485
Tax our wealth, super-rich tell politicians at Davos
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
485 points (98.2% liked)
News
22896 readers
3962 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.
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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I slightly disagree on one point: They should be lobbying the people directly, not the politicians.
The issue isn't voters...
The issue is anyone that wants to tax the rich can't make it out of a primary, because the rich (individuals and corporations) give an insane amount of money to candidates who won't tax them.
Bernie almost managed to do it off voter donations, but then the DNC had a lawyer tell a judge that they can influence a primary as much as they want, even to the point of ignoring results.
Right now our political system cares more about money than votes.
But like Bernie has been saying for decades:
To fix the system, we need to win thru the system. Then change it.
We can only do that with huge donations, because that's the only thing the people running both major parties care about right now.
Our entire political structure is based on getting as much donations as possible.
So if these people want to help, their money matters a lot more than their words or even votes.
citizens united will prove out to be the nail in our coffin of democracy.
Yes. True. Why?
When you answer that question, you'll understand my argument.
Those donations are spent trying to influence public opinion toward a particular candidate. The candidates need that to happen, so they can get elected.
We don't need particular candidates to be elected. We need public sentiment to broadly support taxing the rich.
We don't need Bernie preaching to the choir of progressive Democrats. We need American voters asking candidates of every party, of every ideology, and at every level, for higher taxes on the rich.
We need a series of ads where a billionaire just looks in the camera and says "Hi, I'm Warren Buffett. I spent more on this ad than I paid in taxes last year."
That's it. Simple, concise, inarguable. The rich are so rich they can take out ads for the sole purpose of explaining how rich they are and how little they pay in taxes.
We need every candidate either supporting extensive taxes on the rich, or being forced to explain why all these billionaires are on TV bragging about how little they pay in taxes.
It costs more to convince people to vote for a bad candidate than a good one.
And after the first term it'll cost even less.
That's pretty basic advertisement stuff, the worse your product, the more you need to spend on advertising and marketing.
So why don't we try supplying a good product people want without spending 100s of millions convincing them to want it?
After 2016 and 2020, I reject that premise.
Your analogy is rather confusing.
Are "products" the candidates? Or are they issues? Are they the voters? Are you saying the issue "tax the rich" is a bad issue?
I can't seem to glean any meaning from your arcane language. Can you restate it directly, without resorting to analogy?
What I think is that my idiot Republican neighbors are never going to vote for a progressive Democrat. I think my idiot neighbors will support Warren Buffett's "Tax the Rich" plan, but they will wildly oppose that same plan if it comes from Bernie Sanders.
I think my idiot Republican neighbors would generally reject a candidate who argues Buffett needs the tax breaks that Buffett says he doesn't need.
I think a rural Republican candidate would do well in their district to take tax breaks from rich, city-dwelling billionaires, and give them to farmers and ranchers.
I think that if the only way to get a "tax the rich" plan is by electing progressive Democrats, we will never have a tax the rich plan.
But, if the issue is put to the people directly, Americans across the spectrum will easily support it.
What results did the DNC ignore? I'm a big Bernie fan, and I voted for him in the primary, but he lost.
That's not what I said.
To phrase it another way:
The DNC said it's not a problem to put their finger on the scales, because if it came down to it, the primary isnt binding.
The party can just say "nah, we're running someone else" and the judge agreed that would be 100% legal because political parties are private institutions and can nominate anyone they want to.
They haven't explicitly done that. Yet.
But it should be concerning and no one has been calling to change it.