• Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Five dudes control more wealth than half the country shit’s wack yo!

    Way I see it, the brackets should be marked first at the quintile thresholds for household income, then at the 5th percentile threshold, then at the 1st percentile threshold.

    Then each bracket’s rate is the total of the percentages of wealth controlled by every bracket below the given bracket plus half the difference between that and the sum of percentages including the wealth that bracket owns.

    So as an example, the 1%, they control 26.5% of the country’s wealth, so the base is 73.5%, plus half of 26.5 is 86.75% for income above the 1% threshold.

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s how it should be.

      But really that’s what gets the other side to whine for when they’ll leave the trailer park and become billionaires.

      Even if we changed it to a fractiotof that it would still bring immense change. As long as it doesn’t go to the military budget I guess

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        Personally I think the surplus revenue should actually be set aside at first.

        Turn it into a national sovereign wealth fund to use as a way to patch over lean times in the budget or to dip into during a recession or depression.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          With so many people interested on embezzling or at least “using” it, which constitutional mechanism is going to ensure that doesn’t happen?

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’d just put it in the control of the Fed with a requirement of providing reports of performing their duty as a fiduciary controlling it.

            Plus being able to quickly make use of it in an emergency would allow the Fed to be alot more dynamic on monetary policy where needed.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              It’s still an organization made up of people.

              I don’t have a better answer, I still think yours is not satisfactory.

              • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yeah but those people report directly to Congress, and personally I’ve got my own bone to pick with how Congress is set up so my pie in the sky version of things has a much better designed one

                Also abolishing the independent executive because it inherently acts as a parasitic force dragging a country further and further from a democratic/republican core of design

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      If your taxes for the rich are too high, they will all take their ball and go home - to one of their many homes in a country that doesn’t have high taxes. Or just declare their superyaught anchored in international waters as their “home”. With “business travel” as their reason to spend time (maybe all of the time) on US soil.

      When you have that much money, there’s not really much society can do to touch you.

      • Plopp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        When you have that much money, there’s not really much society can do to touch you.

        I absolutely hate this mindset. I hear it now and then, and it’s being used even by left wing politicians to hand over more money, power and control to the wealthy, because “they have so much power with their money already, there’s nothing we can do”. Oh ok. So just capitulate then? Because we’re not starving to death? Nah fam. Work harder. Collaborate. Be creative. As creative as they are with their bookkeeping and finances. And if that shit doesn’t work, it’s violence time.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        The US has one of the highest exit taxes in the world, if it’s any concern you can raise it even higher, but capital flight is something the rich try to say will totally happen but that they never actually ever end up doing because paying high taxes isn’t worth the hassle that uprooting and moving everything to a new country entails.

        That’s the kind of effort that gets provoked by imprisoning them for just complaining against those taxes, or by seizing everything they own without even nominal compensation.

        • Shadywack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          I view the “take my ball and leave” talk as gaslighting. The rich are rich thanks to infrastructure we fund on a public basis. Roads, police, fire departments, and the very function of society is something we all collectively fund that they benefit from. I wish them all the luck in the world going to some third party totalitarian shithole with minefields, far more broken roads than we have, and warlords.

          Have fun, fuckheads, please leave and don’t let the door hit you in the ass. That’s my response to any talk about uprooting.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          but that they never actually ever end up doing because paying high taxes isn’t worth the hassle that uprooting and moving everything to a new country entails.

          Have you honestly calculated both to decide which is more expensive, or it’s just talk?

          Because there have been a few instances of big companies doing just that.

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Except not really because what that is is them saying they’re owned or headquartered internationally.

            It’s not reflective of capital flight at the scale of hyper wealthy individuals, just of how fucked corporate tax law is in comparison to income tax law.

            Similar exit tax laws for reheadquartering out of country or selling out to a foreign owner would probably help cut way down on the practice.

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        When you have that much money, there’s not really much society can do to touch you.

        We’ve confronted robber barons before, and then stuff like the Sherman Anti Trust act happened. If we can collectively gain the resolve, society can absolutely touch these motherfuckers. We arguably had even worse politicians back in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and after some serious incidents it became a politically charged enough issue to overhaul Congress and the Senate.