Not that I’m particularly against that - quite the opposite, in fact. But I’m wondering if anyone sees, or had seen a path to social and climate recovery/progress that could occur without first eradicating the class of people who most enjoy the present status quo.
Japan solved the overpaid corporate culture nonsense. Australia has the most wealth equality, without the parasitic billionaire problem. The solutions have existed for a long time.
The real issue in the USA is the lack of effective legislation. There is no political accountability. This is all due to a two party system. All it takes to fix the USA is outlawing gerrymandering, rejecting the electoral college, and institute tiered voting where everyone votes for the candidates based upon their preferred priority order. Popular votes is the only Democratic method. Representative republics are a corruption of democracy that was a necessity with the travel and communication limitations of 300 years ago but not now. Voting for candidates by priority would make party affiliation nearly meaningless and force accountability and substance because the difference between candidates would drastically decrease. It would eliminate the polarized nonsense that all the billionaires want. It isn’t about the ridiculous nonsense, it is about ensuring very little productive legislation is possible. No laws means do anything you want. The US has a tenth of the laws and protections of any other western country.
Yes, and it’s simple and effective - Tax them and limit the huge transfers of intergenerational wealth. When the US had a robust taxation system with high marginal rates for the highest income levels, we also had the strongest and most robust middle class. It powered the “American Dream.” Having individuals hoard billions of dollars and build familial dynasties isn’t good for society as a whole.
In my opinion, it all begins with ending the system of legalized political bribery, getting dark money out of politics, and making politicians accountable to citizens again.
Murdering them would be a little wasteful? Just put them and their highest paid lackeys on a remote Pacific Island where the only way they can purchase external supplies is with the plastics they have managed to retrieve from the ocean.
This post is as bad as the stuff on exploding heads. I have an idea, let’s not plan on murdering people based on their gender, class, race, or any other circumstance.
It’s not people who have more than you, it’s people who have more than everyone else combined! At one point (not sure of current numbers) SEVEN people had more wealth between tham than the poorest fifty percent.
That’s 7 people vs 350 000 000 000 people.
Are any of those seven people really more than fifty billion times more valuable than a homeless child in Delhi?
But to answer your question, of course they are not intrinsically more valuable than any other human. Their lives are worth exactly the same as any others. They’re the same as those fighting in Ukraine. They’re the same as the migrants that died on that ship trying to get to a better life.
This question is flawed. We should be looking at how best to raise the standard of living across the world.
While I’d say that it is absolutely the case that the ruling class must be eliminated before there can be meaningful change, since they’re too far removed from common life (or sanity for that matter) to make any of the necessary concessions of their own volition, I think it’s undeniably the case that a rational society cannot be built by people who believe that killing people is an acceptable approach to problems.
I think the only hope is that our descendants, when they rebuild civilization out of the rubble we leave behind, will do a better job of it - at the very least, that they’ll know better than to let psychopaths gain power.
That suggests, though, that societal progress can only occur once they ARE dead, or at least disenfranchised beyond any hope of recovery (and presumably a lot of other people dead too, if civilization is reduced to ruins)
But I would challenge the assertion that people willing to kill (or, I guess, order it to be done) are unable to improve upon current society. If certain individuals are impeding society from advancement, and the only viable solution to their removal is one of violence, simply seeing that to be the case and being willing to take those actions doesn’t necessarily mean their vision of society is a flawed one (though I will admit, it does make for a reasonable inductive argument of that conclusion)
But if, as you say, the ruling class must first be removed before positive change can take place, that suggests that either the only path to improvement is through such extreme means, or else there is no path to a better society.
The problem isn’t the exact rate, it is their ability to pay for tax experts so they can avoid having most of their wealth taxed at all. This is why Biden wanted to beef up the IRS and sic them on billionaires. Scrutinize the cracks they slip through.
That’s part of the problem; but, increasing tax rates (income, capital gains, depreciation recapture, 1031 exchanges etc) is needed even more than enforcement of existing. You’d be surprised how much of what the rich do to reduce their tax burden is perfectly legal and IRS enforcement would just be an annoyance.
Well, there may be a solution, but it does involve eugenics and wars about those eugenics and we’ll have to wait another 40 years for things to actually start to get better, but then we get to boldly go places. Also Irish reunification.
But seriously though, eliminating bad actors should be the first step. Otherwise they will just drag their heels into the ground preventing any real progress for whatever reason they have. Whether it be greed, malice, or just plain old stupidity.
Death will likely be involved at some point realistically. Either by people refusing to go peacefully, or by a lack of action by the people resulting in groups dying for things like heat stroke/freezing to death, starvation, general unrest.
I wish that things like that wouldn’t happen, but I won’t be surprised if it does.
Adjust our economic system to disallow inherited wealth beyond a lavish amount. I don’t mind a person getting rich for starting and succeeding with a massive company. I do mind the 100B being passed to their children, who will never have done anything to earn it.
Let the kids have $10 million each or something, the government should take the rest. If they try to “leave” the country the same thing should apply.
This will also adjust the incentive for billionaires to just make more money since they know they won’t be able to pass it on maybe they will start actually spending it to keep the
I’ll add that we can now remove the tax exempt status for religious organizations. Only problem is it puts more money in the hands of the government so they mismanage that as well.
I wish we could get full transparency of where literally every dollar is spent. We shouldn’t have to ask for that.
Raise taxes on people making billions of dollars a year.
I believe higher taxation on the wealthy is necessary, but how do we actually implement that?
Our tax code is base upon “realized gains”. Most of these billionaires aren’t actually getting deposits into their checking accounts for a billion dollars a year. Most their wealth and their gains come in the value of their assets increasing (stock is one example of an asset). The tax code does tax them when they sell the stock to get money to deposit in their checking accounts, and the billionaires do that, but just not with very much money. Certainly nothing even close to a billion dollars in a single year.
So how do you tax them? Do you tax them on the value of their assets? If the value of their assets goes down, do you give the tax money back? All of these questions and more would need to be answered for a coherent tax code that could be enforced. I don’t have the answers, but I’m very open to those that do.
When I get stock from work, I have to pay tax on the value at the time as if it was just regular cash coming in (even if i don’t immediately sell). It gets added into my W2. It’s really annoying since it leads to a bigger tax bill come tax season … why doesn’t that happen for them?
The problem with some of them is that they can do whatever they want for just a little more money and they do it all the time, thats why regulation is a must if the people is what matters, CMV
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community space dedicated to being helpful and answering each others’ questions on various topics.
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All posts titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That’s it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it’s in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content. Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Matrix Chat Room
To find & join our chat room, log into fluffychat.im(or any other matrix client) and put #nostupidquestions:matrix.org on the search bar.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
Japan solved the overpaid corporate culture nonsense. Australia has the most wealth equality, without the parasitic billionaire problem. The solutions have existed for a long time.
The real issue in the USA is the lack of effective legislation. There is no political accountability. This is all due to a two party system. All it takes to fix the USA is outlawing gerrymandering, rejecting the electoral college, and institute tiered voting where everyone votes for the candidates based upon their preferred priority order. Popular votes is the only Democratic method. Representative republics are a corruption of democracy that was a necessity with the travel and communication limitations of 300 years ago but not now. Voting for candidates by priority would make party affiliation nearly meaningless and force accountability and substance because the difference between candidates would drastically decrease. It would eliminate the polarized nonsense that all the billionaires want. It isn’t about the ridiculous nonsense, it is about ensuring very little productive legislation is possible. No laws means do anything you want. The US has a tenth of the laws and protections of any other western country.
Australia has bad wealth inequality and does have a parasitic billionaire problem.
Yes, and it’s simple and effective - Tax them and limit the huge transfers of intergenerational wealth. When the US had a robust taxation system with high marginal rates for the highest income levels, we also had the strongest and most robust middle class. It powered the “American Dream.” Having individuals hoard billions of dollars and build familial dynasties isn’t good for society as a whole.
In my opinion, it all begins with ending the system of legalized political bribery, getting dark money out of politics, and making politicians accountable to citizens again.
This is a meme, right? …right?
Nice try CIA/FBI
We’re not having the CIA do it for you you coward
Murdering them would be a little wasteful? Just put them and their highest paid lackeys on a remote Pacific Island where the only way they can purchase external supplies is with the plastics they have managed to retrieve from the ocean.
I mean, take all their money so that they’re no longer billionaires.
I think it’s possible they might have an opinion on that subject, perhaps loosely phrased as “over my dead body”
Well, then they’ll have consented, then. Ethical conundrum solved!
THE TEST IS OVER
This post is as bad as the stuff on exploding heads. I have an idea, let’s not plan on murdering people based on their gender, class, race, or any other circumstance.
So what you’re saying is, you believe there is a solution?
Can your share a general outline, at least?
No, I haven’t thought about actively preventing the mass murder of people who have more than me.
This nihilistic worldview, expressed by you and the others commenting and downvoting me will kill more than the 1 percenters.
It’s not people who have more than you, it’s people who have more than everyone else combined! At one point (not sure of current numbers) SEVEN people had more wealth between tham than the poorest fifty percent.
That’s 7 people vs 350 000 000 000 people.
Are any of those seven people really more than fifty billion times more valuable than a homeless child in Delhi?
So we should kill them?
But to answer your question, of course they are not intrinsically more valuable than any other human. Their lives are worth exactly the same as any others. They’re the same as those fighting in Ukraine. They’re the same as the migrants that died on that ship trying to get to a better life.
This question is flawed. We should be looking at how best to raise the standard of living across the world.
While I’d say that it is absolutely the case that the ruling class must be eliminated before there can be meaningful change, since they’re too far removed from common life (or sanity for that matter) to make any of the necessary concessions of their own volition, I think it’s undeniably the case that a rational society cannot be built by people who believe that killing people is an acceptable approach to problems.
I think the only hope is that our descendants, when they rebuild civilization out of the rubble we leave behind, will do a better job of it - at the very least, that they’ll know better than to let psychopaths gain power.
That suggests, though, that societal progress can only occur once they ARE dead, or at least disenfranchised beyond any hope of recovery (and presumably a lot of other people dead too, if civilization is reduced to ruins)
But I would challenge the assertion that people willing to kill (or, I guess, order it to be done) are unable to improve upon current society. If certain individuals are impeding society from advancement, and the only viable solution to their removal is one of violence, simply seeing that to be the case and being willing to take those actions doesn’t necessarily mean their vision of society is a flawed one (though I will admit, it does make for a reasonable inductive argument of that conclusion)
But if, as you say, the ruling class must first be removed before positive change can take place, that suggests that either the only path to improvement is through such extreme means, or else there is no path to a better society.
Tax all billionaires more?
The problem isn’t the exact rate, it is their ability to pay for tax experts so they can avoid having most of their wealth taxed at all. This is why Biden wanted to beef up the IRS and sic them on billionaires. Scrutinize the cracks they slip through.
That’s part of the problem; but, increasing tax rates (income, capital gains, depreciation recapture, 1031 exchanges etc) is needed even more than enforcement of existing. You’d be surprised how much of what the rich do to reduce their tax burden is perfectly legal and IRS enforcement would just be an annoyance.
Well, there may be a solution, but it does involve eugenics and wars about those eugenics and we’ll have to wait another 40 years for things to actually start to get better, but then we get to boldly go places. Also Irish reunification.
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Does eating the billionaires count as murder?/s
But seriously though, eliminating bad actors should be the first step. Otherwise they will just drag their heels into the ground preventing any real progress for whatever reason they have. Whether it be greed, malice, or just plain old stupidity.
Death will likely be involved at some point realistically. Either by people refusing to go peacefully, or by a lack of action by the people resulting in groups dying for things like heat stroke/freezing to death, starvation, general unrest.
I wish that things like that wouldn’t happen, but I won’t be surprised if it does.
Adjust our economic system to disallow inherited wealth beyond a lavish amount. I don’t mind a person getting rich for starting and succeeding with a massive company. I do mind the 100B being passed to their children, who will never have done anything to earn it.
Let the kids have $10 million each or something, the government should take the rest. If they try to “leave” the country the same thing should apply.
This will also adjust the incentive for billionaires to just make more money since they know they won’t be able to pass it on maybe they will start actually spending it to keep the
RIP BlameThePeacock. Tragically eaten alive by billionaires before they could finish their post.
F
Oh no they got SquiggleMonster too!
Demand money be removed from politics and follow through to make it happen. Make laws that no longer favor the rich.
It’ll never happen, but it’s what it would take.
I’ll add that we can now remove the tax exempt status for religious organizations. Only problem is it puts more money in the hands of the government so they mismanage that as well.
I wish we could get full transparency of where literally every dollar is spent. We shouldn’t have to ask for that.
Think globally act locally y’all
Raise taxes on people making billions of dollars a year. Redo the tax code to make it impossible for them to avoid paying a fair share.
Also while were at it, I’d be in favor of a maximum allowed compensation (for hot shots) based off the salary of rank and file employees.
I believe higher taxation on the wealthy is necessary, but how do we actually implement that?
Our tax code is base upon “realized gains”. Most of these billionaires aren’t actually getting deposits into their checking accounts for a billion dollars a year. Most their wealth and their gains come in the value of their assets increasing (stock is one example of an asset). The tax code does tax them when they sell the stock to get money to deposit in their checking accounts, and the billionaires do that, but just not with very much money. Certainly nothing even close to a billion dollars in a single year.
So how do you tax them? Do you tax them on the value of their assets? If the value of their assets goes down, do you give the tax money back? All of these questions and more would need to be answered for a coherent tax code that could be enforced. I don’t have the answers, but I’m very open to those that do.
When I get stock from work, I have to pay tax on the value at the time as if it was just regular cash coming in (even if i don’t immediately sell). It gets added into my W2. It’s really annoying since it leads to a bigger tax bill come tax season … why doesn’t that happen for them?
While I know this is silly and would never work, I can’t help but fantasize about giving anyone that makes a billion dollars a beautiful fancy trophy…
And then forbid them from making a dollar more until they spend it all.
The problem with some of them is that they can do whatever they want for just a little more money and they do it all the time, thats why regulation is a must if the people is what matters, CMV