With unemployment low and wages rising, the struggle for basic necessities like food should be easing. But those on the front lines of feeding the hungry say they are seeing the opposite.
You’re right ofc. But almost every radical change in the world has come from revolution, because rich powerful people don’t listen to, or even see, the struggles the people face.
I’m convinced the only reason one hasn’t already started is because revolutions, while often very necessary agents of change and herald a lot of good for the future, are both risky and dangerous for everyone involved and in the back of our heads keep hoping things will change for the better without violence. Unfortunately it’s become increasingly and maddeningly obvious that will not ever happen.
The US Congress will never pass a wealth tax without a Democratic majority in both chambers, and enough of a buffer to make Senators like Manchin and Sinema not matter
Wealth taxes have often been ineffective in other countries where they’ve been tried, since they’re very hard and expensive to administer. Something like a land value tax is much much simpler to collect and produces significantly better economic incentives. Wealth taxes incentivize you to offshore as many assets as possible, while land value takes incentivize you to use land as productively as possible since you can’t exactly hide a chunk of real estate in Switzerland.
That aside though, any kind of asset-based tax is constitutionally questionable and would absolutely be litigated to the Supreme Court, where I wouldn’t exactly want to place any bets on that outcome right now.
People go hungry so Multi-Millionaires can strive. News at 11.
And still Congress didn’t pass a wealth tax, or close at least some tax loopholes only the rich can access.
It’s the same damn thing in Canada as well. And it sucks.
Unless gov’ts get off their asses and DO the things that need to be done, revolution will come … and they won’t like the outcome at all.
No one will like the outcome. Revolution almost never results in a better living standard in the lifetime of those involved.
That’s not to say it’s the worst course of action, just recognizing the down sides.
You’re right ofc. But almost every radical change in the world has come from revolution, because rich powerful people don’t listen to, or even see, the struggles the people face.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Autumn of nations would like a word
I’m convinced the only reason one hasn’t already started is because revolutions, while often very necessary agents of change and herald a lot of good for the future, are both risky and dangerous for everyone involved and in the back of our heads keep hoping things will change for the better without violence. Unfortunately it’s become increasingly and maddeningly obvious that will not ever happen.
deleted by creator
Revolutions are like wildfires: The longer you put one off the more destructive it is when it finally does come.
The US Congress will never pass a wealth tax without a Democratic majority in both chambers, and enough of a buffer to make Senators like Manchin and Sinema not matter
Wealth taxes have often been ineffective in other countries where they’ve been tried, since they’re very hard and expensive to administer. Something like a land value tax is much much simpler to collect and produces significantly better economic incentives. Wealth taxes incentivize you to offshore as many assets as possible, while land value takes incentivize you to use land as productively as possible since you can’t exactly hide a chunk of real estate in Switzerland.
That aside though, any kind of asset-based tax is constitutionally questionable and would absolutely be litigated to the Supreme Court, where I wouldn’t exactly want to place any bets on that outcome right now.