A one-time money infusion is terrible policy. I support it because taxes should be re-distributive, but there is no way to budget a sustainable social policy that way. If the tax policy was more progressive and most importantly assessed annually (and nationally) it would be a huge win.
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
592 points (99.8% liked)
politics
31307 readers
2207 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It is amazing the amount of money and effort Billionaires put into avoiding paying taxes. They aren't hated enough.
I dont care how many billions he's gonna lose
It's literally a one-time 5% tax.
The more money they scream they're gonna lose the more I can see them afford to pay
Do they all just have the most generally punchable faces? Or do their faces just become our idea of what is punchable?
And he'll still be a billionaire after that.
Imaginary money. By this point, their only still a hpper class because the pedestal under them hasn't collapsed.
Or… and hear me out here… we take his money away from him and leave him in a deep pit on a small uninhabited island.
DON'T BUY THE BULLSHIT...YES ON 40.
And no on 41 and 42
God I fucking hate the rich. He's spending thousands of times my yearly pay just to avoid paying less in taxes than I do
Pay your taxes, you fucking parasite.
Bring back pre-Reagan tax rates on the rich.
Those 1950s glory days that Republicans keep harkening back to involved Ike, a Republican president, taxing the [very] wealthy ~~like 52% (fake viral posts say 90%).~~ at a rate of around 90%.
EDIT: Corrected based off of comments. The 52% rates seem to be more common among the "wealthy" at the time, but in comparison to billionaires today, the 90% rate would be more accurate. The "fake viral posts" is in reference to memes that make it sound like every person who counted as "wealthy" were taxed at 90%. I realize I could have written all of that more clearly.
Is it fake viral posts, or just people not understanding how marginal tax rates work or how they differ from your effective tax rate again? The highest tax rate did cross over 90% at the tail end of WWII, but very few people actually had to pay taxes at that rate, and even then, their effective tax rate would have been much lower.
Edit: Just to illustrate, this site has historical tax rates for the period in question. For the sake of simplifying then math, I'm doing this assuming you only paid 3% income tax on income up to $100,000/year, and 94% on earnings above that with the surtax. Source for the income numbers is straight out of my ass, but it doesn't really matter, as it's only to illustrate the point. So, say that year, you managed to make $110,000. You would pay 3% on your first $100,000 in taxable income, and 94% on the remaining $10,000 you earned above that, making your effective rate 11.27% across your whole income, with a tax liability of $12,400. You can have both lower effective tax rates and higher marginal tax rates for your highest earners without either one negating the truth of the other.
It's worth noting that the tax rate might be 90, but the effective taxation is a much lower percentage of the earnings.
Corporate Tax is calculated after costs, while personal tax is calculated more or less directly on earnings and then you need to cover your costs from whatever remains. This might explain the confusion.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1955.pdf
1955 top income tax bracket is 91% for single income over $200k ($2.5M today). IDK what's fake about that, except if you don't understand the concept of bracketing taxes.
The problem is that no one actually paid that, during that same time period tax avoidance was stupidly easy. The average tax rate for the highest earners (over 200k) rarely paid over 45%. Still higher than the average of today, but nowhere near what most people claim about the time.
Plus, before 1986 a lot of the really rich people who could afford to lobby politicians used to be able to create "riffle-shot provisions" basically highly personalized tax carve outs created for them by individual politicians.
The most famous individual tax carveout in American history occurred in the Revenue Act of 1951. Louis B. Mayer, the mega-wealthy head of Hollywood studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), wanted to retire and cash out his massive share of the studio's future profits. Under normal rules, this lump sum would be taxed as personal income at a whopping 91% rate. Mayer hired a powerful Washington lobbyist who worked with standard-setting politicians to write a highly specific amendment. The law stated that a taxpayer could treat a retirement payout as a lower-taxed capital gains distribution (taxed at only 25%), but only if: • The taxpayer had been employed by the company for more than 20 years. • They had held a contractual right to a share of future profits for at least 12 years. • They had been entitled to these rights for at least 5 years after termination of employment. • The entire payout occurred in a single block in one tax year. The criteria were so incredibly specific that Louis B. Mayer and one other MGM executive were the only two people in the United States who qualified. It saved Mayer an estimated $2 million ($23+ million in today's money).
It's just 5% of his wealth. Most people give anything from 20% to 50% of their annual income to taxes and will pay income taxes on all their retirement savings when they pull it.
I’d gladly pay 5% of my total wealth once in lieu of taxes. It’d amount to about $50. Granted all of society would grind to a fucking half if us workers weren’t paying taxes because the other leeches fucking aren’t.
Financial obesity is neurotoxic, an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but trillionaires should be forced to transition into billionaires, and billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
Even hundred millionaires and multi-tens millionaires have too much. 10 million is more than enough for you and your children to never have to work and live a comfortable life.
Even that is too high if everyone else on the planet does not have enough for basic necessities after an honest day’s work.
Another rich tax cheat parasite like Zuckerberg and Musk.
That have so much wealth that they wouldn't even notice and it would help with finding that were cut by Big Billionaire Bill. Including social net.
But yeah, fuck us, fuck our children and grandchildren.
If your are in California, please vote yes on prop 40, and vote NO on prop 41 and 42 (Trojan horses placed by Sergey that would block prop 40 even if it passes)
We need to make readily available MANPAD blueprints using easily obtained materials.
There is no private jet that shouldn't be shot out of the sky. You don't need billions to make rich people live in fear. You just need labor.
Me when capitalists try to make me work: fuck you; pay me.
Me when I have to work to end capitalism: oh boy, here I go again!
Time for some research on MANPADs.
I remember when I wanted to work for Google.
Google was legitimately a force for good at one point. It's hard to believe 2 decades later.
Don't be evil
Imagine another headline for the same facts:
"Google cofounder so rich he could afford to pay $13 billion in taxes"
My YTD return on my 401k is 16%. If a billionaire can't make 5% they're not much of a billionaire.
On the contrary, that’s exactly why they are billionaires. They can’t means they don’t want to and no one in power is willing to make them to.
They don't want to pay because most net worth over a couple hundred million is straight up made up. He couldn't get 13billion liquid if he tried nor could most billionaires.
Exactly. Because that money does not actually exist anywhere other than in their imaginations.
Still, fuck ‘em. Just like they’ve been fucking the rest of us for decades.
Sounds like a skill issue to me.
I wonder if he's tried not ordering avocado toast and making coffee at home
There is plenty of millionaires that want to be taxed more, billionaire wealth hoarders are psychopaths though
Plenty will say whatever is popular, then donate to candidates who do the exact opposite.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Unfortunately, based on the polling, it sounds like it's been working. Fuck this stupid wealth worshipping culture.
Welfare Queen
It's easy to tell who government serves; The rulers are the ones paying the least taxes.
You can tell when our government "sold out"; it's when taxes were cut severely (for billionaires) way back in the 80s by Reagan and Republican party
You can tell the Democrats are in on it because they never restore those taxes (which they could do whenever they'd like).
I know some public schools (about 10 thousand) that could use a piece of that $13 billion, if we can manage not to waste it on the popo
That 5% return on 260. He’ll never know it’s gone.
A billion here. A billion there. Pretty soon, you're talking about a lot of money.
The dirty truth is that it's far cheaper to bribe officials not to tax you then it is to pay taxes.
I wish I could pay that much in taxes
The math is always easy on these things - the millions paid to fight progress is always a fraction of what they expect to lose if it passes, making it simple to know why they oppose these changes instead of the nonsense propaganda they spread.
It's California. He won't lose while Gavin Newsom and his friends are in power.
i'd be willing to bet that goog has declined 5% or more in a single day more than 50 times since IPO.
should make the tax every year. not just 1 yr
view more: next ›