36 ms·
Maybe. But my point is that it's that we should discuss this, and not super high limits of over 1 billion that 1/ only affects very few people, 2/ none of which
by bambax 4y ago
Maybe. But my point is that it's that we should discuss this, and not super high limits of over 1 billion that 1/ only affects very few people, 2/ none of which are likely to be part of the conversation and 3/ would still leave them extremely rich by any reasonable standard.
- sgc 4y agoI don't even understand your point. 1. A billion is 1000x more than a million. It is many times higher wealth and far beyond what could be considered required for a family to survive on for generations. 2. A million is not even enough to come close to retirement, it is way too low of a number, so it is not even enough for one person in one lifetime in the US (which we are presumably discussing since the billionaire in question is taxed here). 3. The affect on publicly available funds from taxing the 1% of the 1% would be equal to or more than taxing the 99% of the 1%. So regardless of what you consider the right answer to the question (it's pretty tough to support without major caveats in my opinion), they are not at all the same and it actually comes across as an subtle attempt to reduce any potential support by muddying the waters, regardless of what you were actually trying to do.