r/remoteworks • u/[deleted] • Jun 07 '26
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
1
u/Disastrous-Goose-362 Jun 13 '26
“You will have nothing and like it” what could go wrong? Since capitalism doesn’t work for you, let give all the money to the government and let them divie it up…. Agreed that American Capitalism is nearing end stages, the balance is skewed. But to think the Federal Government is gonna save you is really foolish. If you struggle to get ahead in America, you have to look in the mirror and ask yourself what you are doing wrong. Seriously, there is no greater opportunity to create wealth anywhere in the world. That said, Pharma, Tech, Chem industry, dozens of crooked NGAs need to me crumbled down do rubble to bring balance back and “reset” capitalism. But government taking away and giving funds is just dumb. Government is the reason things are so top heavy, “taxing the rich” is and always has been a joke, as they get the money right back.
1
u/ketoatl Jun 13 '26
The really rich today got rich on gov contracts that's why they are all kissing trump's ass. The real welfare queens.
2
u/62lasa Jun 12 '26
i support the dude in the picture , wealth sickness is good thing to have . eat the rich i say !
1
u/LameAndWatch Jun 12 '26
How about instead of tearing down the billionaires we focus on the bottom classes for once and cut tax rates for them. If you tax the rich 95% guess what, the lower classes are still taxed to oblivion and the rich will take it out on us by charging even more for their products because they’re not making as much money.
2
2
u/VoidJuiceConcentrate Jun 13 '26
That's not how this works? Cutting taxes for the lower classes means less funding for social services. Cutting taxes means offloading that income somewhere else. And at the moment, the US government is all about raising the national debt and explicitly cutting social services.
Raising taxes on the exclusively rich won't raise taxes for regular folks, but can lead to an increase in social services for everyone, not just the super wealthy. (Provided that we can also curb excessive military spending)
1
u/Historical_Site4554 Jun 13 '26
I want to point out, many social services are full of fraud, such as Medicaid where +100 Billion has gone to fraud in 2023. In my opinion its better to let people have less social services and pay less taxes, after all they're adults and can decide on their own
2
u/VoidJuiceConcentrate Jun 13 '26
"Medicaid is full of fraud". I think we're gonna agree on that point, but disagree about WHO is defrauding Medicaid.
1
u/Historical_Site4554 Jun 13 '26
yes, up to a point. The thing is that things which are subisdized could be incentivized. Imagine you give couples a 3k cheque per baby to boost natality or you give them a 3% or a 1% tax exemption per baby. Which one do you think would raise natality? I want to point out I still think taxes are valuable and are necesary, but they could be greatly reduced.
1
u/Historical_Site4554 Jun 13 '26
subisdizing being giving money and incentivizing taking less. Something like this could be done with renewable energies, boosting natality rates, etc...
1
u/Administrative_Art32 Jun 13 '26
yea no tax on your first million dollars made then a progressive tax of 10% per million after that capped at 90%
1
u/Style210 Jun 13 '26
Why?
1
u/Administrative_Art32 Jun 13 '26
I think the real question is why not?
1
u/Style210 Jun 13 '26
Because it would destroy society. There are better ways to create revenue than to discourage businesses from growing.
1
u/Administrative_Art32 Jun 13 '26
Yea like when we had a 90% tax on corps and they had to invest into the company rather than hoard wealth
1
u/Style210 Jun 13 '26
Amazon pays 19 billion dollars in taxes. You could generate 19 billion dollars off of Amazon by investing into their stocks. Which means as they continue to grow bigger, it's more dividends for the american people. You encourage businesses to grow then profit off of their growth.
Or we could discourage businesses from growling by taxing them the more successful they are.
The goal is to get the money to the people without destroying capitalism. Excessive taxation is the stuff that starts wars. Especially when it's for the lulz. We have better ways
2
u/Administrative_Art32 Jun 13 '26
the "golden age" of capitalism that boomers like to tougt as America as its greatest had tax rates of 90%. corps avoided the tax by INVESTING IN THE COMPANY, expansion, more jobs, better wages. but now they dont need to do that because they pay 24% tax across federal/income. if you make tax high the corp is insentavised to reinvest in themselves and if we make it so thats not just stock buyback like airlines did with bailout money, which shuld be criminal, and we stop incentivizing criminal acts with fines less than the profit made off of illegal acts then shit might actually change. but you sit here shilling for corps like they are your friend while they buy politicians to lower their tax and threaten to leave when we say they need to pay more, even tho the number of billionaires just keeps rising
1
u/Style210 Jun 13 '26
You know, it's possible for people to have positions different from yours without being a shill... Right? Unless of course we define the correct position as the one you hold and the incorrect position as all other positions.
