all 77 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 66 points 4 months ago (2 children)

They’re not doing anything for me. Let them leave.

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

    Even if it were true who cares? If they aren't actually paying taxes then what is the point in having them?

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

    I think they view us as a bank. We need to make them money or they will transfer to another bank. Simple.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    That is very very apt

    Plus sometimes banks have perks that keep the customer staying after all, and I believe I’ve heard of various scandinavian billionaires, for example, threatening to leave but then staying because their country offered them benefits beyond even their ungodly wealth

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] [S] 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    The amendment defines Retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings to include "pensions; retirement accounts, including but not limited to 401 (k) accounts, 403(b) accounts, and all other individual retirement accounts; mutual funds; and all personal property, whether tangible or intangible, including but not limited to financial assets, investment accounts, business interests, digital assets, intellectual property, personal belongings, and other assets used to produce or collect income or savings for retirement or financial planning."

    Jesus, that's an Orwellian bill name.

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

    WA’s rich are leaving? Another tax on wealth smashes records by tripling the amount coming in from last year

    “This morning we got the updated numbers for fiscal year 2026 for capital gains … it came in at $1.5 billion,” economist Dave Reich told state lawmakers earlier this month. “So a very significant increase, quite a bit above our forecast from what we had before.”

    This is understating things by a fair bit. Last year this tax raised $584 million. So the revenue, which is a preliminary figure pending delayed returns, appears to have nearly tripled in one year. It quadrupled from the year before that.

    This is not what the critics of tax-the-rich schemes said should happen. They predicted tax proceeds would deteriorate as rich people moved away or structured their finances to avoid paying it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    What is it people say? "It doesn't hurt to ask." In this case, billionaires can save a pretty penny by paying a few "influencers" and "intellectuals" to doomsday the tax away. In reality, the pittance they pay in wealth tax is not reason enough for any of them to move.

    Even if they have to pay a 5% one-time wealth tax (CA proposal), that's nothing compared to what ordinary people have to pay in taxes, and ordinary people actually need that money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago

    The Epstein class deserve to be binned. They're worse than garbage. They're parasites.

  • source
  • [+] 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Love the idea. Don't even need to go after any personal wealth they have, just all the stocks. Chief exploitation manager leaving? Great. Get out. Take your Ferrari and your Villa. Keep it. But you get to stop exploiting people on the same day.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Can we just skip to the eating billionaires part? There are clearly some lessons that need to be made so they may be learned.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    You know how billionaires always compete in having the most expensive house, yacht, space company or whatever.

    Make them complete over the most expensive country to live in for billionaires. Show of your wealth by living here!

  • source
  • Gary Stevenson would like a word in.

    He is quite clear that yes they can leave, and we can tax them at the point where money is created instead of abroad where we have no influence.

    They can move, but their properties remain over here

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    This is the funny thing: Realistically they won't leave, they would simply leverage their wealth to support opposing parties, prop up their own political marionettes, invest their money in campaigns to ruin the credibility of their adversaries or simply letting them disappear as a measure of last resort.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Somehow this is really mesmerizing.

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

    Must be an expensive trash bag. I’d be picking egg shells off the lawn after trying that.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    Great, this way money will circulate in the economy again instead of getting hoarded by a small minority

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    I say someone will replace them if their business is needed. If it's not needed then them leaving isn't a threat.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    Fucking kill them already, they're killing my country! I hope they suffer a lot and that their corpses be thrown on some vomit/poop pit.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    There’s far fewer of them than us.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Seriously. To the point that, any day now, there could be a movement that says, “we are not calling them billionaires any more, we’re calling them [insert appropriate opprobrium here]” and it would take

    (since language is decided upon and endlessly evolved by the masses, whether we like it or not)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [+] -2 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    If we're not making money on them, why do we care if they stay? I say pay your part or good riddance!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    That garbage bag will eventually rupture spewing its insides everywhere if you do this regularly so do you want that to happen to billionaires too??

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    I'm even down for them to take their fake money with them, just gtfo

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    God I hope so. Maybe they'll all get in a rocket and try to leave Earth. A girl can dream

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Will they promise to leave?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    They make/made their money off of us. Don't let them just leave with it.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Where to another place where they will pay taxes to play..

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    There's a simple truth that more people need to hear.

    With a few exceptions, police and the military do not serve billionaires, they serve the State.

    The billionaires know this, which is why they work so hard to control or dismantle the State. But they are all cowards and use proxies that can be replaced.

    If the people manage to overcome the active resistance to take control of the state, there's very little the billionaires can do when the federal marshalls show up at their door.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    See, the problem with the argument presented there, is that it completely ignores a bunch of what actually happened during that times frame.

    The American Revolution was a complex time filled with compromise between those who actually believed in democracy, and those who were horrified by it.

    And then the French Revolution happened, and the rich jackasses got scared. Well, the smart ones were scared.

    Which is all meaningless because there have been 27 amendments since then, and those change the rules, letting more people have more of a voice.

    Basically, the summation of the argument is thus, if voting didn't matter, then the rich assholes wouldn't be working so hard to keep you from doing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    Then why aren’t federal Marshall’s showing at the door of every person in the Epstein files?

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

    The billionaires know this, which is why they work so hard to control or dismantle the State. But they are all cowards and use proxies that can be replaced.

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

    Then what is the distinction you are trying to draw between oligarchs and “the State”?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    The State is the actual government itself, complete with federal employees and elected officials.

    The oligarchs try to control who gets elected, and thus control the State through them. This is because they're cowards who don't want to put themselves at risk.

    The rules that they have to play by, or else, says that the elected officials are in charge, not the billionaire backers.

    This has been exploited for the benefit of the people in the past, but due to structural issues that can be fixed, it's never quite gone far enough.

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

    There a clean version of the gif for memeing purposes?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    My knee would hurt for a month after a stunt like this.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    And abandon our, supposed, “world-class” hegemony? Nah, they’ll just putts around like they always do anyways.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Gonna need much bigger cans, a whole lot of bags, and a dull, rusty bone saw.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago
    [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Almost all of the biggest billionaires' wealth is stock-based. You want to tax them? Raise the corporate tax rates and close loop-holes and exemptions.

    It doesn't matter where they move. Any company that earns money in the country has to pay taxes on that revenue. Its the win-win we don't talk about.

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

    Companies pay taxes on profits though, not revenue. It's easy to avoid taxes by spending down your profits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    I may have used the wrong term. Still, that's where closing loop-holes comes in. If you want the government to be an engine that funnels wealth back down to the lower classes then you have to attack the upper economy that is the stock exchange. The easiest way to do that is corporate tax.

    Individual taxes wont work because, again, most of their wealth is tied to investments by design. Same is true for retirement funds. God help us if they ever manage to get entitlements tied directly to index funds.

    But anyway, corporate tax would decrease stock value, decrease billionaires net worth and put more debt pressure on billionaires I would assume, since their physical assets are usually purchased on credit granted based on their stock value. It would a a double whammy right? Their networth goes down and so does their credit score while theyre paying back the banks. Win-win

    No matter how you slice it we have to cut through the bullshit and the first firewall protecting all that money is the low corporate tax rate and tax dodging.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    If the US actually taxed someone like Bezos a fair amount to narrow the wealth gap, Bezos would just go to another country that will gladly accept his enormous amounts of money and help him move his assets & businesses over. The US would then lose a very large chunk of money, and as we all know, the US wants to be "The BEST country in the world", so that's not something they'd willingly let happen.

    Maybe it's not that simple, but I think that's the general reason we haven't seen the ultra-rich tax increases we all want. The politicians like money, the rich like political power, and the US wants to be the biggest and bestest. Just like a peanut butter jelly sandwich, you can't seperate the peanut butter & the jelly once they're put together.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    The reason we haven't seen those tax increases in the ultra-rich is that they have a direct line to the legislators that the common folk don't have. They will spend a billion dollars if that will save them one dollar in expenses. It's cheaper for them to buy a senator than to pay a fair amount of taxes.

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

    That's exactly what I said but maybe I was misunderstood. Or maybe the peanut butter jelly analogy wasn't tasteful.

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

    What it sounds like you were saying was that the billionaires will leave with their assets and their businesses if they get taxed. That's not why they don't get taxed, it's because the people in charge get paid to make sure they don't have to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I mean that is definitely a part of the problem. There are a lot of factors at play. I think it's naive to think that politicians aren't worried about the possibility of the rich leaving if they introduced higher taxes on top of other risks,, because of the fact that they get a shit ton of money from them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    This argument would make sense if tax rates didn't use to be much higher. They didn't flee back then.

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

    The rich has paid the politicians to make it this way, and I'm saying the reason it hasn't gone the other way is because the rich & the politicians are butt buddies. I feel like that's the core of my argument so I'm not sure how it doesn't make sense.

    Plus none of this is certain anyway, they might flee, they might deal with the taxes, they might just say fuck it and get away with it because if you have billions of dollars, what's stopping you from hiring a private task force/protective service of your own...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    The rich has paid the politicians to make it this way, and I’m saying the reason it hasn’t gone the other way is because the rich & the politicians are butt buddies. I feel like that’s the core of my argument so I’m not sure how it doesn’t make sense.

    Ah my bad. I completely agree with this take, this is entirely correct as far as I can tell. I thought you were saying that the owning class will flee if taxes go up, which is what my response is in reference to (it's also what this whole post is about).

    Plus none of this is certain anyway, they might flee, they might deal with the taxes, they might just say fuck it and get away with it because if you have billions of dollars, what’s stopping you from hiring a private task force/protective service of your own…?

    Nothing is ever certain, I don't have a crystal ball, pretty much anything at all can happen. But we can look at the past and see what the owning class ends up doing when confronted with higher taxes. When we look at the past, when we had higher tax rates, they didn't flee, so I don't consider that a very likely possibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    As long as they remain US citizens the tax laws apply. If they stop being US citizens make them register as foreign agents and publish all lobbying attempts. In addition we should make any organization that is not >50% owned by US citizens a foreign controlled entity and remove their ability to lobby in private. There are other changes that would need to happen like making it illegal not to be able to trace ownership of an organization to an individual but its better than nothing.

    At this point almost anything is better than what were doing now. Its getting really old feeling like we're a hostage to these people. If they are to tied to the economy as a whole that doing something as simple as making them pay a fair amount of tax they need to have assets stripped from them until they aren't a theat any longer.

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

    If they stop being US citizens make them register as foreign agents and publish all lobbying attempts. In addition we should make any organization that is not >50% owned by US citizens a foreign controlled entity and remove their ability to lobby in private. There are other changes that would need to happen like making it illegal not to be able to trace ownership of an organization to an individual but its better than nothing.

    The problem I see with this argument is the "we need to do this, and then this, and then this". If it were that simple to make changes, the rich would be taxed fairly already. We're having trouble making one change, how would we accomplish a series of changes? I'm not defending the rich. I'm just saying how it is and arguing there's more to it than just "kick the rich out" and/or "tax the rich".

    I probably just took this meme too seriously. And like you said, I'm feeling a hostage to these people as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I get what youre saying and I was just kind of thinking through loopholes to each idea. Not that it would ever happen but it would need to happen all at once with a very short time before it came into effect.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Lose what money? They're bribing politicians to make their tax bill zero, and that's on top of the money the government pays them to "do business." Billionaires are a money pit. They are a drain on the communities they inhabit. And dont even get me started on the job creator bullshit.

    The reason they dont move to another country is because the united states itself is a tax haven. Other countries either demand more taxes than the US or are much more insecure because of all the economic inequality caused by not taxing rich people.

    Let them go.

  • source
  • parent