this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
25 points (100.0% liked)

Economy

2783 readers
118 users here now

Lemmy Community for economy, business, politics, stocks, bonds, product releases, IPOs, advice, news, investment, videos, predictions, government, money, politics, debate, current trends and more.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kurikai@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

because almost everyone allows it and dont want the rich taxed, as they might become rich one day

[–] MrSelfDestruct25@fedinsfw.app 8 points 2 weeks ago

So many delusional people.

[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Edit: So this is a bot account - Lemmy RSS PyBot is a powerful Python bot that reads RSS feeds and posts new articles to your favorite Lemmy communities. Stay updated with the latest news, blogs, and articles time-efficiently.

Cash is easy to count, but what about all those homes, cars, private jets and investments? Not to mention art collections or the contents of safety deposit boxes. This becomes more difficult and costly if it needs to be done every year.

This is a weak argument because it's an all-in type of thinking. We have to tax all of these things, or non of these things. That's bullshit. Legislation can start with the easiest to tax, homes, cars and jets. Hell unrealized gains in the stock market can be taxed, debt that use stock value as collateral can be taxed as a form of income for the individual. Then there is the argument that the wealthy will just move. Why is that a problem - it's not like the region they were moving from is losing out on tax revenue. If they take their business with them couldn't that open opportunities for others to fill in that gap with new similar businesses?

Also on the art collections and safe deposit box contents - that's call an inheritance tax. It doesn't need to be annual.

This article skims the surface with a "well its difficult so what can you do?" attitude.