1646
The rich convinced us that taxing them is too complicated but everyday people can be taxed pretty easily
(discuss.online)
this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
1646 points (99.2% liked)
Work Reform
16632 readers
136 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That simplistic comparison has absolutely zero relationship to reality. Think about it a bit more, if you know how making money on stock investing works, and see if you can find the differences.
I am a dumb average guy who is not an economist. Could you please explain the differences?
Sure - no condescension. Imagine you have $100,000 in your emergency savings fund.
Now imagine there's a 20% wealth tax on that. You also already paid income tax on the money that you put into that savings account.
So, after one year in the savings account you now have $80,000. 2 years, you now have 62,000. Year 3 it's around 48,000.
That doesn't include the effects of inflation, which does the same thing as that tax would do but usually at 2% per year (currently at 4% per year) and it's less visible because it's reducing the value of those dollars rather than taking them away.
No! Snark and condescension only!
"I wont explain my point that is very much wrong, and instead will (attempt to) make you sound like the fool, when in reality I am an insufferable douchebag that cant see he has tread into water before learning to swim"
10/10, no notes.
Lol.that is all.
I didn't think I had to explicitly repeat what I said in a couple other comments I made on the matter. I won't cut and paste that for you, (and since you set the mode to name calling) shithead.
I dont talk to someone assuming they know what I said to some other dude 15 minutes ago. I can tell youre terminally online
Lol! You have zero clue. I'm close to the opposite of the on line spectrum. I learned how to be informed in the old days, when we were taught his to read and research.
When I don't know something, I look it up. In discussion forums, I read the other comments before making my own, usually. If someone tells me I'm wrong, I go see what shows up elsewhere on the topic. Most importantly, I'm not immediately condescending or insulting.
Research /= googling
Okay, I'll bite. Other than going to a full-featured library, or contacting the nearest university with expertise on the desired topic, what does count as research for a layperson?
Other than...getting an expert opinion or reading the research material they published? You excluded research to ask me what research is
Oooooh, I miss understood thought you were asking me what research is. You wanted me to do the work for you. Yeah, no. If you are older than 12, you should already know how to do that. If you don't care enough to do it, that's on you. I did.
To play devil's advocate, a lot of money that is tied up in retirement accounts of the "average Joe" would also be taxed, so if your retirement accounts aren't outpacing your income tax rate, then it'd hurt main street too
Yes, if no special cases are welritten into the law. Though there would be no way to outpace the tax as your wealth is being taxed not the money being added to the wealth.
Retirement accounts aren't really a great example because they're already supposed to be tax exempt or tax delayed. However the principle is the same. I just described what would happen to a emergency savings fund with a 20% wealth tax 8on another comment
Now, in reality no sane politician would put a blanket rule in. Instead it would be anything over x amount of money. While that may appeal to populism, it is still double taxation and an injustice.
A more just effect can be attained through better means, like actually enforcing progressive tax laws that take more taxes as the income gets progressively higher.
Here, progressive is not related to the political movement.