Everytime I look at small problems or big global problems, if you follow the money trail, it all leads to some billionaire who is either working towards increasing their wealth or protecting their wealth from decreasing.
Everything from politics, climate change, workers rights, democratic government, technology, land rights, human rights can all be rendered down to people fighting another group of people who defend the rights of a billionaire to keep their wealth or to expand their control.
If humanity got rid of or outlawed the notion of any one individual owning far too much money than they could ever possibly spend in a lifetime, we could free up so much wealth and energy to do other things like save ourselves from climate change.
I’m not sure that I agree. While I would support something like outlawing billionaires or at the very least, a tax bracket that claws back significant chunks of what they are draining from society, there are vast nuances to these issues beyond “the billionaires want it that way.” When you say “everything from … can all be rendered down”, I think it’s pretty important to recognize how much detail and nuance is lost in that rendering down.
Billionaires and the accumulation of wealth are just stand ins for the accumulation of power in a capitalistic society. When power is removed, it creates a vacuum. Who fills it? In the ideal, I know most of us would say “the people” but this is an insanely complex balancing beam to maintain without some group of assholes finding a new, non-capital way to extract and centralize that power.
None of this is to say that eliminating the notion of a billionaire is a bad idea. I’m with you all that the very idea of a billionaire is heinous and impossible without vast exploitation. I just do not think that issue being solved would be even close to some panacea for all of the world’s problems. There would just be twists in the existing problems and fun new ones.
I don’t agree with that argument.
You’re right from the point of view that removing those with immense power from their billionaire wealth will be replaced by someone or another group. It’s our natural human condition to always want to be in control and there will always be those among us that will want more power and more control than others.
Removing the ability of any one person accumulating enormous amounts of wealth just levels the playing field. If those with a higher need to want more power don’t have the ability to control an entire sector, an entire region, an entire community or even an entire nation than others will have the ability to challenge them and regulate their power and control.
As it is now, when we allow individuals to gain enormous amounts of power, no one has the ability to challenge them. When those with enormous power decide to affect governments, industries, society or finance, there is very little any one can do to challenge them. Sure we can band together and take billionaires to court … but it comes down to how much money you have … the ability to challenge power means you need money and whoever has the most money has the most power. It isn’t a justice system that treats everyone fairly, it’s a legal system that favors those with the most money.
Outlawing billionaires won’t create a utopia, it won’t remove our conflicts we have with each other. What it would do is level the playing field and distribute power among many other people who would all challenge one another as to what they can or can’t do. It would create a more democratic system where power would be spread to more people.
Once we create that distribution of power, we could then spend our energies solving the problems we have with each other and our world, rather than in spending all our time trying to defend finances.
As it is now, democratic power is impossible because power is only centered on those who have the most money.
My argument would be that by eliminating the means of wealth being an avenue to power, it will merely shift to the government that is enforcing those rules. Those same shitty people will infiltrate that government and use it to inflate themselves while oppressing others. There was no utopian society prior to capitalism and fiat currency, and there won’t be one after.
To be clear, I’m not arguing that this is an impossible problem to solve. I just do not think eliminating the notion of a billionaire is the cure for all of your listed ills. I agree with you that it would absolutely have impacts on all of them, but we would still wake up to world hunger, climate change, etc.
Each of your listed issues is a complex, multi-faceted problem. We cannot boil down that nuance just so we can point to our favorite enemy, deserving as they might be. Fight them too, but don’t lose sight of the bigger picture.
It’s an alternative that has never been attempted in human history and yet everyone is afraid of the notion of ‘Limiting Wealth’.
I am not arguing from the point of view of utopian socialism or a redistribution of wealth … rather, I’m saying that everything in our capitalistic world more or less stays the same way. The only difference is that no one person is allowed to gain a certain level of wealth. Everyone is still free to be as ruthless and capitalistic as they please but their ambitions are given an upper ceiling … for example $100 million of total wealth. All excess wealth beyond that is taxed completely.
Isn’t $100 million for one individual more than enough? What is the sense in accumulating more than that other than a pathological desire to want to gather something that you don’t need. Even worse is the thought that as one accumulates more wealth than they can possibly require means that they have to siphon it from others around them. Uncontrolled, unlimited and runaway growth at all costs is medically known as a cancer. Billionaires are literally cancerous growths on civilization that are slowly killing the entire organism.
