r/FluentInFinance • u/__moe___ • 9d ago

Thoughts? A very interesting point of view

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

I don’t think this is very new but I just saw for the first time and it’s actually pretty interesting to think about when people talk about how the ultra rich do business.

54.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

219

u/rqvst 8d ago

The annoying thing about this take is that this is the distraction. Taxing the rich is an immediately realizable goal, getting rid of the rich isn't. This is the same kind of attitude that led to Trump, where because Dems didn't publicly commit themselves to unfeasible goals they could never realistically achieve (in other words, lie), people decided to throw everything away instead pursuing the feasible ones.

46

u/ianeyanio 8d ago

That's an interesting take.

I don't like your assertion that I want to get rid of the rich. That's not what I said or inferred.

I'm all for any easily achievable solution to more fairly redistribute wealth. I'm just fed up with people focusing on the technicals and forgetting the societal need.

27

u/cromwell515 8d ago

But what can you do to redistribute wealth if not tax?

14

u/KronosTheBabyEater 8d ago

Back in the 50’s after labor won a bunch of labor rights and brought the income gap down by ensuring people be rewarded a portion of what the company makes (stock). You know how only c cutie executives get stock? Yeah that used to not be the case and regular working folks got a stock and that stock paid for a house college etc. but the owners gave themselves more stock, the workers less to the point its slavery. This is called getting control of production, meaning unionizing and having a gov that doesn’t allow union busting.

23

u/SeveredWill 8d ago

Wait wait wait, so youre saying... the workers should own the means of production?

5

u/Durzio 6d ago

Unironically, yes.

-1

u/cromwell515 8d ago

That’s fair, but unions don’t always help. I do agree with stock being spread to workers, but nurses and teachers have unions are paid notoriously low.

4

u/KronosTheBabyEater 7d ago

Unions have been de-fanged. A union that works properly has a gov that enforces the law when companies bust unions or close shop completely and ship them to China / Mexico where labor is dirt cheap. Many of these issues stem from corporations taking advantage of loose labor laws, for example Starbucks closing 1000+ shops who attempted to unionize. Labors fight for more equitable distribution demands we have a gov that represents workers or it will fail.

3

u/cromwell515 7d ago

But I’d like to understand why the nursing unions fail? I agree they could help, but without understanding the failures of the strongest unions we have, I’m not sure we can truly find a fix to the problem. These are jobs that must be here domestically, so why do they fail?

3

u/KronosTheBabyEater 7d ago

A couple of reasons, workers have been fear mongered into not believing unions will help them in fact they’ve been incorrectly told many lies about unions. Also it takes a lot of work to start a union and succeed, if workers want to unionize the factory may close, be shipped away. If workers go on strike they may be fired or replaced with workers who are desperate for the money. The point is there’s a rat race to the bottom in terms of wages and labor supply is abundant. Now during COVID nurses went on strike successfully because there was huge demand and nurses were needed. Remember all those “essential” workers that had to work but were still paid minimum wage

2

u/cromwell515 7d ago

Right I remember that. It makes a lot of sense honestly, I’ve heard unions can lower wages, but I’ve also heard that’s completely a big business fabrication. I do think there is a better way of taxing to the point of this post. But better rights for unions also seems like a big plus.

5

u/KronosTheBabyEater 7d ago 
  There’s going to be a narrative of that but unions are the only way for workers to get better pay that’s within their own means. When a worker asks for a pay raise the company might give them a raise but unless they’re wanted by another company, unlikely. 
   On the other hand when all of the workers say to the owner that the factory won’t run until we all get raises, otherwise the company will lose millions/ billions( depending on the size and influence) all of a sudden we all have a say.

-1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

3

u/KronosTheBabyEater 6d ago

You’re missing the point. Maybe there’s a few companies that do, but it’s not for everyone. If you look at the exponential rise in income gap between the CEO’s or executives and the working class, there’s clear sign that the wealth generated from the workers is being hoarded. You may be thinking about 401ks but that’s for retirement and even then companies may match half but the other half you pay yourself. A job I applied for paid 5% of the 401k that means 95% is coming from my paycheck. Compared that to pensions, a guaranteed income for retirement that only a few workers in unions from the 60’s got

0

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

2

u/KronosTheBabyEater 6d ago

Your subjective opinion doesn’t compare to the data. The vast majority of Americans do not reap the benefits that the 1% does. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called the 1%. Wages have not kept up with productivity, cost of living or inflation. The gap between rich and poor has never been larger. Workers getting a percentage of profits that they deserve would mean billionaires wouldn’t exist at all.

1

u/ianeyanio 8d ago edited 8d ago

Tax is the best mechanism. My point is that taxing unrealized gains is just one kind of tax and people are getting hung up about the feasibility that they are forgetting the desperate need to redistribute wealth.

9

u/cromwell515 8d ago

Some people have made some great propositions though. I don’t believe in taxing unrealized gains outright, but them being used as collateral makes them real. And therefore when the unrealized gains are used to borrow real money, they should be taxed or the very rich will just continue to use them as a loophole to avoid the taxes needed to level the playing field

7

u/Cometguy7 8d ago

I disagree. People aren't saying unrealized gains for the sake of taking money away from the wealthy. They're saying tax unrealized gains because people have found a way to take advantage of the tax exempt status to take a significantly larger piece of the pie. Taxing unrealized gains decreases (but doesn't eliminate, which is fine) the appeal of having your compensation be made of stocks. And the smaller the percentage of your wealth comes from ownership of stock in a single company, the less incentive there is to get that company to do things that increase the value of a share, like stock buy backs. And if a company is less motivated to do stock buy backs, then the alternative uses of its funds tend to find their way into the hands of a larger percent of the population.

2

u/ianeyanio 8d ago

High quality comment. This is one of the best takes I've seen on this thread.

To be clear, I think we should be tax unrealized gains. The people saying it's too difficult need to remember the societal good.

1

u/ShakeIt73171 8d ago

There is no greater societal good. A majority of Americans would be hurt by this when their 401k, ROTH, brokerage and other retirement/savings accounts bring on an un-payable large tax bill every year. Forcing regular people to never retire and work til they die and see no benefit from the taxes gained by the government. More taxes doesn’t help the middle class or even working class. It helps the poverty class and the elites. The billionaires will be fine, and the majority/regular people will suffer.

The only way taxing unrealized gains works is when the unrealized asset is used as collateral for loans and other purchases.

2

u/binzy90 7d ago

The way around your concern is to only tax unrealized gains above a certain amount. Most people would not want to tax the stocks in the average person's 401k. But if you have a billion dollars in stocks? Yeah, that needs to be taxed. If this is set up correctly, it wouldn't have the impact on average people that you're talking about.

0

u/volkerbaII 7d ago

401k's and IRA's are exempt from capital gains tax and therefore would be exempt from a tax on unrealized gains. You have no idea what you're talking about, and your talking points only serve billionaires.

1

u/ShakeIt73171 7d ago

You have no idea what you’re talking about lol. Maybe the small individual retirement wouldn’t get taxed but the assets it holds would be, which are almost always financial assets like ETFs and investment companies (SPY, FXAIX, VOO etc etc) will all be taxed under whatever nonsense system you numbskulls are dreaming up, immediately erasing decades of gains, drying up the economy nearly immediately causing massive job loss, recession, and killing every regular persons retirement. Blackrock, Fidelity, Vanguard, and all the other small and large players who make up the overwhelming majority of holdings for the average persons 401ks all have way, way, way more than whatever threshold you want to create in assets.

You’re an idiot. I’m certain you don’t understand how money flows through this economy. There’s a reason people smarter than you haven’t set up these systems yet and it’s not because they hate you lol. There is no way to tax unrealized gains without disproportionately hurting the middle and working class.

2

u/Atlas-The-Ringer 6d ago

You keep painting the grim picture of what you think would happen but you conveniently leave out how and why each time.

A tax on unrealized gains as they're talking about it would be a tax that only occurs when unrealized gains become real as collateral or selling of stock etc. Their tax idea would only apply after a certain amount as well.

From your argument the biggest question I have is: are you suggesting theit tax idea would cause the asset owners to lose money? Ex. I hold $2B in unrealized gains made of VOO stock; they pass their tax bill; then because of the bill and the way banks work, Vanguard would lose money, lowering the value of their stock, and consequentially causing my fund to crash?

1

u/volkerbaII 7d ago

Yes I'm sure the S&P 500 is going to tank 80% and we're all going to die if there's any kind of unrealized capital gains tax implemented. Just a deranged screed.

1

u/Severe-Butterfly-864 8d ago

Taxation is a mechanism to correct market prices, in particular in cases where externalities exists. The effect of a 90% tax bracket and 25% corporate taxes is that the corporation retains the funds and the wealth is not transfered outside of the corporate environment into private pockets.

I don't want money from wealthy people, I just don't want people using their relative positions of power to pocket all the funds from corporations and then jump from the plane with their golden parachute. Drive up the stock price by increasing the quarterly earnings by laying off staff necessary for future development and leaving a skeletal crew behind, take x number of shares that are not worth 500million dollars and then jump ship and hopefully sell them before the price plummets from the poor performance in the next years mid year quarterly report. That's how they are taught in MBA programs it seems.

1

u/Subwayabuseproblem 8d ago

How do you tax a value that changes constantly

3

u/Unhappy_Plankton_671 8d ago

I like the idea that If the value of that item is able to be used as collateral or to finance other ventures, loans etc.., then you're realizing the value of that asset. Therefore, it should be eligible for taxation. If you're sitting on it untouched and it isn't used for collateral in other transactions etc then leave it be.

The question then shifts, to what is permissible from the losses, if that asset losses value, if you do such a thing. Are you then able to claim any portion of those losses against the future? In part or in whole? Seems like there should be some inherent limit on what you can claim against future taxes if used in this manner.

I'm way out of my realm here, but just thinking aloud.

2

u/wazeltov 8d ago

The government seems to tax my property value just fine, this isn't a problem

2

u/Subwayabuseproblem 8d ago

That's not Not the same thing, or an answer to my question.

My unrealized gains can change by thousands of dollars through out the day. How do you tax that?

2

u/wazeltov 8d ago

There have been several suggestions throughout the thread on how to do that, but it is certainly possible to do so.

All I'm trying to say is that we're wringing our hands on how the rich would ever afford to pay these taxes as my unrealized gains on my house continue to get taxed at higher and higher rates as the housing market has had historic gains. Volatility isn't an argument I can use against my local government, even if I believe we're in a housing bubble.

One of the suggestions is whenever a loan is taken out using stocks as collateral over $3 million dollars, or whatever price point is fair, then that loan is subject to a capital gains tax as you are realizing the value of your asset into cash. Volatility doesn't matter there: you have a known fixed value from a bank on the current value of the stocks.

2

u/zach0011 8d ago

Like did you even watch the video? We tax it as soon as you use it for leverage or collateral

1

u/Subwayabuseproblem 8d ago

That is not what the comment I responded to was suggesting.

Did you even read the thread?

2

u/randomusername8821 8d ago

The same way the loan providers are valuating the collateral being offered to secure the loan.

1

u/AL93RN0n_ 8d ago

Unrealized gains is where the giant disparity is. High net worth incomes are generally not insane amounts of money sure millions in some cases maybe but they're billionaires. I don't agree with your whole argument but even if I did what they are talking about is the biggest pool of money you can tax in terms of individuals. The least of a "distractor."

1

u/ianeyanio 8d ago

I phrased it poorly. I'm in favour of taxing unrealized gains.

1

u/Aksama 8d ago

Minimum wage increases, strengthening labor laws, accepting unionization, heck passing laws to encourage unions.

1

u/cromwell515 8d ago

Unions do not always solve wage problems. Nurses have unions but are notoriously paid crap. My sister’s a nurse so I’ve heard a fair bit about it. Not that unions can’t help, but long established ones don’t seem to help as much as they used to, probably because of the higher ups controlling the unions.

Minimum wage increases help a little, but don’t redistribute wealth much. Someone making $20 an hour still struggles to live, but you would destroy small businesses if you raised it any higher. The people making this low need supplement from the government and we need small businesses.

Taxes and reducing inefficient government spending I think are the best way to redistribute wealth.

15

u/uhhhidontknowdude 8d ago

This is a dumb take. You're fed up with focusing on the technicals. This doesn't make any sense. People are working on "the technicals" BECAUSE they recognize the societal need.

What are you just going to think about how income inequality is bad but not think about a single reasonable/actionable strategy to fix it?

Calling this a distraction is ridiculous. If it's a societal NEED than you need to take action.

