politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
I don't know that I agree with the conclusions of the video. But TLDR just did a video outlining some history in UK and concluded ones off wealth taxes have worked and listed two examples
Do a fucking Google. It's a news channel on YouTube. If you're concerned about credibility, they just interviewed Keir Starmer and have been around for a few years.
4th on the list. Yes, you could have found it. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=youtube+wealth+tax+tldr&t=ofa&ia=web
I mean... Fuck economic theory, the entire field is a mess of myths and narratives. There's good work to be sure, but governments and organizations just find models that support what they want to do, no matter how much it conflicts with observations
There's historical examples in this country, there's modern examples like the Scandinavian model... Wealth was redistributed, there's
I have no idea what you're asking for. What even is a wealth tax "working" to you?
I mean I could pull up some economists who go over numbers and adamantly advocate for wealth redistribution, but I feel like nothing I give you is going to actually change your mind
Tax companies revenue first. It would be at a lower rate then profit but also doesn't allow them to hide the profit.
I never said anything about income tax... But again, these are real things that we used to have and they have elsewhere:
Tax brackets to to 90%+ on business profits - incentivize companies to reinvest in r&d while disincentiving investment
Tax inheritance and crack down on forever trusts
Progressively tax money moving in and out of the country, and close up tax loopholes (killing the tax filing industry would be a necessary prerequisite)
You could even revamp capital gains and certain types of loan to somehow figure into a progressive income tax
And most importantly - this has been done before. It has been done, you can pick apart suggested methods and come up with excuses for why it's impossible... But it's so clearly not. Everything else is an engineering problem
If you want to hear economists talk about it, Garys economics on YouTube popped into my feed a few days ago. He's far from the only one, even Warren Buffett has gone through a plan where he says the full tax burden could be put on businesses
And if you want to know why I don't respect economics... It's not because I'm not read up on it, it's because: how can you read up on it and still think taxing the wealthy is impossible? This has been written about by economists for decades, but it doesn't matter because there's more convenient economic theories to push far and wide
And there we go... I must not know anything about economics because you've been fed convenient models that justify the decision to cut taxes, and I'm not quoting them back to you
And FYI, I even added a side note about this - want to know some tax avoidance strategies that I like? R&D. Higher wages and benefits to compete over talent. Fancy offices and better equipment. Swag and giveaways to capture customer loyalty
This is why fuck "fuck economics". I tell you it worked, we had a less inequal society, and you come back with "well, cutting this raised tax revenues".
Of course it did - it let the wealthy open up a spigot from companies to their portfolios, and the government gets a portion.
It incentivized slashing corporate spending, but corporate spending is good - it's money flowing back into the economy. Even if they keep it in a slush fund, at least that fund will offset loans needed to expand or weather a storm - loans that also funnel money upwards and essentially force companies to pay a tax to the rich to continue to exist
But please, keep dismissing everything I say as "they just don't understand economics". No, I understand it well enough to know that what I was being taught didn't add up