Billionaires 7 years ago:
https://web.archive.org/web/20171004002738/https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/
Billionaires today:
Pardon my ignorance. I dont follow these kind of news. BUT, why the hell is musk is no 1? What has he done? Last i heard this manchild is running down twitter, tesla with cybertruck fiasco. Is it from spacex?
I mean, zuckerberg and bezos basically create meta and amazon.
Wow! So things must have gotten a lot better for people over the last 7 years!
Right?
If you have a lot of money
you contributed a lot to society- you took a lot from society
If you’re a successful businessman and you want to contribute, perhaps you could lower the prices of your products, perhaps you could give shares to your employees who do all the work. Not only is it efficient for them to have a stake in the company, it’s also only fair. Not doing so is unfair. We won’t celebrate your ‘success’, a successful thief is a thief nonetheless. You doing so-called ‘philanthropy’ won’t do any good either. Money is power, you exerting your power over us isn’t the moral thing to do. It’s still wrong to the core. Sure, people voluntarily giving money to all sorts of causes is a beautiful thing, but only if money is reasonably distributed among people in the first place. If you take money from society on a large scale and then exert this power, than undoubtedly your views and interests are disproportionately represented. Your intentions are dubious, because if you intended well, why did you keep all the money and power for yourself in the first place? It’s likely that you’re a power hungry maniac. But even if you’re somehow naively unaware of this and truly have the noblest of intentions with your philanthropy, then it’s still a ludicrous idea that this would be an efficient way to distribute money. It’s quite obvious that if everyone got a say in where the money goes, that the distribution of assets would better represent what society deems important. It’s only logical that if you get to distribute the money, it will go to things you deem important. If you think that makes sense, it can only mean that you deem yourself wiser, more moral, than all of humanity combined. It means you are a narcissist. It’s not unlikely that you are, people who are successful money-wise, often think that life it a money-game and they’re the winning players. And they have won because they work hard and are clever. The thing is, life isn’t a money-game, people have moral compasses and strive towards others goals than making money. And even if it was a money-game, you’ve not won because you’re so smart and hard-working, it is in a very large part due to your luck. That’s not an allegation, it’s a logical fact. People don’t have the same starting positions. Being a billionaire is morally wrong, even if you give all of it away later in life.
If only we could combine Jim, Alice and Rob into a single entity called The Waltronzoid, we could easily defeat all the other billionaires by creating a bazillionaire.
I think what’s fantastic about it is of they acted just as crazy as the other billionaires like Musk and Bezos where they decided they wanted to go to space. Then we could make fun of people blowing up their Walmart brand space ship and be like “what did you expect?”
1% tax on all registered securities, payable in shares of those securities. The SEC just confiscates 1% of every position, and conveys them to an IRS liquidator. The liquidator sells them off in small lots over time, comprising no more than 1% of total traded shares. Securities with negative values are returned.
Once completely phased in, natural persons will be exempt on their first $10 million in registered securities. Corporate-owned securities will not be exempt: the are taxed from their first share.
We tax only the problematic portion of their wealth: their wealth-generating assets. We auction those assets off to the general public.
You sound like you know what you’re talking about, and convey it with spectrum-like precision. I throw my hat and my heart entirely to making your dream come true. Hoo, hoo (hoo-oo-hoo)
Guillotines. The only answer.
Guillotine is such an offensive word. I like „social scissors“ better.
I think it should be legal to murder a billionaire. They either have to pay for private security they can’t fully trust and always worry about being killed, or they can give away their money until they’re under a billion.
Save me a teriyaki one
No Japanese on the list, but we could make some nice fois gras with Bernard I’m sure.
That’s 18 people who own about a tenth of the US GDP. Something needs to be done, and soon.
That’s 18 people who own about a tenth of the US GDP.
Okay, sure. But that’s bad analysis. GDP is annual and net-worth is lifetime total. That’s also global wealth, not US-domestic (four of them aren’t even American).
