Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
I think there is a pretty easy hack to making tax cuts unappealing to billionaires: pass a law that says each tax payer receives the exact same amount back.
Pass a 4 trillion dollar tax cut that works out to $4000/tax payer? Congrats, billionaires. Enjoy your 4k.
UBI with extra steps. I like it
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that the super rich actually have a high conventional income normally. Most of their wealth would be from investments and stock.
A neat trick with that is that they can take out loans against their stock to buy superyachts, governments, and other toys and that’s not only not income, the interest is tax deductible. Plus there are other tricks like S Corps to shield them. So, this isn’t as useful as it would suggest (not that we shouldn’t tax >100m at 99% or something just to make the point.)
Does anyone have a link to the proposed amendment and the vote on it?
I believe this is regarding the proposed budget by the House Budget Committee.
Yeah, I just can’t seem to find their proposed amendments. Maybe because they weren’t considered or something? I’ll have to see if I can find the cspan section. I just want a snippet to show my family where Republicans are voting lockstep to protect wealthy people.
Curious if they tried blocking taxation on anyone BELOW a certain income level.
Honestly, I really don't understand why a populist left party doesn't pursue this.
No tax on income below $100K and no tax on wealth, property and inheritance below $1M.
Or choose some other figures.
It seems like it would be a slam dunk to get voter support.
This isn't unheard of, though the income figure is usually lower. In my country it's some 14k I think? The tax is still quite low for the next income bracket though.
There are several very similar issues that are all slam dunks, and the fact that they aren't pursued by the Democrat party is proof that they are part of the same capitalist gang as the GOP. There is no voter that would be against banning lobbyist bribery from corporations, but that is never a campaign point. The few progressive voices that we have still insist that they have to work from within the Democrat party and there is simply no way that they will ever gain any foothold that way. I insist that right now, when the Democrat party is the most powerless, is the time for progressives to break off into their own party while they are seated in Congress. The Democrat Party can join or die.
No tax on income below $100K and no tax on wealth, property and inheritance below $1M.
With UBI, it is possible to have a flat tax where corporate and lowest personal tax rates are the same. Without payroll taxes. That means that employment can be tax free as long as business doesn't get a tax deduction, though they still can if they lose money in a year.
There can be surtaxes on incomes above $100k, but they would appear to be very small, when personal income taxes are hidden this way.
As much as I am convinced we will need UBI in our automated future, statements like yours are way too optimistic on the financials.
Let's see if we can get healthcare, education, school meals, food stamps and social security funded first.
After that we can start funding generous unemployment benefits to handle the first waves of unemployment due to automation.
And as the automation keeps gobbling up jobs, we can fund schemes for reschooling, early retirement, increase paid parental leave, increase paid vacation, promote part time work (e.g. working 4 days for 100% pay).
Once the totality of all these schemes costs the same as UBI, we can simplify it all be replacing the schemes with UBI.
was commenting on possible tax reforms.
I strongly prefer UBI to conditional programs that have overhead. I get that politics needs to keep us miserable and promise conditional bandaids to a constituency to maximize their power, and the crab mentality that something is promised "just for them" as politics as its always been, but that doesn't seem to be winning, and oligarchist policies are much better funded and mediasplained.
That's been my thoughts as well.
Eliminate income tax on anyone making less than, say 500,000 per year. Then aggressively tax wealth and those making more.
Is this a MASSIVE shake up? Absolutely! Would it likely be a bit messy? Definitely!
But we are at a point where such fundamental change is necessary
There's like 10 people in the entire fucking world making more than 500 mil a year.
More like 700 in the US alone.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/how-many-billionaires-and-millionaires-live-in-the-u-s/
700 people having a net worth of over a billion and 700 people making half a billion a year are very different.
Dividends for some of those billionaires can pay out over 500mil easily. Hide money however they want, we need a wealth tax no matter how it's sliced.
I've been saying it.
Every year, we should take the wealthiest person and reclaim 50% of their assets. Congrats, you've scum sucked enough blood out of people, we're taking 50% of it back. We'll build a "This year's biggest winner" statue in your honor with some of the funds.
I like the cut of your jib.
Thieves in the bank offices
Damn it’s almost as if they’re debating in bad faith because they get money from their wealthy constituents
What's going on is that you have FAFO'd that you should never have compromised with the GOP like we fucking told you
Xhitter
Blue check mark
🤢