Please go easy on the downvotes—the point here is to try to understand a perspective that many of you probably won’t share.

  • Steve@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    You don’t have to kill them. You could simply take their money. Then they wouldn’t be billionaires. It’s not like the money belongs to them. It belongs to the government. They’re just holding on to it for a while.

    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      You could simply take their money.

      Except this is far from a simple thing to do, since a vast majority of the wealth isn’t money.

      For a more realistic option, I think that ending the practice of borrowing against stocks as a method of dodging taxes would go a long way towards getting billionaires to pay their share.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        It kind of is simple. They have to sell stuff.
        It’s up to them how to do that.

        Say we tax them at 15% of US assets after the first $1B. That’ll slowly widdle them down.

        • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          So here’s a scenario:

          You started a website, and this website became enormously popular. The company you started to run this website is now worth a couple billion dollars. You’re not an asshole, so you pay your employees generously and take an equal wage for yourself. You weren’t in a rush to grow, so you never took venture capital or became publicly traded.

          As the sole owner of that company, you are technically worth a couple billion dollars, but your sellable assets are nowhere near that 15%. How is the law supposed to handle this situation without further making enshitification legally mandatory?