Creating a system of ‘Limited Wealth’ wouldn’t affect the majority of everyone … it would only affect a handful of individuals … yet it would benefit all of society.
Can you please point out where I said anything against almost anything you said here? Are you here to have a discussion about your shower thought or just grandstand your political opinion to a group that by large already shares it? Thank you for starting the thread, but not sure I’m going to reply to any additional messages because I’m not sure that you’re actually reading any of mine.
Exactly. Don’t hate the players, hate the game. We are too focused on finding a scape goat to see the inherit system is the problem.
The player are the ones writing the rules of the game. They’re the ones bribing the refs.
Hate both, where it’s appropriate. Some of these players perpetuate the game that we all hate. Elon Musk is a player who has become part of the structure of the game, fighting regulations and damaging democracy for the sake of his own capitalistic endeavors. Someone mentioned below that Dolly Parton could be a billionaire. Not gonna hate on Dolly Parton who I assume did not come by her wealth through being an asshole, but more just being successful and our current “game” rewarding her with more than she would have in a better society. I would tax the absolute fuck out of her though.
Wealth is just one means of power. Destroying all billionaires, while a good step, would not even come close to solving almost every problem in the world.
Right now billionaires are a huge bottleneck to global development and those people who actually want to do something about our worlds problems. Getting rid of them won’t solve our world’s problems … it will just make our problems easier to solve. Leaving them alone means our problems persist while they actively block everyone else from dealing with the world’s problems.
That doesn’t even come close to meaning we shouldn’t do it.
Didn’t say we shouldn’t. Explicitly said it was a good step.
my apologies, I completely read past that.
Throughout history power has been used to obtain wealth and comfort. So if you remove the ability to leverage power for wealth, you remove the primary motivator for obtaining power for most people. There are certainly people who want power for the sake of power, but most people want power to obtain comfort.
In the US we used to have a very high tax rate for those who were extremely wealthy, Distributing the excess back to the government/citizenry. We need the return back to that.
The citizenry need to ask for that, as well as for ranked-choice voting.
but the post is right, billionaires got the law changed to benefit themselves…
As far as voting is concerned everyone who is eligible to vote should get one vote. It is a terrible idea to do anything other than that.
As far as taxes go, we should simply encourage people who are wealthy to fund charities. Also the tax rate is already pretty high. Maybe we just need to increase the number of rungs on the scale. I don’t think millionaires or billionaires have anything against taxes or at least nothing compared to the rest of us.
You should look into ranked voting. You still only get one vote, just if your preferred candidate is eliminated you can propose your second/third choice as well. This allows you to vote with your morals but also strategically.
This isn’t correct
You get 1 vote but you’re giving points to the 1st/2nd/3rd option
Most people differ on first option so someone politically between the two usually gets to win
The hopeful outcome is that you get candidates further left or right than what is presently available even though they wouldn’t win
That just sounds like a over complicated solution to a problem that doesn’t exist
The problem exists, but I do wonder if the average voter can understand it. We have a lot of difficulty getting average people to understand basic concepts.
One party system?
“Oh wow so undemocratic holy shit you psycho how dare you even suggest a thing?”
Two party system?
“Oh woooow so much democracy everyone gets to choose between two options. Perfection achieved. Aliens cross the galaxy to study our high advanced flaeless two party system in a desperate hope to emulate it”
More then two parties?
“No way there should be more options, that’s just crazy you psycho how dare you suggest this to me just shut the fuck up and vote for the blue conservatives.”
I hope some day you think outside the box. More like a prison then a box really…
What is a “blue conservative”
If your so far extreme that you see everyone as the enemy then I am worried
The thing keeping us from eliminating the billionaires isn’t the billionaires. It’s the ~40% of society that are convinced we have to have billionaires to survive. Those people always come up with unending lists of reasons why we just can’t survive without people of unimaginable wealth and power.
It’s not the billionaires. It’s the enablers.
The thing keeping us from eliminating the billionaires isn’t the billionaires. It’s the ~40% of society that are convinced we have to have billionaires to survive.
I call this set the “idiot army”, the activated dunces. It’s propaganda, this 40% is not inherently bad people, it’s guillible, low-education, low-information people that have been activated by malicious propaganda to promote the interests of the billionaire class.
The solution lies not in eliminating or dominating this group, it lies in de-activating them. The typical person in this group, if not being actively directed is too busy in their own world to destroy society.
The first step towards any sort of revolution (violent or not) or real change our world needs has to start by destroying all for-profit news. As long as for-profit news controlled by the billionaires exists, the idiot army cannot be deactivated, and any acts of heroism will be called acts of terrorism.
Edit: But how to destroy the news? Law, as long as we exist in a state, use the available tools. Focus on ranked choice voting, increasing voter turnout, and running for office to collaborate with others to make laws that prevent the news from being so toxic and so profitable. What kinds of laws? Just throwing out ideas
-
Change the First amendment (bill of rights) so that it applies only to individuals. A news business or organization does not have the right to free speech or press.
- Make the news unprofitable and risky for a business
- This would probably have a ton of other beneficial effects as businesses could then lose the right to lie
-
Any company that produces news content may not operate in another other industries, and may have no executives or board members currently in any other company or married or have children in other companies.
- Make it difficult for the bad people to be in charge of the news
Agreed. A good first step was taking Fox to court. While we work to change the Constitution, we need private citizens suing enough that it stops being profitable to lie.
Yep!
-
Great point and one I often circle back eventually when I have these discussions with my friends.
I’m starting to think that it is another one of ingrained human traits … we always want a world with protectors, leaders, figure heads … it’s like being children and wanting to be comforted by a parent, a mother or father.
Except it’s a twisted kind of need that we outgrew a long time ago because we are all becoming very capable, knowledgable and intelligent enough to exist on our own. Modern technology, the internet and mass communication is making us more aware of the world and each other and we are realizing that we don’t need figureheads any more.
We’re all made to think that we don’t, won’t or can’t possibly think like this. We’re made to believe that the world and humanity is one big dumb mob that would crumble without a leader.
I believe the opposite is true … it’s our supposed leaders, figureheads, strong men and billionaires that have all the incentive to keep the world as it is because it would mean they would lose most of their power and wealth … and with it their positions as leaders and figureheads.
The Emperors are strutting about the world completely naked … and we have to keep up the pretense that they are wearing the most beautiful fashions imaginable.
That is one of many aspects, absolutely. The most liberal person I know has said and done many things to show me the way. But when asked about putting Trump on trial (He despises Trump) he says we should not because (basically) it would “look bad to children when they read about a US president being tried for crimes” in the history books.
I’m like, dude, if we don’t punish this MoFo, the next one is going to be writing the history books for us.
So what we need is to get rid of Americans?
Fuckin, extremely doubt it, this strikes me as an extreme oversimplification. You’d get tons of abuse from governments still, just as we did pre-huge amounts of disproportionate wealth, you’d still get tons of slightly poorer but still pretty rich people banding together in interest groups to get their shit passed which would probably also include like, suburban moms in SUVs that were created from white flight.
More than any of that, you wouldn’t be solving the core human behavior, of picking short term gains as a strategy to scale up quicker and with more force, to crush or more easily control your opposition, than any strategy which remains morally better, mutually beneficial, and promises better long term gains. It’s not just like, stupidity and dumb luck, that causes/has caused the structure of society to turn out like this. Outlawing billionaires just means that they’d take the financial system and cause hyperdeflation, or that they’d pivot to exercising more forms of soft power. More than that I kind of disagree with this extremely common messaging around this issue because I think it oversimplifies things to the point of basically being wrong, even though it’s highly agreeable at first and second glance.
True and I agree with most of what you said … but I would prefer a world where power was distributed to more people than concentrated to a small group of people.
It wouldn’t solve the world’s problems because we all seem to have a hard time existing with one another. But at the very least, it would make it far easier for us to solve our problems everywhere.
It’s actually quite difficult to cause hyper-flation in either direction. You generally need an external destination for the money that’s outside the economy being targeted. Japan had a deflationary economy for 30 years, which was produced by falling population numbers and negative interest rates. Their quality of life didn’t drastically decline, just the international purchasing power of the yen (and even that wasn’t too bad).
Somethin to remember, money is very important to how our current society functions, it gives a lot of power to those that have a lot of it, but it itself isnt something anyone needs. Say, you get rid of all the billionairess and redistribute all of those funds so that everyone is well above the poverty line now. All of these folks that have a lot more money now want to use that money. They’ve been putting off medical care so they try to setup an appointment. Getting rid of all the billionaires didnt create more doctors though. They can only tend to so many people regardless of ability to pay. Say, folks want to eat out and treat themselves. Certainly more people than before will be able to, but not everyone, kitchens and staff can only output so many meals, again regardless of ability to pay. And that’s overlooking how many people no longer work there, that hated it there and only tolerated for the funds to survive.
