this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
1189 points (99.6% liked)

Political Memes

6398 readers
3557 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WoodScientist 274 points 1 week ago (22 children)

We need a maximum wealth cap. I want to see a world where you are literally not allowed to have a net worth over a certain amount. I believe capitalism has its place, but unconstrained capitalism leads to innumerable social ills. You want to let people get rich enough to provide an incentive to get educated, work hard, start businesses, and innovate. But you do not want enough wealth that individuals or small groups of individuals can become a threat to society. We don't allow individuals to own nuclear weapons, regardless of how virtuous they may be. We decided long ago that private ownership of nuclear weapons is simply too much power in the hands of one individual.

Yet with enough wealth, an individual can create human misery equivalent to a nuclear weapon. For example, Elon Musk has a net worth of $400 billion. If he chose to, could spend his fortune on destroying the lives of 400,000 people. He could select his victims based on whatever criteria he chose. And he could spend $1 million per person simply hiring lawyers to make their lives Hell. Target them with frivolous lawsuits. Even if he never won a case, he could drive them into bankruptcy through legal fees alone. Or, he could pick a city of a million people and dedicate his fortune to just ruining that city. He could deliberately fund the campaigns of the worst candidates imaginable, and offer them enormous fortunes to deliberately destroy that city. Wealth is power, and power is wealth. They are equivalent and interchangeable. If you want to have a democracy, you cannot have unrestricted wealth.

I would set the wealth cap for any nation at 1000x the median household income of that nation, averaged over a certain number of years. In the US, that would be at this time about $80 million. That is a level of wealth even the most skilled and high-paid of lawyers or physicians, if they worked til the grave, lived like a pauper, and invested everything else, would still struggle to reach by the time of their death. The only way people reach that level of wealth is by leveraging the labor of others. And it is a level of wealth far, far above the level where increasing wealth continues to meaningfully increase happiness. That level of wealth is only useful to a person if that person seeks to manipulate and control other human beings.

We need a maximum wealth cap. Beyond a certain level of wealth, everything is taxed at 100%. I think 1000x the median household income is a good place to set that level. And I think that is extremely generous. I don't care what the former billionaires do with their extra income that would put them above this level. They could simply retire when they hit the cap. They could donate it to charity. They could give it all to their extended families. They could give it to their employees. They could hold grand parties in their home city every year that rivaled the excesses of ancient Rome. They could spend it all on giant yachts. Ultimately, I don't care. The core problem is the concentration of wealth and power in a small number of individuals. Any method of spreading out that wealth will avoid this problem. Even if they just give it all to their extended families, it would still be for the best. If Elon Musk wants to divvy up his fortune to his 5,000 closest family and friends, so be it. Even if every one of them was as much of a bastard as he was, at least they'll have conflicting interests, and few of them will want to see anyone appointed dictator.

We need a maximum wealth cap. Forget taxing incomes. Forget a wealth tax. We need to drive a dagger into the heart of the evil that haunts our society. The world does not need billionaires. We can have the benefits of efficiency and innovation that come with a free market without letting wealth concentrate to the point of farce. We can provide an incentive for people to work and discover without allowing individuals to become a threat to nation states. Even if you believe in the myth of visionary capitalist geniuses, we don't need billionaires. If Musk is already capped out on wealth, the board of SpaceX can still hire him as CEO. He can still enjoy the social status as influence of being the CEO of SpaceX, he just has to dispose of that wealth each year however he chooses.

1000x the median household income. No one should be able to have a fortune larger than this.

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How about this: anything over said wealth cap is automatically used to fund education, health initiatives, as well as fight poverty and homelessness.

Also, politicians need a wealth cap; ie no stock trading while in office, or for 5 years after leaving office. Divest all ties to any business they have before taking office. They must also be prohibited from taking any job that has any relation to the government for at least 5 years after leaving office. All politicians must pay for their own health insurance.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

How about this: anything over said wealth cap is automatically used to fund education, health initiatives, as well as fight poverty and homelessness.

