91 points

Hell, we only have to do it once per billionaire. Since they only got to that point through their own self sufficient blood sweat and toil they’ll have no problems doing it again and better with all the experience they’ve learned along the way!

permalink
report
reply
37 points

And if they don’t feel like it, remember to point out that no one wants to work anymore!

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

If we always kill off 99.9% and grant the remaining 0.1% who actually bounce back immunity, we’d end up creating an even worse billionaire class. Kinda like with antibiotics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

No matter how many times you let that happen to a bacteria, as long as you’re killing them with a handgun, it keeps working. They don’t evolve defenses without becoming something different.

So I guess it’s a bit metaphorgotten, but the point is that that’s only true if it’s a system where starting from zero to a billion is something that can be selected for, and it pretty much just is not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

You say that, but just you wait; I’ll invent a handgun-resistant strain of bacteria soon

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Bring back Dragon Slaying. These fucks are greedier than a 10,000 year old Red Ancient Wyrm. No really. The absolute most that a dragon hoard will come out to is those guys, and they’ll only have 3.5-5 million gp worth of hoard after 10,000 years. That’s only 350,000 to 500,000 oz of gold. So $820,452,500 to $1,172,075,000

permalink
report
reply
10 points

Can we stop pretending billionaires are like Scrooge McDuck?

They don’t have money, they have assets. You can take those, but dafuq you wanna do with it? Let the state run the companies? Have you seen any state-ran stuff? Idk, if I want amazon state run.

permalink
report
reply
23 points

so you’re saying they’re billionaires, but ackshually they’re cash poor? They have that much in assets specifically because they can’t be taxed on it. they funnel all their income through LLCs and corporations so that they can write off their expenses on their tax returns as corporate expenses.

Tax them on their income, then tax them on their assets. It’s not unprecedented, they tax our real properties based on value, why not tax the super rich based on their assets as well?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Apparently Warner Brother’s (and other’s of the same) can produce and shelve a movie, and use it as a tax write-off. So if my taxes can prop up an industry that has the ability to “conveniently” shelve their works, while recouping a bad investment…why aren’t their shelved movies “public domain”? We kinda paid for them the moment they became a write-off

If I paint on canvas, and decide to never even try and earn income from it; do I get to recoup my losses in supplies? Or does the “standard deductible” override my loss, and the tax-burden falls back (again) on the working class? Or I’m dumb and don’t understand taxes, so please enlighten me

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Nah son, I agree with you. We gotta simplify the tax code and get rid of tax write-offs. Business should be taxed on gross income, not net income.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

~pssst, worker run co-ops~

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Nah, fuck that.

I don’t want my salary dependent on how we are doing on a monthly basis.

If I create my own company, sure. But I can kinda control it.

If there are a thousand other people voting for dumb stuff and I loose a third of my income, I’m gonna loose it.

Also if we are doing equal splits, college is actually useless. Why would I waste my time becoming an engineer, if I could have earned the same money the whole time instead. Even worse with american college, where you not just loose all the salary from not working but also like 10-20,000 in tuition.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Who said anything about equal splits?

There are a number of worker owned co-ops out there, and precisely none of them are run like you describe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Worker coops aren’t perfect, but they are more stable and provide better jobs than Capitalist businesses. You’re essentially saying you want to live in a dictatorship at work because having a voice is too complicated, and pretend the dictator isn’t going to make terrible decisions.

Additionally, you seem to believe you would make less money in a worker co-op, despite the fact that in a Capitalist business, you must give up a larger portion of that which you create to the owner, who holds all the power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Yes, run the companies democratically instead of individually.

The post office and fire department are great.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

The post office has problems largely because of a decades-long campaign by one of our two major political parties to neuter it completely for the benefit of private shipping companies. And the funny part is, for all their efforts, it’s still pretty damn good at its core mission.

What’s the issue with fire departments? They’re pretty great.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I wasn’t complaining about them, I was being genuine. I agree with what you’re saying, and am pointing out that a democratically accountable government run Amazon would indeed be better than its current iteration.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Fire departments aren’t a great example because their bound to municipalities and I’m pretty sure the IAFF is the firefighter mafia.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

There are exceptions, of course, but America is a bourgeois dictatorship. Some form of democratic organization would not face the same issues.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

There actually was a fire department run like a corporation once. It was run exactly like you figured it would be.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Anyone with a billion in assets also has enough access to cash to buy mansions and planes and stuff. They just have tricks to hide it as something other than personal income.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It’s hard to say what the best solution to this is, because you’re absolutely right, many billionaires don’t spend “money” - they leverage their assets to get stuff. If they need to liquidate anything, someone that monitors some portfolio at some wealth management firm will do that with a few clicks and some signatures.

Perhaps the best option is regulation of a banks ability to finance against leveraged assets above a certain threshold? I’d also be for a cap on CEO salaries and bonuses, perhaps with both shareholder and employee approval needed to execute executive bonuses. I imagine that alone would mean most CEO’s would lose a fuck-ton of money.

I’d love for a wealth tax to be viable, but it would require balls of steel from the president, and a central tax authority that won’t be coerced into accepting loopholes. Even then, it would be hilariously easy to get around by moving wealth elsewhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I don’t think salary caps are necessary. Just having steeper tax brackets will eventually lead to a soft cap, while not feeling like a punishment. Maybe even a simple function instead of brackets, its more dynamic and easier to calculate.

Wealth tax is kinda weird, since first someone needs to estimate the wealth, which is not easy. Then the amount to be paid probably needs to be cash, since 20% of e.g. a house is pretty useless. But actually liquefying enough wealth can have wild effects. For example Tesla stock plummeted for a while due to elon needing twitter-money.

In a sense it could prevent companies from growing. If I own a company imma make sure it stays below the threshold, since I don’t want to sell my shares and loose voting-rights.

Or if you look at countries trying to seize Russian oligarchs’ property: A lot failed, due to no one knowing who actually was the owner.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

And then the trophy explodes

permalink
report
reply