T O P

Maybe make this an annual tradition?

Maybe make this an annual tradition?

FarWashKing

That actually sounds like a pretty solid idea, Public Citizen


BreathOfFreshWater

We can call this "Tax Season". But instead, us peasants also get to choose where our annual donation is sent. Such as public health care for all, improved infesteucture for impoverished minorities, or especially not Ted Cruz.


[deleted]

[удалено]


zuzg

Nah there salary isn't even that high at that point. Tax their wealth.


Chandy1313

Percentage of their wealth! Salaries do not often reflect the what they should pay


ubeor

They would if you included capital gains as income.


[deleted]

[удалено]


wiithepiiple

Will home prices fall? That would be great.


sudoalpine

Nice. Sign me up


EvilFroeschken

Giving back? I read they all got richer during the crisis.


ArabicHarambe

They did. But because they typically have influence in various media, they ensure that the odd million to charity here and there is publicised so they still seem like good guys.


luckilynumber7

Billionaires:You sneaky sneaky you naughty naughty.


notaballitsjustblue

‘If I spend this much upon benevolent institutions, I thereby purchase the right not to be troubled any further, and you are bound thereby to stay in your dusky holes and not to irritate my tender nerves by exposing your misery.’ Friedrich Engels (writing in character)


Yellow-Sudden

So zakat?


Sassinake

but they _do_ make a bunch of donations! All the time! Directly to the people that help them directly! By cutting their taxes! They pay hundreds of thousands to a few people _each and every year,_ and save millions that way!


red-cell12300

Nah, I think low-income people should do it, we might hate it, but we got it right????


Annihilate_the_CCP

Yeah it’s not like such a system would ever be used to destroy the middle class, right?


NurseMagsy

Don’t wealthy people already get their taxes offset for charitable donations? I know I got a slip for my taxes when I gave a table to the Good Samaritans.


MindOfSociopath

The issue with that is a great percentage of the money would go to making more weapons of war.


golden1612

They already do this… warren buffet promised to donate all of his stocks to charity after he dies(he already donated 4billion). Jeff bezos is planning to sell some of his stocks( ofc not all of them at the same time. Higher taxes,stock market crash,votality etc.) and donate 10billion towards charity. Elon musk donated 150million to charity. Bill gates donated 36billion in total to charity… but yeah you guys keep shitting on them without doing proper research


Suitable-Rest-1358

Ah, yes. The wonderful charities of Gates foundation, Buffet Family Foundation, and Bezos organization


rasingarazona

Taxing is for twats


Suitable-Rest-1358

Except taxing it off income is a very different number than their annual dividends.


deathcarlyle

Cause the IRS does so well with our money.


buttsmacks_anonymous

what the everloving fuck are you talking about lmao


Dirtyduck19254

Do you really think our government would suddenly become fiscally responsible if you cut them a bigger check? I mean, I'm not at all against taxing the rich and making them actually do things for the good of the nation but at this point I'm so cynical when it comes to our governing institutions that I'm pretty sure giving the Congress, R or D, what essentially amounts to more tax revenue wouldn't change what they spend it on We don't lack the Nordic Model and expanded social programs for lack of money, we're already the richest nation on the planet What our ruling class lacks is the will to do it and fiscal responsibility


buttsmacks_anonymous

if you're cynical that's not my problem


Dirtyduck19254

My cynicism aside, do you actually believe that giving Congress any more money to spend would actually fix anything? Considering the things they already spend money on being in charge of already the richest country on the face of the earth? And if you say yes then why?


buttsmacks_anonymous

who said anything about giving the IRS more money besides you? just curious.


Dirtyduck19254

Well first off you dodged my point and my questions completely and I thought that was the topic of the thread we're replying to?


buttsmacks_anonymous

it wasn't, until you made that the question.


Dirtyduck19254

[What?](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/pqpb2k/maybe_make_this_an_annual_tradition/hdcm37c) it totally was so can you please answer my question? Edit: I'm not trying to be antagonistic or derail anything I genuinely just want to have a discussion on this.


buttsmacks_anonymous

that question is totally different from 'so you're okay with paying more to our government' so let me know if you need more assistance removing skull from sphincter.


deathcarlyle

Government spending is what I’m talking about. Swear people in this sub Reddit are dense


buttsmacks_anonymous

lmao i agree with you on that last point as I sit here reading your garbage


deathcarlyle

Oh so you enjoy being taxed on your money 3 times to watch it not go into needed funding


buttsmacks_anonymous

Oh so you enjoy posting bullshit that makes no fucking sense? interesting


deathcarlyle

You must be a simple child


buttsmacks_anonymous

I never came in here claiming I was a genius, but you seem to keep engaging me with more and more idiocy


deathcarlyle

Yet you engaged and not one time offered any attempt at explanation or rebuttal.


buttsmacks_anonymous

when theres nothing to rebut


Suitable-Rest-1358

Dont mind me, a lurking idiot passing through.


richardd08

There's a word for a "donation" that isn't voluntary and results in being held at gunpoint if you refuse it.


Charg3r_

Found the idiot. If taxes didn’t exist, Amazon vans couldn’t drive on public roads, it’s employees wouldn’t have attended public school and thus would probably be less skilled for the jobs. Taxes are part of the social contract and without the spoooky government Amazon would be nothing in the first place.


richardd08

I didn't say taxes shouldn't exist. >Amazon vans couldn’t drive on public roads I'm not opposed to charging Amazon for something they directly use. That's not what this post is referring to. There is a difference between making taxes directly and solely proportional to the usage of the public infrastructure they fund, by way of sales taxes and other consumption taxes, and charging someone based on a percentage of *their income*. It would be like if you paid more at a coffee shop every time you got a raise, and not if you paid more for buying more coffee. >it’s employees wouldn’t have attended public school and thus would probably be less skilled for the jobs Amazon does not use public schools, its employees do. You should be forced to pay Ford taxes for their contributions to automobiles, because without automobiles there would be no modern civilization. Those taxes are part of the social contract and without the spoooky private companies that made these cars you wouldn't have smartphones or the equipment for modern healthcare in the first place.


Charg3r_

> Amazon does not use public schools, its employees do. And who do you think does the work at Amazon? Mr. Amazon? Jeff Bezos ? LMAO. > You should be forced to pay Ford taxes for their contributions to automobiles, because without automobiles there would be no modern civilization. That’s exactly right. Now you are an approved communist ™ . Without the internet (which was also publicly funded), not any single big tech company would exist. We are a social species, advancements in technology are not the deeds of individuals, but collective and always relying on previous advancements. Nobody should be a billionarie for owning some capital in the name of “innovation” or whatever bullshit they make up for selling stuff on the internet with a 3 million loan from your parents.


richardd08

I said that taxes should be *directly* proportional to the usage of public infrastructure. Amazon does not use public schools. They come to an employment agreement with their employees, that has nothing to do with whether or not they use public schools. I don't care how deserving you think someone is of their own shit. What you and this poster are proposing is blatant theft.


Charg3r_

And how exactly would you measure the usage of public infrastructure? Don’t you think a business is dependent on too much factors for it to be profitable? Like social cohesion, security, the education of the workers, the purchasing power of your consumers, the access to public infrastructure of your consumers so they can have public electricity etc etc. It’s not theft, just like your employees you have a choice to build your business under a state’s tax policies, if you don’t like just leave and try somewhere else, just like you guys tell employees to do.


richardd08

You use something if you're using it, not if you're benefiting from it. I don't need to pay for the gym membership of the guy I hired to move stuff out of my apartment, it doesn't matter if he wouldn't be capable of doing the job without that membership. The gym forces him to pay for his membership because he's the one using it, not me. The price I pay him is the price we agree to beforehand. Stop trying to equate public and private property. A natural resource becomes privately owned when it is used or mixed with existing private property. Land, even inhabited, becomes publicly owned when a government points at it first and threatens to kill anyone that challenges their claim. If you think living in a state is voluntary, then don't complain about Switzerland banning burkas, because the Muslims chose to live there. If you think living in a state is voluntary, don't complain when I don't wear a mask because you chose to interact with me. If you think living in a state is voluntary, don't complain if Walmart builds a fence around your house and starts charging you to continue living there. Just leave! They're not stopping you, it's totally consensual. Just give Walmart all your shit and fuck off because you "chose" to be there. Claiming millions of square miles of land that included the land others already lived on and simultaneously is still partially unused to this day is totally the same thing as firing someone that chose to work at your business.


Charg3r_

I find it hilarious that you are able to identify coercion when it comes to the state, but with capitalists that constantly use their power to undermine wages, unions, public infrastructure and stop paying their fair share of taxes (I don’t care if we don’t agree on how much, but just so you know, you pay infinitely more taxes than Bezos did last year) you just lick their boot because they are not the spooky guvernment. Both are coercive, working or starving is the same as pay your taxes or close your business. I don’t blame you, expecting logical consistency from libertarians is more idealistic than your entire ideology.


richardd08

From google: co·er·cion the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. The defining difference between the state and a private entity is that the state holds a monopoly on force and will force you to do something. The day Apple shoots or jails you for not buying their phones is the day they become a state, but for now the only one using coercion against me is the United States. Work or starve is not work or have your food taken away from you, it's work or someone won't give you money for food, because you don't have the right to someone else's money. There is no force used against you. Pay taxes or close your business is pay taxes or have your business closed, it's not the same thing. It's like trying to compare the right against murder to the right to be kept alive, which you leftists unironically think is valid.


Charg3r_

Why shouldn’t we go back to feudalism then? If ownership and gate-kept means of production is not coercion why do classical liberals hated monarchies and feudalism? At the end of the day, the serfs were not entitled to the feudal lord’s property, why bother finding a better system then. Serfs entered a voluntary contract with their lords, they weren’t coerced at all.