He’s absolutely right. Billionaires should not exist.
Wealth concentration is bad for everyone but the wealthy. https://inequality.org/facts/
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.
And one of the reasons why there’s so much more wealth inequality now is what conservatives have done to the tax code. Take a loot at this chart on the highest tax bracket over time.
Nobody asked me, but I agree with him.
Do you think we should have billionaires?
Now he can add “Endorsed by PoopSpiderman” on his campaign website.
Not a common endorsement.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
“Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don’t hesitate to step on them.” -Rule of acquisition #211
Grand Nagus Rom: “We invented elevators for a reason.”
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.
lol. I don’t think she is as innocent as you make it seem 😂
Hence the maybe at the end. I always use qualifiers MOST of the time so I can weasel out of any statement I make.
So you just make sweeping nonsense statements, maybe.
This might induce me to donate to Mamdani’s campaign. I live in fucking Illinois btw.
I absolutely am
I live nowhere near NYC and I donated.
Tbf, that’s one of the better states on workers rights issues.
Honestly, even if you think billionaires should exist, it’s still the most logical action for Mamdani to oppose them as billionaires will do everything to stop him.
They should have one of these next to each city-owned grocery store.
“Here at Zohran Grocers, we’re chopping prices down to size! Don’t lose your heads over these great deals!”
BBQ?
Wholly agreed. There are no ethical billionaires. Fight me.
Nope! What you said is perfectly acceptable in polite society and in fact I agree. We should hang out sometime maybe.
guillotine and chill?
Jesus said it best
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
No.
ethics should mean infants are innocent until they perform actions, yet if the infants parents were billionaires and died the infant would be a billionaire without performing any action.
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.”
Centrists already hated him, and now he said their gods shouldn’t exist.
“Centrist” is just a masquerade for Republicrats to pretend to still be on the left.
Just because the US has only 2 real options to vote for doesn’t mean people can have different opinions. It isn’t for nothing that in a country like The Netherlands we have like 40 parties, including centre parties.
I’m pro LGBTQ, anti-israel, against consumerism/capitalism, pro socialism. Pro government control on key infrastructure (water, gas, electricity) and better housing and support services. Pro climate policies, pro taxing the rich.
But I’m also against fossil fuel bans, against bans on firearms, pro military for defence, pro free-speech, pro strict immigration, against ‘PC’ culture, against trans-women in women’s sports, pro merit success.
Am I left or right? …Or centrist?
I’m pro LGBTQ
against trans-women
Right
In women’s sport, I just don’t think it’s fair to women to compete against trans-women* who are stronger than them. I only beleive that out of fairness, but I think people have every right to do what they want with their bodies and be accepted for who they are.
Where another person’s rights begin, another’s ends type of thing.
** EDIT: Clarifycation of ‘trans-women’ at the astrick, was just ‘women’ before
You’re right, it’s completely unfair for women to compete against women who are stronger than them. For the weightlifting they should test every woman’s strength, and only the weakest woman competes. That’s fair.
and,
We definitely shouldn’t let trans women compete in women’s chess, because of the biological advantage/s
That is not what I am saying. You’re trying to make an enemy out of me when I am not, it’s almost a strawmans argument you just made.
https://womeninsport.org/transgender-inclusion-womens-sport/
After 12 months: In studies which recorded the retained muscle mass/strength, there was an average of 25% residual advantage for transgender women at 12 months treatment compared with reference a group of females. After 12 months of testosterone suppression, transgender women remained 48% stronger, with 35% larger quadriceps mass compared with the control population of females. After more than two years of follow-up on testosterone suppression recent research citing retrospective data from military personnel in the US has shown that transgender women retain an advantage in running speed, at a residual of some 12% faster than the known normative values for females.
What is your opinion on this, truely? This organisation literally supports trans-women being in sport but has to admit that they are uniquely stronger and faster than born-women. It’s an unfortunate reality but I personally believe that we can support transgender women without disenfranchising born-women. I’m just being pragmatic about it.
And for clarifycation, I don’t think there should be classes in chess.
There are a number of other genes linked to athletic outcomes that are way more influential than “12% above average”. Steroid usage is rampant in top teir sports for instance and people with like genetic kidney conditions that overproduce some hormones have a far greater advantage.
