• Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Better yet, end all taxes on individuals. Instead, all taxes should be levied against corporations, and they should cover the entire bill for a functioning society… And society should democratically decide what that entails. Tax the corporations so much that their stock prices fall back to realistic numbers. Then we won’t have any of these fake billionaires who’s “wealth is tied up in stocks”, but also they can get loans against them. It should be very easy to get “rich” by working yourself, it should be very hard to get rich “letting your money work for you”

    • Emily (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      38 minutes ago

      Maybe a hot take, but I actually think individual progressive taxes are great. Have a generous tax free threshold, but individual taxes stops excessive wealth hoarding and (in the case of inheritance tax) dynasties

    • t_chalco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      30 minutes ago

      I am not a tax expert (IANATE?), but with all the tax havens and multi-national businesses would they not just relocate? I am very much interested in the simplification of the tax code such that the burden shifts back to those keen on wealth extraction. I just dunno what that looks like as code and in impementation.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Minimum wage shouldn’t ever be a specific amount, it should be a percentage tied to some other economic metric, so that as inflation or cost of living rises, wages increase with it as well. This BS of having to wait for out-of-touch millionaire Congress members to approve of minimum wage increases is ridiculous.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 hours ago

    At this rate, we’re going to have our first trillionaire by the end of the decade. How much is enough? How big does that pile of money need to be?

    • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      by the end of the decade

      If it went x100 in 12 years and assuming exponential growth, it will go x10 in the next 1.2 years and we will have our first trillionaire by 2026. Time to place your bets on which fascist that will be!

  • LibreHans@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    34 minutes ago

    You could take all the money of all billionaires… that would cover government expenses for about half a year. The state doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    And by tax, we mean their actual wealth, not whatever pennies they give themselves each year as a “salary”.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      People are super mad at the Chinese police for arresting Jack Ma, prosecuting him, and having the guy do community service work for a few years. But that’s honestly way better than a guy that greedy and exploitative deserves.

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Why should the workers settle for only higher taxes and slightly more social programs, the workers deserve everything because without the workers there is nothing (furthermore without the capitalists there is everything).

    • UNY0N@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Because we do not fight under conditions of our choosing, we fight where we stand.

      Taxing the rich is a short-term solution, but it’s one that we can do RIGHT NOW that would be a step in the right direction. You can’t just quit capitalism cold-turkey without a bloody revolution. You have to take steps to transform society in a gradual manner.

  • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Eat the Rich,

    Eat the Rich,

    Don’t you know,

    Life is a Bitch!

    Eat the Rich,

    Eat the Rich,

    Out of the palace,

    And into the ditch!

  • xep@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    6 hours ago

    They have so much wealth it’s hard to visualise how much they have.

    • GraniteM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Q: What’s the the difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars?

      A: About a billion dollars.

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Eh, buying a president as your personal bitch and jumping around on stage with him in an undersized t-shirt with your belly sticking out like a brain damaged orangatan is a pretty good visualization of how disgusting this much money is.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        buying a president as your personal bitch

        Trump didn’t buy Musk. They’re ideological co-conspirators, eager for the day when they can each unleash the full force of the police state on their personal enemies. The fact that they both act like dim-witted children should warn the rest of us what too much money and too little social responsibility does to the human brain. Musk acts like a washed up 80s hack celebrity desperately flailing for attention because he’s fucked in the skull, not because Trump pays him to behave that way.

        • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 hours ago

          You got it backwards friend. In the grand scheme here Trump isn’t comparitively rich, he has an empire that constantly hemorrhages money but value wise he is sitting around 3. 6 billion.

          Musk’s currently valued at around 269. 8 billion. He spends a ridiculous amount of money on super PACs and uses his purchase of different platforms to kill news stories that show Democrats in a positive light and bankrolls a lot of Republican stuff. Musk isn’t being bought, Trump is.

          • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            It might be more akin to a Trump escort service. You can buy him for a few nights and go around seeing the sites (rallies) like some kind of weird instagram influencer where you can get the attention you’re craving (news cycle) and everyone will be calling you again (media) to reinforce how important you are.

            Of course that only lasts for like a day since Trump is a gold fish, he’ll be back to insulting the industries and generally dismissing Musk unless he stays right in his peripheral view.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          They hate each other. They all do.

          But the difference between Trump’s wealth and Musk’s wealth is very close to Musk’s wealth.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            41 minutes ago

            A billionaire’s worth isn’t the size of the bank account but the limit on the credit card.

            To date, I’ve seen nothing to suggest either Trump or Musk have a limit on how much they can borrow and spend. That’s largely because our historically fascist oligarchy of banking executives love their brand of politics.

