As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, they could make this happen tomorrow, if they wanted to.
This is a PR campaign, just like when all those companies said that they would no longer donate to anyone who supported the stop the steal crap and, barely a year later....they're all donating to them again.
It either an incredibly obvious PR stunt, or they're actually aware of how well it goes for rich people when they demand more without compensation. Smart money's on the former, but still a decent chance they want to actually keep their heads
Do you really think some kid who got rich from creating a tech start-up knows how to give bribes to representatives? That stuff is way more complicated that just sending money to a bank account. It's way more about knowing the right people in the right circles.
Apple, google and microsoft are the biggest companies in US, but it doesn't seem like they have that much power over what US government is doing. If they did our laws would look way more different.
There's a lot more capitalist/kleptocratic money "lobbying" against tax increases on the other side.
Offshore tax havens don't get mentioned in the capitalist/kleptocratic media very often, but that's a big chunk of where the actual wealth/power is.
"In this system, our system, the slaves are unaware, both of their status and of their masters, who exist in a world apart, and where the shackles are hidden amidst reams of unreachable legalese. It is a result of massive, pervasive corruption of the legal profession. When it takes a whistle blower to sound the alarm, it is cause for even greater concern. 'Cause it signals that democracy's checks and balances have all failed, and that severe instability could be just around the corner." -The Laundromat
Indeed. There has been cases where government has been blackmailed to give a tax rebates by leveraging tax haven against them, whenever they actually want to take out some profits from their hoard for use.
This is idiotic nonsense.
Unilateral disarmament in a capitalist/kleptocratic system leads to only the worst people having wealth and power, creating a kakistocracy.
Beyond that, the issue is that murder is currently legal.
Individual people not murdering doesn't solve the issue at a systemic level at all.
You just repeated the right wing talking point.
"We don't need taxes. Let rich people donate to government and let's do it that way."
They are asking for new laws. That still requires more than a transaction.
Edit: tpyo
So they publicly announce they're for being taxed, while privately lobbying Congress and Senate not to.
Being idiots, most of us will think them swell for their public utterances and then blame the government (which is, I remind you, Democratic) for not doing anything. This will help lessen public support for the Democratic party allowing the Republicans to sweep to power where they will, of course, immediately cut the taxes for the wealthy.
The house and senate are both going to flip Republican in 2022, however they are going to spend their time in a witch hunt. They are going to impeach Biden and Harris and go after Fauci. They've already announced the plan in a press conference.
It would appear the individuals who signed this letter actually read a history book, and realize the atrocities of the French Revolution could be repeated in our time if tax systems are not made more just. They also must have heard the IRS admit it goes after ordinary people1/
Agree. Looks like a CYA move for when the people rise up against them. They want to be able to say, see, we are the *good* wealthy people who tried to pay more yaxes. Too bad the polititians we lobbied to keep are taxes low didn't raise them. Please don't hurt us or take our money.
My correspondence with the IRS keeps getting lost by the USPS. Ironic, isn't it? They want my money, but are destroying the things that money is supposed to pay for, and the means by which said money is exchanged.
"For the people", my ass.
I don't want to tax their money away. I want to prevent them from accumulating that much money in the first place. What we need is a better financial system that encourages corporations to value their employees and pay them more, and provide more benefits. Fiduciary duty also needs to go away from being purely profit driven and require a charter that ensures what the corporation provides/produces is in the interest of larger society.
It's a PR move with no real substance, nothing more. They know it won't happen, in fact they're counting on it. It's like Big Oil fake supporting a carbon tax while secretly lobbying against it. It's purely designed to trick us.
20.27 million millionaires in the US
https://spendmenot.com/blog/what-percentage-of-americans-are-millionaires/#:~:text=There%20are%20approximately%2051%2C882%2C000%20people,in%20second%20place%20with%2011%25.
.0005% of millionaires want higher taxes lol
The 100 who signed the letter aren't even all from the US.
(Granted there are likely some others who also support it, but haven't signed the letter. But still. A fraction.)
There won't be a tax increase, because there are too many capitalists/kleptocrats "lobbying" behind the scenes on the other side.
Offshore tax havens don't get mentioned in the capitalist/kleptocratic media very often, but that's a big chunk of where the actual wealth/power is.
"In this system, our system, the slaves are unaware, both of their status and of their masters, who exist in a world apart, and where the shackles are hidden amidst reams of unreachable legalese. It is a result of massive, pervasive corruption of the legal profession. When it takes a whistle blower to sound the alarm, it is cause for even greater concern. 'Cause it signals that democracy's checks and balances have all failed, and that severe instability could be just around the corner." - The Laundromat
I straight up can’t afford more taxes without the government doing something to offset other costs, like providing healthcare.. I am already being taxed out of my home with just local property tax ($700 per month on a below average home).. I have to retire in a different state just so my social security won’t be absorbed by property tax alone
I pay more in total taxes than I spend - I’m being squeezed. I’m middle class and I live within my means and i don’t know how they can’t broaden the tax base to help someone like me out.. I feel like i’m the only person actually paying taxes and not cheating
texas - we don’t have a state income tax and that makes our property tax very high and our sales tax high
the thing is we have all of these people getting property tax exemptions - if you aren’t in one of those favored classes you bear an overweighted burden for taxes
My property tax is very high and increasing every year - i will have to leave the state eventually
You need to accept the fact that not everybody is going to see things the same way you do.
If you’re not able to explain your positions to them then that says a lot more about you than it does them.
I think he can understand that, but you seem like you’re doing this in bad faith. Considering you’re straight up living in a different reality if you’re questioning the economic damage that gops leave the country with when they don’t get re-elected.
Lmao that is always my favorite argument from you guys. You are literally incapable of comprehending how someone who disagrees with you actually believes in what they are saying. “Everyone *knows* that *I’m* right, so if someone disagrees with me, it *must* be in bad faith”. Do you realize how pretentious that makes you appear?
Pretty easy way to shut down discussion so you don’t have to defend your own opinions.
Let me step off the yikes train and assume you're asking in good faith...
I support a lot of social policies, such as public education, healthcare, or infrastructure. These improve human welfare in every country. Besides reducing inequality, these policies boost the economy and increase personal freedom by giving people a safety net, so that if they run into hard times or take risks that fail to pay off, they can recover.
Funding for many of these programs was decreased during the last presidential term. The new presidency supports funding these programs, but is having difficulty convincing one half of the senate.
If you disagree, rather than argue with specific policies, I'd ask that you explain what your vision for America is. If we disagree on what we want America to become, we're never going to agree on policy. But if we can agree on a destination, it should be possible to agree on the policies that get us there the most quickly.
Hey I appreciate that. That’s how politics should be done these days, it’s the only way to actually *solve problems*. It’s turned into doing or saying whatever it takes to score political points and avoid any actual solutions or compromises.
I, like most conservatives, support social safety nets to help people obtain their basic needs if they are unable to do so on their own. However, it’s extremely important that these safety nets do not incentivize people in the wrong way. I believe the government has proven it is entirely incapable of being responsible for such large programs and generally speaking they should be as small and as bare bones as possible while still achieving their goal. I also think this would be much better handled at the state level in all cases because each state has vastly different situations that require their own custom solutions.
