298
submitted 3 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Spendrill@lemm.ee 43 points 3 months ago

OK so it's time to say the quiet part out loud: the reason that governments have so far held off on taxing billionaires at 1% or 2% is the fear that they might spend 2% or 3% against those governments in revenge.

[-] CountVon@sh.itjust.works 31 points 3 months ago

Billionaires, as a class, are likely already spending that much or more on lobbying for lower taxes. Or really lobbying for the status quo, since existing loopholes allow them to achieve an ultra low or even 0% effective tax with alarming regularity. The threat they make is wealth flight. "If you raise our taxes we'll take all our wealth somewhere else!" As a result taxes on the ultrarich have essentially been a global race to the bottom for decades. At least now there finally seems to be some indications that wealth inequality cannot be ignored the way it has been for so long. My hope is that we'll eventually see some international framework that effectively raise the tax floor for the 1%. It won't cover every nation, but if it encompasses the EU, US, Commonwealth and other aligned countries then that would go a long way.

[-] _edge@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 months ago

And what Billionaire wants to live in a shit-hole country? If governments are committed, they can find a way. Oh, you want to travel to the EU? What a shame that the visa process requires some transparency...

[-] CountVon@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago

That's exactly it. If affluent countries can get on the same page, they can neutralize the "wealth flight" argument and we can start shifting the balance back toward something that remotely resembles equality.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

It's always been a fallacy that the rich can remove their money from all developed economies and still remain rich. Also, if billionaires are taxed until they're no longer billionaires, that money hasn't disappeared, it's been recycled.

And there's a fundamental series of questions under all this: who elected billionaires? Who benefits from their continuing to be billionaires? What are the costs? How can we fire them?

The ancient Athenians would vote to expropriate and exile the rich if they weren't working in the interests of the polis (cutting deals with enemy states, interfering in politics, corruption). Perhaps Western countries should all pass laws that a limited number of referenda can be held annually to make a similar disposition of the modern ultra-rich?

[-] Spendrill@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

If you want to insure yourself against capital flight go for a Land Value Tax. Let 'em shove a hectare of land in their luggage.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Georgism was rejected as unworkable in Victorian times. What has changed to make it workable now?

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 21 points 3 months ago

Well, just tax them at 99%

Lots of problems solved..

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 months ago

Curse them to a life of normal levels of phenomenal wealth! Justice! /s

[-] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 months ago

You really could. They have a personal wealth that rivals some nations GDP. Paying almost every penny they make in profit to maintain that level of privilege is fine by me.

[-] Icalasari@fedia.io 5 points 3 months ago

I for one would be all for a wealth cap for all beings considered people

This would ALSO include companies if they want to continue with the being people thing

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago

I love these kinds of debates because it's more or less an acknowledgement that none of these countries (including highly developed first world countries) are democratic and are instead either controlled or heavily influenced by the wealthy class and not by the common people.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Consider an escalation scenario. Who's going to come to heel first?

this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
298 points (99.3% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5184 readers
845 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS