3 ms·
"To maintain our standard of living" is not even close to the reason we need to tax billionaires. Let me put it to you this way: I couldn't give 2 shits how ma
by pmiller2 6y ago
"To maintain our standard of living" is not even close to the reason we need to tax billionaires.
Let me put it to you this way: I couldn't give 2 shits how many mansions, yachts, and Ferraris anybody has, but, when there are people[0] who literally have the ability to spend an amount of money greater than the entire GDP of a small country[1] to influence my country's elections, then I have a problem with that. Put another way, it's not the amount of money that certain people have accumulated that bothers me. It's the amount of undue influence those people get because of it that's the problem. It's not 1 person = 1 vote. It's more like $1M = 1 vote, when you take that $1M and apply it in the right places (such as directly into the pockets of politicians by way of lobbyists).
Find a way to fix that problem, and then we can talk about allowing billionaires to exist. Until then, America isn't a republic: it's a de facto oligarchy. And that, I have a real problem with.
---
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg_2020_presidential_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg_2020_preside...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Federated_States_of_Micronesia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Federated_State...
- andi999 6y ago$1M 1vote is no problem. So even a big short billionaire cannot influence much since 50,000 votes would be $50bn. Ok, this might effect Slovenia. One time. And then its a former billionaire.