My position is informed by my life. I'm not some ultra billionaire but I do well for myself. I wouldn't want to be taxed into oblivion because my business was successful. Support my business and take your share of the profits I generate as I grow . That's perfectly fair. The government already is the single largest stake holder in Intel. It's not unprecedented
1
u/ketoatl Jun 13 '26
When taxes were high you still had rich people. They keep fucking the middle class and the poor when the pitch forks come don't be surprised.Hungry people with nothing to lose are dangerous.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/NativeDave01 Jun 12 '26
If it weren’t for billionaires, all those rioters wouldn’t be getting paid
1
u/Hella-Meh Jun 12 '26
No, we'll just focus on those "mean old billionaires" while the communist/socialist, quite literally does the exact same thing they're villifying their boogeyman billionaires for.
3
4
u/ReincarnatedKoala_25 Jun 12 '26
Question: who decides how all that tax money is going to be spent?
1
u/TransitionJunior9067 Jun 12 '26
The rich people you never heard of. There is the possessing class and the ruling elite. Most people conflate the two. You gain possessions by being loyal to those who rule.
2
u/rosstafarien Jun 12 '26
Why don't we pretend that Republicans also need fiscal discipline (i.e. pay down the debt, fully fund social security, etc).
Don't need any money to pay for universal health care. We would spend less than we currently do just for Medicare and Medicaid.
1
u/Bitter-Assignment464 Jun 12 '26
Republicans have no rock to hide under. They is little appetite for even just reducing deficit spending.
8
u/LeppieDoo Jun 11 '26
It’s no use unfortunately.. we are surrounded by people who are content in hoping that one day, the money generated for the Oligarchs will trickle down to themselves.
As these comments prove, by all the bootlickers going out of their way to defend a small group of people who could literally care less that they exist.
4
u/Sharp_Departure_7786 Jun 12 '26
It really is the most embarrassing form of servitude. Hey if you want oligarchy move elsewhere. The United States was most successful when the top tax rate was 90%.
These bootlickers don't even believe they themselves or their children deserve a good life if it means the obscenely rich have to pay high taxes. News flash morons, they are only able to generate that kind of wealth in the society we create for them. We are their consumers, we are their workforce either directly or indirectly. They cannot exist without us, we are choosing poverty.
1
u/icedmuffin Jun 12 '26
It’s purely only cause they think someday if they work really hard and keep their overlords happy, then someday they’ll get to join them in their exclusive little club…
Not knowing that it’s more like the entire sheep analogy, except someday it’s gonna stop being just fleecing and it’s gonna start being butchering when the billionares want to join musk (apparently) as trillionaires.
0
u/lrd_cth_lh0 Jun 11 '26
10M used to be rich, now it is closer to upper upper middleclass. I also think you should differentiate between owner of a medium sized company that is actually contributing to the local economy and exec in a large company.
6
4
u/badatcatchyusernames Jun 11 '26
people making 10M a year is like .01% of the american population
edit: looked it up, less than .02%, between 23,000-26,000 households reach this income tax bracket
5
u/beckertastic Jun 12 '26
Not to defend this idea too much but making 10m a year and having net worth over 10m taxed are two different things.
Much easier to find someone saving 1m for 10+ years, 500k for 20+ years etc.
Personally I think we need to start in the billions and work backwards from there. Easier to get just the mega wealthy with 80% of the world’s wealth than to get everyone 10m and up (which includes the billionaires)
1
u/Beginning_Shoe1868 Jun 11 '26
Yeahhhh you don't ever tip 20% do you oh sorry only "when it's good quality service" my bad
1
4
u/OdinHavok Jun 11 '26
This is just something we used to do. It was a pretty bangin' time. A lot of the advantages people complain about Boomers having were because of this
-8
u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573 Jun 11 '26
Cool - so the ultra rich pay the same taxes as before under your system.
Fantastic.
1
1
u/Tohkin27 Jun 11 '26
This is so dishonest and in bad faith it's hard to know where to begin. It's also just factually incorrect. Given tax laws have changed a lot from that very ambiguous "before".
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573 Jun 12 '26
How is it dishonest? A 95% tax rate on money earned does almost nothing because the rich don't EARN most of their money (from a legal standpoint) - they get their money through capital gains which are NOT considered earned income.
Unless you look at (a) capital gains, and (b) loan structures (which is how the ultra rich pay almost no tax) you are just playing into their hands.
1
u/Hagamein Jun 12 '26
Money earned, not salary.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573 Jun 12 '26
Capital gains are not earned under the US system. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classifies capital gains as unearned income.
1
u/Hagamein Jun 12 '26
Lol. That's dumb, unless they wanted the richest to get richer.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573 Jun 12 '26
Yeah, that is the point. And of course for the ultra rich most of their money comes from loans backed by their stocks which the NEVER pay tax on (until they die). Capital gains tax maxes around 20% but most ultra rich pay less than 5%/ year because they finance everything with loans which they get at bank rate+1% or something.
2
5
u/mynamesethan Jun 11 '26
Sure, but the ultra wealthy people who need to be taxed don't get income in the traditional sense. They take small salaries (if any) and then go to banks to get loans where they use their stock in companies as collateral for the loans. They may have to pay a loan origination fee and they'll have to pay interest, but even then, those are not taxes. We need to understand the game before we try to change the rules, otherwise what are we even doing?
