That’s a pretty singular way of looking at it. Sure, everyone would only get $20k, but there’s more to the cost of living crisis than just money.
Billionaires are absolutely a significant part of the cost of living crisis, and an additional result of redistributing their wealth is no more billionaires. This alone would do more for the average person than anything else.
And yet if you took all the residential real estate in the country and redistributed it. Every single person would have enough for a home, $200,000+
The US residential real estate market is over 60 trillion, making the billionaires look poor by comparison.
Its almost like you’re being lied to about the billionaires being the problem, when really its boomer house owners that hold the majority of the wealth.
There’s more than one contributing factor for the cost of living crisis. Billionaires need to be eliminated, as long as they exist the rich/poor gap will always leave a living (not just cost of living) crisis for the majority. Eliminating billionaires won’t fix everything, sure, but it will cut out the cancer that infects the rest of society. The sickness of such wealth accumulation directly contributes, enables, and increases the current state of wealth inequality.
Its almost like you’re being lied to about the billionaires being the problem, when really its boomer house owners that hold the majority of the wealth.
“Boomer house owners” will never redistribute their wealth as long as the concept of billionaires exists. Again, there are many contributing factors. I agree that billionaires are not the problem, but they certainly are a problem, a problem that needs eliminating for the betterment of society.
Combination of 95% personal tax rate over x amount, say 10 million, and if any company is deemed important enough to be necessary to run the country/society (airlines, power companies, telecom, banks, grocery, apparently AI garbage), should those companies require gov’t subsidies or bailouts they immediately become nationalised. No bailouts for private companies.
Well yeah, it should be something. I’m no economist, why are you acting like it’s on me to figure out? I’ll leave the how up to people much smarter than me. The fact is the system as it is is incredibly predatory on the majority, and billionaires are absolutely a big part of why. They need to be eliminated, I don’t really care how.
That’s a pretty singular way of looking at it. Sure, everyone would only get $20k, but there’s more to the cost of living crisis than just money.
Billionaires are absolutely a significant part of the cost of living crisis, and an additional result of redistributing their wealth is no more billionaires. This alone would do more for the average person than anything else.
And yet if you took all the residential real estate in the country and redistributed it. Every single person would have enough for a home, $200,000+
The US residential real estate market is over 60 trillion, making the billionaires look poor by comparison.
Its almost like you’re being lied to about the billionaires being the problem, when really its boomer house owners that hold the majority of the wealth.
There’s more than one contributing factor for the cost of living crisis. Billionaires need to be eliminated, as long as they exist the rich/poor gap will always leave a living (not just cost of living) crisis for the majority. Eliminating billionaires won’t fix everything, sure, but it will cut out the cancer that infects the rest of society. The sickness of such wealth accumulation directly contributes, enables, and increases the current state of wealth inequality.
“Boomer house owners” will never redistribute their wealth as long as the concept of billionaires exists. Again, there are many contributing factors. I agree that billionaires are not the problem, but they certainly are a problem, a problem that needs eliminating for the betterment of society.
The real question is how.
Does any business that becomes successful just immediately turn itself over to the government to be sold off to small investors?
Because the top billionaires today all have almost all their value in single companies that they either started directly or built up themselves.
Combination of 95% personal tax rate over x amount, say 10 million, and if any company is deemed important enough to be necessary to run the country/society (airlines, power companies, telecom, banks, grocery, apparently AI garbage), should those companies require gov’t subsidies or bailouts they immediately become nationalised. No bailouts for private companies.
So elon is completely untouched because none of his companies are vital and he has no “income” because it’s all capital appreciation?
Jeff bezos also untouched…
This is the kind of stupid knee jerk thinking that makes all of this discussion irrelevant.
You don’t even know how to reach the goal you want, you just feel like it should be something.
Well yeah, it should be something. I’m no economist, why are you acting like it’s on me to figure out? I’ll leave the how up to people much smarter than me. The fact is the system as it is is incredibly predatory on the majority, and billionaires are absolutely a big part of why. They need to be eliminated, I don’t really care how.
I am in fact educated in economics, and smarter people than you disagree on taxing billionaires like that.
That’s what you aren’t getting.