Scrolling through the all feed and saw this post and genuinely cannot tell of this is satire or not.
It’s real. It was from a protest in Washington State, USA. The legislature was voting on a tax on millionaires.
She’s likely a hundredaire who will one day be a billionaire.
They are serious. If you suggest any constraint to oligarchist/corporatist supremacism, that makes you the nazi. See, first you will ask the arguably deplorable millionaires to pay their fair share, but because you are a nazi, you will then tax the poor middle class jews.
“the Nazis were socialist!”
And North Korea is a Democratic Republic
I ate Buffalo wings in Montreal once. True story.
Millionaires can stay. I’m more angry about the billionaires and the soon to be trillionaires.
The tax in question is actually on annual income of a million dollars. But it’s Washington so they can’t call it an income tax
Nobody gets to be a millionaire without exploiting people.
Or buying a house. It’s not 1972, millionaires are not rare.
My dad worked as a programmer (idk the official title) for a decent sized company. Always contributed to his 401k enough to get the employer match, and added more each time he got a raise. Between the paid off mortgage and 401k balance his net worth is over $1 million. He was only ever an employee, I don’t think he exploited anyone. Bought himself a new set of golf clubs to enjoy when he retires. His last set was one his family got him for graduating high school.
They’re talking income, not net worth. The people who make in a year what your dad managed to accumulate over a lifetime. That’s why his lack of exploiting others is irrelevant.
If I kept my current lifestyle and had a job paying twice as much, I’d be a millionaire by the time I retire. And twice as much would be around 100k€. Which is a lot, but still something a decent amount of people make. And it’s not like it’d be impossible with less.
Being a millionaire is the new middle class. Had I not married, I would be a millionaire just from my work; after about fifteen years.
That’s definitely not true. I feel I live a pretty humble life, but with my retirement goals I will be a millionaire. I’m definitely not in the capitalist class.
Bernie Sanders’ net worth is now more than a million
You could be a very fair pricing dentist and easily get a net worth over $1m over your career.
Becoming a millionaire is not as hard anymore. And it’s definitely not necessary to exploit anyone. You can work hard enough to justify it all though you’ll need to be good at something or build/Create something alot of people want to buy.
Billionaires, should not be tolerated.
I feel like the intolerable number is probably somewhere around 10mil+
Depends on what you mean by millionaire, in liquid capital? Sure probably some exploitation depending on factors. In net worth? Pretty sure my grandmother is a millionaire from our home alone.
Some jobs do pay like that though, but that’s the lower-end of the millionaire bracket.
thats actually hundred millionaires to billionaires they exploit people. MIllionares often do have to “work thier way up” most of the time. people who are born which rich, or upper middle class dont work thier way up, and they are usually much wealthier than 10million+, and usually dont stay millionaires if you already born into upper middle class(richer than 1mil+)
How can you tell that they are a boomer at heart?
They talk about millionaires as the rich.
That’s a waste of perfectly nutritious millionaires.
Bitch even if we came for the millionaires, that would hardly be the “first” group anyone came for. Y’all been coming for the women, gays, Latinos, atheists, Arabs and trans folk as long as can I can fuckin remember.
well, the white women majority back Trump so there is that
no one is grabbing her by any organ.
Sources?
I find it hard to believe that (white) women, who are increasingly left, back Trump by majority.
Thanks… sad development. Lies and Propaganda seems to work well in the US…
Half of them do it because they are in captive marriages with a Trumper.
Nah I’ve met plenty of these white women, they may have religious opposition to abortion or fear of immigrants or just don’t believe that their rights are threatened. And that’s before we get to the misogynistic women who insist on making their kink into everyone’s problem rather than just admitting they’re a sub
The famous “women can’t do wrong, because of patriarchy” card. That’s a good one
I did say half.
they would want to marry someone like trump too.
If only they would…
And then what? They’re coming for your low middle class ass? They already have you! You’re drowning in debt with diabetes from the HFCS they refuse to outlaw and the healthcare you can’t afford praising a serial rapist that just made gas prices sky rocket by bombing a country so your stupid ass will forget about the evidence that proves he’s a habitual sex predator.
Millionaires aren’t really the problem, billionaires are.
Billionaires also aren’t the problem. They are the symptom.
The problem is the system of economics and politics, by extension the various institutions they manifest, that allows individuals to become billionaires through the exploitation of other people’s labor via private ownership over the means of production that should rightfully belong to the people through collective ownership.
I feel this is not stressed enough.
The guy owning the local car dealership that has a nice yacht and a holiday appartment in Mallorca is not actually even remotly the same kind of problem like jeff bezos or elon musk.
Sure, noone needs a yacht, but the irder of magnitude is not even remotely comparable.
Am million dollars isn’t yacht money, though. It would take several millions to actually get close.
1 million isn’t even enough for a comfortable retirement these days.
A “millionaire” doesn’t mean much compared to three decades ago.
And this was 29 years ago. It’s even less now!
Yuup. Forgot about that. Decades ago they joked that he didn’t know about billions or trillions.
Not that he didn’t know, he didn’t account for inflation since he was frozen.
Seriously. The difference between someone with 2 million dollars and 800 million dollars is about 800 million dollars
Owning-class is owning-class. Regardless of the magnitude, they are still exploitative and that is the point.
Individuals aren’t the problem, the system that allows individuals to have exploitative and unjust power over others is.
Bernie’s a millionaire. Is he exploitative?
Yep. A million dollars is much closer to 0 dollars than it is to a billion dollars. An even bigger problem is the ultra billionaires.
Aside from that simplistic argument, billionaires are much much more parasitic to society than millionaires are.
First they came for the millionaires and distributed their wealth equally and I said nothing because I wasn’t a millionaire.
Then they came for the abled bodies and made public spaces as inclusive as possible and I said nothing because I didn’t notice.
Then they came for cis men and abolished the nuclear family and I said nothing because I’m not married so I didn’t care.
And when they smashed white supremacy, there was no one left to defend me.Is “abolishing the nuclear family” actually in the program here? WTF
Certainly not in the sense that “we take away your children and raise them separated from you” but more in the sense of “it takes a village to raise a child”. This can mean anything from extended family to patchwork to an active and engaged neighborhood to queer constellations of open relationship or poly or what ever. There is a quote from Thatcher “There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families.”
Nuclear families, more than other forms of family and relating to each other, are isolating and making the people dependent on each other, most often making women financially dependent on men and men emotionally dependent on women. Abolishing the nuclear family doesn’t mean that you can’t live in a healthy monogamous relationship with a good connection to your kids. It means that you don’t have to but can leave a toxic relationship and that your kids have other caregivers to complain about you and, if need, can leave. Or to live in other ways together that don’t fit the model at all. To get back to Thatcher, it’s not about taking away the little connection the individuals have but about strengthening the society, she denied exists.
I hope that helped. Sometimes I’m too much in my bubble to realize that implications aren’t obvious. I specified “nuclear family” but I see that that’s not enough. Thanks for pointing it out. Family Abolition is an interesting topic you can look deeper into if that interests you.
I am learning from these comments that some people have very strong negative associations with the term “nuclear family,” and equate it with not only the strict definition of “a family consisting of parents and children” but also rolling all the associations of cis heteronormativity and abusive marriages and pressure to confirm etc etc etc all rolled into just “nuclear family.” But yeah while I am aware of all those dimensions, that complex of oppressions and abuse has never been explicitly loaded straight into the term “nuclear family” for me in a way that I can recognize in the middle of a sentence.
I really think that the word “abolish” is causing problems of understanding here. For most people, “abolish” conjures up the word “abolition,” as in the abolition of slavery. That was not a movement that made slavery optional for those who wanted it but kept it in place for those who still wanted to maintain the practice; it was emphatically a movement to make the very concept of slavery illegal (we could have a conversation about how successful it was in the context of the private prison complex, but that’s a whole other can of fish).
When we talk about abolishing something, we generally aren’t saying we’re going to reduce it as an obligation or pay less attention to it; we mean we’re going to do everything in our power to make it not exist anymore. If people assume you mean the latter when you actually mean the former, it’s going to cause confusion and derail the entire conversation into a cul de sac of definition, rather than addressing the actual topic we want to address.
I just made a comment realizing that I was arguing with someone that just was using a hard definition of “abolish” in their mind. Though in the context it is clearly using the and more systems based definition.
(1) to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) (2) to completely do away with (something)
Honestly, it’s an important thing to realize how reactionary thought is so good at connecting to emotional reactions that they truly redefine words or their contextual meanings. Every word becomes a “hard” definition if it is ever used by the left to explain structures. It becomes a hard definition that can invoke emotion.
In this case it comes from “Abolish the Police”. Even some people on “the left” have adopted the right wing definition since. By either being an anarchist or a “no I don’t mean abolish” liberal.
No, we mean abolish. We didn’t stutter. We know what words mean and will not adopt the frame of the reactionaries.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to “be careful” with language. The reactionaries in society will pervert the definition of whatever word one attempts to use to invoke an emotional response to defend the current structures.
The correct thing to do is to educate those that are willing to ask “what do you mean by abolish”?
If we could have anarchist not reinforcing the reactionary definitions that would help as well… But that’s a whole different story.
Do you think that this means “no one can have a family that is two cis gendered people of the opposite sex raising children!”
Or do you think its talking about the structures of society that force people into these gender roles and family structures to begin with?
Answer. It’s the later one. Abolishing these structures, the incentives of and the dependencies they create, is part of abolishing patriarchy.
I don’t know what the fuck it means. I’m glad at least one of us seems to perfectly understand it as something benevolent, but it’s a pretty poor way to say it.
It’s a ‘classic’ red team conspiracy theory, long lasting cause it’s kiiiinda true. Just that it’s corpos atomizing us across the board because more households buy more stuff and not the liberals/gays/commies doing it because satan told them to in a weed trance
uh wut
You should really look into the history of how the “nuclear family” was pushed by capitalist media of the 50s and 60s in an effort to normalize the suburban lifestyle in order to have a more exploitable populace and how that affected the breakdown of local community and intergenerational support structures.
The shift was heavily facilitated by the “white flight” phenomenon of the era as well and plays a role in institutionalized racism.
Trust me as an LGBT dude who came of age in the 90s, I’ve watched the whole conservative panic about “defend the family” for a long time. And of course women for centuries have been told they are a failure if they don’t marry and reproduce. The only miscommunication here is that the term “nuclear family” on its own does not communicate all those bad things. The term has a simple and objective definition so when people talk about it as the antichrist, with no qualification, that is confusing to me.
Was hoping to lightheartedly explain the “they want to abolish the nuclear family” thing, but don’t think you’re my audience and the other guy made it weird. Got a different question than “uh wut” or should we just move on?
My other question would be breaking your comment into clauses and asking you what you are talking about because it was unreadable to me.
Can you start with what you meant by “corpos atomizing us across the board?”
It’s not. You are just taking the definition of “Nuclear Family” in a vacuum. It’s like thinking “Abolish the Police” means that everyone that says that means they want anarchy, no state, and no form of law enforcement.
It’s a general phrase that speaks to the current structures and their real material results.
Your “idea” of the police or the nuclear family may be their definition on paper. An armed law enforcement. Or a single man, single women having kids.
These are what they are defined as in a vacuum. They are not what they are in the context of state structures.
The police are a defense of the capitalist class. Their job is first and foremost to protect private property and ensure class structures are not threatened.
The Nuclear Family is a means of ensuring a women’s material conditions and her children are dependent on a man for his labor. That same structure ensures men are given the advantage of control in that family structure; while keeping them having no power in their work or their labor.
These are what “leftist” are talking about when we are talking about abolishing these systems.
It’s not about being benevolent. It’s about being educated in class struggle and patriarchy.
Good try but no this was not in any way shape or form a clear way to say this. If you want to say “relive us from the pressure to conform to the tired and oppressive ideal of the nuclear family” then say that. Not “abolish the nuclear family,” which is nonsensical on its face because it’s physically impossible. Your connotations of this term are not to be confused with its denotation, and that’s the beginning and end of this. Anyway, I can tell you think this is super important but you’re not convincing me and I really don’t have any more fucks to give here so farewell.
I think you’re having a problem with the word “Abolish”. You might want to look at an actual dictionary.
Honestly, I feel like this happens a lot these days. There is a reason words in a dictionary have multiple definitions. But for some reason, today, people often just pick the most uncharitably definition and then just double down on their own misunderstanding.
Webster’s definitions:
(1) to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) (2) to completely do away with (something)
You’re picking the second definition and just saying that it is “nonsensical”. I know we live in a world where words are quickly losing their meaning; and it is beneficial (in social media) to purposely portray or misunderstand what someone says. But you can at least realize you’re doing it when it’s been pointed out to you so clearly. I don’t think you’re doing it on purpose.
It’s why I explained the systemic structures in my last comment. But, oddly, you seem to understand that and are just unfortunately having a problem with vocabulary.
You are a poet. Well said
No no, I agree we should start with the billionaires or possible trillionaires by time we actually do something.
No this sheer audacity and appropriation… On point after Karens took over BLM.
Pretty sure this is about the millionaires tax in Washington State, the first income tax passed in the state ever. The big argument against it is that it’ll set the precedence of an income tax being legal by the state constitution, and then they’ll start lowering the minimum income to tax everyone. Oh no, a progressive tax system!
Haven’t been following WA super closely, but this is exactly why wealth tax is cooler than income
I live in a TX. I find it sad there are so many people who are closer to broke than they ever will be to being a millionaire
Except the “They” who comes for people is the millionaires.
