this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024

1077 points (98.3% liked)

News

23406 readers

3365 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1077

Billionaires are hoarding trillions in untaxed wealth. They want the Supreme Court to keep it that way (www.rollingstone.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

142 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A new report from Americans for Tax Fairness found that America’s richest families accumulated $8.5 trillion in untaxed capital gains in 2022

America’s wealthiest families held an astounding $8.5 trillion in untaxed profits in 2022. According to a report from the nonprofit Americans for Tax Fairness, which analyzed Federal Reserve data, “one in every six dollars (18 percent of the nation’s unrealized gains is held by these roughly 64,000 ultra-wealthy households, who make up less than 0.05 percent of the population.” The report comes as the Supreme Court gears up to decide a case that could preemptively block any efforts to tax the wealth of billionaires.

The data looks at “quiet” income generated by “centi-millionaires,” Americans holding at least $100 million in wealth, and billionaires through unrealized capital gains. Those gains accumulate, untaxed, as assets and investments like stocks, real estate, bonds, and other investments increase in value. If those assets are not sold — or “realized” — they are not taxed, yet America’s wealthiest families can leverage that on-paper value increase to secure favorable loans with low-interest rates in lieu of using taxable income to finance their lifestyle.

“Of the $139 trillion in America’s national wealth, almost three-quarters (73 percent) is held by the richest 10 percent of households, over one-third (35 percent) by the richest 1 percent, and an astounding 11 percent — $15.2 trillion — is held by the handful of fortunate households that make up the billionaire and centi-millionaire class,” the report says. “The wealthiest 1 percent of households hold 44 percent of national unrealized gains ($21.2 trillion), with billionaires and centi-millionaires alone controlling 18 percent ($8.5 trillion).”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Bush v Gore? It's my understanding that the SCOTUS decided to take the case on their own without being asked, put a stay on the recount, then said there wasn't enough time to count because of they stay they put. They also said essentially that because counties in Florida didn't have a unified system for deciding how voting is done that they went against an equal protections law im forgetting the exact name of, completely ignoring that this is how it's done all over the country so if it's the case in Florida that it was incorrect then that means every single state has the same issue.

Didn't matter to them, they got to stop the recount just when Bush has the slightest lead.

I mean then there's citizens united... Corporations have the same rights as people??

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It’s my understanding that the SCOTUS decided to take the case on their own without being asked

Not accurate, Bush petitioned the courts to block the count, and they stayed the decision by the Florida supreme court. I disagree with the ruling, they should have counted all of the votes, but it was on sound legal ground, even if ultimately disagreeable.

I mean then there’s citizens united… Corporations have the same rights as people??

It's long been interpreted that the COTUS is a restriction on the state not a granting of rights to the individuals. There was a great disagreement over including the BoR at all in the COTUS because some founder were afraid that explicitly listing out some of the rights would open the door to the assumption that non-enumerated rights weren't actually protected. They couldn't settle this in time which is why they were included as amendments and not in the original COTUS. The ruling stems from this idea, that the COTUS restricts the statement, it doesn't grant rights to the individual, so they can't restrict it when it comes to other private entities as well. Again, something I vehemently disagree with and should be amended, but it's not some ridiculous overreach, it's based on sound legal interpretations of the COTUS.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I appreciate the detailed response in spite of all the shitty responses people have been giving you!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago

in spite of all the shitty responses people have been giving you!

You and I are the only ones who has responded to him so far. Did you see other replies that are no longer there now?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I mean then there’s citizens united… Corporations have the same rights as people??

... it doesn’t grant rights to the individual, so they can’t restrict it when it comes to other private entities ...

But SCOTUS can define entities (if existing law doesn't already do so, though SCOTUS can also strike down those laws if it wants to), and what it comes down to is if SCOTUS defines a corporation as a citizen, vs a business entity, a construct.

Then laws would be judged based on the entity they're being applied to.

For example, pets are considered property in the eyes of the law, so laws are applied to them as if they were property, and not citizens.

A construct should not be a citizen, legally or otherwise. It's not a restrictions issue, it's an entity identification issue.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We might be conflating two things here, or I just have no idea what you are talking about.

Using your pet example, if the pets were to start spending money on politics, the court might still rule that, like with corporations, it does not have the right to limit how much pets donate to political causes.

But this has never come up, so I can't see how you would argue that the court would not rule this way.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well my understanding the conversation was about if SCOTUS could declare a corporation as a citizen/person or not.

If I understood you correctly, you were talking from the point of view that's SCOTUS doesn't restrict things, so it was valid for them to do so.

I'm speaking towards that it's not a restriction, it's a classification, which SCOTUS is allowed to do, so they could declare a corporation as not been a citizen/person.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

you were talking from the point of view that’s SCOTUS doesn’t restrict things,

I'm not even sure how you got to this. WRT to restrictions, I was talking about the COTUS (the Constitution of the US), not the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US). And, more importantly, I was saying it is a restriction on the government, not that it doesn't restrict things.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

you were talking from the point of view that’s SCOTUS doesn’t restrict things,

I’m not even sure how you got to this. WRT to restrictions, I was talking about the COTUS (the Constitution of the US), not the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US).

I got that opinion based on this comment from you...

… it doesn’t grant rights to the individual, so they can’t restrict it when it comes to other private entities …

From my reading of your comment I'm assuming "it" was COTUS and "they" was SCOTUS.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Rereading it, I guess I can see how it might have been confusing. But by restrict in that sense I was referring to the state restricting spending on speech.