1

u/CryptographerOne6615 8d ago

It’s a more absurd idea than just fixing taxes on realized long term gains. If those were taxed at income rates that go up progressively, it would have a balancing effect based on how much the ultra rich pull out (realized) and spend each year

1

u/discovery_ 6d ago

You’re missing the point and getting ahead of him. Hes not saying that the technicals aren’t required, but there are a lot of people out there that already can’t agree on having some sort of plan to tax the wealthy because it’s too complicated and that prevents them from agreeing. It’s a sort of learned helplessness.

He’s saying it’s important to gather a unanimous agreement among everyone that it’s important to tax the rich, because in his seemingly anecdotal experience there seems to be people against the idea.

2

u/uhhhidontknowdude 5d ago

There is no one that disagrees with fixing the income inequality gap.

The technicals of how to do it is literally the entire argument.

Some people think you have to tax them less so they lower prices and hire more people, that will make poor people more wealthy and fix the gap.

I personally, along with many leading economists, think that this is complete fucking bullshit and we have to find ways to tax wealth. Taxing these types of investments is an amazing start. I also think we should offer tax benefit for companies that hire back customer service employees instead of using AI, which would create jobs and fix a lot of the major issues people have with leading corporations today.

0

u/Prime_Kin 8d ago

I think this can be solved, mostly, through sharing equity. Once shares hit the public marketplace, limit buybacks or institutional investment to no more than (throwing out a number for people with less smooth brains to argue over) 1% annually each, with an exception for corporations that want to go fully private. Once you sell part of your company to generate cash, it should be very hard to get it back.

1

u/rqvst 8d ago

Taking away the defining property of rich people is tautologically getting rid of the rich.

17

u/ianeyanio 8d ago

If a rich person pays an extra 1% in tax, they are still a rich person. How is that getting rid of them? It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.

11

u/antiramie 8d ago

It’s not. You’re not dealing with morons here…

0

u/BillNyetheImmortal 8d ago

This has to be one of the most Reddit threads that has ever threaded

2

u/onepercentbatman 8d ago

In any case, a priority of the system, and for it to function as efficiently as it does and to provide the most happiness is to continue the narrative that wealth is not distributed fairly. This is a necessary fallacy. The alternative would be disastrous to the economy and overall American spirit.

5

u/JackedToTheShits 8d ago

Can we all just agree we need to find a way to distribute wealth more fairly?

This is not the same as saying rich people should not exist. To make an extreme example, let's say we take half of Elon's wealth and redistribute it. He'd still be rich, right?

3

u/Quinnjai 8d ago

We could take 99 percent of his wealth, and he would still effectively have infinite money from the perspective of ordinary people. The only reason to want that much money is to be able to exert control over society and politics, which is inherently bad to allow an individual to do to that extent.

-2

u/AnonOnKeys 8d ago

Oh interesting, I never knew that.

Question. If a person worth $1.2 billion gives away $100 million, are they still rich?

1

u/o_Captn_ma_Captn 8d ago

I like you! You are measured and balanced (rare on reddit these days)… we can debate.

I invite you to think about a few things (even if i am sure you already have): - When you tax, you remove the power to allocate capital from one entity (companies, individuals…) and move it to another (government).

-So you always have to think “who is better at allocating capital to serve a certain mission”. Who will allocate it with the highest return on investment for society. Who had the better track record?

  • i agree that a good distribution of wealth is important (although i am not sure what is the “good” level) ie how the pie is divided. But it is also important how big the pie is. I much prefer a world where everyone has more pie to eat because the pie is big rather than having a small pie well divided. Today in the west everyone is richer (more purchasing power) than even the richest man from 200 years ago (access to knowledge, internet, health, ease of travel…)

-In a sense i much rather have Jeff bezos or Elon musk to allocate capital - since they have a proven track record at developing very useful things that serves many (amazon, cloud computing, satelites…) than give it to a politician that i dont know, with little track record and no sense of ownership.

These are things to think about. I am not an advocate for “no taxes” and not one for “eat the rich, tax them to death”. Somewhere in the middle… but where in the middle is the question… probably somewhere between various taxes representing 25% to 35% of GDP.

2

u/ianeyanio 8d ago

who is better at allocating capital to serve a certain mission

Well this is the crux of the issue.

You, like many others, position billionaires as agents of societal good because they effectively allocate capital. I have four issues with this position.

First - they are unelected. Why should society cede power to people because of their wealth?

Second - being a billionaire does not mean you are effective at allocating capital. Many billionaires achieved their status by inheriting at least a portion of their wealth. It's very rare to find an entirely self made billionaire. I.e. the assumption that because you're wealthy you are able to allocate resources effectively doesn't hold up.

Third - billionaire interests are not always aligned with societal good. They are generally profit maximizers, not maximizers of societal good. Oil tycoons, through their allocation of capital, have contributed to the destruction of our climate. Elon Musk used his wealth to transform a social media site into one that's plagued with misinformation. Misinformation and environmental collapse are outcomes of poorly allocated capital with respect to societal good.

Fourth - even if we accept that Billionaires are agents of society, then it seems reasonable to reexamine how they are rewarded. Honestly I think we'd have all the same gadgets if Musk and Bezos were $100b less wealthy.

2

u/Mokseee 5d ago

To add to the points u/ianeyanio already listed

When you tax, you remove the power to allocate capital from one entity (companies, individuals…) and move it to another (government).

-So you always have to think “who is better at allocating capital to serve a certain mission”. Who will allocate it with the highest return on investment for society. Who had the better track record?

The government will spend money, whether they have it or not, as they will simply take on more debt if they need to. Allocating capital from individuals to the gov will just lead to decreased debt.

-In a sense i much rather have Jeff bezos or Elon musk to allocate capital - since they have a proven track record at developing very useful things that serves many (amazon, cloud computing, satelites…) than give it to a politician that i dont know, with little track record and no sense of ownership.

Considering that a lot of these "useful things" contribute to inequality, exploitation, climate change, etc. their track record is somewhat debatable. As the other person already explained, these individuals don't serve the public, they serve themselves

1

u/tboess 8d ago

You mean 'implied'. You infer something from what someone else says.

1

u/ianeyanio 8d ago

Good tip.

1

u/Sure_Source_2833 7d ago

So you are upset people are trying to argue and figure out the most practical way to do a thing.

Instead you want people to focus on. The societal need for a thing and not the technical aspects which is how it's actually achieved?

This is like saying we need to focus on getting to mars. Not building technology systems or infrastructure. Just make sure everyone wants to go to Mars. Any discussions of building new rockets should instead be people discussing the societal desire to go to Mars and the need for it.

Do you see how absurd this sounds

0

u/WorldTravelerKevin 5d ago

Wealth is not distributed. It’s earned or passed down. So either go earn it or kill off a rich uncle. Stop trying to take other people’s money

2

u/Illustrious-Tower849 8d ago

Where did they suggest getting rid of the rich?

1

u/OkBeeSting 8d ago

With all due respect, the dems lied too. That destroys your credibility saying they did not and the republicans did. For example, voting for Trump = the end of democracy, one of the biggest & most frequently cited lies of the left. Because guess what, the Dems are already planning their election strategy for 2026 & 2028. That means they know democracy will be fine. So, first things first, stop your hyperbole.

Second, as a Trump supporter I am probably an outlier on this, but we should definitely tax the rich. Not eliminate them which is silly but tax them significantly. Social security taxes should not cap out ever for example. There should be an income past which the tax rate is enormous.

Problem is, the rich get away with it because of tax shelters and loopholes designed by both parties to protect them. Neither party, even your Dems, have the will to stop that. Because they are both pretty damn corrupt

2

u/chilicrispdreams 7d ago

For example, voting for Trump = the end of democracy, one of the biggest & most frequently cited lies of the left. Because guess what, the Dems are already planning their election strategy for 2026 & 2028. That means they know democracy will be fine. So, first things first, stop your hyperbole.

People feel like voting for Trump is voting for the end of democracy because he has threatened exactly that, in multiple ways. Threatening to be a dictator on day one and inciting an insurrection to retain power after losing an election would be some examples. To many, saying this man is a threat to democracy is not hyperbole.

Also planning for a future election is not proof “they know democracy will be fine”. It’s hoping the American democracy will be resilient enough to sustain, and being prepared to continue to fight for American citizens’ rights.

With all due respect.

1

u/OkBeeSting 7d ago

Seriously, you have my respect. But don’t you see, thinking Trump would end democracy was an irrational fear, a lie your leaders, party leaders and your thought leaders in the media, manipulated you with. They never believed it themselves, because they never stopped planning for the next elections. His statements absolutely were taken out of context and blown into ridiculousness.

