Regardless of how much time or money you have, it is hypocritical to complain about another person not doing more if you yourself are in a position to do more.
I'll never understand how someone with that much wealth wouldn't want to be remembered as one of the world's greatest heroes for all time. He could solve student debt, fund public schools, aid Flint's water crisis, etc etc w/o breaking a sweat.
No it isn't lol. Billionaires are in a much better position to affect real change, yet they do nothing because their wealth relies on mass exploitation to an insane degree.
Nobody should be a billionaire.
Why a billionaire and not a multi millionaire? No one needs 5+ million. A billion is just an arbitrary number. How much expendable cash does someone need to have before we decide they should have it taken away from them?
Yep, looks warmer, more welcoming.
Why a billionaire and not a multi millionaire? Why is 900 million ok but an extra 100 million not ok? Why that arbitrary line?
I'm curious how much Bezos paid on his taxes considering his company is great at avoiding them.
"We naturally put millionaires and billionaires in the same general class of person, but the only reason to do that is because the words are similar. Since these aren't numbers we can actually visualize, it's important to understand what a billion of something is. To travel a million inches, you'd have to travel from the Southern-most tip of Manhattan and go to the Bronx. To travel a billion inches, you'd have to fly from New York to Shanghai twice. A million seconds is a little over 11 days. A billion seconds is nearly 32 years. A million ounces is about the weight of a train car. A billion ounces is 4.5 Eiffel Towers. Use these to conceptualize what the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire is, and the absurd amount of wealth we're talking about."
That quote sums up my general ethos and I have nothing more to say on the matter.
So you can't explain why you think a billion is too much but 900 million is ok?
I think a billion is a good starting point for a cutoff. If you want to negotiate lower, by all means.
Because talking about billionaires not existing is an easier ideological rack to hang your coat on than a random 100 million number.
Nobody reaches that amount of wealth, or close to it, without a level of exploitation that exceeds far past "doing what you need to survive in capitalism" and into the realm of inhuman. I have no interest in being baited to explain that I really want to redistribute the wealth of people who have a nice house and car, but instead those who amass wealth from entire industries built on blood and exploitation. They represent a systematic inequality that runs far deeper than cozy suburban millionaires ever could.
And if you're spending your time trying to bait a socialist on a video game forum into saying they really just want to take the wealth of anybody remotely well off, it should be spent elsewhere.
So you can't explain why you think a billion is too much but 900 million is ok?
Ok I really don't care what he does with his money as long as he isn't spending it funding Republican politicians. I like Amazon - it has made my life a lot easier. Who gives a shit if he got paid for it unless he's using it to keep others down?
I had a debate with some centrist capitalists a couple months ago, and they were apoplectic at my making that exact claim.You can't convince me he works any harder than anyone on this thread.
This is straight up wrong.
Ok I really don't care what he does with his money as long as he isn't spending it funding Republican politicians. I like Amazon - it has made my life a lot easier. Who gives a shit if he got paid for it unless he's using it to keep others down?
Ok I really don't care what he does with his money as long as he isn't spending it funding Republican politicians. I like Amazon - it has made my life a lot easier. Who gives a shit if he got paid for it unless he's using it to keep others down?
You've just plucked a number out of the air because it's big and round without actually putting any thought into it.
God DAMN.groceries actually cost a ton of money, him buying that house is like him buying a pack of gum.
an EIGHTH of a percent. 1% of 131.9 BILLION is $1.319 BILLION. divide that by 8 and you get $164,875,000.
He's 56, let's say he lives until 100, he could spend a billion dollars a year for the rest of his life and not even get halfway through his net worth.
To exaggerate a bit more, Bezos could wipe his ass with a million dollars every single time he has to take a shit from now until the last time he shits in his life and he wouldn't get anywhere near his net worth.
I've explained pretty clearly why a billion is the benchmark. You're just going in circles now.
Because why not that number? It allows for people to amass a large, almost absurd amount of wealth. Smaller numbers invite people to ask "well, why not this number instead" as you're doing, and then inevitably you wind up asking "Why not just a few million?" which is a wealth level far too many people can attain semi-reasonably.
Solve homelessness or have one Bezos.
Tough call, society.
Fuck the mega-rich. Tax them 80% over 100 million and 95% over 1 billion.
And then what?
Let's be honest here. That would just be used to increase the defense budget and wage more wars, destabilize more regions and bomb more innocents "accidentally".
America, fuck yeah.
Because why that number? Think about what you're actually saying here. You're saying "Anyone with X amount of money should be forced to give most of it up" then when asked "Why X" you're just shrugging your shoulders and saying "why not". That's not how any of this works. If you're advocating that wealthy people should be forced to surrender large amounts of their wealth, you need to be able to actually explain where the cut off point for that is and why, and not just because it's a nice round number. That's not how economics works.
50 million is an absurd amount of wealth, 5 million is an absurd amount to most people. I'm not saying you're wrong for advocating that wealthy people should contribute more of their wealth to those who need it, but I cant get on board with just plucking an random big number out of the air and saying "let's start here" with no rhyme or reason to why that's the starting point. It just shows that you haven't put any actually thought into what you're suggesting beyond a very surface level "lots of money = bad"
It's like saying "let's set the national speed limit at the 100 miles an hour because that's a round number, so why not?"
Nope. I'm not going back and forth with you on "Why this number".
There is not a single billionaire out there who could be called a decent human being.I'll never understand how someone with that much wealth wouldn't want to be remembered as one of the world's greatest heroes for all time. He could solve student debt, fund public schools, aid Flint's water crisis, etc etc w/o breaking a sweat.
LOL, fSeething. You either get rich man's money-power right, or leave the forum immediately
why cant rich people ever seem to buy normal shit like the rest of us?
no one needs property like that