The people doing the sports should be making the rules about sports, not a bunch of armchair theorists with calipers. Most the guys who have A LOT OF OPINIONS on how to gatekeep womens sports don’t actually watch any women’s sports.
That is not what I am saying.
No, it is what you said. It’s just not what you mean. It’s not my fault the two are separate. It’s your responsibility to speak clearly if you don’t want the silly things you say to be mocked.
I’m pro LGBTQ
against trans-women in women’s sports
No, you’re not pro lgbtq. You’re a TERF at best
against consumerism/capitalism, pro socialism. Pro government control on key infrastructure (water, gas, electricity) and better housing and support services. (…) pro taxing the rich
pro merit success
??? Do you understand what any of those words mean? “Pro merit success” directly contradicts each of the social policies you claim to support.
Pro climate policies
I’m also against fossil fuel bans
You’re either lying about one of these or you somehow think we can stop climate change without stopping the most significant cause of climate change?
Does the complete lack of internal consistency in your worldview not bother you at all? You have no defined political leaning, you have a bunch of emotionally driven contradictory political opinions that you clearly have little to no understanding of.
Given that description, I’d guess you probably call yourself a centrist and vote conservative.
Or some people just have nuanced opinions and see that topics can be multiple shades of grey instead of either white or black.
Contradiction isn’t nuance
There is no contradiction.
Not wanting trans-women in sports doesn’t make you not support LGBT. T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women’s leagues are a subset of that.
You can reward people based on accomplishments and also tax the rich. You can also have social programs while still rewarding them.
You can improve the environment without a complete ban of fossil fuels.
T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women’s leagues are a subset of that.
Wow that’s revealing more than you probably wanted.
Nah, this is just a contrarian contest.
Contrarian about what? Who are the contestants? I don’t understand your comment.
Thank you for understanding!
Dead wrong, I’ve always voted left. And yes, I do consider myself a centrist, that’s exactly why I commented because I think the ‘you’re either with us or against us’ mentality is doing more damage than it helps.
I’m only against trans-women competing against women because they would have a competitive advantage. I’m even for athletes using hormones, stereroids and drugs in sport (in seperate divisions perhaps) and then the rules on who is in who’s class can really be thought out properly, but currently most trans-women have a clear advantage based on current sport (and biological) evidence. I don’t think it’s fair competition is all. I know some pretty cool trans people and one of them even admits to similar feelings of it being unfair.
I’m pro social policies because I think everyone deserves a roof over their head, food, water and basic amenities. But I’m also pro merit purely to reward people to achieve more and be better. Some people will never be as capable as others are but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have a basic living standard. Something like UBI would be a perfect solution to my understanding. I’m not American but when Bernie Sanders was a candidate I was rooting for him.
Pro climate because we need to fix it and fast, we do way to much damage to the environment. Against outright bans on fossil fuels because we simply are not there yet. My country is unfortunately nowhere near renewable and our outback has hardly any electricity, we need fuels to do anything out there. Trucks, trains and ships sometimes can’t work without it. Not to mention that lithium although amazing is causing more greenhouse gases mining and refining it than what electric cars are offsetting. Electric cars literally aren’t doing anything because the batteries die before they make up for their production. Carbon batteries are coming but mass production is difficult to scale. Cargo ships emit around a quater of all green house gasses and I personally think thats where we could really cut down on it by either fitting cargo ships with nuclear reactors which some military vessels have or just reducing consumerism. Currently most CO2 emissions is from electricity of which in most countries (such as mine) residential makes up only about 10%. The onous is not so much on the individual person but on companies and business, we need more incentives/punishments for corporations to be more considerate.
Almost no issue is black or white. I do have defined political beliefs, I think most people oversimplify or don’t research topics before forming an opinion. And there there are people like the one I originally commented to who have turned politics and world issues into binary division, where instead of educating they attack and insult.
What is emotionally driven here?
And what do I have little understanding of?
You’re in the wrong place to present nuanced opinion in long form. I love the independence of Lemmy from the large corporations (likely astroturfing aside), but this place swings the Overton window back to the left so hard it breaks without any acceptance of different nuanced ideas. It’s as though the life you’ve lived and the subtleties that governed it are irrelevant.
Of course this develops the mindset that trying to engage is mostly pointless, which I’ve adopted, because ultimately these are all just words on a screen with no real connection to the person behind them either way. You can’t sway them and they don’t respect your attention to minutiae.
Yeah I’m really starting to notice this exactly. It’s sad to think that you either disengage or get unwarranted abuse hurlded towards you from every direction.
Maybe just getting off the internet entirely is the better option.
I liked your reference of the Overton window though haha
Gonna be honest, I’m not reading that slop. You open by telling me that I’m dead wrong, then immediately confirming that my guess as to your political leaning was half correct, which sets a very clear tone that you’re here to mudwrestle on the internet rather than engage in a discussion. If you want to try again I’ll talk to you, but I’m not interested in trading novels high on insults and low on reading comprehension with you.
Of all the things in your comment, getting right the “you probably call yourself a centrist” is the least significant part. You’re wrong in all the rest of your comment, which is the actually important part.
Whether someone calls themselves left, right or center is way less important than the policies they support.
Because guess what. You can’t fit the entire world in 3 political buckets and expect everyone in each bucket to have the same opinion as everyone else on that bucket.
As I said in another comment. The world is not black and white. There’s lots of shades of grey.
And each person has a different combination of shades of grey for each political topic.
I assumed being centrist was already clear.
Mudwrestle? I’m here to make a point, that not everything is back and white, left or right. But if you don’t want to discuss, fine by me. I didn’t insult you once so your insult is quite hypocritical and immature infact.
It sort of looks like you’re broadly supportive of progressive causes, but don’t support progressives in the actual “battles” that are being “fought”. The clearest example is you being “Pro climate policies”, but “against fossil fuel bans”. Basically, you want things to get better, but you don’t want things to be done to make them better. You want peace and quiet more than you progress, and you’re willing to cede basically all current issues to regressives in order get it. Of course, if regressives win, they’ll just want something else. And you’ll cede that to them too.
In summary: you’re pathetic.
Let’s take the obvious “Pro military for defense” first since that’s the most insane thing to think is a contentious political issue.
There are 30% of people in the US that think aliens are real and have visited their asshole but you will not find 5% of people in america that oppose the military as a concept.
What you’re doing here is being manipulated by people who want you to think some of these things are Important Issues™
The trans women in sports is a great example of propaganda. It was cooked up by a conservative think tank. How many people are affected by this “problem”? Maybe 200? And in most cases sports organizations themselves often have rules in place like “how long you’d have to have been on hormone therapy to qualify.” That is already more or less a solved problem for most the people it actually affects. People playing sports didnt come up with the “trans people in sports issue”, a think tank did.
So what you are …is manipulated by think tanks and propaganda and in a way that causes you to oppose people who otherwise have common interests with you.
There’s only two real political philosophies and they can be summed up as “fuck you, I got mine” and “we’re all in this together.” I will tell you right now only the “fuck you, I got mine” group has any real interest in dehumanizing people by say, having the government ban trans people from public spaces and public activities like sports.
but you will not find 5% of people in america that oppose the military as a concept.
Thats just your speculation. And do you mean people oppose the US having any military at all? 90% of the countries have a standing army, and the ones that dont are mostly small island countries.
Why is that the line you draw?
And yet the comments and downvotes shows how contentious it is which I knew it would be when I wrote it.
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Personally I agree with you. I always vote left and am more of a “we’re in in together” mindset.
Either way, thank you for you insight!
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Not to surprising, since it is a standpoint that lays the foundation for oppressing and dehumanising one of the most vulnerable groups if society.
First it was just Trans people in sport, then it is trans people in bathrooms and the next step is eradicating trans peoples existence from public spaces.
Which is very sad and I’m not for that.
The only point I was making was for fair competition in women’s sport, and broader still that centrist exist with non black and white opinions.
I believe we are as a society, getting better at accepting people. In my country we’re decently accepting I think, although there is still the intolerant person here and there. Overall I do hope one day everyone is accepting of everyone else.
Thanks for your thoughts though.
centrist exist with non black and white opinions.
On the internet?! Impossible!|
The only point I was making was for fair competition in women’s sport
Which you don’t seem to have researched, or you would have known about the standards already in place to keep competition fair.
