• Random Dent@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    257
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean you could even take the bottom number and leave them with the top number and they could still live in unimaginable luxury forever. Or just take the lot because fuck em lol.

      • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most of their billions is ownership in companies they grew into what they are today. It’s not like they have billions to spend, it’s that their ownership is worth billions according to the market.

        • MattsAlt [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          45
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They could go to any bank and leverage that asset for a loan for more than everyone who posts on this platform will make in their lifetimes no problem. That is a nonsense talking point

          • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            What’s your point? So because they can leverage their ownership of their own company we need to take away that ownership?

            • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              41
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, if you can control more wealth than a mid size city earns in ten lifetimes, you should not be allowed to do that

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t think the stock market should be determining if we take away companies from their owners, no matter how much it’s worth. Why does having more wealth than a certain size city matter? Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

                • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  28
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

                  Why do those employees get the bare minimum? Why are the working majority excluded from ownership and decision-making in the companies they run?

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else. Many companies even have employee stock purchase programs. What’s the problem ?

          • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            23
            ·
            1 year ago

            So what? We should take away that ownership because they can leverage it? Also the same people suggesting we tax wealth like this want to also close those “loopholes” of low interest loans on shares.

                • Enma Ai@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Taking away (extreme) wealth. There’s no reason one person should have that much. There’s countless better ways to use that money/wealth than for one persons extravagant lifestyle. And even if they don’t have an extravagant lifestyle, what are they gonna do with it? Doubt they will build infrastructure out of good will with it.

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So take away ownership of a company just because it’s too successful? That wealth is mostly in company ownership, so are you really suggesting we steal away legitimate ownership in successful companies?

            • TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, they can keep them, but those loopholes need to be closed. Maybe don’t allow using ownership of a company as collateral for a loan? If you want to use your massive stored wealth as money you need to sell it. You want to get it back buy it. I’m not a finance or policy person, but there has to be a way to make these people pay the propert tax on their wealth.

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So they can keep their ownership, but we are going to remove their way to loan money against it, and still expect them to pay billions in taxes without giving away any ownership? How do you expect them to pay billions in taxes when the only billions they have in value is company ownership? You are forcing them to sell company ownership to pay this ridiculous tax.

                • Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  To be fair, if billionaires could no longer use their stocks as collateral to borrow insane amounts, maybe they’d have to give themselves taxable salaries.

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t think the government would ban the practice, since the middle class uses the same thing for stuff like reverse mortgages. I can see them limiting the amount though.

                    If they did ban it though, billionaires would still be billionaires, they probably don’t need much of an actual salary when most of their stuff is paid for.

        • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          While that may be technically true, is running defense for these people who would happily see you and everone you care about die if it would make them another buck really something you want to be doing?

          • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            31
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            also assets count as wealth if you tried to explain to king Solomon that he wasn’t actually rich because his money was tied up in land and cattle he would call you and idiot and explain that land and cattle are his wealth

          • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t mind defending what I see as theft, even if it’s from people I don’t like. Is it crazy to defend something you see as wrong even if you don’t like the person? I don’t think right and wrong changes based on if the act is being done to someone I like vs don’t like

            • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              27
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you were actually against theft you would be against Bezos Musk and Gates stealing billions in profits from the people who are working for them.

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                You have no idea what you are talking about… profits aren’t theft, paying people less than the money you make from their work also isn’t theft. Being worth billions because the stock market values your ownership in a big company as worth billions also isn’t theft.

                • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  26
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  paying people less than the money you make from their work also isn’t theft

                  Why would someone agree to sell their labor for less than it’s worth thonk

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What you are worth is less than the profit you make. If a company paid you exactly the money they made from you, they would make no money and cease to exist. It’s really not that complicated.

                    It’s like asking why do stores sell products for more than it costs them to buy. It’s such a simple question that even you should know the right answer.

                • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  22
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The fact that you willingly debase yourself like this says everything that is needed to know about the system we live under.

                  You are better than this.

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Explain where I am debasing myself? If you are referring to a company paying me less than they make from me, how do you expect them to make any money, or even break even, if they don’t do that?

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You realize rich people do pay income taxes just like the rest of us, right?

            • Kynuck97 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Why is theft inhereintly wrong? Would you see Robin Hood as the villain of his story? It’s not a matter of whether you like them or not, their exorbitant wealth is a bad thing in of itself. Why should they sit on so much wealth when most have so little?

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do you mind if I steal your property? Would that be wrong? Or is it fine as long as I’m poorer than you?

                • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  25
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The difference is between private property and personal property. Private property is the means of production that produce wealth by extracting a profit margin from the labor of the workers that operate that means. Seizing private property is just democratizing the ownership of it between all the workers that use it, because you can’t really steal a corporation or a factory, just change ownership. Seizing personal property is taking someone’s toothbrush or car or books.

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Stealing ownership is still stealing though. You are suggesting we steal personal ownership in a company, ownership which is only worth a certain amount because the stock market says it is.

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not against giving people a chance, and helping them get that chance, but that doesn’t include taking away houses from rightful owners and giving them away to homeless people. It’s no coincidence that the homeless tend to destroy wherever they set up, so they need to set up in government run shelters that can handle it.

                • Judge_Jury [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So in the moral system you’re proposing, it would be an offense to use those buildings without their owner’s permission. The fact that people denied access to those buildings will die as a result, though, is just a part of nature

                  So, why would you expect a perspective which values property more than people to stir anyone’s moral feeling? If you don’t expect that, then why are you bothering to frame it in terms of right and wrong?

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So in the moral system you’re proposing, it would be an offense to use those buildings without their owner’s permission. The fact that people denied access to those buildings will die as a result, though, is just a part of nature

                    Well, yes. Do you donate every least penny you have to the homeless, since it would save lives? Or do you instead spend your money on luxuries for yourself? There are right and wrong ways to go about helping people like the homeless, stealing and ruining property isn’t one of those ways.

                    So, why would you expect a perspective which values property more than people to stir anyone’s moral feeling? If you don’t expect that, then why are you bothering to frame it in terms of right and wrong?

                    I assume you have some property, right? If you are an adult you are probably at least renting an apartment and have some basic stuff like a TV. Why don’t you let a homeless person sleep on your couch every night? If you don’t have your own place yet, would you allow some random homeless person access to your couch for free every night?

                    It’s much easier when it isn’t your property in question, but when it’s your place you might start to care about random people living rent free in your place.

    • painfulasterisk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they are self-made millionaires/billionaires as they claim, take everything they have/own and tell them to start the quest again, no glitches, DLC, or saved progress.

    • xenspidey@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      44
      ·
      1 year ago

      You all realize they don’t have that money laying around to pay the IRS right? They own companies, those companies are worth that much. To pay that you would have to liquidate those companies. So no more Amazon, Tesla, Space X, etc…

      • Luke@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        67
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        no more Amazon, Tesla, Space X, etc…

        Oh no! Anyway, so how can we make this happen, like, yesterday?

      • alvvayson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t be a bootlicker or bot or idiot.

        When they sell their shares to buy twitter or pay the tax man, those companies still exist. It just means that other people get to buy those shares and that’s a good thing, because that way those companies get owned by the public.

        Tesla and SpaceX still exist even after Elon overpaid by some $30B for his Twitter adventure.

      • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I would be happy to take taxes in the form of ownership of the company

        here the tax genius of Henry the 8th comes into play “pay me my money or else”

        when noblemen didn’t pay william the conqueror the taxes he felt were due on time he would boil them. The principle being that if the rich face consequences for breaking the law they obey.

        • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Can billionaires liquidate their assets? Yes, it is theoretically possible

          The real question is, who is going to buy the assets?

          Let’s say we have a billionaire that owns a billion dollar company.

          Could that billionaire sell all their shares, get a billion dollars in cash, and then give it away. Yes, it is possible.

          But that billion dollars in cash has to come from somewhere. Either the citizens have to come with a billion dollars in cash or the government.

          If the citizens spend a billion to buy the shares, then the government takes the billion in cash from the billionaire, then the government gives a billion back to the citizens. You just basically printed an extra billion dollars for the economy, which causes inflation. Because the citizens now have two billion in stocks and cash, compared to just one billion in cash.

          Our fiat money system has flaws, one day it is going to crash.

          But Besos’ 100+ billion in Amazon stock is money tied up outside of the economy until he sells.

          Forcing him to sell and introduce that money into the economy has repercussions.

          • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You don’t need to make him dump all of his money all at once. Make an investment plan so that sum of money doesn’t disturb the market, extend the dump for two-three years and you can put 100 million without destroying the system

            • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I didn’t say you needed to make them dump it all at once, but no matter how you do it, you’re introducing more money into the economy.

              Make an investment plan so that sum of money doesn’t disturb the market

              Again, great the market isn’t disturbed and stocks are still worth a billion total. You’re still going to introduce another billion into the economy in “two-three” years by giving it to the poor.

              The whole point of taking money from billionaires is to affect the economy. There’s no point in doing it if it’s not going to affect anything.

              • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The money is already in the economy, it is just not moving hands. When talking about disturbing the economy I was alluding to inflation, lots of poor families will gladly welcome that money. Also if we allowed us to take a little bit more, the social services will be allowed to improve substantially

                • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Say I invented the cure for cancer today and started the business Cancer Cure Inc. tomorrow.

                  I own 100% of the shares of the company. Say there are 100 shares.

                  Each share of Cancer Cure Inc. would be valued at X/100 amount of money because Cancer Cure Inc. would be valued at X.

                  If Cancer Cure Inc. company was valued at a billion dollars. Each share would be worth 10 million dollars.

                  I would be seen as a billionaire because I own the 100 shares. Yet I haven’t sold a single share. No money has exchanged hands for the shares.

                  A billion dollars doesn’t just magically enter the economy because Cancer Cure Inc. exists. It would take an existing billion dollars to buy my shares.

                  Now, if people wanted to give me a billion dollars in cash for my 100 shares, and I sold them. I’d have a billion dollars in cash, and the people would have a billion dollars in Cancer Cure Inc. stock.

                  Now, if the government takes my billion dollars in cash and hand that to the people, they now have a billion dollars in stock and a billion dollars in cash.

                  It doesn’t matter if I own 100 stocks of Cancer Cure Inc. or if 100 different wealthy people own 1 stock each. What changed is that there is now 1 billion more cash floating in the economy.

                  That’s what causes inflation

                  I’m not saying it’s right. Capitalism has winners and losers, rich and poor. It’s just how the capitalism system has to work.

                  • xenspidey@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The people on here want you to work hard and take all the risk, create Cancer Cure Inc. Then take all your company and give it to the workers so you have nothing.

      • ThenThreeMore@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, they’d just need to liquidate their share in those companies. Those shares would then get bought up by other people or by pension funds.

      • Slotos@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        All they’d need to liquidate is part of their ownership in said companies. Companies themselves will be ok, don’t you worry your bleeding heart.

        • AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not true at all. Loss of controlling ownership makes a company vulnerable to a hostile takeover. The new owners will pick it apart like the vultures they are.

          RIP grannies pension plan

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        32
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the thing people don’t get. The ultra wealthy are wealthy on paper.

        On an average years. All of us make more than Elon in wages.

        • sim_@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’re making it sound like the wealthy are rich in technicality only. Maybe the majority of their assets aren’t liquid but they’re still damn wealthy more than “on paper.”

          And singling out wages as the only source of income to prove Elon isn’t “actually” wealthy is disingenuous at best.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            He’s wealthy but he doesn’t have a high income.

            We tax income in America. That’s why Elon pays little and same with bezos. They just don’t have much income.

            It personally doesn’t bother me they have billions. They pay their fair share of their taxes just like I pay mine.

            You’re not poor because they’re rich. Once you stop focusing on others and focus on yourself; life becomes much easier.

            • sim_@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s interesting you assume I’m poor just because I’m not licking those boots.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are. It’s easy to figure out. When people confuse wealth with income, it’s easy to figure out.

                • xenspidey@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  People here think there is some finite wealth pie, and if you cut a big piece somehow that leaves more for everyone else

                  • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’ve noticed their knowledge of economics is about zero.

                    I agree they think Elon has their part of the pie. He doesn’t. If they understood how stocks work, they’d know he has zero of their pie.

                    They also think he is sitting on billions in cash. He isn’t.

                    At least Elon created functioning companies for his wealth. He also created many millionaires.

                    That’s a good billionaire. You can go buy his product at the store.

                    Facebook. You are the product.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          What does that matter? He doesn’t take wages intentionally. He has a large stock portfolio that he can borrow against and thereby pay no taxes on that “income”.

        • MNByChoice@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          What did Elon get paid, excluding stock options at companies he works for?

          I bet he still makes more than me.

            • MNByChoice@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That actually almost seems worse. He is not paying into Social Security or his local community. He is being generously compensated on stock, which is taxed differently.

              Edit: I do want to thank you for providing that link. I was only finding a Forbes article about him being the highest compensated CEO of that year.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                He’s paying in the local community through property taxes.

                He’s highly compensated through stock and when he bought twitter. We got some huge amount of money in Taxes.

                You’re correct. He rarely pays into social but that’s a problem for Congress to solve.

                There are many ways to solve this bullshit and one is not allow them to borrow against their stock. That’s how they live for so cheap. I’m not opposed to stopping that at all.

                • Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Borrowing against stock needs to stop yesterday, especially if it’s not specifically for the interests of the company whose stock is being used.