top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 286 points 1 year ago (3 children)

He’s absolutely right. Billionaires should not exist.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Wealth concentration is bad for everyone but the wealthy. https://inequality.org/facts/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    IDK even they don't seem happy. Elon seems fucking miserable. I mean, I don't feel bad for them, but knowing that literally everyone thinks the world would be a better place without you can't feel great.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 218 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager who has backed President Donald Trump in the past, on Thursday pledged to use his money to bankroll a challenger to Mamdani in the general election.

    Case in point.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 79 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    And how did he get those billions? How many peoples necks did he have to step on to climb his way up. It's not so much what you do with your billions, it's how you got them that makes you evil. The only exception to this is probably Bezos ex wife, maybe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago

    She was working for a hedge fund when she met him and they were married for 26 years. She may have given away $19 billion of her fortune, but her net worth is still $36 billion, the same as the original divorce settlement.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This might induce me to donate to Mamdani’s campaign. I live in fucking Illinois btw.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 83 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Damnit Zohran... I can only get sooo hard...

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    This needs to become the mainstream opinion. Billionaires and ultra wealthy shouldn't exist. There is no trickling down or any of that stolen wealth coming back into the hands of average people.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    They will just live in other countries if being a billionaire is illegal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    It doesn't matter where they live. If the US exerts pressure on whatever country the money is in they can and would get that money back. They're somehow able to freeze the accounts of Russian oligarchs so they's no reason to believe they couldn't do it with Bezo as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    That's fine, billionaires do not add to an economy, they drain it. So if they leave it will remove a useless burden on the economy and whatever country is dumb enough to take them in can deal with them instead. Meanwhile, if they are pulling money from our country we can find ways to tax it and prevent them from draining our resources (and yes, money is a resource like any other).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Lol, no. This is a strawman argument. Billionaires will absolutely not give up their precious connections and real estate to live on a private island or move away. Even if 50% would do that (lmao never) the tax would still be a huge benefit. Even without the money, not having these greedsacks meddling with local politics and laws would be a dream.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 67 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Here in the UK 78% of people support a 2% wealth tax on net assets worth more than £10 million yet our spineless neoliberal government is more focused on cutting disability benefits and bombing starving children.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Can't they just get around a tax like that by borrowing cash (for their lifestyle) and using their assets as collateral?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I'm actually against a wealth tax, but think one of the only ways that taking their unrealized assets can work is if we do as you suggest.

    If you own stock in something, taxing unrealized gains isn't good. it's not like were going to pay them for unrealized losses.

    But we MUST stop them from being able to actualize those unrealized gains without taxing them like when they use their unrealized assets as collateral. It's like a loophole for the ultra wealthy where they can just borrow against their assets for their entire life without paying taxes on it.

    And really... who cares if this way might be more expensive to do, they're rich as fuck, and can pay for it as part of that tax. Also assets can be very nebulous and hard to know what they actually have. But when you see that new house, new yacht, donation to a SPAC or whatever, the IRS can come knocking and be like how'd you pay for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    It will lead to more dark money. It's very hard to accurately measure a persons net worth when their financials aren't just a house and an IRA like the average person. Especially if they don't want you to see it. You'll never be able to implement that tax in a consistent way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Yes, that's the current situation, thanks for pointing that out. I don't think people understand how much tax evasion they do, for instance as of 2016 there was £36 TRILLION in offshore tax havens, UK GDP is £25 trillion for comparison. Murder in the first degree can get you prison for life, but letting countless people die from poverty related issues at home while getting rich off of starving and killing kids overseas makes you a billionaire. Why do we accept that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    law is inherently flawed and easily manipulated by clever sociopaths. chaotic good FTW. let there be guillotines and morally sound citizens and nothing more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago*

    Laws are written to be manipulated, that's why European culture uses laws and words as weapons, for European culture loves words to be twisted. This is why the "truth" always changes in the European mind, look no further than their use of "treaties" or "truces" or their fad-politics. Whether it's far-right capitalism or left-wing socialism, I fail to see the difference when they both rely on "production at all costs" at the expense of our natural world and turning our habitable environments into gravel pits and uranium mines all in the name of "productivity." The global south, or "third world", and natural peoples will all be capitalist workerbees or socialist proletarian under the European death-cult of "productivity" as they call it; I call it a culture of suicide with a medieval religious devotion to their faith except now it's shifted to science, technology, and money - just another example of how the truth always changes. They're incapable of any real thought, incapable of simply appreciating the magic of nature to admire a lake or mountain or people in being, and most of all they cannot listen unless the world around them is despiritualized into mechanical models and dead symbols written on dead leaves.

    To me I don't see the shift towards left-wing, even the death of capitalism, to be revolutionary. It may be yet another revolution for the European mind, but to the rest of the world it's merely a continuation. In order for humanity to live in harmony with nature, European culture must die.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Thing is, that ability to evade that is intentionally built in. It has to be. We have KYC laws here and anything over 10K is tracked.

