this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
1509 points (99.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
9575 readers
1718 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's wild how much more billionaires are spending to defeat Zohran than what his tax proposal would cost them. I guess they're afraid of a wider movement.
That is exactly it.
I have much fun remindng people today that the time when "America was Great" aka the 1950's also saw the median tax rate on the ultra-wealthy at over 90%. It's a rough third of that now since most are earning wealth through non-taxable investment vehicles and not taxable income-based earnings.
Lotsa paper tigers out there..
And they could still afford to lobby to get their taxes lowered and deregulate their industries, so clearly 90% wasn't enough!
Well, it's been 70 years now, so it's not as if the rich haven't been playing the long game.
91% was the top-tier tax rate, not the median. Nobody paid that rate: Those who would find themselves in that top tax bracket increased their spending on "business expenses" rather than cut punitively large checks to the IRS. Those "business expenses" were for products and services produced by workers; those "business expenses" paid worker salaries. The high marginal tax rates drove money out of the hands of the ultra-rich and straight into the pockets of the working class. Turns out that paying workers for their labor is more valuable to the ultra-rich than giving away their excess earnings to the IRS.
We need to restore the punitively high top-tier tax rates we had from the 1950s to the early 1970s, to drive more cash back into the working class.
But more importantly, we need to institute an annual, 1% tax on all registered securities. To keep the rich from playing fuck-fuck games, that tax should be paid in shares of the securities held, not the dollar value of those securities.
Natural persons may exempt up to $10 million worth of securities from this tax. Corporate "persons" may not exempt their portfolios. If you've got $20 million in your portfolio, you need to find another natural person, or start paying.
The SEC transfers non-exempt shares directly to the IRS; the IRS liquidates those shares on the open market, slowly over time. These liquidated shares will never comprise more than 1% of total traded volume.
It's not about beating Zohran once for a single term. It's about beating the idea of a socialist mayor out of the voting public for another generation. Gotta get back to the idea that DeBlaiso was too radical and Eric Adams is what New Yorkers should expect.
And a win for Zohran isn't just a single seat in a single city. There's a municipal offices at play, including the NYPD chief. There's half a dozen House Reps at play (chief among them Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries's seat). There's state House and Senate seats. There's the very real possibility of an insurgent campaign to unseat Kathy Hochul or threaten the increasingly unpopular Senator Gilibrand.
He's a crack in the dam. And at the size and scale of NYC, its a fucking big one.
Wow! Didn't know there was that much at stake in one election. When is it?
Early voting has already started. The final day to vote is Nov 4th.
You think this is big?
Wait till you see what they put behind Newsom/Pritzker if neither of them win the next Dem presidential primary...
They're 100% going to pull a Cuomo if a progressive wins. I expect they'll even get Kamala to run in the primary, just as a sacrificial lamb so Newsom/Pritzker won't be the the least progressive on stage.
Really the reason they're so scared of Mamdani, is there's enough time to show it works before the presidential primary. And the current DNC chair is a huge fan of Mamdani:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dnc-chair-on-the-path-to-winning-back-voters-and-lessons-democrats-can-learn-from-mamdani
Billionaires are shitting themselves, they'll just never let the media they own report on it.
I think the larger Democratic party is terrified of the idea that it's possible to win a national election without being backed by a single billionaire.
Source on that? There have to be quite a few billionaires in NYC, how much are they spending on that anti-Zohran campaign?
Depends on if you accept that the Cuomo campaign and the "anti-Zohran campaign" describe the same thing...
And how much did they spend on that? It's kind of difficult to find current numbers through a quick web search, especially if you aren't super familiar with US election systems.
I'd say anyone even slightly familiar with US politics would know billionaires have lots of ways to obfuscate campaign donations...
Like, it's not exactly a secret, and US politics are kind of unavoidable.
Sure, but this is a rather specific claim that seems a little hard to believe. You're telling me they're spending billions on a mayor campaign (assuming Mamdani's plans are similar to what Massachusetts did)?
No...
I think you're confused
But how much ARE they spending then? And why? I'm not from the US either and I'm baffled at the media attention this mayoral election is getting.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2025/06/09/cuomo-super-pac-fix-the-city-donations/
A few "fun" snippets here:
The tell
Some more:
In short, its really hard to know how much is being spent, because they can hide it in all kinds of ridiculous ways.
Tens of millions of dollars have been spent in easily tracked money. There's more being spent that isnt as easily tracked.
How much do you think Mamdani's plans are going to cost them?
In taxes, about a few billion annually. 2% increase in income tax on over $1 million, 11% at the top of the corporate tax bracket. To be clear about the brackets, they would be paying more on amounts over $1 million, you pay the percentage for each bracket.
So not devastating their profits at all, they would still be raking it in.
Long term he could be representative of a larger shift in approach, especially among blue states (where the overwhelming majority of profits can be found). Again, not devastating to profits or income, just making the ultra wealthy pay their part.
Massachusetts has a similar approach now which has given them around $5 billion annually.
That's about what I thought. I really doubt they're spending anywhere close to that on the current campaign. Even if they thought it was worth it, how do you even spend that much money on ads that target one city?
Easy, you don't target just the city. Or one campaign. Or even a campaign, there are some who set up the same sort of PAC - not to get a candidate elected, but specifically to oppose him getting elected.
If they were targeting just NYC, do you think you'd know this much about mamdani?
That said, some billionaires spent another $20+ million just last week. Some went to campaigns, some went to opposing mamdani. That was last week, and only some of the billionaires. Anti-trans and anti-immigrant groups are donating and running ads elsewhere. They are lobbying against mamdani and other for Cuomo in DC to try and get those reps to make statements.
Official spending? Not remotely near a billion. I'd say the campaign has officially spent $20mil or less.
Unofficial spending is going to be quite a bit more. I don't think its in the multiple billions, no. But I would say its a safe assumption to put it in the hundreds of millions.
hundreds of millions < what Mamdani's policies are probably going to cost them
I don't believe I ever said otherwise, so I have no idea what you're driving at.
If they aren't spending billions, the claim that billionaires are spending more money on the anti-Mamdani/pro-Cuomo campaigns than Mamdani's policies would cost them is flat-out wrong.
So...
You think that Mamdani's policies will cost multiple people over a billion dollars?
Facts:
They are billionaires.
Mamdani will raise their taxes
Assumptions:
A. They are likely spending more on Cuomo's campaign then they would pay in taxes
B. This is because if Mamdani's policies are successful they'd see wider adoption.
Besides the fact that you somehow think the taxes will cost any single person a billion dollars, the big flaw is you think the office of the NYC mayor is the full war, and not just a battle.
Billionaires will spend more than Mamdani will cost them, because they see it as a single battle in a very long class war. Win or lose the battle, they will keep fighting the war
Do you think that I think that multiple people are spending over a billion dollars each? Obviously not. But collectively, probably?
I haven't seen so much as a hint of evidence for this.
Yes! And, taxes are abhorrent to their sense of justice. It's disgusting.
Taxation is theft but wage theft is good business, I guess they'd say
When you boil it down the philosophy of the rich is "GIMME GIMME GIMME, MINE MINE MINE" and everything beyond that is blather.
One time fee vs forever more. These guys think in terms of the long game, not the 4 year cycles your government is concerned with.
For their personal finance, yes. Running a company? Line go up this quarter, nothing else matters. Slowly destroying the planet and poisoning the population? Irrelevant, line must go up.