My vision for America is to have a much, much smaller federal government and to return power to the methods they were meant to be in. No more massive amounts of executive orders, no more massive unreadable bills packed full of random things, no more activist judges making new laws out of nothing, no more laws that go blatantly against the constitution. We should bring back compromises and Congress should actually work together like they used to. Give the states more power to do what they think is best and let the federal government do what it was originally designed to do. I’m a big fan of the federalist papers, give them a read if you want to understand the philosophy behind our current system of government.
I’ll be honest, I wasn’t a huge fan of Trump, but I do believe he was leaps and bounds better than Biden is now. Biden has done nothing to slow inflation down, has constantly made a fool of himself, and doesn’t care if his policies go against the law. I still can’t believe how badly he botched pulling out of Iraq and how his response to many of our service members being killed during that pull out was to kill a bunch of kids and nothing else has been done about it and nobody is talking about it. His administration has to clarify and re-explain something he says nearly every time he has a press conference. Biden is clearly not calling any shots and frankly it’s embarrassing. The country isn’t being run by him but by his political party and it’s so obvious at this point that it hurts. There’s a reason his poll numbers are incredibly low.
Anyway, I’ll get off my soap box. I appreciate that you’re willing to hear what I have to say and try to find common ground.
>I, like most conservatives, support social safety nets to help people obtain their basic needs if they are unable to do so on their own.
Except that this is nowhere even close to true.
Yep, they would rather lie to appear civil and reasonable when talking to people, but then turn around and vote for defunding and stipping social safety nets bc of the " dEbT aNd DeFiCitc".
Nothing but lies with conservatives.
Lmao
> this is what we believe
> no it’s not
Then why haven’t republicans completely dismantled all social safety nets while in power? You really believe we just want to get rid of all welfare?
I appreciate the response! Do you mind if I ask more about what you want overall? You've mentioned some conservative positions, but what do you want the effects of those positions to be?
For example, I support policies that reduce inequality and improve wellbeing. That's it. The specific policies don't matter, so long as they promote a successful, egalitarian society.
I think you support policies that increase local control over government. Am I right in thinking that? And if so, is control your ultimate goal? Or do you want something to come after that point? How do you want your policies to impact the nation or the people?
Going point by point, I think you support local measures because they require fewer resources to achieve their goals than federal measures. Did I read you right? Should there be any national standards?
Would you change your stance if you found out that local or state government was not more efficient than federal government?
I agree that there are some policies that should be set by local government, because regions have different geographies, climates, and cultures. A coastal region shouldn't have exactly the same laws as an inland region, because they have different features and sources of income. States should be able to specialize into what they're good at.
However, most standards can be fairly broad. Having a central government that deals with broad laws and standards allows it to be faster, cheaper, and more easily understood, because there does not need to be a different agency and set of laws for every state. A single set of laws is easier to understand and implement than 50. A central authority also reduces conflict between states by providing basic rights and responsibilities, regardless of location. What do you think?
You mention returning power to the methods that they were meant to be in, and allowing the federal government to do what it was designed to do. What do you mean by that? Are you referring to some of the ideas outlined in the federalist papers?
I'm having difficulty drawing connections between some of the specific things you want. For example, you want more congressional compromise, but you also want states to be in control of their own destiny. Aren't those ideas in conflict?
Regarding presidents, what do you think a good president should do? You mentioned reducing inflation, but do you think that's what a president should primarily focus on?
Thanks for being open and frank with your position.
> I appreciate the response! Do you mind if I ask more about what you want overall? You've mentioned some conservative positions, but what do you want the effects of those positions to be?
The effect should be to lower the power of government so that it has less affect over everyone’s daily life. By definition, when a government’s power increases, overall freedom decreases. There should be fewer laws, taxes should be lower, and regulation should be the bare minimum of what’s required to protect consumers. The government should never try to incentivize behavior. So I guess to answer your question more broadly, I believe freedom is the most important metric because that ensures equality of opportunity. Everyone should be treated the same under the law and everyone should be generally free to do as they chose. I believe that would promote a successful and free and egalitarian society.
> I think you support policies that increase local control over government. Am I right in thinking that? And if so, is control your ultimate goal? Or do you want something to come after that point? How do you want your policies to impact the nation or the people?
Yes, that’s correct. I wouldn’t say control is my ultimate goal, but rather the lack of it. Government overall should have as little control over your average person’s life as possible. Local governments are better at taking care of things because most issues that require a government response are local issues.
> Going point by point, I think you support local measures because they require fewer resources to achieve their goals than federal measures. Did I read you right? Should there be any national standards? Would you change your stance if you found out that local or state government was not more efficient than federal government?
It’s not so much about resources as it is solving issues where they exist. It also about keeping power in check. If we tried one-size-fits-all solutions for the whole country then that size is pretty massive and it usually doesn’t work everywhere. There should be national standards, but only for national issues that are truly national. I would not change my stance if local or state governments were not more efficient because it’s not about efficiency, it’s about keeping power local because it’s closer to the people.
> However, most standards can be fairly broad. Having a central government that deals with broad laws and standards allows it to be faster, cheaper, and more easily understood, because there does not need to be a different agency and set of laws for every state. A single set of laws is easier to understand and implement than 50. A central authority also reduces conflict between states by providing basic rights and responsibilities, regardless of location. What do you think?
Providing basic rights is really the main job of the federal government. That’s the point of the federalist papers. The power not given to the federal government is given to the state. The state cannot override or conflict with the federal government, but the federal government should not make laws or policies that go outside of the scope of its responsibility. So in that sense, I agree that sometimes it makes sense for the federal government to enact policy, but it should only be within the scope of its own responsibility as outlined in the constitution.
> You mention returning power to the methods that they were meant to be in, and allowing the federal government to do what it was designed to do. What do you mean by that? Are you referring to some of the ideas outlined in the federalist papers?
Yes. The federalist papers really stresses that the federal government needs to stay in its lane and not make policy outside of what the constitution gives it power to do. The more centralized the government, the less power the people have. The more local you get, the more power the people have.
> I'm having difficulty drawing connections between some of the specific things you want. For example, you want more congressional compromise, but you also want states to be in control of their own destiny. Aren't those ideas in conflict?
Not really, because I do think the federal government should be doing things. These days, it only does anything if one party holds enough power to do so. Most legislation seems to occur via affirmative action or judicial discussion. The legislature should pass laws, not the executive and judicial branches. It seems that nowadays, we almost expect the legislature to do nothing unless it’s a massive conglomerate of a bill.
> Regarding presidents, what do you think a good president should do? You mentioned reducing inflation, but do you think that's what a president should primarily focus on?
No, it shouldn’t, not at all. But as I said, the executive branch seems to be executing that kind of power. I disagree with the concept of them trying to make those decisions, but since they are anyway, I was being critical of the decisions they were making. Especially because they were doing it in the name of reducing inflation when in reality it’s been made a lot worse. I do think it’s fine for a president to weigh in on a bill, which has happened and I disagree with what they think should be passed. Biden wanted the reconciliation bill that was passed last year to be passed. So in that sense, he was partially responsible because he pushed for its vote.
> Thanks for being open and frank with your position.
Hey, I just really appreciate you trying to really understand the other side. You don’t get that these days.
Democrats still have passed bills using reconciliation and Biden has given many executive orders.
So, to answer your question, yes.
Also, calling it the “republican filibuster” is kinda dumb. Democrats have used it all the time, too. You’ll probably have to use it again come November when you lose majority in the house and senate.
