this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

46115 readers
204 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Devide

verb

Obsolete form of divide.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

First you need to stop money from systematically flowing to the top or that dividing is only going to be a temporary measure.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (4 children)
[–] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I'd argue there should be a flat out cap on wealth. Nobody should have 500 billion dollars. Not sure what it should be, but somewhere under 500 billion.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Would be nice, would still require a revolution.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago
[–] Piemanding@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago

You can have a soft cap with higher taxes as wealth goes up.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

To name a few:

  • the classic riot, violence and/or revolution
  • the coup
  • organizing through unions and have general strikes until things change
  • sustained peaceful protest
  • voting
  • switching to a different (underground) economic system
  • massive emigration

All come with some serious downsides of course.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago

or to sum it up: socialism

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (3 children)
[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

No. Leave my IRA and 401k alone.

There is a reason every country that's tried a wealth tax has abandoned it (or neutered it to the point that it's primarily the burden of the middle class, completely defeating the ostensibly-stated purpose of getting more money from the wealthiest), learn some world history.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Are they worth over $10M? I mean $0.01B...

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The reason countries abandon wealth taxation is because the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, doesn't like it, and the justification is that it hurts the working class, the proletariat, even if that isn't true.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No, they abandon it because the total tax revenue after implementation literally goes down instead of up, lol.

Just because 100 people will buy your product X at $10 and you make $1000, doesn't mean you're guaranteed to make $2000 if you sell X for $20 instead. That's basically the same principle--raising taxes doesn't necessarily lead to an increase in revenue. People react to changes in policy.

This is not speculation, it literally already happened. Stop speaking about this from your assumed expectations and learn the actual history.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago

I'm aware of how the economy works, we all took econ 101 and many of us went beyond that. You need to stop feigning superiority and assuming a lack of education on anyone pushing back against what you're saying.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago

Would require either revolution or threat of it to pass to a meaninful degree.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Turns out that technically they don't have wealth, just a lot of loans with paper assets as collateral.

[–] INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] eatCasserole@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

If voting could dethrone the wealthy, they wouldn't let us do it.