1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Human nature isn't it?
I chuckled when I realized I'd seen an academic study cited as gospel truth about supporting the world with only a third of current resources just after a post where everyone ignored the academic studies saying a proposed wealth tax would lower revenues etc.
The beauty about actual science, as opposed to the fanfic and bragging that scientists need to publish to get paid, is that we can resolve contradictory theorems through experimentation
Massachusetts and NY raised taxes on the rich, and yet their revenues did not plummet.
Is there any contrary instance we can find where taxes were raised on the rich specifically and revenues dropped?
(And if so, get the academics back to refine their theories, make more predictions, and let's see who's more accurate!)
The way that theory is framed is the most ridiculous thing in the world. The rich are the least sensitive people to price increases.
What's that number that's being thrown around, top 10% of incomes account for 50% of consumer spending?
...yeah, from February of this year:
https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-rich-spending-2c34a571
https://archive.is/aKMCd
Yes, inequality is increasing in the US.
But I don't really get how that relates. Anyway, may point is that if you bracket the tax at high enough incomes, maybe not even a 99% marginal tax rate will suffice for making rich people move away. Those people are rich, they don't care about spending some money to live where they want.
The same is not true about the poor, by the way. It's easy to tax them so much that they leave.
And Laffer focusing his work on the rich was the cheapest and most plain sell-out on the academic history.
My point is that inflation will drive down consumer spending for most people, but the highest incomes barely notice anything has changed.
Oh, I see.
Good point. I didn't notice the huge empirical test for it running right now.
Life is a Grand Experiment, no?
Making more than $250,000 a year doesn't make you wealthy, it just means you have disposable income.
Being wealthy means you don't have any income, you just get loans against your static wealth at incredibly favorable interest rates.
Well, ≥$250,000 covers everything from $250,001 to $1,000,000 or 100,000,000 and beyond. The low end of that category includes people who are payed well for highly specialized and/or accredited labor, while the high end is mostly people who own things for a living.
Sure, it's not exactly precise to lump the highest end of labor in with everything from your local car-dealership capitalist all the way the tippy top of hedge-fund owners. But it still indicates a very, very unhealthy consumer economy.
It's more than that, because the wealth of those who utilize loans this way typically isn't static. It's not about just getting a good rate, it's that the assets they use as collateral appreciate in value at a rate higher than inflation and the interest rate combined, so in practice, the interest rate is literally negative. The price of having access to these loans is that their net worth just grows a bit more slowly as a result.
Of course, this only works as long as said assets continue to appreciate at that rate.
Science is not a search for truth. It's a search for provable falsehoods and useful theories.
They increased, actually. There were more millionaires in these places after the increased taxes on wealth than there were before.