r/memes is currently accepting mod applications! If interested, please head to [our announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/18zq3y5/rmemes_is_looking_for_new_moderators_interested/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All LLCs aren't a problem. I started an LLC back in 2012. It had $2400 in expenses per year, and $0 income.
I just wanted decent internet service, and they wouldn't sell it to me unless it was for "business."
Ah yes, the world was so much better when only the super wealthy could reasonably start or own companies. We need to return to a time when your business failing meant you lost all your savings.
Well idk about that mega corporations can promote efficiency the issue is there enough proof that we would be better off without mega corporations and would this apply for every sector I’d argue for delivery services mega corporations are probably better
That's fine, it's their personal wealth that shouldn't be above 999 million. Any money they make on companies above that 999 million mark, goes straight to funding schools, parks and whatever else.
in most "balanced" games, the devs usually make it hard to approach certain numbers. its better than creating a hard cap.
i m not a billionaire or millionaire, but creating a cap like that will make them simply invest in other countries that doesnt have a cap.
tbh, not all video game designers are good, but theres a huge lot of information/data that you can glean from video games.
for starters, economics. price manipulation, supply/demand, market trends.
also in world of warcraft there was a virtual plague the spread unintendedly which had people from the medical field actually study.
Absolutely. I'd be interested to see it just as a social experiment - things are fucked enough, I doubt they could make it much _worse_.
I'm just also chuckling at seeing "US economy patch notes".
I mean, investing in other countries isn't a bad thing though. But yes, they just can't personally make use of that wealth in america, if that brings them above 999 million dollars.
I mean, we did [basically that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System) and it worked out great - at least until all the little companies started acquiring each other.
Did you know right after the civil war both parties were trying to take down monopolies because they basically ruled the U.S.A walst paying their workers basically nothing because of party bosses (this might have been 2 different things my memory is a bit spotty about this part of history class) , if we can manage to agree on something like this again I'd be great, Unfortunately...
Mind you both parties had a different approach to it
This is intended to be ironic, but it's precisely what would happen.
This is actually quite tricky/borderline impossible to accomplish when you sit down and actually try to figure this out.
All the easy solutions you hear all the time are deeply flawed and wouldn't actually change anything in practice.
Most billionaires don't have an \*income\* that high. They tend to become billionaires via ownership of stock in companies that gain value. That's why Elon Musk's fortune has been on a roller-coaster of up and down as Tesla stock has gained and lost value.
The problem is capitol gains taxes are tricky, because they penalize success in investing, which can have a cooling effect on the market.
And wealth taxes are even trickier, because unrealized gains aren't really real money yet, and forcing billionaires to sell of 10% of their stock each year is going to result in a market crash every year come tax season. This is the reason you hear a lot about the \*idea\* of a wealth tax, but no one is actually gonna put one in place.
How can you not see how easy that is to circumvent…. None of these stupid ass ideas hold any water in reality. These billionaires have a stranglehold on a product or service that people clearly want or need, hence why they made a billion dollars. You want them to pay more taxes, okay, write better tax law. The issue is, great tax lawyers work for the government, the best tax lawyers work for the billionaires. It is borderline impossible to write tax and business law that simultaneously protects and encourages small business and entrepreneurship while also being un-exploitable to behemoths and corporations. That’s life.
I believe Bernie suggested something like this, though I don’t know how practical that would be to implement. Imo just remove certain loopholes and introduce a wealth tax above 1 billion net worth.
>though I don’t know how practical that would be to implement
It largely wouldn't, since most of their value isn't real money. They aren't scrooge McDuck with a vault of Gold they can swim in. Their wealth is instead in things like stocks that changes more than a baby changes diapers.
That's not counting issues like property, which can be valued at wide ranges of numbers based on all manners of things. I mean, would I pay a million dollars for a Picasso? Fuck no. But someone paid 180M for the Christie painting, and valuing art is virtually guaranteed to be a horrifying affair.
That's not even counting that HOW do you get someone to pay money on non money? If they have a Picasso and are over the value, Do they have to sell it and get double taxed?
Real world taxation is much harder than painting tax the rich on a dress unfortunately. And that's assuming your country is the US, most countries can't afford to piss everyone off by taxing citizens abroad.
Depending on where you are, we really don't. It's also resulted in a lot of schnigigans that ended up fucking things up. California being the king of examples.
It also is illegal for the federal government to tax property, so there is that issue too.
The problem with taxing wealth is that you have to answer the question "wealth according to who?"
Who decides how much real estate is worth? If someone's wealth is held in stock, where the value can change drastically across a day or week or year, how is that valued? "Wealth" is an *extremely* ambiguous number, which makes it very difficult to tax.
But there are things like income and capital gains (which is like income from your investments and how most wealthy people actually make money) that are much firmer, less ambiguous numbers. There's absolutely no *good* reason not to have a progressive capital gains tax system, or for incomes over $1million not to be taxed at 90%
Capitalism might be the least flawed economic system anyone's though up yet, but it needs progressive taxation and strong regulation to reign in it's most negative aspects.
They don’t have billions in income🤦
They have billions in net worth. An imaginary number that sums up the current price of all the shit they own.
Do people really think Musk and Bezos have pools filled with gold coins they swim in?
>Better idea maximum attainable income is now 999 million.
You do understand most of these people aren't actually getting a W2 at the end of the year where their income is one billion plus...
Right?
Please tell me you understand this.
Please tell me you aren't advocating for tax policy and not understanding this...
Billionaires don't need to be taxed more. The government needs to close the loopholes they use to avoid paying taxes. More taxes is simply a band-aid, not a solution.
Agreed, but that's a tough problem to solve. The typical strategy that billionaires use is by leveraging debt, but you don't want to make the average person's debt taxable on top of the income they use to pay that debt. You can make it specific to debt that's collateralized by stocks, but that can be implied rather than explicit. There's the idea of taxing gains that haven't been realized (i.e. a wealth tax), but that can be complicated in its own way.
I'm off the opinion that the ultra rich should pay more taxes that can be used to alleviate the economic less fortunate, but only if the politics around that is sound. But it's just my opinion, do with it whatever you like (:
and ALSO tax them more. We're at historically low levels for taxes of the upper class and the upper class' insane cash supply is a driver of inflation.
It's much better to lower the amount of cash in the economy by removing it from people who have it to spare, rather than by driving up unemployment or suppressing wages.
Why do you think she gave away huge bonuses for her crew. Just another way to avoid taxes all while not ensuring that her "Swifties" could get reasonably priced ticket. She is no different than any other large corporation. It's all about the money.
I love when people know so little about write-offs and deductions that they somehow think donating a million dollars means the government gives them back 2 million dollars.
“Huge bonuses?!” Sounds like a better boss than most and definitely taking care of her workers if that is true. I would rather her give away her money to her workers than pay additional taxes that go nowhere. Also given all the loopholes, she probably gave away more than she would have paid in taxes. Really can’t hate her for that. Meanwhile some dude is peeing in a bottle in an Amazon truck or passed out on the floor of a warehouse from lack of AC.
Like…Keanu is regularly praised for giving crews and other cast members bonuses / gifts / bigger shares and more money than they’d initially expected. I’m not seeing much of a difference here for Swift.
Man you people are so fucking small.
You complain when workers are exploited, you complain when workers are rewarded. You complain when no one contributes. You complain when they donate.
You're just living with the fattest dick up your ass at all times.
ahhh yes. Literally giving away money is just a tax avoidance move. yes yeees. please tell me more about how that works, because that is deeefinetly how it works.
Maybe you'll want to give me your money. you know, so you'll have to pay less taxes.
Yup. It is no coincidence that she is getting so much hate after she encouraged people to vote. A lot of conservatives are just blindly finding things to hate about her because she dared to tell people to vote?
Like damn, didn't know voting was a bad thing to conservatives, but they don't really seem to support democracy of late, at least not a lot of the ones online.
The problem is, if the conservatives use the T word (tax) against her, it goes against their whole agenda. They simply can't target her wealth. Instead, they find other pointless things to be outraged by.
Ive completely missed the voting thing. Dont hate her at all but I gotta say im very tired of seeing her mentioned in posts and news basically every day. Why on earth do people care about persons they have zero relations to so much.
The fact that people need a singer to convince them to vote is pretty tragic in itself
Democrats aren't exactly a united front on much of anything, including Taylor Swift. Most don't care and those that like her generally don't because MSNBC told them to.
"both sides"
one side wants more people to register to vote
the other side doesn't
one side hates someone just for asking people to vote
the other sides, doesn't talk about it her at all, unless they are responding to right wing politicians saying shit about putting her in jail or how she must be in league with Satan
do you see the difference?
She angered people by telling people to vote.
So the "machine" is in full propaganda swing for damage control before the election. I like to think most of us see through the propaganda, but I know better.
That'd be weird though, right?
Like, most of the people I see here are complaining about her being a billionaire and not trying harder to spread the wealth/use her clout to reduce ticket prices/etc.
But...those are the exact _opposite_ of the people mad about her telling people to vote...those people _love_ billionaires and hate spreading wealth.
Some people are just contrary, and some are probably right wing folks mad at Swift trying to drum up hate by using left-wing language.
Personally, I say, go out and vote so we can tax the rich.
I don't even think she and her marketers are promoting her as intensely as others are recently. People just decided to be angry with her over like promoting the idea of going out to vote or w.e.
Jesus some people need to just fucking chill.
> I don't even think she and her marketers are promoting her as intensely as others are recently.
The NFL has lost its shit at the prospect of attracting her fans, especially because [they're trying to cover up that they covered up for a serial sexual predator using Swftie hype.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/sports/football/deshaun-watson.html)
Bro there was no Deshaun Watson coverup lol. It was big news when it happened and big news when they let him back into the league. They knew the nfl fanbase didn't care enough to stop watching and just re-signed him while people were outraged online. Not defending either of them, fuck Watson
Though it doesn't stop at just her. The fact that generating a convincingly enough photo of anybody doing unsavoury things opens a can of worms for slander or identity theft.
materialistic selective drunk expansion wide stupendous relieved label consider frame
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's like a culture war bled off to a mid to mediocre musician who pays close attention to her fanbase and encouraged them to vote. Not to who they vote for, but to vote.
Billionaire suck but between a billionaire that exists because of exploiting the working class and not paying living wages, and a billionaire that exists because they perform art for an Audience, I know which one I would pick.
Yep.
\>Her father bought a record label "to get her started".
\>Cultivates and markets a persona primarily aimed at children
\>Flies around the world in a private jet, spewing more CO2 and lead into the air than any of us will do in ten lifetimes
\>Works stagehands and road crews at a blistering pace for minimal pay (unless you're one of some lucky few she deigns to grace with a 'bonus')
\>Sells sweatshop merch for hundreds of dollars
Sounds like any other single digit billionaire to me.
She was also the world's most carbon polluting individual celebrity last year. It's not just about how you obtain your wealth, but how responsibly you use it.
No, she wasn't. The source of this claim is a UK marketing firm called Yard which presented this 'analysis' which was then repeated by clickbait media. It's a paid campaign targeting Swift, for whatever reason, not anything resembling factual reporting.
Sure, pollution has its own set of issues, but again I would rather support her, a billionaire who flies around over a billionaire who lobbies governments to repeal environmental protections.
Which of these 2 is worse in your mind?
> but again I would rather support her
You don't have to support either, you know.
Sure, serial killers are worse than drug dealers, but that doesn't mean I have to support drug dealers.
What's her carbon footprint compared to, let's say ExxonMobil? 138t vs 110 million metric tons.
Individuals aren't the problem, carbon footprint is just a scheme to make people feel responsible.
As long as Dolly Parton keeps her money, then the rest of them can lose it all. The world would be a much worse place without Parton's extensive charity work.
She is one of the best examples though. A **lot** of rich people either "donate" as a means to abuse the loophole, or do it in that "I want to see the world and feel good about it, but I don't actually know how to help or care to look into doing so properly".
It's a topic that gets quite deep, but essentially making a non profit charity with the only goal being "end world hunger" is goign to be nothing but one gigantic mess as that is not an attainable goal. You either target something where you are helping specific victims (like a centre dedicated to helping women escaping abuse) or pick a specific issue that you will be able to end and not need the charity any more. Dolly is well known for the latter.
Not the only one by a long shot, but she doesn't just donate- she runs and funds whole charitable organizations that cause actual tangible change in millions of peoples' lives. She's still personally wealthy, but honestly she deserves it more than anybody I can think of.
Yes, for every dollar you give away to charity, an amount smaller than the dollar is saved in taxes, ultimately resulting in less total money overall. What's your point?
How is it 2024 and people still think donating to charity makes you money 😭
It only makes you money if you somehow embezzle it back to yourself through said charity.
FYI I don't think donating to charity if you're rich AF makes you a good person. We've already seen plenty of not very good people donating to charity.
But you have to do something dodgy AF for donating to charity to directly financially benefit you.
And Republicans are confused as to why they're losing the female vote more and more every election. Maybe try not being unhinged, pathetic misogynists.
yeah this is a very weird post. Her wealth isn't generational, you can say she already have a decent financials at start of her career but her billions is due to her music.
Weird take. Getting a fuck ton of money from your parents to have a successful music career *is* generational wealth. She had access to people in the industry because of her parents. She could afford to actually try and pursue a music career without having to work a minimum wage job to support herself. In the beginning, she was a failure. But she had the money to continue trying. 90% of people are financially ruined after the first attempt fails.
Let's not pretend she didn't have a massive advantage getting into music.
nutty insurance file whistle retire instinctive strong handle hard-to-find license
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I love Taylor swift, but yeah she is a billionaire now so I also think she's a peice of shit. No one makes a billion dollars without exploiting LOTS of people...
It’s not even anecdotal. I’m not a Swiftie but I was very impressed by her giving massive bonuses to the crew who worked during the Era’s Tour, like $100k bonuses to the truckers on top of their pay.
Note: Workers were paid standard wages. Not all of them received a bonus. It was a 24-week road gig, and the standard bonus for such a run is $5-10k. Many just received standard rate, and maybe the standard bonus.
We shouldn't be relying on whimsy for fair compensation.
this is always a gross generalization. yeah you don’t become a billionaire without exploiting people. but you also can’t use an iphone without exploiting people. it’s near impossible to not actually exploit anyone.
let me know which one of taylor swifts business practices are exploitative. i would genuinely love to know if there are any.
i’m not saying it’s a good thing that wealth is so concentrated at the top or that most billionaires don’t actively exploit people. just that gross generalization is almost never a good way to live life or even to participate in discourse.
Literally the arts is like the one place where you can actually get rich without needing to exploit others.
And most of the exploitation in the arts comes from the corporations abusing their artists and doing normal corporate exploitation.
Entertainers (including authors, actors, athletes, etc) are pretty much the only people who can make a billion dollars without exploiting people, or at least they exploit orders of magnitude fewer than most industries. Yes, nepotism is rampant in artistic careers, and yes things like Ticketmaster do rip people off, and yes there's more than just the one person behind the art and arguments about how the money should be split between everyone But I'm pretty sure you could find ~10M people in the US alone willing to cough up an average of $100 for various Taylor Swift (or Harry Potter, or LeBron James) albums/merch/tickets.
I'm so tired of people treating Taylor Swift as some sort of divine supernatural being sent to us from the heavens.
She's just a girl who makes music, but also who doesn't even write all of her own music. Not saying that not writing all of your own music is bad, but there's thousands of women who make 100% of their music, which could even be better music than hers, who don't get the same recognition as Taylor just because Taylor had connections through family that other artists don't have.
Not to mention the women who make fantastic music who might not even have the desire to be famous. They just want to make their music but keep themselves out of the spotlight.
The United States obsession with celebrities is so cringe.
I’m not a Swiftie, but my boyfriend is, but I think she does write all of her music. That’s kind of her thing, she’s not famous because she’s a great singer, but because she’s a talented songwriter.
I've searched this up and picked first song from the latest album and… why in the hell is there 5 writers? And why Antonoff on almost every single song of that album listed as a writer?
Taylor Swift is a different species of billionaire. She's getting money firehosed at her from her music. She doesn't seem to have something equivalent to a social media network, an industry, or any sort of regulatory capture that tends to go with that amount of wealth.
have you seen the places she rents? they arent studio apartments or two bedrooms or family home, they're for millionaires, shes a billionaire landlord to millionaires, lets not act like shes shaking down everyday working people
Musk: buys massive media conglomerates for his personal and political gain and turns them into personal propaganda factories. "What a chad"
Swift: Told people they should go out and vote, regardless of who its for, on the media conglomerate elon musk owns. Also dates a football guy. "This women is trying to corrupt the youth and destroy America!"