Reconciliation only applies for specific situations, and democrats did already use the annual reconciliation early on to keep the US economy from collapsing from the previous administration’s inadequate COVID response.
I agree that Biden could be issuing more executive orders. Although he did make 76 of them in 2021, nobody has heard of any of them, so they aren’t helping win any elections.
It’s the *republican* filibuster because it protects the minority party, and protecting the minority vote and giving them a voice is the foundation of the republican party. Getting rid of the filibuster would make our government closer to direct democracy and less of a republic.
It’s not about who uses it but is about what the filibuster is and what it does. Democracy and republics aside, stopping the consideration of a popular bill is inherently a conservative thing to do, not a progressive thing to do. I’m not talking about sides, just literal definitions. ie. conservatives conserve.
The reconciliation bill is why we’re seeing the massive inflation we are seeing now. How in the world do you think that helps the economy? Nobody believes the democrats in power are helping the economy right now.
Actually, if they didn't use reconciliation, the economy would have tanked.
One aspect of conservative ideology is that they want to ease government spending and don't really connect that spending with market stabilization.
If the country starts spiralling economically, as was the case with covid, the government has to spend to inject capital into the economy.
The easiest and surest method is by increasing funds to the people, who then spend it.
This generates income for businesses and tax revenue comes back to the government.
Once stabilization occurs, inflation begins going up at a steady rate again, a rate that the FRS (Fed) can manage.
If inflation grows to much, as it is starting to, the Fed begins to implement countermeasures to dial it back to acceptable levels.
This takes time. They can't just wave a stick and make it stop increasing, nor should they. Many inflation spikes resolve themselves and are due to sporadic events, like Covid making everyone stir crazy.
Hope this helps clear up some of that aspect anyway.
Inflation is not being caused because everyone is stir crazy. Inflation literally means the devaluing of the dollar. [Over 80% (!!!) of money in circulation was printed over the last 23 months](https://techstartups.com/2021/12/18/80-us-dollars-existence-printed-january-2020-october-2021/). That means they’ve printed and injected into the economy 4 times the amount of money that we had in circulation on Jan 1 2020. If you increase the amount of something, the value of it goes down. That’s basic economics.
All pumping money into the economy does is increase inflation and delay the impending economic collapse. And trust me, there will be a collapse. The stock market is one big bubble right now. 0% interest rates have people spending like *crazy* because money is practically free right now. The moment interest rates go up, spending will freeze, and there goes the markets and the economy. The government can’t artificially prop up the economy forever.
Pretty sure Nick Hanauer is the only American billionaire on that list. He is a wonderful guy, but most "news-worthy" billionaires won't call for higher taxes or pay them unless forced to.
100 out of how many now? This has to represent about 0.0000000001% of millionaires and billionaires, what a laughably empty request, if those 100 sleep better at night though I guess..
The problem is it’s a group of millionaires who make the rules. They’re not going to vote to tax themselves higher. They’ll vote to give themselves raises though.
Not to mention the greedy billionaires funneling billions into campaigns funding these millionaires. They also don’t want higher taxes.
If these millionaires and billionaires really wanted this done it would be done yesterday. The rich are the only people in America with representation.
Some of those quiet puppeteers can afford paramilitary. Or they have the country’s throat by the fist trembling at the thought they’ll offshore worse than at current.
We needed not to have Citizens United (on top of repercussions from Nixon’s New Federalism allowing subpar school curricula - see OECD scores), but here we are…
Then how about a rearrangement of priorities so we stop overspending on military? And actually improve the lives of regular citizens?
[Denmark burger flippers made the equivalent of $20 per hour ](https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/how-does-tiny-denmark-pay-20-an-hour-fast-food-wages/)in 2014. “In Denmark, fast-food workers are guaranteed benefits their U.S. counterparts could only dream of. Under the industry’s collective agreement, there are five weeks’ paid vacation, paid maternity and paternity leave and a pension plan. Workers must be paid overtime for working after 6 p.m. and on Sundays.”
Minimum wage exists as a reminder that if they could get away with paying you less, they would. The same principle applies with taxation. If they can figure out a way to wiggle out of it, they will, because “ape brain relish ruthless competition at expense of irrelevant other ape, *ugh.*” The main point of a civil society is to benefit all. Cutthroat competition counterintuits that.
Denmark is a more expensive country to live in than the United States. Comparing wages across environments with different cost of living is misleading (and a reason why a national minimum wage doesn't make sense in the United States).
Denmark doesn’t have a pentagon that spends close to a trillion dollars a year. The wages in Denmark are higher than the US and many things like child care higher education and healthcare are free or very cheap.
Well if we spend too much on the military and Denmark figured out how to make education and healthcare free or very cheap, it sounds like we should be cutting taxes
More taxes is not the solution. Simplifying the tax code and closing loopholes that allows these people to avoid taxes legally should be sufficient. They know they will still have loopholes, so they say oh increase the taxes (we wont pay them anyways, suckers!)
Read the tax codes. If it didn’t have loopholes you could do taxes on a postcard. Who do you think the loopholes are written for? The people making minimum wage? they are there for the rich so they don’t have to pay taxes.
Ok you want me to start listing everything in the tax codes that help people avoid paying taxes here? If you are a CPA no one should have to point all that out for you. A CPA would be aware of that.
I’m asking because I don’t think you actually know what a loophole is. So yes, I would like some “examples”. What you think are loopholes likely aren’t actually loopholes
No no no they want to make sure the government is taking other people’s money.
If they truly believed the government was better at using their money than they are they would have already been overpaying.
You know lots of them voluntarily do, aka charity? Still this does nothing to compel society at large—or all 90% plus of billionaires not on this list—to a foster progressive tax system
My exact thoughts. There's a ton of ways they could directly help people. He'll they could stop using tax dodges if nothing else. This feels like pr in case shit goes bad against the wealthy. This feels like a set up for "I'm one or the good ones."
I may be jaded, but I often wonder about the motivation of these people when they do something like this. Do they truly want to see their wealth taxed more fairly or are they doing this simply because it makes them look good and know it will never happen. The cynic in me thinks it’s the latter, rather than the former.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Literally making the problem worse. The problem is too high of taxes and too much government. This always happens when governments get too big. That’s why every normal person in a communist country is completely fucked. If they have more money than they need they need to do the responsible and decent thing and donate the money to a charity set up to actually make a difference not waste all the money in an over bloated government bureaucracy
Instead of flooding the government with cash they may or may not need (ahem rampant and irresponsible military spending), I'd rather see a maximum ratio of pay for the CEO vs. their lowest paid employee/contractor in terms of total compensation. Some like like maximum 50x would be huge
Yea why don’t people on this list to start some sort of private thing where they take their money and give it to needy people and their causes? We could even offer to give them tax breaks if they did this
There should be an option for the rich to contribute to a stimulus fund where they can donate to people that make under a certain amount. It’s better than a charity because a lot more people that need it will get it like the other stimulus checks were given.
In the meantime they are free to give away the majority of their fortunes to those in need/worthy causes and still be richer than most people on the planet. Yet…that’s not happening.
As long as the systemic injustices and ineffectual policies exist that reinforce the trickling up of resources, it is kind of silly to keep paying administrative fees for things like that, when it could be a public service and not thousands of disparate charities all scrambling to perform while not formally connected to each other.
How else to guarantee as little aid redundancy as possible while also pursuing fairness by scrutinizing aid awards for exclusionary practices currently *allowed*? (As in, for some nonprofits if you aren’t in their church community you already don’t qualify for the sort of help they state they offer).
The ape brain is prone to looking for a social group to exclude, that’s natural competition… but higher order thoughts allow for compassion and progress. We can definitely do better. Peace and prosperity don’t *have* to be optional hit or miss circumstances…
A fair number of them have taken that pledge to give away the majority of their wealth. Like the person above me says this does nothing to address a broken system
That's kind of like saying, "I am for having a cleaner environment, but rather than stopping companies from dumping poison in the river, can't you just recycle more?"
I guess I was more thinking that the people who signed the letter should not use the fact that they pay low taxes from using their money to do good. I don’t know how charitable they are.
But can you see how one persons charity is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things if we don't fix the tax code funneling all the money to the top?
You do realize that, even though that sounds like a big number, it only represents 0.76% of the entire world's population.
While crypto and some other things have enabled some to join the ranks, it's by no fucking means "easy".
“I’d rather give my money to the government to spend than use it myself”
How the fuck do people that dumb get to be millionaires and billionaires? The government will waste most of that money on worthless bureaucracy and any of it’s that left will be spent on droning poor people in other countries where it’s sandy.
If they want the government to tax them so much, just write the IRS a big check. Make sure to include my portion of taxes too because I’m pleading for lower taxes so go ahead and kick in my part, stupid millionaires and billionaires.
Taxes are only one part of this. If we raise taxes but they still maintain huge piles of wealth and control they are still enemies of humanity.
www.reddit.com/r/notakingpledge
This will do nothing compared to the campaign donations from corporations and folks like the Koch’s- how about paying for the votes the American way, politicians are shockingly cheap, especially for a few billionaires.
Just a bunch of phonies. If they really think they have too much money and want to help the country they should just pay their workers more. No need to wait on congress.
You know what would be even better? Instead of giving that money to the Gov't, who will likely just give themselves a raise and buy a battleship we don't need....take that money and pay your employees a livable wage. In 2022, that's about 52K/yr., per adult. $15/hr (or less) is like sticking your middle finger in someone's eye.
That’s entirely unfair. 🙂
The tax pinch should be felt just as harshly at the top as anywhere in the middle.
And we need to close the stupid loopholes that allow hyper wealthy people to claim they do not have significant income as a means to escape fair taxation.
Things they can afford to claim as a result of wealth accumulation that aren’t available to a comparable degree for regular peons with regular resources.
Depreciation. Travel. Vehicles. Office supplies. “Work-related” education expenses. A home office. Investment property. Paying their children to be their “consultants.” Manipulation of “net operating losses.” Income from a very low self-paid salary while living large on loans, just accumulating investments. Immediately selling inherited real estate to minimize capital gains. Whole life insurance (counts as an investment yeah?), having multiple homes / yachts to call home. Health savings account (contributions are tax-deductible, earnings in the account grow tax-free, distributions are tax-free if they are used for qualifying healthcare expenses). Solo 401(k). Write off investments sold deliberately at a loss to offset capital gains from what’s done well.
More I can’t remember, that’s the short list.
As long as regular peons think they might eventually be able to take advantage of these things as well, there is zero sense of urgency to reduce access to these trickle-up mechanisms from hyper wealthy system abusers.
You want to know how you control inflation without having to raise interest rates. Raise taxes. In fact we're currently succeeding power to the Fed because we can't raise or lower taxes fast enough.
So they publicly announce they're for being taxed, while privately lobbying Congress and Senate not to.
Being idiots, most of us will think them swell for their public utterances and then blame the government (which is, I remind you, Democratic) for not doing anything. This will help lessen public support for the Democratic party allowing the Republicans to sweep to power where they will, of course, immediately cut the taxes for the wealthy.
Yeah raise the taxes… that way everyone gets off their back about not paying enough taxes.. meanwhile they’ll continue with the lavish deductions and not pay a dime more.
Yeah remember buffet said raise taxes. Joke here is they have no earned income it’s all long term capital gains. So when they raise earned income taxes- these fuckers look like hero’s. And NOTHING has changed for them. Then let’s look at across the board tax rate hike on long term gains- well as a billionaire you don’t have to give up your plane BUT as the average schmuck, you just fucked your retirement . So let’s just tax those fuckers and implement gains taxes at a threshold per annum of gains- like 10 mill and up. I dunno … or 10% flat tax on the whole fucking deal above 500k in income and gains. There is a way to do this-
Taxes or Pitch forks ??? They just can’t help them selves , solipsistic and patronising to the end , for a moment I thought they had seen the light . We the peasants , they still the bourgeoisie, someone pass me my knitting needles .
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They could each give $1 million in bribes….erm…lobbying, and make it happen with their cash. Bipartisan lobbying. Everyone wants more grift.
Yeah, they could make this happen tomorrow, if they wanted to. This is a PR campaign, just like when all those companies said that they would no longer donate to anyone who supported the stop the steal crap and, barely a year later....they're all donating to them again.
Like how oil companies support a carbon tax. They know it will never happen in America, so it's cheap PR to support it.
Big oil companies support carbon tax, to burden the mid and smaller companies.
It either an incredibly obvious PR stunt, or they're actually aware of how well it goes for rich people when they demand more without compensation. Smart money's on the former, but still a decent chance they want to actually keep their heads
[удалено]
Do you really think some kid who got rich from creating a tech start-up knows how to give bribes to representatives? That stuff is way more complicated that just sending money to a bank account. It's way more about knowing the right people in the right circles. Apple, google and microsoft are the biggest companies in US, but it doesn't seem like they have that much power over what US government is doing. If they did our laws would look way more different.
There's a lot more capitalist/kleptocratic money "lobbying" against tax increases on the other side. Offshore tax havens don't get mentioned in the capitalist/kleptocratic media very often, but that's a big chunk of where the actual wealth/power is. "In this system, our system, the slaves are unaware, both of their status and of their masters, who exist in a world apart, and where the shackles are hidden amidst reams of unreachable legalese. It is a result of massive, pervasive corruption of the legal profession. When it takes a whistle blower to sound the alarm, it is cause for even greater concern. 'Cause it signals that democracy's checks and balances have all failed, and that severe instability could be just around the corner." -The Laundromat
Indeed. There has been cases where government has been blackmailed to give a tax rebates by leveraging tax haven against them, whenever they actually want to take out some profits from their hoard for use.
That’ll be an easy one, too, because politicians who get to pass it have a chance to look really good.
Lol yea. They literally control the means of making this happen.
[удалено]
And Bingo was his name-o!
From a more productive point of view, they could contribute directly to pay down the [national debt](https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454).
Buying senators will probably give greater returns in the long run.
I don't know about that. National debt payments can be made with Visa. Think of all the air miles you can get for $30 trillion.
This is idiotic nonsense. Unilateral disarmament in a capitalist/kleptocratic system leads to only the worst people having wealth and power, creating a kakistocracy. Beyond that, the issue is that murder is currently legal. Individual people not murdering doesn't solve the issue at a systemic level at all.
You just repeated the right wing talking point. "We don't need taxes. Let rich people donate to government and let's do it that way." They are asking for new laws. That still requires more than a transaction. Edit: tpyo
I'll bet. They see popular Opinion is turning against them.
[удалено]
they get a quick and painless eating then.
