I don't care if the homeless person we house or the refugee person we welcome is a "good investment".
Humanity is not a business.
I just want as many HUMAN BEINGS to be warm, happy, safe and healthy as possible.
Wrap that up in whatever political affilliation you care too, it's how we should all feel.
Geeze, what is wrong with us??
Oct 14, 2026, 1:12 PM@thejessiekirk colonialism
Hopefully, it's a positive feedback loop.
More support => more savings.
More savings => more support.
@thejessiekirk It was really awful & strange watching my dad go from a usually kind, helpful human being to being brainwashed with politically-charged language by FOX news. Before he died, he became such a bitter human being, & it sucks that that's happening in a lot of places to a lot of people in the US.
Take away the loaded political terms & folks are *usually* more reasonable, but language divides as easily as it connects. Tribalism is poisonous.
@Verati404 @thejessiekirk Some rich a-hole & his political crony created that Faux Skews of which you speak. #EatTheRich
@donhawkins @thejessiekirk Oh yeah, I know. And they've had to settle lawsuits in the past by pleading that they aren't "real" news, yet they're allowed to broadcast as if they are. And too many of my fellow USians believe they are! It's infuriating.
@Verati404 @thejessiekirk Well if it’s any encouragement at all, THIS 74 y/o recycled his 3 TVs 2-years ago, and no longer watch ANY TV. I’ve also deleted ALL ‘commercial’ social network accounts with the lone exception of YouTube thus far. It’s all Fediverse, all the time these days, for me.
@donhawkins @thejessiekirk I am very glad that you didn't let yourself get taken in by propaganda. I'm just sad for all the folks that have, who've let themselves get changed by hateful shifting goalposts and misinformation.
The world as it is today has been engineered by many horrible people in charge to be the shithole it is now, but it could've been good. And with effort, I hope it swings the other direction before it's too late (esp climate-wise).
I'm sorry. I think Fox News is a poison and it has poisoned so many people.
@thejessiekirk @Binder Billionaires & Trillionaires.
@donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder
Honestly, a lot of the upper millionaires too. There's really no reason for anyone to have a net worth of more than US$250 million at any one time. That's why I propose a wealth cap, when their *NET* worth (not just bank accounts, but everything they own) is more than US$250 million all income would be taxed at 100%. They'd get their normal tax rates back if they fall below that level, though.
@StarkRG @thejessiekirk @Binder Bernie was correct, billionaires shouldn’t exist (& as you’ve mentioned, upper millionaires).
@donhawkins @StarkRG @thejessiekirk @Binder Bernie was wrong; there's a lot wrong with Billionaires but Billionaire Enablers are the real problem of our times...
@sjcooke66 @StarkRG @thejessiekirk @Binder Again, Bernie was & is correct.
@donhawkins @StarkRG @thejessiekirk @Binder No,I maintain my position for reasons you will follow in this thread!
@sjcooke66 @StarkRG @thejessiekirk @Binder Again, Bernie was and is correct. So far much of this thread is little more than non-committal mental-masturbation … thus a waste of my time.
@StarkRG @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder I set the bar lower and I think at a more sustainable proportional limit.
As a floating value, any amount that is sufficient to permanently retire on is the ceiling. Tax 100% of wealth beyond that amount.
Tax all income in excess of ~5x the poverty line at 100%.
We raise *all* ships or none.
@gooba42 @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder Keep in mind that I'm specifically talking about net worth. Your house, your cars, your private plane, your overseas assets, your company shares. That's why the cap is set so high, it's not just the liquid assets that are counted.
@StarkRG @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder Oh yeah, I intend the same. For *wealth*, all will be considered.
For income, it's also *all* compensation of any kind.
You can still live a life of luxury while everybody gets fed. You just can't be a trillionaire.
@gooba42 @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder
Setting it too low would essentially preclude anyone from being a sole owner of a successful business. And, yeah, it would be all income, including appreciation of valuable property. If you're already at or above the cap and your house gets reassessed at $20,000 more than it had been, well, then you owe $20,000 in taxes. Bought a $1million painting and a year later similar paintings are being sold for $1.2 million? You now owe $200,000 in taxes.
@StarkRG @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder I'm convinced that's the argument they'll use to defend SpaceX against it but I'm not convinced it's an actual problem.
The rebalancing period might get rough but once established, I'd anticipate more stability as a broader swath of the population will be able to participate in moderating the market even if only by sheer inertia.
@gooba42 @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder
SpaceX isn't a sole ownership, but if it was, it certainly couldn't be with the new system. I'm giving room for smaller organizations, though. Someone who owns a large construction company, for example, with several dump trucks, earth movers, large amounts of equipment, etc. might eventually find themselves pushing up against the cap, but at that point, they're probably big enough to bring in partners or spin off companies to be sold to someone else.
@StarkRG @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder I know it's a disingenuous argument when SoaceX uses it, but we've collectively had these conversations before.
The idle investor class makes that argument to voters and enough of them misunderstand and accept it that nothing comes of it.
@gooba42 @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder
It forces enormous, powerful corporations to not be controlled by an individual who retains controlling interest in it. Or, at least, *strongly* disincentivizes them from retaining that control. The cap as I've described it wouldn't preclude someone from owning over half of, say, Apple as long as they bought it before it was worth $250 mil, but since *all* income would be taxed, they'd run out of money. They'd control Apple, but would live as a pauper
Oct 14, 2026, 4:41 PM@gooba42 you start with a minimum income tax floor set to 4% of wealth. That forces taxation of wealth growth, realized or unrealized. Then Increase that percentage for larger fortunes you want to draw down.
Forces the sale of shares to cover, moving the means of production to a wider base but over a long enough period to be somewhat uniform.
The transition gets to be a lot less painful and you get to use an existing instrument (income tax) to do it.
@StarkRG @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder
Oct 14, 2026, 3:57 PM@thejessiekirk capitalism