top 57 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 169 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The superrich own the media.

And the politicians.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Because America was founded with a bunch of horse sniffing half-literates for a general populous and the only thing that's really changed is the number of horses to sniff.

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

    i know this is a link to that other site, but this old post has a link to the full essay as published in 1980.

    https://old.reddit.com/r/asimov/comments/6616rh/a_cult_of_ignorance_by_isaac_asimov_1980_via_pdf/

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

    I've used this quote a lot over the years. One of the far right posters liked to "retort" by saying it's better than being a pseudointellectual (directed at me), LOL!

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

    Nice to get immediate confirmation of the validity of the quote.

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

    💯

    Yup. To the conservative mindset, the notion of having aspiration to bettering oneself, etc. == "pseudointellectual". I cannot tell you how many conversations I've had from people that did not go to college and did not plan to go to college about how all those "college people" are. Also, calling someone an "intellectual" is considered an insult among conservatives. Calling them a pseudointellectual is spicing it up, LOL.

    I still remember a conversation with an in-law where his literal mic-drop line (he thought) was to huff, "yeah, but YOU went to college!" He literally believes that going to college somehow taints a person. He has said as much, explicitly. He doesn't want his kids going to college, either, because he thinks it will ruin them/turn them against him or whatever, with the "woke mind virus". FFS.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Long article to say "the rich are in charge"

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    That's not the full answer though, since a similar phenomenon appears in much less oligarchic systems.

    While the rich also have a disproportionate influence in those systems, it wouldn't be enough without the assistance of the racism and spite of the average voter.

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

    Why do we think they're less oligarchic? It's a classic principal-agent problem. Representatives are generally for sale.

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

    Less corrupt systems than the one in the US can and do exist.

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

    I might be assuming too much of what you meant by oligarchic.

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

    An oligarchic system is one where political power lies predominantly in the hands of a small privileged elite. But it's not a binary concept, the current US system is less oligarchic than it was in the 19th Century, or the Venetian Republic for example. What did you mean?

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

    Because they don't own the means of production, and the opposition has a monopoly on violence.

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Blue-state Democrats are in a bind. They support a more equitable tax system, but fear, with some justification, that they and their party will be blamed if higher state taxes cause their wealthiest residents and their state economies to “head south,” literally and figuratively.

    They say "with some justification," but what is that justification? Is there evidence that higher taxes causes wealthy residents to leave AND that that has negative consequences for the broader economy?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    Yeah, this feels like a made up reason (it is). What working-class voters do they think are going to be like "boy, you know who I miss? The billionaire who used to live up the bloc!"

    If you leave a state/city because they raised taxes, it stands to reason that the reason you were there in the first place was because they had lower taxes. It doesn't matter how much private wealth you have, you leaving or staying has very little impact on the people who live in a low-tax area. This is very basic logic

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

    "boy, you know who I miss? The billionaire who used to live up the bloc!"

    The implication is not that they'll be missed, it is that they will just not pay taxes in another region, which does nothing but rob your current region of whatever tax dollars they're currently paying.

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

    You're describing a Laffer Curve. Nowhere in the USA is anywhere close to those diminishing returns.

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

    So what if the rich leave? They're not paying taxes, who needs them? The need for vendors and contractors doesn't go away when the wealthy leave. The economy goes on. Someone will take their place and pay taxes and not bitch about it so much.

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

    Over 70% of voters want universal healthcare. About the same amount want a higher minimum wage.

    About 90% of Democratic voters want universal healthcare, more than half of all independents want the same thing, and even a huge amount of Republicans want universal healthcare (around 40%).

    Even so, D&Rs can't be bothered.

    (yes yes, I know, BoTh SiDeS so I must be a secret Nazi bot, etc. you got me)

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago

    This basically sums it up. https://youtu.be/sYA-z0Y8WRQ?is=kw_NGc3gLO-d4Onl

    What the bottom 99% want is irrelevant. We don't run this country or make its decisions. We are just cogs in a machine that exists to serve the rich and convince the poor that they're in some magical land of freedom. None of us are free.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    the question answers itself.

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

    Because the rich bribe our politicians. Legally.

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

    We REALLY need to normalize demystifying the rebrand of bribery as 'lobbying'. There's a reason that term has power, cause people alreayd learned the dangers of it, and the corruption it breeds.

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

    Title should be: ruling class makes it as difficult as possible for the rest to tax them

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    That and half of the people who actually show up to vote, vote for republicans, who are against taxing their buddies, donors, etc.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Because voters have little to no say in the matter.

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

    Nobody in politics really cares for voters. They just tell convenient lies, and once you dropped your vote into the ballot box, you stop to exist for them again. You are just the annoying necessary means to lift them up to the pork barrels of political bribery.

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

    How is this a real question

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Because 90% think they're in the top 10%, and the top 10% think they're all 1 step from being the next musk.

    They're all deluded be capitalism.

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

    Some things that would help:

    • A wealth tax. Their wealth will continue to grow exponentially, but at least a portion of it could be harvested to reduce the deficit.
    • Taxing capital gains the same as ordinary income. Making money from investments requires no effort, and it blows my mind that wage income is taxed more heavily.
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Trying to get exact numbers for wealth to tax it is near impossible especially in ultra wealthy areas with their own ways of hiding it Anyone who suggests touching capital gains will be accused of attacking peoples retirement at least in the US 401ks have replaced most other forms of retirement benefits

    Im surprised there aren’t more Georgists in this day and age when we have so much bogarted land and empty luxury apartments

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

    Probably for the same reason that rejecting insider trading by politicians is popular. Or worker protections. Or single payer healthcare.

    I seem to remember Cenk from TYT showing polls that Americans tend to poll progressive on the issues. Somehow, all the things that are popular don't get passed, though, hmmmmm...

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Summary since the Access top this page has been denied:

    Most Americans support higher taxes on billionaires due to concerns about inequality and concentrated wealth, yet federal and state efforts to implement such taxes have largely stalled because of political influence, legal complexity, and fears of capital flight (wealthy moving their money outside the US).

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    werealltryingtofindtheguywhodidthis.jpg

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    This is definitely not a real question

    ...but I'll answer it anyways

    The answer is because the rich make the laws.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Because voters don't vote accordingly.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Because they're using some of their money to keep us from holding them accountable? And that they have probably run the numbers to find that it is cheaper to do this than to just... Pay the taxes.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    “Voting against our own interests”

    Usually because someone waved a flag at them.

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

    Is this actually a legitimate question they're asking?

    It's the most obvious answer on earth. The people making the laws don't work for the voters anymore. They vote for the donors.

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

    It can be more complicated than that. My governor just signed into law a state income tax on anyone making a million or more. (We have no other income tax, everyone pays a regressive sales tax.) All the poorest people in the state are mad and they are collecting signatures to repeal the millionaire tax, because they think this new income tax will "trickle down" to anyone making $100k or less. They are absolutely convinced of this, even though new laws would have to be passed for that to happen. And this is a blue state.

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

    Because the super rich decide policies

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    A trillion ants want the human picnic food but the humans have bug spray, ant traps, and a vicious hatred for ants.

    Why aren’t the ants getting to enjoy the picnic food?

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

    Why is it so hard to reach consensus on Lemmy?

    Why do you support genocide?

    Why aren’t you just like me? You genocidal asshole?

    It’s the “media” right? Not us?

    The “media”??? Right?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment