this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
645 points (99.1% liked)

Uplifting News

11401 readers
477 users here now

Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.

Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
WandererLagomorph770@lemmy.world
wolfeh@lemmy.world
645
Massachusetts passed a millionaire's tax. Now, the revenue is paying for free public school lunches. (www.cbsnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 78 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

This is what Democratic socialism is all about:

Let the engine of capitalism generate wealth (as it does so better than any other economic system) ... but then make sure that wealth is going to the people who generate it.

If the top is getting more than their fair share, redistribute it through government programs that benefit the workers and their families.

We need to do this nationwide so that tax cheats can't just run away to a different state.. And we need to do it at much higher level that recognizes the reality that no one has ever EARNED a billion dollars. They've only stolen it from their workers because of a rigged government and legal system.

And by the way, the rich should be super happy if we able to get this done, because the alternative is that we keep heading down the current path until the working class gets so poor that they can no longer feed their kids... and at that point, history tells us, the guillotines come out.

[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They won't be happy about it. You are right, they should be. But, they don't have that kind of perspective.

Being rich isn't about money, it's about ego. They think they could solve this with better outcomes and efficiency themselves, even though they will never actually do it.

It's why union busting is so popular from otherwise "good" companies run by "socially minded" executives. It's why companies will continue to amass wealth to the point where it negatively effects customers ability to purchase their products. It's why rich individuals continue to amass wealth when it doesn't really improve their quality of life, they could just stop working.

Because to them it's just a contest. They just need to show they are better than someone else; first one person, then another, then another, real world outcomes and everyone else be damned. They will take it as far as they're allowed until no one is left and everyone's lives and the planet are catastrophically ruined.

[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let's not forget, rich people like to treat their wealth like an Arcade leaderboard competition.

[–] Hairyblue@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Good post!

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Does capitalism really generate wealth better, or is it the industrial machinery? Major confounding factor there

[–] newH0pe@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well the USSR did also have a huge industrial machinery. But one thing that seems to emerge as a lesson from its downfall is that it is really hard to steer an economy with quotas and plans from the top.

A good market usually gives better incentives for people at every level. The problem is getting a good market which is definitely not the same as the libertarian dream of a super free market. Without good regulations it's really easy for markets to get captured or become exploitative.

Some thinks should never be privatised(like infrastructure). And I think lots of industries would benefit from a state run (mostly nonprofit) competitor.

[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Capitalism. Full stop.

The issue is about economic efficiency.

Take a look at why communism failed: When resources are distributed by a central authority, it doesn't matter how well intentioned they are, at best they can only approximate which goods will be valued most by which individual at any given time. People would end up with an abundance of stuff they didn't want, and a deficit in things they needed.

In a free market, supply and demand are constantly adjusting on an individual level with every transaction. Can't get flour at the price I want? Fine, I'll get potatoes. Can't get flour or potatoes? Maybe a communist government thinks rice would be a good substitute.

But if it's money in my hand, maybe I know I've got some other carbs and starch, and if I can't get flour or potatoes, my money would best go to medicine or shoelaces... the point is, I'm setting my own priorities, and they aren't always related or predictable.

Maybe I really want shoe laces, but they aren't worth $6 to me. Maybe I'd pay 50 cents for them, otherwise, I'd rather use butchers twine, for a fraction of the cost, and just resign myself to retying my shoe.

Capitalism allows people to be nimble and adaptive. Communism was a: you take what you get, and that's IT.

So people were getting things they didn't value, and highly valuing things they couldn't get, and it was just ... inefficient.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Why would the rich be happy about that lol. They could give a fuck less if they burn the world down and people starve.

[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 64 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh hey look, it does trickle down. You just have to poke the holes yourself.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You mean we can’t just rely on the benevolence of wealth hoarders to keep society afloat?

[–] Screwthehole@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Imagine telling people the benevolence of the rich will lift everyone, in a system built to reward NOT BEING BENEVOLENT. With a straight face.

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

I couldn't keep a straight face repeating anything from a republicans mouth with any level of seriousness.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

One thing that is eye opening is looking into the education system as a place to indoctrinate kids. Now here me out. The fringe right were not wrong. Except they didn't go far enough. The vast majority of current executive class come from private education streams. The executive class are what rule us. They make the rules like pay, benefits and just about every other part that of our society as they also buy the politicians that serve them. Private schools were untouched by the fringe rights claims of indoctrination because it is where you can actually see the way these schools train new generations to worship at the feet of Adam Smith and hate on social programs as part of some conspiracy against these private institutions. Nobody cares about brain washing the labour. The real indoctrination is happening at the most prestigious private schools and those kids go on to be the next Musk, Jobs, Gates, Clinton, Bush

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

They don’t tell you that the trickle we feel from trickle down is an increasingly thin stream of piss

[–] davio540@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The idea that we require children to go to school but don’t feed them healthy food automatically when they’re in class is insane. We’ve got money for all the fighter jets but can’t feed kids.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The sad thing, is that there are people out there the seem to think that "hunger is a good motivator".

And I really just want them to be hungry for the remainder of their lives.

[–] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Shouldn’t every state do something similar? One of my personal views I support is feeding every student in school. Something like 30 million kids in the US are malnourished underfed or starving. In the “richest & most powerful” country in the world, that is just cruel and unacceptable.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, I think possibly an important thing to is to make it universal. You don't need to apply or ask for a free lunch. Everyone gets the same lunch for free. If you make way too much money you'll pay for it in taxes, but don't make kids stand out because they don't have the same access to resources. It isn't their fault and shouldn't be their problem to deal with.

[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's how it is in my son's school here in California. He gets a free lunch every day (breakfast too, if we woke up early enough), even though we could pack him one. It's good to normalize it, I think.

[–] Case@unilem.org 1 points 1 year ago

Also, as a picky eater (still) I probably would have benefitted from not being able to pick what I want to eat, though knowing me I still would have rather starved than eat stuff that I have textural issues with.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 8 points 1 year ago

Increased million dollar per year income tax. Not millionaires tax. Its very different.

[–] UtiAnimi@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Well at the moment the revenue is not paying for the school lunches, the text says it will in 2024. I wonder if this will work out, or if the rich will leave as many opponents of rich-taxes often argue.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can we try to fix the T a bit, too?

[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Best we can do is smokeless fire.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I guess that’s technically an improvement over smoky fire.

[–] miridius@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Sadly this is still just another income tax rather than a wealth tax, despite the name. It won't affect the truly rich