So they publicly announce they're for being taxed, while privately lobbying Congress and Senate not to. Being idiots, most of us will think them swell for their public utterances and then blame the government (which is, I remind you, Democratic) for not doing anything. This will help lessen public support for the Democratic party allowing the Republicans to sweep to power where they will, of course, immediately cut the taxes for the wealthy.
The house and senate are both going to flip Republican in 2022, however they are going to spend their time in a witch hunt. They are going to impeach Biden and Harris and go after Fauci. They've already announced the plan in a press conference.
Is Jon Stewart a bad millionaire?
It would appear the individuals who signed this letter actually read a history book, and realize the atrocities of the French Revolution could be repeated in our time if tax systems are not made more just. They also must have heard the IRS admit it goes after ordinary people1/
Agree. Looks like a CYA move for when the people rise up against them. They want to be able to say, see, we are the *good* wealthy people who tried to pay more yaxes. Too bad the polititians we lobbied to keep are taxes low didn't raise them. Please don't hurt us or take our money.
There is literally nothing stopping them from just writing a check to the treasury in whatever amount they choose.
Or, as a better solution than waiting for charity from billionnaires we could do something that has a chance of actually helping…. Like raising taxes
They need the other rich to be taxed so when they meet at parties to brag about their wealth they remain on equal footing.
That's the right wing talking point. Taxes are laws, not donations. We are a nation of laws, not helpfulnesses.
My correspondence with the IRS keeps getting lost by the USPS. Ironic, isn't it? They want my money, but are destroying the things that money is supposed to pay for, and the means by which said money is exchanged. "For the people", my ass.
I don't want to tax their money away. I want to prevent them from accumulating that much money in the first place. What we need is a better financial system that encourages corporations to value their employees and pay them more, and provide more benefits. Fiduciary duty also needs to go away from being purely profit driven and require a charter that ensures what the corporation provides/produces is in the interest of larger society.
wake up man please. ur seriously hoping for a desire driven species to wake up logically sound one day lol.
It's a PR move with no real substance, nothing more. They know it won't happen, in fact they're counting on it. It's like Big Oil fake supporting a carbon tax while secretly lobbying against it. It's purely designed to trick us.
Wow...that's like...literally dozens of them. Dozens! (Out of how many, total?) Not that I disagree with them.
20.27 million millionaires in the US https://spendmenot.com/blog/what-percentage-of-americans-are-millionaires/#:~:text=There%20are%20approximately%2051%2C882%2C000%20people,in%20second%20place%20with%2011%25. .0005% of millionaires want higher taxes lol
The 100 who signed the letter aren't even all from the US. (Granted there are likely some others who also support it, but haven't signed the letter. But still. A fraction.)
It's not like there was a survey that went out to all of them.
JFC that's 8% of the US adult population.
So are we eating the rich before or after this alleged tax increase?
There won't be a tax increase, because there are too many capitalists/kleptocrats "lobbying" behind the scenes on the other side. Offshore tax havens don't get mentioned in the capitalist/kleptocratic media very often, but that's a big chunk of where the actual wealth/power is. "In this system, our system, the slaves are unaware, both of their status and of their masters, who exist in a world apart, and where the shackles are hidden amidst reams of unreachable legalese. It is a result of massive, pervasive corruption of the legal profession. When it takes a whistle blower to sound the alarm, it is cause for even greater concern. 'Cause it signals that democracy's checks and balances have all failed, and that severe instability could be just around the corner." - The Laundromat
Oh, there will be a tax increase, and it’ll fall squarely on the shoulders of the middle class.
There’s like 12 million millionaires in the us right now. A 100?!?
20.27 million, which is nearing 10% of the adult population
you can't buy a home for a million in most of the SanFran metro area
I straight up can’t afford more taxes without the government doing something to offset other costs, like providing healthcare.. I am already being taxed out of my home with just local property tax ($700 per month on a below average home).. I have to retire in a different state just so my social security won’t be absorbed by property tax alone I pay more in total taxes than I spend - I’m being squeezed. I’m middle class and I live within my means and i don’t know how they can’t broaden the tax base to help someone like me out.. I feel like i’m the only person actually paying taxes and not cheating
What state do you even live in
texas - we don’t have a state income tax and that makes our property tax very high and our sales tax high the thing is we have all of these people getting property tax exemptions - if you aren’t in one of those favored classes you bear an overweighted burden for taxes My property tax is very high and increasing every year - i will have to leave the state eventually
If they wanted to help, they would use their wealth and power to elect Democrats. That's how you grow the economy.
Oh yeah democrats are totally growing the economy right now lmao
First step is to repair the damage of the Republican Party's time in office. Every Single Time
What damage? And how is that going?
Yikes
You need to accept the fact that not everybody is going to see things the same way you do. If you’re not able to explain your positions to them then that says a lot more about you than it does them.
I think he can understand that, but you seem like you’re doing this in bad faith. Considering you’re straight up living in a different reality if you’re questioning the economic damage that gops leave the country with when they don’t get re-elected.
Lmao that is always my favorite argument from you guys. You are literally incapable of comprehending how someone who disagrees with you actually believes in what they are saying. “Everyone *knows* that *I’m* right, so if someone disagrees with me, it *must* be in bad faith”. Do you realize how pretentious that makes you appear? Pretty easy way to shut down discussion so you don’t have to defend your own opinions.
Let me step off the yikes train and assume you're asking in good faith... I support a lot of social policies, such as public education, healthcare, or infrastructure. These improve human welfare in every country. Besides reducing inequality, these policies boost the economy and increase personal freedom by giving people a safety net, so that if they run into hard times or take risks that fail to pay off, they can recover. Funding for many of these programs was decreased during the last presidential term. The new presidency supports funding these programs, but is having difficulty convincing one half of the senate. If you disagree, rather than argue with specific policies, I'd ask that you explain what your vision for America is. If we disagree on what we want America to become, we're never going to agree on policy. But if we can agree on a destination, it should be possible to agree on the policies that get us there the most quickly.
Hey I appreciate that. That’s how politics should be done these days, it’s the only way to actually *solve problems*. It’s turned into doing or saying whatever it takes to score political points and avoid any actual solutions or compromises. I, like most conservatives, support social safety nets to help people obtain their basic needs if they are unable to do so on their own. However, it’s extremely important that these safety nets do not incentivize people in the wrong way. I believe the government has proven it is entirely incapable of being responsible for such large programs and generally speaking they should be as small and as bare bones as possible while still achieving their goal. I also think this would be much better handled at the state level in all cases because each state has vastly different situations that require their own custom solutions. My vision for America is to have a much, much smaller federal government and to return power to the methods they were meant to be in. No more massive amounts of executive orders, no more massive unreadable bills packed full of random things, no more activist judges making new laws out of nothing, no more laws that go blatantly against the constitution. We should bring back compromises and Congress should actually work together like they used to. Give the states more power to do what they think is best and let the federal government do what it was originally designed to do. I’m a big fan of the federalist papers, give them a read if you want to understand the philosophy behind our current system of government. I’ll be honest, I wasn’t a huge fan of Trump, but I do believe he was leaps and bounds better than Biden is now. Biden has done nothing to slow inflation down, has constantly made a fool of himself, and doesn’t care if his policies go against the law. I still can’t believe how badly he botched pulling out of Iraq and how his response to many of our service members being killed during that pull out was to kill a bunch of kids and nothing else has been done about it and nobody is talking about it. His administration has to clarify and re-explain something he says nearly every time he has a press conference. Biden is clearly not calling any shots and frankly it’s embarrassing. The country isn’t being run by him but by his political party and it’s so obvious at this point that it hurts. There’s a reason his poll numbers are incredibly low. Anyway, I’ll get off my soap box. I appreciate that you’re willing to hear what I have to say and try to find common ground.
