I posted this earlier today in the tech lemmy instance, but, they have no sense of humor and deleted it. I’m trying here.

          • @irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            1811 months ago

            They only said the government were capable of doing it, not that they would be motivated by pure benevolence

            • Patapon Enjoyer
              link
              fedilink
              10
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              To be fair, of the 44B, they’d use 30b to blow up children’s hospitals, give 13b to some rich fucks, 800m would disappear and the rest would fund something nice

              • @Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                711 months ago

                Have you ever looked at US federal spending? 27% goes to healthcare, 21% goes to social security, 13% to income security, 13% to defense, then the rest is split between education, veterans benefits, transportation, and regional development/other.

                I know people like to meme the government spending, but the majority goes to healthcare, elder care, and veterans.

                • @yeather@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  211 months ago

                  I can’t wait until Snowden resurfaces and shows us how much of that 27% healthcare actually goes to healthcare and how much is skimmed to line people’s pockets.

  • @kitos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    7411 months ago

    The techie guys are also the ones with verified Twitter accounts and Elon Musk balls on their mouths in my experience so i can’t say i’m surprised if they deleted your post :/

    • @ehrenschwan@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3111 months ago

      A lot of us sadly are, but there are also ones like me with a strong affinity for open source and such. And we collectively join in the Elon hate.

  • Klara
    link
    fedilink
    3511 months ago

    Honestly, just taxing the rich is one of the most milquetoast and obvious takes ever. Should not even be radical imo since it just makes sense

  • @malloc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2311 months ago

    Looks fake. Probably why. Lighting is all fucked. Ground not consistent with massive sign lit up. 🚩

  • @Gamey@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    1811 months ago

    It would definitely fit that instance too, it’s also some quality shitpost and could fit in political communities as well so kind of a universal one if you ask me!

        • @Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1011 months ago

          Ahh yes, taxes which have existed since the first and most basic state came into being – millennia before capitalism, even at its most primitive, was conceived of or practiced – are capitalist.

          It’s kind of incredible how teenagers on the internet use the word “capitalism” the same way boomers on facebook use “communism.”

          • @Sketchpad01@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            1211 months ago

            My bad, just meant to argue that taxes weren’t explicitly communist. I don’t have any strong feelings for or agains t communism yet, maybe I’ll look into it later. Just hate to see people use thr name of an economic system as a debate ender, although I suppose I did the same. Guess it’s just the debater in me wishing we could have actual structural arguments on thr internet instead of throwing slang words around.

        • frevaljee
          link
          fedilink
          111 months ago

          Oh yes, an ideology defined by private ownership and small government intervention is also somehow responsible for the basis of government intervention - taxes.

          • @explodicle@local106.com
            link
            fedilink
            7
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            They don’t actually believe in small government intervention at all - they want the goverment to enforce private property rights and then just tax a little back, below the profits from owning that property.

            The big lie is that private property is natural, and thus its enforcement is small.

            (Edit: clarity)

            • frevaljee
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              A government which only enforces private property rights is still significantly smaller than most alternatives.

              Enforcement of private property rights is a part of virtually all governments, and then you pile all other stuff on top of that hence making the government bigger.

              And ofc the taxes will be below the profits, no sane person would make any investments in anything if it was above the profits.

              Edit: and to add, many hardcore capitalists, like minarchists, libertarians, or anarcho capitalists, propose that you don’t even need a government to enforce private property rights. They’d rather solve that issue privately.

              • @explodicle@local106.com
                link
                fedilink
                211 months ago

                But I’m comparing against socialism, not against most capitalist countries. We don’t need to encourage investment where the factors of production are owned by the workers themselves.

                The ancaps illustrate my point - it’s absolute monarchy that they falsely claim is anarchy.

                • frevaljee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  211 months ago

                  I don’t think I follow your reasoning tbh. What exactly are you comparing? You said that capitalists favour intervening governments, which is simply not true. Not in any general sense anyway.

                  Anarcho capitalism is probably as far into anarchy you can go. They want to completely abolish the state and enforce property rights privately.

                  Or are you saying that such a society will fall into some kind of feudalism? At the core of anarcho capitalism is the NAP which is not really compatible with feudalism. In feudalism you have a hierarchy not based on voluntarism, and that would therefore not be anarcho capitalist.

                  Do you imply that we need a strong state with a monopoly on violence to keep us in check, otherwise we would descend into chaos? Thats a pretty bleak and pessimistic view of mankind.

  • MrMobius
    link
    fedilink
    511 months ago

    I guess some users of tech lemmy might have felt concerned by this.

    • Ken Oh
      link
      fedilink
      3011 months ago

      This is not the gotcha you think it is. Yes, tax the Bidens.

        • @TheActualDevil@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          1311 months ago

          I’m looking at them buddy. No one is buying into your bait. They agree with your assertion that we should tax people as rich as Biden. I think you’re talking about the guy who was trying to show you that if you have a problem with Biden’s millions, you should be even more troubled by the billionaire it seems you’re defending.

          People aren’t obsessed with Biden. Biden has done some good while in office - a lot more than people were expecting. The best thing he’s done by far is not being Donald Trump. We all know why we voted for him, and it’s not his progressive policies.

        • @HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          811 months ago

          Why is it chuckle fucks like you suddenly lose all ability to read context clues when it’s an idea you don’t like?

          • @Compactor9679@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            111 months ago

            Its funny how the rich are the ones “tax the rich” ans point to people who have more money than they do

    • @BigNote@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      2611 months ago

      Tax all of them! What part about it do you not understand? Do we need to spell it out for you? WTF is wrong with you?

    • @kugel7c@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      1011 months ago

      If you think ~10M is the dangerous kind of rich then yeah, most people realize that 100M+ or even 1B+ is the people that are actually severely dangerous. Especially the people that end up with that number somehow after several bankruptcies…