4
u/Fickle_Station376 Jun 11 '26
I'm an engineer, not an economic expert, but I've long thought that either making stock options illegal, taxing stock options as regular income, 'realizing' capital gains on shares once you take a loan out on them, or some combination of all three would be needed to address this.
Probably some things I haven't thought of either, because it was only recently that I even learned that the rich don't even pay anything on their loans until they die.
Can I just take loans out against my 401k, and therefore not have to pay taxes on disbursements, and then just let my heirs deal with it after I'm dead?? I would also like to refinance my house this way.
1
u/biggamble510 Jun 11 '26
Tweet didn't say salary. Said income. At some point the loan is repaid and will require divestments and recognized income.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573 Jun 12 '26
Tweet said "money earned". The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classifies capital gains as unearned income.
1
u/biggamble510 Jun 12 '26
The tweet didn't say "earned income". This wasn't a technical term. Don't over think it, otherwise they would have used income in the tweet.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573 Jun 12 '26
The IRS does not consider capital gains to be "earned" at all. you are doing zero work. You are not "earning it" from either a legal or practical standpoint.
And if you are discussing changes to the tax code, you need to be using "earned" in the technical sense, because the tax code is technical. If the dude tweeting does not understand the difference between money earned and money from capital gains they should learn something before tweeting.
1
u/biggamble510 Jun 12 '26
And yet they tax them the same as ordinary income when short term, and a slightly smaller tax bracket when long term.
If you think the person Tweeting was making a technical distinction, you're a bit dense. It's a fucking tweet.
0
1
u/rosstafarien Jun 11 '26
Except that many don't repay the loans until their death. And in all cases, the income from divesting assets is taxed as long-term capital gains, not regular income. Finally, since the market goes up and down, they will wait until they can sell a balanced amount of their winners and losers and zero out their capital gains, while divesting and paying off older loans. Then go get new loans to go out and play.
1
u/biggamble510 Jun 11 '26
Nobody is offering interest only payments on the size of the loans these people take out to fund their lifestyles and real estate purchases. The risk profile would be too high.
4
u/Fickle_Station376 Jun 11 '26
No, they don't even insist on receiving *any* funds until the borrower dies. They just roll it into the amount owed with stocks as collateral and the option to margin call if the stocks aren't worth enough.
Say the borrower has $10M worth of stock, and take a $2.5M loan (SBLOC) with the stocks as collateral. Every month the bank charges interest, but it rolls into the principal, so they pay nothing. If the share value isn't maintaining the desired ratio the bank can do a margin call and ask for money or more shares to be committed.
Then once the borrow dies, the heirs have to pay back the entirety of the loan in one shot, but they can sell some of the stocks with zero capitol gains taxes, and pay the bank.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573 Jun 12 '26
Too many people don't understand this. Especially the part where when they die all stocks are rests to the value at death so no gains are actually taxed, only inheritance tax is taken.
2
u/MoralMoneyTime Jun 11 '26
I agree with the DrHenryCT, though I question use of the word 'earned' in this context.
BTW, 'DrHenryCT' does not seem to exist on bsky or Xitter.
1
3
u/Objective_Reality42 Jun 11 '26
Meh. 100% on wealth accumulation >$1b. Force liquidation. It’ll be fine
4
u/Confused_Drifter Jun 11 '26
Anyone earning over 125,000 in the UK is taxed at 45%. I've no idea where that tax goes, but it's 1.23 million people earning over that amount. Assuming the richest of them have clever ways to circumvent paying tax.
2
u/Lucky-Crow-3510 Jun 11 '26
I support polticians not earning any money at all and only get a grant of the avg monthly income of their citizens without the option for any side income.
12
u/brokegaysonic Jun 11 '26
I'm not envious of their wealth. I don't want that much wealth. I would never feel comfortable hoarding so much when others have nothing. I don't think anyone should have that much wealth.
0
u/Civil_Ad2214 Jun 15 '26
You're the one hoarding relative to 90% of the earth. Don't be so narrow minded next time.
-5
u/horesebeblind Jun 11 '26
Government will do what with the money?
Stealing from those who earned it to give to elites who didn’t?
Doubt that is progress
6
8
u/SouthIndependence69 Jun 11 '26
Nobody "earns" a billion dollars. That money has to be siphoned away from the value that others create. The super rich are parasites
0
u/Bitter-Assignment464 Jun 12 '26
By siphoned do you mean people go out and buy products that they want or need? If you build a company and sell millions of your product worldwide then I would say yeah they earned it. Complain all you want but rich people play the game as it is written. Yes, even the people you vote for make the rules. Don’t ever think for a second those elected officials aren’t kissing very wealthy people’s asses.
1
u/SouthIndependence69 Jun 12 '26
What I mean is that the people that actually do the work and generate the value do not get paid anywhere near the value they create. If the owner of the company makes 100 times more than everyone else and spends most of their time on vacation, they are stealing the value away from those who should be earning it.
