Can anyone recommend a convincing argument one what benefit there is to society of letting anyone accumulate/control a billion dollars? Is it kind of like the lottery where we need a few outrages winners to convince all the rubes to play?
The value that gets created might not have been created otherwise. The key is taxation, which is where the US and other countries have failed since the Reagan years.
That's kind of a lazy argument and it falls apart when you go the other way. Do you ever feel like we should intervene? What about if we have a trillionaire? A 10 trillionaire? A 100?
Is there no conceivable amount of wealth hoarding that you would find excessive?
> My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much?
That's not an actual argument though.
It's your gut justification that no one should be able to set the amount posed as a question. You are presuming that just because there's no perfect agreement on an arbitrary number, then the problem somehow becomes not worth solving.
> If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k?
Good questions. We can have a discussion about it, but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon.
If you can’t answer it you can’t move forward with the plan. It might be an interesting intellectual discussion, but it’s pointless beyond the cerebral exercise because it’s impossible to implement. “It’s impossible to implement” simply trumps all other arguments.
> but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon
There is no way to get to an agreement on a specific amount because you theoretically apply the same “pro” arguments to wealth limitation to a billion dollars to $100k or even to $14,001. The alternative is a prohibition against any individual wealth accumulation. I’m absolutely not for that, so you and I will never agree on a number, because there isn’t a number where I would say “that is too much”. I am dead set against any wealth limitation.
W: "for $1M dollars? Yeah, I guess I could be convinced for $1M."
M: "What about for $10"
W: "No, what do you take me for!"
M: "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over price."
I don't think this is that funny of a joke, but the point I'm making is that picking a number is a detail that comes after we decide that there needs to be a number. And I think if you agree that there needs to be a number, the gov't is the one that could set it (or the voting public).
The most likely answer is you pick some multiple of minimum wage, and then some number of years at that number. 1000x minimum wage, 10 years of earnings at that value. That's the maximum you can have. You want more? You gotta raise minimum wage.
Is this a real question? You can't imagine any population that can make this determination for itself?
If only there were organizations responsible for populations that could determine this locally for places in the world. Guess we just got to take a "world vote".
It’s a real question. If it’s not worldwide you haven’t eliminated the ultra-wealthy, you have just relocated them. Their wealth is still tied up and unavailable for the redistribution the original premise hopes to achieve.
In those local places where you have made the ultra wealthy illegal, you have also discouraged them to invest in your locality. In other words, you shot yourself in the foot.
the only reason we have entrepreneurs is that there are people who do not like the idea of working for someone else :) becoming a billionaire is like maybe 8765896th on entreprenuer’s mind
Everyone who visits this forum would do well to remember the narrative of tech being “the last meritocracy” is at the very least completely dead now, if it was ever true to begin with.
Founders have been so thoroughly mythologized that everyone is becoming blind to the reality of the industry as a whole, and that is a few large corporations are increasingly holding all the keys.
Yet you have the people most affected by this decrying others who push against this in society, the workplace or in politics as if it’s an affront to do so.
We are losing our innovation spirit as we allow such rot to set in. We should have known better, we did nothing to prove we did
>Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead…
It is just the oligarchy as the above mentions. The take over startedwith Reagan, then Citizens United ruling locked in their power.
Can anyone recommend a convincing argument one what benefit there is to society of letting anyone accumulate/control a billion dollars? Is it kind of like the lottery where we need a few outrages winners to convince all the rubes to play?
It seems the only convincing argument anyone needs is that some day they will have a billion dollars and they would like to keep it.
The value that gets created might not have been created otherwise. The key is taxation, which is where the US and other countries have failed since the Reagan years.
My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much?
If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k?
The upper amount can’t really be agreed upon so we can’t set an upper limit.
That's kind of a lazy argument and it falls apart when you go the other way. Do you ever feel like we should intervene? What about if we have a trillionaire? A 10 trillionaire? A 100?
Is there no conceivable amount of wealth hoarding that you would find excessive?
Good questions. I wouldn't expect planetary agreement, but we've already self-organized into different groups for deciding these types of things.
Even the US came close to this with a top marginal tax rate of 90% during WWII.
> My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much?
That's not an actual argument though.
It's your gut justification that no one should be able to set the amount posed as a question. You are presuming that just because there's no perfect agreement on an arbitrary number, then the problem somehow becomes not worth solving.
> If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k?
Good questions. We can have a discussion about it, but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon.
> That’s not an actual argument though…
If you can’t answer it you can’t move forward with the plan. It might be an interesting intellectual discussion, but it’s pointless beyond the cerebral exercise because it’s impossible to implement. “It’s impossible to implement” simply trumps all other arguments.
> but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon
There is no way to get to an agreement on a specific amount because you theoretically apply the same “pro” arguments to wealth limitation to a billion dollars to $100k or even to $14,001. The alternative is a prohibition against any individual wealth accumulation. I’m absolutely not for that, so you and I will never agree on a number, because there isn’t a number where I would say “that is too much”. I am dead set against any wealth limitation.
There's an old joke where a man asks a woman
M: "Would you sleep with me for $1M"
W: "for $1M dollars? Yeah, I guess I could be convinced for $1M."
M: "What about for $10"
W: "No, what do you take me for!"
M: "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over price."
I don't think this is that funny of a joke, but the point I'm making is that picking a number is a detail that comes after we decide that there needs to be a number. And I think if you agree that there needs to be a number, the gov't is the one that could set it (or the voting public).
The most likely answer is you pick some multiple of minimum wage, and then some number of years at that number. 1000x minimum wage, 10 years of earnings at that value. That's the maximum you can have. You want more? You gotta raise minimum wage.
We simply increase the number until 95-99% of population agree with it.
Population of where?
The population with the logistical wherewithal to do something about it.
Is this a real question? You can't imagine any population that can make this determination for itself?
If only there were organizations responsible for populations that could determine this locally for places in the world. Guess we just got to take a "world vote".
It’s a real question. If it’s not worldwide you haven’t eliminated the ultra-wealthy, you have just relocated them. Their wealth is still tied up and unavailable for the redistribution the original premise hopes to achieve.
In those local places where you have made the ultra wealthy illegal, you have also discouraged them to invest in your locality. In other words, you shot yourself in the foot.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
The slim chance of becoming a billionaire is the only reason we have entrepreneurs.
the only reason we have entrepreneurs is that there are people who do not like the idea of working for someone else :) becoming a billionaire is like maybe 8765896th on entreprenuer’s mind
Archival link: https://archive.ph/bE0c9
Everyone who visits this forum would do well to remember the narrative of tech being “the last meritocracy” is at the very least completely dead now, if it was ever true to begin with.
Founders have been so thoroughly mythologized that everyone is becoming blind to the reality of the industry as a whole, and that is a few large corporations are increasingly holding all the keys.
Yet you have the people most affected by this decrying others who push against this in society, the workplace or in politics as if it’s an affront to do so.
We are losing our innovation spirit as we allow such rot to set in. We should have known better, we did nothing to prove we did
>Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead…
It is just the oligarchy as the above mentions. The take over startedwith Reagan, then Citizens United ruling locked in their power.
It is already here.
> Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy
Well, an oligarchy is a form of government, so . . .
Time for a new speech-writer! I guess a new President will take care of that.