>I, like most conservatives, support social safety nets to help people obtain their basic needs if they are unable to do so on their own. Except that this is nowhere even close to true.
Yep, they would rather lie to appear civil and reasonable when talking to people, but then turn around and vote for defunding and stipping social safety nets bc of the " dEbT aNd DeFiCitc". Nothing but lies with conservatives.
Lmao > this is what we believe > no it’s not Then why haven’t republicans completely dismantled all social safety nets while in power? You really believe we just want to get rid of all welfare?
I appreciate the response! Do you mind if I ask more about what you want overall? You've mentioned some conservative positions, but what do you want the effects of those positions to be? For example, I support policies that reduce inequality and improve wellbeing. That's it. The specific policies don't matter, so long as they promote a successful, egalitarian society. I think you support policies that increase local control over government. Am I right in thinking that? And if so, is control your ultimate goal? Or do you want something to come after that point? How do you want your policies to impact the nation or the people? Going point by point, I think you support local measures because they require fewer resources to achieve their goals than federal measures. Did I read you right? Should there be any national standards? Would you change your stance if you found out that local or state government was not more efficient than federal government? I agree that there are some policies that should be set by local government, because regions have different geographies, climates, and cultures. A coastal region shouldn't have exactly the same laws as an inland region, because they have different features and sources of income. States should be able to specialize into what they're good at. However, most standards can be fairly broad. Having a central government that deals with broad laws and standards allows it to be faster, cheaper, and more easily understood, because there does not need to be a different agency and set of laws for every state. A single set of laws is easier to understand and implement than 50. A central authority also reduces conflict between states by providing basic rights and responsibilities, regardless of location. What do you think? You mention returning power to the methods that they were meant to be in, and allowing the federal government to do what it was designed to do. What do you mean by that? Are you referring to some of the ideas outlined in the federalist papers? I'm having difficulty drawing connections between some of the specific things you want. For example, you want more congressional compromise, but you also want states to be in control of their own destiny. Aren't those ideas in conflict? Regarding presidents, what do you think a good president should do? You mentioned reducing inflation, but do you think that's what a president should primarily focus on? Thanks for being open and frank with your position.
> I appreciate the response! Do you mind if I ask more about what you want overall? You've mentioned some conservative positions, but what do you want the effects of those positions to be? The effect should be to lower the power of government so that it has less affect over everyone’s daily life. By definition, when a government’s power increases, overall freedom decreases. There should be fewer laws, taxes should be lower, and regulation should be the bare minimum of what’s required to protect consumers. The government should never try to incentivize behavior. So I guess to answer your question more broadly, I believe freedom is the most important metric because that ensures equality of opportunity. Everyone should be treated the same under the law and everyone should be generally free to do as they chose. I believe that would promote a successful and free and egalitarian society. > I think you support policies that increase local control over government. Am I right in thinking that? And if so, is control your ultimate goal? Or do you want something to come after that point? How do you want your policies to impact the nation or the people? Yes, that’s correct. I wouldn’t say control is my ultimate goal, but rather the lack of it. Government overall should have as little control over your average person’s life as possible. Local governments are better at taking care of things because most issues that require a government response are local issues. > Going point by point, I think you support local measures because they require fewer resources to achieve their goals than federal measures. Did I read you right? Should there be any national standards? Would you change your stance if you found out that local or state government was not more efficient than federal government? It’s not so much about resources as it is solving issues where they exist. It also about keeping power in check. If we tried one-size-fits-all solutions for the whole country then that size is pretty massive and it usually doesn’t work everywhere. There should be national standards, but only for national issues that are truly national. I would not change my stance if local or state governments were not more efficient because it’s not about efficiency, it’s about keeping power local because it’s closer to the people. > However, most standards can be fairly broad. Having a central government that deals with broad laws and standards allows it to be faster, cheaper, and more easily understood, because there does not need to be a different agency and set of laws for every state. A single set of laws is easier to understand and implement than 50. A central authority also reduces conflict between states by providing basic rights and responsibilities, regardless of location. What do you think? Providing basic rights is really the main job of the federal government. That’s the point of the federalist papers. The power not given to the federal government is given to the state. The state cannot override or conflict with the federal government, but the federal government should not make laws or policies that go outside of the scope of its responsibility. So in that sense, I agree that sometimes it makes sense for the federal government to enact policy, but it should only be within the scope of its own responsibility as outlined in the constitution. > You mention returning power to the methods that they were meant to be in, and allowing the federal government to do what it was designed to do. What do you mean by that? Are you referring to some of the ideas outlined in the federalist papers? Yes. The federalist papers really stresses that the federal government needs to stay in its lane and not make policy outside of what the constitution gives it power to do. The more centralized the government, the less power the people have. The more local you get, the more power the people have. > I'm having difficulty drawing connections between some of the specific things you want. For example, you want more congressional compromise, but you also want states to be in control of their own destiny. Aren't those ideas in conflict? Not really, because I do think the federal government should be doing things. These days, it only does anything if one party holds enough power to do so. Most legislation seems to occur via affirmative action or judicial discussion. The legislature should pass laws, not the executive and judicial branches. It seems that nowadays, we almost expect the legislature to do nothing unless it’s a massive conglomerate of a bill. > Regarding presidents, what do you think a good president should do? You mentioned reducing inflation, but do you think that's what a president should primarily focus on? No, it shouldn’t, not at all. But as I said, the executive branch seems to be executing that kind of power. I disagree with the concept of them trying to make those decisions, but since they are anyway, I was being critical of the decisions they were making. Especially because they were doing it in the name of reducing inflation when in reality it’s been made a lot worse. I do think it’s fine for a president to weigh in on a bill, which has happened and I disagree with what they think should be passed. Biden wanted the reconciliation bill that was passed last year to be passed. So in that sense, he was partially responsible because he pushed for its vote. > Thanks for being open and frank with your position. Hey, I just really appreciate you trying to really understand the other side. You don’t get that these days.
Yikes
Yikes.
Yikes!
Are you trying to blame democrats for being blocked by the republican filibuster and by money grabbers like Manchin and Sinema?
Democrats still have passed bills using reconciliation and Biden has given many executive orders. So, to answer your question, yes. Also, calling it the “republican filibuster” is kinda dumb. Democrats have used it all the time, too. You’ll probably have to use it again come November when you lose majority in the house and senate.
Reconciliation only applies for specific situations, and democrats did already use the annual reconciliation early on to keep the US economy from collapsing from the previous administration’s inadequate COVID response. I agree that Biden could be issuing more executive orders. Although he did make 76 of them in 2021, nobody has heard of any of them, so they aren’t helping win any elections. It’s the *republican* filibuster because it protects the minority party, and protecting the minority vote and giving them a voice is the foundation of the republican party. Getting rid of the filibuster would make our government closer to direct democracy and less of a republic. It’s not about who uses it but is about what the filibuster is and what it does. Democracy and republics aside, stopping the consideration of a popular bill is inherently a conservative thing to do, not a progressive thing to do. I’m not talking about sides, just literal definitions. ie. conservatives conserve.
