• Random Dent@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean you could even take the bottom number and leave them with the top number and they could still live in unimaginable luxury forever. Or just take the lot because fuck em lol.

      • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most of their billions is ownership in companies they grew into what they are today. It’s not like they have billions to spend, it’s that their ownership is worth billions according to the market.

        • MattsAlt [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They could go to any bank and leverage that asset for a loan for more than everyone who posts on this platform will make in their lifetimes no problem. That is a nonsense talking point

          • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            What’s your point? So because they can leverage their ownership of their own company we need to take away that ownership?

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t think the stock market should be determining if we take away companies from their owners, no matter how much it’s worth. Why does having more wealth than a certain size city matter? Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

                • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

                  Why do those employees get the bare minimum? Why are the working majority excluded from ownership and decision-making in the companies they run?

          • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            So what? We should take away that ownership because they can leverage it? Also the same people suggesting we tax wealth like this want to also close those “loopholes” of low interest loans on shares.

                • Enma Ai@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Taking away (extreme) wealth. There’s no reason one person should have that much. There’s countless better ways to use that money/wealth than for one persons extravagant lifestyle. And even if they don’t have an extravagant lifestyle, what are they gonna do with it? Doubt they will build infrastructure out of good will with it.

    • xenspidey@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You all realize they don’t have that money laying around to pay the IRS right? They own companies, those companies are worth that much. To pay that you would have to liquidate those companies. So no more Amazon, Tesla, Space X, etc…

  • gosling@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do billionaires actually have billions in real money sitting around? I’ve always thought the billions were in stocks and couldn’t be taxed until they cashed it out and they could technically lose everything if the stock price falls. That’s really fucked up if true