no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
22 comments in c/fediverse_vs_disinfo@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
[–] 12 points 3 weeks ago

If they "lose" anyway, it just makes it that much sweeter.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    that's all of them together. 1 million a day. coming from a combined net worth of over 700 billion (src)

    comes to 0.05% of their combined net worth, if they spent at that rate over a full year.

    that's not even a rounding error on their books.

    comparatively, it's sofa cushion change for the rest of us.

    (if i was debt free), it wouldn't even be fifty cents... for the year--less than one penny per week.

    they must not really care that much either way, so lets just tax tf out of them all the time instead of just one special thing.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    That’s basically pocket change.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    They spend so much money fighting and lobbying against additional taxes, at some point it's gotta be cheaper to just pay them, no?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -21 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)

    If passed, it would require a one-time 5% tax

    So basically a robbery.

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

    It's wild how many people think that those rich people that benefited from the billions paid in taxes by everyone else, shouldn't pay taxes themselves.

    How do boots taste? I wouldn't know myself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    But they won capitalism. Shouldn't they be allowed to have their prizes and not be taxed.

    *prizes are considered taxable income

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -9 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    They shouldn't have benefited from the millions paid by others. But trying to solve misallocation of funds by misallocating more funds is crazy. Plus, the way it is done lately sets dangerous precedent.

    This is just Trump's $5000 in a trench coat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    Yea the way it's done sucks but stop fighting against taxing the rich they can handle, they are not all geniuses or benevolent rulers like a lot of people seem to believe.

    Most of them are shitty, selfish assholes who only get emboldened by money.

    For the record, money=power and letting families just run the fucking world because they cry about having to pay taxes is fucking insanity.

    Take all their fucking money I don't give a shit anymore.

    They will literally let us all die in the fucking streets like United healthcare. They've told us repeatedly who they are.

    Why the fuck won't you believe them?

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

    Take all their fucking money I don't give a shit anymore.

    And now we need to go back into realized vs unrealized gains debate. Take their cash, and THEY go insolvent. Take and liquidate their assets (which a lot of people are calling for more and more), WE go insolvent.

    Hunger, frustration and violence follows. And just like that, the ideal breeding ground for authoritarian neofeudalists is created. After material shortages, ideological and/or racial purges follow.

    I'm not saying what I'm saying to benefit some mythical creatures. I'm saying what I'm saying in hope our world stays boring as long as possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

    The authoritarians are already here, desperately clinging to power.

    They're being bolstered, funded, and outright instructed by the people we refuse to tax.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    You know, if you're caught selling drugs, they take your car, your house, your business. It's assumed it was all purchased with ill-gotten gains. Seems like something like that could apply here. They should consider themselves lucky it's only 5%, instead of what they deserve.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    19 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 20 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    Too bad that political donations aren’t taxable

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    I will never understand how people who are dumb enough to pay more money stopping a tax than they'd have to pay if the tax passed were able to make so much money in the first place.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Because if you do the one-time tax, people might start asking for a permanent rise in billionaire taxes. When it succeeds, people might start asking about broader redistribution policies.

    They cannot allow one single victory, because any momentum to the left threatens their absolute power, and wherever possible will crush it under their heel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago

    Dropping a million dollars a day to convince me you aren't too rich is a weird argument.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Just keep pushing this bill, and push bills like it in more states. If we can’t tax them directly, them pissing money away fighting these bills might be an indiriect tax. Unfortunatley the money goes to politicians.

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

    Other states are already preemptively trying to resist it. Reports from early voters show NC has state constitutional amendment questions about preventing state taxes from being raised above a certain percentage and, separately, preventing one-time taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago

    If they actually had jobs and weren't societal leaches, they could just pay taxes and wouldn't have time for all of these stupid plots

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Imagine how many lives that would've saved.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    So it'll take one thousand days for one billionaire to lose one billion dollars.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    I need to start a pac that fights legislation that billionaires dont like and then use the money to fund legislation to tax billionaires.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Would it not be cheaper to pay the tax?

