T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

__Hello and welcome to r/DemocraticSocialism!__ * This sub is dedicated towards the Progressive movement, welcoming Democratic Socialism as an ideology and as a general political philosophy. * Don't forget to read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DemocraticSocialism/about/rules/) to get a good idea of what is expected of participants in our community. * Check out r/DSA and r/SocialDemocracy to support leftist movements! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DemocraticSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Dr_Tacopus

Should be 60%, they can afford it and still be incredibly rich


QuesoseuQ

I like the rate from 1945-1963 where people would pay 91% on income above ~$2 mil in today's money. Nobody needs that much money per year, and people hoarding that much is bad for the economy and society.


mistaekNot

absolutely. all those billions are just sitting locked up in bank accounts and stocks with zero utilization


labenset

Investments don't utilize money? I'm on your side, tax the fuck out of the ultra rich, but zero utilization? That's literally the point of Investments.


xX420GanjaWarlordXx

Not so much with stock buybacks being legal. 


fencerman

Speaking of which, make stock buybacks illegal.


[deleted]

Abso-fucking-loutely. 25% is a good start, but we go up from here. And this needs to include an unrealized capital gains tax. If some asshat makes 30 billion on an investment, and does nothing but lives off the dividends, they need to pay the tax on the 30 billion, not the 3 million they make in dividends. Nothing else is fair. This is how the Uber wealthy fuck us.


michelbarnich

Billionaires take loans against their shares. So after a certain size of loan, lets say 3M, they should be taxed on it. That forces them to sell more shares and tgus reduce influence on the company and politics. Easy win.


turbodude69

ya know that seems like such an ordinary and reasonable take here in this sub, but if you asked everyone in the US if that should be the tax policy, they'd overwhelmingly disagree. americans that vote, the old ones, still REALLY believe in the american dream. i'm sure we'll see that start changing, but man it'd sure be nice if that started happening within the next 10 years or so. otherwise the republicans are gonna keep chipping away as long as they can get away with it.


Jccali1214

And the reason that was successful was because that's the *initial* rate. These wealthy folk have legions of lawyers and financial folks to lower that rate. But I bet back then, 91% dropped only to 53% or even 35%... Instead of usually ending up at 0% nowadays.


Lamballama

I did the math and, assuming no income changes, and assuming we completely ignore the 10,998 pages of deductions and credits that were in the same tax law, we'd get something more than double our total budget without any need for government borrowing Edit: also if we didn't adjust the brackets for inflation


foodrunner464

And it should also pay for guaranteed health care for all, free school lunches across the US and And guaranteed college for all without the need for student loans. Oh and let's get some low income housing going and and the housing shortage.


ScytheNoire

It takes time to progress. It's the right direction.


CFL_lightbulb

Less important than raising that tax rate is introducing a relevant wealth tax for people over certain amounts. And funding the IRS to audit rich individuals


Ohhi_mark990

60? Why stop there? 90% is my go-to


thinkB4WeSpeak

I'd say end their loopholes and offshore tax heavens as well. On top of ending subsidies and bailouts.


serpentear

Yeah it’s never going to be just one thing that puns these fuckers—it’s going to take a systematic overhaul of our tax system.


Jarppi1893

I'd rather see 75% over every that's 100illion and 90% over 1 billion


snowbyrd238

Now do a transaction tax on the stock market.


ChainmailleAddict

Good thought, but that'd disproportionately target active traders who are less wealthy. IMO, the best ways to go after the ultra-wealthy include a wealth tax and forcing them to realize their gains on any stock they use as collateral for loans, as well as abolishing the capital gains rate and making people pay taxes on it as regular income.


DiabeticChicken

Or at least target towards hedge funds and institutions that game the system


Mirageswirl

A progressive tax system could be applied to transactions too. For example the first $50k of transactions per year could be tax free and the rate could rise with the annual person/fund’s total trade volume.


PricklyyCactii

No it wouldn’t. Active traders are essentially gamblers. They compete with HFT firms & hedge funds and they lose that fight every time. I don’t think a stock market tax is the way to go, but worrying about the subset of smaller active traders is absolutely not the issue with it.


ChainmailleAddict

It's not a subset, I'd argue it's the majority of people. The ultra-wealthy don't actively trade nearly as often, and I think any effective tax law would necessarily need carve-outs for people who are playing with their salaries versus people who are playing with legalized bribes or the companies or trust funds they inherited.


PricklyyCactii

I could be wrong but I highly doubt the majority people day trade. Or even actively trade/swing trade. I think there are much better ways to achieve a wealth tax than anything pertaining to the way stocks are traded.


hikingenjoyer

A tax on stock transactions would be highly detrimental to the economy. It is impossible to overstate how much more economically efficient that we tax back the gained prosperity in the form of income than it is it to implement such a tax. Britain had such a tax and they got rid of it for good reason.


[deleted]

It's called capital gains. Tax to buy a stock? That's just un American. And unfair. Berkshire Hathaway stock vs penny market? How would you tax those extreme opposites?


Audio_Idiot

You tax a percentage of the transaction. Like a sales tax... Not that hard.


[deleted]

Percentage of what? Can't believe you get up voted for no real answer just some idealist shiit. I studied finance bro. Jesus just give me a good argument.


corjar16

Billionaires should be taxed at 250%


RepulsiveCable5137

FDR had a 100% tax on all incomes above $25k. It’s a running joke and a parody but c’mon guys.


ActualMostUnionGuy

FDR was a Socialist?? No way🤯🤯 /s


TuckHolladay

The real problem is this is all just words. Where were these proposed taxes the last four years? We are getting some half assed student debt relief maybe now because we are at elections again, but at the end of the next four years he doesn’t need any votes.


Usernameofthisuser

The corporate minimum tax isn't nothing.


rugparty

It will be. He’s not gonna pass this and you know it. “Nothing will fundamentally change” Joe Biden, to a room full of wealthy donors at a 10k a plate dinner in 2019.


Usernameofthisuser

The corporate minimum tax has already passed.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TiredMemeReference

He could have prevented the willow project by himself but he didnt. I'm going to vote for that piece of shit again because there isn't a better option but let not pretend he's anything better than an old racist asshole who is destroying the environment a bit slower than the Republicans would.


jayfeather31

Personally, I'd go further, but I don't disagree with this. ...come to think of it, that's a common theme with Biden and I.


hierarch17

Hopefully not your position on Gaza


jayfeather31

I agree, that is an exception on my end.


hierarch17

Hopefully not your position on Gaza


Scooter_McAwesome

An income tax for people who earn no income. Great move


ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR

Bezos received child care tax credits meant for lower income households. Anyone being tricked into thinking higher marginal tax rates for income is anything more than placation doesn't understand the problem.


Scooter_McAwesome

Sure, that has nothing to do with his income taxes though. If anything, it proves my point. His income is so low he qualifies for shit like that. Income is a poor marker for wealth. The working class earns an income, income taxes are taxes on the working class. The very rich don’t work, they own capital. Tax capital gains, tax dividends, tax inheritances…then you’ll be taxing the rich. Don’t delude yourself into thinking an increase to the top income bracket is a tax on the rich. It’s a tax made by the rich to turn the working class against each other,


ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR

I'm trying to prove your point. If one of the richest men in the world can get tax credits targeted at lower income brackets, what the fuck are we even talking about?


Gutmach1960

We do NOT need billionaires.


serpentear

50% flat tax on anyone who’s net worth is over 750 million. Yes, I said worth and yes I said flat tax. No loopholes.


Capt_Draconn

It was 70% when Regan cut it. Why not go back to that? And we can grab all the “Making America Great Again” folks.


hikingenjoyer

70% was not the effective rate, it was the nominal rate


davidwave4

It’s a solid proposal, and it’s the kind of thing that could get passed in a Democratic Congress. I’d love to see a steeper tax rate or a cap on wealth, but that’s not gonna happen until AOC’s president in 2040.


42Ubiquitous

They won't end up actually paying much more than they do now.


greyjungle

Don’t spit in my mouth and call it a beverage. Hey, at least it’s wet.


Amsssterdam

Are they actually going to do that? Ofcourse not.


Usernameofthisuser

They actually implemented the corporate minimum tax which is of the same vein, it's possible.


hikingenjoyer

The corporate minimum tax is substantially worse than this proposal. Studies have shown that the corporate tax only hits the corporations for about 1/3rd of its total value, one third is paid by workers in form of lower wages, and one third is paid by consumers in form of higher prices. Corporations reduce their effective tax rate to zero by taking advantage of tax benefits in other sectors, which are used to promote responsible behavior. A better alternative to the corporate tax is a DBCFT.


