top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 95 points 3 months ago (14 children)

Anything but taxing the rich. No no no, can't have that now, can we?

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    I feel like all proposals that change how social benefits work should be benchmarked against why taxing the rich wouldn’t be a better option, laid out plainly, so everyone can see the lies.

    It should be illegal to propose anything that doesn’t include taxes for those who can pay them the easiest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    They always say the rich will run away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Great, fuck 'em. Introduce an exit tax. And they can't move their houses or other buildings with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Already exists in Germany, not perfect as some loopholes still present.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Germany doesn't have a wealth tax though, right? There's not really a reason for them to leave as it seems quite advantageous to stay there if you're rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    That's kind of correct. On paper Germany has a wealth tax but it is omitted since 1997. The story is a bit frustrating, surprise. The federal constitution court found in 1995 that property is taxed not enough. So it ruled that the legislative has to reform the tax until end of the year 1996.

    The government at the time consisted of conservatives and neo-liberals and guess what, instead of reforming they disabled the tax with the reason: We already tax high incomes with 53% so we should not tax the people more.

    Fast forward: still no wealth tax and highest income tax is 45% and many exceptions in inheritance tax. So rich folks getting richer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    That's fucked up. I don't understand how the legally accepted response to "you aren't taxing enough" can be "then we will tax nothing".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    A country can continue taxing people after they leave. It's the second suggestion by the leading economists on the matter right now, right after "tax the rich".

    The US does the extreme and says as long as you're a citizen you're getting taxed. A better plan would likely by 10 years or something. I think they describe it as paying the difference in taxes of the two locations. So if the ultra-wealthy flee to Dubai or whatever (most won't), they pay the difference between Dubai and their home country's taxes to their home country so the movement is tax neutral.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Well the electorate has to vote for that and they're way too busy hating on immigrants right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Thats why i do my retirement now, making sure i get my 10-20 years of free time now, cuz idk if i even make it to 70.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Yeah best decision I made was dropping out at 17 and play games, then around 21 get involved with an underground soundsystem with a full Funktion one rig and rave for 4 years

    Nowadays money is meaningless and just stacking since material goods hold little value in my eyes.

    Fuck the system

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago

    We need a general strike and we need it yesterday.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago

    Anything but taxing the rich.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    They will couple the retirement age to life expectancy and this parameter will drop in future. I'm pretty sure we are currently around the peak value of how old the average person will get. Climate change will result in millions of premature deaths every year worldwide. Heat waves will get much more deadly, more pandemics, more extreme flash floods, tornados, storms will kill additionally. Fungi already kill a lot of old people and nobody really knows that or cares about it, despite the WHO's warning of 8 very harmful species of fungi and their urge to invest more in prevention. Global food and water supply will get pretty precarious. More toxins accumulate in the environment. We see more wars and violence, less stable economies, more social unrest... How can any sane person expect people will live longer under those conditions? Just because conditions have improved for decades doesn't mean it will never get worse again.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    To be fair pension with 70 in 2090 might actually be a decent idea, but way too far into the future to plan for anything.

    The real headline should be the end of pensions with 63. The most births after WW2 in Germany were in 1964. So they could start to retire next year. That obviously is going to stress the pension system. However it also means that the baby boomers are at an age, where death is much more likely. So this will be naturally solved in a decade. However obviously the labour market is going to be worse for employers.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί