this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
17 points (66.0% liked)

News

36063 readers
4331 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
 

Paywall Free

Excerpt: America’s top 1% enjoy a fifth of the economy’s income and pay nearly a third of its federal taxes. Many politicians think they should cough up much more. Zohran Mamdani, New York’s mayor, wants a new 2% city levy on incomes over $1m. Virginia, Rhode Island and Washington state are weighing up similar measures; Californians are likely this year to vote on a “one time” 5% levy on billionaires’ wealth. In Europe, too, there is a similar clamour to target the wealthy. France has seen a popular campaign for a wealth tax. And with Sir Keir Starmer weakened or doomed as prime minister, the left wing of Britain’s Labour Party may implement one of its own. The “Robin Hood” state, which takes from the rich to give to the poor, has obvious appeal. Governments across the developed world are strapped for cash. Budgets are burdened by legacy debts, ageing populations and the need to spend more on defence. But few politicians will countenance raising broad-based taxes at a time when voters, scarred by the high inflation of the early 2020s, are worried about affordability. Booming stockmarkets, meanwhile, have reinforced the idea that inequality is too high. And it always sounds good to say someone else will foot the bill.

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Not just taxes, I want wealth caps

Nobody should have a networth over 1 million

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Net worth of over a million? That's way too low, sorry. If you buy even one house and pay it off, you are practically in that territory now.

I'd be fine with a cap of one billion, adjusted for inflation every year.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

I'd go with half a billion, just to be sure nobody gets near a billion.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Inflation is calling. They wanted to let you know that a very very modest homeowner in an unfashionable part of town in many cities around the world, is over 1 million. The people squeeking by aren't the problem. Aim higher.

[–] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk -4 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Oh no, how will people survive with a net worth of only $1 million????

What's your net worth, by the way?

[–] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

If you inherited your house from your parents, you could be penniless and have a net worth over $1 million.

$1 million is an arbitrary number and is not what it used to be, even 5 years ago. Even if you count everyone with $5 million net worth on one side and everyone over that on the other, the over $5 million side still owns most of the global economy.

The guy doing well in the next neighborhood over has essentially nothing to do with the wealth gap and resulting economic stagflation. The people with "too much" money have so much of it that it evades human comprehension.

[–] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk -1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

So... sell the house and you have $1 million to buy a more modest place to live and you will still have hundreds of thousands of dollars left over.

Everyone who says a net worth of $1 million isn't enough should look at their own net worth before sucking off people who have more.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago

You need to travel more and see the world. I mean this with no offense intended, but you comment smacks of naivety. Context matters.

"A more modest place". I bought one of the smallest, shittiest oldest places in the unfashionable sectors of my city and it hit a mil 15 years ago. There is nothing shittier. To get cheaper I have to leave the city altogether where my profession doesn't exist. Your war is not against "homeowners". We should aspire to raise everyone up and out of precarity, not shoot everyone who is not poor.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Always a laugh seeing suckers get taken for a ride.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

You don't get invited to parties very often do you? This is why.

[–] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk -1 points 16 hours ago

Lol, keep being wrong.

[–] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk -3 points 23 hours ago

I completely agree.

Everyone saying $1 million isn't enough should consider how many people go their entire lives without making anywhere near a million dollars.

We should be helping those who have less before those who have more.