this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
600 points (99.0% liked)

AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

813 readers
599 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

 

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
DougHolland
600
Consequences (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 week ago by DougHolland to c/aiop
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I want to believe that people will eventually realize that cutting taxes is bad

It doesn't have to be. Harris' tax plan cut taxes on every bracket except the richest, and we still ended up with more income than we started. The top 1% really are earning way more than anyone would ever need.

[–] gibmiser 43 points 1 week ago (1 children)

earning

Woah slow down there partner, I believe you are giving a bit too much credit there

Receiving is neutral and still points out they are not working for that money.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

Shit, you right. Wrong word.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Harris’ tax plan cut taxes on every bracket except the richest, and we still ended up with more income than we started.

Could you cite a source for that claim?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I may just be blind — apologies if that turns out to be the case — but I can't find where your source claims that net tax revenue would be higher under Harris's tax plan.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I looked too; it doesn't have that stated. Looks more like the plan was more of a rework of current taxes than a tax increase. I feel that my point is still made regardless though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I feel that my point is still made regardless though.

Hm, well, the following point from your comment is currently conjecture, as you've provided no source for it:

Harris’ tax plan cut taxes on every bracket except the richest, and we still ended up with more income than we started.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My point being that taxes and the system in general are so messed up that we could acheive a lot of our other goals by rearranging the current tax mess into something less awful.

We don't have to start with 'more taxes' in order to accomplish a reasonably run welfare system.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

We don’t have to start with ‘more taxes’ in order to accomplish a reasonably run welfare system.

I'm inclined to agree, though there may certainly be facets that I haven't considered.