this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
287 points (90.0% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
660 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 51 points 8 months ago (3 children)

you dont need a max wage if you tax effectively. it would be 100% past a certain, massive amount.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 44 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's exactly how the article suggests setting the maximum.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 21 points 8 months ago (6 children)

"Wage" is rather poor wording then.

[–] overzeetop@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Wage is worthless wording. Most ultra rich don’t have wages - at least not relative to their change in worth. We need to change how taxes fundamentally work.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] maxprime@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago (6 children)

How does that work when the super rich don’t pay any taxes to begin with? How do you tax wealth? How do you tax loans against shares?

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

in the united states, there were all kinds of 'wealth' taxes that prevented the loop holes. all that was systematically deleted over the last 60 years as conservatives decided 'me want money, fuck society'

[–] Sir_Osis_of_Liver@kbin.social 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The top marginal tax rate in the US peaked in 1951 at 92% on income in excess of $400k (joint filing two income), the equivalent of about $4.7M in today's money. That should come back.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago (9 children)

Easy, make capital gains tax match income tax marginal rates.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DeathbringerThoctar@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That just sounds like a maximum wage but with more steps.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

its actually a max wage with less steps. no need to have a max wage definition at all, just extend current tax practices.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Plus it actually could be used to do something* crazy, like help people or the environment.

  • Autocorrect awesome sauce
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] m13@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Let’s put aside the fact that the super rich don’t have a wage. How the fuck are you going to make and apply laws against the people who have the most power in the system you’re supporting?

Let’s just say if they have too much, we just put them in a big stew and eat them.

[–] glouriousgouda@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The same way they define and apply laws that determine, and maintain the poorest.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

So without any media attention, when no one is paying attention?

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 28 points 8 months ago (1 children)

As others have said, the problem isn't wages, rich are rich because of returns, dividends and other stuff that, depending on the country or city, is tax exempt, precisely to avoid paying anything. A cynical asshole might even go so far as to say that it creates jobs for lawyers and accountants, which is technically true. It's a win-win-lose for the rich-those ethically wrong workers-everyone else.

Unless the UN or really big blocks like the EU+BRICS start pressing every tax haven to stop pretending that they're doing nothing wrong (which, let's be honest, won't happen, ever), the rich will just move around. They have that luxury, thanks to effectively infinite money.

[–] olivebranch@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

they are rich because they own property other people depend own

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

LoL yeah as if they won't put loopholes in there like they did with taxes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Not necessary. Just tax the fuck out of them.

[–] ech@lemm.ee 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Specifically, tax the fuck out of the massive earnings they rake in from investments while claiming the have next to nothing on their taxes.

[–] ExfilBravo@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Stock buy backs should be quadruple taxed too. Or banned.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (10 children)

That's the same thing. The default implementation for this is a tax bracket for the ultra-rich that uses 100% marginal tax rates.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (5 children)

And tie it directly to the minimum wage...

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 8 months ago (10 children)

Taylor Swift is the new posterchild for billionaires, but honestly, she's the least egregious example of a billionaire. She makes a fuck load of money because her concert tickets are like $1000 a pop. She's known to give huge bonuses to her tour staff. If anyone is getting exploited, its her fans, but she's literally just a performer. She's hardly manipulating stock prices and doing pump and dump schemes and not paying her staff a livable wage.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

maximum wage? maybe it works for ceos and such but most billionaires are way beyond their wages. lets start by employing preventative measurements that prevent billionaire charities to be used for money laundering or agenda pushing. then we continue by forcing strict regulations on tax havens. what else? we can also limit the number of estates a person can own and don't allow companies to buy estates. finally, limit operational size of the media conglomerates and how much a single group can have influence on media. Support the hell out of small independent media operations. I know all very vague but very critical problems imo.

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This is going to get downvoted ):

Preventing people from becoming rich is not what we should be focused on. A maximum wage is a good headline but doesn’t make any sense at all (read other comments on this post).

