top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 100 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Gotta say, as someone who identifies as a progressive, she's really been beating my expectations compared to what she was saying and doing back in the 2020 primaries.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    She needs to get tougher on Israel, otherwise everything I see is good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    Trump just called Netanyahu and told him to turn down the cease fire. All your complaints about Harris should be gone and Trump should be in prison for being a traitor promoting more death for political gain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago

    I'm hoping she's mostly just playing soft on Israel for now is to avoid more criticism of being antisemitic. When Israel started their attempted genocide, most of the Biden administration was silent on it, and we didn't hear or see anything from Harris, when she did eventually have a public appearance about a month later, she was pretty much the first person in the administration to say anything remotely pro-peace.

    I'm probably just huffing copium but I hope she's just taking AIPAC's money (not sure if they are giving her any, but better in her hands than theirs) and getting through the election, and then going to go full prosecutor on Israel/Netanyahu.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The fact that she didn't have to face a primary this year is a political gift. She didn't have to go.on record while jockeying to differentiate herself and the instant unanimous support from the entire Democratic party means she can just be herself

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    She started out the 2020 primaries pretty progressive, but would usually roll-back her positions a day later, presumably after some adviser told her it wouldn't play in Peoria or would anger a megadonor. Maybe that's where her heart actually lies and her trainwreck of a campaign made her realize those advisors were bad people to listen to.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 2 years ago (18 children)

    If Zucman is a fan, this is great news indeed. A 25% minimum tax on billionaire wealth sounds great, and with broad support, as the article notes (even 51% of Republicans).

    Much better news, too, for those of us who only saw this part reported on til now:

    The campaign spokesperson called the move—which would still leave the corporate tax rate lower than it was when Trump first took office in 2017—a "fiscally responsible way to put money back in the pockets of working people and ensure billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share." (emphasis mine)

    IIRC, the corporate tax rate was slashed by Trump from 30-something percent, maybe 35%, to something like 18%, so to see that Harris was not interested in reversing this Trump tax cut fully (only to 25%) felt til now like yet another depressing instance of the ratchet effect, where the right does what they do, and neoliberals only undo part of it when they are in power.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I'm just a millionaire. I'm worth diddly squat "on paper" because I intend to stay a millionaire. This isn't a difficult fiscal apparatus to create. Billionaires have much more effective methods at their disposal.

    It doesn't matter what the tax rates are so long as the loopholes remain wide open and there's very little enforcement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (17 replies)
    [–] 39 points 2 years ago

    Tax them out of existence.

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago

    Tax those mother fuckers.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Should be over 50% to start. Simply to aline align with current tax brackets.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago

    In the 1950s the top marginal tax rate for couples filing jointly making over $400,000/year was 91%. Adjusting for inflation, that’s $5,200,000. Just to put our current tax structure in context.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    In 1945 the top tax rate in the USA was 94%. This should be a goal.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    But please based on wealth rather than income.

    Rich people don't become rich from income.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In 1945, we operated under what was functionally a command economy at the tail end of a globe-spanning total war.

    I mean, we can debate the efficacy of that economic model (re: The People's Republic of Walmart), but I'd rather the US be funding and fighting fewer wars, not more of them. FFS, if you give any number of shits about climate change, a global mobilization of killing machines is not going to point us in the right direction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The threat and urgency of climate change is all the more reason to take that money and apply it to those problems. Not only does that help tackle the issue directly, it takes resources away from the biggest contributors to the problem. You have asshole rich fucks commuting to the office by private jet.

    Why do you assume the taxes have to go hand in hand with investing in war?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [+] 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago*

    The supreme court will call it unlawful theft of profits and strike it down. What else could possibly happen in a federalist controlled legal system?

    We really need to stop calling the republican party republican. It's not at all what it once was. It's the Federalist Society party.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Correct if I'm wrong here, but is this article just "Economist comments on something it has been claimed the Harris campaign team said, but is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in writing or in speeches"?

    If she planned on taxing billionaires, she'd be shouting it from the rooftops. That's a popular policy. It's not going to be something she keeps in her back pocket and then when she's president goes SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKERS. Not that she could do it by EO anyway, but honestly, this is so far from a reality it just barely qualifies as news.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If she planned on taxing billionaires, she’d be shouting it from the rooftops. That’s a popular policy.

    Not among corporate mega-donors, it isn't! Keeping it in her back pocket -- not until she's president, but until shortly before the election and, crucially, after their checks clear -- is exactly what she should do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nobody would be happier than me to see that happen, but seeing how nobody's ever done something like that before I have my doubts. Can't remember the last Democrat that actually got more radical than the platform they ran on. Certainly wasn't anybody in the last 50 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The article cited the 2025 budget [PDF]. It's under the section "Proposes a Minimum Tax on Billionaires".

    To finally address this glaring inequity, the Budget includes a 25 percent minimum tax on the wealthiest 0.01 percent, those with wealth of more than $100 million.

    Though the Harris campaign is not directly mentioned, I think we may assume it's coming from both Harris and Biden.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Sounds like a solid plan! I would be surprised if the public opinion here would be any different. There are no billionaires on Lemmy.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Not now, no, but I need to make sure they have a favorable tax regime for when my scratch-offs inevitably raise me to my appropriate station.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago*

    First stop Joe Rogan. Not a billionaire, but he is an ignorant little bitch.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›