this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2025
111 points (93.7% liked)

memes

18247 readers
3140 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo 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

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 19 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

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!)

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The way that theory is framed is the most ridiculous thing in the world. The rich are the least sensitive people to price increases.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

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

The top 10% of earners—households making about $250,000 a year or more—are splurging on everything from vacations to designer handbags, buoyed by big gains in stocks, real estate and other assets.

Those consumers now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

My point is that inflation will drive down consumer spending for most people, but the highest incomes barely notice anything has changed.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 49 minutes ago (1 children)

Oh, I see.

Good point. I didn't notice the huge empirical test for it running right now.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 2 points 46 minutes ago

Life is a Grand Experiment, no?

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

you just get loans against your static wealth at incredibly favorable interest rates.

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.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

Science is not a search for truth. It's a search for provable falsehoods and useful theories.

[–] vateso5074@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

They increased, actually. There were more millionaires in these places after the increased taxes on wealth than there were before.

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 13 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] daddycool@lemmy.world 2 points 59 minutes ago

This quote makes me feel good. I'll believe it!

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Only if you thought the science that agreed with you was gospel in the first place

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

This would be funnier if it wasn't so aggravatingly accurate, lol.

[–] Hackworth@piefed.ca 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)
[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago
[–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, but also not all studies are created equal (or done with honest intent on the first place)

[–] daddycool@lemmy.world 1 points 43 minutes ago* (last edited 32 minutes ago)

It's always good to maintain a healthy skepticism. Science studies are only as correct as present knowledge allows and results therefore changes as our knowledge expands. There are plenty of examples where once scientific facts have been proven wrong.

Also, as you mention, some studies are fabricated only to serve specific agendas.

[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca -2 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

People with the health and enviromental benefits of a whole foods plant-based diet.

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 0 points 2 hours ago

This is expertly crafted to piss off people either way they think lol

[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca 0 points 1 hour ago

Downvotes are proving my point hahaha enjoy shortening your healthy lives over cruelty.