            • Blackmist@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 minutes ago

              Yeah, it’s one of the reasons Anna Sorokin took so much.

              Banks were falling over themselves to lend money to her. They thought she was one of them.

    • GhostFaceSkrilla@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It’s way beyond that, but the majority of the population has become weak and complicit. Either a general strike or full-on revolution is needed. I guess people will wait until everyone is suffering except the mega rich to be angry enough to break free from their day to day fantasy of blissful ignorance.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The US minimum wage hasn’t changed in TEN YEARS?!

      The vast majority of employers can’t pay the minimum rate, because their employees wouldn’t be able to do basic shit like travel to the jobsite or afford to eat. Wages have been rising (particularly post-COVID, after a few million Americans dropped out of the labor force for some mysterious reason) as demand eclipses supply.

      And a big reason AI has caught on as a techno-panacea is business analysts are looking at the median age and size of the labor force, the stark hostility to immigration, and the perpetually increasing need for technical work, then realizing this is going to put huge upward pressure on wages unless much of that workforce can be automated away.

      But market forces are happening even in absence of legislative action. Union activity is reemerging as a socio-economic force. Not everything rests on a federal majority manually raising the wage floor.

      • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        You know, something always feels a little off with an underpantsweevil comment. I could never put my finger on it though, always seems so close to being factual but for some reason skewed. I think it’s the declarative statements which turn out to be more of an opinion or editorial piece that’s only backed up by other vague references much like a matt walsh or tim (can’t remember his last name) might make.

        Wages have been rising…as demand eclipses supply.

        This is a weird general statement that reinforces that “supply & demand” is a worth-while endeavor that has worked out for everyone economically and socially. Of course wages have been rising… it would be beyond a depression if the average salary went down for the past couple of years. The important caveats are completely missed though…

        While salaries are up, salary growth is down — the increase in average earnings is lower compared to the 7.3% rise between 2021 and 2022. The gender pay gap, while shrinking by 1% over the last 10 years, was only cut by 0.7% between 2022 and 2023. This means the average male makes $63,960, while their female counterparts make an average of $53,404

        The average white male earns $64,636, while the average Hispanic or Latino male makes $47,996 annually.

        With the annual inflation rate for 2023 at 3.4% for the year — up from 3.1% previously — salaries aren’t keeping up. A Smart Asset report based on MIT’s Living Wage data found that the average salary required to live comfortably in the U.S. is $68,499 after taxes.10 This is nearly $10,000 higher than what the average salary currently is. link


        AI… are you talking about like a general AI or chatgpt? What right-wing or doomscrolling blog are you reading about AI from? All these companies trying to cram some type of “AI” into their program is a problem for sure, but it’s just a fad which only the most useful implementations will stick around. If anything, the companies are spending more trying to make it work (which it doesn’t).

        Amazon Fresh kills “Just Walk Out” shopping tech—it never really worked - “AI” checkout was actually powered by 1,000 human video reviewers in India.

        Here is an article by the Mckinsey Global Institute.

        One of the biggest questions of recent months is whether generative AI might wipe out jobs. Our research does not lead us to that conclusion, although we cannot definitively rule out job losses, at least in the short term. Technological advances often cause disruption, but historically, they eventually fuel economic and employment growth.

        This research does not predict aggregated future employment levels; instead, we model various drivers of labor demand to look at how the mix of jobs might change—and those results yield some gains and some losses.9 In fact, the occupational categories most exposed to generative AI could continue to add jobs through 2030 (Exhibit 4), although its adoption may slow their rate of growth. And even as automation takes hold, investment and structural drivers will support employment. The biggest impact for knowledge workers that we can state with certainty is that generative AI is likely to significantly change their mix of work activities.


        But market forces are happening even in absence of legislative action. Union activity is reemerging as a socio-economic force. Not everything rests on a federal majority manually raising the wage floor.

        Interesting you’ve again promoted “market forces” (reminds me of trickle-down economics). Union activity has been beaten down by a war being waged for decades, proper legislation and officials protecting the rights of Unions are the only way they will continue to have a chance. The recent changes in the Biden administration shows that unions can stand a chance if the branches of government would actually support it.

        Wouldn’t having a federal majority, manually raising the wage floor, protect future workers when the AI revolution comes? If the market determines the wage minimum, won’t your points become moot when there is no more demand? I’m just still flabbergasted that you believe “employers can’t pay the minimum rate, because their employees wouldn’t be able to do basic shit like travel to the jobsite or afford to eat.” I don’t know what social circles you are in, but this isn’t the reality most lower income people are facing.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          52 minutes ago

          This is a weird general statement that reinforces that “supply & demand” is a worth-while endeavor

          It’s a fundamental pricing mechanism. Low supply pushes demand up.

