A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
Reading all the comments so far I have not seen one mention of taxing organized religious institutions. For something that (sadly) has so much influence of far too many lives it is far overdue to have them share the bounty from their tax-free windfall
I think if the churches wish to remain tax exempt then they need to not get involved in politics. No donation to any party, and no rallying for any politician on any level.
Technically this is already the law (in the US at least). And while Churches are generally careful about not donating, the rallying thing gets bent quite often. Arguments I've heard are generally of "free speech" and/or "churches are above the law, and we shouldn't bind God to the laws of man." Occasionally there are high-profile cases where the IRS does go after a church for boldly breaking the law, but it's rare.
I think it's perfectly fine for a religious organization to be tax exempt provided they provide the same level of service as other non-profit orgs. I also think we desperately need to overhaul the requirements and auditing practices of organizations claim to be non-profits.
I don't think a religious organization on its face deserves to be tax exempt.
I feel like we need a general rule that if the head of your organization makes an appearance in or owns a room where everything is literally plated in gold then you immediately lose non-profit status.
~~tax~~ eat the rich.
governments taxed rich people before. it went away because money is power and the rich are in power, they simply decided not to anymore.
solving the problem involves socialism, as in rebuilding the system to impede this accumulation of wealth in the first place. and sometimes the deposition of these people.
taxes are a volatile stopgap solution that look leftist if you squint, but they will use violence if needed to undo that win whenever they feel like they need that money back. this WILL NOT solve the problem by itself.
Starting to see upvotes over 1k on lemmy is encouraging, glad to see we are still growing
I paid thirty fucking thousand dollars last year.
the children amputees with no surviving relatives in Gaza who received your contribution thank you
Is there a name for a phenomenon where most of the people in this country are for this, but it can't possibly be passed into law?
Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
though it could also just be called good old oligarchy with a thin veneer of democracy
Awesome, that seems the perfect term.
Futilism
You misspelled “put their heads in a basket”
It’s too late for them to apologize with paying their fair share.
Unless that share is sanguine in nature.
The issue I have with this sentiment is that some percentage of the rich made active pursuits to deny our freedoms and destroy democracy; while others were…just quiet and uninvolved in politics.
What’s more, much as it makes sense to change our hyper-capitalistic society, this is the society we’re working within in order to make change. Even printing a poster that explains why capitalism is bad costs money. By that token, we will likely need some support from some wealthy people to make change. And yes, that support exists to some degree, and no, we don’t literally need to have “more money” than the opposition.
So maybe you were just shortening sentiments for the sake of a snarky post, which is fine. We can pursue better tax rates for wealthier people, while also pursuing criminal investigations and metaphorical guillotines for the Heritage Foundation. Literally seize all their money. If I’m to make one point though, you don’t want those quiet wealthy people to feel that the Heritage Foundation are their only friends.
I know, man. There’s lots of people I dream about taking a crowbar to. But when I’m done with the violent rhetoric in my head, I think of the most practical actions.
The issue I have with this sentiment is that some percentage of the rich made active pursuits to deny our freedoms and destroy democracy; while others were…just quiet and uninvolved in politics.
The act of acquiring a billion dollars worth of financial assets is itself an attack. If you have a billion dollars, you have systematically overcharged your customers, underpaid your workers, and leveraged your wealth to do the same.
There is a term for a predator that remains "quiet" and "uninvolved" in its prey's activities: "Parasite".
I'd counter with examples like Gabe Newell and Steam.
Gabe's estimated worth is around $6bil. Steam is commonly regarded as the cheapest source of games, and has some of the highest average pay at Valve. There are absolutely arguments to be made around exploitation within the CS:GO gambling market, but that's still probably not a majority of Valve's business and income, and they'd have similar numbers regardless. They made a good product, and have generated value from it.
Fine, one exception, right? Except with low visibility on their own internal practices, there's probably many other wealthy people like them - who have contributed something valuable, which puts them on the first rung of a machine that will, almost through comparatively little effort on their part, catapult their wealth.
There's something to be said about what happens naturally through inertia, rather than due to willful malice. We are seeing lots of willful malice, make no mistake - but quite a lot of it is simple indecisiveness. A CEO who is shown a study by his shareholders that if you offer one raise, everyone will want one - and decides to just go with the suggestion not to give any raises. A wealthy person whose accountant has the idea of hiding taxes offshore, just because "everyone is doing it".
These people would not be harmed by tighter restrictions on investment opportunities, closing the loopholes letting people borrow from themselves in so many absurd ways. But many of them are not nearly so active in the exploitation as you seem to suggest.
To extend the example to someone like myself; I would generally say I make more income than I need to survive. I'm no millionaire, but to support myself I don't need much. I also have no workers underneath me. In these current times, I have done my best to locate worthwhile causes to give up some of that money to. But that act takes time and energy I don't always have, and given my habits I have a LOT of mailers and spam from less reputable charities of many kinds. Bill Gates founded a charity, but it's easy to imagine many billionaires won't bother.
And to further extend my own example: I would be okay with paying more in taxes if it meant a safer world for people with less means than myself - people who often do more valuable work for the world like teachers, nonprofits, and social workers. The task of allocating that distribution and sending checks myself just isn't something I know how to do easily. I do my best, but it's stressful and I often worry about whether I'm getting exploited by bad causes.
