Flippanarchy
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
view the rest of the comments
How do you calculate "wealth"? It's obviously not impossible, but it's easier for billionaires to game their wealth then it is capital gains.
Tax capital gains much more than labor and tax loans on capital and a wealth tax will eventually be redundant. I do think either way we will need a one time wealth tax to redistribute capital.
We do not need the rich, the point is to get rid of them. Rent seekers and money changers aren't a necessary part of the economy and there is no legitimate reason to keep them.
I am far from an expert in the practical aspects of calculating wealth, but seems doable by the fact that wealth tax exists in countries today.
I too think it would be nice to tax capital gains higher than labour, but I am unsure how it would impact pension savers - both those who save by owning a home and those who invest in equities and bonds. I think I could only accept a very high capital gains tax if state funded retirement would cover full costs of living in cities, and reasonable lower bounds on retirement age. But this seems impossible with large shares of private ownership of homes in cities - they would likely be able to charge exorbitant prices for living if every old person had a comfortable pension. So I guess we shouldn’t have private ownership of homes. But I dunno.
Speaking of a one time wealth tax, would a 100% inheritance tax accomplish what you want? Just curious about how you see the redistribution of wealth happening, as I am myself unsure how it should happen in practice.
When you say we don’t need the rich, do you mean that we don’t need those particular individuals, or that we don’t need them having their wealth? Is getting rid of them achievable by getting rid of their wealth and the means to hoard?
Its all hypothetical of course, but if you had the support for a 100% inheritance tax, you likely have the support for like a 99% wealth tax for anyone over 100M.
Either one require a peoples revolution in my opinion, as were currently going the opposite way.
I am saying we don't need wealth hoarders, we could effectively ban anyone having over $50M and everything would keep on working fine. In fact things would almost certainly be better.
I am of the mind that we tax regular corporations much higher than co-ops to try to push every business towards mostly employee ownership.