860
Do you agree with this? (lemmy.zip)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
176 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 78 points 5 months ago (28 children)

Of course but I go further and want to outlaw anyone to "earn" a billion dollars. Think wealth should be capped at 100 million everything after that seize and used for the greater good.

And if a corporation gains a value cap of billion it is broken the fuck up into smaller companies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    $100m is still far more than one person could ever need. Why draw an arbitrary line at all? Why not use what's required to have a fair society as the starting point, and let the inability to accumulate such absurd levels of wealth derive naturally from that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I agree but first we need to start somewhere. To do what you are suggesting we need to destroy all billionaires and capitalism. That will take violence that the left just cant grasp unfortunately.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I also agree, but in order to outlaw anyone "earning" a billion dollars we would also still need to destroy all billionaires and capitalism. It seems the only way we can change this will take violence that the left just cant grasp unfortunately.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Yea. When you're so rich you could just not work a single other day in your life and still spend 10x a normal working class human would spend is where I'd cut it and make them pay out their asses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    capping at a hard number doesn't make sense when 100 million today means something different tomorrow. it should be relative to the cost of living. Anything over 200x cost of living could be considered not needed. But Republicans can't do math so back to square 1.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Why even have money its kind of a klunky bullshit abstraction

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    I get currency as a fundamental concept, like I don't want to spend all day figuring out how many pints of goat's milk will power my car for X miles, but I agree that it's become far too abstract to be tenable

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    That's not how shit worked before money the need for precise tracking rather than general damn erins been carrying the whole neighborhood pretty hard and what has Steve even for anybody lately and how do I get Hector back for that cup of flour he spotted me in a way that will make him smile type thoughts a society that runs on making things work or making people happy runs better than a society that deliberately grinds to a halt every five seconds based on petty obsessive grievance adjacent bullshit believe it or not

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    100 million is a bit low. There are privately held companies worth more than that because of infrustructure cost alone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Then it needs to be run as a public service since it relies on the public infrastructure, run and provided at cost just like the rest of the government runs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago

    If you want communism then just say that instead you of playing number games.

    The issue with the 100 million figure is that it's not a large amount of capital. It's sounds like a lot because we're all wage slaves.

    Thinking our problems are solved by outlawing our master's ownership of the castle is how we expose ourselves as fools.

    The castle isn't the problem, it's that average wages should be far far greater. A six figure income should be the minimum wage of the educated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    To bad to goddamn bad 100 million is being generous.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I love that you're just standing on this number staunchly lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    100 million is already an absurd amount of money that allows one to live out their entire life throwing money at all their whims without ever worrying about running out. The only way to go broke is by seeking out ways to spend it all.

    The fact that billionaires exist is insane.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago*

    I feel like we're conflating individual, personal wealth with corporate valuations in this thread. Yeah, 100 million is way more than enough for a single person obviously, but for a corporation it's tough to even say what that amount means.

    If we're still even doing corporations, I feel they should be evaluated and tracked by the proper authorities (aka, we the people) and given the appropriate treatment based on what that entity existing even entails.

    If we decide your corporation is a net benefit to society, maybe we'll relax things a bit. If you give up top-down hierarchy, turn your org over to the workers, and provide something that enhances the public good, maybe we let you cook, ya know? But know that the people are always watching and reporting in.

    Conversely, if we decide your little corporate fiefdom is a leech, yeah, we're going to keep you on a short fuckin leash, you'll be under the microscope and progressively taxed and picked apart until that entity dies, unless and until you clean up your act and keep it clean long enough - then you get to play with the big dogs that are doing it right and allowed to exist and even thrive.

    I'd rather see no corporations at all, at least not in their current form, but this doesn't seem too bad as an intermediate step on the way there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    you put earn in quotes because i think you know they dont usually earn a billion. so what exactly are you trying to stop?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    He's putting it in quotes because no one has ever earned a billion dollars, because it's not possible for a person to do one billion dollars worth of labor. If they have accumulated a billion dollars (or a billion dollars in assets), they've done it by taking it from others.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Exactly and I was being kind leaving them with 100 million. Beyond that I want to bring out the gulitions. Because hoarding that much wealth is a mental disorder with no cure. These fuckers will never get enough.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Wealth hoarding and exploitation

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    to be clear - i agree something needs to be done but nobody can define specifically what to do. how do you define it? what exactly are you taxing? how are you taxing it?

    my argument, is that its a hard problem. bernie sanders is the only person i see coming up with ideas.

    i can't. its easy to say "billionaires must be stopped" but how? specifically, exactly what.

    to give an example. what is wealth hoarding? how do you define it so it doesnt cover savings accout or retirement?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    If your retirement account has $100,000,000 in it, it needs to be taxed. Tax capital gains income like regular income and put some progressively higher tax brackets back, a progressive wealth tax, progressive taxes for homes worth more than a certain amount, and higher rates for second, third, etc homes, and hell, maybe even tax unrealized gains over a certain amount.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent