• ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yeah but I feel like she’d be one of the first to defend her monetary status.

    I’ve brought this up a lot lately but I liken her to the Beatles. The Beatles were being taxed at a 90+% rate. When they finally realized that they took it to court. The judge basically said “You were making so much money you didn’t even realize you were being taxed. We’re going to keep taxing you at the same rate and you can fuck off.”

    I could see Taylor doing the same thing if her tax rates went up to the level they should’ve been from the beginning.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Haha I didn’t know about that Beatles story but mad respect for the courts on that one.

      I agree, she’d probably throw a bit of a fit, but at least we can consider her “working class” in contrast to the “owner class”. Like you say she should still be taxed heavily because obviously but at least she technically works for that money.

      Like if any of the mega-rich CEOs was actually judged properly on the ability to do their job it’d be pretty clear that most of their decisions are bad for everything but their bottom line or actually made by lower paid employees. But take the money out of the Taylor Swift equation and at least she’s still going on tour and making music, albeit with a lot of production help and the like, but she at least does something.

        • Soup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m still not sure which part of any of my comments said that she deserves to be obscenely wealthy to the point where she can have 150mil of real estate but go off I guess. I can see plenty of points where I agreed that she should have the tits taxed off of her, but…