4 ms·

Or just tax them equally. Billionaires tend to pay a lower rate of tax than most. If that earning was instead distributed to thousands of individuals earning a

by altacc 6y ago

Or just tax them equally. Billionaires tend to pay a lower rate of tax than most. If that earning was instead distributed to thousands of individuals earning a few hundred thousand a year, the tax yield would be much bigger. A billionaire's dollars also sit around unused, which is much less value than actively circulating wealth.

hackeraccount 6y ago
"billionaire's dollars also sit around unused" Is there a source for that? Or even a reason to think it's the case? I'm sure Jeff Bezos has a savings account and it probably has more in it then mine but even on that I don't think that money in the bank is the same as money under the mattress and that's what you seem to be talking about.
- altacc 6y ago
  I was referring to a billionaire’s wealth having less impact on the economy that if that money was circulating in the economy, being used to pay salaries, for purchases, etc... Money in circulation generates widespread growth, whereas a billionaire’s wealth almost can’t help but grow but isn’t actually benefitting many people, if anyone at all. Past a certain stage nobody can spend that amount of money. Also that level of wealth isn’t realised money, it’s stocks, bonds, assets, etc... that they amass, often using the theoretical value of their other assets to secure yet more wealth, which in turn becomes stagnant because it’s just excess wealth, sitting there doing nothing except entrench the wealth disparity in the world.
  - hackeraccount 6y ago
    Again no one is keeping their money under a mattress. Even money in assets is not unused. Surely the fact that Apple's stock is worth a bazillion dollars has some utility to the company? If they sell stock they must be using it for something. If I buy the stock and it goes up - even if I'm not buying it from Apple - it makes things easier for Apple.

by altacc 6y ago

hackeraccount 6y ago

"billionaire's dollars also sit around unused" Is there a source for that? Or even a reason to think it's the case? I'm sure Jeff Bezos has a savings account and it probably has more in it then mine but even on that I don't think that money in the bank is the same as money under the mattress and that's what you seem to be talking about.

altacc 6y ago
I was referring to a billionaire’s wealth having less impact on the economy that if that money was circulating in the economy, being used to pay salaries, for purchases, etc... Money in circulation generates widespread growth, whereas a billionaire’s wealth almost can’t help but grow but isn’t actually benefitting many people, if anyone at all. Past a certain stage nobody can spend that amount of money. Also that level of wealth isn’t realised money, it’s stocks, bonds, assets, etc... that they amass, often using the theoretical value of their other assets to secure yet more wealth, which in turn becomes stagnant because it’s just excess wealth, sitting there doing nothing except entrench the wealth disparity in the world.
- hackeraccount 6y ago
  Again no one is keeping their money under a mattress. Even money in assets is not unused. Surely the fact that Apple's stock is worth a bazillion dollars has some utility to the company? If they sell stock they must be using it for something. If I buy the stock and it goes up - even if I'm not buying it from Apple - it makes things easier for Apple.