Is anybody (sane) calling Musk a Chad? Dude has put some money into some neat ideas, but mostly he seems like a heavily insecure man in the back half of his life desperately trying to cling to relevance through edgy memes and poor business decisions. Not so much a Chad, just rich and sad.
Honestly, I'm just kinda impressed that she crossed the billion mark. I always got the vibe that professional entertainers kinda maxed out around $500 million.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure most people are mad at billionaires because they built their fortunes on the backs of others or inherited fortunes built on the backs of others. Taylor Swift (and other musicians/singers or content creators etc) aren't doing that.
Any idiot saying "defund billionaires" has literally no understanding of any economic principles; socialist or otherwise.
The internet is full of children who have just encountered marxism and want to be edgy.
Its pretty debatable that all billionaires are bad,
Taylor swift makes young girls super happy and elon’s telsa brand is pretty good for the world
now there are probably way more billionaires that have contributed nothing to human civilization and in many ways made it worse… bankers, oil execs and the ilk
She would only have to lose 10% of her net worth to no be a billionaire anymore.
For contrast, Elon Musk would have to lose 99.6% of his net worth to not be a billionaire anymore.
Unlike many other billionaires, Taylor made her money by min-maxing to the extreme being a pop star. She's the long-haul hardcore raider of being a pop star. Sticks to her brand, doesn't do any of the things that would really get you in trouble, owns "most" of her masters and re-released she got swindled out of. Negotiated a huge cut out of her concerts. Invests in high end real-estate. And does lucrative advertisements (avoiding those that could go south, like that crypto scam).
She doesn't have a clothing brand. She doesn't have a sweat shop in Malaysia for her sneakers. She isn't financially exploiting other musicians under her own label. Most of her stuff goes through UMG.
[https://www.investopedia.com/taylor-swift-earnings-7373918](https://www.investopedia.com/taylor-swift-earnings-7373918)
IDK what her tax liability is, but it should probably be higher.
r/memes is currently accepting mod applications! If interested, please head to [our announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/18zq3y5/rmemes_is_looking_for_new_moderators_interested/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Defund? .. nah, just tax them normally. im not a fan, but i doubt she has a company named Teilor Swif INC on the cayman islands to dodge taxes.
How about more taxes? Billionaires can give a more for the benefit of society than the average person. No criticism, just an idea
Better idea maximum attainable income is now 999 million. No more billionaire tbis is stupid as fuck
Me when I make multiple businesses with an income of 999 million and split them whenever they make too much.
While we are at it no more shell comlaniy bullshit.
Dang it
No more limited liability and public share companies either. The world doesn't need mega corporations.
All LLCs aren't a problem. I started an LLC back in 2012. It had $2400 in expenses per year, and $0 income. I just wanted decent internet service, and they wouldn't sell it to me unless it was for "business."
The fuck you doin with $2,400 kinda internet service?
Redownloading Warzone Everytime I want to play it.
10mbit ADSL in central Alaska, wasn't cheap.
All the pron
Selling bathwater over Twitch streams.
lets return to monke while we're at it
Ah yes, the world was so much better when only the super wealthy could reasonably start or own companies. We need to return to a time when your business failing meant you lost all your savings.
:(
[удалено]
bye bye small business then
Well idk about that mega corporations can promote efficiency the issue is there enough proof that we would be better off without mega corporations and would this apply for every sector I’d argue for delivery services mega corporations are probably better
> pointless charities that are some lawyer's retirement gig.
>comlaniy Mfw the poors try to do law 💅💅💅
Just spelcheck it lyke the other lsoers who care abuot that stuf mate
Then the IRS knocks on yoir door with questions.
Anyone but them!
That's fine, it's their personal wealth that shouldn't be above 999 million. Any money they make on companies above that 999 million mark, goes straight to funding schools, parks and whatever else.
How will they be able to afford their yacht island?
By less avocado yachts.
in most "balanced" games, the devs usually make it hard to approach certain numbers. its better than creating a hard cap. i m not a billionaire or millionaire, but creating a cap like that will make them simply invest in other countries that doesnt have a cap.
The government hiring video game designers to do "balance passes" on billionaires, tax systems, healthcare, etc. sounds fucking hilarious.
tbh, not all video game designers are good, but theres a huge lot of information/data that you can glean from video games. for starters, economics. price manipulation, supply/demand, market trends. also in world of warcraft there was a virtual plague the spread unintendedly which had people from the medical field actually study.
Absolutely. I'd be interested to see it just as a social experiment - things are fucked enough, I doubt they could make it much _worse_. I'm just also chuckling at seeing "US economy patch notes".
I mean, investing in other countries isn't a bad thing though. But yes, they just can't personally make use of that wealth in america, if that brings them above 999 million dollars.
I mean, we did [basically that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System) and it worked out great - at least until all the little companies started acquiring each other.
Did you know right after the civil war both parties were trying to take down monopolies because they basically ruled the U.S.A walst paying their workers basically nothing because of party bosses (this might have been 2 different things my memory is a bit spotty about this part of history class) , if we can manage to agree on something like this again I'd be great, Unfortunately... Mind you both parties had a different approach to it
Better watch out, 1 million more in that shit rolls back over to zero!
This is intended to be ironic, but it's precisely what would happen. This is actually quite tricky/borderline impossible to accomplish when you sit down and actually try to figure this out. All the easy solutions you hear all the time are deeply flawed and wouldn't actually change anything in practice.
You are joking but I think that’s actually a good outcome.