And yet the comments and downvotes shows how contentious it is which I knew it would be when I wrote it.
Probably extra contentious because it’s trans discrimination on Pride weekend. And there’s the fact that some research (backed by the International Olympic Committee) suggests that trans-women may perform worse than cis-women.
Even if more research comes out that shows otherwise (entirely possible considering that it’s hard to get a decent sample population of elite trans athletes as there are so few), discrimination is not a solution. The simplest solution would be to get rid of gendered leagues and group athletes by measureable athletic abilities. Probably would make most people with an actual vested interest happy, with exception of those who want to keep paying women less.
Oh wow, I did not know that! For both points. It’s great to see more research, I skimmed a little but I’ll read it right after this comment.
I like the idea of athletes competing against one another purely to see who is best overall. But I’d be worried that could possibly be more discriminatory. Such as in bouldering there was recently a controversial issue with a short climber not being able to compete in some climbs due to certain starting holds being too far apart. So something like weight classes but that considers a lot more depending on the sport?
Thanks so much for your reply and your linked study! I’m really happy for comments like yours.
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Says the person who brought it up.
It was simpily an argument for me being centrist and therefore legitimate centrist existing.
It clearly worked in demonstrating what a centrists opinions are like and no one has so far argued I fall on one side or the other.
Sure. just bring up divisive right wing talking points. And then call yourself a centrist.
It tracks.
That’s basically the Lib-Right/“Libertarianism”
Edit: Actually I don’t think that’s Libertarian. Its like mix of Libertarian and Auth-Right values
Am I left or right? …Or centrist?
Judging by the down-votes : not-left.
On trans athletes: it’s a non-issue.
On guns: these three videos always spring to mind.Can you substantiate the remainder of your last paragraph a bit?
Those are some great linked videos.
I agree with a lot of points in the video on trans-athletes. I wonder if the meta-study that I’ve been refering to was one of the studies mentioned, and there certainly needs to be more research into the topic to settle the matter for good. I think social and low stake competition should most certainly be non restricted especially for kids, the fact they are restricted in some places is obscene. But I’m still on the fence with professional and Olympic level sports. The part that currently holds me back from changing stance, is how many Olympic sports have either banned or heavily restricted participation. Perhaps they are in the wrong themselves but I suspect they are being cautious until more studies have confirmed one way or the other. Overall, I certainly don’t hold my view in high regard and I’m just waiting for more evidence, but like I said, anything other than professional or Olympic shouldn’t be restricted at all, any strength difference there is negligible.
With the guns part I agree with everything mentioned. I don’t think a free gun ownership system like what America has, is a smart idea. My country is very restrictive which is why I dislike the idea of completely banning them. Where I am, even the plastic toy guns were made illegal. Only if you live on a farm and need to protect livestock or produce, then you’re allowed to own some. Good thing is, no mass shootings here and only some gun crime. It would be nice if tough but fair licensing was more-so available, but nothing like America.
I’ll try substantiating the last paragraph without it getting too long. Fossil fuel bans are just not possible at the moment and even when it is, there will likely be some things we will never replace, even backup generators when black outs happen for hospitals. Making it really expensive and hard to acquire should be all that’s needed. Military for defence because I don’t think the world will be truely at peace for a while longer. Free-speech so ideas don’t go suppressed, but that doesn’t mean people have to respect that free-speech. Strict immigration to bring in valuable skills not just people (pronounced problem where I am). ‘PC’ culture ties into free speech but also reducing diversity hires (not requiring names and personal information in hiring to make such decisions truely unbias would be a better solution). Keeping some merit success with a socialist system to reward people to achieve more.
But I’m still on the fence with professional and Olympic level sports.
At that level you have lots of money involved, which means, among other things, steroids, corruption and lack of sportsmanship (oh gee maybe it’s sportspersonship now…). So, really, not what i would consider sport so i don’t give a damn; they can all “compete” with llamas for all i care.
On everything else, it’s a sport, you’re doing it for sport, so who cares?
Of course some cultures are more competitive than others.backup generators when black outs happen for hospitals
Good point.
Making it really expensive and hard to acquire should be all that’s needed.
All that ever does is limit access to the rich.
Free-speech so ideas don’t go suppressed,
Bare in mind that in english (especially murican english culture), “free-speech” is often used as “i can say whatever i want, including bigoted shit”. I do see a significant increase in the number of easily-offended people in the last decade, must be a generational thing.
make such decisions truely unbias
No such thing, there’s always a bias, but trying to minimize it is indeed a good goal imho.
Keeping some merit success with a socialist system to reward people to achieve more.
I’d say places where merit is actually and properly valued are few and far between.
And “socialist” red-scares muricans.
You sound like a bog standard social conservative.
Please name the trans women athletes who have won Olympic medals during the many years they’ve been allowed to compete. They have a clear advantage, right, so it should be easy to find.
I’ll wait.
Sports decide themselves, of which world rowing and boxing have blanket bans. Athletics, cycling, swimming, rugby and cricket are bans if the transition was after puberty. Triathlon, tennis and archery requires testosterone testing. And all other sporting bodies are on a case by case basis.
That’s why we don’t see them because the Olympics themselves have said:
high-level organised sporting competitions - relies on a level playing field, where no athlete has an unfair and disproportionate advantage over the rest.
I’m tired of replying to everyone, please put more effort into your argument
Please stop gobbling right wing propaganda and make a sensible argument yourself, and then we can have a discussion. “centrist”.
You won’t though. So don’t waste people’s time.
I didn’t, I cited the literal Olympics. I have cited medical studies, and I have defended my position where everyone then returns to insults and statements like this.
Unless you have evidence that what I said was incorrect, you are infact wrong. One, only ONE person has cited one study that is inconclusive and I congratulated them because at least they showed there is some conflicting research but you haven’t even bothered to try.
If you are going to throw your opinion around, at least back it up with weight. Cite studies, link articles, or form a proper argument, because if I can refute your claim before I’ve even had my morning coffee than you still have room to make a half decent point.
You never bothered to look into it. You decided that since trans people are banned now, they must always have been banned. They were allowed to play for a long time before the ban, in fact, and none of the scare mongering was true. There was no trans domination.
You don’t really care though. That you care about the issue at all is evidence you’ve fallen for the conservative campaign against trans people, because it’s an entirely invented issue. You listened to what the conservative pundits said, maybe you even read one of the Heritage Foundation’s studies. But you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about, and I’ve been having this argument with fucking “centrists” like you for over a decade who think we’re a fine scapegoat for your socially acceptable bigotry.
You aren’t a centrist. There is no center when one side wants the elimination of the other, and that’s the ultimate end goal here. You think you’re having a dandy little political discussion, but this is just a stepping stone on the campaign to convince the public that trans women are men and therefore trans people are sick, and need to be removed from society. When you run around and parrot their talking points on a subject you know little about its not a fun debate, it’s plain bigotry and its not fucking welcome.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
pro LGBT
against trans-women in women’s sports
You sound like an Idiot to me.
Not very helpful, why is that?
Because lemmy isn’t reddit and as a result has little patience for anti-trans bigotry.
You’re a liar, that’s what you are. Can’t even properly set up the troll.
Huh!? This isn’t a troll, I’m an example of a centrist. The term ‘centrist’ exists for a reason, and plenty of people such as myself think this way although I will admit, I have met very few unfortunately.
What makes me seem like a liar?
The term ‘centrist’ exists for a reason
Yeah, it gives conservatives something to call themselves on dating sites.
“I only voted for trump for some of his policies, I’m actually in the center and not a conservative so please fuck me please please please please please”
So what else is new? I had an imaginary friend when I was little, I got over that. So can others.
no way. Kinda cool, and no judgement at all, tell us about the imaginary friend?
I think you may be misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m saying that centrists worship and obey billionaires.
Correct, my apologies.
It’s a lot harder when it’s part of their very identity.
Oooooh! He said the thing!
Damnit Zohran… I can only get sooo hard…
Good thing he’s pro-universal healthcare, I’ll need to get this hardon medically drained.
He’s, ahem, straining the limits of my turgidity.
At this rate im gonna have to see my doctor.
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.
His messaging is laser fucking focused
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.
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.
Before the oligarchs say this is “violence”.
