Dude is rich, but he ain’t wealthy.
The top 0.1% of ‘earners’ should be guillotined. No exceptions.
The new next top 1% have the choice to share until or be guillotined. They can still be rich, but not so disgustingly so.This carries on until £50 million is the most anyone person/entity can hold. No offshore accounts. Shell companies etc etc etc. one account per person or company
Let’s face it, if £50 million isn’t enough then they deserve the guillotine.
Two accounts = guillotine.
Hide money = guillotine.
Put money in to your another person’s/child’s account then you have access, or use it yourself = guillotine.
Forgotten account? = guillotine.
Try to loophole it at all = guillotine.Fuck the rich.
Edit:
Edited the percentage.£50 million puts a person in the top 0.1% in the US. Someone with $15 million net worth is already a 1 percenter in the US and world wide probably a $1 million in net worth puts you in the 1% of the world
Yes We must take action
I don’t think this will have the effects you think it will
He’s not worth $257 billion, that’s just what he’s been allowed to hoard.
Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
Financial obesity is a great term.
I looked it up not that long ago and I’m pretty sure Amazon nets about a billion in less than a day. Not Bezos, but Amazon. And that’s net, not gross.
Idk it’s pretty gross if you ask me
I’m all for fucking Bezos up but he’s not the CEO of Amazon anymore. Hasn’t been for a while now.
Yep! That’s just what he made this year by owning 9.5% of the company he used to sit around at for a cumulative month every year for.
Most of his net worth is still in Amazon stocks.
Being a CEO doesn’t come into it
I felt it was implied by the op responding to a decision made by Amazon about layoffs as off Bezos made that decision. You’re right though it’s irrelevant.
He could have given each of these employees a million dollars and still had 13,000,000,000 left over.
amazon has a habit of shedding 10s of thousands of employees after hiring them, for tax breaks. almost right after, usually it only targeted the “low skilled workers” now its the higher skilled people too.
He could have given each of these employees a million dollars
- The $2.9 billion is not money, it’s the number on a price tag.
- Amazon lost over $200 billion in net worth in one day on 2022. Should employees be paying Amazon to work, when that happens, then? That’s only fair; anyone who financially benefits from a net worth figure rising, should experience equivalent financial detriment when the same net worth figure falls. Wanting only the upside is like demanding that your roulette wheel bet should pay out normally if you win big, but should be refunded when you lose.
Slurp slurp
Correcting a false statement isn’t bootlicking. Use your brain.
That wasn’t a bootlicking sound. That was you sucking rich people off.
My point still stands in its entirety. Consider actually thinking about it instead of imagining me fellating people.
Explain how your “point” makes any sense or stands at all, outside of a 5 year old’s version of fairness?
How is it ‘fair’ to make poor people pay to cover up the fuckup of a multi trillion dollar company? One that doesn’t even pay its fair share in taxes. Is it ‘fair’ that the people making the fuckup keep their employees at starvation levels while they buy jewelry worth more than they’ll see in decades?
No? Then your point is meaningless when the fairness doesn’t go both ways. You can say your argument stands all day, but its as meaningless as telling me you can jump to the moon.
Explain how your “point” makes any sense
It is a fact that net worth changes are not an injection of cash money, and it is also a fact that profiting when the net worth of the company you work for goes up, is only a fair arrangement if you also are on the hook when the net worth goes down. To restate the simple analogy:
Wanting only the upside is like demanding that your roulette wheel bet should pay out normally if you win big, but should be refunded when you lose.
These are plain facts. Explain precisely how either of those doesn’t make sense.
How is it ‘fair’ to make poor people pay to cover up the fuckup of a multi trillion dollar company?
It’s not, if said people aren’t being paid in company stock. However, if a worker expects to benefit from the net worth going up, they should expect to be on the hook when the net worth goes down, too. You can’t have it both ways; that would be unfair. You want the benefits of being compensated in stock without the risk that owning stock inherently carries, namely the volatility of its value.
I know exactly what you’re saying. You’re using the same “fairness” arguments that people like Jeff Bezos use to keep you from focusing on his literal mountain of wealth. As if the only fair solution is to let them hoard money while people starve to death. To that I say again, slurp slurp.
It’s not a “fairness argument”. I’m not arguing some subjective value judgment of mine, to be debated.
If you expect your roulette bet to pay out when you win, you’d better believe it’s part of the arrangement that the casino is not going to give your bet back when you lose. You can’t get the payout without the risk of loss; similarly, that’s how owning stock works.
So if you as a worker want the benefit that comes with your employer’s company’s net worth going up (which many workers do in fact get, it’s not that rare for stock to be part of a compensation package), it is only fair that you also accept the possibility of being on the hook if it goes down (which is what happens if you’re paid in stock whose price goes down after you receive it).
You can’t have it both ways.
Both things you say are true. And let me just say, Amazonz efficiency is a really good thing. Cheap products are good. And Jeff Bezos is a visionary for his part in making it happen.
Still, greed is bad.
I have read every single Ayn Rand novel cover to cover. She is a phenomenal literary talent. Her themeweaving never holds together in the final act. Because things are more complicated than simple rewards and punishments. Gifts are important (not just kinky ones).
Market economies need competition to work. If there would be a competitor with cheaper offers, Amazon would be worth much less and letting employees go would end up as cheaper prices for every customer while the unemployed can quickly find a new job.
Who is willing to build a competitor?
Otherwise it’s time for a planned economy.
More like “who can afford to build a competitor” when Amazon already has their 10,000 hrs in undercutting prices, surviving on a
raftyacht of capital.There is an abundance of money right now. People will be happy to get rid of their dollars if there is a company that can break even while competing with Amazon.
They are thieves, criminals, slavers and psychopaths. They will kill all of us for more power and for some fucked up reason we still let billionaires exist.
Preface: Fuck Bezos and how he treats the workers.
Is it that hard not to buy stuff from Amazon? I don’t think I ever bought anything ever from Amazon and I make all kinds of online purchases almost every week.
It is hard if you’re lazy and you’ve conditioned yourself not to shop anywhere else. It’s pretty easy if you care about the impact your purchasing habits have on the world. We all know where most people fall on that spectrum.
Nice, I finally canceled my membership with them, uninstalled the app and this post makes me feel even better. I made sure to fill out their survey after saying fuck billionaires, they don’t deserve my money, and that Amazon has ruined small local business. Probably doesn’t mater but every little bit helps. I just wish I had done it sooner.
How do you even get a ring to cost $5M it sounds like a strategic nightmare? The most expensive gem that isn’t radioactive that being the red diamond is still only ~$1M a Gram the rock would be a literal rock at that point.
Easy, set the price as $5mil. That’s literally it. The entire basis of a morally just, logical, and predictable way to set prices has been a lie for a very long time.
I always wonder what a modern day Robin Hood might look like in relation to people like this. How would such a person target a billionaire, and redistribute even some of that wealth to people who actually need it?
In particular, how would you do that at a billionaire’s scale, in such a way that financial institutions don’t or can’t immediately claw it back?
Honestly, MacKenzie Scott may currently be the closest thing?
Unfortunately, there are no folk heroes to save us. The fact of the matter is that we need to vote in all countries, and we need to vote not for “safe” centrists but for those who will actually push us towards more progressive policies. No “but this time is different, like the other twenty times, because of the scary right-wing!”, it’s do or die.
That’s really it. Robin Hood in this day and age is the IRS and whatever equivalents. Fund them, and give them the powers we need without fear.
Have you watched Mr. Robot? It tackles a lot of these questions.
Her costume ring is only $20K though
That trickle feels warm…
