Devide

verb

Obsolete form of divide.

  • bluewing@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Isn’t that what taxation pretty much does? Takes money and redistributes it?

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Not in the US at the federal level. Taxes are an anti inflationary device when dealing with a sovereign currency. It’s the last step of the fiscal year. Step one is literally printing money, step two is distribution of those funds, step three is to allow the money to circulate between businesses and people, and then step four at the end of the year is to levy taxes to combat inflation. They used to literally burn the dollars they collected, now they just zero out an entry in a ledger.

      • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        but how will we pay for <anything that’s not increased military spending>???

        talk about social services and taxes are like a bake sale, talk about funding war and it’s what you describe

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      12 hours ago

      It’s 100% their money. They control its rules, and it’s designed to make them rich at our expense. Their money is part of how they steal our wealth.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      No, no, no. Just like a tax on unrealized gains is a bad idea because of how much it would royally fuck up the stock market, including every 401(k). What they need to do instead is tax the ways used by the extremely wealthy to utilize their gains without technically realizing them, even if that sometimes means taxing debt (aka treating it as income when they borrow against it and taxing accordingly).

      • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Yes, changing the status quo is going to require some sacrifice. But we have more to gain by seizing their wealth than we do by protecting our crumbs.

  • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    23 hours ago

    First you need to stop money from systematically flowing to the top or that dividing is only going to be a temporary measure.

      • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        I’d argue there should be a flat out cap on wealth. Nobody should have 500 billion dollars. Not sure what it should be, but somewhere under 500 billion.

      • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        21 hours ago

        To name a few:

        • the classic riot, violence and/or revolution
        • the coup
        • organizing through unions and have general strikes until things change
        • sustained peaceful protest
        • voting
        • switching to a different (underground) economic system
        • massive emigration

        All come with some serious downsides of course.

        • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          16 hours ago

          No. Leave my IRA and 401k alone.

          There is a reason every country that’s tried a wealth tax has abandoned it (or neutered it to the point that it’s primarily the burden of the middle class, completely defeating the ostensibly-stated purpose of getting more money from the wealthiest), learn some world history.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            The reason countries abandon wealth taxation is because the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, doesn’t like it, and the justification is that it hurts the working class, the proletariat, even if that isn’t true.

            • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              No, they abandon it because the total tax revenue after implementation literally goes down instead of up, lol.

              Just because 100 people will buy your product X at $10 and you make $1000, doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed to make $2000 if you sell X for $20 instead. That’s basically the same principle–raising taxes doesn’t necessarily lead to an increase in revenue. People react to changes in policy.

              This is not speculation, it literally already happened. Stop speaking about this from your assumed expectations and learn the actual history.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 hours ago

                I’m aware of how the economy works, we all took econ 101 and many of us went beyond that. You need to stop feigning superiority and assuming a lack of education on anyone pushing back against what you’re saying.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Land value taxes are immune to tax evasion. It’s assessed by the state instead of declared by the taxpayer.

      • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        How would you tax a software company that has remote work and runs on someone else’s servers?
        The land they need could probably be a small single office room and a letter box.

        Edit: sentence structure

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Yes, the same people who couldn’t get past the DNC to get Bernie nominated are certainly going to ge able to redistribute all the wealth.

  • Schal330@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    How about capping the amount they can earn above their lowest paid employee? For them to rise they have to take everyone with them

    • Hamartia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      They’d just ‘devide’ up their businesses into a chain of symbiotic entities defined by paygrade. Then the executive level can enrich itself insulated from us front line grunts.