That makes zero sense. Wealth taxes where implemented do just that. Fund the welfare state. Perhaps that’s not the solution and you put better solutions in place to prevent accumulation of wealth. Seems better to incentivize investment rather than doing it through simple taxation regardless of what is being done with the money.
They literally are. Maybe stop asking AI chat bots to answer for you.
If billionaires own wealth here they can pay taxes here.
Soooo property taxes? They already pay those.
It’s almost like you haven’t really thought about the proposal or even if it’s going to generate the revenue for the services you are demanding.
Know what’s a quicker path? End wars around the world, invest in local economies, and elect leaders that will do so.
So what you are saying is there is no reason for them to be there, because no one at polling stations is causing disruption or influence voting. ‘It’s ware’? Please define that a little better for all of us to hear.
Good try at the rage baiting. You have a good life.
So because you are in the US, only the US deserves all of the wealth? That doesn’t sound very fair when you think about it. Sorry Canada, sorry Mexico, you deserve nothing. Seems like all your idea would do is just make every person over ‘X’ wealth move to a different country, which has happened everytime high welath taxes have been implemented.
the pre-agricultural blueprint was communism.
Umm, it was hunter gatherer where most people has very short brutal lives and had small communities.
Blame capitalism for rugged individualism and isolation, it’s what it does best: Alienation.
Most of the world has capitalism (the entire world to a large degree), and individual individualism is a very very American thing not seen in most other countries around the world.
I am sorry though, it seems your public school systems haven’t been getting the funding the desperately need to teach history for you. Luckily if you spend enough time online, there are a lot of resources that can help you.
…Yeah, DC, just about the only place in the US that doesn’t require a governor’s approval or Insurrection Act criteria to be met in order to call in the National Guard. Great example, for sure, yeah man, totally gonna expand to the whole country.
I think you are forgetting about the 26 states with GOP governors that would welcome having the national guard at polling stations. And yes, Trump has mentioned pulling the Insurrection Act, especially when there is commentary on this very page about armed resistance, most sites would immediately get any mention of that deleted.
ICE absolutely got run out of Minneapolis. Tf you mean they “finished their job”, do you think there are zero immigrants left to kidnap in the whole state?
Far fewer illegal immigrants? At least that’s what DHS says, so yes.
The people actually in the streets (which I’m increasingly certain is not you) will hold it down, don’t worry
Oh I am not worried at all, protests haven’t done anything effective in the last 20+ years in the US, I don’t suspect they will any time soon. So either buckle up and prepare for something bigger or shut up, because for some reason we got Trump twice and the guy is really looking to get himself or a puppet in for a third round as well.
I am not sure 100,000 years of how humanity handled things is suddenly ‘Elon’ but you go on queen. Perhaps we as a society should be working on our communities and helping each other out rather than thinking isolation and rugged independence is the way to survive life. But hey, you can only tell people to touch grass so much.
Ahh yes. Ask Washington DC how that’s working out. They have National Guard there posted and now have legal authority to do so until Jan of 2029. Trump has already said this will be part of the plan for national elections is to send ICE and National Guard to ensure ‘safe’ voting. If it’s not being dispelled in DC, or really anywhere (more people have been kicked out of the US than basically anytime in history), how do you actually expect things to be different?
ICE didn’t get ‘run’ out of Minneapolis, they finished their job, they nabbed 3400 people, and deported 1700 of them. Oh and killed a few Americans while they were at it. Minneapolis was about as effective at handling ICE as the BLM was at actually changing black policing in the US.
If we soaked the rich to fund the welfare state there wouldn’t be so much simmering anger.
Not doctors and lawyers, the billionaires and decimillionaires. The epstein class.
If you taxed 100% of the 0.01% wealthiest, took every drop and redistributed it, each person in the world would get $5k USD.
When you get to that 1%, you are already talking about the doctors and lawyers and people you don’t want to target, and compared to many parts of the world, you may already be in the 1 or top 5% of wealth. Should your money be taken as well, so those in Afica with nothing get something more?
Maybe that would certainly change things for some, but wouldn’t have the effect you want, and would also collapse the world economy and put all of us back in the stone age. Certainly I think when you hit a billion of net worth you get a nice little trophy and have 99% of it redistributed, but just ‘taxing’ wealth isn’t going to do a damn thing about fixing societal issues that cost far far more than $5k a person.
Society as a whole takes responsibility for this.
No it really doesn’t, and never has. Families and communities have taken care of that. Not entire societies. It shouldn’t be the youth’s burden to work their entire life just to ensure the old have a comfortable 20+ years to live while owning everything and giving little back.
Socialist mentality is about benefit to all, including the elderly.
Really really depends what you mean by socialism. By owning the means of production? Umm, that’s all people, instead of you guessed it, mostly the elderly.
We also need to fight for ourselves and our own interests. We can fight for the interests of all, not just our select group.
Those two statements directly contradict each other. So what is it, do you want to have a good life for yourself, the family you raise, or the person down the street who will ask each year that more is taken away so they can live comfortably? In previous ‘generations’ the family either did well and took care of each other, or the family suffered, rather than everyone in the next town over, the next city, state and county over suffering because everyone wants to live in a home by themselves and have an acre of land.
I mean, you’d probably include Trump, Bush Senior and Clinton in there as well.
Why? So the US can have an even worse Republican sweeping to victory? Someone like AOC would be more productive and probably get more done by say being in the Senate, having a Dem majority there, and taking over the Speaker position.
It can be both. I don’t know a whole lot of retirees that want better for the next generation and are willing to sacrifice for that.
I mean, the US is still dealing with the silent generation running the country. It’s going to be a long time before the ‘youngest’ baby boomers are gone, like 20+ years still.
Probably a whole lot of companies, and executives that directly supported this as well.
Except in a way it is old vs young. The old will need more and more care, and that ends up coming from the youth. The same youth that were promised a future that doesn’t exist, and now have little desire to give giving what they cannot afford. Many countries are going to have to have a real reckoning with aging populations, and few have even started the conversation.
Ideally in my mind the peasants rise up, take control of the means of production and earnings from production are spread equally among the workers. That first part is really difficult to do, as most humans are going to look out for their own interests prior to the interests of their community.