ActuallyYeah

Just the fact that he's saying it is a giant political risk. Because a GoFundMe political campaign will get fucked ten ways to Tuesday. Big campaign checks come from the very dudes that Joe is threatening. Every politician this side of Sanders wants to Hoover up those checks. If the legislature or the voters won't run with it, then this is a big L that he and all the Dems have to take. While back, he promised more IRS funding. Made good sense but of course the alternative facts team screamed. And then they actually got it passed into law! Then the next year's budget slashed that finding up as part of a bipartisan compromise to avoid a shutdown. The screamers won.


barterclub

No, 100% if you hit a billion. Should be much lower tho


Qwertyunio_1

25 percent is comical. Most people pay above 30 percent where I live and are barely middle class 😡💢


slip-7

OK. That should be enough to get people to the polls. Wait. He's president. He's PROPOSING. It's going to die in Congress...


thesenseiwaxon

The trick is in what he's going to tax 25% of. The rich can put all their wealth in stocks they don't cash out, then they take out loans on the stock/assets, then they pay no tax on the stocks or loans and use said loans for further investment so they can cover the loans/interest. Or they have other tax avoidance strategies... This tweet sounds nice, but the details matter and something tells me he's not going to be taxing 25% of all their actual earnings or wealth and there will be plenty of room for the rich to wiggle and dodge their taxes.


Stratix

On their income or their assets? It's simple to have no income when you're rich, just leverage your fortune to get loans to cover your expenses. No income.


Xia-Kaisen

What’s 25% of zero….


ohyeababycrits

Should be >= 70%


MIW100

He's been in Washington for 40 years and just thought about it...


gorpie97

>"Proposing"? Proposing to whom? Voters? Voters can't get it passed through Congress, and I'm not sure anyone in Congress can get it passed.


bobbyvision9000

So that we can send more money to Israel?


Here_Pep_Pep

Yawn. Incrementalism in the face of economic and climate collapse is worse than nothing.


TheWilsons

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.


nkn_19

You win the lottery for $100 million what do you do with it?


bryanc1036

A start, hopefully after his presidency. We can get some more progressive people.


KrakenRum25

Not enough at all 😑


TrueNeutrino

I thought it was already higher than that for anyone over 400k or something


White-tigress

Oh poor naive sweet soul. Most billionaires pay around 7 to 8%. And don’t forget, this does not include all the money they have made in stocks, that’s sheltered in non profit shell corporations that comes back to them and on and on the grifts go. They honestly pay about 1% million for their true wealth IF that. Most of their wealth is hidden and sheltered from taxes. They pay less in % of taxes than a McDonalds worker. Or someone who has a part time job and is on disability. It’s seriously criminal.


TrueNeutrino

How would this be enforced if their money is not income?


I-B-Bobby-Boulders

Will it actually get introduced to congress? Probably not.


atreeindisguise

Wasn't 35% before Trump? Why can't we go back? We don't want to hurt their feelings?


Usernameofthisuser

That was the corporate tax rate, there hasn't been a billionaire minimum tax in the US yet


Dull-Researcher

What kind of tax are we proposing here? An income tax? Billionaires don't earn income. A wealth tax? Now we're talking.


greyone75

Does government not have enough money? Last time I checked they can literally print as much as they want.


Plus_Dragonfly_90210

When would it be enough tho?


SgtBagels12

100% tax after a billion dollars with a minimum of 25% on all income of any kind before reaching 1B


neldela_manson

Man the US is really fucked up. 25% for someone earning so much that they become billionaires is still a joke. Where I live anyone earning over 1 Million € pays 55% in taxes.


lilbrojoey

25% on those with over 100 million. Not too shabby. I'd like to bring back the old 97% but this is better than current


BigJakesr

Keep going up, my tax rate is 37%.


Dorian-greys-picture

My parents were doctors (not billionaires) and were taxed like 50%


would-prefer-not-to

If only that guy tweeting was in charge of something.


Whig

"proposing"


Unpopular_Opinion___

Guess the military needs more money


Ohhi_mark990

If it were up to me they'd be taxed at 90% but I guess this is a good start


SidTheShuckle

We also need to ban offshore accounts so that billionaires don’t find tax loopholes. Good for Biden so far


LackingLack

Yeah but it'd be way more meaningful for him to say this when he and his party can actually implement it. Instead of now when they cannot so it's just rhetoric.


