this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
1556 points (98.6% liked)
People Twitter
5283 readers
557 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you see these numbers and still think tax is the solution, you're not paying enough attention.
A system is what it does. Our system created this disparity, and will continue to allow it to grow as long as it exists. Any solutions within the acceptable limits said system has set out will never stop it, only placate the masses enough to stop us from tearing it down.
You don't have to go that far back to find a time when the rich were heavily taxed and income disparity was much smaller. Keep going back and you can find other times when the disparity was greater and the rich were taxed less.
The best outcome may require the system to be torn down, but it's clearly also possible to tax the rich significantly more even with the system already in place.
Exactly. Post WWII the tax on the richest was 90%, it stayed there until the mid 60s when it was lowered to 70% and then in the early 80s Reagan and that congress lowered it to 50%, then briefly to even below 30%.
It probably wouldn't have happened without the combined effect of the Great Depression rolling directly into WWII. With those two events, it was possible to raise taxes that high, and the rich actually (to a large extent) paid them.
Even though the "Again" part of MAGA is very ill-defined, I think a lot of MAGA supporters would point to the post WWII era as a time that America was great. A greater shared prosperity was probably a significant reason why things felt so great then. Unions were strong, rich people were heavily taxed, and everyone was better off.
For varying definitions of "everyone"...
I don't think there was anybody in the 1950s who was much worse off than they were in the 1930s. Yes, it took a while for women, non-whites, non-straights, etc. to get their full rights. But, even with fewer rights than a married white christian man, things were improving for them too. But, obviously, there's a reason that the MAGA theme resonates much more with old straight white men than it does with anybody else.
Lmfao, looking back longingly at feudalism (with a stop over in the cold war era? Because that was such a prosperous time for so many in society /s) I'm guessing isn't making the point you think it is. You're literally arguing in favour of maintaining a disparity. The size of isn't the point, it's existence in the first place is.
Maybe have a think with yourself about why you're so attached to the idea of there being a rich and ruling class at all, whose graces and willingness to pay back a tiny percentage of the money they extracted by exploitation society should depend on..
What the hell are you talking about? We're talking about increasing taxes for the ultra-rich. Saying ultra-wealth people should be paying >90% tax has nothing to do with feudalism, and it certainly isn't supporting the concept of a rich and ruling class.
All I'm saying is that taxing the rich is good and necessary for as long as they exist. Sure, our current system is a disparity engine, but it's not impossible for us to dilute the effects of it with progressive tax policies, as has been done in years past.
Personally I don't see it as a choice of either tax the rich or abolish capitalism. I see the two goals as mutually connected to liberation and progress: tax the rich until we can replace the system with a better one.
Building coalitions around progressive policies within the current system can help shift more people into alignment with post-capitalist thinking. Fomenting divisions between socialists and progressives does the opposite; solidarity forever.
It certainly is. There shouldn't be any people who have that much more than everyone else that a tax bracket that high should even exist. To get to that point you have had to be exploiting others, and allowing them to continue to exploit society and have vastly more power than anyone else, as long as they pay back some (even 90%, that still leaves the likes of Musk and Bezos billionaires) is still maintaining the status quo, no matter how socialist it makes you feel (90% tax isn't socialism, workers owning the means of production is, which leaves no room for such disparity). So feel free to ask yourself that same question I asked above.
E: as for feudalism, that's all capitalism is - feudalism with extra steps. You having been indoctrinated to believe there needs to be a ruling class doesn't mean that's true.
I agree that there shouldn't be any people with that wealth, and so does the person you were responding to. But taking away 90% of people's money above a reasonable threshold is definitely not going to help those people become ultra rich. It would make becoming ultra rich more difficult, and instead spread the wealth across the wider population - decreasing wealth disparity.
And although there is almost certainly a better way possible, this method is relatively easy to implement and is an obvious improvement over our current situation. So we can just go ahead and do it while we continue to find consensus on a better system in the long run.
You seem to be arguing that taxing the rich is somehow bad because it isn't perfect. Your argument makes no sense. You are saying that taking their money helps them maintain a position of wealth. That makes no sense. Of course taking their money will make them less rich. Surely that's easy to understand.
Please explain what you're proposing. Are you saying to get rid of democracy or what?
How about we tax the rich so there are no billionaires, take the corporations out of housing and rentals and fix our gerrymandering? These would go a long way to fix the problems.
Can you please explain your line of thinking here? This person purpose more drastic measures than just taxing, and you jump on them being against democracy. How is democracy = some people being ultra rich?
Like, for me, democracy means people decide how the society is ruled, so Im excited to hear how changing the system to get rid of disparity is the same as abolishing democracy
What do you think that poster is proposing?
Look around, there's States with a somewhat working mix of capital and social. Take that as a minimum, while some of them already talk about universal basic income.
Some historical presidents and judges literally sold you out. That's not democracy, you're a plutocracy.
Do you think that poster is specifically proposing these things? He's talking about getting rid of the system.
Edit: Go deeper into the thread.
Honestly, i don't see how you can fix it without starting anew.
It's not really a great idea to troll the mod.
I only see disagreement here, no trolling. What I do see oss a mod using their mod status to silence people they disagree with This is a great moment to take a minute to reconsider how you are using your mod status to win discussions instead of making a good environment
Why does that matter? I was asking you to explain your line of thinking, and you're not even trying to answer my question Abolishing the rich is not an attack on democracy, som id like to hear your way of thinking here
Not sure if you're pretending to be OP or you're actually OP. Either way, this one is toast in this community.
Edit: It was a temp ban anyway, don't worry too much about it.
It seems to me that they're hinting at abolishing capitalism.
One way to do that would be to
Mandate worker coop structure on all businesses
Institute a 100% land value tax
Taxing the rich doesn't really solve the root of the problem. Abolishing capitalism pre-distributes wealth so that people don't become billionaires in the first place. 100% land value tax encourages efficient use of land.
@whitepeopletwitter
Has that ever worked?
https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100
@whitepeopletwitter
This part. Having employee owned corporations doesn't abolish capitalism completely. Although, I agree that it would be awesome.
There has never been a worker-cooperative-dominated market economy, but actually existing worker coops and employee-owned corporations don't seem to create billionaires, and have more equitable distribution of wages.
Why does mandating all firms to be worker coops not abolish capitalism in your view?
@whitepeopletwitter
I would suggest looking into what capitalism is before we have that conversation.
I know what capitalism is. My analysis of capitalism comes from a mutualist perspective and is inspired by the classical laborists rather than Marx
@whitepeopletwitter
Okay, in what country has the mutualist perspective inspired by the classical laborists type of capitalism worked?
Classical laborists and mutualists were anti-capitalists. Some of whom predated Marx.
As I said, a mutualist economy or economic democracy has never existed. The modern arguments for economic democracy were first published in a book released in the 1990s. However, we have plenty of examples of worker coops and employee-owned corporations working well under capitalism. An economic democracy or mutualism differs from capitalism in that all firms are mandated to be worker coops
@whitepeopletwitter
It's been interesting speaking with you. Especially cool that you're coming from mastodon.