I don’t support violence at all. But for every mentioned woodchipper, this scene from Tucker & Dale vs Evil is mandatory:
Fuck em. Instantaneous lead poisoning.
It’s why we invented the gulliotine
Billionaires are a crime against humanity.
Ideally they’d be taxed into no longer being billionaires.
Realistically we probably need to violently remind them who holds the actual power before this becomes a reality.
Asking this question on lemmy is like going to a Linux comm and asking if it’s a good idea to switch from windows to Linux. You’re preaching (asking?) to the choir.
That said, eat the fucking rich.
Which Linux though?
It billionaires exist then there is a problem in the system. Billionaires are a bug, not a feature.
What a funny thing to ask on Lemmy.
I prefer mine well done, and grilled to perfection personally.
They would serve a greater use to humanity as compost
They are subsidized by our government. Truly. The broken system created Elon Musk and now the broken system allowed him to buy a presidency for $134 million. Cheap, for him.
How? That is how much the system has devalued American labor since 1981.
Depose.
Fuck 'em all to death.
Look at this visualization of how much money Jeff Bezos has, and then tell me that it is reasonable and justifiable.
- I think wealth should be capped at a few million or tens of millions. Too much wealth hoarding keeps money out of circulation at the consumer spending level, which is bad for the economy in general, especially lower income people.
- Without knowing anything about a person and how they became a billionaire, I have no opinion on them individually. Jumping to conclusions about someone based on the group they belong to (like say, a black guy walking down the street) is bigoted thinking, no matter who the target is.
I’ve always liked the idea of you can get $999,999,999.99 after that 100% tax rate and you get a plaque that says “Congratulations, you won capitalism”
I feel that eventually somebody will crack the problem of how to reward people for beating capitalism. Various zillionaires have said that at some point money ceases to be a motivating factor. They’re driven by other things, and by the time they personally become super wealthy they’ve already achieved all the things that are going to benefit society. Further wealth accumulation beyond that point wasn’t their goal, and I really don’t think a wealth cap would deter those people or deprive the world of their achievements at all.
Hoarding that wealth does nothing to improve society.
Cap real wealth at 200 million EUR, any more wealth accumulated needs to be shunted to a global poverty fund.
However, the wealth earned should still be recorded as having been earned by the person, this will give the person the recognizion they crave, a highscore list to give them incentive to keep going.
This is obviously impossible to do as wealth is not a tangible concept these days.
I was thinking about this and I’m actually curious how that would work in practical terms.
Let’s think of somebody with a large company, whose wealth is not in cash (not the largest sum, at least) but mostly on shares of their companies. Once their shares raise over 200 million… What? Do they sell the shares to pay 100% tax on the surplus? What does that mean for companies that, due to the economies of scale and it’s costs, need to be massive to be competitive? (Chip manufacturing, automotive, aerospace, civil engineering…).
To be clear, I don’t think it’s possible to become a billionaire without being immoral, and to hoard more than you and your children need for the remainder of their lives is also immoral. Not arguing that, only how that could be fixed
Yes, they sell the shares.
If companies need to break through the roof to compete then they’d just have to not compete.
I’d calculated 10M would be way more than enough but it’s a good start.
Give them a special achievement sticker on their license.
