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 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.
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'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.
I agree the rich aren't being taxed right now, but why argue on what the phrase does or doesn't mean instead of argue how it can best be achieved? Or like Bernie does, argue why it is necessary?
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.
You can take this a step further and ask why we have this aggregation of wealth at all. Private wealth consolidation is a form of malinvestment resulting from a handful of individuals who are told they can effectively loot the economy unchecked.
Taxation "solves" the problem by clawing back some of that malinvestment. But if you recognize it as malinvestment from the outset, you can see arguments against having these private aggregators of wealth at all.
Instead of taxes, why not simply impose a maximum income? In baseball, you'd call it a salary cap.
Just mandate a luxury tax on all things normal people don't buy. You can have wealth, but you cannot have anything normal people cannot have without paying. Oh you want to acquire a whole ass business? You want to donate millions for political influence? You want a Ferrari? Want more land or a huge house? You pay demoralizing amounts of luxury tax.
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.
That’s even stranger to me. That the one true sign of immorality and a lack integrity is literally wealth. Oh you got wealth? Yeah you’re 99.5% probably a POS. And there is a .5% chance of error.
I paid thirty fucking thousand dollars last year.
the children amputees with no surviving relatives in Gaza who received your contribution thank you
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."
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.
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".
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
Starting to see upvotes over 1k on lemmy is encouraging, glad to see we are still growing
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.
~~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.
From his wiki:
In the 1980s, Icahn developed a reputation as a "corporate raider" after profiting from the hostile takeover and asset stripping of Trans World Airlines.
Why do those who make the rules
Claim they have no control of the rules?
I remember being in uni when George W got elected the first time. I recall my uni friends were saying there's no point taxing the rich because they'll always find another loop hole. I guess we should realize they'd never stop. They're never like, "hmm that's enough".
