this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
95 points (94.4% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2311 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

BOOK REVIEW

Where should society draw the line on extreme wealth? A fresh account sets out the logic and suggests how to redress inequality.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I'm saying that expenses scale to wealth, so someone making a significant income may still struggle at the same level as someone with a low income.

Look at someone like Rudy Giuliani, who I feel safe in saying, nobody feels sorry for that sad fuck. He's having trouble paying for ANYTHING. Hope he's cutting out that avocado toast. ;)

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 6 points 6 months ago

That is only true to a point, after which expenses basically don’t exist anymore and wealth continues to grow. The point at which that happens is much lower than you probably think.

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I hear that expenses can scale to wealth (although, as I said, the difference is that the wealthy person can scale back but someone already buying the cheapest option has no choice), but what does that have to do with the article? Just a topic you wanted to bring up? Is there something I'm missing?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm saying capping how much wealth someone is allowed to have:

a) Is likely to have unintended consequences.

and b) May end up hurting more people than it helps.

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Where is the logic from:

rich people may be broke if they spend a lot

to:

capping wealth may have unintended consequences and will hurt more people than it helps

You do realize that the vast majority of people are not wealthy and that the top one percent own a ridiculously disproportionate amount of the wealth? Wealth caps would only "harm" the top whatever percentage of earners. And if they're at such a thin margin that the wealth tax would hurt them, like boo fucking hoo lmao, they can sell their Bugatti and buy a new Honda Civic fresh off the lot.