537
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mechoman444@lemmy.world 18 points 5 hours ago

I've often said we don't need billionaires. That when one reaches that milestone anything above $999,999,999 should be taken as taxes from that person.

When I say this people often become defensive saying that the government shouldn't be able to dictate how much wealth one person can accumulate. (It also happens that many of these people are prolife but that's neither here nor there.) Often times comparing this action to communism which of course it isn't.

The issue of course is that many people don't understand what a billion of anything is. The human brain can't comprehend such massive numbers. But nevertheless, there are people that are approaching the trillion dollar mark a number even further removed from a billion by several magnitudes.

Should there be billionaires. Probably not... What do you think?

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 3 points 32 minutes ago

I think all the talk about billionaires is using a completely arbitrary number and subject to inflation. Wealth inequality is the big problem, it doesn't matter what number on their bank account is.

[-] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 3 points 1 hour ago

The problem is that they have enough independence to just cross borders and easily pay for new citizenship if it suits them. It would have to be a world wide movement. It's impossible, or at least would only be possible within some mythical completely self-sufficient country that could withstand their meddling.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

My solution:

Your tax burden is your tax burden. If it's 15% and you run off to a country where it's 5% to avoid taxes, that's fine. You can pay them 5%.

But you're still on the hook for the remaining 10%.

If the 5% country tries to act as a tax haven and refuses to enforce the remaining 10%, they get a national embargo until they get in line.

[-] audaxdreik@pawb.social 3 points 2 hours ago

I was thinking about this the other day, one of my favorite analogies is seconds.

A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is ............ 31,688 years.

The analogy already breaks down, because while most people could understand 12 days and a lot of adults can understand 31 years for having lived it (some even twice or more!), 31,688 years is completely incomprehensible again. How many human generations is that? All of recorded human history is only like 5,000 years. It's utterly, mind-numbingly insane. No trillionaires, ever! No billionaires!!!

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/business/elon-musk-richest-person-trillionaire/index.html

This was published on September 17th of this year, after most of the nonsense of Twitter and utter things. He's still on track, by 2027 no less. There's no telling how directly and flagrantly he'll benefit from a Trump win, either.

[-] spongebue@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

My favorite is "do you know the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire? About a billion dollars"

Like, being a millionaire is a pretty sweet spot to be in if you're lucky enough. Not quite like a millionaire of decades ago but still good. But if you're a billionaire, a million dollars is basically a rounding error.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 27 points 10 hours ago

Oddly enough, the same people that wouldn’t want a maximum wage also don’t want a minimum wage. Go figure!

[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 53 points 15 hours ago

Because making 400k/yr by sitting on a pile of assets and living a low-cost life in a paid-off small-town cottage is not the same as making 400k/yr as a debt-saddled surgeon renting in a high-cost city center, so targeting income instead of wealth gets us farther from a fairer economy.

Next question.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 9 points 7 hours ago

Lets put that maximum at $10M/month (or year). Now your counter argument doesn't work any more.

[-] piecat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

I think we should be setting these max/min wages as relative values, not absolute values. Otherwise we have to pass laws every time the min wage needs to be adjusted. And we'll end up with stagnation.

For example, a person's wage can only be X% higher than the lowest wage of someone a step below them in hierarchy. Including contractors and suppliers so they can't skirt or find loopholes.

There still might be some haywire incentives that require more thought, but it should hopefully encourage labor to be valued at an appropriate proportion of value. Either everyone makes good money, or nobody does.

Should also probably deincentivize layoffs, stock buybacks, etc. at the cost of shareholder earnings / value.

[-] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago

The people who make that kind of money don't make it through wages but other compensation.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Yes, so block that at a maximum rate (too)?

[-] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

I am not an accountant but from what I know, taxing stuff like compensation in the form of stocks is pretty hard to do.

I'm not disagreeing with you, the system is just rigged in favor of very wealthy people.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

You just make it illegal to compensate in this form. Problem solved.

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

the system is just rigged in favor of very wealthy people

I think that's the whole point we're trying to change in this discussion. 👍

[-] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Oh for sure, it's just going to be a really long uphill battle as long as the current liberal system is in place.

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago

I don't have any faith in any reform happening with wealth in any country. Money is too powerful to change anything at the top. 😔 So in that sense, a very long battle indeed. 😞

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Not with that attitude ;-)

[-] yankocidesoon@lemmings.world 0 points 6 hours ago

So when the yankocide starts where will you hide?

[-] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

shut up dork

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 12 hours ago

Next question, why did you immediately go to 400k? Why not 1 million? If you make a million dollars then you've made half the average lifetime earnings of a worker. Double question, if we capped earnings at 400k, would school lenders not take that into account?

I think a maximum yearly income, including any money you could conceivably spend for personal use, would be a wonderful idea. It would certainly put a damper on being a billionaire if you know you could never actually get more than about a hundred million dollars in your life. Just literally running the score up at that point.

[-] krashmo@lemmy.world 15 points 14 hours ago

Ok sure, but if you frame the conversation to mean the limit would be set at $400k/year then you're missing the point. We're talking billionaires not single digit millionaires. Despite how those numbers sound to the average person there's several orders of magnitude between them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 27 points 16 hours ago

If the minimum wage was a comfortable living wage


like it should be, in my and many other folks' opinion


then it wouldn't matter. One person's excess isn't a problem, unless it's at the expense of someone else (which, you know, is kinda the case...).

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 8 points 6 hours ago

A handful of people’s excess is exactly the problem.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 13 hours ago

Even if it’s not at the expense of someone else, too much wealth in the hands of one person is still harmful. It gives one person too much power over others, allows for people to buy their way out of legal trouble, buy politicians, etc.

[-] Godort@lemm.ee 109 points 20 hours ago

Is it because the people that we need to worry about don't get paid massive wages? Instead they leverage their massive stock ownership as collateral for loans. And stock bonuses are not regulated or taxed in the same way as real wages.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

They borrow against their stocks tax free. The system they have created is perverse and should be illegal.

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 58 points 19 hours ago

I'd be fully supportive of a "maximum wealth" limit.

[-] Atropos@lemmy.world 41 points 19 hours ago

What we need to do is implement "prestige wealth". Once you hit, say, 100m you get your assets sold in order to fund a UBI, but you get a nice pin that marks your achievement.

Every time you prestige, you get a new pin, but the color of the pin changes.

[-] Tower@lemm.ee 27 points 17 hours ago

"You win! 🥳"

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago

I'm totally cool with rewarding people for making a bunch of money and giving it back to the people. Hell, make each prestige cooler. You find 100 billion in taxes? We'll build you a little statue. You fund 1 trillion dollars in taxes? You get to be on a coin or some shit. Really put these greedy fucks incessant need for attention to work.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
537 points (96.1% liked)

Work Reform

9856 readers
908 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS