3 ms·
$425bn/3.6bn = $118 avg. Now, the $425bn are not liquid assets, so we can argue that each of the 3.6bn individuals on the bottom half are worth a lot, lot, more
by bikamonki 10y ago
$425bn/3.6bn = $118 avg.
Now, the $425bn are not liquid assets, so we can argue that each of the 3.6bn individuals on the bottom half are worth a lot, lot, more than $120 each (worth in the same sense as measuring the net worth of billionaires). For starters, they own thousands of labor hours. Maybe the problem is that we cannot create enough jobs and it is easier to blame Zuck and friends?
It is a very dangerous idea to seek a fairier distribution of wealth by taking it from the rich. If you doubt it go ask Venezuelans or Cubans if it worked out for them.
- llukas 10y agoPutting a king on a guillotine was also very dangerous idea. Zuck can pay no taxes by donating his money to his wife foundation - something not really possible for regular taxpayer. WTF wealth distribution is this? Rich paying their fair share is a good start.
- confounded 10y ago> It is a very dangerous idea to seek a fairier distribution of wealth by taking it from the rich. Sounds like a pretty straight-forward idea to me. How else best to achieve a fairer distribution? "Trickle down"?
- cmdrfred 10y agoHistorically this has been achieved with pitchforks and guillotines.
- edran 10y ago>It is a very dangerous idea to seek a fairier distribution of wealth by taking it from the rich. If you doubt it go ask Venezuelans or Cubans if it worked out for them. FYI most countries already do this in the form of somewhat progressive taxation. Some however do this more than the US (say, the great majority of Europe), and they do pretty much fine. I also don't see how this is "dangerous". For who, the general population? The socio-economical system? The environment?