I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me!

[obi@sopuli.xyz]

It was pretty much just one of the options used for death penalty from what I understand. Then there’s the revolution bit but otherwise it was a state execution method used as late as 1977.

[nomous@lemmy.world]

Additionally guillotines were seen as a more humane method of execution than the hangings and manual beheading of pre-Enlightenment France.

[grimy@lemmy.world]

You can’t change the system while they own it and you can’t jail them when they own the prisons as well as the ones that should be putting them there.

What do you suggest?

[tachyontele@lemm.ee]

I like how you think this is a realistic scenario.

[gbu_28@lemm.ee]

Well, non violent seizing of the means via unionizing and community action via grassroots electorate driven by transparent mutual aid.

But once you sign on to get the executions starting, you better hope you’re in the “in group” all along. Else the violence will eventually come for you (not you you, hypothetical anyone)

And back to my point, the death penalty will just make them crafty, it won’t stop greed.

[homesweethomemrl@lemmy.world]

it’s intellectually fallacious to even suggest such a thing.

Is it.

[ninjabard@lemmy.world]

And hoarding money that would provide housing, food, and medicine while people are dying or barely living paycheck to paycheck for the lack of those things isn’t immoral? Lick the boot harder. They might give you a fucking dîme.

[shizrak@sh.itjust.works]

This would be ideal but I’m skeptical that it’s actually possible. Bribes are cheaper than taxes, so I think they’d likely just prevent the taxes from happening by greasing the correct palms.

[mrfriki@lemmy.world]

Can’t shake the feeling that swapping panels 1 and 3 would make more sense.

[shizrak@sh.itjust.works]

Okay so once you’ve non violently seized the means, and they come to violently take them back, then what?

[crusa187@lemmy.ml]

Well yeah, that’s exactly what’s happened for at least the past 50 years. In 1968 corporations were paying 53% of their profits in taxes, and billionaires were paying 94% around that time! Btw, if you’re making billions, paying 94% still leaves you richer than most…

Contrast that to today, where the system is so obviously broken during a time when Amazon is paying less in total taxes than a fry cook at McDonald’s.

It would need to be done with actually no loopholes, and meaningful enforcement of consequences for those who would try to cheat (perhaps the guillotine).

[jackgreenearth@lemm.ee]

What? No, why would you assume those things about me. There are no ethical billionaires.

[emi@ani.social]

Don’t they already just avoid paying taxes by not having a salary and just using bank loans or something? So they have no actual money in the bank

[nonentity@sh.itjust.works]

Every healthy society requires a robust guillotine maintenance capability, ideally across all competencies.

[gbu_28@lemm.ee]

If you’ve seized em you’ve seized em. The system is no longer available for their exploitation. So did you or didn’t you?

Again, have fun with the violence, but once that cat is out of the bag you always get 2 things:

1. Spillover violence outside the “pure” original intentions
2. Power vacuum

[funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works]

one big issue is everyone goes “you can’t tax stocks!” and then billionaires take a loan against the stocks with the unrealized gains as collateral. So we’d need to start classifying a loan as a realized gain of the collateral against this, with an exception for mortgages on primary domiciles, maybe also a “first million dollars are exempt,” calculated on the full debt of the borrower, not per loan. I can’t imagine anyone taking out more than $1M in debt against a properly they don’t live in is not the rich we need to be taxing.

[crusa187@lemmy.ml]

That’s an insightful point, and honestly taxing those loans as realized gains sounds entirely reasonable. It’s good for the lenders because of reduced risk, it’s good for the rich because it keeps them honest, and it’s good for the public because we gain increased tax revenue from those who can most afford it. Nice!

[lost_my_mind@lemmy.world]

Contrast that to today, where the system is so obviously broken during a time when Amazon is paying less in total taxes than a fry cook at McDonald’s.

Wait…by percentage, or by dollar amount?

[bestbouclettes@jlai.lu]

Mostly by percentage, but I wouldn’t be surprised for the other one.

[shizrak@sh.itjust.works]

Nice dodge