this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
1547 points (98.9% liked)

Political Memes

11909 readers
2450 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

95% income is wild. But capital gains increase might not be a bad idea. Higher top brackets also probably a good idea. Taxing debt that you borrow against assets might be difficult because of mortgages. Technically I think the state gets taxes on that but only when they die. If there is a good proposal that works, I'd have no problem with it.

Just Wealth tax is not a good idea. The problem in my opinion is not that people get too rich, it's that companies get too big. We need to break those monopolies up.

[–] fafferlicious@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates

95 is not that high For 20 years it was over 90

Now I know I hear people in the back "but it was world war time!" True. True.

How long have we been at war? Since Vietnam? How many fucking desert storms have we had? Cold war?

And not one person that has complained about the percentile has asked about what the top bracket would be.

Are you really going to argue that a 95% tax rate on every $1 over $1,000,000 is excessive or "wild"? Or does it actually represent the marginal utility of income?

Because the first 80k someone makes is waayyyyyyyyyyy more impactful than the next 80k. One makes sure you don't die of starvation and exposure. The other is all pleasure.

I like your counterpoint about the wealth tax being more about monopolistic power. Hadn't considered that angle. I do believe that the government must be larger than the entities it governs. If we ever want a smaller, more agile government, we need to shrink what it's supposed to govern.

Here is why I argue for a wealth tax: Most things in life are not simply exponential. They're logarithmic. At least for biology and natural systems. We need some corrective force that pushes back aggressively against wealth accumulation -regardless of source.

[–] MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 13 hours ago

Well, we currently have death as a limiter. Proper inheritance taxes would cap everything to one lifetime.