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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
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
The solutions aren't complicated. What's complicated is getting the solutions implemented when enough representatives are bought out by the wealthy.
Even simpler. If one’s wealth exceeds some function of GDP, the law no longer protects them.
As much as that appeals to some part of me deep down, those are the tactics being employed right now against vulnerable people in the US. If the law doesn't protect everyone, it doesn't protect anyone.
And honestly, I think the wealthy are more threatened by taxes than by having to hire their own protection.
I get that, but I don’t think they deserve the same protections as the vulnerable. The vulnerable cannot easily change their situation. The wealthy can. Beyond that, their cost to society is much much worse.
I don't think they deserve it either. But when I advocate for due process and humane conditions for the worst people, it's not for their sake--it's for everyone else's.
As soon as there is some class of people who are not protected by law or due process, it can easily be weaponized against the more vulnerable, even if that wasn't the original intent.
For example, right now in the US, the government is denying due process to "illegal immigrants." Doesn't seem like a problem for anyone here legally, right? Except that without due process, what's stopping them from throwing lawful residents into a van and hauling them away? They don't get due process to prove their innocence. So anyone can now be defined as "illegal" and deported without any due process or recourse.
Lawfulness is for the vulnerable, even when applied to the less vulnerable.
I’m saying it isn’t a class of people that is not of their own volition. It could be looked at as similar to choosing the class of rapist or other criminal. By choosing to allow your wealth to exceed this point, society has deemed you to be in violation of the law; due process intact. You are therefore, no longer protected by the police, fire departments, emergency rooms, etc. It is one of the primary roles of society to determine what is acceptable and what is not.
I'm not sure what purpose revoking law has on anyone, including this group. In fact, the wealthy is often the group who advocates for privitization of these services, as they're the only ones who can afford to pay for them out of pocket. Seems like an inconvenience at most.
If you want to make excessive wealth illegal, I'm all for that. But that's not removing legal protections, it's allowing the people to prosecute and reclaim wealth from those hoarding it, which seems more productive for what you're trying to achieve.
If tomorrow’s wealth will exceed that cap, I’d like to see today’s priority be offload that money at all cost. That’s really all I’m suggesting with a partly tongue in cheek suggestion of making it scary to cross that line. But the point is simply to make a person approaching that line feel that getting rid of money with a quickness is integral to their wellbeing.
Why not just Most Dangerous Game the wealthiest individual at the end of each year if that’s your objective?
This is a much more difficult problem than you suggest. Taxing standing wealth of 1.8 million would limit so much of the upper middle class that actually drives economies.
Given how many people have their wealth invested in theor home, how do ypu propose to do this or is everyone constantly downgrading the home they are invested in?
Nothing in economics is ever "easy".
1000x annual minimum wage is 14.5 million. That's not the savings of the worker class (a conservative investment would provide enough return to live without working). And the point is that it's tied to minimum wage. Want to be taxed less on your wealth? You gotta raise the minimum wage.
You're right in saying it's a bit more complicated than that--my two point suggestion is oversimplified--but my original point stands: the solutions are less complicated than getting rational legislation passed in a system where the checks and balances are bought out.
Ooof, how did I fuck up themath that badly? At 14+ million it's different. That's a lot of wealth compared to the average upper middle class family.
Is the way you judge what's wealthy to look at your own situation and target something comfortably above that? There's plenty of people who will surmise that your situation is comfortably better than theirs once that power is available to the public.
You don't have to base it on your own situation, you can base it on cost of living or other objective values.
There's a big difference between 1 million and 10 million. With a modest 5% return on investment, 1 million nets you $50,000 per year, which is enough to support a very modest lifestyle in some places (near poverty in others). 10 million with the same investment nets $500,000 per year, which is more than enough to retire to a very luxurious lifestyle and accumulate more wealth along the way.
And that's still less than the 14.5 million I proposed, so that person would still not see any wealth tax.
No it’s based on a ton of actual hard statistics that focus on relative buying power vs what the state supplies. Many Europeans who make less than I do have a higher QoL than I do because their education and healthcare are subsidized/free.
It's not that much different.
It’s vastly different. A net worth of ten million plus isn’t just a case where you own a home and a retirement fund.
It's wildly different.
$1 million invested at 5% is $50,000 annually. $10 million invested at 5% is $500,000 annually.
That's the difference between the working and wealth classes.
Real estate is a good example of the trickiest thing about "simple" wealth tax.
I bought a house, and 20 years later I have to pay more taxes because my neighbourhood is more desirable?
Okay, easy solution, you get one free house you need to reside in for x% of your time per year.
But say I bought a painting from a local artist, even a friend, and decades go by and they've gone on to become ultra famous. Do I now have to pay more tax because I possess something that has become valuable?
Obviously thats a very unlikely scenario, but you can see the principle issue.
For the numbers I suggested, I don't think you'd realistically hit these types of cases.
1000x annual minimum wage is $14.5 million. Based on a quick search, the threshold for the top 1% of Americans with respect to net worth starts at $13.6 million in 2023. So over 98% of Americans would never see the impact of a wealth tax like this.
If minimum wage were brought up to a realistic level, say $20/hour (still low, but better than the current $7.25), that threshold jumps to $40 million. This would capture somewhere between the top 0.5% and 0.1%. This is excessive wealth.
In the case where your painting is suddenly worth $50 million, yes--you'd have to pay more tax. But I think that many dollars might be some reprieve from the pain of selling it.
Applying sensible economic policy to extreme wealth is easier than general economic policy.
I had a public policy professor who used to say wealth taxes frequently come with loopholes you can pilot a yacht through
Giving that money to poor people would drive the economy more.
Not necessarily, it is a lot more complex than that.
Honestly fuck these leeches, drop a zero from each.