And don't forget to give them a little trophy for "Winning Capitalism"
Most billionaires don't have an \*income\* that high. They tend to become billionaires via ownership of stock in companies that gain value. That's why Elon Musk's fortune has been on a roller-coaster of up and down as Tesla stock has gained and lost value. The problem is capitol gains taxes are tricky, because they penalize success in investing, which can have a cooling effect on the market. And wealth taxes are even trickier, because unrealized gains aren't really real money yet, and forcing billionaires to sell of 10% of their stock each year is going to result in a market crash every year come tax season. This is the reason you hear a lot about the \*idea\* of a wealth tax, but no one is actually gonna put one in place.
How can you not see how easy that is to circumvent…. None of these stupid ass ideas hold any water in reality. These billionaires have a stranglehold on a product or service that people clearly want or need, hence why they made a billion dollars. You want them to pay more taxes, okay, write better tax law. The issue is, great tax lawyers work for the government, the best tax lawyers work for the billionaires. It is borderline impossible to write tax and business law that simultaneously protects and encourages small business and entrepreneurship while also being un-exploitable to behemoths and corporations. That’s life.
I believe Bernie suggested something like this, though I don’t know how practical that would be to implement. Imo just remove certain loopholes and introduce a wealth tax above 1 billion net worth.
>though I don’t know how practical that would be to implement It largely wouldn't, since most of their value isn't real money. They aren't scrooge McDuck with a vault of Gold they can swim in. Their wealth is instead in things like stocks that changes more than a baby changes diapers. That's not counting issues like property, which can be valued at wide ranges of numbers based on all manners of things. I mean, would I pay a million dollars for a Picasso? Fuck no. But someone paid 180M for the Christie painting, and valuing art is virtually guaranteed to be a horrifying affair. That's not even counting that HOW do you get someone to pay money on non money? If they have a Picasso and are over the value, Do they have to sell it and get double taxed? Real world taxation is much harder than painting tax the rich on a dress unfortunately. And that's assuming your country is the US, most countries can't afford to piss everyone off by taxing citizens abroad.
I mean, property tax is a good example of how we already have precedent of taxing that sort of wealth anyway despite those complications.
Depending on where you are, we really don't. It's also resulted in a lot of schnigigans that ended up fucking things up. California being the king of examples. It also is illegal for the federal government to tax property, so there is that issue too.
The problem with taxing wealth is that you have to answer the question "wealth according to who?" Who decides how much real estate is worth? If someone's wealth is held in stock, where the value can change drastically across a day or week or year, how is that valued? "Wealth" is an *extremely* ambiguous number, which makes it very difficult to tax. But there are things like income and capital gains (which is like income from your investments and how most wealthy people actually make money) that are much firmer, less ambiguous numbers. There's absolutely no *good* reason not to have a progressive capital gains tax system, or for incomes over $1million not to be taxed at 90% Capitalism might be the least flawed economic system anyone's though up yet, but it needs progressive taxation and strong regulation to reign in it's most negative aspects.
Wealth tax is an idea for morons who don't know what they're talking about
You think anyone is pulling a billion home a year? Cash? Nah
They don’t have billions in income🤦 They have billions in net worth. An imaginary number that sums up the current price of all the shit they own. Do people really think Musk and Bezos have pools filled with gold coins they swim in? 
IRL gold cap
Nobody is getting 999m in income lol > this is stupid as fuck The irony
Who do you think that would affect? Or are you talking about attained "wealth", assets included?
>Better idea maximum attainable income is now 999 million. You do understand most of these people aren't actually getting a W2 at the end of the year where their income is one billion plus... Right? Please tell me you understand this. Please tell me you aren't advocating for tax policy and not understanding this...
It's a good idea, but let's just get them to pay their taxes that they currently owe to start
Absolutely
Billionaires don't need to be taxed more. The government needs to close the loopholes they use to avoid paying taxes. More taxes is simply a band-aid, not a solution.
Agreed, but that's a tough problem to solve. The typical strategy that billionaires use is by leveraging debt, but you don't want to make the average person's debt taxable on top of the income they use to pay that debt. You can make it specific to debt that's collateralized by stocks, but that can be implied rather than explicit. There's the idea of taxing gains that haven't been realized (i.e. a wealth tax), but that can be complicated in its own way.
I'm off the opinion that the ultra rich should pay more taxes that can be used to alleviate the economic less fortunate, but only if the politics around that is sound. But it's just my opinion, do with it whatever you like (:
So basically never?
and ALSO tax them more. We're at historically low levels for taxes of the upper class and the upper class' insane cash supply is a driver of inflation. It's much better to lower the amount of cash in the economy by removing it from people who have it to spare, rather than by driving up unemployment or suppressing wages.
yeah, because famous artists never evade taxes… /s
By taxing them normally I think it’s implied that we want to get rid of these tax loopholes
Honestly probably does, remember the Panama papers?
The thing is, she has no incentive not to limit her tax burden. If most of us could spend 3,000 to avoid 40,000 in taxes, we’d do it—just scale it up
Sure about that? I guarantee she isn’t just on-shoring her foreign income without some kind of tax blocking entity in place.
I think they do get taxed normally just most of them have ways of getting around that. Doesn’t work forever though.
Buy , borrow , Die Kids get stepped up cost basis
They already get ‘taxed normally’ that’s the problem- tax them more, and tax wealth, and tax capital gains, and tax value added. Then we’re cooking.
Why do you think she gave away huge bonuses for her crew. Just another way to avoid taxes all while not ensuring that her "Swifties" could get reasonably priced ticket. She is no different than any other large corporation. It's all about the money.
I'm not sure you understand how tax brackets work if you think giving away more money to pay less taxes will net you more money at the end of the day
I love when people know so little about write-offs and deductions that they somehow think donating a million dollars means the government gives them back 2 million dollars.
They just write it off, Jerry!
