Calm down professor. The US is one of the only countries in the world to tax worldwide income, even if they are a nonresident of the US. That is NOT how it works in every country.

Here’s a pretty good article about it from the WSJ if you want to educate yourself on the subject: https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-34630

Well thank god we don’t have any Death Panels from Obamacare though!

People will always act in their own rational self interest. Idk where people get this idea from that you can legislate market forces. It’s like legislating the tides or the seasons. The commies around here walking around bitching about all these mean rich people are so naive it’s really incredible.

This is a super basic apples and oranges concept, please try and keep up.

Your original comment was bitching about 4% not being a fair share when you are paying 24%. Wealth tax is not the same as income tax.

I think everyone is subject to income tax in the US when the income is taxable to them, yes. Eventually all of these big bad mean rich people will pay tax on their unrealized gains one way or another. No need to create a wealth tax because eventually the income tax will kick in, I promise you. There’s no need to fuck with the tax code even more, and by doing so totally breaking accounting and tax concepts in a way that only government can, just out of this populist notion that they aren’t paying their fair share, whatever that means.

Wouldn’t a wealth tax increase risk of assets being stored and hidden outside the US?

Americans are already taxed on worldwide income. If there’s a wealth tax and they tried to get around it by storing assets outside the US, wouldn’t hiding it be much the same as attempting to hide non-US income?

Any comments on whether a wealth tax is even constitutional, since the 16th amendment only authorizes an income tax and not a wealth tax?

Do they get a deduction when they repay the loan on the back end, if they had to pick up income for the loan when it was received?

Wouldn’t it be disruptive to cap executive pay during lean years, or startup years, or recession years etc? Wouldn’t that create even more incentive than there already is to aggressively pump up income in order to meet arbitrary quarterly/annual earnings goals to keep executive comp high? What if there was a lot of income last year, little income this year, and a lot of income next year, etc. Should everyone’s income seesaw up and down or could we maybe plan around cash flow a little bit?

“Yearly audits of accounts held by wealth management firms to ensure that no one is fiddling with the books” is such a loaded sentence full of ignorance and naivete I really can’t begin to respond to it besides telling you that it instantly identifies you as someone who doesn’t know wtf they’re talking about and shouldn’t be commenting on such things.

Finally, Bezos is still the executive chair of Amazon and still holds 990 million shares as of November 2023 so idk what you’re talking about with that last sentence. Link to the SEC Form 4 Proxy Statement, a primary source document despite the shady url: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001018724/0978cda1-fd60-4d80-bdc4-e6911372e1a3.pdf or you can find it here dated November 1 2023: https://ir.aboutamazon.com/sec-filings/default.aspx

Maybe there’s a difference between wealth and income, but nobody around here would care about such things.

I agree with you but the culture around here is exceptionally infuriating for anyone who understands a thing about finance/accounting/tax/money in general so good luck.

Fuck your stupid pink and blue hair lol that’s how I came up with that

Personally I’m way happier with a 401(k) than a pension. Risk is more distributed with a pension, yes, and many people don’t have the knowledge or resolve to properly manage their own retirement funds. But pensions are a royal PITA, way more complicated (and expensive) to manage than a 401k. So if I had to choose between money coming out of my paycheck to go into a complicated expensive pension fund that may or may not be around in a few decades, OR a 401k that I have complete control over and can take with me when I leave the company, I’ll take the 401k every day of the week.

Personally I feel like it’s less about exposure to extreme gore and porn and stuff like that. It’s more about the constant barrage of awful shit happening all over the world. Some stupid thing some politician said, police brutality, an asshole on a plane, etc. Our brains just weren’t designed to handle so much stimulus overload. I’m not a psychologist or whatever but that’s my opinion.

I just told the truth. Personal time off, health and wellness, weight loss, surfing, travel, and yes vibing doing nothing.

It went over well. Most interviewers were more interested in that than my professional experience. Most people can’t do that and want to know what it’s like.

For my part, I don’t want to work for/with people who look down on that sort of thing.

Warning: my resume is extremely strong so I have a lot of leverage. YMMV

Thanks for the reasonable response. I’ll admit part of my attitude displayed is because i feel so beaten down here on lemmy from so many interactions with people at a level of toxicity strong enough to kill a bull. I’m surprised at how many downright reasonable comments there are in this thread for the most part. I’ll read more in depth and respond another time.

There’s actually some good discussion in this thread. You should try thinking of something constructive to add, or show yourself out.

So raise minimum wage to $20-30/hr. You don’t need to toss capitalism out the window to do that. It’s overly simplistic to blame these problems on one ism and naive at best to think these problems will go away for swapping it with another ism.

There was a lot of speculation about that but I’m not sure if there’s any consensus. Individual tax returns only show income, and business returns only show book values (not fair market value which would help determine wealth). He had pretty big net operating loss carryovers from previous years which essentially zeroed out his income for a few years, so it’s hard to say. I feel like I remember looking for foreign account disclosures but didn’t see them in the returns, which would be at least one set of FMV numbers to go with. It’s been a while since I looked though. Overall I walked away being disappointed so I’ll stick with my original assessment, maybe I take another look later today though.

My example shows all three parties benefitting from the arrangement. Everyone would lose if I, the worker, quit. It’s not exploitation at all. I willingly enter into this agreement because I literally can’t do this on my own. So I benefit from company resources. My clients can’t be serviced by a small one man show so they choose a bigger company too. The firm owners make the most because it’s their company and none of this would be happening without them. It’s not exploitation and it’s not parasitic, it’s symbiotic. We’ve got loads of issues with legislation and enforcement, minimum wage should be like $20-30, corporate governance needs to address all stakeholders and not just shareholders, and so on. But that won’t be resolved by swapping capitalism for any other -ism. It’s overly simplistic to think one ism is the only problem and another ism is the only solution.

This might be the first discussion I’ve had on Lenny in good faith as you say, so thank you for that.

My position summarized is that we definitely have massive issues with inequality, injustice, lack of rights, etc. But these are issues of legislation, corrupt government and leadership, enforcement, corporate governance, media disinformation, and so on. As you said any system can and will be abused. Swapping capitalism for any other -ism won’t change anything. (What would that even look like?)

Some of my meandering thoughts for potential solutions include controlling media disinformation, campaign finance reform, term/age limits, and ranked voting. It would be great to somehow change corporate governance to require leadership to prioritize stakeholders and not just shareholders, but I don’t really know how to do this. Maybe a requirement that all public companies be owned at least maybe 10% by non-officer employees, enough to get a seat on the board of directors.

It’s extremely complicated and there’s no clear solution. I’m not saying capitalism is perfect, I’m saying it’s overall ok and it’s very childishly naive to make a shitty comic about swapping it for another -ism to solve all of our problems. I really don’t want to argue about it though or get into a flame war, I just can’t handle the vitriol on this forum.

What makes you think I don’t already wear a crime fighting suit to work? There was a documentary about it and everything, The Accountant. I specialize in espionage, intrusion/counter intrusion, taking some CPE next week for long range assault weaponry, the usual.

I’m done with you. Come back if you have something constructive to add to the conversation.

Yes, precisely this.

Workers are absolutely exploited by plenty of shitty companies. But that’s not caused by capitalism, nor is it solved by any other -ism. The causes are complex and the solutions are even moreso, if there even are solutions at all. To sit here bitching about it in the form of a stupid anti capitalism comic is just childishly naive.