Basically money does not actually create any resources or services, redistributing the money doesnt mean you have enough resources to cover what that money could buy. That’s the main goal here, having resources for everyone. Capitalism sucks and getting rid of billionaires is important, but dont get complacent with that underlying mission. We need to be working on providing needs to people in a way that doesnt require money. It involves a lot of volunteer work and a lot of automation.
Counterpoint - if people don’t need to take crappy jobs just to afford food and shelter, those jobs will have to provide better pay and conditions to get employees.
Also, if more people can afford to get further education, you’ll get more doctors and engineers and high skilled workers, because they’ll be able to do the training instead of getting several minimum wage jobs just to support their families.
I’ve said it before - any society that can afford billionaires can afford to feed, clothe, shelter and provide basic medical care to all is members, it’s just choosing not to.
I’d freaking love to work as a waitress. It was my dream job as a kid and when I tried it here and there I enjoyed it a lot. But the pay is shit and the social status, being looked down on, as someone stupid or lower… Man, I’d love to be a part time waitress. But until socialism hits and a part time waiting job would be sufficient to feed half a family I’ll stick with the biomedical industry and PhD program.
It always makes me so sad to think about how children talk about those “shit jobs”. You won’t find a kid who wants to become a financial advisor or a tax attorney. Most kids want to build homes, cook, wait, clean, work with animals, drive trains, drive trucks, … Jesus how many kids I see who are freaking fascinated by garbage trucks and want nothing more than to work as garbage men. And then they grow up and society indoctrinates them into thinking these are bad jobs for lower people, and reality shows you that you can’t make a living off these jobs, so better do something you cannot even pronounce.
Counterpoint - if people don’t need to take crappy jobs just to afford food and shelter, those jobs will have to provide better pay and conditions to get employees.
Most of those jobs will just no longer exist. Why would they? If i can afford what i need without having to deal with another dumb customer, i aint goin back into food service.
Also, if more people can afford to get further education, you’ll get more doctors and engineers and high skilled workers
Schools have limited resources too. One teacher can only reasonably teach so many students. Youre also contending with people not needing to get an education anymore. They can afford what they need already, if their goal before was to get a good paying job then that motivation is gone.
any society that can afford billionaires can afford to feed, clothe, shelter and provide basic medical care to all is members, it’s just choosing not to.
Zimbabwe had 100 trillion dollar bills, they sure couldnt afford all those things with it.
I don’t want to bite off more than I can chew, so I’ll just address the ‘jobs no longer existing’ thing—you seem wholly unaware that people enjoy being chefs, waiters, pizza dough tossers, all sorts of food service roles. Helping feed people is much more directly meaningful than most jobs in the developed world. Unlikely that this is the job sector that disappears, and not say the world of finance
I did say “most” of them. Go to any fast food restaurant and ask the people there if they would still work there if they were given enough money to live comfortably without working there. Sure, there’s people with passion for cooking, there would still be some restaurants. But it’s fast food businesses that provide the most food to people currently. You get rid of every single fast food chain while also giving everyone the funds to be able to eat at the fancy restaurants still around from people passionate for cooking, and you’re gonna see a hell of a bottleneck, I doubt they can handle a fraction of a percentage of the increased demand, meaning most people arent going to get to eat out.
Ah, well whether or not fast food joints continue to exist is interesting to ponder, ideally you’re never in such a hurry that you want to go to a burger joint where you’re being slowly poisoned by 15 year olds reheating decidedly unhealthy meals, but given how many people try starting restaurants and just how intrinsically tied to existence the food industry is, I imagine in an ideal world plenty of people who are stuck in the fast food sector would leave but plenty more who’ve never explored their passions would be drawn to food in a different form
You’re talking (partly) about two different things.
The simple truth is that our planet only has a certain amount of replenishable resources which leads to only a certain standard of living being possible for a certain amount of people.
Thus, the problem you’re talking about only gets solved by reducing the amount of people or the standard of living, globally.
The problem OP is talking about is inequality in the standard of living between people.
Outlawing billionaires alleviates both problems, but the general resources problem only temporarily until the people with lower standard of living now raise theirs by having more resources available, which is what you talk about.
Inequality gets improved permanently by this, so it’s a good change for that problem.
The limited resource problem you’re talking about, though, doesn’t get solved by this at all, there might be a short dip in less resources used while resources are being reallocated, but then it’ll likely go back to before, because most people use as much resources as they can to make their lives as nice as they can.
To solve our problems, both population as well as standard of living need to be limited. Because if either one is allowed to grow infinitely, resources will never suffice long-term.
Outlawing billionaires alleviates both problems, but the general resources problem only temporarily until the people with lower standard of living now raise theirs by having more resources available, which is what you talk about.
no that’s the thing, eliminating wealth inequality doesnt make more resources available for anyone, money doesnt create resources. Millions more people suddenly being able to buy a new car or something doesnt mean millions more cars are going to appear.
That’s why I said temporarily. If there’s demand for millions of more cars, capitalists will find a way to provide the supply very quickly. There’ll be less demand for idk, private jets or sth billionaires buy, and the resources previously used for the fulfillment of billionaire demand will start going to fulfilling the demand of the new things desired by lower classes that now have more money. Obviously it’ll not happen instantly because stuff needs to be repurposed, new supply paths created, but eventually, the resource usage will be equal again.
capitalists will find a way to provide the supply very quickly.
How and why? It might surprise you to find out money isnt the bottleneck in most industries, its finding enough qualified workers, or having enough equipment or work area. And why would these businesses owned by the billionaire class put in the extra effort to meet this demand when their income got capped?
Because more medium businesses will fill the need, people that are not at the cap yet. And qualified workers, equipment or work areas are all resources, which eventually will be reallocated to whatever is in demand. I didn’t specify a timeframe with my “temporarily”, but I was talking decades, i.e. also enough time for new workers to be trained.
I think a world without money is a fantasy.
Money is just a means of trading time, time that I put in, for time that you put in.
Some things like being a doctor are harder than being a fast food worker, it takes years of training, and hard work. It makes sense that their time is worth more.
There is a ceiling though where you’re not actively contributing “time” you’ve previously committed time that’s just appreciating because it’s “invested” in paying people for their time. That’s where the problems come in because you have effectively a years work of thousands of people in your pocket, which is a concentration of unchecked power.
Taxing billionaires out of existence ensures that money is invested (in a democracy) by the voters (through their representatives) and keeps the concentration of power from distorting the politics.
This issue isn’t billionaires, it isn’t capitalism, it’s and always has been throughout history, concentration of power. It’s past time we fixed this unforeseen loophole created by the modern world where a handful of individuals become as powerful as a country.
When you have bosses that aren’t “gods among men”, that can’t just buy up their competition to squash it, it’s much easier to negotiate with them to pay you a fair salary. You’re not just a number. Similarly, you can get more done in politics because nobody’s got so much money that they can significantly grease palms/run a campaign by themselves/etc.
People thought the world without chattel slavery was a fantasy at one point.
Yes we simply added more steps to it, but progress is progress
You make more money that harder you are to replace. In the case of the billionaires, they are theoretically hard to replace so they make a ton.
Of course you don’t need to be a billionaire to to be wealthy. You can just be good at business and managing money.
“Taxing them out of existence” is the craziest and dumbest idea I’ve heard in a while. You can’t just do that as it is there money that they rightfully earned. There also would be the issue of the people who have 990 million dollars. Do you want to tax them to oblivion to?
Billionaires are not the problem
There is nobody that’s worth a billion dollars, that’s wealth hoarding. There is no reason our government should endorse that level of wealth hoarding. It hurts infrastructure, it hurts innovation, it hurts national security, it hurts the press, and it hurts our democracies.
It’s the same rational for why we shouldn’t have monopolies and why we have laws against them. Concentration of wealth/power is a very bad thing.
I genuinely do not believe you can be a good person and make a billion dollars. You have either scammed your customers, scammed your employees, or both. There should be a limit on individual wealth.
Do agree we should increase competition
This is the circular argument I often have with my friends about wealth and it all boils down to just power.
When billionaires lay claim to enormous amounts of money, it gives them an equal amount of enormous power.
Have that wealth redistributed to millions of people and that wealth no longer matters and no one person has any great level of power.
It’s our own belief that we need or see that it is necessary to have individuals with enormous wealth that is the problem. The belief that our world can only exist if there is infinite wealth.
The other side of the argument is that the change of eliminating billionaires won’t happen overnight. I wish I could pull a switch right now that could drain the bank accounts of billionaires and instantly transfer that wealth to millions of people but it won’t work that way, ever.
I envision a gradual change … where billionaires are just steadily taxed into non existence, where their wealth is just slowly absorbed into public services everywhere and at the same time any individual that accumulates enormous wealth is discouraged. It would be a process that would last decades or lifetimes and eventually to a point where individual excessive wealth is eliminated.
The other side of the argument is that the change of eliminating billionaires won’t happen overnight. I wish I could pull a switch right now that could drain the bank accounts of billionaires and instantly transfer that wealth to millions of people but it won’t work that way, ever.
Why not? “We” designed, built, and used such a switch before. It’s #7 in this diagram:
The problem is you can’t just get rid of billionaires. They are just people who made a lot of money by getting really lucky.
It is also important to note that they do give back there money in many cases as a billion dollars is a huge amount of money. Honestly 10 million dollars is a lot. You can’t just make the wealthy successful people go away because you are jealous.
At the end of they day the richer you are the more unhappy you are. If you basic needs are met you can’t become more happy with more money.
Almost every billionaire in the world would immediately target any country that tried this for absolute and total destruction.
Sanctions on day one, exposure of phoney corruption scandal on day two, false flag invasion of another country on day three, deposed leader on day four, and splitting up of territorial sovereignty on day five.
Okay, perhaps not that quickly, but you get my drift. I mean, people like Peter Thiel have used people like Jordan Peterson, along with his own connections to white supremacists, and million dollar contributions to Donald Trump to ruin America in the span of a decade… And that’s just one billionaire applying some loose change because he’s a weird self-hating gay racist monarchist. Imagine what a bunch of billionaires really trying to destroy a country could do.
There’s two answers to that …
This is a primary reason to get rid of billionaires because they are capable of becoming the next Hitler or at the very least, funding and supporting the next Hitler
The second answer to that is … by your own words, it is an admission that billionaires exert way too much control and influence in our world. If one individual has that much control and power where they are capable of influencing or even changing a government, then that is not a democracy … that’s an oligarchy … or at least a plutocracy (a system run by money). Allowing any one individual to have so much money and influence defeats the purpose of wanting to organize or even conduct a democracy.
It reminds me of the ancient Greek idea of ‘Ostracism’ … where we get our modern word ostracize
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
A system where citizens identified a possible tyrant or upcoming tyrant in their government and then everyone just voted them out of everything for ten years. It wasn’t a perfect system but even back then, everyone knew that if you allowed someone to gain too much power over everyone, then eventually you end up with a tyrannical leader who would want to take control of everything and everyone.
They already donate to both sides in order to insure their influence. So Ostracism of one or two politicians isn’t really going to be an effective preventative measure.
There’s the “joke” about the king/billionaire being asked, “Aren’t you worried about people rising up against you?” He replied, “No, I’ll just pay other people to kill them.”
That worked in ancient Rome for a long while … until there was no one significant left to kill or fight against … then the hired hands started looking at their king/billionaire and realized that they could just kill their leader and take all his wealth.
As a German, I sincerely apologize for allowing our next mini-Hitler to emigrate to Silicon Valley.
It sounds like you want less Billionaires in the world! Be the change you want to see!
This is exactly why I’m not a billionaire
It sounds like you want less Billionaires in the world! Be the change you want to see!
Enough with advocating for violence already, it gets so old, and it’s ruining Lemmy.
It also diminishes how other people see you, and the opinions you express, making them less likely to listen to your opinions.
The poster did not advocate for violence. You can zero out the billionaires class peacefully. We literally have the power. We just need to stop getting distracted.
I’ve worked for a few small business tyrants that did horrible things as well. It’s more of a system issue. Billionaires do the most damage of any individuals, but I think it would be pretty similar if CEOs made small amounts of money (the corporations themselves often lobby for their interests), or if there were only small businesses (they’d probably just form national organizations to lobby for their shared interests).
I agree with the idea of compensating someone who worked at managing an organization … it takes work, talent, education and experience to do that and do it successfully.
What I don’t believe is in rewarding leaders who led their organization, business or corporation into ruin while punishing those who worked under them.
The current system rewards and encourages bad immoral behaviour and we wonder why the system is bad and immoral.
Here’s a good visualization of the wealth the richest people on earth command vs pretty much everyone else: https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
Hey thanks. That is IMPRESSIVE and deserves a post of its own, please do it
The problem with your idea is that it’s not just about the amount of money, but the fact that some people will find ways to have more money, more power. As soon as you draw this line, you’ll have an new level of the richest people.
So in order to really make a difference you would need to spread wealth evenly and no one would be able to earn more than that. And the same goes for losing money of course. This way people will not have the incentives anymore, but i think this will eventually move to a new commodity , because it is just in our nature.
While I largely agree, I also note there will always be greedy outliers who will seek and find ways to skirt the system. We can minimize the ways, but humans are innovative AF, especially when told “you can’t.” I think it’s almost more motivating than “you can.”
Let’s say you get to pass a law in the USA that would make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars. How would you formulate this law and what would you expect to happen when it’s passed?
You’d probably format it as a percentage of GDP per capita, as it’s about limiting wealth disparity (and thus protecting social mobility), distributing wealth growth nationally, and limiting the concentration of financial interest as it’s a threat to national and democratic security.
You’d probably want it accompanies by various studies that show that that large wealth disparities are detrimental to social mobility (aka the ability to “work your way up” in classes), and probably some political science papers on the ills of concentrations of wealth.
You’d probably want it to come into force along with laws that limit campaign contributions and big money donors in politics… get rid of that whole “political donations are protected as political speech” crap… and you’d probably want it as a wealth tax that pays into a sovereign wealth fund with rules on what it can be used for.
The better answer would be to just improve antitrust laws
All of the big name billionaires came from the tech industry
Anything over a net worth of 1 billion is taxed at 100%
And everything above 50 million is taxed 90%
And everything over $10 is taxed at 80%
As it turns you to can’t blame billionaires for everything. Also what would that even mean? Are just going to take away there money as soon as the hit the billion dollar mark? What does that mean for millionaires?
Also the billionaires would just make it look like they have 990 million dollars.
Wealth disparity and concentration of power into a corrupt ruling class of plutocrats gets pretty toxic to human rights and democracy pretty quickly.
Listen to some behind the bastards episodes, look into people like the koch brothers, or Amazon’s union busting, or any of the large political scandals in the past 100 years (eg. Like the business plot) - and you’ll usually hear of some wealthy ahole involved funding some shitty attack on where ever.
While I don’t disagree with the sentiment, I do think a ban on resource hoarding would also require an overhaul of the capitalist system. Hoarding resources is exactly the point of our current system and banning it would most likely have hard to predict consequences.
Arguing that an alternative may be dangerous when the status quo is destroying our world is not a very good argument.
My point is that society should just simply create an upper ceiling of wealth for everyone. Everything still stays the same. We still have our capitalistic system, everyone is still capable and free to try to become as wealthy as they want to be, everyone is still allowed to manipulate the system and those around them to acquire as much wealth as they want in whatever way they please. The only thing that changes is that any one person’s wealth is just limited to … $100 million for example. Does any person require more than this in order to live a happy full and comfortable life? Any one that wants more than that is a pathological individual that is perfectly comfortable in taking away the wealth of those who have little to give.
It’s basically a system where we reward the worst individuals in our society to flourish and become even more powerful.
The alternative I present doesn’t look as dangerous as allowing a handful of questionable individuals to own everything and everyone on the planet.
I am not saying it is dangerous. My point is that taking a decision that is polar opposite of our financial system will come with consequences, many of them will not be simple to predict.
What happens after you accumulate 100 million? Are you allowed to work? Will you have to give up the interest your existing assets earn you? Do we tax everything the limit at 100%? How will we deal with the fact the some countries will attract people with lots to lose by not following the system?
These are of course just random thoughts, but I think most of us can come up with plenty of things that can jeopardize such a plan.
I don’t dismiss the idea, but I think a lot of safeguards need to be in place before such a plan could work.
One of the financial aspects it would deal with is … the idea of infinite growth and profits.
Limiting wealth would limit profits everywhere … which sounds bad for small groups of people and investors in any one sector. Everyone has the mentality of wanting to control one corner of the financial market and then make it grow exponentially without limits to an imaginary infinity … all of which is impossible.
By limiting individual wealth … wealth would then be allowed to spill over to more people. The wealth is still there but it is now in the hands of more people instead of a small group of people.
In our current system, we keep watching our financial markets grow every year with the expectation that they will keep rising forever while the amount of wealth everywhere is limited. In order to make it grow, debt has to be created and in order to pay for the debt, more debt is created and on and on to infinity.
The system I imagine puts limits on infinite growth, profit and wealth … the system that exists is only possible if a small group of people can continually achieve infinite wealth with limited resources.
What makes more sense.
And like I keep saying … removing billionaires won’t solve the world’s problems … but it would really make it a whole lot easier to deal with the world’s problems.
I think I see what you mean now. We both agree that wealth hoarding need to go, but I think I focus more on the problems it would cause and you just wanting to set a limit and deal with any issues as they arise. Is that a correct assumption?
I think we are imagining the problem, the solutions and the consequences in different ways.
You’re worried about the possibilities of what could be and imagine the problems it may cause.
I’m worried about what is happening now, what exists today and the problems it is causing in real time.
If we do nothing, then current problems persist and we avoid the uncertainty of alternatives. The only problem with that is that we will never realize what the alternatives could be … either a more manageable society with more distributed power … a repeat of the same system we live in today but with the power given to different actors … or a far worse situation than we live in today.
None of this is to imagine that it would create an instant utopia or dystopia … we are human and many of the social problems we have today will persist no matter what we create in the future.
So the final thought is … We either gamble on the certainty of inequality and power willingly given to those with the most wealth … or we take the chance on attempting to create a new system.
Where’s the line? Is it one billion? Aren’t we all trying to make more money and lose less money? Who decides what number equals ‘enough’? Does it depend on where you live? Size of your family? How/where you spend, save, donate? They say Dolly Parton could have been a billionaire but she’s donated so much that she only has $650 million. Should that be the goal - earn a billion and donate half? Is that better or worse than earning 100 million and donating half?
A billion dollars is so incomprehensibly more than anybody needs, no matter the size of their family, that there really is no reason to take these things into account. As for who decides what is enough, it’s the people allowed to vote.
As for the donation example, yes, that is worse, since for every billionaire that miraculously donates some of their wealth, there are loads who don’t. So better tax them all than hope that maybe a couple of them decide to be nice for once.
And a key point with donations: they go wherever the rich people want, not where society needs.
Where do taxes go? Do you trust the government to decide what society needs? I donate locally and i try to spend my money locally, but fucking Amazon comes along with a $2 wrench that delivers before 8am and i get sucked in.
And if they refuse to pay their “taxes” Then you, as the psychopath you are, are going to send men with guns to abduct them and throw them in a cage for an amount of time You determine and steal their life. Oh, and even if you don’t do that, you’ll just kill them right away with a gun. And their life will be over anyway.
Ah yes, the well known connection between “let’s have a very high tax bracket for billionaires” and “let’s literally go and murder rich people because I don’t like them lol”, you got me. Oh, and sanctioning criminal behavior with prison = psychopathy, got it.
Well, please elaborate then on exactly how you intend to make them obey you. It’s literally you are saying do this and they are saying no and so you either have to walk away or you have to use force against them to make them agree with your point of view.
Of course force may need to be used when people act criminally. In case of tax evasion, that may be seizing the amount owed and/or imprisonment in severe cases.
Say someone steals from a store and the owner demands it back, but the thief says “nu-uh”, what then? Is it morally permissible to use force to get your property back?
Of course force may need to be used when people act criminally. In case of tax evasion, that may be seizing the amount owed and/or imprisonment in severe cases.
Who is hurt by “tax evasion” If I choose not to pay my taxes, are you disabled or physically harmed in any way to where you cannot live your current lifestyle? I would argue the answer is no. If I do not pay my taxes, do you wake up in the middle of the night in mental anguish because of it? Again, I would argue the answer is no. So you think you have the right to demand that I give you money because you say so. And if I do not comply, you will throw me in a cage and/or kill me. Because apparently in order for me to live the longest I possibly can, I must obey you because you said so.
Say someone steals from a store and the owner demands it back, but the thief says “nu-uh”, what then? Is it morally permissible to use force to get your property back?
Absolutely. Because you harmed them. You took something that was theirs. They spent part of their life earning the money to purchase that thing to put in their store to resell to you to make your life more convenient.
You absolutly harm the whole society if you dont pay taxes… You use all the street and everything paid by taxes and then dont pay. Thats kind of harming.
1.000.000.000€ is if you get 1000€ every day for 3000 years.
Think about it.
Take out a calculator.
And than see, that I lied and its just 913.24€ every day for 3000 years.
Than think about WHO DA FUK needs money like this?
Mark has around 150 bio € so 150x3000= 450.000 years of 913.24€ EVERY FUKKING DAY.
