this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
739 points (97.9% liked)

News

23641 readers
3445 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 100 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 4 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 64 points 4 months 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.

[–] FlyingSquid 26 points 4 months ago

Ah, just casually violating the Logan Act. And nothing will happen.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] MrMcGasion 31 points 4 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] jorp 4 points 4 months ago

In the 2020 primaries the race was between the moderates and Bernie, why wouldn't she have felt comfortable being more progressive when Bernie was doing so well?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 months 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.

[–] SirDerpy 3 points 4 months 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 4 months ago

Tax them out of existence.

[–] TheDeepState 33 points 4 months ago

Tax those mother fuckers.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago

fuck it. give them a certificate that says "you won capitalism" and tax everything over $1bn at 100%

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

align*
Aline is my ex. lol

Not a common misspelling but the irony is pretty funny.

[–] Lost_My_Mind 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I mean......is she single?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But please based on wealth rather than income.

Rich people don't become rich from income.

[–] jorp 11 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I support a wealth tax as well, but even taxing income aggressively is a good start especially if it includes higher capital gains taxes.

I'm not super familiar with US tax law, but in Canada benefits like stock are taxed as income when granted. This would still be great.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jorp 4 points 4 months 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?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months 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.

[–] grue 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Phoenix3875 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] faethon 8 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

Pro tip: Have other people do the scratching.

The only way to become a billionaire is to exploit the labor of others.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

No, but there are still plenty of billionaire meat-riders here.

[–] grue 6 points 4 months ago
[–] demizerone 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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

load more comments
view more: next ›