They did a really good job on ads. Don’t look up how much they spent just on fooling the population.

  • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Imagine not being a billionaire and voting to not tax them.

    Humans are real dumb. I’m honestly shocked we aren’t still throwing feces at each other while arguing who gets the best spot in the cave.

    • fishy@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      9 days ago

      They ran so many ads. I was visiting family in CA a few weeks ago and every second commercial was saying if the law passes they’ll use it to put a tax on everyone. Obviously bullshit but I can understand why some lower half of the bell curve people would believe it.

      • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 days ago

        I was visiting family in CA a few weeks ago and every second commercial was saying if the law passes they’ll use it to put a tax on everyone. Obviously bullshit but I can understand why some lower half of the bell curve people would believe it.

        Honestly that is a very fair point. Federal income tax was initially passed as a wartime measure and only applied to the wealthiest people. Over time inflation and necessity lowered the threshold lower and lower until everyone had to file income tax.

        I’m in favor of wealth taxes on billionaires, but you have to admit, it does establish a dangerous precedent. Someone with a few million in a 401k is fantastically wealthy by the standards of someone working paycheck to paycheck for minimum wage. Why wouldn’t they support a wealth tax on people’s 401k balances?

        The slippery slope fallacy here does not apply. We have clear historical examples of taxes that were originally meant to only apply to the rich growing in scope until they were applied to the whole population. It’s actually a pretty likely outcome if wealth taxes became more common. Every other tax expanded to encompass the entire population, why not wealth taxes?

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          9 days ago

          Wealth taxes kinda already have been applied to the entire population, except the ultra rich. You pay property taxes, and those definitely go up based on unrealized gains.

        • Triasha@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Nothing stopping us from voting people in who will raise income tax brackets so only the top 10% pays them.

          Nothing but us and our lack of imagination. We can do the same with wealth taxes and the 1%.

          Or we can surrender in advance and allow them to continue our March to poverty.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 days ago

          The slippery slope fallacy here does not apply.

          It is absolutely a fallacy to say we can’t possibly levy a tax on a billionaire lest it, ultimately becomes a tax on us.

          Already they have a pretty sweet deal compared to most folks, most folks have most of their ‘wealth’ taxed as property. Since real property is a tiny sliver of their ‘wealth’, they get to keep more percentage wise than the random person, despite needing it less.

          To say any tax might evolve into a tax on the common man is like saying we can’t regulate nuclear weapons, lest it becomes a regulation preventing people from having scissors. Yes, there is the example of income tax and a mistake was made at the time they went to expand it. The problem was not the initial tax, it was the point of expansion. There’s no reason the expansion of the tax should have any lower barrier than getting it levied in the first place.

          Now if you argue that the measure was somehow flawed in that it failed to limit the scope and explicitly opened the door to things, but it was the opposite, a one-time, billionaire only scoped event.

          • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            In inflation adjusted dollars, the tax applied a 1% income tax to incomes over $100k and a 7% tax to incomes over $16 million. Yes, it was originally intended only for the wealthy. The upper middle class paid a tiny nominal 1%. The only people paying any substantial income tax were the extremely wealthy.

            I get it. You want to tax the rich, so do I. But you’re letting that desire cloud your judgment and reason.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          This is why I try to think hard about “temporary” sales taxes and fees and the like. There is about zero chance that tax meets the stated goal and is repealed, if not expanded.

    • laranis@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      Lots of comments in all the blue tsunami posts talking about how the public must finally “get it”. They now think like rational humans who will choose what’s best for a society and in their own best interest.

      At best this is reactionary revenge voting meant to punish the ruling party for the ways policies have impacted them recently. I think the next election we’ll be right back to a split government with no power to undo any of the techbro billionaire fascist ratcheting that has happened the last decade.

    • ElDuderino@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      The really frustrating part is that many Californians also voted to increase sales taxes again. Sales taxes are incredibly regressive.