Honestly, I agree with the top comment, and is already implied by the top comment with the 100% tax. If they want to cash it out (before that assessment, or when they're close to it) and burn it in a big pile instead of giving it to anybody in tax or charity, let them do it. It'll still have a positive effect through deflation.

All politicians must pay for their own health insurance.

lol, no. Everybody gets free health insurance. The end. That's the way to go on that.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I also agree with the top comment and with your comment too. It's settled then?

When?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Eh, I'm in Australia, where the problem's not that big, so I certainly don't feel any overwhelming pressure. While it's different from wealth, the top income bracket threshold went from $180,000 to $190,000 between 2008 and 2024, despite inflation making that $180,000 equivalent to $270,000 in the meantime, even under right-wing governments. And all working Australians have superannuation, sometimes considerable sums. So things here at least are fine. But anyone in the US, sure, get off your butts and go do something. Here even the most despised billionaire is about as rich as she was back in 2012, and there's at least some good evidence of her philanthropy. Australia's in 9th place for wealth inequality apparently. The United States is 25th... from the bottom. That's guillotine, or give your money away, territory.

None of that means that I won't ask Americans to do something about it, I mean your hideous wealth inequality is affecting us too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 week ago (2 children)

When people hit 10mil, they should prestiege. Give them a fancy title or add-on to their name, take all their wealth and tell them to do it again to hit the next prestiege. Easy fix, gives the 1% the sense of pride and accomplishment they deserve.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago

They've bootstrapped once, they can do it again.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

New Game Plus but in real life? 😆

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Or, he could pick a city of a million people and dedicate his fortune to just ruining that city. He could deliberately fund the campaigns of the worst candidates imaginable, and offer them enormous fortunes to deliberately destroy that city.

Or, he could pick a country of a few hundred million people and dedicate his fortune to just ruining that country. He could deliberately fund the campaigns of the worst candidates imaginable, and offer them enormous fortunes to deliberately destroy that country...

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'd also add that companies/government offices should not be permitted to pay any employee more than 100x the annual income of their lowest paid employee. If the owners/executives want to further enrich themselves, they must first enrich those whose labor they profit from.

Include stock incentives in that as well. If executives are offered stock packages in lieu of part of their pay to try to get around this rule, require that proportional offers must also be made to all other employees based on level of income.

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

I’d also add that companies/government offices should not be permitted to pay any employee more than 100x the annual income of their lowest paid employee.

Sadly this wouldn't be difficult to loophole. Today's corporations would simply create nested contracting companies. As in, top execs would be one company where the lowest paid employee is a highly compensated Executive VP and the highest the CEO. The next step down being Senior VP that reports to that Executive VP would be the highest paid employee in a separate company that is contracted to the first company housing the high execs. Repeat until you get to the person that waters the flowers in the lobby.

Here's a visual to show the relationships between these companies and the contract linkage:

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago

Jesus Christ we just need you lads to not let them lynch minorities. Start there

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Lets have a guillotine tax : after 1000x the average wealth you are taxed 1% of the wealth above that threshold yearly to avoid meeting with…

That means a growing business owner sells 1-2% of his stock yearly but still grow his wealth if the business likely grow 10%. The government fund education and health and new people can vote on those stocks.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We need to just ripoff good videogame balance. Videogames are regulated better than actual governments!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

When you reach the cap, do you get a sticker that you can put on your laptop? Because I think would be nice.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Money is pretty much potential human energy. Much like your nuclear bomb example, no one would accept living with a neighbor that has a literal army in their backyard. The government wouldn't nor would anyone living near them. Yet having that much wealth is having that much "human potential energy" that could power an army. As we can already see with what the billionaires do, they inspire the labor of huge masses of people on their behalf to wreak havock on society. They buy entire media ecosystems to manipulate. No one should have that much power, it's literally dangerous for all of us.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 87 points 1 week ago

It's great that my taxes are going up so they can have even more.

[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The trick was seeing what was going on before trying to "teach the dems a lesson". Now all you can do is ride the train and wait for endless lawsuits to playout with disingenuous participants

Nixon was already impeached by now

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Now all you can do is ride the train and wait for endless lawsuits to playout with disingenuous participants

There is a lot more you can do. Stop being defeatist. This kind of attitude got us into the train wreck that is 21st. Century US in the first place. And not accepting the oligarchy presenting you two flavors of oligarchy to vote between is part of what needs to be changed.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

there's a lot more you can do

It's nice that you listed exactly zero things to do. Go tell Musker you don't accept him running all branches of government and having your info on his private servers, see how that works out for you. I'm not making excuses to do nothing (or being defeatist) or telling people not to participate in politics, but the US has a king atm

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UrPartnerInCrime 7 points 1 week ago

Ok I stopped being a defeatist, now what?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] sbv 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We've been in a class war for the past few decades. But at least one of the classes doesn't know/care that it's happening.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

That's right. They've been killing us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq7SGQzeCEw

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

There's like 10 people in the entire fucking world making more than 500 mil a year.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

700 people having a net worth of over a billion and 700 people making half a billion a year are very different.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Dividends for some of those billionaires can pay out over 500mil easily. Hide money however they want, we need a wealth tax no matter how it's sliced.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I've been saying it.

Every year, we should take the wealthiest person and reclaim 50% of their assets. Congrats, you've scum sucked enough blood out of people, we're taking 50% of it back. We'll build a "This year's biggest winner" statue in your honor with some of the funds.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Curious if they tried blocking taxation on anyone BELOW a certain income level.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Honestly, I really don't understand why a populist left party doesn't pursue this.

No tax on income below $100K and no tax on wealth, property and inheritance below $1M.

Or choose some other figures.

It seems like it would be a slam dunk to get voter support.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 week ago

There are several very similar issues that are all slam dunks, and the fact that they aren't pursued by the Democrat party is proof that they are part of the same capitalist gang as the GOP. There is no voter that would be against banning lobbyist bribery from corporations, but that is never a campaign point. The few progressive voices that we have still insist that they have to work from within the Democrat party and there is simply no way that they will ever gain any foothold that way. I insist that right now, when the Democrat party is the most powerless, is the time for progressives to break off into their own party while they are seated in Congress. The Democrat Party can join or die.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I think there is a pretty easy hack to making tax cuts unappealing to billionaires: pass a law that says each tax payer receives the exact same amount back.

Pass a 4 trillion dollar tax cut that works out to $4000/tax payer? Congrats, billionaires. Enjoy your 4k.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago

Every republican voted no. See whats happening here?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

UBI with extra steps. I like it

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that the super rich actually have a high conventional income normally. Most of their wealth would be from investments and stock.

A neat trick with that is that they can take out loans against their stock to buy superyachts, governments, and other toys and that’s not only not income, the interest is tax deductible. Plus there are other tricks like S Corps to shield them. So, this isn’t as useful as it would suggest (not that we shouldn’t tax >100m at 99% or something just to make the point.)

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

You're not wrong.

But keep cutting their taxes and they can have more conventional income in addition to everything else.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

It's called "Buy, Borrow, Die", and that's exactly what they do. They buy or inherit assets, hold them indefinitely, because they have no monetary value until sold, and take out loans using those assets as collateral. Then they just pay the interest on the loans, and then play with the money. Southern slave owners were doing a similar thing before Emancipation. The lax rules of Southern banking even allowed them to take out multiple loans on a single slave.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago (21 children)

What's going on is that you have FAFO'd that you should never have compromised with the GOP like we fucking told you

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago

Party of the oligarchy, soon to be the one true party thanks to systemic failure of education in this country.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago

Damn it’s almost as if they’re debating in bad faith because they get money from their wealthy constituents

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

They probably want to avoid to tax themselves?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

According to Wikipedia at least, there are no members of Congress who even have a net worth over $500 million: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth let alone an annual income that high.

So I think it's that they're beholden to their donors, as usual.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Does anyone have a link to the proposed amendment and the vote on it?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I believe this is regarding the proposed budget by the House Budget Committee.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago
  • Xhitter

  • Blue check mark

🤢

load more comments
view more: next ›