this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
1118 points (95.5% liked)

Comic Strips

12959 readers
2136 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 35 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Well yeah, that’s exactly what’s happened for at least the past 50 years. In 1968 corporations were paying 53% of their profits in taxes, and billionaires were paying 94% around that time! Btw, if you’re making billions, paying 94% still leaves you richer than most…

Contrast that to today, where the system is so obviously broken during a time when Amazon is paying less in total taxes than a fry cook at McDonald’s.

It would need to be done with actually no loopholes, and meaningful enforcement of consequences for those who would try to cheat (perhaps the guillotine).

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 25 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

one big issue is everyone goes "you can't tax stocks!" and then billionaires take a loan against the stocks with the unrealized gains as collateral. So we'd need to start classifying a loan as a realized gain of the collateral against this, with an exception for mortgages on primary domiciles, maybe also a "first million dollars are exempt," calculated on the full debt of the borrower, not per loan. I can't imagine anyone taking out more than $1M in debt against a properly they don't live in is not the rich we need to be taxing.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah. Virtually anything with an exception for the first million dollars will both lose almost no tax revenue (as a percentage), and never ever touch the rest of us temporarily embarrassed not-quite-yet-billionaires.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 weeks ago

That’s an insightful point, and honestly taxing those loans as realized gains sounds entirely reasonable. It’s good for the lenders because of reduced risk, it’s good for the rich because it keeps them honest, and it’s good for the public because we gain increased tax revenue from those who can most afford it. Nice!

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Contrast that to today, where the system is so obviously broken during a time when Amazon is paying less in total taxes than a fry cook at McDonald’s.

Wait.....by percentage, or by dollar amount?

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 9 points 4 weeks ago

Mostly by percentage, but I wouldn't be surprised for the other one.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

Dollar amount for some markets and some years - big corps do accounting magic and end up net negative, which they can calculate against profits in another fiscal year under some circumstances, paying 0% tax