You can’t even spend a billion dollars with the most ridiculous luxury items you can think of. Spending that much in a lifetime for things you would even remotely appreciate would feel like work.
The only difference having billions of dollars makes instead of only a few millions in a rich person’s life is that it enables them to singlehandedly influence politics to their personal liking by buying politicians and media institutions. Which is something nobody should be allowed to do to begin with.
Meanwhile had that billion dollars been distributed to the worker class through fair wages or even to the consumers through fair prices it would have contributed to the economy and the well-being of everyone. Having to tax it to avoid seeing that money sit in some asshole’s offshore bank account is a failure of the system to properly distribute wealth when it is generated to begin with and even that isn’t being done right now.
Even worse than that, with just $100 million in a risk-free CD making 3% APY, one receives $3 million per year from interest alone.
Nevermind how to spend a billion dollars in one lifetime, how do you spend three million dollars in one year?
Any wealth above $100 million should be taxed at the end of each fiscal year. Nobody could reasonably need more than that. Of course, it would be complicated by carving out exceptions for real assets. Anyone with that much money would just buy a new yacht every September to avoid it, but that should still be taxed as capital gains.
it enables them to singlehandedly influence politics to their personal liking by buying politicians and media institutions.
Most conservative americans seem to believe “freedom” includes permitting the wealthy to rig the game in their own favor. They don’t seem to consider the ways in which that infringes on everyone else’s freedom.
That’s why “anarcho-captialism” and even “libertarian-capitalism” are both farces. There’s no room for liberty under plutocracy. Only the financial oligarchs have any degree of freedom in those systems, which is no better or different than an aristocracy, just without the overt nepotism (the nepotism becomes covert instead, by mislabelling generational wealth as a “meritocracy”).
Meanwhile had that billion dollars been distributed to the worker class through fair wages or even to the consumers through fair prices it would have contributed to the economy and the well-being of everyone.
I agree, but too many people only measure the success of an economy by top-down metrics such as GDP, gross revenue, stock market growth, etc. They ignore factors such as cost of living, wage stagnation, median income, RIFs, and the job market in general, social mobility, cost of healthcare and education, etc., leading to such buffoonery as claiming “unemployment is good for the economy” and “deflation is bad for the economy.”
And then they come back with stupid arguments like “econ 101, bro.” Classical economic theories are a soft science at best, arguably even a pseudoscience, and yet finance bros treat it like it’s a hard science. They cite them like scripture, or like laws of physics, but they’re not nearly so immutable or infallible. Especially when they focus solely on supply-side and neoliberal economics, which were clearly developed with an agenda.
Even Adam Smith gets quoted out of context, while ignoring the fact that he was opposed to many of the ideas his work is often used to rationalize.
Personally I’m hoping we see a couple multi trillionares. Rapidly followed by their assets depreciating into worthlessness and the USD becoming worth less than monopoly money.
How many “billionaires” actually have a billion dollars to spend though? They usually are “worth” a billion dollars through stocks they can’t sell, with a couple of million in the bank
Except that they do just that by borrowing money against their stocks, which also incidentally allows them to avoid paying taxes. That’s how Musk bought Twitter.
I think it might be a good idea to tax loans like this as income, but I’m not an economist and am not sure what the follow on effects would be. I feel like if there were exceptions it might be used as a loophole, but if there aren’t it might affect poorer people trying to get loans for housing.
This is like saying “they don’t actually have that much oxygen. They’ve got it compressed in massive liquefied tanks. You can’t breathe liquid oxygen, so it doesn’t really count as breathable air. So nevermind that a billionth of the population controls 50% of the oxygen on the planet because the actual gaseous air they breath on the day to day is just an extremely comfortable level of oxygen.”
You can’t even spend a billion dollars with the most ridiculous luxury items you can think of. Spending that much in a lifetime for things you would even remotely appreciate would feel like work.
The only difference having billions of dollars makes instead of only a few millions in a rich person’s life is that it enables them to singlehandedly influence politics to their personal liking by buying politicians and media institutions. Which is something nobody should be allowed to do to begin with.
Meanwhile had that billion dollars been distributed to the worker class through fair wages or even to the consumers through fair prices it would have contributed to the economy and the well-being of everyone. Having to tax it to avoid seeing that money sit in some asshole’s offshore bank account is a failure of the system to properly distribute wealth when it is generated to begin with and even that isn’t being done right now.
Even worse than that, with just $100 million in a risk-free CD making 3% APY, one receives $3 million per year from interest alone.
Nevermind how to spend a billion dollars in one lifetime, how do you spend three million dollars in one year?
Any wealth above $100 million should be taxed at the end of each fiscal year. Nobody could reasonably need more than that. Of course, it would be complicated by carving out exceptions for real assets. Anyone with that much money would just buy a new yacht every September to avoid it, but that should still be taxed as capital gains.
Most conservative americans seem to believe “freedom” includes permitting the wealthy to rig the game in their own favor. They don’t seem to consider the ways in which that infringes on everyone else’s freedom.
That’s why “anarcho-captialism” and even “libertarian-capitalism” are both farces. There’s no room for liberty under plutocracy. Only the financial oligarchs have any degree of freedom in those systems, which is no better or different than an aristocracy, just without the overt nepotism (the nepotism becomes covert instead, by mislabelling generational wealth as a “meritocracy”).
I agree, but too many people only measure the success of an economy by top-down metrics such as GDP, gross revenue, stock market growth, etc. They ignore factors such as cost of living, wage stagnation, median income, RIFs, and the job market in general, social mobility, cost of healthcare and education, etc., leading to such buffoonery as claiming “unemployment is good for the economy” and “deflation is bad for the economy.”
And then they come back with stupid arguments like “econ 101, bro.” Classical economic theories are a soft science at best, arguably even a pseudoscience, and yet finance bros treat it like it’s a hard science. They cite them like scripture, or like laws of physics, but they’re not nearly so immutable or infallible. Especially when they focus solely on supply-side and neoliberal economics, which were clearly developed with an agenda.
Even Adam Smith gets quoted out of context, while ignoring the fact that he was opposed to many of the ideas his work is often used to rationalize.
The difference between 1 million and 1 billion is about 1 billion.
And the prediction is that we’ll have a few trillionaires soon. The difference between 1 billion and 1 trillion is about 1 trillion.
Personally I’m hoping we see a couple multi trillionares. Rapidly followed by their assets depreciating into worthlessness and the USD becoming worth less than monopoly money.
A billion dollars buys you power. That kind of money gets you a seat at the table.
How many “billionaires” actually have a billion dollars to spend though? They usually are “worth” a billion dollars through stocks they can’t sell, with a couple of million in the bank
Aaaannnd the inevitable arrival of the “nothing we can do about it guyz, it’s hopeless, we just need to accept it.”
It takes a different form from time to time, but the ubercapitalist cultists always show up in these threads.
Except that they do just that by borrowing money against their stocks, which also incidentally allows them to avoid paying taxes. That’s how Musk bought Twitter.
I think it might be a good idea to tax loans like this as income, but I’m not an economist and am not sure what the follow on effects would be. I feel like if there were exceptions it might be used as a loophole, but if there aren’t it might affect poorer people trying to get loans for housing.
Yup, their latent wealth grows faster than what they borrow to use as actual spending, they literally don’t spend money, they accumulate it
This is like saying “they don’t actually have that much oxygen. They’ve got it compressed in massive liquefied tanks. You can’t breathe liquid oxygen, so it doesn’t really count as breathable air. So nevermind that a billionth of the population controls 50% of the oxygen on the planet because the actual gaseous air they breath on the day to day is just an extremely comfortable level of oxygen.”