And by haters I just mean folks who think $12B isn’t a low enough cap…
We are not focused on class war between the majority and the 1%, because (by the numbers) they are not the direct threat to the sustainability of the system. They are not where our money has gone to.
The difference between someone with even $12B and Musk level wealth is the difference between a single story house and a 36 story skyscraper. We are focused on tearing down the skyscraper and taxing the house appropriately. To be frank, the wealth of people with less than a billion dollars is not on our radar as a problem. In contrast, we would like their help in tearing down the skyscrapers. That is the point of our community. We are only after the excess wealth of 250 people in the world.
So again, I welcome you 100% to the tent if you are interested, but politically our goals will always remain simple and be augmented by simple arguments. If that means we are not the community for you, I understand. We’re seeking to act rationally in pursuit of a more ethical world, not to demand ethical perfection from the outset. To be honest I personally believe that ethical perfectionism, infighting, and shrinking the tent are major reasons why progressive movements to rectify wealth inequality constantly fail.
Louis Sachar once wrote an entire book based around the concept that “if you want to fight your way upstream in a river, you have to take small steps”. We arent looking at the end of the river, were looking at the first small steps. (Also that book is a great sequel to Holes for anyone who has never heard of it)
Our argument may seem reductive, but anyone can see the simple nature of the problem. The skyscrapers are a head and shoulders above the single story house. Its a simple problem to see, and an exponential one. 6 people in the world owned half of all the money before covid. Now the problem is even worse. I would venture that the richest 250 people in the world probably own 3/4ths of all the money at this point, at least.
Money was made to move. When that money is parked it doesnt change hands. When it doesnt change hands it doesnt get taxed, things dont get bought. When that happens the government doesnt have the resources it needs, and the economy goes out of whack as well. Its a simple problem that ties into literally every issue imaginable just on that basis. Climate change? We could use more resources to fight it. Materials science to solve the plastic problem? More resources to fight it. People cant afford rent? More resources to pay them. People cant afford healthcare? Do you wish we had bridges to drive over that arent 60+ years old? Are you tired of paying for a fishing/hunting license to subsidize conservation? Everything big and small is impacted in some way by the wealth of the richest 250 people not moving, both inside the US and around the world.
The goal of the movement is not to change the system, really. We arent arguing for moving away from capitalism, even if many of us would like to see that. What we are arguing for is fixing the most unsustainable problem within the system we already have, so that we can continue to fight for a better system in general.
A primary goal is to keep the tent as wide as is possible. The point being that we are fighting specifically on this one issue that should, at least hypothetically, bridge the gap between even people who want radical change and people who want to see no change at all. For people who want radical changes, this is the first step in the right direction. For people who want to see no change at all, this is a step that will prevent the collapse of what they dont want to see changed.
For anyone too broke to afford cost of living, this is what will raise them up to afford a base level of comfort. For the 1%ers, this is what will ensure they get to keep the standard of living they already have, as well as make a shit ton of money off the rest of us. If anything I see this community as an incubation for a political bridge party that can actually bring enough people under one tent to affect change, and breakthrough the various distractions that the richest people in the world rely on so we dont come after them. Red vs blue, black vs white, majority vs 1%ers, and so on and so forth. Its all just bullshit to keep us from paying attention to the 0.0001% who have almost all of the money.
This isnt about redistribution of much of anything from the 1% at large. Its about dislodging the 5 trillion dollars that sit largely in the hands of like 10 people. Just that $5T moving would be enough to allow the rest of the 1% unaffected. Thats like 1/3rd of the federal deficit.
The point of targeting that $5T specifically is because its $5T that is virtually guaranteed to never move otherwise. Its just feel good money for the mega billionaires, which even 1%ers cant relate to nor justify.
We are focused on making the system we have, flawed as it is, a base level of sustainable in the interest of everybody. Capitalism with the bumper guards up. Regardless of what they would want to see next.
To analogize: if were all in one car together right now that is a hunk of shit, and we got a flat tire, the goal for us is to fix the tire so we can make it down the road. Some might want to abandon the car right now even if it means chaos. Some might want to fix the flat so we can get a different car. And some might want to fix the flat so we can keep driving the same hunk of shit. But the goal of our community would be centered on fixing the tire, to avoid chaos and to leave our options open for the future
- ToastedRavioli
If you’re seeing this from all, here is a link from yesterday to contextualize. Please consider subbing if you’re interested
You’re running into a few problems.
-
The arbitrary nature of 12B. People take issue with it because there isn’t any materialist analysis in deciding that number outside of saying that other billionaires are worse, which is hurting your “big-tent” philosophy.
-
You call this a pragmatic first step, but there’s no analysis of how change happens in the first place. This is Utopianism, you cannot create a better world by simply trying to convince everyone of a better way. This is why Robert Owen and Saint-Simon failed, and why Marxists have made far more progress.
-
You’re strawmanning your critics. Nobody is letting perfection be the enemy of progress, people are pointing out how this isn’t an actionable plan in the first place, and you’re calling them naive because of it. This further hurts your argument.
-
You’re focused on money, not actual production. This means you have a flawed understanding of how we can actually solve problems. You can’t just throw money at a hospital to make it develop, you have to physically develop it. This is important because your view of taxation is heavily financialized, when what matters most is actual resources and production. You can’t take billions of dollars from Bezos and magically turn it into new industrial Capital, this kind of a change requires central planning and the labor and resources to do so.
The $12B figure is derived from the equivalent wealth of J Paul Getty in 1958, the first person to be a billionaire. So really it would be $12B scaling upwards, equivalent to the value of $1B in 1958 today. It’s vaguely reasonable given the far more equitable state of the US economy in 1958. Wealth disparity was a whole different thing at that point even though we had a billionaire. The top 2% income bracket started at a household income equivalent to only $170k today. The median was only 1/3rd as much.
The logical way it gets done is via governmental intervention, and no I havent fully planned it out yet. Im just one dude, thats kind of the point of why I created the community? To hypothesize in this specific vain
Im not strawmanning my critics, Im responding directly to responses I have received over the past 24 hours. I never intended for this post to be so wide, I was addressing specifically people who had subbed to disrupt by complaining this isnt a community for X, Y, Z alternatives to capitalism, or anarchism, or whatever. I was not intending to write to all of Lemmy
I understand that you got the 12B from Getty, but that’s just symbolism, it isn’t attached to a scientific reasoning. That’s why it’s getting pushback.
I understand that you’re just one person trying to spark a discussion. That in and of itself is admirable, and is the start of your personal political growth and development. However, you are stumbling into very old and developed arguments with a solution that is just as old. I understand that the idea would be government intervention, but the lack of a way to get from step 1 to government intervention is drawing criticism, as that process is more important than picking a good outcome to shoot for.
Again, this traces back to Marx. Utopian Socialists picked an endpoint and tried to convince everyone of it, rather than analyzing the trajectory of society and mastering the laws of social development in order to better guide that development.
My advice is to take a step back, and try to familiarize yourself with common arguments and strategies picked by various critics of Capitalism, such as Marxism, Anarchism, and even the Social Democrats that want Capitalism with tweaks, like you’re advocating for. Look into the history of these movements and their successes and failures. Capitalism + tweaks is not a new idea, so its arguments for and against have been ongoing for centuries.
Look, dude, I get that you are deep into critiques of capitalism, and you want any excuse to talk down to anyone as much as possible. I havent forgotten replying to you yesterday. Youre half the reason I wrote this post, and again the door is wide open for you to leave if you want to.
This community is to be a place to discuss attempting to redirect the 1% of the 1%s wealth. Thats the point, to investigate collaboratively a means by which to do it. My expertise is not in the world of finance, but nor is it in having my head up my ass. I know an unsustainable system when I see one, and Im a critical theory writer. Im doing my part, trying to find like minded people to collaborate with.
If the kind of replying you have been doing is all you want to keep doing in this community then I dont see why you should want to be here. If were giving free advice, you should figure out how to get your ideas across without sounding like a condescending twat
I’m not talking down to you, I’m trying to engage with your ideas constructively. I’m participating how you ask people to, by discussing the feasibility of these changes. How do we get from A to B? This is a critical question, and I’m trying to help you see how to better address the critics you have, how to engage with their counters, and how to develop to a higher level of understanding through dialogue.
If you don’t want discussion, or engagement, then this is your community to do with as you wish. If you just want to insult people taking you seriously, though, I don’t see this going very far. But, maybe I’m wrong.
Collaboration in pursuit of a goal is not the same thing as “collaboration” in the sense of you wanting to move the goalposts.
If you want to participate in this sub collaboratively then why does the bulk of your criticism center around abandoning the stated end goal? Ive seen you post nothing that actually answers any of the questions you have posed, which would be actual criticism in a constructive and collaborative manner. Especially yesterday all you did was derail the conversation to talk about critiques of capitalism. Even still you did it shortly ago replying to me.
And yes, you did quite literally talk down to me in saying “this is the start of your political development” like Im 14 years old. You sound like a twat saying shit like that.
If you want to actually be collaborative then stick around. If you want to talk like an ass and complain this isnt .ml then why are you here?
I avoided giving you the answers that I believe are correct specifically because I didn’t want to talk down to you. In the other thread I did give answers, but tried to keep them relatively light. This isn’t a Marxist community, after all, so my goal isn’t to get you to change your stated end goal so much as use Marxism as a means to help you back up your answers more.
As far as the “start of your political journey,” I didn’t mean to imply you’ve had no growth, that wasn’t my intention. I started my “political journey” well-below where you are now. I do think I have spent a good deal of time studying Capitalism and critiques of Capitalism, though, so I do think I shouldn’t be entirely brushed aside and insulted.
I guess, let me ask: what is this community? Is it specifically about a 12B dollar wealth cap? Or is it trying to spark a broader conversation around how to best go about fixing the problems caused by Capitalism today? If it’s the former, then you’re probably correct, I don’t think I’ll be very useful here. If it’s the latter, however, I really do enjoy having conversations with people about how to best go about tackling the problems caused by Capitalism.
If, as a part of enjoying talking about tackling the problems capitalism, you want to help investigate a way to actually achieve the handful of specific simple policy concepts that Im hoping for discussion to try to center around, then yes it would be great to have you.
I dont see why thinking about tackling them from the specific angle of this community is not beneficial overall to everyone involved, whether you agree with exactly what I hope to keep as simple as possible to present to people who havent read any Marx, or probably anything remotely as thick as Marx (or any neoliberal critique for that matter), before in their life.
Not everyone has the privilege of being able to read such intense writing and really get a grasp of it without straining far more than it takes to read most things. I considered myself half decent at it in college (reading mostly more modern work) and found it a bit arduous, but watched most people struggle with it far more. And I dont consider myself all that smart.
So my point is, if, for the purposes of this sub, you could be a bit more collaborative in your contributions by simply giving your opinion that would be ideal. And I suppose bear in mind that while bringing marxism into the discussion can be valuable, the end goal is not really to sell the idea to people based on something anywhere near as complex as marxism. If marxism is part of an argument for some concrete aspect of how to achieve the simple policy concepts then its as welcome as anything else
You’re not a critical theory writer if you haven’t studied the theory and practice of those who came before in your own tradition. Cowbee is trying to explain to you what the results of that experience are and you’re getting upset like this is an ego exercise.
-
Reading through your positions, your heart is very much in the right place but you seem to miss the most important detail: who actually holds power in our society, and how does that power manifest itself?
If we lived in an actual democracy, these changes wouldn’t be worth discussing because they would’ve already been put into place ages ago; it’s intuitively obvious to anyone paying attention that there is no world in which it makes sense for a handful of people to own something like 90% of the wealth a society creates. If government policy was driven by sound reasoning and a desire for the greatest possible outcome for the most people, all of this would already be in place. If the media were free to put forward information about key issues that affect everyone and the best paths forward to resolve those issues, you wouldn’t have to type any of this out.
None of those statements are reality, nor are they anywhere near it. Our society (speaking specifically about the US, though this is applicable in any western-aligned nation) is, has always been, and will continue to be dominated by those with wealth. This country was founded by plantation owners who sought to exist in a society with zero oversight on them, driven by factionalism between them and their British counterparts and fear of a rising sparks of abolitionism within the British government. When that first attempt at as true of a laissez faire society fell apart in the face of slave revolts and antagonism from the former soldiers they failed to pay for their part in their revolution, they circled the wagons and created a stronger central government completely bound to their wills. You don’t even need to read between the lines, they flat out admitted in the Federalist papers they were terrified of true democracy because the “mob” would overrule their enlightened perspective.
Our modern society is even more consolidated under their rule. They unilaterally own TV, radio, the internet. A single individual writes a check to bribe a senator that outpaces what ten thousand smaller donors can scrounge together collectively. Judges are drawn from billionaire-funded think tanks so regularly you could safely bet money on who the next Supreme Court justices will be. And most importantly of all, the means by which 99.9% of the population survives is, without exaggeration, a dictatorship by their bosses, the very people you’re opposing. Any resistance to the status quo will inevitably result in the relevant workers being blacklisted from society and left to starve to death.
A political movement whose objective is to place a wealth limit on the people responsible for the above system would only succeed if that movement amasses enough influence, organization, manpower, and popularity with the common people that they can overthrow the entire system. This is where I think you’re wrong: if you can reach this point, why would you treat the symptom instead of the disease? Every compromise the capitalists have ever given the rest of us will be and has been undone; the vast protections given to workers through mass unionization has been eroded, civil rights have been rolled back, and wages have stagnated as the existing real threat of socialism disappeared at the end of the Cold War. This same trend has occurred all across Europe and Asia, it is not a fluke but rather an inherent and obvious action of capitalism.
Don’t settle for half-assing it, break the system that allows for ten people to dominate all of society and build a more equitable world instead.
The 1% in total is over $40T in net worth, while billionaires only hold like $7T of that $40T. The 1% can outspend the billionaires if acting collectively, but not as individuals.
Im talking about convincing the $33T and the general public to outspend the $7T, which is locking up like $5T that would otherwise be bouncing around in the economy. The difference between the 1% and the 0.01% is that the 1% still move large volumes of money out. That $5T locked up among a few people will not move without government intervention, they literally cant possibly spend enough, but it’s not as immune to being dislodged as you imply. And its in the interest of all the rich people to dislodge it.
I understand you may disagree, thats just my clarification
The non-billionaires are part of the capitalist class. They’re on the same side as the billionaires; there isn’t some magical divide that pops into existence once you cross the threshold from eight to nine digits in your net worth. The problem still remains.
There is a completely non hypothetical divide in the sense that, in the face of an impending failure of society (which by reasonable measures we are not far from), I’m sure they would much rather maintain the status quo. Especially when it comes at the cost of a handful of people richer than them.
99% of 1%ers will never have to concern themselves with having over $12B. $12B is an insane amount of money, thats kind of the whole point. I think they would gladly sell the people with over $12B down the river, especially if it only makes them richer.
What incentive is there to do otherwise? I get youre used to thinking in class terms, but like just from a purely logical standpoint? If you had $100M would you not say “fuck Elon”, I could be making more money? The problem is virtually universal between 1%ers and everyone else
Classes exist not because of levels of wealth, but relations to production. Capitalists are in the level they are at because they exist in the M-C-M’ mode of existence, and that does not change at a fundamental level between the less than 12B and the higher than 12B crowd. Capitalism is a system of motion based on material production and valorization of Capital, Capitalists are not a class due to choices but material structures, and as such simply trying to convince a subsection of them to go against another subsection does not work as it does not address the system.
Additionally, historically the capitalists have been quite good at class solidarity between one another, even between factions that are unaligned in their own self-interests. You don’t get to the point of ruling over hundreds or thousands of employees and making millions or billions off of their surplus labor value without realizing that if you let those same workers ever figure out that they don’t need you and outnumber you 1000:1, you are beyond fucked and it is worth it to ally with anyone in the same boat as you to keep that from happening.
Yep, exactly. The closest you can get is nationalist bourgeoisie in imperialized nations combatting Imperialist bourgeoisie of their oppressor nations, but even then you have compradors.
We arent arguing for moving away from capitalism
Why not? Billionaires didn’t appear out of nowhere, they are a product of the system that created them. If you aren’t getting rid of the system then you’re never going to get rid of the billionaires.
It has nothing to do with wanting to perpetuate capitalism, and everything to do with preventing massive collapse and ending hardship. The more radical the change argued for, the smaller the tent. We’re focused on big tent motivations, even if many of us are ancap, socialist, etc. We need a simple message that can unite even a socialist and a “fiscal conservative”
Its called incrementalism and more people stuffer while we ask for a 15$ minimum wage when the cost of living is 26$
People in my city were asking for, and passed, a $15 minimum wage like 10 years ago. It got struck down by the state government.
This community advocates for a $35/hr federal minimum wage, as that would bring the minimum wage earner to an appropriate point to afford a cost of living with healthy finances in 2025 in much of the country. The areas it would not meet COL in are those generally with stronger economies and higher wages already, so assumedly many wages would raise in those areas well above $35/hr once that is an enforced bottom line
Missing the forest for the trees. The amount of energy wasted calculating wheather a worker deserves a (vegan) cheese burger when we have enough for a million (vegan) cheese burgers outweights the cost of just giving out free (vegan) cheese burgers.
incrementalism just causes prolonged suffering.
Again, I can’t emphasize enough that the vast majority of people upvoting any of this most likely are far from ardent capitalists. I myself am certainly not.
But I am a realist as much as I am an idealist. As much as you say you have no patience for people that want to fix the tire and buy a new car, I think we struggle to understand the perspective of people such as yourself that would rather walk.
Quite literally if we do not rectify this particular issue none of us will be living to any kind of standard before long. Rich or poor. This movement is about buying time, putting food on the table, and putting roofs over heads. Not creating utopia
By no means are you required to be here if you do not agree. Youre wasting your time in trying to change the direction and purpose of this community to something less universal
Removed by mod
I don’t think there should be a maximum but there should be no end to maximum tax rates either. The first million should not be the hardest it should be the easiest and every bit after that should get progressively harder. Pro baseball players should not be playing t-ball.
IMO, there should be a maximum cap to wealth (not just income, but total wealth). Not only to reduce the opportunity for exploitation of others, but also so any one individual can’t be rich enough to control a government.
After a certain point, taxes should ramp up so high that making any more brings no benefit to the individual. They would be free to retire, fuck off, and give everyone else a chance to earn a living wage.
If wealth was not being hoarded as it continues to be, everyone would be better off.
thats exactly what I mean. The taxes should prevent getting to a certain amount essentially. The competition will have an advantage for whatever the excess is so that we naturally keep from having monopolies.
How can you claim to be an anti-billionaire society when you are in favor of the majority of billionaires?
Are you completely unconcerned with the political economy of having billionaires in the first place and only care about the ‘stagnant money’ they’re holding? An Andrew Beal can easily monopolize the politics of an entire state for the price of his passive income above inflation.
How are you going to accomplish literally anything in the face of that kind of domination?
We should snip the tip
Just the tip; no billio
Since I’m not seeing a lot of voices in support: Thank you. For the first time in a long time, this feels like an idea that has a chance of working.
Too many people online get wrapped up in their echo chambers, then are surprised that the average person doesn’t react well to the idea of complete societal collapse as a path forward.
If that’s a requirement for your plan for the future, you don’t have a true plan for the future.
For many, many years I’ve lived by the idea: “We don’t get to live in the world as it should be, we have to work to affect change in the world that is.”
Setting broad goals that work in the current flawed systems is how you do that.
Do I want UBI? Fuck yes. Do I want a better system than capitalism? Fuck yes. Do I want socialized healthcare and further socialozed systems for the benefit of all members of society? Fuck yes.
Do I think anything short of total, global, entire financial, technology, and societal collapse will cast off the yoke of capitalism within my lifetime or even in the lifetime of my potential grandchildren? No. I’m not even sure that would be enough to do it.
“Kill all who disagree” or “kill all of the old guard” is not an actionable plan.
Instead, this has bones as something that might be possible. Target the top of the top.
How ridiculous is it that we have people squabbling over relative tablescraps in the dumpster out back of the restaurant while ignoring the people feasting in the private room.
There are 2 issues here:
-
Nobody is asking for complete societal collapse for progress, not Marxists, not even Anarchists.
-
Having a goal but not a vehicle to achieve the goal is the core issue here. It’s fine and dandy to ask for a wealth tax, but what’s more important is being able to get that wealth tax. That’s why movements like the Bernie Sanders movement run into issues, they depend on asking a system resistant to change to go against its nature.
-
If we are headed towards societal collapse regardless in the current system, then the imperative should be to pick the most palatable alternative that can be quickly achieved to prevent societal collapse. Since societal collapse is the thing obviously no one wants.
-
The movement under Bernie Sanders also failed, much like the Occupy Wall Street movement, because they targeted the 1%. Targeting exclusively the 0.01%, the most gluttonous portion of society, is so targeted that it could actually garner support from enough people with money to work. Beyond that, the situation has only become more dire over time. People are buying groceries with Klarna now. The median rent is $2000. The rich must be aware that their customer base is wearing thin
-
Sure, I agree 100%. I think that path is actually revolutionary Socialism, because I believe that based on historical evidence, it is the surest way to actually bring about the desires of the working class.
-
I don’t think that the 1% will ally with the 99% against the .1%. Historically, such a movement hasn’t happened. Further, I don’t think money is the obstacle, but physical, material control of the processes of production. Mass strikes, labor organizing, and armed revolution all have had a great deal of success, and money played a far smaller role in their success than labor power. The rich are acutely aware of the fall in purchasing power, historically wages have been anchored to the cost of reproducing labor, ie keeping people alive to come back into work, and when that number falls below it’s necessity, wages recieve upward pressure. However, this is only up to a certain point, as the rate of profit has downward pressure, meaning Imperialism, itself a decaying system, is what props this up. Taxes alone, in my opinion, cannot save the system, only prolong it a bit more.
