• BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
    1481·
    2 months ago

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

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    1041·
    2 months 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

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    492·
    2 months ago

    kamala harris’ proposed tax on unrealized gains seems like a great idea rn

  • stormesp@lemm.eeEnglish
    421·
    2 months ago

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

    • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
      131·
      2 months 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
        92·
        2 months 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
          33·
          2 months ago

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

              • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                4·
                2 months 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
                  13·
                  2 months 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
      41·
      2 months 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

  • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    341·
    2 months ago

    The overall average median lifetime earnings of $1,850,000 for men and $1,100,200 for women. Let’s just take the average and say an average American earns $1,475,100 in their lifetime.

    The important thing to remember is, in an unequal system where workers have most of the value of their work taken by a single person who the system disproportionately favors, that value is translatable to literal life. They are directly, inexorably going to die having had that value simply transferred to the other person or people who collect that value. Or put succinctly, they are giving up life, and the “owner” of the business is gaining the value of their life.

    Another note is that even though most valuations are stock, stock valuations do not exist in a vacuum. The stock market is the realizable increase in productivity value that we all collectively have caused.

    So based on that principle, just for fun, let’s convert these fortunes to human lives, to better understand just how much (economically-valued) life force these people have taken from people:

    Elon Musk: $262,000,000,000 = 176,259 American lives.

    Jeff Bezos: $208,000,000,000 = 141,007 American lives.

    Mark Zuckerberg: $203,000,000,000 = 137,617 American lives.

    • thisfro@slrpnk.net
      81·
      2 months ago

      just for fun, let’s convert these fortunes to human lives

      Muh capitalism

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      71·
      2 months ago

      To take that farther I wonder how many employees they have. How close is the ratio of workers to their life value obtained by the owner.

  • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
    252·
    2 months ago

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

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      2 months 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
        2·
        2 months 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
        9·
        2 months 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
          41·
          2 months 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
          2·
          2 months 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·
    2 months 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
      59·
      2 months 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·
        2 months 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·
          2 months 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·
            2 months ago

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

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
    212·
    2 months 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
      7·
      2 months 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·
    2 months ago

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

    • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
      6·
      2 months 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·
      2 months 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·
        2 months 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.

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      19·
      2 months 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.

    • TammyTobacco@lemmy.world
      4·
      2 months 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.