And they also run fake competitions where they promise to give a million dollars to people for voting a certain way, but really the winners were predetermined the whole time...
Because America was founded with a bunch of horse sniffing half-literates for a general populous and the only thing that's really changed is the number of horses to sniff.
I've used this quote a lot over the years. One of the far right posters liked to "retort" by saying it's better than being a pseudointellectual (directed at me), LOL!
Yup. To the conservative mindset, the notion of having aspiration to bettering oneself, etc. == "pseudointellectual". I cannot tell you how many conversations I've had from people that did not go to college and did not plan to go to college about how all those "college people" are. Also, calling someone an "intellectual" is considered an insult among conservatives. Calling them a pseudointellectual is spicing it up, LOL.
I still remember a conversation with an in-law where his literal mic-drop line (he thought) was to huff, "yeah, but YOU went to college!" He literally believes that going to college somehow taints a person. He has said as much, explicitly. He doesn't want his kids going to college, either, because he thinks it will ruin them/turn them against him or whatever, with the "woke mind virus". FFS.
That's not the full answer though, since a similar phenomenon appears in much less oligarchic systems.
While the rich also have a disproportionate influence in those systems, it wouldn't be enough without the assistance of the racism and spite of the average voter.
An oligarchic system is one where political power lies predominantly in the hands of a small privileged elite. But it's not a binary concept, the current US system is less oligarchic than it was in the 19th Century, or the Venetian Republic for example. What did you mean?
Blue-state Democrats are in a bind. They support a more equitable tax system, but fear, with some justification, that they and their party will be blamed if higher state taxes cause their wealthiest residents and their state economies to “head south,” literally and figuratively.
They say "with some justification," but what is that justification? Is there evidence that higher taxes causes wealthy residents to leave AND that that has negative consequences for the broader economy?
Yeah, this feels like a made up reason (it is). What working-class voters do they think are going to be like "boy, you know who I miss? The billionaire who used to live up the bloc!"
If you leave a state/city because they raised taxes, it stands to reason that the reason you were there in the first place was because they had lower taxes. It doesn't matter how much private wealth you have, you leaving or staying has very little impact on the people who live in a low-tax area. This is very basic logic
"boy, you know who I miss? The billionaire who used to live up the bloc!"
The implication is not that they'll be missed, it is that they will just not pay taxes in another region, which does nothing but rob your current region of whatever tax dollars they're currently paying.
So what if the rich leave? They're not paying taxes, who needs them? The need for vendors and contractors doesn't go away when the wealthy leave. The economy goes on. Someone will take their place and pay taxes and not bitch about it so much.
Over 70% of voters want universal healthcare. About the same amount want a higher minimum wage.
About 90% of Democratic voters want universal healthcare, more than half of all independents want the same thing, and even a huge amount of Republicans want universal healthcare (around 40%).
Even so, D&Rs can't be bothered.
(yes yes, I know, BoTh SiDeS so I must be a secret Nazi bot, etc. you got me)
We REALLY need to normalize demystifying the rebrand of bribery as 'lobbying'. There's a reason that term has power, cause people alreayd learned the dangers of it, and the corruption it breeds.
What the bottom 99% want is irrelevant. We don't run this country or make its decisions. We are just cogs in a machine that exists to serve the rich and convince the poor that they're in some magical land of freedom. None of us are free.
Not entirely.
Generally of course people who don't have to labour for their livelyhood have more time and certainly more resources to influence politics.
But the common man can make their voices heard.
-you can vote in your interest. Be careful of what people try to tell you is your interest
-you can protest (peacefully); look at France to see a populace that doesn't just take what is rammed down their throats
-you can talk to your neighbours; discuss things with them to form an opinion; don't just parrot talking points from media;
-you can write to representatives; sure, your letter won't be directly shown to then, unlike one from Koch or someone. But it won't go unnoticed.
-participate at town halls
-participate in polls
A fortune 500 CEO or Forbes billionaire list name will have more impact than a single voice from the population. But organised, the voices of the population make a difference. Organisation, participation and critical engagement can make a difference.
I used to think that way but now I would say your are ignoring the severity of the situation and still clinging to the lie that we still live in a democracy.
It's not really even about being a democracy. Kommunist East Germany with one of the most formidable surveillance systems to date could only look on when a sufficient percentage of the population rose peacefully.
I believe the plumbing for democratic change is still present in the US. What is preventing change is people doom scrolling on the couch.
Nobody in politics really cares for voters. They just tell convenient lies, and once you dropped your vote into the ballot box, you stop to exist for them again. You are just the annoying necessary means to lift them up to the pork barrels of political bribery.
For the US, this would require removing companies from political actions, and channeling private political donations to a neutral handler that limits those to a certain maximum amount.
Probably for the same reason that rejecting insider trading by politicians is popular. Or worker protections. Or single payer healthcare.
I seem to remember Cenk from TYT showing polls that Americans tend to poll progressive on the issues. Somehow, all the things that are popular don't get passed, though, hmmmmm...
Summary since the Access top this page has been denied:
Most Americans support higher taxes on billionaires due to concerns about inequality and concentrated wealth, yet federal and state efforts to implement such taxes have largely stalled because of political influence, legal complexity, and fears of capital flight (wealthy moving their money outside the US).
A wealth tax. Their wealth will continue to grow exponentially, but at least a portion of it could be harvested to reduce the deficit.
Taxing capital gains the same as ordinary income. Making money from investments requires no effort, and it blows my mind that wage income is taxed more heavily.
Trying to get exact numbers for wealth to tax it is near impossible especially in ultra wealthy areas with their own ways of hiding it
Anyone who suggests touching capital gains will be accused of attacking peoples retirement at least in the US 401ks have replaced most other forms of retirement benefits
Im surprised there aren’t more Georgists in this day and age when we have so much bogarted land and empty luxury apartments
Because they're using some of their money to keep us from holding them accountable? And that they have probably run the numbers to find that it is cheaper to do this than to just... Pay the taxes.
It can be more complicated than that. My governor just signed into law a state income tax on anyone making a million or more. (We have no other income tax, everyone pays a regressive sales tax.) All the poorest people in the state are mad and they are collecting signatures to repeal the millionaire tax, because they think this new income tax will "trickle down" to anyone making $100k or less. They are absolutely convinced of this, even though new laws would have to be passed for that to happen. And this is a blue state.
Are they actually all the poorest people in the state, or are we talking like a doordash grandma situation where they hire some people to dress up like regular working class folk for an afternoon?
62 Comments
DigDoug@lemmy.world · 172 pts · 42d
The superrich own the media.
And the politicians.
TheReanuKeeves@lemmy.world · 58 pts · 42d
Question answered. No further comments needed. Part of growing up is realizing the "democracy" we live in is just a mask for fascism.
Orioniae@piefed.social · 1 pts · 39d
A good chunk of current democracies are actually open market oligarchies.
Fishnoodle@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 42d
And they also run fake competitions where they promise to give a million dollars to people for voting a certain way, but really the winners were predetermined the whole time...
foggy@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 42d
/thread
Canconda@lemmy.ca · 40 pts · 42d
Because America was founded with a bunch of horse sniffing half-literates for a general populous and the only thing that's really changed is the number of horses to sniff.
adarza@piefed.ca · 9 pts · 42d
i know this is a link to that other site, but this old post has a link to the full essay as published in 1980.
https://old.reddit.com/r/asimov/comments/6616rh/a_cult_of_ignorance_by_isaac_asimov_1980_via_pdf/
ripcord@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 42d
Why not just link to the essay
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 41d
Here is the link.
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 42d
I've used this quote a lot over the years. One of the far right posters liked to "retort" by saying it's better than being a pseudointellectual (directed at me), LOL!
Almacca@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 42d
Nice to get immediate confirmation of the validity of the quote.
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 41d
đź’Ż
Yup. To the conservative mindset, the notion of having aspiration to bettering oneself, etc. == "pseudointellectual". I cannot tell you how many conversations I've had from people that did not go to college and did not plan to go to college about how all those "college people" are. Also, calling someone an "intellectual" is considered an insult among conservatives. Calling them a pseudointellectual is spicing it up, LOL.
I still remember a conversation with an in-law where his literal mic-drop line (he thought) was to huff, "yeah, but YOU went to college!" He literally believes that going to college somehow taints a person. He has said as much, explicitly. He doesn't want his kids going to college, either, because he thinks it will ruin them/turn them against him or whatever, with the "woke mind virus". FFS.
drdalek@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 34 pts · 41d
Long article to say "the rich are in charge"
Hapankaali@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 41d
That's not the full answer though, since a similar phenomenon appears in much less oligarchic systems.
While the rich also have a disproportionate influence in those systems, it wouldn't be enough without the assistance of the racism and spite of the average voter.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 41d
Why do we think they're less oligarchic? It's a classic principal-agent problem. Representatives are generally for sale.
Hapankaali@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 41d
Less corrupt systems than the one in the US can and do exist.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 41d
I might be assuming too much of what you meant by oligarchic.
Hapankaali@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 41d
An oligarchic system is one where political power lies predominantly in the hands of a small privileged elite. But it's not a binary concept, the current US system is less oligarchic than it was in the 19th Century, or the Venetian Republic for example. What did you mean?
TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 42d
They say "with some justification," but what is that justification? Is there evidence that higher taxes causes wealthy residents to leave AND that that has negative consequences for the broader economy?
raman_klogius@ani.social · 23 pts · 42d
Just like all the billionaires in NYC that fled when Mamdani took office? All 0 of them?
PP_BOY_@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 42d
Yeah, this feels like a made up reason (it is). What working-class voters do they think are going to be like "boy, you know who I miss? The billionaire who used to live up the bloc!"
If you leave a state/city because they raised taxes, it stands to reason that the reason you were there in the first place was because they had lower taxes. It doesn't matter how much private wealth you have, you leaving or staying has very little impact on the people who live in a low-tax area. This is very basic logic
artyom@piefed.social · 0 pts · 42d
The implication is not that they'll be missed, it is that they will just not pay taxes in another region, which does nothing but rob your current region of whatever tax dollars they're currently paying.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 41d
You're describing a Laffer Curve. Nowhere in the USA is anywhere close to those diminishing returns.
artyom@piefed.social · 0 pts · 41d
I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't described any curves.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 41d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
NM_Gringo@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 42d
So what if the rich leave? They're not paying taxes, who needs them? The need for vendors and contractors doesn't go away when the wealthy leave. The economy goes on. Someone will take their place and pay taxes and not bitch about it so much.
baronvonj@piefed.social · 1 pts · 42d
the fear isn't that a rich person leaves. the fear is that a large employer moves and takes all those jobs with it.
SabinStargem@lemmy.today · 24 pts · 41d
Because they don't own the means of production, and the opposition has a monopoly on violence.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 41d
Over 70% of voters want universal healthcare. About the same amount want a higher minimum wage.
About 90% of Democratic voters want universal healthcare, more than half of all independents want the same thing, and even a huge amount of Republicans want universal healthcare (around 40%).
Even so, D&Rs can't be bothered.
(yes yes, I know, BoTh SiDeS so I must be a secret Nazi bot, etc. you got me)
garbage_world@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 41d
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 41d
Because the rich bribe our politicians. Legally.
Binturong@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 40d
We REALLY need to normalize demystifying the rebrand of bribery as 'lobbying'. There's a reason that term has power, cause people alreayd learned the dangers of it, and the corruption it breeds.
JiveTurkey@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 42d
This basically sums it up. https://youtu.be/sYA-z0Y8WRQ?is=kw_NGc3gLO-d4Onl
What the bottom 99% want is irrelevant. We don't run this country or make its decisions. We are just cogs in a machine that exists to serve the rich and convince the poor that they're in some magical land of freedom. None of us are free.
Fribbizz@feddit.org · 1 pts · 41d
Not entirely. Generally of course people who don't have to labour for their livelyhood have more time and certainly more resources to influence politics. But the common man can make their voices heard. -you can vote in your interest. Be careful of what people try to tell you is your interest -you can protest (peacefully); look at France to see a populace that doesn't just take what is rammed down their throats -you can talk to your neighbours; discuss things with them to form an opinion; don't just parrot talking points from media; -you can write to representatives; sure, your letter won't be directly shown to then, unlike one from Koch or someone. But it won't go unnoticed. -participate at town halls -participate in polls A fortune 500 CEO or Forbes billionaire list name will have more impact than a single voice from the population. But organised, the voices of the population make a difference. Organisation, participation and critical engagement can make a difference.
JiveTurkey@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
I used to think that way but now I would say your are ignoring the severity of the situation and still clinging to the lie that we still live in a democracy.
Fribbizz@feddit.org · 1 pts · 28d
It's not really even about being a democracy. Kommunist East Germany with one of the most formidable surveillance systems to date could only look on when a sufficient percentage of the population rose peacefully.
I believe the plumbing for democratic change is still present in the US. What is preventing change is people doom scrolling on the couch.
mvirts@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 42d
the question answers itself.
Themosthighstrange@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 41d
Title should be: ruling class makes it as difficult as possible for the rest to tax them
Golfnbrew@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 42d
That and half of the people who actually show up to vote, vote for republicans, who are against taxing their buddies, donors, etc.
Almacca@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 42d
Because voters have little to no say in the matter.
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 40d
Nobody in politics really cares for voters. They just tell convenient lies, and once you dropped your vote into the ballot box, you stop to exist for them again. You are just the annoying necessary means to lift them up to the pork barrels of political bribery.
sanitation@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 40d
Do you have some action plan to fight that?
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 39d
For the US, this would require removing companies from political actions, and channeling private political donations to a neutral handler that limits those to a certain maximum amount.
Donjuanme@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 41d
Because 90% think they're in the top 10%, and the top 10% think they're all 1 step from being the next musk.
They're all deluded be capitalism.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 41d
How is this a real question
artyom@piefed.social · 4 pts · 42d
Because voters don't vote accordingly.
crystalmerchant@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 41d
This is definitely not a real question
...but I'll answer it anyways
The answer is because the rich make the laws.
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 42d
Probably for the same reason that rejecting insider trading by politicians is popular. Or worker protections. Or single payer healthcare.
I seem to remember Cenk from TYT showing polls that Americans tend to poll progressive on the issues. Somehow, all the things that are popular don't get passed, though, hmmmmm...
rumba@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 41d
Summary since the Access top this page has been denied:
Most Americans support higher taxes on billionaires due to concerns about inequality and concentrated wealth, yet federal and state efforts to implement such taxes have largely stalled because of political influence, legal complexity, and fears of capital flight (wealthy moving their money outside the US).
NekoKoneko@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 42d
werealltryingtofindtheguywhodidthis.jpg
nanometer1625@thelemmy.club · 3 pts · 41d
Some things that would help:
MrGeneric@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 41d
Trying to get exact numbers for wealth to tax it is near impossible especially in ultra wealthy areas with their own ways of hiding it Anyone who suggests touching capital gains will be accused of attacking peoples retirement at least in the US 401ks have replaced most other forms of retirement benefits
Im surprised there aren’t more Georgists in this day and age when we have so much bogarted land and empty luxury apartments
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 41d
Probably because the foundation of georgism became fundamentally irrelevant with the invention of the microprocessor.
SalamiDommie@lemmus.org · 2 pts · 41d
Because they're using some of their money to keep us from holding them accountable? And that they have probably run the numbers to find that it is cheaper to do this than to just... Pay the taxes.
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 41d
Is this actually a legitimate question they're asking?
It's the most obvious answer on earth. The people making the laws don't work for the voters anymore. They vote for the donors.
rhymeswithduck@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 41d
It can be more complicated than that. My governor just signed into law a state income tax on anyone making a million or more. (We have no other income tax, everyone pays a regressive sales tax.) All the poorest people in the state are mad and they are collecting signatures to repeal the millionaire tax, because they think this new income tax will "trickle down" to anyone making $100k or less. They are absolutely convinced of this, even though new laws would have to be passed for that to happen. And this is a blue state.
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 41d
Are they actually all the poorest people in the state, or are we talking like a doordash grandma situation where they hire some people to dress up like regular working class folk for an afternoon?
EvilBit@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 42d
A trillion ants want the human picnic food but the humans have bug spray, ant traps, and a vicious hatred for ants.
Why aren’t the ants getting to enjoy the picnic food?
squidie@feddit.org · 1 pts · 41d
Well the politicians are rich and don't like hurting themselves. And they like earning money or getting richer.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 42d
“Voting against our own interests”
Usually because someone waved a flag at them.
FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 37d
Because the super rich decide policies
CaliforniaSober@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 41d
Why is it so hard to reach consensus on Lemmy?
Why do you support genocide?
Why aren’t you just like me? You genocidal asshole?
It’s the “media” right? Not us?
The “media”??? Right?
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 41d
You may want to block a few communities, my friend.