  • source
  • [+] -11 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    The tax should be done at the federal level, else they just move to Wyoming.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    This is a GOP talking point. They don't move - they like where they live, that's why they live there. This was proven with NYC, almost none of them left even though they were saying that they would. Turns out millionaires and billionaires like infrastructure, things to do, and actual goods and services. Something that Wyoming generally lacks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

    It's a GOP talking point when in bad faith and when also resisting billionaire taxes, but in good faith it's the way we used to do it when we used to tax billionaires appropriately. I'd support it at the state level too but I'm not in California I'm in NY and we have a lot of billionaires here too and arguably better infrastructure.

    Wyoming has the most billionaires per capita is the only reason I mentioned it specifically. Wyoming residents won't benefit from a California Billionaire tax, and they have one of the worst gaps between rich and poor, and the worst infrastructure for those residents. Billionaires don't actually have to move like us poors, they just buy second houses and claim residency.

    edit: since some GOP use it as a talking point, run with it and trap them into reenacting the high billionaire tax we once had.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child)

    I don't disagree that we need something federally, but that isn't going to happen any time soon, by design. The best we can do is tax them in the states where they actually spend most of their time.

    Wyoming has the most billionaires per Capita, sure. But they aren't spending most of their time there, for most of them, it's just spending portions of winter in Jackson Hole. Wyoming residents need to tax them too, but they won't, because they're some of the most anti-tax populations in the US. They won't suddenly realize that they're never going to be billionaires and will continue to vote against their own interests.

    The tax code shouldn't be based on residency claims, if you have a house somewhere, you should have to pay the taxes of that area. It's only fair.

    Don't let the idea of them being more mobile prevent them from being taxed at all. That's all this talking point serves. "They'll just move, guess we should do nothing" is a bad line of thinking. Honestly, they already aren't paying their fair share, so who gives a shit if they just leave. I'm all for it. But they won't leave.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 10 comments in c/california@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    They’re scared it might actually pass. If they didn’t think it was going to damage them, they would t be fighting it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago

    It is quite literally pocket change to them. And that’s the whole point.

    They should be ecstatic that it’s a one time tax.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    With fascists, cruelty is the point. They care less about the money than they care about keeping it from YOU.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • So it sounds like this measure is already good for the economy?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    So it will be your honorable duty to make all this money go awaste.

  • source
  • 9 comments in c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago

    this is the reason people fucking hate greedy filthy rich people

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    It isn't even a continuing tax, which would be the just thing. 5%, only once. Once! To help this shithole country get back on track (yes I know it's California only).

    But that's already too much nuance for the masses.

    And those rich fuckers, never in their lives touched by anything even remotely resembling morals or ethics, calculate how much money they can throw at the "problem" before it becomes easier to just pay up. Hint: a lot. 5% of even only one measly billion?

    I truly hope they spend the full amount they calculated, and then the law still goes through. Fat chance, but there is hope.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    Conservatives are poised to do very well in California. The billionaire tax is going down, public services defunded, and a draconian voter ID law is about to pass in a landslide. And Asshole Jim Desmond will be Trump's bitch in the House.

  • source
  • [+] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    A lot more then they would actually pay under such a law

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    Now you have the duty to make them spent it in vain.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago
    6 comments in c/latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] [S] 31 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child)

    And Greasy Gavin, who really really wants to be president, is helping these bastards. Remember that when the primary comes along, because if he becomes president he's going to do exponentially worse to the poor and middle class.

    Important to note also that none of these fuckers are going to go poor because of this tax, and every damn one benefits inordinately from the public spend and should be paying their fair fucking share.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    Don't forget to also vote NO on 41 and 42 in addition to YES on 40 and tell others to as well.

    That's the billionaires' sneaky way to try and pre-empt 40 by making the other two sound like untargeted bans on increasing tax on personal property.

    It takes less than 3 months for the billionaires collectively to make the $100B back the tax would charge, without them doing any more or less work.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago

    dipshits could've just spent that money on taxes...

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago

    Don't worry though, these people will totally create the utopian society people claim AI will bring... Yeah... They'll definitely start sharing then, it's just right now that they're all Smeagol with their money...

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    Jokes on them, they're willingly paying the tax already, it's just being misattributed towards suppression instead of public good.

  • source
  • 2 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post
    2 comments in c/politics@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post