          What right-wing or doomscrolling blog are you reading about AI from? All these companies trying to cram some type of “AI” into their program is a problem for sure, but it’s just a fad which only the most useful implementations will stick around.

          Efforts to shoehorn AI into daily business activity aren’t just at the retail end. We’re seeing it show up in doctor’s offices, to replace transcription services, and legal offices, to replace paralegals, and in IT to replace developers.

          The implementation is routinely worse than the human labor it replaces, but the cost is so much lower that business owners will justify the transition.

          Union activity has been beaten down by a war being waged for decades, proper legislation and officials protecting the rights of Unions are the only way they will continue to have a chance.

          Union organizers who wait on corporately captured politicians to save them are fucked. You build the union first and you get the legislation later, when politicians recognize the union as a force worth pandering to.

          By contrast, the Wildcat Strike and the Slow Down… hell, the very act of collectively bargaining, leveraged market force to exert pressure on employers.

          Depriving businesses of their labor supply compels them to increase their compensation. That’s Econ 101 tier material analysis.

          Wouldn’t having a federal majority, manually raising the wage floor, protect future workers when the AI revolution comes?

          Sure. But you need a movement large enough to obtain the corruptive force of private capital first. Where do you get that movement?

          By the time you have a coalition big enough to compel the federal government to change, you’ve already built a union big enough to force private industry to capitulate independent of a legislative fix.

    • kiterios@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      7 hours ago

      10 years… how refreshingly optimistic…

      In 2007, Congress passed the increase to 7.25 to take effect in 2009. The minimum wage change 15 years ago was passed 17 years ago.

      • 2deck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I wonder how hoarders of wealth will be thought of in the distant future. If we survive, I hope they are seen as fools with misguided goals, and criminals for being vacuums of human potential.

        People should be contributing ideas, creativity and wisdom instead of worrying about their next meal.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      10 hours ago

      To be fair, many states and cities have their own minimum wages higher than the federal minimum. I’ll let you guess which states don’t.

      • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I live in a red state with an $11/hr minimum wage. We got that by amending the constitution, thereby overriding the legislature which was opposed to the increase. Unfortunately $11/hr is not even close to enough to live on here so apparently it’s time to raise it via another constitutional amendment. Sigh

        • nilloc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Gotta double it to catch up, and pin it to inflation at the same time so it stops falling behind.

      • Hannes@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        9 hours ago

        The ones where the people are most afraid of communism and think minimum wage is socialism?

      • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Surprisingly, Florida has a higher minimum wage–nearly double that of the federal minimum, and will reach $15 in 2026. Of course, you can’t survive on that working 40 hours a week.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 hours ago

        And most people in those states that don’t have their own don’t work for the federal minimum wage. My state has no minimum wage, and most “minimum wage” jobs start at something like $10-12.

        • NABDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 hours ago

          start at something like $10-12

          Which is still garbage. How does someone survive today on less than $25,000/year?

          • OpenStars@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Live with their parents. It’s doable to “survive”, it’s just that someone cannot “thrive”, i.e. live the American Dream, or have health insurance, thus getting back to your point about survival, although that’s generally considered a separate thing than income, bc e.g. someone could be on their spouse’s health plan.

            And then there are all sorts of tricks to go below minimum wage too… including having more black people locked up and working in for-profit prisons than were ever used as slaves; or Waffle House’s trick where someone only gets a base wage of like $3.25 an hour and then while the minimum $7.25 per hour is guaranteed, in order to get more than that they have to make up the difference with tips (on what is <$10 meals).

            But how do you help people when (a) things like the electoral college and gerrymandering exist, (b) preachers say from the actual, literal pulpit that God commands to vote Republican, and (c) those areas vote conservative not only for themselves but also apply that to the nation at large, e.g. keeping Mitch McConnell in power, and making abortion illegal in those states.

            TLDR: it’s how they choose to live. And they might be about to fight an actual civil war to extend those “rights” further.

            • Revan343@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              And they might be about to fight an actual civil war to extend those “rights” further.

              Well we know how American civil wars end, and the country could use some more Reconstruction

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Probably not, TBH. It’s probably about social order; they likely believe that there should be a specific order and set of rules in society, and that somehow billionaires ‘deserve’ what they have, and that it’s ‘right’. “The way it is is the way it should be.” They likely also have regressive views about the position women should hold in society, LGBTQ+ rights, etc., for the same reasons. It’s a fundamentally conservative thought process.