You must log in or register to comment.
At a minimum, there appears to be roughly a 33% efficiency loss compared to simply going there and doing the work directly through your church (or via the voluntary sector in general). To be honest, I am mostly repeating something I remember hearing at the Independent Institute, which is very biased, lol. I am not even sure I remember the figure correctly, so take that with a grain of salt. I would need to look it up again to confirm exactly what the speaker was referring to. That said, volunteering genuinely makes you feel good. In my opinion, it is far better than taxation. I would def recommend volunteer work, but not taxation.
Are you sure you don’t want your taxes going to subsidizing billionaires and bankers instead?
CanIthinkaboutitnothanks
Israel needs tens of billions to commit genocide and war
The only reason I want more money is to pay more taxes. I wanna walk around the city like “Yea, you like that park bench? Me too! You’re very welcome! Hey, check out that bus! Looking good, right? Guess who paid for one 200000th of that? [points two thumbs at self like a total douche] THIS GUY!”
Fuck up part your taxes could go down and we still could feed everyone. The military and now ICE get a majority of our tax dollars.
I don’t even mind if my taxes go to people that don’t contribute back and just watch tv and drink beer all day if that keeps them off the street. I’d rather they don’t contribute than anti-contribute.
go to people that don’t contribute back
you mean billionaires?
No, those are the anti-contributors
Yus.
Sensible anti-degeneracy approach.
And gets better than that… especially when ceasing blocks to them bettering themselves and their ability to help others however they can. Then the support given to them proliferates to benefit each and all.
62% of American voters support higher minimum wage, for example.
It doesn’t matter.
There’s no money to be made off of feeding the homeless. If Amazon doesn’t want it, it won’t be done. They sign the checks.
The best way to abolish all those poor people is actually giving them a richer future.
They will have a richer future in the mines!
Poverty is expensive for us all.
Best end it.
I’d like my taxes to help people in need. Unfortunately my taxes go towards skeletonizing brown children.
And abducting local brown people and unmarked vans.
Just thinking hypotheticals, but what would happen if people could vote the percent of their own taxes would go. So you could choose the buckets where your own tax would go…
Then things that weren’t acceptable by people who can’t think of priorities in a large system would be left aside. The point of voting in representatives is you vote in people who can have a better idea of what is needed in various areas.
Mean that’s not always the case but way better than Joe Blow deciding all his taxes go to the military rather than education.
Mean I see the appeal but that voting has to come from informed voters with proper reasoning skills. Since we’re in an age of propoganda nothing essential would ever be funded, people are too easily swayed.
Ive only experienced 1 homeless shelter, and it wasnt even “government funded” it just didnt pay taxes
A top marginal tax rate of 94% for people making over $1,000,000 USD per year is just common sense under capitalism. Spending it on those who need it instead of genocide is what’s controversial.
I’d love a wealth tax but stashing your wealth in tax havens is super easy so idk what the point is
That’s why you don’t tax income, you tax net controllable assets.
How does that work in practice? Let’s say we want to tax people like Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg. Let’s say for convenience we want to set the tax at 10% of their total net controllable assets.
Take Musk for example. He has an estimated net worth of $500 billion so we’re going to tax him $50 billion a year. To pay his taxes in the first year he’d have to sell 10% of his shares in his companies (since his wealth is concentrated almost entirely in stock).
What would happen if he offered 10% of his shares for sale on the open market? It would cause the stock price to tank since there aren’t enough buyers out there willing to pay the current price for those shares. As the stock price tanks, his net worth plummets along with it, say to $400 billion. Now he has to sell 12.5% of his shares to pay his $50 billion tax bill. But that means offering even more shares on the market which cause the stock price to drop even more.
At the end of the day, just forcing Musk to pay his tax bill could completely wipe out his company. Maybe that’s actually your goal, but it’s not clear how that will raise money to help people.
And that gets to the point I actually want to make: stock prices as a form of wealth are somewhat fictitious in nature, not unlike the way money is created by banks through fractional reserve banking. Trying to tax all those shares of stock is similar to creating a bank run. Rather than unlocking a bunch of wealth you can use for other purposes, you just end up destroying the wealth altogether.
Here’s a video by an accounting professor that explains what stock prices really mean by way of an analogy with baked beans (yes, he’s a British professor)!
I would argue he should be forced to divest from those shares as part of the tax, no one person should control that much of anything. If that crashes the price of his stock, so be it. It didn’t deserve that price if it does crash from that. The wealth was imaginary in the first place, so there’s no true loss from its destruction.
There is a loss though. By instituting this process, even if it was only applied to Tesla, you would crash the entire stock market because investor confidence would be lost.
You could say nothing would be truly lost in a stock market crash, but real people would still be severely impacted. The market crash would lead to bank runs which would topple the banking system, and then ordinary people wouldn’t be able to buy food or other necessities. It would be a disaster that would cause people to demand the old system be restored.
because investor confidence would be lost
If investor confidence would be lost by appropriate taxes, then it must be unjust confidence. If the shares can’t be sold without impacting the stock price, then clearly they’re overvalued.
Their value is based on confidence in the current system. Change the system and the confidence is lost.
It’s like tickets to a movie. They’re valuable before the movie starts. After the movie’s over they’re worthless.
Put a total wealth tax on the stock market is like throwing sand into the gears. The whole system will fall apart. You can argue that it shouldn’t be that way but you’re currently in the system. The challenge is not to imagine how it ought to be, it’s how to get there without the whole house of cards crashing down around you.
Very few people have income (salary) that high. What’s needed is higher capitals gains and wealth taxes, to avoid loopholes and living from credits against stock.
Fixing capitalism is a lost cause. What’s needed is a feast where we eat the rich.
And by rich, everyone means those with a dollar more than themselves, right?
No.
Eat the top 1%.
Rinse and repeat until there’s no longer a top 1%.
My day will come.
So until the populations hits 99 people? Until the next baby is born.
Sounds about right.
I think a better loop terminating clause would be until the top 1% hold less than 2% of total wealth… Or something like that, you may want to adjust the percentage to your use case 😅
You’re saying I might live after all?
You could still die if you inherit some wealth from the first few rounds of feasting and hold onto it …
And (to those who don’t get the margin thing) that’s only on the amount above the amount taxed at lower rates.
That silly
communistsocialistjust being a decent member of societynot an assholecompassionate human beingregular ass member of society is at it a again.Depends on the homeless person. There are some I’d pay anything to make sure they were housed in a jailcell.
you could say this about anyone though. like “there are some people with cancer I’d want to be in jail”
just because someone is homeless doesn’t mean they’re more likely to be a bad person
My initial statement was much stronger but i knew people would be like omg not all homeless are bad. I can’t say good or bad because i dont think people are that simple but they absolutely are more likely to commit anti social behaviour which I hate.
Welfare provides enough money to rent a place, buy utilities and food. So the only people who end up homeless are the drug addicts or people unable to meet basic decency requirements. This makes it so a majority of the homeless are horrible. They attack people, crash out on random strangers, shit up whichever area they are put into.
We’ve tried housing them it doesnt do anything except make the area horrible for normal people. We have an emergency housing system where you can go into the welfare office and tell them you’re about to be homeless and they find you a place to stay but its at the point where people show up and say they’d rather be homeless than live next to these people.
So for these people I’d pay the extra costs to house them in jail but they technically havent been convicted of a crime to be put in jail.
I think everyone with cancer should be behind bars, it’s a slippery slope, first you accept the idea of radical (i.e. extremist) cells, and next thing you know we’ve got cronenbergs in congress, where so you draw the line? I say nip it in the bud before we have Jeff Goldblum from The Fly putting their agenda into law books, our children getting taught about safe sex by the guy in From Beyond, and kids being forced to burn bibles in schools!
Finally, someone brave enough to say it like it is.
I’d watch that movie.
I feel like I’ve seen this on my Lemmy frontpage at least 4 times in the last month
Consistent messaging, nicely done everyone!
Now in your comments too
Well most people don’t mind. It’s just the vocal minority who really care. But they tend to be who governments pander too because they are the ones who pay the
bribescontributions.
What is this image from
Reverse image search yielded this.
I knew the style was familiar. Norman Rockwell is iconic.