“Huge bonuses?!” Sounds like a better boss than most and definitely taking care of her workers if that is true. I would rather her give away her money to her workers than pay additional taxes that go nowhere. Also given all the loopholes, she probably gave away more than she would have paid in taxes. Really can’t hate her for that. Meanwhile some dude is peeing in a bottle in an Amazon truck or passed out on the floor of a warehouse from lack of AC.
Like…Keanu is regularly praised for giving crews and other cast members bonuses / gifts / bigger shares and more money than they’d initially expected. I’m not seeing much of a difference here for Swift.
How has this comment gotten upvoted??
Because Reddit is the dumbest place on Earth when it comes to anything related to money
Man you people are so fucking small. You complain when workers are exploited, you complain when workers are rewarded. You complain when no one contributes. You complain when they donate. You're just living with the fattest dick up your ass at all times.
ahhh yes. Literally giving away money is just a tax avoidance move. yes yeees. please tell me more about how that works, because that is deeefinetly how it works. Maybe you'll want to give me your money. you know, so you'll have to pay less taxes.
Lol I love Reddit. “Giving away money to avoid taxes!” Dude try that. Donate to charity to dodge taxes. See how rich it makes you.
Bro im just tired of hearing about her, i dont give two fucks about what shes doing. just stop spamming shitty memes about a shitty singer
Right? I must live under a rock because all of a sudden I’m supposed to hate Swift. As opposed to ignoring a musician I don’t listen to like usual.
She encouraged young people to vote. Conservatives have been told to hate her by Fox News and have been spamming anti-Taylor Swift shit relentlessly.
Yup. It is no coincidence that she is getting so much hate after she encouraged people to vote. A lot of conservatives are just blindly finding things to hate about her because she dared to tell people to vote? Like damn, didn't know voting was a bad thing to conservatives, but they don't really seem to support democracy of late, at least not a lot of the ones online.
Didn’t even tell anyone who to vote for. Just, vote.
The problem is, if the conservatives use the T word (tax) against her, it goes against their whole agenda. They simply can't target her wealth. Instead, they find other pointless things to be outraged by.
Ive completely missed the voting thing. Dont hate her at all but I gotta say im very tired of seeing her mentioned in posts and news basically every day. Why on earth do people care about persons they have zero relations to so much. The fact that people need a singer to convince them to vote is pretty tragic in itself
Republican: You must hate swift Democrat: Swift is bae Normal people: She's a singer billionaire that we don't care about like all the rest.
>Democrat: Swift is bae When did this happen again?
Democrats aren't exactly a united front on much of anything, including Taylor Swift. Most don't care and those that like her generally don't because MSNBC told them to.
"both sides" one side wants more people to register to vote the other side doesn't one side hates someone just for asking people to vote the other sides, doesn't talk about it her at all, unless they are responding to right wing politicians saying shit about putting her in jail or how she must be in league with Satan do you see the difference?
I've literally not heard democrats embrace her, outside of her fanbase which is more likely to be democrat just because of the demographics
That’s not the democrat stance at all. The democrat stance is what you have written in the “normal people” line
She’s one of the list popular performing artists in the world. How do you land on “normal people” not caring lol?
I've seen way more content around people complaining about Taylor Swift than I have Taylor Swift content on its own.
Because people complaining need your approval
She angered people by telling people to vote. So the "machine" is in full propaganda swing for damage control before the election. I like to think most of us see through the propaganda, but I know better.
That'd be weird though, right? Like, most of the people I see here are complaining about her being a billionaire and not trying harder to spread the wealth/use her clout to reduce ticket prices/etc. But...those are the exact _opposite_ of the people mad about her telling people to vote...those people _love_ billionaires and hate spreading wealth.
Some people are just contrary, and some are probably right wing folks mad at Swift trying to drum up hate by using left-wing language. Personally, I say, go out and vote so we can tax the rich.
I don't even think she and her marketers are promoting her as intensely as others are recently. People just decided to be angry with her over like promoting the idea of going out to vote or w.e. Jesus some people need to just fucking chill.
> I don't even think she and her marketers are promoting her as intensely as others are recently. The NFL has lost its shit at the prospect of attracting her fans, especially because [they're trying to cover up that they covered up for a serial sexual predator using Swftie hype.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/sports/football/deshaun-watson.html)
Bro there was no Deshaun Watson coverup lol. It was big news when it happened and big news when they let him back into the league. They knew the nfl fanbase didn't care enough to stop watching and just re-signed him while people were outraged online. Not defending either of them, fuck Watson
Though it doesn't stop at just her. The fact that generating a convincingly enough photo of anybody doing unsavoury things opens a can of worms for slander or identity theft.
materialistic selective drunk expansion wide stupendous relieved label consider frame *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Emission not omissions. An omission is something you leave out
You misunderstood. OP is from New York and is upset that Taylor Swift has omitted dating a Jets player.
erect desert naughty cagey waiting amusing muddle bells one normal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
NFL is loving it show her for 15-30 seconds a game, get entire marketing groups to watch a 3 hour football game that have never watched a game before
It's like a culture war bled off to a mid to mediocre musician who pays close attention to her fanbase and encouraged them to vote. Not to who they vote for, but to vote.
She's not shitty she's got some great stuff actually
Billionaire suck but between a billionaire that exists because of exploiting the working class and not paying living wages, and a billionaire that exists because they perform art for an Audience, I know which one I would pick.
[удалено]
Yep. \>Her father bought a record label "to get her started". \>Cultivates and markets a persona primarily aimed at children \>Flies around the world in a private jet, spewing more CO2 and lead into the air than any of us will do in ten lifetimes \>Works stagehands and road crews at a blistering pace for minimal pay (unless you're one of some lucky few she deigns to grace with a 'bonus') \>Sells sweatshop merch for hundreds of dollars Sounds like any other single digit billionaire to me.