    The fact that the ultrawealthy are able to manipulate money in ways so that it's not tracked and/or not taxed has to be by design.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 121 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Wholly agreed. There are no ethical billionaires. Fight me.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 219 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Nobody asked me, but I agree with him.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Even the billionaires would be better off without billinaires. It their relative ranking was the same they would still have more money than they could spend but it would now come with clean air, water, land, better infrastructure, a healthier world, happier people to interact with.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 98 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Imagine life was a game. You lived for 2025 years. You worked 260 days / year. You made the median US salary.

    You would need to relive that process 3,145 times to match an Oligarch.

    That amount of wealth is unethical while humanity suffers. No one can really fathom “1b dollars.”

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Once you go beyond $100,000,000, there is no measurable difference in lifestyle. However, power accumulates. That amount of power shouldn't be in the hands of so few.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I would disagree, 100 millionaires don't own F1 teams or have boats so large and so much money they can take down bridges to get them out of port.

    The problem is people like myself and many other can't fathom even desiring things so absurd... And many of these billionaires won't rest until they own the entire world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    You’re right, of course. I think it’s more like there isn’t much of an upgrade in lifestyle in general. Sure, it’s an order of magnitude more wealth, but you can do basically all of the most luxurious things in life.

    For most luxury, you’re staying at the same presidential suite and driving the same car and that kind of thing. It’s not diminishing returns necessarily. I dunno.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago

    Lmao that's because we shouldn't have billionaires

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago

    He is right.

    Imagine a "billionaire" in the wild: An animal sitting on a vast horde of food that it could never eat while others starved around it ... yea, it would not last long.

    Imagine a "billionaire" in a living body. A corporate money making entity would basically be a cancer that had to be removed to save the life of the patient.

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The wealth of the rich is still growing and it will continue to grow automatically until the middle class ceases to exist. If we do not take the assets back, it will become impossible for normal working people to ever buy a house, or have any economic power over their own lives at all - nevermind the political control or the media manipulation.

    Extreme wealth concentration is THE biggest issue facing society. Mamdani is absolutely right.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 79 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Mamdani added in his response: “I have already had to start to get used to, get used to the fact that the president will talk about how I look, how I sound, where I’m from, who I am, ultimately, because he wants to distract from what I’m fighting for, and I’m fighting for the very working people that he ran a campaign to empower, that he has since then betrayed.”

    Goddamn, this reads like a response that came from a real socialist playbook. Don't take the bait on the culture war bullshit, say it's distraction from helping workers. Wow.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Based as fuck. The fact that the establishment players disagree is extremely telling.

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    He's going to be assassinated, isn't he?

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago

    Nah, the mainstream media will just stop reporting on him, the social media algorithms will be tweaked to hide him, and when it comes to the election, people will go "Ugh, who is that Muslim sounding guy? I'm voting for Barron Trump."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Mossad, Maga fascists, NYPD, All the billionaires all gonna be chomping at the bit to kill this guy to set an example.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Then do surprise-Pikachu-face.jpg when the same is done against them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Popular American politician starts saying radical but good things tends to end in a certain way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    If you live in the past and your mindset got a little fucky. Off base.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Two US Democratic state* senators from Minnesota were just assassinated by a MAGAt impersonating a cop who carried with him a hit list of 50 other senators he was going to kill. This is not outside the realm of possibilities in this day and age.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Two US Democratic senators were just assassinated

    Which Senators?

    Edit: Looked it up, appears to be State Rep. Hortman (was confused as 'US Senator' means Senator to the federal Senate, not state-level House representative). Can't find a second assassination though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    "Hey, we may have assassinated non-white people in the past for saying communist things, but we've totally changed now!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Totally? No changing? Yes. Be positive be real be changed for the better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Umm, it's not a moral failing to highlight historical facts. A historian of WWII Nazism is not, in fact, a Nazi. There is real historical precedence for the idea that radical ideas for social change has been met with smears and, if unsuccessful, real violence against the leader(s) of that social change.

    Whether his ideas are successful, or not, the powers that run the world will stop at nothing to prevent their loss of power. I fail to see how pointing out that fact, and hoping this time is different while acknowledging that history, is somehow some moral failing of the OP of this comment chain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago

    This guy sounds pretty based!

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    One of my favorite hypotheticals is that once someone gets to a billion money they get a trophy that says "I won capitalism" and anything over the limit goes to folk who need it.

    Knowing greed, people would certainly find ways around it, but a gal can dream

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    In a fantasy world I'd go even further to say if you amass $1 billion in wealth you have it all taken away. So either you consistently give away your wealth to keep it below that level or pray that you helped build a society where losing it all isn't a death sentence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    One of my favorite hypotheticals is that once someone gets to a billion money they get a trophy that says “I won capitalism” and anything over the limit goes to folk who need it.

    And they name a dog park after you. That part is crucial.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    One cannot reign innocently: the insanity of doing so is evident. Every king is a rebel and a usurper.

    -Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, 1792

    Or, put in modern terms: There is no such thing as an innocent billionaire.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Alright, now I HAVE to donate to his campaign.

    Here's the link for those who need to do the same after hearing this: https://www.zohranfornyc.com/

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›