Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the world is poor.

This seems not conducive to the common wellbeing of humanity I think.

People might think that the extremity is a good thing as it will force change, which may be true, but realistically the world will be in for an extended period of conflict/war/suffering first and that period will probably last the rest of our lives.

Boomers hit that sweet spot. Now they get to check out as things are about to get real bad. Not that boomers everywhere in the world had it good. But a lot of them did.

60,000 is way to many. They need to be able to fit on a giga yacht.

The fact is money is relative. $100k USD is a lot of money in New Guinea and is not going to buy as much in London. This is why it is perfectly acceptable for someone like Thiel to assemble a private army with his wealth while people starve because they haven’t worked the grind correctly like Musk, Thiel or the Mountbatten-Windsors have /s.

It's gone from can't everyone just pay your fair share of taxes?

To can't we at least tax the rich?

How about just the 1%?

Ok..., how about just the 0.001%?

And then somehow conservatives leaders will convince a voter base to take to the streets with pitchforks and torches, claiming it's tyranny, then once they're elected, the leaders will still tax the fucking voter base.

Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

Remind me again how capitalism isn't the problem? lmao

I started to feel that’s a mathematical issue, not an economic issue. Since the internet is a thing, a person’s influence and wealth can increase exponentially(benefiting from the networking effect aka power law), while the best tax law can do is still linear.

We need a tax law that grows exponentially. After certain points, it should collect almost 100% of the “controllable assets” (assets you can control, not necessarily owed).

But of course, we will never get it. People who have the will to climb the ladder tend to have less empathy for the masses, and they need to pay back to their stakeholders to help them get on top. It’s another paradox we need to deal with.

TBH the only thing that can fix humanity is extraterrestrial life lol.

In the entire existence of humanity, class struggle still has yet to end.

Those puny little ants outnumber us 100 to 1. And if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life!

I feel like numbers at this point just are pointless. It's like, can we use vocabulary that actually describes the situation instead of updating this every time the decimal point shifts?

Describing it in terms of wealth is kind of dumb. It gives the idea that the systems that caused this (Imperialism, colonialism, capitalism) are the solution. Like, the global South just needs "investment". The numbers are this bad because of a century of western "investment" in its exploitation the global South.

There isn't a number attached to this that somehow fixes the problem when we reach it. This is about what essentially amounts to slavery and subjugation of the majority of this planet. The language of these news articles is so passive. Like it's describing the amount of stars in the galaxy.

Does that mean, in a theoretical world where wealth is by all means easily distributed, you’ve got a mere 0.001% that could triple the per-individual wealth of half of the worlds population—if we just took theirs and passed it out?

I’ve heard philosophers say, it’s a figure of authority’s continuous responsibility to justify its existence. Given, wealth is influence and influence is authority, should we not audit cases where wealth is so concentrated and ask ourselves question like ”how is this contributing to the benefit of all?”

I’d.argue, we shouldn’t allow such concentration of wealth in the first place—meaning there should be a preventative plan that Just Works. This can be compatible with whatever else you want, free markets or not. Be it a stronger progressive tax or a cultural change toward worker collectives owning the means to production, there just shouldn’t be such wealthy entities.

The concentration on wealth leads to concentration of influence, meaning politics and media. We’ve had a shrinking number of independent major news organizations since the 1980s. A 1983 analysis showed that about 50 companies “controlled more than half” of U.S. media. Today, there are estimates of a handful of people owning the vast majority. Not to mention, they can apparently choose to purchase massive Social Media platforms (like Twitter) immediately before an election.

Right now, though, we have this problem where such silos already exist. They use their influence, vast as it is, to protect and enrich themselves—PACs, Super PACs, gratuities, lobbying firms, and more recently meme coins. All acting as a conduit to influence politics and legislation. We can’t make progress while these issues continue to stand in our way, can we? So, what do you do?

Put a maximum net worth. Every dollar over it equals one punch to the kidneys.

according to a report that argues global inequality has reached such extremes that ugrgent action ha.cms become essential.

I guarantee you that that 0.001% agrees, there are too many of them, that should be 0.00001% instead

Fuck the rich!

I call for hard limits on personal networth and the worth of companies

No single person should be able to control more than 10M, companies shouldn't be worth over 1 billion

Anything over that, goes to taxes.

It's a single basic rule that requires more rules below for sure to ensure it works well, but this should be codified in a world wide constitution.

This way, nobody gets crazy amounts of money, nobody will have to be poor because the government will have a huge income that it can use for universal healthcare, education, universal basic income, etc...

Crime would go down the drain because nobody NEEDS to be a criminal anymore. There will still be a few anti social elements but good luck finding people wanting that life if they can just have a good, safe, and happy life.

Bribery and corruption? How even, and why take the risk?

There is no logical reason why anyone should have to be allowed to control this much wealth.

Investment companies must all be dismantled and all their funds transferred to independent non profit organisations that, again, won't be able to control more than over a billion. Government can transfer money to these foundations so that loads of people can have investments for startups or whatnot

We'd need similar simple rules for governments too. All governments must be democracies, and all should follow a world constitution where we have a few basic rules that make sure nobody will ever get too much power.

It doesn't require a lot of changes at the top. Basically these three rules, all the rest flows out of those rules. We can keep capitalism and use it's raw power to generate resources for everyone.

What this needs is political will, this needs people to want this, need this.

Suck on that 0.999% of the 1%!

That's 80'000 people vs. how much?

That's a crazy stat if true, maybe we should just tax those people.

What is to be done?

Nifty. Each person in that top 0.001% has the combined wealth of 68,333 people just to themselves. That's a whole ass city.

One of these 0.001% is valve ceo that many here on lemmy praise.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senator Bernie Sanders

Is there a digital collection that hosts propaganda images that are against the thieving wealthy?

we need to organize. seriously!

Visualized

No comments about the "accept all or reject all and subscribe" really says something about no one ever reading the article. And just to be clear, I'm in full agreement of how fucked this is. It just really stuck out to me. And I highly doubt everyone who commented used some extention, script or service to get past that, I feel pretty confident that almost none did. If most did at least one would have posted a link so everyone else could get the full article.

Its makes it sound like most people are lazy!

Wait.... most people are lazy... maybe thats why they arent successful?

/s btw...

Sorry to nitpick, but can someone pls explain how a specific subset of people collectively hold 3x(50% of humanities' wealth) - that totals 200% of a finite amount?

Just reject fiat and create your own 🤫