We should be focused on eliminating poverty and building up the middle class.

I hate the reality of super rich people existing in a world where millions starve to death or don’t have access to clean drinking water, but rather than focus on eliminating the ultra wealthy (which just won’t happen), we should be pushing to lift people out of poverty, which might happen if push comes to shove.

[–] repungnant_canary@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (5 children)

You know... it might be just a little bit easier (/s) to take people out of poverty if the trillions didn't go to pockets of ultra rich and the companies.

In a limited capital economy (and we are in such an economy despite capitalists thinking we're not) every dollar that ends up in a pocket of ultra rich is a dollar that cannot be spent on food and housing by regular people.

Every single dollar in companies and ultra rich pockets comes from regular people's work. Thus, if someone despite working lives in poverty then they are actively being exploited by the ultra rich. Jeff Bezos and Amazon workers living on food stamps is a great example.

We simply can't take everyone out of poverty if we don't distribute the money even slightly more fairly.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We should return very high taxes for the rich, use the proceeds to expand the middle class. We had that in the past, assholes got rid of it with bullshit economics.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

100% agree with all the people saying it's not enough, but it could be a start, which potentially forces interesting changes at the company level even if it doesn't do much with the economic system.

I would rather see no shareholder influence, but weakened shareholder influence and less incentive for CEOs and execs to be douchebags can still be meaningful (though perhaps not alone). Unfortunately, since people who want to lead others tend to be empathetically challenged, they still need explicit incentives for them not to just go through the same old exploitative and abusive patterns. Say this went through, the people who replace the spoiled CEOs who decide to leave would just end up being corrupt as well if some kind of positive reinforcement doesn't also exist.

[–] mayo@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

100% tax over 100 million or something?

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Wage is not the issue

[–] uis@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I have better idea: 100% tax

[–] rgb3x3@beehaw.org 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Anything over a $500 million in asset value taxed at 100%.

Far above what anyone should own. And yet, you'll get middle-class people defending the people with those riches, that they deserve to keep their billion dollars.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Better close tax loop holes while you're at it.

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Setting a maximum wage for them wouldn't do a damn thing. They'll just use the wealth they already have to hoover up more through things like insider trading or flat out stealing company money.

Adding a maximum wage for the rich would be like trying to drain the ocean using a toy bucket.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In an ideal world anyone making more than, let's say for an example, $1 million in a year would pay 100% tax on anything more.

No one needs more than $1,000,000 a year for anything. No one works hard enough to actually deserve that. It's just pure luck and/or screwing over other people to get more than that.

Unfortunately if one country implements that, all the rich people leave and go live somewhere else that doesn't tax that much.

[–] Kushia@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago

On paper they don't make anything a year and pay less tax than you or I. The only way that's going to change is a massive world-wide effort to crack down on tax havens and to start taxing their assets fully.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

How about we just execute the richest person every 3 months?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Why on Earth would they use Taylor Swift as an example. Seriously?

[–] IMongoose@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Taylor Swift, so hot right now.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 3 points 8 months ago

They usually dont get paid much in wages. I think zuckerberg got paid $1/hr?

I think the word you're looking for is "income" or "net worth"

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Reddit is shit-for-brains but one take that's been living rent free is to have a law where you kill the richest person in the world. Won't be long before people start scrambling to distribute their wealth so they're not next on the chopping block πŸ˜„

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago (15 children)

One of the challenges is of course that the wealthy don't get paid. They own and control assets that appreciate in value.

What if we ended private ownership of businesses. I don't mean ending ownership of businesses, but that every business became publicly tradeable. No more private ownership of businesses.

I'm not actually advocating this (yet), just curious what people think would happen if we did this.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

The same as now

The people that own it privately will have controlling public shares. Can’t force them to sell at a given value and if you did they would just have a diverse portfolio that they swap between each other

I think finding a private company that brings people the levels we are talking about here are not an issue

Profit sharing works better, after x earned, everything is divided up between workers

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί