• BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
    1501·
    1 month ago

    Billionaires are a political choice as much as homelessness. They are allowed to exist because nobody does anything about it.

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    1061·
    1 month ago

    There was an article celebrating the fact that we’re on our way to having the first trillionare.

    I wanted to die. It’s so insanely fucking disgusting

  • stormesp@lemm.eeEnglish
    431·
    1 month ago

    A boring distopia is already even a single person having more than a single billion.

    • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
      141·
      1 month ago

      Yup, there was that post a while back, like you reach a billion, you get a plaque that says “congrats you won capitalism” and then they start at 0 again

      • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        102·
        1 month ago

        Not even a billion, as soon as you’re in 8 figures you have more than a reasonable person can spend in a lifetime. Cap it at 50 million, every cent more goes towards public infrastructure and welfare

        Or we could do away with capitalism entirely. Just saying

        • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
          34·
          1 month ago

          Capitalism does have some uses, like which TV you want to buy, but it needs to be heavily regulated.

              • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                5·
                1 month ago

                The fact that we live under capitalism today? People can grow crops without feudalism as well, but it’s not up to the individual serfs to decide if they want farm for themselves and their community, or for their liege lord. But the very same factories that produce consumer goods with a profit incentive today, can do the same for the benefit of the people tomorrow.

                • deafboy@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  14·
                  1 month ago

                  very same factories that produce consumer goods with a profit incentive today, can do the same for the benefit of the people tomorrow.

                  Yes. Until everyone ends up in poverty, because over time, nobody knows what to make and how much. The longer the supply chain the stronger the effect will be.

    • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
      51·
      1 month ago

      It’s inherently antisocial. You no longer have to play by the social contract with that kind of wealth/power.

      It’s a grave failure with our economic system that billionaires have been permitted to come about

  • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
    262·
    1 month ago

    That’s 18 people who own about a tenth of the US GDP. Something needs to be done, and soon.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      111·
      1 month ago

      That’s 18 people who own about a tenth of the US GDP.

      Okay, sure. But that’s bad analysis. GDP is annual and net-worth is lifetime total. That’s also global wealth, not US-domestic (four of them aren’t even American).

      Agree with the sentiment, but we should really be talking about global wealth not national income.

      Something needs to be done

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done

      • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 month ago

        Well yeah it’s not apples to apples, I was just going for another massive dollar amount that was recognizable to give a sense of scale.

      • Kallioapina@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        10·
        1 month ago

        How many security guards can one of these assholes have on duty at any one time?

        Dont y’all have assault rifles and semiautomatics on you at all times and you are all about being against tyranny? WHAT GIVES?

        • PixellatedDave@lemmy.world
          51·
          1 month ago

          My thought too. Don’t they have slogans like ‘don’t tread on me’ and such? I am pretty convinced you don’t get that kind of wealth without standing on everyone you can.

        • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
          3·
          1 month ago

          That is a gross generalization. As I’m writing this, I am at least 30 feet from both my AR and my sidearm.

  • RattlerSix@lemmy.world
    231·
    1 month ago

    If my math is correct and we taxed everything over 100 billion at 100% we’d get over 900 billion in taxes. Nearly a trillion bucks if we limited these assholes to a measly 100 billion.

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      510·
      1 month ago

      A trillion bucks, but not in cash; in shares of those companies. Try to sell it all for cash and you tank the share price. People lose their jobs, pension funds that own shares in those companies lose value.

      That’s the trouble with taxing wealth. It’s not liquid like income. All that net worth is tied up in the companies and not easily accessed.

      • ebc@lemmy.ca
        16·
        1 month ago

        I’d be okay with the govt owning shares, honestly. That way the public would get a voice in how these megacorps operate, and that voice would get bigger the larger the company becomes.

        • deafboy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          govt owning shares, honestly. That way the public would get a voice

          How would a public get a voice? The government would have a voice.

          • ebc@lemmy.ca
            1·
            1 month ago

            In theory, the government is elected by the public. Not a given these days, I know.

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
    222·
    1 month ago

    1% tax on all registered securities, payable in shares of those securities. The SEC just confiscates 1% of every position, and conveys them to an IRS liquidator. The liquidator sells them off in small lots over time, comprising no more than 1% of total traded shares. Securities with negative values are returned.

    Once completely phased in, natural persons will be exempt on their first $10 million in registered securities. Corporate-owned securities will not be exempt: the are taxed from their first share.

    We tax only the problematic portion of their wealth: their wealth-generating assets. We auction those assets off to the general public.

    • Welt@lazysoci.alEnglish
      8·
      1 month ago

      You sound like you know what you’re talking about, and convey it with spectrum-like precision. I throw my hat and my heart entirely to making your dream come true. Hoo, hoo (hoo-oo-hoo)

  • Brosplosion@lemm.ee
    191·
    1 month ago

    Is this inflation corrected? Cause an arbitrary line across 7 years of inflation is gonna be crossed…

    • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
      6·
      1 month ago

      No, thats a good point because its not inflation corrected its just an archived page. A dollar in 2017 is worth 1.28 today. So yes, in today’s dollars there would have been 4 people above 100 billion in 2017.

    • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      72·
      1 month ago

      I don’t think we had 250% inflation in the last 7 years

      We certainly didn’t have a 250% increase in wages or median wealth in the last 7 years

      They are parasites and criminals

      • Brosplosion@lemm.ee
        51·
        1 month ago

        These sorts of stats are misleading and can erode the footing of the argument you are making. Showing the numbers adjusted for inflation is damning enough.

        We’ve had around 60% inflation over the past seven years, does it explain all their increases? No.

        But not including that information and saying “but number is bigger!” Just makes your argument look weak when it could be statistically sound.

    • TammyTobacco@lemmy.world
      5·
      1 month ago

      I think it should be legal to murder a billionaire. They either have to pay for private security they can’t fully trust and always worry about being killed, or they can give away their money until they’re under a billion.

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      19·
      1 month ago

      There are probably several Russian Oligarchs missing from this list because their wealth is mostly dark money. Rumor has it Putin is the wealthiest man in the world and has been for some time.