this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
1396 points (99.1% liked)

Work Reform

16400 readers
1689 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:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 11 minutes ago* (last edited 11 minutes ago)

Technically it was people they hired to convince us.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 points 54 minutes ago (1 children)

you know what's not complicated? a wealth cap.

that or guillotines, those seem to be a permanent solution to this problem.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 8 minutes ago

Wealth caps are actually complicated too.

Also... guillotines? permanent? LOLOLOL. "Meet the new boss... same as the old boss..." - The Who

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I might catch heat for this take, but having roads and schools is nice. But billionaires should be paying for the vast majority of it

[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You're right though. However the problem is when people's property tax goes up by more than their wages. My parents had an $800 increase even though the property assessment dropped by 100k. They keep allowing all this residential to go up without letting industrial build aswell meaning the tax burden mostly on residential and not commercial.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago

Til, I pay less than a grand a year on two properties but I'm also in a fairly rural area.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Are Ronnie Reagan's advisors still alive? Those fuckers were heavily involved in creating the present day mess.

[–] DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

If only Jimmy Carter is re-elected in 1980...

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

+1...The US Naval Academy graduate would have ended the BS in the middle-east too.

It's all bullshit guys, like on the other side we have to pay $1500 a month rent because the bank doesn't believe we can afford a $1000 a month mortgage.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 18 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The "it's not real money until it's sold" argument is such horseshit. Just give it to me then if it's not real. It's like saying the money in your bank account isn't real until you take it out at an atm. Dumbest shit, but for some reason a super appealing argument because people keep repeating it.

[–] krisevol@lemmus.org -4 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

They can't give it to you because it's not real.

Also your money in your account isn't real until you take it out of the bank is true. You never heard of a rush on the bank? Your bank isn't keeping most of your money, they are using it. The system only works if everyone believes it works, but if everyone took it the money, 90% of people would find out there money isn't there.

Same with taxing stocks. It only works if everyone isn't rushing to the market to sell. If we taxed stocks, the money would have to come from somewhere or the system collapses. This is why no party has dared yet taxing unsold stocks. It would collapse the system.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Have you heard of a federal reserve? Yes your bank doesn't have your money, but someone does. Your money someone else has is insured by the federal reserve so bank runs don't happen. You're talking about an economy that existed 100 years ago.

[–] krisevol@lemmus.org 1 points 44 minutes ago

You clearly didn't know how money works

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

You are so very wrong. The Fed does NOT have the cash, nobody does.

It exists only in the banking system itself with no tangible assets to back the majority up, we don't have the actual cash to cover even 10% of deposits.

Where did you hear "the fed has the money"? Please share how the Fed "has the money" (or anybody else).

The "insurance" will collapse, just as the banks

You're talking about an economy that does not exist. The FED does not have the cash.

Also, please note the more cash that they do print, the less the dollar is worth.... this is called "inflation".

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

They can’t give it to you because it’s not real

You literally can. You can transfer ownership of stocks. Dumb argument.

[–] krisevol@lemmus.org 1 points 43 minutes ago* (last edited 43 minutes ago)

How did transferring stock ownership help the common person, or help the government run programs?

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Until you actually can't, super dumb argument. We've seen these "bank runs" over and over again, they aren't mysteries.

[–] liuther9@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Just need ceiling

[–] Nathan@sopuli.xyz 22 points 12 hours ago

It’s wild how the rules work. We pay taxes on every little unrealized gain, while the wealthy can enjoy tax-free yachting lifestyles in Dubai with zero capital gains or annual taxes. The gap just keeps getting wider.

[–] HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub 18 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

Okay a history lesson on how capitalism started and feudalism fell.

When you are "rich" in feudal society it means you have land. Land that everyone sees, that gives predictable income and even least educated peasant would be able to tax you reasonably (reasonably = as high as possible without you starting a rebellion over it). But then come merchants - they can have a wagon full of wood or just a small pouch of spices and it would be worth the same. Nobody really knows how much their wares earn because it fluctuates and every goods transport is a huge risk. So the merchants gain wealth indefinitely because king can't see how much they have ant tax them accordingly, while landowners get poor because they are taxed to oblivion.

Now who is the modern "nobility"? Who has wealth tied up and measured in such a way that government knows exactly how much to tax them? Wage workers. In fact your employer rats you out to government on how much you earn. In exchange things like companies, banks, stocks, loans etc. are in the "nobody knows how much they are worth" category. Say you are taxed 10% on the value of all the stocks you own, this means you have to sell 10% of your stocks annually, and by selling stocks you make those stocks less valuable for everyone... so technically they should be taxed less because value drops down? Generally speaking if taxing something changes it's value drastically then governments avoid taxing it.

My personal solution - outlaw stocks, bonds and loans for fucks sake.

[–] almost_genocide@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Say you are taxed 10% on the value of all the stocks you own, this means you have to sell 10% of your stocks annually, and by selling stocks you make those stocks less valuable for everyone… so technically they should be taxed less because value drops down?

Just a note, suggesting a 10% tax is pure fear mongering that billionaires and capitalists use to scare people. The average property tax rate in the United States is 1.1% so that's a reasonable percentage to give. People don't sell 1% of their home every year.

Property taxes are a thing. Stocks are property.

[–] HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub 1 points 21 minutes ago

I honest to god used 10% as an idea of "ridiculously low tax" but I guess the topic of problems with billionaires may be too american for me.

Stocks should be taxed on buy/sell and yearly hold though.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 hours ago

IMO just stop letting them borrow against the unrealized values. You can borrow against what you've paid taxes on.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Just have countries force the "you can't charge interest" rule on Christians.

Islam coming later was able to see the obvious loophole so they added you can't accept loans with interest btw.

Though this does interfere with separation of church and state it seems countries already forgot about that.

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 9 points 13 hours ago

I enjoyed reading this perspective, thanks. It's definitely compelling.

[–] Gonzako@lemmy.world 9 points 13 hours ago

Yeah, the financial market was never actually useful. Its just a money vacuum that the rich benefit from

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 41 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

You wouldn't even have to make a huge reform to make a big difference. If we changed using "unrealized gains" as collateral to count as realizing those gains, the ultra wealthy would pay a fuck ton more in taxes. Also, the interest on those loans should not be deductible. Boo hoo if you end up with a margin call. Don't make risky bets.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 27 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

That's why they're going to great lengths to remove or at least weaken government legislation limiting their acquisition to more wealth, while putting the screws on anyone below them.

[–] Doubleohdonut@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago

Mitch McConnell on the bottom left, looking like he came in through The Wall

[–] ExtremeDullard@piefed.social 123 points 1 day ago (18 children)

They're right: it is pretty complicated to tax the rich using the current tax code. And there's a very good reason for that: they made sure it's as complicated as possible.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›