Agree with the sentiment, but we should really be talking about global wealth not national income.
Something needs to be done
Including 14 inn the US.
How many security guards can one of these assholes have on duty at any one time?
Dont y’all have assault rifles and semiautomatics on you at all times and you are all about being against tyranny? WHAT GIVES?
My thought too. Don’t they have slogans like ‘don’t tread on me’ and such? I am pretty convinced you don’t get that kind of wealth without standing on everyone you can.
Billionaires are a political choice as much as homelessness. They are allowed to exist because nobody does anything about it.
They are allowed to exist because they can literally buy their own political system
they can literally buy their own political system
They already have.
tail -n +2 listAbove | cut -f 2 > DeathNote.txt
Don’t forget you still need facial recognition data.
There was an article celebrating the fact that we’re on our way to having the first trillionare.
I wanted to die. It’s so insanely fucking disgusting
Dis pos rel’van to beltalowda intres
How is space an adjective in the first one? Shouldn’t it be a noun?
These Anglo-Saxons again, putting random spaces into compound words.
I think it’s because it’s describing the noun.
It’s not describing the noun, it’s part of the noun.
Quick analogy in German:
space billionaire = Weltraummilliärdär
spacefaring billionaire = weltraumreisender Milliärdär
In German, adjective + noun cannot be written together to form a new noun. To form one, only noun + noun can be used. And English is close enough to Germanic languages for that rule to remain the same, I think.
You are correct. In English, when a noun is used to modify another noun (as an adjective does), it’s referred to as a noun adjunct, attributive noun, or, more rarely, an adjectival noun (the last almost exclusively refers to a similar usage in Japanese). While it serves the purpose of an adjective, it’s still technically a noun.
Examples are chicken soup, toy store, race car, and boat lane.
To be clear it’s not about “spacefaring” billionaires but about “spacing” billionaires aka dumping them out an airlock into space as seen in various “The Expanse” scenes.
That’s for the second one though, for the [verb] [noun] combination. The “[adjective]” [noun] combination implies spacefaring or similar, doesn’t it?
You’ve convinced me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_(linguistics)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/spelling-using-compound-words-guide
Corrected
Yes, correct.
Nouns can be adjectives in Freedom Language™
Look at all our WONDERFUL job creators amassing their dragon hoards!
Why would you go around celebrating untreated and ignored mental illnesses?
On the other hand, if we all work really hard, go the extra mile, burn the midnight oil… we can make it happen faster for that special someone.
kamala harris’ proposed tax on unrealized gains seems like a great idea rn
And that’s just the wealth that we know about
It’s almost seems like the main thing you need to make money is money
A boring distopia is already even a single person having more than a single billion.
It’s inherently antisocial. You no longer have to play by the social contract with that kind of wealth/power.
It’s a grave failure with our economic system that billionaires have been permitted to come about
Yup, there was that post a while back, like you reach a billion, you get a plaque that says “congrats you won capitalism” and then they start at 0 again
Not even a billion, as soon as you’re in 8 figures you have more than a reasonable person can spend in a lifetime. Cap it at 50 million, every cent more goes towards public infrastructure and welfare
Or we could do away with capitalism entirely. Just saying
Capitalism does have some uses, like which TV you want to buy, but it needs to be heavily regulated.
People can still make TVs without capitalism…
So what’s stopping them?
The fact that we live under capitalism today? People can grow crops without feudalism as well, but it’s not up to the individual serfs to decide if they want farm for themselves and their community, or for their liege lord. But the very same factories that produce consumer goods with a profit incentive today, can do the same for the benefit of the people tomorrow.
very same factories that produce consumer goods with a profit incentive today, can do the same for the benefit of the people tomorrow.
Yes. Until everyone ends up in poverty, because over time, nobody knows what to make and how much. The longer the supply chain the stronger the effect will be.
Sure, but what I am saying is it could fit in there.
For real, like Prestige in Call of Duty