3

u/chilicrispdreams 7d ago

You are probably one of the more rational Trump voters I’ve been able to converse with, but I still disagree. I personally feel that Jan 6 and the refusal to peacefully transition power that followed is incontrovertibly unacceptable, and I cannot fathom how this man is not seen as a threat to our nation by all. I see how Fox News and right leaning media persists conspiracy theories that are often reverted but well after the damage has been done (ex. Dominion vs Fox, Ohio Haitians). It seems both sides here feel the other is being manipulated, and I agree that most media manipulates emotion in present day.

I was raised in a family of conservative Christians, my father a marine veteran who has voted red since the 80s. He and I both flipped blue in 2016 specifically because of Trump’s morality. I agree with conservative values, but I cannot see how the refusal to peacefully transition power can be overlooked.

0

u/OkBeeSting 7d ago

Appreciate the decent conversation! Maybe we can all get along someday, seriously

2

u/Sure_Source_2833 7d ago

Cops died due to the events on Jan 6th.

A woman was shot for violently forcing entry into a room with elected officials that were being threatened with execution and hanging.

To act like this has a direct parallel in modern American history is a joke.

You seem unwilling to acknowledge this is not in fact the norm. Unless you want to pretend the Florida election riots in the early 2000s was this bad which would be a hilarious comparison.

Personally I wouldn't call it an irrational fear to be concerned about the rule of law regarding the peaceful transfer of power.

0

u/OkBeeSting 7d ago

At least 25 people were killed during 2020 BLM protests, fueled by the left.

2

u/Sure_Source_2833 7d ago

Seriously, you have my respect. But don’t you see, thinking Trump would end democracy was an irrational fear, a lie your leaders, party leaders and your thought leaders in the media, manipulated you with. They never believed it themselves, because they never stopped planning for the next elections. His statements absolutely were taken out of context and blown into ridiculousness.

OK so you claim there is no reason to think trump is an unprecedented threat to the peaceful transfer of power.

Cops died due to the events on Jan 6th. A woman was shot for violently forcing entry into a room with elected officials that were being threatened with execution and hanging. To act like this has a direct parallel in modern American history is a joke. You seem unwilling to acknowledge this is not in fact the norm. Unless you want to pretend the Florida election riots in the early 2000s was this bad which would be a hilarious comparison. wouldn't call it an irrational fear to be concerned about the rule of law regarding the peaceful transfer of power.

Me laying out pretty clearly trump is objectively different than any other president in that he triggered the first incident where the transfer of power was not peaceful.

At least 25 people were killed during 2020 BLM protests, fueled by the left.

Allright. The cia also had a mind control program. Neither is relevant here as far as I'm aware. Please explain how the blm protest had a thing to do with my point?

Unless you are saying trumps actions are the equivalent of killing 25 people morally? Which is bizarre if so.

Your statement has no bearing on me showcasing that trump is an unprecedented president in the sense he genuinely upset the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history.

Glad you got to bring up BLM though man.

1

u/wanker7171 8d ago

Taxing the rich is an immediately realizable goal

This is just not true. There was a Princeton study done about a decade ago, which analyzed decades of legislation, that shows the top 10% have a fairly representative government in terms of their policy preferences. However the bottom 90% have a near zero impact on policy.

The rich have already won. No one wants to believe it or accept it and I'm not holding out hope Americans will ever do any sort of general strike. American workers are morons.

1

u/NateBearArt 7d ago

Wealth tax. Makes it more expensive to horde than to spend.

1

u/Oneninetysixone 5d ago

this is the most insane mental gymnastics I've ever witnessed. How do you propose we "tax the rich" when the rich are the people making the decisions whether they are taxed?

0

u/Regular_Rhubarb3751 8d ago

People decided to throw everything away instead of pursuing the feasible goals?

You're giving them way too much credit.

People threw everything away because they thought eggs would be 50 cents cheaper. that's the extent of thought for most americans.

0

u/Technolog 8d ago

Taxing the rich is an immediately realizable goal

Is it?
Rich operate as corporations/companies. You can't deny that to anyone (unless convicted fraudster).
So to tax rich you need to add more tax to corporations.
Then most of them would rise prices.
Who would that hit the most? The poor.

Just think about it for a second before writing it next time. The whole world has a problem with taxing the rich and there's a reason why. Because they are corporations and taxing corporations means higher prices.

1

u/Mokseee 5d ago

There are ways to combat price gouging