-
-
-
How much rare stuff is in a billionaire loot drop?
anywhere from 50-200k runes and a Remembrance.
lol 😂
Removed by mod
Again, I can’t emphasize enough that the vast majority of people upvoting any of this most likely are far from ardent capitalists. I myself am certainly not.
But I am a realist as much as I am an idealist. As much as you say you have no patience for people that want to fix the tire and buy a new car, I think we struggle to understand the perspective of people such as yourself that would rather walk.
Quite literally if we do not rectify this particular issue none of us will be living to any kind of standard before long. Rich or poor. This movement is about buying time, putting food on the table, and putting roofs over heads. Not creating utopia
By no means are you required to be here if you do not agree. Youre wasting your time in trying to change the direction and purpose of this community to something less universal
By no means are you required to be here if you do not agree.
You literally addressed this post to ‘the haters’
Yes, because a large number of people seem to misunderstand what we are about. If youre in, thats great. If youre out because you cant put your long term views for societal change aside to put weight behind something more immediate and actionable then that is unfortunate. No one is asking anyone to give up their affinity for a particular future, but the broad base message is the point of this community
I’ve read your essay with increasing attention three times now and it’s impossible to understand what you’re about because you spent the entire time speaking in metaphor. At no point did you come close to describing an actual plan of action. You only vaguely mentioned your goal being ‘a cap above 12B’.
The positions of this community are in the stickied post from less than 2 days ago. This community is hardly old enough that I figured it would not be necessary to reference them directly a day after they got written originally
i looked at your policy ideas and know exactly one millionaire who would fiercely reject your idea of a 35/hr min wage and rent cap. i live in a small town (smaller than Aspen, but not too far from it in setup or distance), and this particular millionaire gets “their” money through rental units and ownership of local businesses, the employees of which they’d be loathe to pay more per hour.
now i only know the one millionaire, and thru suffering their constant complaints about not having enough money (even as they are traipsing around the world more often than they are at home), know that convincing them to back this would definitely be a non-starter.
the other millionaires in this town i don’t personally know, the small, non-billionaire rich in this decimated, hollowed-out town, i still know thru their political actions.
historically and recently, they are united in their will, using their political influence to reduce the will of the people who live here full-time, increasing their own power.
they use that power to make sure no popular will affects their business interests. they happily import kids from other countries to work (J1s) rather than provide places for people to live or a wage to live on. as a result, there are almost no services left. this does not trouble them, they can drive or fly, and many vote because they own a second or third home here. yeah, they forced that thru a long time ago.
while i agree that the system is stupid and they should definitely see that, so too are these indolent millionaires a deeply ignorant, deeply disconnected lot. they might not even be dumb, as tempting as it would be to claim they are…most of em don’t even live here, they don’t care. their concerns don’t mirror ours and never will. if the town rotted to dust? they’d just move their assets elsewhere.
i just don’t see it, friend.
You should perhaps edit a link to that in this letter, since it’s clearly become your coming out party
Did you get directed here from not being a subscriber? I do apologize, I figured everyone seeing this were among the 130 subs
Would rather walk
What does this mean
Not creating utopia
What a weird thing to assume of your critics. What exactly are you going off here?
Removed by mod
Again, if you disagree so strongly with the point of this community you can feel free to leave
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
12 billion is way too much:
Duck Tales will show you why.
https://youtube.com/shorts/U-Fc4yuvgMQ
Every Level Of Wealth In 13 Minutes
this graph needs an X when Reagan went full trickle down economics
I’d love a link to that chart if possible :)
If you can make $100 billion dollars when you’re properly taxed, then it’s legitimate. Otherwise, we need a pesticide.
Fuck that. What does “legitimately taxed” even mean. IMO, any legitimate tax rate would be 100% well before an income of $1 Bil
Most billionaires are billionaires through assets and stock options, not direct income, because that would be taxed.
Beyond that, you don’t accumulate a billion dollars without ripping off a bunch of people along the way, employees, vendors, customers, consultants, partners, public services.
Exactly. They are unfairly taxed, therefore they came by their money acting like robber barons. Therefore, they should be treated as such. Legitimately taxed means they pay their fair share, plain and simple. They currently aren’t.
¿Porque no los dos?
