| ▲ | chabes 2 hours ago |
| So ridiculous that folks will spend millions personally to avoid paying their fair share in taxes. Is the alternative really that bad Sergey? You would be paying a similar amount, and the money would actually go to some use, as opposed to being blown on a political fight. |
|
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Whenever someone uses the word “fair” about taxes it always seems to mean that they shouldn’t pay more but others should. There also some good economic reasons that a “wealth tax” is a bad option compared to other types of taxes. |
| |
| ▲ | chabes an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Fair means even playing field. These dudes are used to a system that they can cheat. I pay taxes. These people spend copious amounts to avoid paying. There is an economic threshold of money spent vs money not taxed. They spend within that threshold, but the money helps only them. | |
| ▲ | cjkaminski an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Whenever someone uses the word "fair" about taxes, I assume they mean we should reverse course on the decades-long pattern of reducing the tax burden on companies and the wealthiest individuals here in America. Fair taxation isn't a punishment. Paying taxes is what responsible citizens do. It's an act of patriotism and pride. | |
| ▲ | bronson an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If they paid the 35% that I pay, then it would be fair. It sounds like you think billionaires should pay close to 0%? | |
| ▲ | the_gastropod an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Mind sharing these good economic reasons? |
|
|
| ▲ | dribbiy8 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| fair_share = fair_share + 1 |
|
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | bflesch an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It sets dangerous precedent Edit: guys, it was a joke! /s |
| |
| ▲ | trescenzi an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Dangerous to whom exactly? | | |
| ▲ | rcpt an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Anyone who's not able to populism their way into a cash blast for their org. I am not a billionaire. But I don't want to risk losing my job or moving out of state so that the dialysis people can cash a paycheck. | | |
| ▲ | Avicebron an hour ago | parent [-] | | Dialysis people is really interesting phrasing. Care to elaborate what you mean? | | |
| ▲ | rcpt 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | https://calmatters.org/health/2020/10/california-healthcare-... SEIU UHW has a history of bringing economically explosive populist slop to the ballot as a negotiating tactic. Usually it's in the form of something about dialysis clinics but this time they're trying a different angle. What about that were you specifically "interested" in? | | |
| ▲ | Avicebron 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Dialysis companies say the costly requirement would force them to close some clinics, and have so far poured $105 million into fighting the measure, arguing it amounts to a hardball move by the union to drain industry finances until clinics agree to allow their workers to unionize. Seems like the $105 millions could have been used for something more useful, like a few doctors salaries or specialized PAs at the clinics. It sounds like you consider "economically explosive populist slop" is anything that helps poor people. Which you know, I expected, but I'm glad you were able to explain yourself. In the future you can just say "let them eat cake". |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | xhkkffbf an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | People who want to use the current system to innovate and create jobs. The current system of venture capital often produces these situations when people have a huge amount paper "wealth". But this wealth is all pretty hypothetical. It's not like some of the "billionaires" can buy 1 billion things from the McDonald's Dollar Menu. It's all tied up in stock that can't be sold for a variety of reasons. Moreover, it's quite likely that the "billionaire" will end up with far less than $1b when he/she retires, even if everything is wildly successful. Yet that big number encourages greedheads to try to tax something that doesn't really exist. | | |
| ▲ | the_gastropod an hour ago | parent [-] | | The “greedheads” are the ones wanting people to pay their fair share of taxes, and not the people who’ve hoarded billions in wealth, and are using some of that wealth to fight to continue tax avoidance? |
|
| |
| ▲ | chabes an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How so? | |
| ▲ | dominotw an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | good | |
| ▲ | enraged_camel an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ah yes, the dangerous precedent of... doing something about obscene and extreme wealth inequality. |
|