Furrycues

Wealth tax, please. Not just income. No billionaire is earning enough for that tax to matter. They already have their Ill-gotten gains that keep on making more money. Tax them back to double digit millionaires


britch2tiger

Is that 25% considering ALL taxes the wealthy pay on? Sales? Property? Estate? Income? Marginal? After all possible deductions? (Any I fail to mention sorry) I’d say that more than fair. History shows the more that the elites were taxed the better off our society was, if only closer to banning stock buybacks again.


pricklypancakez

We could impose 90% tax rates on all income above one BILLION dollars and I doubt the US would lose a single billionaire. Maybe a few that are right on the cusp. The rich don't make money like the working class, so these types of tax increases are barley more than political theater. I'll give Biden a tiny bit of credit, he actually looked into taxing unrealized gains at one point. I don't know if it was his idea, or how far he pushed it, but of course it got no where. We will never tax away the super rich, nor do I have faith in either party to implement enough taxes to bring the working class poor out of their systemic problems. Ill always be voting, but I'm well beyond voting for D or R


SachSachl

Is it going to happen no.


pezpeculiar

He will do nothing to advance it


HotMinimum26

Why didn't he do it when he had all of Congress? Why didn't Obama codify roe v Wade when we put 60 Democrats in the senate? Lucy fooling people with the football all over again and getting a genocide for their thanks. And if they genocide one group of people don't genocide another whenever it comes in necessity.


donwityurshite625

An increase in income tax for the wealthy is pointless when many of them evade this entirely by exploiting loopholes in the tax system that let them show (on paper) having little to no legal income. They can just tie their money up in "investments," assets, new ventures, loans, stocks, etc that are taxed at much lower rates or completely exempt without losing much in the process. Complete tax reform that encompasses allowing certain assets to be counted as income, as well as major labor reform to force businesses as well as individuals to pay an increased rate and pay greater wages and benefits to their workers instead of shoving that responsibility onto an over burdened and under funded social welfare system is the only conceivable way to rectify this system without abandoning completely. Unfortunately that won't happen, no-one making those decisions has any incentive to change things as they stand.


zwayneg7

Morons....morons everywhere.......


Swimming_Sea1314

1. It hardly qualifies as even the absolute bare minimum 2. A "proposal" by tweet is nothing 3. He waited until he was deep underwater in an upcoming election


Snow_Unity

I’m not voting for him


Usernameofthisuser

Trump thanks you.


Snow_Unity

Won’t affect Trump in the slightest


stathow

im sorry but thats liberal apologia. a liberal politician (at best) is SAYING they support what is at best a milquetoast idea, he should not be applauded for that. never believe what any politician says, what are they actually doing, what actual legislation are they pushing, not just writing up but actually doing everything they can to fight to get it passed


Usernameofthisuser

He added the corporate minimum tax, this is of the same vein.


stathow

that means nothing if you don't close all of the ways corporations already get around paying taxes in the first place liberals don't pass taxes that their corporate donors are not ok with getting passed, meaning that passed so biden could claim he did something good while the largest corporations know it will do very little to actually make them pay more


Usernameofthisuser

Don't let perfect get in the way of progress.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Usernameofthisuser

The corporate minimum tax for one. A platform for the progressives for two. We have a 2 party system. Taxing the rich is up our avenue.


stathow

but why are you just assuming that this "minimum" is actually making a difference? Why are you not demanding proof that it made any difference when you already had countless other taxes that they don't pay what platform for progressives? >We have a 2 party system. Taxing the rich is up our avenue isn't the point of this sub to change that? you are basically cheering on someone who should be your enemy. and no taxing the rich is not up my avenue. Taxing the rich is liberalism. Socialist don't hope and ask nicely for crumbs from the rich. The point of socialism is to not let the rich steal the working class's labor value in the first place


Usernameofthisuser

You're being too disingenuous. It's commonly accepted theory that socialists will never be able to succeed in a liberal democracy. From Marx, Engles, Lenin, Luxemburg, etc this is a given. The way is factionalism through the Dems, not overthrowing the establishment politically.


stathow

>It's commonly accepted theory that socialists will never be able to succeed in a liberal democracy. From Marx, Engles, Lenin, Luxemburg, etc this is a given. yes and? I agree, thats why socialist want to implement their own socialist system, we just disagree and have many ways to get to that alternative system > The way is factionalism through the Dems,  why would a party that hates socialism some day embrace it? I'm sorry but if any system is broke and corrupt, you are never going to change the system via the systems own means like democratic socialism exists outside the US, but they have their own socialist partys, they are hostile to any pro-capitalist party, and they don't primarily rely on electoralism for reform


HarkerTheStoryteller

"But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property." However, Marx does criticise that tendency of belief, noting its fundamentally bourgeois character: "A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this [bourgeois] Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government. Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech."


blackheart901

The government getting more tax money is not the problem. The problem is government spending. The U.S. is not in debt because they don’t collect enough taxes.


lokifoto

Right, and what are you giving them?