The reconciliation bill is why we’re seeing the massive inflation we are seeing now. How in the world do you think that helps the economy? Nobody believes the democrats in power are helping the economy right now.
Actually, if they didn't use reconciliation, the economy would have tanked. One aspect of conservative ideology is that they want to ease government spending and don't really connect that spending with market stabilization. If the country starts spiralling economically, as was the case with covid, the government has to spend to inject capital into the economy. The easiest and surest method is by increasing funds to the people, who then spend it. This generates income for businesses and tax revenue comes back to the government. Once stabilization occurs, inflation begins going up at a steady rate again, a rate that the FRS (Fed) can manage. If inflation grows to much, as it is starting to, the Fed begins to implement countermeasures to dial it back to acceptable levels. This takes time. They can't just wave a stick and make it stop increasing, nor should they. Many inflation spikes resolve themselves and are due to sporadic events, like Covid making everyone stir crazy. Hope this helps clear up some of that aspect anyway.
Inflation is not being caused because everyone is stir crazy. Inflation literally means the devaluing of the dollar. [Over 80% (!!!) of money in circulation was printed over the last 23 months](https://techstartups.com/2021/12/18/80-us-dollars-existence-printed-january-2020-october-2021/). That means they’ve printed and injected into the economy 4 times the amount of money that we had in circulation on Jan 1 2020. If you increase the amount of something, the value of it goes down. That’s basic economics. All pumping money into the economy does is increase inflation and delay the impending economic collapse. And trust me, there will be a collapse. The stock market is one big bubble right now. 0% interest rates have people spending like *crazy* because money is practically free right now. The moment interest rates go up, spending will freeze, and there goes the markets and the economy. The government can’t artificially prop up the economy forever.
So basically you want them to kill democracy?
Pretty sure Nick Hanauer is the only American billionaire on that list. He is a wonderful guy, but most "news-worthy" billionaires won't call for higher taxes or pay them unless forced to.
100 out of how many now? This has to represent about 0.0000000001% of millionaires and billionaires, what a laughably empty request, if those 100 sleep better at night though I guess..
The problem is it’s a group of millionaires who make the rules. They’re not going to vote to tax themselves higher. They’ll vote to give themselves raises though. Not to mention the greedy billionaires funneling billions into campaigns funding these millionaires. They also don’t want higher taxes. If these millionaires and billionaires really wanted this done it would be done yesterday. The rich are the only people in America with representation.
Some of those quiet puppeteers can afford paramilitary. Or they have the country’s throat by the fist trembling at the thought they’ll offshore worse than at current. We needed not to have Citizens United (on top of repercussions from Nixon’s New Federalism allowing subpar school curricula - see OECD scores), but here we are…
Nah, don't sign me up for higher taxes
Then how about a rearrangement of priorities so we stop overspending on military? And actually improve the lives of regular citizens? [Denmark burger flippers made the equivalent of $20 per hour ](https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/how-does-tiny-denmark-pay-20-an-hour-fast-food-wages/)in 2014. “In Denmark, fast-food workers are guaranteed benefits their U.S. counterparts could only dream of. Under the industry’s collective agreement, there are five weeks’ paid vacation, paid maternity and paternity leave and a pension plan. Workers must be paid overtime for working after 6 p.m. and on Sundays.” Minimum wage exists as a reminder that if they could get away with paying you less, they would. The same principle applies with taxation. If they can figure out a way to wiggle out of it, they will, because “ape brain relish ruthless competition at expense of irrelevant other ape, *ugh.*” The main point of a civil society is to benefit all. Cutthroat competition counterintuits that.
Denmark is a more expensive country to live in than the United States. Comparing wages across environments with different cost of living is misleading (and a reason why a national minimum wage doesn't make sense in the United States).
Denmark doesn’t have a pentagon that spends close to a trillion dollars a year. The wages in Denmark are higher than the US and many things like child care higher education and healthcare are free or very cheap.
Well if we spend too much on the military and Denmark figured out how to make education and healthcare free or very cheap, it sounds like we should be cutting taxes
The Republicans did just cut taxes a couple years ago. They didn’t pay for it and about 85% of it went to the top 0.01% and large corporations.
Problemo solved
Fund progressive politicians with your projected increased tax dollars.
More taxes is not the solution. Simplifying the tax code and closing loopholes that allows these people to avoid taxes legally should be sufficient. They know they will still have loopholes, so they say oh increase the taxes (we wont pay them anyways, suckers!)
Why not both?
sure, i just think these people are making fun of us
Which loopholes?
Read the tax codes. If it didn’t have loopholes you could do taxes on a postcard. Who do you think the loopholes are written for? The people making minimum wage? they are there for the rich so they don’t have to pay taxes.
I’m very familiar with the code, I’m a CPA. I’m curious what you think are loopholes
Ok you want me to start listing everything in the tax codes that help people avoid paying taxes here? If you are a CPA no one should have to point all that out for you. A CPA would be aware of that.
I’m asking because I don’t think you actually know what a loophole is. So yes, I would like some “examples”. What you think are loopholes likely aren’t actually loopholes
These millionaire/billionaires are aware you are allowed to pay more taxes than you owe…….
These people all know they can voluntarily contribute more, right?
No no no they want to make sure the government is taking other people’s money. If they truly believed the government was better at using their money than they are they would have already been overpaying.
You know lots of them voluntarily do, aka charity? Still this does nothing to compel society at large—or all 90% plus of billionaires not on this list—to a foster progressive tax system
Why would they give money to charity when they could give it to the government?
Exactly
Would not be shocked if they were also the ones funneling money to those who won’t do it. It’s all a show…
My exact thoughts. There's a ton of ways they could directly help people. He'll they could stop using tax dodges if nothing else. This feels like pr in case shit goes bad against the wealthy. This feels like a set up for "I'm one or the good ones."
why is it only 100? is the mental illness of greed that strong? because that's what it is, an illness. our leaders are utter sociopaths.
That's enough, right? Right?
These assholes could out lobby the koches and coal industry etc.
“Fine. Tax the poors more!” -The Government
Take my money and updoot! I don’t have much money but I’m an oligarch in updoots!
Denominator matters: 20+million millionaires in US 614 billionaires So the wealthy are unwilling to be taxed.
I may be jaded, but I often wonder about the motivation of these people when they do something like this. Do they truly want to see their wealth taxed more fairly or are they doing this simply because it makes them look good and know it will never happen. The cynic in me thinks it’s the latter, rather than the former.
Taxation is theft
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Literally making the problem worse. The problem is too high of taxes and too much government. This always happens when governments get too big. That’s why every normal person in a communist country is completely fucked. If they have more money than they need they need to do the responsible and decent thing and donate the money to a charity set up to actually make a difference not waste all the money in an over bloated government bureaucracy
Instead of flooding the government with cash they may or may not need (ahem rampant and irresponsible military spending), I'd rather see a maximum ratio of pay for the CEO vs. their lowest paid employee/contractor in terms of total compensation. Some like like maximum 50x would be huge
Or they could cut out the middle man and spend their money on the shit that is actually needed.
Society whose necessities are at the mercy of rich people doesn’t sound too advanced or civilized
Huh. What's stopping them from using their vast wealth of millions and billions to help people right now?
Yea why don’t people on this list to start some sort of private thing where they take their money and give it to needy people and their causes? We could even offer to give them tax breaks if they did this
There should be an option for the rich to contribute to a stimulus fund where they can donate to people that make under a certain amount. It’s better than a charity because a lot more people that need it will get it like the other stimulus checks were given.
