this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
171 points (86.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35806 readers
1471 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post 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 intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, 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.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 151 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] riverjig@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Think globally act locally y'all

[–] palebluethought@lemmy.world 121 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So, let's put aside for a moment the rather shocking number of people casually advocating for murder in this thread.

I want to talk instead about how everyone here is just talking for granted the notion that removing the billionaires, Republican politicians, or whatever "they" you care to think of, would be a solution, or even a positive step, for modern social ills.

There's a big undercurrent in almost any political discussion online, this implication that every one of the world's problems actually has a super simple solution, that The Powerful could just snap their fingers and make it happen if they wanted to, and it's only because of their greed etc that we have any problems that all. Obviously we live in a time of huge inequity and we'd be a lot better off if we found a good way to improve it.

But many (most?) of our biggest problems are inherent to the challenge of keeping 8 billion people alive and happy in a hostile universe, and in fact nobody has ever had a perfect solution. Throwing the entire planet into chaos by causally throwing away human beings' rights and leaving an enormous portion of the world's capital in uncertain hands, ready to be seized by some other set of psychopathic opportunists who happen to be in a position to do so, certainly ain't it.

[–] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 120 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, take all their money so that they're no longer billionaires.

[–] Narrrz@kbin.social 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's possible they might have an opinion on that subject, perhaps loosely phrased as "over my dead body"

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 76 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, then they'll have consented, then. Ethical conundrum solved!

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago

THE TEST IS OVER

[–] lhx@lemmy.world 78 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tax all billionaires more?

[–] Borg286@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] lhx@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Kill_joy@kbin.social 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

RIP BlameThePeacock. Tragically eaten alive by billionaires before they could finish their post.

[–] squigglemonster@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Oh no they got SquiggleMonster too!

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] GodHimself@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

I've always interpreted that idea as "make it so billionaires can't exist" change the system so that people can't actually make all that money.

[–] canitendtherabbits@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Befriend them and work to change their hearts, maybe?

[–] ReCursing@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I appreciate your optimism

[–] Talaraine@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If I didn't feel like @canitendtherabbits would spend the rest of their life being disappointed I'd agree.

[–] dismalnow@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Can we all at least try to pretend that unflagged sarcasm is humorous - or at least exists - for a while?

Seemed obvious to me.

Welp, I mean you can target them with hatred and bitterness and have that animosity inside of you or you can mind your own, do what I said when your paths cross, and be free to live a life better than that. It really is that simple.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They don't have those. Or souls.

[–] li10@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

How about; befriend them, lure them into a fatal trap, eat their heart?

[–] DreadTowel@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

This is a meme, right? ...right?

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, you're supposed to eat them too. This helps reduce world hunger.

In all seriousness, we've dealt with this problem before. We had a time we call the era of the robber barons if you want to read a little about it.

[–] Bishma@social.fossware.space 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There are relatively few steps that would go a long way toward stopping the accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth.

  • Make tax rates similar to what we had in the 50s (conservatives love the 50s), with the brackets adjusted for inflation.
  • Make all types of income tax at those rates.
  • Eliminate taxable income caps including social security withholding.
  • Make inheritance and gift taxes equivalent.
  • End Citizens United through congressional action.
  • Use that tax money on social programs, small business development programs, and infrastructure.

If you want to really jump start things we should also make all campaigns publicly funded.

[–] Amputret@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago

You don't have to eradicate all of them, just each year have the richest person in the world executed. Only one. Watch all these billionaires race to give their money away and put it into philanthropic endeavours.

Of course, if any of them are found to be evading or hiding the true extent of their wealth, execution. And money invested in their own organisations/businesses would also of course be counted as theirs.

[–] Bread@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] GatoB@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

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

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Roundcat@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're not having the CIA do it for you you coward

[–] GonzoVeritas@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] half@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

All it is necessary to do is to abolish all other forms of taxation until the weight of taxation rests upon the value of land irrespective of improvements, and take the ground-rent for the public benefit.
~ Henry George, Social Problems

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Return the tax rate for the uppermost bracket to what it was before 1981 when Reagan screwed us all over. That rate is 70%, by the by.

[–] nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

Do you think the ultra rich will pay up? Also the government is the US is quite corrupt, this money won't fix anything. Fist fix corruption, then try to help the poor.

[–] jocanib@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Talaraine@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Tigbitties@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Tax them into millionaires.

[–] nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago

The problems is not that rich people exist, millionaires are few and far between, but that rich people that are able to screw everyone over.

What we have to do is to stop giving the rich so much power, especially over the government. Less corruption means that we can better regulate large companies, including enforcing pollution emission limts.

In fact, you are already helping with that, by using Lemmy and not corporate social media like Twitter or Reddit.

[–] Moyer1666@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Make it illegal to even have that much money, since literally no one needs that much, and take it from them. No idea what that would look like though. Whatever theoretically is done their wealth should be redistributed to the people that made it for them. Workers need to own the means of production.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Murder implies a moral judgement that its unjustified. Self defense against attempted murder is not murder even when the assailant is killed in the process.

load more comments
view more: next ›