3 ms·

If we took every dollar from all the billionaires in the US we could give everyone around 10k. If we did the same for the entire top 1% we could give everyone

If we took every dollar from all the billionaires in the US we could give everyone around 10k. If we did the same for the entire top 1% we could give everyone around 100k. We could do this exactly once, and it would destroy enough wealth (most of this money is in assets, whose value would be destroyed in the process) that the real value you'd get out of that number would be A LOT less. The rich are not the source of the working man's problems no matter how many times it gets repeated. People are payed based on supply and demand. Supply and demand is a byproduct of private property. If you like owning things, you're stuck with capitalism and supply and demand.

andi999 6y ago
Yes. Also the main point is: this means most of the gains (almost all) of a company go to the employees. The idea 9f let's redistribute income so the rich get less and everybody gets more would not make a real difference. (that is also the reason why the middle class has the highest total tax)
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  No, I got that part. My argument is that if those gains were redistributed to workers, income gains would be modest at best. 55k to 65k for a single year if we got rid of all billionaires. If we assume we instead distribute the growth of the wealth as income, it's more like 500-1000 dollars a year more in income. If we take everything from everyone worth 2 million or more, and distribute it at 10% a year, that's still only 10k a year extra.
  - chii 6y ago
    And also that by doing this sort of redistribution, you will disincentivize investment, and incentivize consumption (from the rich) - after all, what good would the investment be, if it is going to be taken away when it succeeds, but you take on all the risk of the investment? Rather buy a yacht and go on lavish, extravagent holidays with the money - they can't redistribute the memories in the brain!
mempko 6y ago
You are right that most of their wealth is tied up in assets but you don't need to convert their wealth into cash, you can just transfer ownership. Example, take Elon Musks shares in Tesla and just give them to random people. Some of those people may sell, but many won't. This clearly won't destroy the value of Tesla since they will continue making cars. They made good cars before Elon joined Tesla, and they will continue after Elon leaves Tesla.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  > They made good cars before Elon joined Tesla Musk became CEO of Tesla in Oct 2008. As of Sept 10, 2008, Tesla had delivered 27 cars to customers. That's about as "technically correct and practically wrong" as I've seen.
  - mempko 6y ago
    What's wrong here? It's not like Elon designed the model S, Mercedes engineers along with Tesla ones did. Mercedes invested in 10% of Tesla and even ordered Tesla batteries for Mercedes models. But found Tesla didn't test their batteries for durability and safety. Mercedes reduced the range of their B models and added shielding to compensate. Tesla owners had to learn the hard way after several Model S cars caught on fire. Tesla fixed it after the fact. I wouldn't trust a company cutting so many corners. Recent recall is another example. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-tesla-newera-insight/how-tesla-defined-a-new-era-for-the-global-auto-industry-idUSKCN24N0GB https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-tesla-newera-insigh...
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Tesla has sold over 1,000,000 cars at this point. Over 99.997% of those were sold after Musk was CEO. So, while it's technically absolutely true that "they sold cars before Elon joined", it's a literal rounding error.
      - mempko 6y ago
        Here I am, trying to give credit to Tesla's success to the countless engineers and designers who did 99.9% of the work. By your own math, what Elon did is a rounding error.

andi999 6y ago

Yes. Also the main point is: this means most of the gains (almost all) of a company go to the employees. The idea 9f let's redistribute income so the rich get less and everybody gets more would not make a real difference. (that is also the reason why the middle class has the highest total tax)

BobbyJo 6y ago
No, I got that part. My argument is that if those gains were redistributed to workers, income gains would be modest at best. 55k to 65k for a single year if we got rid of all billionaires. If we assume we instead distribute the growth of the wealth as income, it's more like 500-1000 dollars a year more in income. If we take everything from everyone worth 2 million or more, and distribute it at 10% a year, that's still only 10k a year extra.
- chii 6y ago
  And also that by doing this sort of redistribution, you will disincentivize investment, and incentivize consumption (from the rich) - after all, what good would the investment be, if it is going to be taken away when it succeeds, but you take on all the risk of the investment? Rather buy a yacht and go on lavish, extravagent holidays with the money - they can't redistribute the memories in the brain!

mempko 6y ago

You are right that most of their wealth is tied up in assets but you don't need to convert their wealth into cash, you can just transfer ownership. Example, take Elon Musks shares in Tesla and just give them to random people. Some of those people may sell, but many won't. This clearly won't destroy the value of Tesla since they will continue making cars. They made good cars before Elon joined Tesla, and they will continue after Elon leaves Tesla.

sokoloff 6y ago
> They made good cars before Elon joined Tesla Musk became CEO of Tesla in Oct 2008. As of Sept 10, 2008, Tesla had delivered 27 cars to customers. That's about as "technically correct and practically wrong" as I've seen.
- mempko 6y ago
  What's wrong here? It's not like Elon designed the model S, Mercedes engineers along with Tesla ones did. Mercedes invested in 10% of Tesla and even ordered Tesla batteries for Mercedes models. But found Tesla didn't test their batteries for durability and safety. Mercedes reduced the range of their B models and added shielding to compensate. Tesla owners had to learn the hard way after several Model S cars caught on fire. Tesla fixed it after the fact. I wouldn't trust a company cutting so many corners. Recent recall is another example. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-tesla-newera-insight/how-tesla-defined-a-new-era-for-the-global-auto-industry-idUSKCN24N0GB https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-tesla-newera-insigh...
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Tesla has sold over 1,000,000 cars at this point. Over 99.997% of those were sold after Musk was CEO. So, while it's technically absolutely true that "they sold cars before Elon joined", it's a literal rounding error.
    - mempko 6y ago
      Here I am, trying to give credit to Tesla's success to the countless engineers and designers who did 99.9% of the work. By your own math, what Elon did is a rounding error.