1008
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2026
1008 points (99.6% liked)
Not The Onion
23000 readers
757 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I thought maybe he meant that taxing them would anger the billionaires and more mass surveillance is just what they do when they're angry, but no. He just means surveillance of billionaire's bank accounts. I'm not sure that really counts as "mass."
The amount of dollars you own is a multiplier on your personhood. He is like a million people so when you surveil him it's like you do this to a million people. I mean duh 🙄
Every time I deposit more than $600 cash I’m getting monitored. These fuckers have no clue how we live.
In the 60 Minutes interview, when the interviewer reminded Trump his wealth had increased by $3 billion, Trump immediately shot back "Well, so did everyone's." I dont think they even remember that non-billionaires exist, and if they do they don't consider it important.
We are their livestock. They manage us and farm us.
Okay I hate defending Trump, but cmon, he meant that everyone's wealth increased not that everyone's wealth increased by 3 billion.
The US has over 20 million millionaires in terms of individuals or about 20% of households. That's a damn fifth of the country who would rather see the stock market and property prices go up than the workers' salaries and ability to afford a home.
Even if he simply meant everyone's wealth increased, you must admit this is not true.
To counter 20% millionaires; 66% of Americans would need credit to cover a $400 dollar expense. Approximately 45% of Americans are renters, approximately 49% do not own stocks. The majority of Americans have no wealth to increase.
Edit; I'm a simp
Sure, but in a lot of the cities, starter homes cost a half million dollars.
Also the top 1% is way richer than the top 10%
And there’s an even steeper drop from there.
Not to mention that I’m not sure Trump is capable of understanding that inflation has been killing any gains in wealth the lower half might have made.
It's not true though, the poor got poorer, the ones in the lower middle stayed the same, only the upper classes got wealthier.
And that's just the mandated monitoring -- it doesn't include the monitoring that businesses and banks are doing for free, on their own.
I hear rumors that many places are rolling out systems to record and track the serial number of every bill of cash that goes in or out, because they can sell that information to big data collectors who can use it to piece together a picture of where cash flows -- previously the only flow of money they couldn't completely monitor. And, of course, that big data is available to the government at any time, either by buying it or by getting a friendly judge to sign off on sweeping warrants.
That cash thing doesn't surprise me. They need a way to track these people who refuse to use credit cards.
You might be happy to learn the $600 deposit reporting was never actually a thing. I totally thought it had passed too, but after searching recently I couldn't find any requirement for banks or credit unions to report anything under 10k. They just fear mongered us into submission with that one.
They have plenty of clues. They wrote the damned clues
I thought it's 200, now.
Billionaires do not consider poor people to be people. So in their eyes, it is "mass".
And monitored it should be.
Once a person has enough wealth that affects, say, more than 50 "unaffiliated" (non-family member/dependant/immediate circle, not including employees) people's lives, their finances should be as transparent as aquarium glass.
Don't complicate stuff, just treat wealth like income. In fact let's change income tax to income and wealth tax. Same department, same operations.
That would backfire considerably for the average people...
It would not.
"Wealth" on Dec 31 minus "Wealth" on Jan 1 at the start of that same year = Total Change = Income.
The average person, doesn't change wealth that much and a graduated tax system would compensate just fine for that tiny change in wealth.
On the other hand when a billionaire gains 45 billion dollars in wealth/worth over the course of the year, now you can tax them for 45 billion in income.
"Oh but it's all fake stock money" and "they would have to sell stocks." Oh no! Bug whoopie shit. Let them spread that around instead of hoarding it all, that is the point.
Because that formula would TOTALLY not be played especially when most wealth these fuckers have is stocks.
Simply crash the market every Christmas, and you got your infinite money loop by having massive wealth during the year and reducing it for when the taxman cometh.
I mean imagine if that was the basis of income tax... you could get your salary on the 28th, come 1st, tax time, so you spend 2/3 of your salary, pay taxes on the remaining 33%, then return everything you bought by the 3rd.
At the very least a daily monitor of wealth needed and IMO taxing highest achieved wealth Vs lowest held wealth is the tax application base, not just arbitrary numbers taken at the end of the year.
Why? Average people haven't hoarded sufficient wealth for taxing, so what's the backfire
You didn't specify that you wanted to tqx wealth above a given level... You just stated you want to roll income and wealth tax into one. That would apply to everyone...
Alrighty, here goes -
Taxes on annual income -
0 upto 1st quartile of the distribution
5% on part 1st quartile to median
10% on part median to 90%ile
20% on part 90%ile to 99%ile
40% on part 99%ile up
Taxes each year on wealth -
0 upto 50M USD
1% on part 50M to 100M USD
2% on part 100M to 200M USD
3% on part 200M to 400M USD
4% on part 400M to 800M USD
5% on part 800M to 1.6B USD
6%... Keep going, you get the pattern
Up to 50 million at 0%? That leaves most of the wealth in the country untaxed.
Wealth tax should start at about 5 million, indexed to median income. It should get pretty heavy before 100 million. Otherwise what's the point? The billionaires as a class don't own shit, there aren't that many of them. Millionaires (mostly baby boomers) own everything.
Somewhere between 10M and 100M, you get infinitely wealthy - which is what I call when you and your descendants can have a comfortable lifestyle from low risk bonds forever. I want the wealth tax to be the tool to remove such a situation.
It's an example, personally, I think anything over 10 million should be taxed at 100%
how would you define "affects people's lives"? because hiring a yard work company and replacing your roof could potentially be contracting 50 people (it shouldn't be more than 30 but I've seen the exact Mexican immigrants Trump probably hates working as a family in roofing where the entire family does the job all at once)