4 ms·

I can’t think of a statement - beyond, perhaps, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - that I have agreed with more. There is simply no use for one indivi

I can’t think of a statement - beyond, perhaps, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - that I have agreed with more. There is simply no use for one individual to have that much wealth. Tax it, and individuals will find creative ways to put it to use instead of hoarding it.

mrfredward 7y ago
He's more or less saying "no one should ever be richer than my favorite singer." I can't possibly think of a shallower way to talk about wealth inequality.
- e40 7y ago
  Seriously, stop thinking about the singer and think about the number. $500,000,000. That's a lot of money. The world is a crazy place right now, and part of it has to do with so few people amassing so much wealth.
- pjc50 7y ago
  The argument was that nobody should be richer than what they can earn through work, or "exploitation" of themselves as a capital asset. Ronaldo would also work as a yardstick. Earning purely through property or being a boss wouldn't. It's an interesting one to explore, as there are all sorts of annoying corner cases possible.
  - mrfredward 7y ago
    The royalties an artist receives are a form of passive income. Beyonce had to work to create an asset (her music), but when she's done with a recording the income comes from controlling the asset, not directly from her labor. It's really not that much different to owning a business. She's still capturing an outsize portion of the value from a process that involves thousands of other people. Wealthy musicians are still capitalists, and getting rich running a business that employs thousands should be as respectable as singing, if not more so.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
Tax it, and individuals will find creative ways to put it to use instead of hoarding it. You seem to think the ultra rich have Scrooge McDuck style swimming pools of cash or stacks of gold bars in a cave somewhere doing nothing but somehow "storing" accumulated wealth. This is generally not true. Most billionaires appear to have most of their wealth in the form of stocks in a company they run. (AKA investment in the economy) There's lots of valid criticisms to be made of extreme wealth inequality. The rich supposedly "doing nothing" with their money doesn't seem to be one of them.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > Most billionaires appear to have most of their wealth in the form of stocks in a company they run. That's a lot worse. Owning stocks means having control over a company and thus power. One unelected person having so much more power than others is incompatible with democracy. A Scrooge McDuck style gold pile, in contrast, would make gold slightly more expensive but wouldn't influence the economy otherwise.
darawk 7y ago
Sorry, to clarify, I wasn't necessarily opposing the wealth cap. I was reacting to the view that Beyonce and Schulz's contribution to the world are comparable, or even the suggestion that somehow Beyonce has contributed more. Starbucks is a company that employees tens of thousand of people, and delivers value to millions of customers around the world. I think the view that Schulz shouldn't have more than 500 million isn't unreasonable, but it seems very clear to me that he should have more than Beyonce.
conanbatt 7y ago
If you are worried about wealth concentration, there is nothing that concentrates more of it than government.
antidesitter 7y ago
> I can’t think of a statement - beyond, perhaps, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - that I have agreed with more. That Beyonce is the most talented and hardworking person? That no one should have a higher net worth than her? You have some very strange views.

mrfredward 7y ago

He's more or less saying "no one should ever be richer than my favorite singer." I can't possibly think of a shallower way to talk about wealth inequality.

e40 7y ago
Seriously, stop thinking about the singer and think about the number. $500,000,000. That's a lot of money. The world is a crazy place right now, and part of it has to do with so few people amassing so much wealth.
pjc50 7y ago
The argument was that nobody should be richer than what they can earn through work, or "exploitation" of themselves as a capital asset. Ronaldo would also work as a yardstick. Earning purely through property or being a boss wouldn't. It's an interesting one to explore, as there are all sorts of annoying corner cases possible.
- mrfredward 7y ago
  The royalties an artist receives are a form of passive income. Beyonce had to work to create an asset (her music), but when she's done with a recording the income comes from controlling the asset, not directly from her labor. It's really not that much different to owning a business. She's still capturing an outsize portion of the value from a process that involves thousands of other people. Wealthy musicians are still capitalists, and getting rich running a business that employs thousands should be as respectable as singing, if not more so.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

Tax it, and individuals will find creative ways to put it to use instead of hoarding it. You seem to think the ultra rich have Scrooge McDuck style swimming pools of cash or stacks of gold bars in a cave somewhere doing nothing but somehow "storing" accumulated wealth. This is generally not true. Most billionaires appear to have most of their wealth in the form of stocks in a company they run. (AKA investment in the economy) There's lots of valid criticisms to be made of extreme wealth inequality. The rich supposedly "doing nothing" with their money doesn't seem to be one of them.

anoncake 7y ago
> Most billionaires appear to have most of their wealth in the form of stocks in a company they run. That's a lot worse. Owning stocks means having control over a company and thus power. One unelected person having so much more power than others is incompatible with democracy. A Scrooge McDuck style gold pile, in contrast, would make gold slightly more expensive but wouldn't influence the economy otherwise.

darawk 7y ago

Sorry, to clarify, I wasn't necessarily opposing the wealth cap. I was reacting to the view that Beyonce and Schulz's contribution to the world are comparable, or even the suggestion that somehow Beyonce has contributed more. Starbucks is a company that employees tens of thousand of people, and delivers value to millions of customers around the world. I think the view that Schulz shouldn't have more than 500 million isn't unreasonable, but it seems very clear to me that he should have more than Beyonce.

conanbatt 7y ago

If you are worried about wealth concentration, there is nothing that concentrates more of it than government.

antidesitter 7y ago

> I can’t think of a statement - beyond, perhaps, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - that I have agreed with more. That Beyonce is the most talented and hardworking person? That no one should have a higher net worth than her? You have some very strange views.