this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
1044 points (99.2% liked)

Political Memes

11878 readers
2068 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

We are beyond tax, burn the fuckers at the stake

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

I highly doubt the USA will copy 1789 France.

[–] trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf 1 points 4 hours ago

No, it'll likely be worse, if

[–] quips@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Thankfully we don’t need to as we don’t have a autocratic government

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (3 children)

This is an international problem.

The more you tax them, the more will flee to countries willing to make concessions for them. But, taxation is preferable to seizing the assets; after seizure, you will lose a massive amount of business for obvious reasons, it will cost more than you seize.

I think that corporate control would be preferable. Shell companies and their machinations are at an absurd level today, see Panama and Pandora papers for more details.

How would you fix this without international solutions? What would those be? Can't we make a deal?

Too bad we don't have a diplomatic deal maker in office

[–] Cherries@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago

If the USA taxes Amazon, do you think Amazon will stop doing business in the USA? Do you think Amazon will do less business in the USA? No, of course not, there's a billion warehouses and distribution centers in the USA, it would be impossible to move.

If the USA taxes Jeff Bezos, do you think Jeff Bezos will go live in Panama? Do you think he will move to Africa? No, of course not, he has all his stuff in the USA that he cannot move, he would never leave.

As long as corporations/billionaires have their stuff in a country, that country can tax their stuff. It's the other side of the coin Trump is having trouble with. Trump slaps a tarrif on everything to encourage manufactuing in the USA, but corpoations don't have many manufacturing capabilities in the USA so the end result is lost jobs and raised prices for nothing. There's no manufacturing stuff in the USA and it would take a decade to make the stuff if they started now.

At a certain level of wealth, all the money is tied up in assets that are difficult to move. Those assets are assessed and used to borrow money to avoid income tax. We can use those same assessments and implement a wealth tax.

The deal should be, "Y'all have had it too good for too long. Pay your fair share immediately and indefintely."

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

You can tax them by demanding the tax regardless of domicile, as a tax for selling their shit in your country.

We can fairly quickly degoogle EU.

As for small, micro, or even SMEs, atm even municipalities are competing & bowing instead of showing solidarity to others. Simple eg EU level laws are needed.

[–] oascany@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Wealth flight is a myth, it is not real.

A good video that sums it up in a nice way: https://youtu.be/6DXZMXZCY0I

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 85 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

We are so far past "taxing" them. They need to be stripped of their wealth completely, not lose some extra 5% on the next haul.

[–] FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I say kill them, especially the billionaires who are also chuds, then tax the surviving billionaires

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It's going to come to that sooner than we think.

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Or nothing will change for the better because we engage in this childish and now apparently murderous nonsense online instead of doing anything practical.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 3 points 4 hours ago

The people who talk openly about murdering us with their policies, budget proposals, and lunatic campaign funding are having people talk about murdering them! powercry-2 O' the humanity!

[–] RidderSport@feddit.org 21 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

You can tax their existing wealth. For example an annual tax for the average wealth you held for the past year for people whose wealth exceeds a total 250 million in all assets

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 20 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

At this point we need to tax their wealth at a rate of like 90% or higher. Any laws that pass with the word "tax" in it is not going to go close to that number. We need to use harsher vocabulary and treat it as the crime it is imo.

[–] stopdropandprole@lemmy.world 21 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Agreed. From ~1930 to the mid 60s, we were taxing almost everything over a certain amount (90+ %). In addition, corporate tax rates were significantly higher.

Besides the point really, we need a plutocrat tax/wealth tax, not income tax reform. It's one of the few direct methods to redistribute the wealth theyve extracted from the 99% and decrease inequality.

Tax wealth, not workers!

[–] binux@sh.itjust.works 12 points 12 hours ago

This was actually the norm during the so-called “golden age of capitalism” in the US funnily enough. The higher margins of the wealthy were taxed upwards of 90% and what do you know, it led to prosperity.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

good luck getting an immortal to care about short-timers

[–] WereCat@lemmy.world 10 points 11 hours ago (5 children)

You did not account for an inflation. How much todays $ is $1 from 80000y ago?

[–] NottaLottaOcelot@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 hours ago

The returns on iron in that era would have been astronomical. But if you put all your money into a mastodon-powered ploughing business you could be belly up

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Goddam it Loch Ness Monster, I ain't giving you no tree fiddy!

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

You forgot that you could account for inflation yourself, IT'S TRUE

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

$0 because the concept of currency did not yet exist.

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 5 points 10 hours ago

Are you saying getting in on the ground floor of seashells wasn't smart?!

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Probably not as much as you'd think. The Gold Standard has not been repealed until 1971, which means inflation would only happen due to extraordinary events (like big wars). But the inflation since 1971 would still multiply your money eight-fold, which will put your saving of 82 millennia above Elon Musk's net worth.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 26 points 14 hours ago

Confiscate his wealth, and nationalize his companies. We paid for them, after all, they're ours. They can be operated at the benefit of the citizens.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 66 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Elon musk would be in jail and broke by now if the SEC could do its job

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 27 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

But that would hurt the earnings of the mega wealthy, clearly can never be allowed to happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hayvan@piefed.world 40 points 16 hours ago (10 children)

Some clarification. Those billionnaires don't have that much money. It's the "valuation" of their assets, so it's even more fictional than actual money. Which means they can practically set to anything with enough hype, and not pay any tax, but can convert some (only some) of that fictional money to real money by getting a bank loan against it, again, tax free.

What I'm saying is, we need to get those funny number back to ground truth. Melon wants SpaceX valued at 1.25 Tn or something. Let him pay taxes over those valuations and see how valuable they really are. After all, anyone with a 800bn company should be able to afford some taxes on them, right? So fucking tax them.

[–] mrsilkworm@piefed.social 23 points 13 hours ago

If they can tax your house based on its current valuation, they can sure tax their stocks based on their current fucking valuations.

Excuse my French, they are not my native language.

Nor are English.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 40 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

You can’t tax valuation

Tell that to the property taxes I pay on my house every year. They manage to define a value even though I’m not selling and it’s still an “unrealized gain”.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 20 points 14 hours ago

That's right, homeowners pay on unrealized gains, but not Sociopathic Oligarchs. We should flip that.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 35 points 16 hours ago (13 children)

“You can’t tax valuation”

Fine, the government gets 40% of your share options.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 31 points 15 hours ago

“You can’t tax valuation”

Yes you can. Capitalism just doesn't want you.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 11 points 15 hours ago

If they are using the "unvested" assets for something, like getting a loan with them as collateral, then we should treat it as if they realized the gain.

If you use stock as collateral to get s $1mm loan, that should be treated as income.

If they then sell the stock and get taxed again.... I don't think I really care.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

Seems like this would be a good place to treat those stocks (and options) as real property and tax them accordingly. With a properly progressive rate on them, we could set the lower end such that normal retirement funds won't be impacted, with the high end discouraging hording assets.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 18 points 15 hours ago

I pay increased taxes because my property goes up in value, even if I don't sell. Same should apply to shares (to be fair there should also be tax credits when shares fall).

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 34 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Missed that scene of "Man from Earth"

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›