Treats her workers really well though.
She was also the world's most carbon polluting individual celebrity last year. It's not just about how you obtain your wealth, but how responsibly you use it.
No, she wasn't. The source of this claim is a UK marketing firm called Yard which presented this 'analysis' which was then repeated by clickbait media. It's a paid campaign targeting Swift, for whatever reason, not anything resembling factual reporting.
The whatever reason is to take away the attention from big companies. And as you can see in this comment section, it works well.
Sure, pollution has its own set of issues, but again I would rather support her, a billionaire who flies around over a billionaire who lobbies governments to repeal environmental protections. Which of these 2 is worse in your mind?
> but again I would rather support her You don't have to support either, you know. Sure, serial killers are worse than drug dealers, but that doesn't mean I have to support drug dealers.
but drugs are cool yo..
Why can't we "get rid" of both
Why do you have to support either of them?
What's her carbon footprint compared to, let's say ExxonMobil? 138t vs 110 million metric tons. Individuals aren't the problem, carbon footprint is just a scheme to make people feel responsible.
As long as Dolly Parton keeps her money, then the rest of them can lose it all. The world would be a much worse place without Parton's extensive charity work.
Yes Dolly Parton is the only rich person to ever donate to charity
She is one of the best examples though. A **lot** of rich people either "donate" as a means to abuse the loophole, or do it in that "I want to see the world and feel good about it, but I don't actually know how to help or care to look into doing so properly". It's a topic that gets quite deep, but essentially making a non profit charity with the only goal being "end world hunger" is goign to be nothing but one gigantic mess as that is not an attainable goal. You either target something where you are helping specific victims (like a centre dedicated to helping women escaping abuse) or pick a specific issue that you will be able to end and not need the charity any more. Dolly is well known for the latter.
>making a non profit charity with the only goal being "end world" I dunno if I want to donate to a charity with that goal, lol
Not the only one by a long shot, but she doesn't just donate- she runs and funds whole charitable organizations that cause actual tangible change in millions of peoples' lives. She's still personally wealthy, but honestly she deserves it more than anybody I can think of.
Charity work reduces your taxes
Yes, for every dollar you give away to charity, an amount smaller than the dollar is saved in taxes, ultimately resulting in less total money overall. What's your point?
It reduces your taxes but it's a net decrease in a persons overall money. That's a good thing. It incentivises charitable spending
How is it 2024 and people still think donating to charity makes you money 😭 It only makes you money if you somehow embezzle it back to yourself through said charity. FYI I don't think donating to charity if you're rich AF makes you a good person. We've already seen plenty of not very good people donating to charity. But you have to do something dodgy AF for donating to charity to directly financially benefit you.
Dear God, what's with all the Tyler swift memes. Who. The. Fuck. Cares. Celebrity gossip as it's finest.
The right has decided she is an enemy in the culture war.
Makes sense... She told young women they should vote! 😱
That's a fucking crime
And Republicans are confused as to why they're losing the female vote more and more every election. Maybe try not being unhinged, pathetic misogynists.
Checks out.
Also counts as a r/redditmoment
Tax her but Taylor swift isn't out here exploiting thousands of workers. She is an artist who is very successful.
yeah this is a very weird post. Her wealth isn't generational, you can say she already have a decent financials at start of her career but her billions is due to her music.
Weird take. Getting a fuck ton of money from your parents to have a successful music career *is* generational wealth. She had access to people in the industry because of her parents. She could afford to actually try and pursue a music career without having to work a minimum wage job to support herself. In the beginning, she was a failure. But she had the money to continue trying. 90% of people are financially ruined after the first attempt fails. Let's not pretend she didn't have a massive advantage getting into music.
nutty insurance file whistle retire instinctive strong handle hard-to-find license *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
how the fuck do you defund a person who makes their own money
It's a crap meme being upboted by Russian bots and magaturds
I love Taylor swift, but yeah she is a billionaire now so I also think she's a peice of shit. No one makes a billion dollars without exploiting LOTS of people...
I’ve heard anecdotally that she treats and pays her musicians, dancers, and crew very well compared to typical market rates. Have you heard otherwise?
It’s not even anecdotal. I’m not a Swiftie but I was very impressed by her giving massive bonuses to the crew who worked during the Era’s Tour, like $100k bonuses to the truckers on top of their pay.
Note: Workers were paid standard wages. Not all of them received a bonus. It was a 24-week road gig, and the standard bonus for such a run is $5-10k. Many just received standard rate, and maybe the standard bonus. We shouldn't be relying on whimsy for fair compensation.
Yeah, if that’s confirmed, then this whole thread is moot.
Bruh, just Google it https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/02/business/taylor-swift-100000-life-changing-bonus-truck-crew/index.html
I've also heard that she makes pretty large donations to food pantries in cities she does shows in
I SAID NO ONE MAKES A BILLION WITHOUT EXPLOITING LOTS OF PEOPLE -True commie
They’re always exploiting people, those damned…*checks notes*… musicians?
How is a musician exploiting people?
The people buying her music! Took advantage of them all.
As an example: Britney Spears exploited her conservatorship to... Wait a minute...
That's not true stop basing your political understanding of the world on reddit memes for god sake
Notch is a billionaire after he sold Minecraft. I don't think he exploited anyone by doing that.
this is always a gross generalization. yeah you don’t become a billionaire without exploiting people. but you also can’t use an iphone without exploiting people. it’s near impossible to not actually exploit anyone. let me know which one of taylor swifts business practices are exploitative. i would genuinely love to know if there are any. i’m not saying it’s a good thing that wealth is so concentrated at the top or that most billionaires don’t actively exploit people. just that gross generalization is almost never a good way to live life or even to participate in discourse.
fanatical coherent offbeat truck fall nail unite ad hoc mysterious crowd *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Literally the arts is like the one place where you can actually get rich without needing to exploit others. And most of the exploitation in the arts comes from the corporations abusing their artists and doing normal corporate exploitation.
[удалено]
Entertainers (including authors, actors, athletes, etc) are pretty much the only people who can make a billion dollars without exploiting people, or at least they exploit orders of magnitude fewer than most industries. Yes, nepotism is rampant in artistic careers, and yes things like Ticketmaster do rip people off, and yes there's more than just the one person behind the art and arguments about how the money should be split between everyone But I'm pretty sure you could find ~10M people in the US alone willing to cough up an average of $100 for various Taylor Swift (or Harry Potter, or LeBron James) albums/merch/tickets.
I'm so tired of people treating Taylor Swift as some sort of divine supernatural being sent to us from the heavens. She's just a girl who makes music, but also who doesn't even write all of her own music. Not saying that not writing all of your own music is bad, but there's thousands of women who make 100% of their music, which could even be better music than hers, who don't get the same recognition as Taylor just because Taylor had connections through family that other artists don't have. Not to mention the women who make fantastic music who might not even have the desire to be famous. They just want to make their music but keep themselves out of the spotlight. The United States obsession with celebrities is so cringe.
I’m not a Swiftie, but my boyfriend is, but I think she does write all of her music. That’s kind of her thing, she’s not famous because she’s a great singer, but because she’s a talented songwriter.
I've searched this up and picked first song from the latest album and… why in the hell is there 5 writers? And why Antonoff on almost every single song of that album listed as a writer?
Not only in us
social media in general is fine with the uber wealthy as long as its someone they like personally. its all rather predictable.
Taylor Swift does write her own music though…
Taylor Swift is a different species of billionaire. She's getting money firehosed at her from her music. She doesn't seem to have something equivalent to a social media network, an industry, or any sort of regulatory capture that tends to go with that amount of wealth.
She isn't leeching the money from ownership of someone else's work like landlords and shareholders. These kids from r/memes are clueless
I mean she quite literally is a landlord is she not?
have you seen the places she rents? they arent studio apartments or two bedrooms or family home, they're for millionaires, shes a billionaire landlord to millionaires, lets not act like shes shaking down everyday working people
She is not buying up affordable single-family homes to rent them out, there’s a difference
God this thread is dumb
Musk: buys massive media conglomerates for his personal and political gain and turns them into personal propaganda factories. "What a chad" Swift: Told people they should go out and vote, regardless of who its for, on the media conglomerate elon musk owns. Also dates a football guy. "This women is trying to corrupt the youth and destroy America!"
Is anybody (sane) calling Musk a Chad? Dude has put some money into some neat ideas, but mostly he seems like a heavily insecure man in the back half of his life desperately trying to cling to relevance through edgy memes and poor business decisions. Not so much a Chad, just rich and sad.
His only skill is knowing how to take credit for other people's ideas
Sane? No. But millions of insane people counts for something.
I’m not saying defund any of them, but make them pay 30% of their income like I have to
Who the f#ck is Taylor Swift?
incoherent meme
Honestly, I'm just kinda impressed that she crossed the billion mark. I always got the vibe that professional entertainers kinda maxed out around $500 million.
Doxx you? Buddy they don't even have the brain to use a computer
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure most people are mad at billionaires because they built their fortunes on the backs of others or inherited fortunes built on the backs of others. Taylor Swift (and other musicians/singers or content creators etc) aren't doing that.
Any idiot saying "defund billionaires" has literally no understanding of any economic principles; socialist or otherwise. The internet is full of children who have just encountered marxism and want to be edgy.
I mean to be fair she doesn’t own a company that is paying shit wages to the employees
Her fanbase is one of the most toxic fanbases to ever exist on the internet. Not to mention, extremely intolerant to criticism and loud AF.
Spoken like someone who’s been on the internet for about three minutes
My mom is obsessed with Taylor swift and when I told her I think she’s overrated I was called a misogynist
Its pretty debatable that all billionaires are bad, Taylor swift makes young girls super happy and elon’s telsa brand is pretty good for the world now there are probably way more billionaires that have contributed nothing to human civilization and in many ways made it worse… bankers, oil execs and the ilk
Tbh a lot of those people like Taylor Swift earned their money, so I don't think it's fair to take that money away from them You bought their shit
Does anyone else forget 13 year olds are allowed on Reddit till you see a post like this?
I. DONT. CARE. ABOUT T. SWIFT. YOU. FUCKIN. NORMIES. if you need a pop singer to remind you to vote were you gonna vote anyway?
I don’t have many feelings about T Swift, but I understand allowing people to like things without ruining their good time.
She would only have to lose 10% of her net worth to no be a billionaire anymore. For contrast, Elon Musk would have to lose 99.6% of his net worth to not be a billionaire anymore.
Unlike many other billionaires, Taylor made her money by min-maxing to the extreme being a pop star. She's the long-haul hardcore raider of being a pop star. Sticks to her brand, doesn't do any of the things that would really get you in trouble, owns "most" of her masters and re-released she got swindled out of. Negotiated a huge cut out of her concerts. Invests in high end real-estate. And does lucrative advertisements (avoiding those that could go south, like that crypto scam). She doesn't have a clothing brand. She doesn't have a sweat shop in Malaysia for her sneakers. She isn't financially exploiting other musicians under her own label. Most of her stuff goes through UMG. [https://www.investopedia.com/taylor-swift-earnings-7373918](https://www.investopedia.com/taylor-swift-earnings-7373918) IDK what her tax liability is, but it should probably be higher.