this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
823 points (99.3% liked)

Work Reform

16397 readers
956 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 2 points 44 minutes ago* (last edited 21 minutes ago)

Public equity is an elegant solution to this quandary, among others.

You can easily tax “unrealized gains,” and attach social strings to any additional economic stimulus and subsidy, by simply allowing public fractional shareholding in the marketplace.

Edit: many problems then resolve themselves…

For example, any corporation or other private interest which requires excessive public backing because it is too important or “too big to fail,” which only describes a service which should be centralized, is one in which the public rapidly obtains a controlling share.

Likewise, instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize shareholders, creating feudal oligarchies, public equity would naturally pay dividends on revenue to public shares, implementing UBI overnight for pennies on the dollar.

It doesn’t have to be complicated, but it’s in private equity’s interest that we think it so.

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

You wouldn't believe (or maybe yes) how many struggling, regular schmuck commuters I hear saying "But but we can't tax the Job Creators!" Meanwhile they're spending two hours in traffic each way, taking any shit from their four bosses while trying to keep their 2011 Camry in one piece and scrounging enough for mortgage, streaming, and the third star on the fourth stripe on little McEllough's tae kwon do white belt.

It's the evil brilliance of Republican marketing. And just maybe, the mistake being made by modern Marxists is ignoring the so-called middle class in favor of the blue collar classes only. Goddamn it I'm pretty bourgeois, but comes down to it, I'd give up a few things to have free health care and education for everyone, and UBI for those that need it.

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 16 points 2 hours ago

That's why they're going to great lengths to remove or at least weaken government legislation limiting their acquisition to more wealth, while putting the screws on anyone below them.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 58 minutes ago

this doesn't really have anything to do with "work", therefore it's questionable whether it belongs in the "work reform" community. anyways, it's a good post, with a good point.

it's quite clear that we need tax reforms. the current system works for no-one anymore, not even for the rich. the stock market is a bubble only waiting to burst, and everybody's well aware of it. the economy, the way it is today, is absolutely not sustainable. people are getting poorer, due to not having jobs, or rather the jobs pay like shit (bullshit pay for bullshit jobs) because the jobs aren't fundamentally important to the economy. there's a declining labor market because there's not so many new inventions compared to 1900 when stuff was new and hot. (consider that the electric grid was literally invented around 1900, there's an interesting chapter of history there, current wars). that's why the labor market is cooling down.

i advocate for spaceflight partially because it would create jobs. also waging wars would create jobs but deeply unpopular so nobody wants to do that. so jobs will still be lost, and can only be partially replaced. we need a universal basic income or sth similar to give people enough resources to live. we need to start writing policy proposals for that. i propose the following fields should be covered and provided for by state-run services somehow:

  • water, food, healthcare
  • housing
  • transport
  • energy
  • IT, telecommunication, education
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I mean the extremely literal answer is roughly:

All counties/cities have a bureaucracy dedicated to doing the equivalent of yearly audits to determine your home/property's value.

This does not exist for corporate capital assets.

Instead, the audits are privately conducted (either internally or via a contracted private accounting firm), and valuations are basically only issued around time of sale, when corporate capital changes specific private ownership.

Even earnings reports are not done by an outside agency for the purposes of assessing a tax, they're either done privately by the owner (again, internal or contracted out), or as private market research for something like a hedge fund or something like that.

We as a society (legal system?) just decided that homes get a bureaucracy and taxation, capital does not, it plays by different rules.

And by that what I really mean is that ever since FDR, the wealthy have conspired to construct this legal reality bit by bit, compromise by compromise, PR campaign by PR campaign, over time.

So that gets us eventually to Citizens United where money buys elections and laws officially and thus Democracy dies.

Its... its the oligarchy baked into the system, been like this for quite a long time.

Its not that its... any kind of theoretically impossible to imagine a or many different kinds of systems...

Its that rich people have rigged so many things so far in their favor, for so long, that they believe these artificial engineered differences ... are fundamental rules of reality.

Like yes they're very hubristic and classist... but a part of it is that they've basically indoctrinated themselves into thinking this is... objectively correct. Its sort of like a religion, its their dogma.

I will note that at least some billionaires don't buy into this dogma nearly at all... either out of genuine empathy and humanity, or pure self preservation of not wanting to be guillotined... you do end up with the 'Tom Steyer <-> Mr Wonderful' spectrum.

Of course, the Steyer types are exceedingly uncommon.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 hours ago

At a certain level of wealth, we should be taxing wealth quarterly.

Grant an exception for a single place of residence (sure, let it be magnificent, whatever, but only 1).

Wealth taxes can have brackets like income taxes do.

Also, more luxury taxes etc!

[–] discocactus@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

But none of it is so simple that it can't be done by a computer. Instead we need a whole industry of middlemen because it's so convoluted and opaque...but also they know what you owe, and then want you to tell them. It's fucking dumb.

[–] Thrawne@lemmy.world 8 points 5 hours ago (7 children)

Hfs, i never drew that correlation before. Yeah, fuk them.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] TBi@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Should be easy. If you are a billionaire you should be paying at least 40% in tax. So at least 400 million for each 1 billion you are worth.

If you want to pay less then you need to justify it. So pay up front and refund later. Easy.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

No one needs 600M, your tax rate is too low.

[–] TBi@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I fully agree. Maybe a 70-80 tax on everything over 10 million.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Needs to keep up with inflation but yeah.

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Nah why? We could boil the frog into 80% on everyone this way.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

At some point $10m is the new $1m and normal people retirement would get taxed to death.

