No, we should be taxing their pants off.
There should be no ruling class.
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
25 points (68.7% liked)
News
36086 readers
3303 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They don't even post the bootlicker author's info. Even if this was AI, a human still decided to publish this propaganda. It would be nice to have a public record for accountability.
Say what you will about the Economist; at least they're consistent in their "will nobody think of the rich?" point of view.
So, creating structures to send more money upwards is fine, just don't seek out anything to reverse that trend? I think whoever wrote this think piece needs to go fuck themselves.
I sympathize, but respectfully disagree. Whoever wrote this should get fucked by an angry mob hellbent on vengence.
Nobody wrote this...
Not only do the rich not pay enough taxes, they are the greatest beneficiaries of taxpayer funded programs like SNAP since it allows them to underpay their employees. So we basically subsidize their gains.
They're also the ones responsible for why everything is so expensive to begin with.
Please don't tax the rich people, it's the fault of poor old people you see and bad budgets.
Fuck off.
The economist's credibility problems were always bad, but they went super sketchy over the last 10 years. I used to enjoy reading them. Now it's just a clown show of billionaire penis polishers. They don't even pretend to have objectivity anymore.
They are desperate, and its going to get a lot worse.
they are trying to avoid the inevitable, like global corporation tax minimum
The Economist is weird, since there's a huge gap between their journalism, which is generally of a very good standard (especially for non-UK news), and their opinion section, which consistently parrots whatever idiocy the Conservative Party is currently spouting, though they do bleat a little when the Tories get too authoritarian (which, especially since Thatcher, they usually do).
You can smell the desperation.
The things, nobody else can get taxed to fix the budget, and nobody is going to cut anything like the military aid for Israel.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Don't go after the rich
That's rich.
Booming stockmarkets, meanwhile, have reinforced the idea that inequality is too high
Oookay couldn't take the article seriously after reading that.
Lol, I couldn't get past the headline.
Fuck the economist
Wealth caps, now! Nobody should be worth over 1 million
You clearly don't understand what it costs to fund even a modest retirement.
Cap wealth at a level that, if annuitized, will generate a revenue stream that's a small multiple of median earnings. And make inheritance tax steeply progressive. That'll prevent people from hoarding money to the point at which they can distort the political process, and will also reduce unearned wealth that comes to people because of who their parents happened to be.
I fully understand what a retirement cost NOW in the current system.
I'm basically saying "keep the system, cap wealth at 1 million" and with that, governments will have so much income that anyone can retire normally and have a normal pension.
You talking about retiring being expensive completely misses the point where it shouldn't have any cost to begin with. Nobody should have to save up for retiring as a government can so that for everyone hands down if not all the wealth was locked away with a few extremely rich.
If nobody could own more than a million worth, and the rest going to taxes 100%, governments would have more than enough to feed, clothe house, etc. anyone in retirement
load more comments
(1 replies)
Please don't go after Smaug! He's so misunderstood and taking a bit of gold from his gigantic pile will fix nothing.
Just go mine more gold, or maybe mithril from the Mines of Moria. Nevermind the rumors of orcs or a Balrog!
Even if we try to tax the Epstein class income, the tax system is still designed to be rigged by them. They take out loans on their stocks to avoid paying taxes. And captialism is still designed for "number line go up"
if we try to tax the Epstein class income
Disagrees with
the tax system is still designed to be rigged by them
Defeatism is not a desirable trait.
No but tearing down the system is
We need to vote for representatives that represent us instead of our rulers.
We're too stupid to do that which is why things never improve for us.
It's not as if the rich became rich in a vacuum and then appeared in society. They used society to get rich, and the money came from literally everyone else in that society - everyone who struggles to make ends meet is struggling because the rich are hoarding their share of the money.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The premise that the people want to go after the rich 'to fix broken budgets' is absurd. The rich must pay their fair share. Separately many budgets can be improved, but saying one is only sought to do the other is wrong
Why not have the 1950s once more?
Only pining for the structural racism and sexism and so on is okay, pining for the tax system of the 1950s is "fringe" territory, I guess.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Both the standard of living in a society and the rate of innovation are strongly positively correlated with the progressivity of the tax system. Yet we should believe the author's unsourced "research" that supposedly proves having wealthy people live in slightly smaller mansions will dampen innovation somehow. Horseshit. Both the Netherlands and Switzerland, countries that are more prosperous and more innovative than the US, have wealth taxes (albeit not very high ones) and far more progressive income tax brackets as well (albeit not at Nordic levels).
view more: next ›