3 ms·

> the owners (or share holders) would not be multi-billionaires, only single-digit millionaires at most. Mmmm, I don't think your numbers add up... There are

> the owners (or share holders) would not be multi-billionaires, only single-digit millionaires at most. Mmmm, I don't think your numbers add up... There are 500 people in the US who have more than a billion dollars. If we made them all "single digit millionaires", we'd be looking at a one time wealth transfer of less than a $1T dollars, or about 25% of the US Federal Budget for one year. Sure, that would make for a good year, but then it's spent and we're back where we started... I think you're dramatically overestimating how much private wealth there is in the hands of the upper echelon compared to how much the sorts of programs you want would cost.

grecy 11y ago
Not only is there a one-time wealth transfer, there is in the ongoing extra taxes of companies paying what they should be paying. i.e. let's get Facebook to actually pay something in taxes
pcardh0 11y ago
Of course numbers his numbers don't add up, as barbie would say, "math is hard"
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
I liked how you undermined your own argument. If we truly are back where we started then we just do it again, and continue with the money being given to people who then spend it.
- puredemo 11y ago
  How do you remove billions in net worth more than once? It doesn't exist the second time.