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

And? 1M of retirement money still makes you filthy rich bourgeoisie. State should tax the shit out of you, and provide back minimum fair sustenance.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

It really does not.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

The fuck...you clearly have no clue how much it costs to live these days...1mil retirement is a joke that's 50k a year if you're lucky, and that's only getting you 20 years. More than likely medical shit will eat that up.

[–] ExtremeDullard@piefed.social 80 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

They're right: it is pretty complicated to tax the rich using the current tax code. And there's a very good reason for that: they made sure it's as complicated as possible.

[–] krellor@fedia.io 27 points 7 hours ago (9 children)

I think the idea that taxing the rich is difficult or our tax code is too complicated feeds into the narrative around the problem being too hard to solve. I think the reality is more straightforward:

  • Bring back the previous top tax bracket of 39% that Republicans did away with. That will bring in a significant revenue.

  • Raise or add the top brackets on the capital gains taxes.

  • Add a new top tax bracket of you want to raise more revenue, e.g. 46% above X millions.

When you look at reports by the congressional budget office or independent budget groups, most of the other proposals are noise in the grand scheme of things. Even the buy, borrow, die strategy that gets a lot of airtime (because it rightfully violates most people's sense of fair play) only really accounts for something like 2% of the funds used by the ultra wealthy.

Most of the things like wealth taxes would require more complex legislation and be treated by the courts, certainly going to the supreme court. But the above three bullets would meaningfully raise revenues, are simple in terms of legislation, and have clear statutory authority and case law on their side.

The only thing hard is electing enough people who actually care about the budget and the people.

[–] MasterBlaster@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago

Forget 39%. We have greater national debt as a percentage of GDP than we did in 1944. We need to reinstitute the tax brackets from then until 1965, which had a top rate of 90%. There are reasons we had a middle class back then, and this is one of them.

[–] tburkhol@slrpnk.net 17 points 6 hours ago

Income tax may be a solution to government revenue, but it's not a solution to inequality.

Capital accumulates exponentially, and if you don't address that exponential growth, then there will be ludicrously wealthy people, social immobility, and all the problems we have now. Tax wealth.

Of course it will be complicated. Of course there will be court cases. All of that is true of the current system. We can't get to a working system if we don't even start. Tax wealth.

[–] Zarxrax@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Capital gains should just be taxed as regular income instead of having a special rate.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago

How about removing property tax for sake of consistency?

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 50 points 7 hours ago (7 children)

It wouldn't be so bad if you couldn't use the unrealized gains. But people can have a bunch of stock, get an untaxed loan, and have access to money without the tax burden. We should fix that.

Also property tax should probably be progressive

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] False@lemmy.world 41 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (10 children)

This was an interesting point I hadn't thought of before, so I wanted an alternate perspective since a Twitter meme is a little one sided, think of it what you will:

Property taxes are ancient — they predate modern stock markets by centuries. Land was the dominant form of wealth, and crucially, you can't hide a house from the assessor. Real estate is immobile, visible, and tied to a specific jurisdiction. Stocks are the opposite: mobile across borders, easy to hold through trusts or shell entities, and private holdings are genuinely hard to value year-over-year.

The other piece is who's collecting and why. Property taxes are local — they fund schools, fire, roads, the stuff that directly makes your property more valuable. There's a clean "benefit" logic: the city paves your street, your house is worth more, you pay for it. A share of Apple isn't enhanced by Seattle paving anything, so there's no equivalent local nexus.

Stocks also already get taxed, just at different moments rather than annually: capital gains when you sell, dividends when paid, corporate income tax on the underlying company, estate tax at death. The argument against an annual wealth-style tax is partly that the system already takes its cut, just not on a recurring basis.

A few countries (Norway, Switzerland, Spain) do tax financial wealth annually, but most that tried it abandoned it — capital flight and valuation headaches. In the US there's also a constitutional wrinkle: the federal government can't easily levy direct taxes on wealth without apportionment among states, which is why Warren/Sanders-style wealth tax proposals have to be carefully structured to survive a court challenge.

[–] Fribbizz@feddit.org 4 points 4 hours ago

Property taxes are local — they fund schools,

Funding schools by highly localized tax isn't universal. The US adopted it to make sure less affluent areas have worse schools. I believe the UK does similar things, but they also want marked differences between public and private school alumnus.

but most that tried it abandoned it — capital flight and valuation headaches.

And most importantly: relentless lobbying by the wealthy to get rid of those taxes.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 18 points 7 hours ago

The system should take more of a cut, if that’s the argument we are going with.

Also? A new realization event should be defined: collateralization. When you take out loans against the value of your stock/bond/whatever holdings, you are realizing gains from those assets - you wouldn’t have gotten the line of credit otherwise.

People argue that this would prevent homeowners for taking equity lines of credit for improvements but that’s easily remedied by the collateral not being a real asset.

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago

Stocks also already get taxed, just at different moments rather than annually: capital gains when you sell, dividends when paid, corporate income tax on the underlying company, estate tax at death. The argument against an annual wealth-style tax is partly that the system already takes its cut, just not on a recurring basis.

Yeah, that's sort of the whole point of the post. If I buy a stock for $1 today and still it for $10 tomorrow, I pay taxes on the gains tomorrow.

If I buy it for $10 today and sell it for $1 tomorrow, I claim it as a loss.

If I buy a house for $100k yesterday, I'm paying taxes on $400k property today, and $900k tomorrow. Even if tomorrow I sell it for $200k.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›