this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
96 points (94.4% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3455 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

BOOK REVIEW

Where should society draw the line on extreme wealth? A fresh account sets out the logic and suggests how to redress inequality.

all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 49 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

As soon as you hit 1B net worth, you get a diploma that says "Congrats, you won capitalism", and every penny headed for your accounts past that point gets diverted into a society welfare fund.

Could probably set the bar A LOT lower too.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I'd draw the line around 20 million or so. I think that's reasonable.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

20 to 50 millions ought to be more than enough. A billion is an amount that no longer makes any sense (assuming we're in euros/dollars).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'd also say that after you get out of the low tens of millions you are, by definition, a fucking asshole. You can't get that much money except by exploiting others. In my mind a highly skilled individual could personally create 20 million in economic output.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Where does that put entertainers, professional athletes, and lottery jackpot winners? I hear that Taylor Swift is a billionaire solely through her music sales and performance income.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago

Taylor Swift is an extremely odd case and might be one of the least ass-hole-y billionaires out there. But, given her level of wealth, why is she still charging for shows? Are all the people who work for her millionaires? Are all the roadies and stage hands and audio techs and venue greeters getting a fair portion of the revenue generated for their relative labor? Is there a compelling reason she shouldn't've started giving away massive amounts of charity after she could afford her first mansion?

My main point about all billionaires being assholes is that at a certain point the wealth is so worthless to you personally and so valuable to the people around you that hording it means you're an asshole - you're greedy enough that number-goes-up is more important than the well being of those around you and those that helped you accumulate your wealth.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

With $20 million I could still buy and control my local city council. /s

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You could live a decent middle class lifestyle with 4 million dollars and never work again. Let's be generous and say 10 million is the cap. There's no reason to get further, much less to a billion.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

That’s just socialism. On Second Thought, let’s just do that.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

I love how when this gets recommended the responses turn into trying to find the more exact correct amount to set the line at. Just like normal politics though, they get bogged down so much that what seemed like a simple answer turns into discuss,defer,delay, and the original point was missed.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you’re trying to solve inequality through tax policy alone, I wonder what the effect would be of having the top tax rate vary with the Gini coefficient. The idea being that the wealthy can theoretically reduce their tax burden if (and only if) they figure out how to use their economic power to reduce inequality by other means.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

How would you pinpoint the reduction of inequality to one person?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You wouldn’t—they’d have to work together. (Something they do seem capable of, when there’s profit in it.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't understand, so is it like the lower the inequality, lower taxes for the wealthiest?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Right.

If they can proactively reduce inequality, fine; otherwise taxation will do it for them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Interesting, but wouldn't the lower tax rates that they earn end up counteracting the gains they made?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Partly—but depending on how much you want to prioritize redistribution vs revenue, you could adjust the tax/Gini curve to set the equilibrium wherever you want.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

1,250,000 is 5000$ per month for 20 years.

1,000,000,000 is 5000$ per month for 16,666 years.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

It's more important to control trajectory than it is to control absolute wealth. Capital accumulation is how we got here, not people suddenly winning 1 billion dollars.