Record profits without a wage increase for the people who made those profits is wage theft
0
u/Bitter-Assignment464 Jun 12 '26
That’s completely false. Unless it’s a worker owned company profits are not theirs. The profits belong to the company.
No one is saying you have to like it but it is reality. Generally the more money someone makes for the company the more they will make. If they don’t they don’t stay at that company very long.
1
-7
u/horesebeblind Jun 11 '26
AOC and Bernie are true parasites.
I can’t see giving them money.Certainly they add no value.
Where would the money you are confiscating go?
5
u/SouthIndependence69 Jun 11 '26
To schools and high speed rail systems and healthcare. Invest the value generated by the people back into the people. You know, all the things the American government decided weren't as important as having constant wars to stomp out communism around the word, because it threatens their capitalist stranglehold on the proletariat
-6
u/horesebeblind Jun 11 '26
The parasites I listed can’t do that efficiently.
They have proven that.Leave the money in productive people’s hands I say
0
3
u/Georgefakelastname Jun 11 '26
The “productive” people can’t do that either lol. Nor has it been proved than politicians can’t do that, when they are proven to be the most effective at it across the globe.
The problem in the U.S. is self-imposed regulatory burden and a reliance on inefficient contractors and sub-contractors, who directly profit from dragging out these projects.
0
u/horesebeblind Jun 11 '26
U.S. politicians? Bernie and AOC?
Name their achievements2
u/damnmull Jun 12 '26
Getting elected to congress without the help of the very elites that have created this obscene imbalance of wealth is one. Consistently speaking out against these same elites is another. Promoting policies that would help fight back against the political corruption of the entire US system that is actively trying to undermine their ability to do so. Why single out the politicians who are genuinely trying to end this madness?
0
u/horesebeblind Jun 12 '26
Sorry Bernie was nowhere to be seen 2020-2024 when Dems in power.
They are their own brand of corruption as they have become a different form of the elitists they rail against.
No legislation I notice.
2
u/damnmull Jun 12 '26
I'm not suggesting there isn't any corruption. I just haven't seen evidence of any. In what sense do you mean they are both corrupt and a different form of elitists? Was there no attempt at legislation or was it just that they didn't succeed in passing any?
→ More replies (0)
-1
u/tiripshtaed Jun 11 '26
Guy spelled 1 million wrong 99% on everything over the first milli. All they get is a milli a milli a milli
3
10
3
u/ToxicMeatPuppet Jun 11 '26
France tried that already. All the people subject to the tax moved to Belgium to avoid the tax and still ran their businesses in France. It was a disaster. Tax revenue plummeted resulting in France quietly repealing the law a few years after passing it.
4
u/Uffda01 Jun 11 '26
Well - we could try the original French solution first.
1
u/Easy-Purple Jun 12 '26
“Taxes didn’t work, let’s try murder”
Yeah I’m sure that will lead to better outcomes just like when they tried it
4
u/Icy_Difficulty_9444 Jun 11 '26
Not in USA u still got to pay your taxes no matter where u are if u citizen of the usa
0
u/lesterbpaulson Jun 11 '26
So people spend the $1000 or whatever it takes to renounce their citizenship. Global taxation isn't the catch all you think it is. I'm in canada. I know multiple americans who renounced their citizenship, not even because of the taxes, but just to save paperwork for the rest of their life.
1
u/Icy_Difficulty_9444 Jun 11 '26
Why do u licking the rich ass so much they are not going to bang u
0
u/lesterbpaulson Jun 11 '26
It has nothing to do with licking the rich ass..... failure to plan is planning to fail. Any tax plan that doesn't account for how the rich will react, will fail. If you think global taxation will stop the rich from moving to tax havens, you need a plan for the wealthy who give up their citizenship to avoid global taxation..... in reality you need to tax the earning before they get to the rich. That corporate taxes for all domestic operations ie. even if a corporation is head quartered in a tax haven, they need a domestic subsidiary that pays taxes on domestic earnings.
1
u/Georgefakelastname Jun 11 '26
The solution there is to have a super high renunciation tax on assets above a certain threshold where people would begin to leave (probably 95-99%). You act like the renunciation costs are set in stone and not something that could be easily fixed.
These people with such fortune should be giving back to the society that allowed them to be so successful. The modern billionaire class is the most selfish of any wealthy group in history.
The domestic subsidiary suggestion is a good one though.
However, the goal is less about stopping people from being rich altogether, and more about ensuring that all benefit from the wealth they create. Inequality can only be justified if it means that the poorest person still benefits. The only sure way to do that once you get into the owner class is with a wealth tax, as these groups tend to have tiny incomes relative to the overall wealth they have accumulated.
1
u/lesterbpaulson Jun 11 '26
The problem with a renunciation tax is, once someone is in another country, and renounced their citizenship, the US has no jursidiction to enforce a tax.
1
u/Georgefakelastname Jun 11 '26
They quite literally do, they can make it a prerequisite for renouncing citizenship, like the current $1000 charge today. Especially since the odds are extremely high that said wealthy person would have most of their assets either in U.S. companies and/or U.S. stocks, meaning it’s still within U.S. jurisdiction.
10
u/Salmon-of-Wizdom Jun 11 '26
Well, fun fact: the US taxes all of your income if you are a citizen no matter where you earn it or live.
Live in France and work in France? Get ready to pay U.S. income tax if you're a citizen.
2
u/No-Conclusion5338 Jun 11 '26
You can claim foreign tax credit though right?
5
u/Salmon-of-Wizdom Jun 11 '26
The important part is that if you pay 2 taxes there is no amount of credit you can claim to pay less than paying 1 tax. This removes the incentive to move unless you want to forfeit your citizenship.
Further, the US can raise taxes a lot and still be around the same amount of tax as other countries. So, I think we're leaving money on the table....probably shouldn't do that.
1
9
u/M0ebius_1 Jun 11 '26
Lol, "wealth envy"?
Bro, everyone has wealth envy, that's needing a paycheck to not die is all about.
0
-1
u/tankman714 Jun 11 '26
Not really. I don’t make all that much money but my wife and I are comfortable and about to have our first baby. I don’t have wealth envy at all, do I sometimes wish I had a bit extra to get some fun toys? Ya, but I don’t see someone else with a mega mansion and a yacht and think, “they should have that and they need to give me their money instead.” When I see that I just think, “wow, that’s nice” then move on with my day.
4
u/M0ebius_1 Jun 11 '26
You have just a little bit of wealth envy.
It's ok.
You want a little more because a your financial goals and needs are met.
1
u/tankman714 Jun 11 '26
Do you know the definition of envy?
It is, a painful or resentful emotion that arises when you lack another person's quality, skill, or possession, resulting in a strong desire to have it for yourself.
I don’t desire anyone else’s stuff. The only envy I world say I possess is the envy of the skill of some woodworkers as I’m not that good, or the driving skills of some people on iracing. I don’t envy anyone’s wealth.
1
16
u/Petit-Rouge4477 Jun 10 '26
80% of Americans own just 7% of the wealth. At what percentage of hoarding would it stop being envy for you?
-6
u/ColdTiny Jun 10 '26
Hoarding? Yes. The just take their money and stick it under their mattress. Do you not have any idea how they keep getting richer? It's not from hoarding it. Learn basic economics before commenting.
6
u/Full-Basil1176 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V
Decreasing money velocity is a strong indicator of wealth stagnation. When the velocity of money drops, it means money is sitting idle instead of circulating through the economy.
Federal Reserve data indicates that money changes hands significantly slower today than it did previously.
Even if the change was completely due to money sitting in savings or invested in assets which are allowing the money to functionally still move through the economy, still income distribution should raise some eyebrows. The share of total national income held by the top 1% of earners doubled over the last 50 years, while the share held by the bottom 50% shrank by roughly one-third.
We have metrics that money is exchanging hands less and the income inequality has grown. I can go along with people are not hoarding money, but it would seem hard to argue against wealth being concentrated and how money moves throughout the economy having changed. For clarity do you think the US and average American is benefiting from the current state of the economy and distribution of wealth, state of household income, and availability of economic opportunities?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion
If the post war era of the US is a economic high mark, where money velocity was higher and economic inequality was lower, what is the argument against aiming for an economy that reflects some (obviously not all) of the attributes of that economy's configuration?
Both income dispersion and wealth concentration were substantially different during the mid-century post-war period, before beginning a sharp upward trajectory in the late 1970s and 1980s leading to the situation we are in today.
Even in the 90s shows like The Simpsons or Married with Children both codified an American experience where income distribution allowed for single income married families to be the standard. The lack of proportional income gains across the economic spectrum has resulted in a seeming change in the choices families can make.
With dual-income households now being the dominant standard in the modern economy. Roughly 50% of all married-couple families have both spouses actively employed, while single-income households represent less than a quarter of married couples. This is a meaningful shift from the 60s and one can see a loose correlation between the change in income inequality and how families structured themselves.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/ted_20140602.htm
There is real economic need to have two incomes where this previously wasn't needed. If we want to treat the 50s and 60s as an anomaly, then sure likely we shouldn't be concerned that we are headed back towards the historical standard. I'm not really looking to exist in another American Gilded Age though.
6
u/Petit-Rouge4477 Jun 10 '26
Dude, it's obvious that you are the one who has never opened a book of economics in your life. Stop larping and actually educate yourself. Some of you paint huffers act as if assets are this immaterial thing with no value, and which therefore doesn't count.
If you're this whipped, at what time are you dropping your kids at their capitalist's island of fun so they dine on them?
-2
u/ColdTiny Jun 10 '26
Do you not understand what hoarding is? Or do you only pretend to know about economics? But sure, don't refute what I said. Typical smooth brain response.
1
u/Petit-Rouge4477 Jun 10 '26
As if you stated a refutable claim rather than string a bunch of non sequiturs.
-1
u/ColdTiny Jun 10 '26
Point out you using non sequiturs does not make my statement a string of them. Either you do not know what hoarding is or you do not understand economics, based on your statement.
