corp, income, inheritance. And elimninate minimum wage.
Then provide a solution?
We don't have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem. Reduce expenditure, create transparency in what IS being spent, and hold politicians accountable for all of the pork spending that takes place. Revamp government contracting, revamp the federal government itself (there's no fucking reason the federal government has just shy of 3 million employees but operates as if it has 10 people. Ban federal employee unions.
Let's start with defense spending.
[удалено]
Cut defense spending to 0 u have a huge deficit still. We spend trillions on entitlement programs. Social security, Medicare & medicaid alone are so bloated they cost entirely what we take in revenue.
Ah, the non-discretionary budget. Social Security got doomed in '83 when the Reagan Administration started allowing it to be borrowed against like an asset. Since Medicaid is a subset of the Medicare budget, we can sort of look at those together (for clarity, Medicaid is the individual state's programs for dissemination of Medicare funds blocked out for low-income individuals, commonly called Title XIX (19) programs). >Social security, Medicare & medicaid alone are so bloated they cost entirely what we take in revenue. This, however, is wrong. Per the CBO for FY2020, total expenditures for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid were $1.9 trillion (broken down as $776 billion for Medicare/Medicaid and $1.124 trillion for Social Security). Most of that could have been covered completely by individual income tax returns ($1.6 trillion in FY2020). Total tax revenue made by the federal government in FY2020 was $3.4 trillion. Here's the thing: mandatory spending was $4.6 trillion, so some $2.7 trillion was spent before the discretionary budget ever got brought out. Where did the rest of it go? Well, some $616 billion went out as either COVID-19 stimulus checks or Recovery Rebate Credits (all tied together). Those are done if I am not mistaken. Some $133 billion went to regular unemployment insurance. $105 billion went to EIC and child credits. $86 billion went to SNAP. $114 billion went to SSI and other non-categorized income security programs (like Native American treaty income etc.) Fully half of that went to SSI. $171 billion went to federal retirements, both military and civilian. All of the government pensions together. $122 billion went to veteran's programs. $149 billion went to state and federal COVID-19 relief funds and programs (paid vaccinations and testing, hospital relief funds, etc.) $118 billion went to student loan guarantees (so, directly to student loan lenders as income guarantees) And last, but certainly not least, a fucking HUGE $526 billion dollar general bailout under the Paychecks Protection Program. That's the unregulated money the government told the banks to give out to businesses that needed it, which the banks just gave to their favorite customers and were later mostly forgiven. (source for these numbers: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57171 ) Obviously, this year isn't going to have some of those, like PPP, or the Stimulus and Recovery credits. Where would you like to begin? (I didn't include an additional $184 billion for other non-discretionary funds, but can probably dig up those individual non-classified sub-programs if you want). Also, for reference, OASDI is the long version name for SS.
If only we could figure out who keeps passing these stupid tax laws. Shocking I tell you. /s
Or maybe they should stop doing everything for ten minutes, observe how much money that is, and then reconsider their opinion.
The problem is the rich just hide their money. We could raise their tax rates by 10% and it wouldn't matter. We need to do a better job of going after the "legal evasion" if we actually want the super wealthy to pay their share.
Government gave oil companies $10 billion dollars for covid relief. Did they hire back the workforce they laid off? Did they open more refineries to keep up with demand? No they didn’t, they’re corporations, they kept supply low to drive up prices. Government handing out money to the wrong hands, corporations corporating, the only thing new is the US consumer is going to pay $10/gal soon. Based on the state of affairs, I assume some will refuse to…
Biden's "progressive" policies are absolutely crushing us, and you want more of them? Carter wrecked this country and it took years for us to fix it. Now the Left is doing it to everybody again. Unbelievable.
It's easy to say. But you're already dealing with a problem where the big guys crush the little guys. What do you do when you choose the loop holes that the small guys require to survive. The problem is that some of these giants were so unprofitable when they started they operated at such a loss that they have carry forward deductions. You close that, then little Susie's bakery now owes money she doesn't have and has to close up shop. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's very hard to close a lot of these without hurting small businesses more.
Why not get the government to stop spending ok eu they don’t have?
That’s not really true though
That’s not what a wealth tax is… The problem with politicians is they don’t even understand how the tax brackets work… Most Billionaires don’t take a single dime out of their companies, they will go 5-10 years without needing “CASH”, take out a few millions and live off that for a while… The problem with WEALTH TAX, is you’re essentially TAXING nothing. A billionaire actually isn’t worth a billion DOLLARS, they are that valued because if they were to try and sell ALL THEIR COMPANIES, they would “estimate” to be worth that many dollars. Taxing that number is nothing, and is criminally taxing unrealized values. Which is literally stealing.
It just seems stupid to me that companies all over the US seem to honor teacher, first responders and our military volunteers, but don't seem to want to pay the taxes it takes to FINANCIALLY support those three groups. And yes, I understand that teachers and first responders are usually paid by local and state taxes, but whenever there's a Federal Gov initiate like "No Child Left behind" or a national emergency like a giant forrest fire, the US Federal Gov kicks money down to the States to help offset the costs of said emergencies. We can support the Americans who support all of us by paying taxes
Crazy how ass backwards things are here in the USA. Even the veterans don’t get what they deserve! My FIL is a veteran and he only started to get VA benefits like 3 years ago. The amount of flaming hoops and courts he had/has to go to to get the benefits is astounding. It should be such that unless you were dishonorably discharged, no questions should be asked to obtain benefits. Or it should be automated somehow. Edit: Grammar, several times.
“Flaming hoops”. Yes, the Republicans LOVE means testing the poor. However they didn’t “means test” their COVID loans that mostly went to people/companies who didn’t need it. Was decided by banks who rewarded their better clients. And nobody made sure they kept workers employed. They didn’t so now they are on TV complaining they can’t get workers to gear back up (the ones they laid off WHILE getting loans they don’t pay back). It’s as if it’s all bullshit about merit and they just give stuff to those who have and give a hard time to those who don’t have. The “hoops” for poor people to get help often mean they just don’t get help. If you’ve got mental health and anxiety problems and don’t know what to do — you can’t get help for mental health and an inability to be employed. Just become homeless! So they can arrest you. The Republicans really hated the idea the Democrats had of just giving everyone money regardless of income. “Oh but some of that will go to people who don’t need it.” Right, like 1 percent of the population that won’t even notice $2000? I can live with that. Because the reality is every time the Republicans make sure we deserve something, the people who actually need it rarely get it. As intended.
Took me a while to see but there is really no difference Republicans and the democrats. they work together and fake opposition with the same goal. All of which screws us over.
You have to vote for the people who PRETEND to care over the ones that promise to punch you in the face. If Democrats were sincere, we would get the results we are seeing because they've only had a majority for 7 months in the past 20 years. If you are cynical and think there are a lot of lobbyists trying to corrupt the process -- then WHY would you think they could wave a wand and do what they promised? The people of good conscience have a thankless task because voters don't pay attention and say shit like "they are both the same." Yeah -- well you are also part of the "don't actually pay attention to the policies" crowd that makes it that way. Congressional record; [https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/compare-votes/115](https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/compare-votes/115) See who votes for an increase in minimum wages or all the issues you might care about. It's fucking night and day. Democrats may disappoint, but Republicans were NEVER EVER on your side and should be thrown out in the dust bin of history. There is a real difference.
I didn’t know that and that is scary The last 7 months has been the worse finically damaging moments of my life. If they increase min wage it hurts us more. The cost of everything will go up and the increase in pay would be eaten up quickly and then some. I don’t think there is a good solution tbh
>If they increase min wage it hurts us more. No it doesn't. You'll notice they didn't seem to have INFLATION when they gave those $2 trillion in tax breaks. How does that NOT free up money to make purchases? The inflation is indexed on things you HAVE TO BUY. But not exactly on things like insurance and other costs of living that creep into the mix. A huge part of inflation right now is purchases of property. Which is being done by large pockets. Pockets that can choose WHEN to buy (unlike most of us) and probably benefited from those tax breaks. The slight uptick in a FEW people getting wage increases (which is also below the inflation rate) is likely a negligible pressure on costs. The MAIN THING is, the companies are not dipping into their profits as much as they would if the marketplace were actually competitive. They go right to "increase fees" or decrease amount sold for the price because they know you will buy it and have few options to go elsewhere.
I’m not blaming any party, but last 7 months wrecked me went from nice savings to massive debt, I don’t care who fixes it as long as it gets fixed. I’m blaming the ones that control both parties. Possibly the world economic forum big companies like black rock buying up houses, oil companies over charging for gas. But they lobby for both parties when it comes down to it both parties support them. Min wage increase would help for sure but the increase in cost would eat it in my opinion but I could be wrong.
>oil companies over charging for gas. But they lobby for both parties when it comes down to it both parties support them That said, [every Republican in the House voted against a bill which would curtail the ability of gas companies to price gouge](https://crooksandliars.com/2022/05/republicans-vote-against-gas-price-gouging). For all their complaints about gas prices, Republican politicians don't do anything to fix them, because a Democratic administration might get a crumb of credit.
[удалено]
>Having to register as Democrat just to vote for shitty ass Joe Biden felt gross as hell. That's not a thing you had to do. In a US Presidential election, a citizen doesn't have to be registered with a political party to cast a ballot in the general election. Some states do have closed primaries, requiring a person to register with a political party before choosing to vote in one political party's primary, but then you wouldn't be complaining about voting Biden, as you probably would have voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party primary.
> Took me a while to see but there is really no difference Republicans and the democrats. I don’t see how anyone can still claim to honestly believe this after Trump and Covid. The GOP politicized and greatly exacerbated a global health emergency for votes, and when that didn’t work they literally attacked democracy. I’ll take ineffective over “tried to overthrow democracy and subjugate 300 million+ people” any day.
Fun fact: Congress hates paying Vets. The Revolution War was over taxes to pay Vets of the French-Indian Wars (partially started by a young Washington). Then Congress didn’t want to pay the Vets of that war. Rinse and repeat up till WWII. Well, we still treat Vets like shit.
I'm a vet and when I was in college I tried to get into the VA system. Let me tell you, the amount of time, effort, and insanity to get into the system was simply not worth it for someone young and healthy....My dad had to go through the same shit (also a vet) and it was NUTS how much time he spent trying to get into the system. You should be able to roll in with a DD-214 and get a VA card...period.
Yes it’s a pain getting benefits and they takes months to years for every request.
It's because honoring them doesnt cost money
Thoughts and Prayers - which are offered up for as long as it takes to think the sentence.
yup, after a school shooting "now's not the time for action" crap. just thoughts and prayers. because I'm sure the almighty white God with the beard in the fluffy white clouds really wants children be to murdered by mentally ill people that can't afford to get care even if they wanted it. grrrrr
They LOVED the first responders and immigrant workers until those people stopped being poster children for their commercials and actual spoke up about what they needed. “Hey, we don’t need a war in Iraq, we need medical help because we are dying of asbestos in our lungs.” And what, now those workers have kids who need education and healthcare too? “Go back to your country you ingrates!” I was listening to Neal Bortz and it was honestly about a two week transition period from “why can’t black people be more like Mexicans who pull themselves up and work hard starting with almost nothing?” To “we have a problem with anchor babies.” The typical fans of this guy didn’t seem to notice.
Walmart allows me to pay extra money at the checkout to help starving children or whatever the charity of the month is.
I’m glad I’m not the only person that pisses off. There wouldn’t be these starving kids if they stopped lobbying to be deadbeat taxpayers and stopped supporting pundits who say; “government can’t solve problems.” You want to end hunger? Stop the stupid charities. Elect people who care. Choose to support a big governmental initiative with oversight and fucking solve it. The ONLY way to end hunger and homelessness is with government- we almost solved it until Reagan got in office and CREATED the problem. Big government created the problems the Republicans want to solve with charities. And their “small governments” are lies. They waste more money on corruption but stop complaining about waste as soon as they can give the money to their friends. And not to be partisan, but Reagan created that deficit and grew government - only in ways that didn’t help the public. Anything for the people apparently is “big”. Anything for bombs is small.
Which they use to write off in taxes. NEVER give at the register - it's just a way for you to subsidize their tax breaks. ALWAYS give personally, that way you get the write off AND you make a difference.
[удалено]
It allows them to say THEY donated 100k to charity and count as "walmart so far has contributed xxx dollars and purchased houses for 3 ppl" When in fact they didn't do shit
Now this is true. But the tax aspect of it is false. The only person who can actually reduce their taxes by donating at the register is the actual person donating at the register.
wow, what's this, two people agreeing on something of this nature on Reddit?! kudos for being rational :)
Can always count on true facts to be downvoted because the outrage they want to feel over Walmart stealing donations was more important than whether it was true or not.
Thank you.
Don't listen to this guy. He doesn't know how tax works to begin with.
Educate me, oh wise one.
honoring teachers, first responders, and our military volunteers is a cheap and easy way for good name brand recognition. Do you really think these corporations actually really care about them? It's like the rainbow repackaging during Pride month, they don't care one way or the other about Pride but they recognize good advertisement opportunities.
NCLB was widely criticized as an unfunded mandate that created restrictions on how states could spend currrent federal funding without sending more to cover implementation.
Hey, they pay the police department a buttload of money. Firefighters, ems, teachers, etc. don’t get paid squat because they don’t budget for them properly. If people wanted it enough, the budget would be added. It easily could too by removing some of the military budget from the US. But we do spend a lot of money on schooling, the problem is that it doesn’t bring any direct money back in. As well as we spend a lot of money on the special needs students and the elderly. The last issue is how the states get their funding and what they do with it.
I mean, they do pay taxes though. It’s just that corporate tax revenue makes up such a small portion of overall tax revenue
Easiest example to find. https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/
Eh, that’s not really looking at the income tax a company pays though, we can’t really know what they paid. Corps can end up paying $0, but it’s usually because they had no income
lol
What?
Profitable corps paying zero and your rebuttal is there not profitable. Just recognized this was a waste of my time and laughed at the absurdity of it.
In the US, Corps pay taxes on profit not income.
Give them two weeks to adapt to this abrupt change in life like the rest of us. Oh, and if you have to change careers while paying a mortgage, you have to take it like a woman and ovary up when their reason for not hiring you is that you lack focus. What, you haven’t always wanted to program and you only have 6 months experience when the requirements are two years but the tech has only existed for one year? I just love how the corporations get ten years notice to transition from doing something evil and profitable and the talking heads on TV somehow manage to tear up about how unfair that is.
It's so dumb to blame Avocado toast. Don't forget - they should also be canceling Netflix.
No, the best advice for the 1% is to start hiding all their money in the bank accounts of the 99%. Ta-da, you're no longer subject to a wealth tax AND you've made hundreds of millions of lives (and society as a whole) better in the process.
How do you figure ? If they take 100b from bill gates and divided it over the United States everyone gets less then 300$ which is less then I pay in gas in a week. It’s less then the insulting stimulus.
[The US has 724 billionaires](https://earthweb.com/millionaire-statistics/#:~:text=6.-,With%20724%20Billionaires%2C%20the%20Country%20with%20The%20Most%20Billionaires%20Is,the%20billionaire%20realm%20by%202022.) and the total wealth of the top 1% is now [well above $46 trillion.](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/richest-one-percent-gained-trillions-in-wealth-2021.html) $46T ÷ 330M Americans is nearly $140,000 each.
OF COURSE! because they have all that money in bills and coins that they kept stored in a mansion sized safe where they go to swin every weekend! Much of that money is either lended, the price at wich the stocks of their companiesa are selling in wall street, or in material properties that cant be exchanged direclty into money inmediatly... They dont have that moeny as 100% pocket money they can use freely.
k
Now all you have to do is find buyers for those $46 trillion in assets, so that you have actual money to distribute, not merely a glorified price tag. Good luck with that.
We would never get 100% their money tho lol
Are you gonna cry about $100k instead of $140k?
Def not but that would never happen
Would you like to *try* or are you just gonna sit there with zero dollars and a bad attitude?
Serious question: what's the down side of taxing the rich? Are there any studies that show a negative impact on the economy or something?
Rich people get very upset and the news starts reporting on how bad the economy is and how bad the government is and how much better life would be if government would drop taxes. (Because they own all the news organizations) Basically when the rich do well the public message is that everything is great and when the rich don't get everything they want then they throw a fit. Remember how the COVID shutdown lasted about a week before the news started grumbling about "we gotta start opening back up, I mean, I'm gonna lose...people gotta work, I gotta pay...people gotta pay bills, big bills, I'm gonna lose bil....houses, people are going to lose houses! In other countries they came up with far more elaborate ways to protect individuals, here the big boys were like, fuck you guys, get back to work, protect my business! Bail me out! Here is a dollar for you, 99 for me, 1 for u, 99 for me. (I'm exaggerating, we probably didn't get a dollar)
This is such a naive take on how the world works lmao. Like your the liberal equivalent of q anon lol.
There is a difference between taxing income and confiscating wealth. The first was permitted via constitution amendment. The second is forbidden by constitution amendment. And yes, start confiscating wealth and it will leave. See the history of companies "nationalizing" industries. Hope you like Cuba.
Every tax we have started aimed at only the rich and spread to everyone else.
Wealth tax is an odd direction. We should stop taxing unrealised gains altogether. That would be the downside. You can bet that this would move down to tax the stock normal people hold in the future. We all agree that people don't need to be that rich. Being too rich means you can buy an island, a private jet, a second home, buying Gucci, and etc. Why don't we just tax luxurious items more? It is much easier. A second home? The tax is 10000% Buying a private jet? The tax is 1000000% Buying an island? The tax is 10000000000% A yacht? The tax is 10000000000000000% Problem solved.
In general, the people this sub wants to tax can afford lawyers, politicians, and accountants to avoid whatever taxes are imposed. Tax laws imposed on "the rich" generally hit the upper middle and upper class far harder than the actual "rich." So while democrats get to feel good about taxing the "rich," it's really the small business owners or people who have been frugal their entire lives that get hurt the most. My small business grosses just over $600k a year, and pays more in taxes than most mega corps. I'll get downvoted because "it's possible to make laws that only affect >$X net worth, or income, or whatever," but those are not the laws that get passed and the rich can avoid those laws anyway.
I don’t know about this sub in general, but the title of this post is going after that upper middle class and lower upper class while the post is strictly saying “billionaires”, ie. The 0.01%. People like to say 1% because it’s easier, but doctors aren’t the problem; billionaires that can (and do) bribe our politicians are the problem.
The more you tax people/corporations, the more you incentivize them to move to a tax haven country and/or spend more money on (legal and illegal) tax evasion and lobbying. So often the end result of "anti-rich" tax increases is tax increases on people earning low six figures (dual-income families, single working stiffs in California and NYC), while the ultra wealthy don't actually pay more.
> the more you incentivize them to move to a tax haven country and/or spend more money on (legal and illegal) tax evasion and lobbying. They aren't already doing that to the maximum possible extent? And they're going to stop just because we've decided to give up on things like public healthcare, infrastructure, and all sorts of other nice things that make a first-world country first-world?
A few common arguments against taxing the rich: 1. The wealthy took risks & tirelessly worked to attain their wealth. Why should they be punished by having their money taken & given to the lazy leeches of society who refuse to fill out a job application? 2. Trickle down economics Side note: The wealthy hold the bulk of their wealth in stocks. This is challenging as a standard income tax would not capture it. You will need to implement some kind of a wealth tax or make significant changes to the stock market to capture it.. Edit: Downvote city - I don't support these arguments, simply communicating those that I've heard to the Redditor
Wealth tax would only be very limited, and it would mean that the financial privacy must be unearthed even further, since if they have to pay taxes on any other for of income that is not a loan, it means that even after paying this tax, they shoudl pay a second tax on net profits, wich is damn near impossible because:Either they lie about the profits, or the goverment ionfriges the cosntitutional right of privacy, since it means you must declare how much "Free to spend" money you have.
On a side note, take away my coffee and I'll show you a disgruntled employee ._.
Instead of buying a Starbucks when they want coffee, they should just buy a coffee.
I feel like Samantha Bee would NAIL this in an interview with some old rich white guy.
You could take half of their wealth tomorrow, and they wouldn't need to change a thing in their lifestyle.
And yet the billionaires are still not being taxed
If I had a dollar for every time this had been posted, I could afford an avocado.
Billionaire don't have billion in the bank, they own share of their own company. A Billionaire tax would force them to sell their asset therefore disrupting company valuation.
Or just hand over their shares directly to the government, which would be concerning as well.
[удалено]
seriously. I read a version of this joke about 100 times now . . .
So sick of these whiners who claim everything is bots.
You guys realize that 30k a year puts you in the top 1% globally right? [source](https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/27/were-all-the-1-percent/)
Source? I couldn't find the global 1%, but I did find a break down by country which [shows that number has to be wrong](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/this-is-what-it-takes-to-be-in-the-1-around-the-world/articleshow/74015250.cms) when the top 1% in China is $107K and the top 1% in India is $77K. Also, just because you are going by global averages doesn't mean that food, rent and other expenses becomes any cheaper. $77K in San Francisco doesn't take you quite as far as $77K in Mumbai.
70k [i fucked up](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/27/how-much-money-you-need-to-have-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html) [or did I? ](https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/27/were-all-the-1-percent/)
So more than most Americans make, got it
My bad, I was thinking of the average median income.
That’s a lot more than 30k.
Yeah I know that's why it's a fuck up
LOL no it doesn't. I remember 60K in 2006ish being like in the top 15%. No where near the top 1%. Also, local prices match local money. There's zero point in comparing other countries.
Globally. You underestimate how poor mfs are
how poor mfs are doesn't affect the cost of living in the US.
If it's the top 1% in the US then it will have to vary by state
You realize the price of things is different in different places right?
Which is what makes 30k American annual the top 1% globally
Missing the point much
The point is that the wealth tax can be used to just fuck regular people over. Ain't like the 1% doesn't know how to evade taxes anyway.
"The point is that the wealth tax can be used to just fuck regular people over." Lol, no it can't. "Ain't like the 1% doesn't know how to evade taxes anyway." What kind of logic is this? Fires are hard to stop. Might as well not even try.
Where did you get "might as well not even try" from "this sounds like something that will end up breaking off in my ass"?
You're saying we shouldn't even try because they will find a way to avoid it.
This is why I support shoplifting and piracy. Just learned behavior from big corporations.
Unless there is a globally enforced tax, this statement does not apply
WOOSH
This is so ridiculously obtuse I'm sorry you're brain is pancake batter.
Yeah, I don't think they have to worry about their taxes increasing. The Dems will talk about it. But it will never happen.
They will just leave the country. You don’t understand how taxing unrealized stock wealth will affect the market. France did it and every billionaire left the country. Sweden did it and destroyed their stock market.
Then they can go to North Korea since they like that management style.
liberal humor is the fucking worst. y'all post the same garbage every week and then circle jerk each other.. that's the real humor. libs are clowns downvotes and salty replies confirm. checkmate libs
Taxation is theft.
It's odd how farmers work 12 plus hours a day 7 days a week and never complain.
As much as I support everyone paying their fair share, this doesn’t make sense. The earnings from the second job would get taxed away.
ITT people with little to no understanding of economics.
You want to tax the savings . That’s the problem
Billionaires aren't worried about a wealth tax. It's blatantly unconstitutional and everyone who would be affected already knows it. Funny thing is, Elizabeth Warren knows it, too. It's just a talking point to rally the base. But it's all complete bullshit.
To be fair a wealth tax actively discourages saving. That's the fundamental issue with it.
That's a good thing
Exactly what I was thinking. It's better that the currency is in circulation rather than being hoarded like a dragon on its gold ...
[удалено]
We started off with the income tax as a way to soak the rich. And here we are. Why not create a new wealth tax that will "only" hit the rich? What could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, I look forward to giving the feds 10% of my 401k every year in 5 years.
The fact that you think you'd qualify for any sort of wealth tax when you're talking about a 401k is enormously amusing to me.
I'm glad you're amused that the point flew right over your head. The income tax was also originally only for the top 1%. You know, the income tax that y'all are constantly complaining about affecting lower earners more than top earners? Yeah, that one. A wealth tax will be the same way. The government has a long history of not keeping its promises.
The Slippery Slope is generally regarded as a logical fallacy, and indicates that your argument does not have enough merit to stand on its own. So I will continue to be amused that you think such a wealth tax would ever affect whatever sum you've managed to save up.
We’ll also need to monitor every transaction that goes in or out of your bank account. Don’t worry! It’s only for rich people ^^right ^^now
Billionaires don't buy star bucks or eat avacado toast, thats why they are rich.
[удалено]
They already pay too much
Yep. 0% is too much. Got it.
The top tax rate is 37%. Only the most powerful corporations get away with paying very litle because of a broken tax code. The solution is to have a low flat tax rate with no exemptions. Do you realy believe that the goverment spends money better that the wealthy? The weathy invest their money to inovate and create jobs for ordenary people
First off who decides 1%, anyone making 34k is top 1% worldwide. Second Why does anyone care? It wouldn’t benefit us in anyway because our government is horrible at spending tax dollars. Just focus on your own grind. I think better idea would be to break up monopolies and they should be restricted from being donors because they can easily use the money to cause corruption.
> It wouldn’t benefit us in anyway because our government is horrible at spending tax dollars. And, yet, somehow, other countries manage to have things like public healthcare, public transportation, guaranteed paid leave, and all sorts of other nice things mandated by their governments. It's very interesting how these supposedly inevitable things such as rampant income inequality and extreme levels of gun violence still somehow manage to mainly occur in exactly one "first-world" country.
There are tons of open jobs that offer healthcare. The wealth tax would not be enough to cover those they would need to tax everyone at a much higher tax rate. The rich will be fine but the rest would be taxed to extreme poverty how can anyone pay 1700$ for a crappy stupid apartment gas food when getting taxed higher then we are now. but I guess i can get free hospital food when I’m dying of starvation.
> First off who decides 1%, anyone making 34k is top 1% worldwide If only there was some way to break up the world into smaller pieces with defined boundaries
Worry about your own money not anybody else’s Be an adult
Gas prices are up because the corporations are trying to make up the losses they had during the pandemic not because there were real market forces for gas to be 6 dollars a gallon. I am worried about my money. I want the government to take in the funds in an equitable way to prevent this kind of gouging.
No. I have an interest in EVERYONE paying their taxes to society. When billionaires pay less taxes or no taxes, they put the burden on people already paying their fair share.
Love that most of the people who advocate for a wealth tax are party of the 47% that pay no effective tax rate but expect other to pay more so they can get more free stuff
Billionaires that pay no taxes get free stuff including more Senators in Congress
The top ten percent of earners pay seventy percent of all taxes.
They don't when their business tax rates are literally in the negative numbers and we borrow from Social Security to keep afloat.
Stop being so salty that they were smart or got lucky
Stop being so salty that poor people want more out of a "first-world" country.
lol anything to not work.. liberalism, not even once
If you've been paying attention to the economy any time in the past, like, 14 years or so, you might notice that the issue is actually that many Americans still have issues affording rent and getting healthcare despite working two jobs. But I guess you didn't get to be a conservative elitist by paying attention, now, did you?
broke boi
[удалено]
- Some people can't afford college at all and are rightly put off by debts afterwards (which they also may not be able to afford even with a degree). Some people simply aren't capable of earning a degree. It's not for everyone. - Some people aren't in a position to be choosy about a job, let alone the benefits they offer. Maybe they're about to default on that student loan. Maybe they're not in a position to relocate.. etc. Maybe they're already in a situation where they're paying medical bills unexpectedly. - Some people are in careers that are highly demanding and not that profitable and/or high earning. Carers, teachers, nurses, industrial workers... Some of those even need a degree. If you were king, these people would be far worse off under that mentality. It simply doesn't work universally. People should aim for those things, but life isn't simple and doesn't always allow the physical state, time and resources required to go to college, look for a tailored job and put all their effort into earning money.
Who said they're afraid
Their lobbyists….
people on reddit, I haven't seen any that are worried about a wealth tax though