Again - I'll emphasize that everything you're saying is horrible about billionaires is very true about a sizable number of them - probably most we could name. And, I think in a fair future system, it would be much harder to become a billionaire due to tax nets redirecting wealth to better causes. But I also think some current billionaires have been riding a wave of a broken system without actively wanting it to be harmful.
The point, though, is not to garner sympathy for a small minority of a small minority. The point is that their capacity to effect change through their wealth is important enough for the act of change that we shouldn't actively antagonize them all by incorrectly grouping them. We're coming for their wealth, yes, but not for their heads (unless they've cheated or stolen their way up). And that wealth is meant to be put to good use.
Gabe's estimated worth is around $6bil.
That $6 billion came out of the hands of consumers, and didn't go into the pockets of workers. That is exactly the kind of exploitation I'm talking about. I don't have a problem with people being rich. This goes beyond "rich". "Obscene" is the right word, but it has been used so often in this context that its meaning doesn't even register anymore.
That we like his products, like him as a person, and recognize he's far less exploitative than Jeff or Elon does not mean that his business practices are laudable. Gabe Newell is not an exception. He is part of the problem.
We're coming for their wealth, yes, but not for their heads
It is not particularly difficult to get rid of wealth. Gabe could gift a good chunk of his wealth to the people who actually generated it. If he chooses to unload enough of wealth to stay under the head-chopping line, we won't need to come for his (proverbial) head.
I'll make the same argument that I made in another thread, but now that I've got Bernie on my side, maybe people will listen.
TAXING THE RICH DOESN'T MEAN RAISING THE TAX RATES.
It means regulation, oversight, and accountability. You can set the tax rate to any number you want, but it won't matter if no one is making them pay it. We have to hold them accountable first, and then we can bring the rates back up to something from the pre-Reagan era.
Funny that trump is trying to get rid of regulation, oversight, and accountability.
Funny how he prefers tariffs over taxes so he and his rich buddies don't have to pay out more from their end.
They have to pay the same as anyone else buying material things. The issue is that if a person worth a billion has to buy a phone that cost $1,000 but is now $1,800 thanks to tariffs it’s probably not even on their radar. If your household makes $80k a year that phone is a measurable and significant expense that will probably be postponed or avoided altogether. Now add up all the other consumer items that will go up thanks to tariffs.
As usual, the point being that the rich are far, far, less affected by price fluctuations than the average family in the US even if they have to pay the same tariff.
What irks me the most is that you have more than you could ever want or need. Like water. You are sitting on a well of decalitres. In a desert. And everyone is dying of thirst. And some guy says “hey man, you need to give back like 20% of that. And that’s kinda lowkey generous tbh.” And their response is literally like “no.”
Just. When is that rocket to the sun scheduled for completion already???
And some guy says “hey man, you need to give back like 20% of that. And that’s kinda lowkey generous tbh.” And their response is literally like “no.”
Beyond every great fortune is a great crime.
Why would you think the modern day Robber Barons could be swayed by social need? If they cared about social need, they wouldn't be billionaires to begin with.
Also
Tax wealth, not work
That's kinda why the rich are called "the wealthy" and not "the worky"
Everytime I hear arguments against wealth tax, gift tax, property tax or inheritance tax. It's the same argument, it's unfair towards the people who has worked all their life and want to leave their already taxed money to their family.
In Norway we have no inheritance tax and no tax on gifts. Most people have no taxes on homes either. We do have some wealth tax.
My main issue with the arguments against it is that its is lacking imagination. We make the rules, we can decide to make it fair. We can set a limit for when taxation occurs at a really high number. Just so that 98% of Norwegians get zero taxes on these things.
Zero taxes for inheritance up to 1 000 000 euros and then 75% on every euro above. Is possible.
Zero taxes on gifts up to 50 000 euros a year is possible.
No taxes on homes worth less than 1 000 000 is possible.
Bringing wealth with you when you permanently move out of the country is possible for values less than 5 000 000 euros for instance.
Then adjust for inflation every year (like we do with many of our welfare systems)
If we do this we can get rid of the wealth tax that the rich hate so much (because they are disadvantaged owners compared to owners of businesses in other countries)
No regular people will feel these taxes at all, and they make sure that the wealth is distributed over time. It's still possible to get rich, and remain rich. But your children can be rich but not insanely rich.
Exactly what the rates should be is up for debate, but this system is in my opinion a better one.
Too late we’re already an oligarch dictatorship
That's exactly how they win, by people going "well, it's already bad, not worth doing anything to make it better."
We are pushing back but so far things seem to be getting worse
You're not pushing back, you're picketing. This is not a situation that can be fixed by picketing.
Where the wealth tax is measured in calibre.
Taxes won't work now anyway. A redistribution of wealth is required.
That's what tax is.
Tax is a redistribution of new wealth. A redistribution of existing wealth is required.
Why do those who make the rules
Claim they have no control of the rules?
One of the arguments by the rich is that excessive tax hampers progress. Now we can all see why that is a critical safeguard to have.
They like to say these things that don't actually make any sense.
It's the same with the crying around Europe's mandatory USB-C connector.
"Oh it stifles progress" Apple protested.
Forgetting they had the same unchanged connector, and in fact data protocol on their devices for twelve years before Europe decided they wanted a standard, with all the freedom to improve it.
A standard, apple already adopted for everything not iPhone no less.