This can be done peacefully. Just enact a law that taxes everything above like 999 million (or a fewer amount, to be debated on), and if you don’t comply, that’s tax evasion and you go to jail. Complelete peaceful (other than the tax-person we’d have to send to arrest the rich for non-complance), comply and everyone is happy.
Voila, no more billionaires, and that wealth redistributed will let everyone become a millionaire. Everyone is happy, maybe the 1% cries that they now have a few less yachts and mansions, but like, they can still enjoy that one house, same as everyone else would also have.
You know what? I don’t want it peaceful. They’ve stomped on people there entire lives, forced others to rely on social programs, dig through trash, and work to the bone.
I want a comeuppance, I want blood, and I want it to be that of every fucking billionaires’ head rolling off the guillotine
And you’ll have it. They have enough money to pay an army and you bet they will use that to stop you from taking their wealth. Understand that they have rationalized their immense wealth to the point where they trully believe they deserve it. You can see it sometimes in how they consider themselves hard working geniuses, or decide God somewhat chose them to be ridiculously rich.
Yes, they will resort to violence (but not themselves, of course). But they won’t need to get their hands too dirty.
They’ll fund campaigns, they’ll own law enforcements and will wield it against the people, meanwhile they’ll buy propaganda to convince as many people as they can it’s all for the best. That’s easy to predict because they already do exactly that.
Violent repression of demonstrations, violence and intimidation against activists and journalists. Owning of all the mainstream medias and a large share of the less mainstream ones. All of that is slowly normalized.
Agree. They had a choice. They shunned taxes and played at fake philanthropy. They have now dropped that and started playing like they are god. They are fragile mortals that need a reminder of revolution, I would like to see it done the French way but any way should do.
You have to ask yourself: Is fulfilling that desire for retribution worth the lives of the millions of vulnerable people who would be killed due to lack of medical treatment, potable water, food, etc?
???
You mean the ones who are already sick and dying from those exact things, caused by the greed of the aforementioned?
deleted by creator
But could this really be done? As far as I’ve understood, billionaires typically don’t have a billion liquidized and ready for spending. Rather, their value is distributed in ownership of several companies. How would the 100% taxes on ownership in companies be applied?
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see it work, but I feel like it’s a lot more complicated than stated. And if a good way of applying those taxes would be introduced, I’m sure the billionaires would either find new ways to make the money untouchable or personally move to a country with looser tax laws.
As far as I’ve understood, billionaires typically don’t have a billion liquidized and ready for spending. Rather, their value is distributed in ownership of several companies. How would the 100% taxes on ownership in companies be applied?
If you can leverage assets to apply for a loan to buy twitter, then you can levarage assets to pay your taxes.
That’s what conservatives always claim. Most of them won’t move and even if they do, good riddance. Simply tax their wealth beforehand.
My experience is from Norway where the taxes on the rich is balancing on a line. A lot of rich Norwegians have already moved to Switzerland to avoid annual taxes on their wealth. I would expect to see something similar if USA introduced reasonable taxes, unfortunately.
Than they have to sell their stock or property to either not be above the threshold or to liquidate it. It’s not untouchable.
or, here me out, they intentionally tank their assets value just before its value gets measured
If everyone becomes a millionaire, then being a millionaire is useless. Inflation will be very high, imagine $1000 eggs. I think the wealth should be distributed to provide free food and services instead.
Voila, no more billionaires
… in the country with the tax. They’ll just live somewhere else.
People have to stop believing that wealthy people will leave instantly once they begin getting taxed. This is just a lie.
They are wealthy because of their assets and connections. They have houses, appartements, offices and factories. They have a network of influencer in the country they live in, in the city they live in ! They have a big family, kids. It’s actually harder for these people to move out than you and I.
The money is already escaping. They use any loopholes (fiscal optimization they call it) to pay much lower tax than anyone else proportionally.
They won’t leave ! Let the tax begin ! The loopholes have to be eliminated so that they cannot convert their wealth to escape tax artificially.
Let them, they don’t generate anything.
I’m getting downvoted like i i care they’d leave, just that it’s not gonna bring tax revenue.
They are not doing it even today. If they are businessmen, they are not going to leave their businesses just because they are being taxed.
Fine by me, they weren’t paying taxes anyway.
Ok great.
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.
Yes! Let’s stop this modern day slavery.
