this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
53 points (94.9% liked)

Progressive Politics

2938 readers
786 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
  • The super-rich are driving inequality and the climate crisis by hoarding wealth, investing in carbon polluting industries, and avoiding taxation – while the rest of us struggle with soaring energy costs, underfunded public services, and climate impacts like heatwaves and floods.
  • Yet instead of taxing them properly, governments give billionaires a free pass and cut funding for vital public services while the rich get richer.
  • The richest 1% produce as much carbon pollution as two-thirds of humanity while paying next to nothing in taxes.
  • Billionaires like Elon Musk actively undermine democracy by funding far-right politicians and policies that serve their interests at the expense of our welfare and our planet.
  • Governments claim to lack funds to invest in renewable energy and public services – but if they raised taxes on those most able to pay a little more, they could raise billions in additional tax revenue. Just a 2% tax on assets over £10 million would affect only 20,000 people (a TINY proportion of the population) yet could raise £24 billion a year!
  • The majority of the British public supports taxing extreme wealth – along with unions, charities and even millionaires themselves!

Won’t the rich just leave if we raise taxes?

Despite common claims from media and politicians that billionaires and multi-millionaires would leave at the drop of a hat if taxes on extreme wealth were increased slightly, there is little evidence to support this. Tax Justice UK recently released a report called “The millionaire exodus myth” which addresses this head on. They found:

  • Millionaires are “highly immobile” and none of the findings provide any evidence that tax played any role in any relocation of wealthy individuals.
  • The methodology used in reports suggesting a “millionaire exodus” which have been extremely widely shared across print and online news is flawed and claims are contradictory. The media has often also misreported or exaggerated the findings.

Isn’t it bad for business?

You could argue that allowing a small number of people to accrue ‘unused’ wealth is actually worse for the economy than ensuring millions of people have fair wages, affordable green energy and thriving public services. Redistribution can ensure working people have more disposable income, thus raising demand for goods and services and benefiting British businesses and high streets.

Tax Their Billions: How and why the super-rich should pay to help fix the climate crisis

Source

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

It's also not just about the money. These motherfuckers not only want to have it all, they want to make our lives worse INTENTIONALLY. They want us to SUFFER and GROVEL so they can be kings and dictate our lives.

We were given a world with near infinite possibilities and they use it for selfishness and evil, a world our children will inherit if it lasts that long. For billionaires and monopolies to call all the shots and have free reign with no consequences means that the good guys lose. And that I can not abide.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 6 points 20 hours ago

The grotesquely wealthy contribute a much smaller proportion of their income to the economy than those of modest or meager earnings, simply because they sit on most of it. It does them no good, it does nobody any good. It needs to be returned to the churn of commerce, and used to turn on the lights and water for society.

IF, and we all know that's a big IF, the disgustingly rich all started to compete with each other in philanthropy, funding this and that needy cause (not political shenanigans, actual aid) throughout society, they might argue taxation wasn't necessary. They'd still be wrong, because the distribution should be according to need rather than the giver's interests. But at least they'd have a point. But right now they just hoard, without even the honor of dragons, more like trolls or gollums.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago

Taxing them is the nice solution.

[–] mr_account@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

If you earned $10,000 per hour, every hour of every day since the birth of little baby jebus, you still would not have as much money as Musk did at the start of this year BEFORE he got even more tax breaks and subsidies from the government.

Tax the fuckers

[–] sxan@midwest.social 8 points 1 day ago

Oooo, finally a controversial topic.

[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Eliminate income tax, instead tax assets. Assets like cars, houses, farmland, stocks, metals, and savings. 4% annually under $1M, increasing to 8% annually at $100M, and 12% annually over $1B.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Both need to be taxed. And more. If not they'll find loopholes.

If we want to let common people off the hook, it's as easy as progressive taxing. The first million is free (or not heavily taxed) kinda thing works with income as well. Above a certain limit 100% tax makes all the sense in the world.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 2 points 22 hours ago

The grotesquely wealthy contribute a much smaller proportion of their income to the economy than those of modest or meager earnings, simply because they sit on most of it. It does them no good, it does nobody any good. It needs to be returned to the churn of commerce, and used to turn on the lights and water for society.

IF, and we all know that's a big IF, the disgustingly rich all started to compete with each other in philanthropy, funding this and that needy cause (not political shenanigans, actual aid) throughout society, they might argue taxation wasn't necessary. They'd still be wrong, because the distribution should be according to need rather than the giver's interests. But at least they'd have a point. But right now they just hoard, without even the honor of dragons, more like trolls or gollums.