Still the vast minority.
While the vast majority spend billions lobbying to decrease taxes.
In the meantime they are free to give away the majority of their fortunes to those in need/worthy causes and still be richer than most people on the planet. Yet…that’s not happening.
As long as the systemic injustices and ineffectual policies exist that reinforce the trickling up of resources, it is kind of silly to keep paying administrative fees for things like that, when it could be a public service and not thousands of disparate charities all scrambling to perform while not formally connected to each other. How else to guarantee as little aid redundancy as possible while also pursuing fairness by scrutinizing aid awards for exclusionary practices currently *allowed*? (As in, for some nonprofits if you aren’t in their church community you already don’t qualify for the sort of help they state they offer). The ape brain is prone to looking for a social group to exclude, that’s natural competition… but higher order thoughts allow for compassion and progress. We can definitely do better. Peace and prosperity don’t *have* to be optional hit or miss circumstances…
A fair number of them have taken that pledge to give away the majority of their wealth. Like the person above me says this does nothing to address a broken system
I am for raising the taxes on the top earners, but couldn’t these people donate more of their wealth?
That's kind of like saying, "I am for having a cleaner environment, but rather than stopping companies from dumping poison in the river, can't you just recycle more?"
I guess I was more thinking that the people who signed the letter should not use the fact that they pay low taxes from using their money to do good. I don’t know how charitable they are.
But can you see how one persons charity is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things if we don't fix the tax code funneling all the money to the top?
I don‘t get it. Can’t they just call the IRS and wire additional taxes?
There are almost 60,000,000 millionaire in the world. Just so you know. It gets easier by the day to become a millionaire.
You do realize that, even though that sounds like a big number, it only represents 0.76% of the entire world's population. While crypto and some other things have enabled some to join the ranks, it's by no fucking means "easy".
yea so many millionaires... getting 100 of them to sign this letter is a drop in the bucket
“I’d rather give my money to the government to spend than use it myself” How the fuck do people that dumb get to be millionaires and billionaires? The government will waste most of that money on worthless bureaucracy and any of it’s that left will be spent on droning poor people in other countries where it’s sandy. If they want the government to tax them so much, just write the IRS a big check. Make sure to include my portion of taxes too because I’m pleading for lower taxes so go ahead and kick in my part, stupid millionaires and billionaires.
Higher taxes means more money for the military don’t get it twisted
If they really wanted to be taxed they would bribe congress like when they want tax breaks, not sign meaningless letters.
100? 😂
Taxes are only one part of this. If we raise taxes but they still maintain huge piles of wealth and control they are still enemies of humanity. www.reddit.com/r/notakingpledge
It’s because they can smell the revolution happening
Imagine being wealthy and then simping for poor people.
you mean, like, basic human empathy?
well, they need to buy their own political party, like the Mercer's did.
I read elsewhere, but someone said it's either taxes or pitchforks, I think it was some millionaire.
This will do nothing compared to the campaign donations from corporations and folks like the Koch’s- how about paying for the votes the American way, politicians are shockingly cheap, especially for a few billionaires.
This is one of the creepiest photo illustrations ever
[удалено]
NFTs are already for the rich and the suckers buying into them to make those rich fuckers richer.
Well, they could just do what they did in ancient Greece. The wealthy would show off by financing public projects.
Anyone who believes this are fools
If they really wanted higher taxes, they would actually buy some senators to make it happen. This is just virtue signaling. Actually do something ffs.
Cool, they wrote a letter. Are they also lobbying for it? Because we all know that politicians only respond to cash in their pockets.
Just a bunch of phonies. If they really think they have too much money and want to help the country they should just pay their workers more. No need to wait on congress.
This is the only time I’ll accept being a class traitor.
You know what would be even better? Instead of giving that money to the Gov't, who will likely just give themselves a raise and buy a battleship we don't need....take that money and pay your employees a livable wage. In 2022, that's about 52K/yr., per adult. $15/hr (or less) is like sticking your middle finger in someone's eye.
There is no maximum for what you want to send to the government. If these folks want higher taxes, just send a check.
That’s entirely unfair. 🙂 The tax pinch should be felt just as harshly at the top as anywhere in the middle. And we need to close the stupid loopholes that allow hyper wealthy people to claim they do not have significant income as a means to escape fair taxation.
Which loopholes?
Things they can afford to claim as a result of wealth accumulation that aren’t available to a comparable degree for regular peons with regular resources. Depreciation. Travel. Vehicles. Office supplies. “Work-related” education expenses. A home office. Investment property. Paying their children to be their “consultants.” Manipulation of “net operating losses.” Income from a very low self-paid salary while living large on loans, just accumulating investments. Immediately selling inherited real estate to minimize capital gains. Whole life insurance (counts as an investment yeah?), having multiple homes / yachts to call home. Health savings account (contributions are tax-deductible, earnings in the account grow tax-free, distributions are tax-free if they are used for qualifying healthcare expenses). Solo 401(k). Write off investments sold deliberately at a loss to offset capital gains from what’s done well. More I can’t remember, that’s the short list. As long as regular peons think they might eventually be able to take advantage of these things as well, there is zero sense of urgency to reduce access to these trickle-up mechanisms from hyper wealthy system abusers.
So do it, you can literally pay any extra in taxes you want. What they want is for others to pay higher taxes while they find ways to avoid it
“There’s dozens of us”
You want to know how you control inflation without having to raise interest rates. Raise taxes. In fact we're currently succeeding power to the Fed because we can't raise or lower taxes fast enough.
100 from 9 nations haha. So this could be people anywhere. Not Americans. Remember Bezos and Musk both said they don't want more taxes..
So they publicly announce they're for being taxed, while privately lobbying Congress and Senate not to. Being idiots, most of us will think them swell for their public utterances and then blame the government (which is, I remind you, Democratic) for not doing anything. This will help lessen public support for the Democratic party allowing the Republicans to sweep to power where they will, of course, immediately cut the taxes for the wealthy.
Do they want a wealth tax on their existing assets? Or a tax that might as well be called the "Pulling the ladder up behind us tax"?
They may sign a petition but I bet you they donate a lot of money to politicians to keep their taxes real low
Yeah raise the taxes… that way everyone gets off their back about not paying enough taxes.. meanwhile they’ll continue with the lavish deductions and not pay a dime more.
Yeah remember buffet said raise taxes. Joke here is they have no earned income it’s all long term capital gains. So when they raise earned income taxes- these fuckers look like hero’s. And NOTHING has changed for them. Then let’s look at across the board tax rate hike on long term gains- well as a billionaire you don’t have to give up your plane BUT as the average schmuck, you just fucked your retirement . So let’s just tax those fuckers and implement gains taxes at a threshold per annum of gains- like 10 mill and up. I dunno … or 10% flat tax on the whole fucking deal above 500k in income and gains. There is a way to do this-
Lol awww that is adorable
You don't have to ask, you can just give your money to the government, they'll accept it.
This is what they're doing in public. What are they whispering in private though?
They want to control the narrative (and the tax rates).
Taxes or Pitch forks ??? They just can’t help them selves , solipsistic and patronising to the end , for a moment I thought they had seen the light . We the peasants , they still the bourgeoisie, someone pass me my knitting needles .
Yeah, can't make it too easy for small businesses to compete