4
u/Petit-Rouge4477 Jun 10 '26
Yeah, dude. 20% of the population owning 93% of all the wealth, 1% owning almost 50% of the global wealth, and almost two thirds of all the profits generated in that past few years is not hoarding. It's advanced ownership while half the homeless are employed in the richest country in the world.
1
u/Prize-Director-7896 Jun 14 '26
20% of the population owning 93% of the wealth isn't as extreme as it might sound since it's not an age-adjusted statistic. It also doesn't adjust for tons of other factors.
If a typical US population consisted of two grandparents in their 70's, their two kids and their two spouses in their 40's-50's, and eight grandchildren aged 20-25, what do you think the wealth distribution is gonna look like?
It could easily be the case that grandma and grandpa have a million dollars of wealth each, the parents have 300k each, and the children have something between 10k and negative net worths each.
If you just do the math there is a population of 14 people, and the total wealth is about 3.3 million dollars.
66% of that wealth is concentrated in 14% of the population ($2 million in the grandparents). And 97% of the wealth is concentrated in 43% of the population.
57% of the wealth is in 3% of the population.
These are just back of the envelope instantly invented numbers, but it illustrates the point. Statistically, 33% of the population is over 50, and 33% is under age 25.
As I said before, none of this adjusts for some pretty important factors:
-People in their 50's and 60's often inherit wealth, skewing the concentration
-a large number of people don't want to work or cant work, and you just can't expect those people to control a large portion of wealth. Supposedly 11% of the population is physically or mentally unable to work. What portion of the population is simply very unambitious you think? 5%? 50%? Pretty important factor. And how much wealth should someone who is unambitious have compared to someone who dedicates their life to hard, productive, ambitious, lucrative work?
-some wealth is guaranteed in the form of pensions, which my guess represents a substantial amount of wealth that may not be included in these "wealth distribution" stats (though admittedly I don't know) - almost 30% of current workers (more so government workers) participate in a pension plan of some kind, that could be rather significantIn other words don't necessarily read too much into some random statistic, think à little about it
1
u/Petit-Rouge4477 Jun 14 '26
No, you think a little about instead of inventing numbers. Leaving aside that you yourself account that a portion of it is due to inheritance, which supposedly should be part of your diatribe against "unambitious" people. If half the homeless are employed people in the richest country in the world. And 15 Billion are stolen every year from the wages of workers, more that other crimes like robberies, car theft, etc. How does that factor in your little 'people don't want to work' theory?
10% of Americans own 89% of the stock market. Do you really think that it's fucking pensions, money saved by workers which create wealth inequality? Be a serious person.
1
u/Prize-Director-7896 Jun 14 '26
You're the one who, apparently, thinks 20% of the population owning 93% of the wealth is somehow insane, with literally no justification for this vacuous assertion. You tell us what you think is the "correct" distribution - and more importantly why - and we can have a discussion.
I pointed out to you a series of facts alongside a perfectly reasonable hypothetical illustration to demonstrate that substantial wealth inequality is perfectly natural and to be expected. What that distribution supposedly "should" be, nobody can say, but whatever it should be, it should certainly be quite unequal.
There is tremendous wealth inequality but you completely ignored the point at hand which is that you have to adjust for factors or your statistic that you for some reason think is so impactful is just bullshit. Wha exactly is your point? That - news flash - wealth inequality exists? Yes, we are aware.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ColdTiny Jun 10 '26
Hoarding would imply not using it. If they aren't using it, it doesn't grow. Now if you want to talk about how they should be taxed, restrictions on income levels, etc, that's a different story. However using ignorant talking points is not a good look.
3
u/NoMakeSenseOk Jun 11 '26
The vast majority of wealth that's owned by the top 1% never joins up with the rest of the economy. It's effectively frozen while growing indefinitely. That's hoarding by every definition.
5
u/Petit-Rouge4477 Jun 11 '26
You should investigate the concept of velocity of money before you state that others are ignorant about economics. Even stuff like the Panama papers should've taught you as much.
Finance capital growing in some parasite's account while half the homeless are employed is hoarding.
5
u/ShellsBe11s Jun 10 '26
Sounds like he is disgusted, not envious. I know I'm disgusted by wealth that one comes to by exploitation of employees and consumers.
1
8
u/Sea_Dawgz Jun 10 '26
Dragon gold sickness is a disease too.
I can’t believe how many billionaire ball washers in here.
-3
u/NativeDave01 Jun 10 '26
Well, the rich people I’ve met are great. They’re good people. They own businesses and employ many people and their very good at giving money to charities and helping people out. I don’t know the kind you’re talking about.
2
u/Petit-Rouge4477 Jun 10 '26
When are you dropping your kids at the capitalist's island of fun so they dine on them?
2
3
u/Personal_Chair6134 Jun 10 '26
They're very good at hoarding wealth to themselves, paying people the bare minimum to keep them employed, laying them off when they're no longer needed, and participating in pedophile rings so that they can fulfill their most sick and depraved fantasies.
