• 2 Posts
  • 72 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle
  • Maybe we’re strawmaning each other. I would be fine with a 1-2% tax on billionaire wealth that’s sitting as unrealized gains.

    Taxing me on the value of my house is absolutely similar to taxing unrealized gains. If my house gained value that doesn’t mean my income did. There is no guarantee that I can afford it. I can’t sell my house to pay the tax. The same arguments used to defend billionaires applies to me as well, but somehow we’re supposed to feel bad for them but we’re ok with the middle class paying essentially the same thing as unrealized gains on the asset they own that’s mostly likely 99% of their net worth.

    Can you tell me what is broken with expecting someone that holds $100b in unrealized gains to pay %1 tax on it







  • randoot@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneRule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    No, if enough people vote for socialist candidates and they pass a law that says all property now belongs to the state, then it’d be enforced just like any other current law.

    The transition could be gradual. If we started nationalizing companies that get too big, and do that for a few generations then the state would own 99% of the economy.

    If we keep raising property tax, you’d effectively get to the point where people are leasing the land rather than owning it.









  • Well the first naive argument against that would be, why would anyone work hard to become an attorney if it doesn’t pay more than anything else? Why spend years in school if it’s not going to get you ahead?

    I guess in the star trek universe you do it because you like it?

    I want to believe maybe that might work?


  • randoot@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldOn a plate
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I absolutely agree with this comic, and in a lot of ways I was the kid on the left.

    I struggle with the solution though. Isn’t it the purpose of all life about giving your offspring a better chance?

    When we give the kid on the right more opportunity, the left side will keep increasing their investment until it’s lopsided in their favor again.

    Maybe it’s not about trying to reach some theoretical absolute equity, but keeping the distribution at a healthy balance so that one side is not completely locked out of the game. That’s healthier for the whole community too since healthy competition ensures there’s progress.