4 ms·

This argument doesn't make sense. For one, Bezos is not the only person responsible for Amazon's success. The company literally is one of the largest employers

by tfourb 3y ago

This argument doesn't make sense. For one, Bezos is not the only person responsible for Amazon's success. The company literally is one of the largest employers in the U.S. and a notable employer in many other places. Tens of thousands of people contribute to Amazon's success, directly and indirectly, which in my view makes Bezo's wealth even more absurd. Secondly, there are a ton of people who have contributed significantly to things a lot of people use. Johnny Ive and Steve Jobs were instrumental to the development of the iPhone (about 1 Billion users worldwide). The "Tetra Pak" and similar containers are used by hundreds of Millions of people every day. There are ton of other examples. Being loved/used/supported by a large share of the population does not entitle you to essentially infinite money.

xyzelement 3y ago
// Tens of thousands of people contribute to Amazon's success, directly and indirectly, which in my view makes Bezo's wealth even more absurd Did these people not get paid? Many of them are also millionaires or very least FAANG-level comp, and then for the warehouse/drivers is it not their best opportunity (hence they working there?) // Steve Jobs were instrumental to the development of the iPhone Jobs was worth 10B when he died, and that share of Apple would be worth a lot more today. Are you saying that Jobs-level wealth is ok while Bezos level isn't? How do you decide and more importantly WHO gets to decide?
- tfourb 3y ago
  I’m saying that absurd wealth is exactly that: absurd. Wealth, especially extreme wealth, is to a large extend self perpetuating and not reliant on individual performance and relies instead on redistribution from below to exist. As such it should be taxed out of existence. My personal preference for that would be a very high inheritance tax, including on trusts and foundations, because it retains a decent motivation for wealth creation and allows to pass on a large number of intangible benefits (education, etc) to one’s children.

by tfourb 3y ago

xyzelement 3y ago

// Tens of thousands of people contribute to Amazon's success, directly and indirectly, which in my view makes Bezo's wealth even more absurd Did these people not get paid? Many of them are also millionaires or very least FAANG-level comp, and then for the warehouse/drivers is it not their best opportunity (hence they working there?) // Steve Jobs were instrumental to the development of the iPhone Jobs was worth 10B when he died, and that share of Apple would be worth a lot more today. Are you saying that Jobs-level wealth is ok while Bezos level isn't? How do you decide and more importantly WHO gets to decide?

tfourb 3y ago
I’m saying that absurd wealth is exactly that: absurd. Wealth, especially extreme wealth, is to a large extend self perpetuating and not reliant on individual performance and relies instead on redistribution from below to exist. As such it should be taxed out of existence. My personal preference for that would be a very high inheritance tax, including on trusts and foundations, because it retains a decent motivation for wealth creation and allows to pass on a large number of intangible benefits (education, etc) to one’s children.