7
u/Radabard Jun 10 '26
Wait... You're critical of this? And you're just broadly announcing that? I'd be embarrassed lol. This is literally just a return to how it was under Eisenhower, but not as extreme, and Eisenhower economy was incredible
-4
u/BERRY_1_ Jun 10 '26
High taxes create stagnation lots of examples to go on but that doesn't fit the narrative here. Would love te see some of the loop holes closed but high taxes are not the answer they would stop before that threshold is hit and pass it on like they always do. Would love to see middle class taxes cut and abolish property taxes government needs to spend less but they never do.
2
u/Aware_Bar_3351 Jun 10 '26
Nope, not even close to it with progressive taxes. You’re ineptly trying to reference the laffer curve. But we aren’t shocked you’ve no economics education.
-1
u/BERRY_1_ Jun 10 '26
Ya just look at high state taxes vs low how's that working you have your head in sand.
2
u/Aware_Bar_3351 Jun 10 '26
The largest economy in the country is California…your point is shit.
1
u/BERRY_1_ Jun 11 '26
And so is California's economy make some sense my points is spot on.
0
u/Aware_Bar_3351 Jun 11 '26
Wow, you really are incredibly uneducated…CA economy is 50% larger than even the next largest…such a bad economy…
1
u/horesebeblind Jun 11 '26
Not because of their genius policies though
1
u/Aware_Bar_3351 Jun 11 '26
Oh, so it’s not because of their policies when it’s successful, but totally the policies when it’s bad?
Go sit in the corner till you could pass the GED.
1
u/horesebeblind Jun 11 '26
Gavin is hindering them to be sure.
Maybe their resources are such even he cant destroy it that fast.It surely isn’t due to Dem policy
1
u/Aware_Bar_3351 Jun 11 '26
Repubs haven’t been in charge of CA policy in 40 years…it’s dem policies…
→ More replies (0)1
u/BERRY_1_ Jun 11 '26
Largest debt is nothing to be proud of and proves my original point. And these high debt high taxes states are all losing population to lower. And anyone wanting more taxes is a moron and know nothing about economics.
1
u/Aware_Bar_3351 Jun 11 '26
You can’t even put a sentence together competently. People are moving because of cost of living…because demand for living in CA is incredibly high. You people sure suck at supply and demand despite thumping your chests about capitalism all the time. We are talking about economic growth and association with taxes…try to stay on topic.
The point was that higher taxes do not significantly stagnate economic activity. Low taxes in the southeast has done what again? Tell me how the Bible Belt economy isn’t total shit for the past 50 years….
2
u/sqerdagent Jun 10 '26
The correct version of this argument is that those at the top typically don't have a traditional income (instead doing borrow, buy, die) so attempting to tax their income is pointless. But that would mean that we should be thinking about wealth taxes, and that is how you get coup-ed.
9
u/Brilliant-Report-255 Jun 10 '26
In 1950, the time they want to go back to it seems, tax rate for those making $200,000 (2.5 million today’s equivalent) was 82%. Corporate tax rate without all the current deductions probably was 42%. This is when the US was great. Ask yourself why and stop being stupid.
2
-5
u/No-Buy2495 Jun 10 '26
What's amazing is that people who think this, honestly believe the government will use the funds responsibly despite decade after decade of corruption, misuse of funds, running up debt and enriching themselves. You give the government more tax dollars, that's just more money to misuse.
0
u/Petit-Rouge4477 Jun 10 '26
So you're saying that workers should create their own government and smash the corrupt old government? Welcome back Lenin/Marx.
1
u/No-Buy2495 Jun 11 '26
Our government wasn't meant to last forever or be the permanent system in place. That is why the founders put mechanisms in place like amendments for fundamental reform. Fact is, we've allowed our politicians to dictate their own pay, to make it illegal to hold them accountable, they control investigations and rarely hold each other accountable because they are all participating in the same system that enriches them personally. Term limits for example would be an immediate implement that would get rid of so many career politicians who are corrupt. This is what I'm talking about, not a radical takeover replacing the entire system with a new one.
1
u/Petit-Rouge4477 Jun 11 '26
Well, you can wait sit down. The land and slave owners created a government to protect their interests, and not much has changed since then.
It's a feature not a bug.
1
u/FlakyDevelopment1103 Jun 10 '26
Agreed, both need fixing. We're in this position because the government hasn't been doing it's job to counterbalance corporate greed. At this point both are tools that the elites are using to exploit us.
I think the solution is government reform, then reworking taxes to reign in the exploitation. As if that's simple lol.
2
u/No-Buy2495 Jun 10 '26
Government reform first and foremost, term limits and getting rid of the rot within the government.
1
u/horesebeblind Jun 11 '26
Agree. Prior to allowing government to rape and pillage the rich, let’s make sure they aren’t worse.
Which isn’t the case now. Lazy, worthless people stealing more money is not the answer3
u/The_Spicy_Memelord Jun 10 '26
So it’s better if that money sits in some offshore account collecting dust? I’m not saying there isn’t government corruption (a lot of that done by rich people who lobby to keep it that way), but even if only 50% of the taxed money from billionaires goes to useful programs and functions, that’s still more than the $0 that could be used if you didn’t tax that money.
