Fediverse memes

2332 readers

195 users here now

Memes about the Fediverse.

Rules

General

Be respectful
Post on topic
No bigotry or hate speech
Memes should not be personal attacks towards other users

Specific

We are not YPTB. If you have a problem with the way an instance or community is run, then take it up over at !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com.

Addendum: Yes we know that you think ml/hexbear/grad are tankies and or .world are a bunch of liberals but it gets old quickly. Try and come up with new material.

Elsewhere in the Fediverse

Other relevant communities:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

BoozeOrWater@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

Emperor@feddit.uk

wingsfortheirsmiles@feddit.uk

834

Probably not how it works (cdn.masto.host)

submitted 6 days ago by Blaze@piefed.zip to c/fedimemes@feddit.uk

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source: https://oslo.town/@luftvaffel/115327708667457159

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

There literally should just be a cap. Make it something ridiculous like "billionaires are not allowed to exist, so everything you earn past $999,999,999.99 is public property" and I don't see any way how someone could disagree with this other than wanting to be a malicious parasite. That is more than enough money to buy a yacht for your yacht and is also an amount of money that cannot be legitimately obtained.

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Just reinstate 1950s top marginal rates. Then have a drink after a job well done.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Despite the headline tax rate being over 90% in the 1950s, the federal government collects about 3 times more real revenue per person today (with a top rate of 37%) than it did then.

The only reason it was ever that high is because the tax code at that time was so full of loopholes/deductions/etc. (that are closed today) that you could have that be the rate with practically no one actually paying it.

What I'm trying to say is, don't hold your breath for that to ever return in present day.

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

That quote and image combo don't seem directly back up your justification.

And I'm not holding my breath. Our country is now run by those same rich people.

[–] EnsignWashout@startrek.website 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I've always liked the idea of the cap being an immediate loss of any legal property protection.

This would not be through any process, they simply instantly legally cease to have any property rights anytime they cannot prove their net worth is below the limit.

Any member of the public can reclaim any piexe of their ex-property, until the not-quite-billiomaire gets a court ruling confirming their not-a-billionaire status.

Then the not-yet-billionaires can figure out how to constantly stay comfortably below the limit.

Or...they can file an updated wealth disclosure every time they attempt to keep anyone from walking away with any piece of their former property.

If they want to avoid the inconvenience of their yachts, cars, pets, plants, fences, lamps, and television sets being repossessed, they can negotiate with their employees unions for collective ownership in good faith, instead.

It'll be fun to see how many of them are too stupid to take a good deal, and lose their stupid toys.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 5 days ago

Oh, so we put the bar at proving a negative? Easy peasy.