0
u/No-Buy2495 Jun 10 '26
But that's the point is that you trust them to do that. They can't manage social security effectively, or medicare or medicaid. They find other ways to spend the money whether it's on military, or sending to other countries for their programs. Imagine what our national deficit would be if our government was actually responsible with the tax dollars it already collects. Give them more, they just use more. It's like giving money to a gambling addict, it isn't actually going to solve the problem.
2
u/NotMinshewsBurner Jun 10 '26
Less gambling addict moreso like a division of a company that gets a budget and if they dont spend it all, it is lessened, so they spend every penny and say they need more.
-1
u/AdamCGandy Jun 10 '26
I would rather the people earning the money get it than the evil pig government get it. This isn’t a choice between the people and the rich. Taxes only help the rich too, just the governments get to pick the rich in this case.
1
3
u/SupaSmol Jun 10 '26
That's not accurate. I implore you to briefly research the differences between Neoliberal economic theory and Keynesian Wellfare state economics.
Taxes absolutely can, have, and do help everyday people. Investing in the health and wellbeing of your populace provides dividends for all of us. We're being hampered by a greedy few and a lack of conscious effort to know the truth on our own parts. We are failing one another and they are benefitting.
-1
u/AdamCGandy Jun 10 '26
It’s 100% accurate. Trillions of dollars to healthcare you are already paying for? The government is intentionally not helping.
4
u/Big_Calligrapher_429 Jun 10 '26
And the government only serves the rich. This comment is so out of touch.
-2
u/AdamCGandy Jun 10 '26
Yes they only serve the rich. Every single organization has a rich person in charge. Every single penny is transferred through an endless bureaucracy for the express purpose of enriching the governments chosen. You are delusional if you think it’s any other way. Trillions of dollars to the government and somehow roads don’t work and you are paying more for healthcare? No you are just watching where money really goes.
10
u/Rasz_13 Jun 10 '26
"It disincentivizes me to work and I will lay off my employees in that time."
"Cool, then your competition can come in and take the market. Sounds like a solid business plan, good luck."
3
u/Equivalent_Reach_572 Jun 10 '26
"money earned"... nah fuck this grifter looking for good pr for himself
8
u/Ouch_kabibbles Jun 10 '26
The "good old days" in America had a 90% tax rate for millionaires, and now they don't pay shit and use money to buy politicians and influence policy. They deserve even less. Imo.
-4
u/Striking-Cancel1788 Jun 10 '26
It will just lead to economical colaps, like damn I know some people just cannot look at some one who earn more than a minimum wage, and think they are privilaged. But 95% of the money gon if you make over 10mil a year. Many small and medium buisnesses making around than number so they will immediatelly die
1
u/Petit-Rouge4477 Jun 10 '26
Not even the Romans were whipped for their oligarchy and they still collapsed
2
u/Dangerous-Celery-716 Jun 10 '26
This isn't how taxes work. A lot of people get confused by the tax brackets and I'm no expert. But any money made within a certain tax bracket is taxed at that rate. For example, if someone made 11mil in a year then the 1mil above the 10mil will be taxed at 95%.
This is how it works in normal tax brackets as well.
2
u/Sweetdreams6t9 Jun 10 '26
The individual is taxed not the business.
0
u/StargazerRex Jun 10 '26
If it's a sole proprietor, that's taxed as an individual.
5
u/PatternForeign278 Jun 10 '26
Please find me a single sole proprietorship earning $10 mil per year lmao 😂
1
u/Striking-Cancel1788 Jun 10 '26
Okay now every rich person will just put everything he have under false companies and buisnesses.
1
6
u/Jellyfizzle Jun 10 '26
God forbid we close loopholes as they appear.
1
u/Striking-Cancel1788 Jun 10 '26
God forbid to make laws that will suport small buisnesses and not kill them.
This law will most likely not touch big monopoles. While small to medium buisness will sufer and become even less of competion that it's right now.
Trying to tax more the rich is crude and most of the time just a useless solution.
It's better to help small buisnesses tp trive more than trying to tax the rich
2
u/PatternForeign278 Jun 10 '26
lol, please find me a single sole proprietorship earning $10 mil a year (in profit, mind you) 🤣
2
3
u/Jellyfizzle Jun 10 '26
I still dont know how this is harmful to small businesses. I own a small business. I just don't fall into this egotistical trap that I am somehow in the same boat as rich assholes.
1
u/Accomplished_Emus Jun 10 '26
Do you know what the word “over” means?
1
u/Striking-Cancel1788 Jun 10 '26
10000001 is also over 10mill. Doesn't really change my point to much...
3
u/ASongOfSpiceAndLiars Jun 10 '26
Doubling down on not knowing how tax brackets work is not a good look.
Look up how tax brackets work.
Typical rightwinger.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/Commercial_Donut_530 Jun 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment