6 ms·

I can't remember the last time I disagreed with a HN post as much as this one. The reason the "tax the rich" debate has become such a hot topic is down to the f

I can't remember the last time I disagreed with a HN post as much as this one. The reason the "tax the rich" debate has become such a hot topic is down to the fact that governments are currently not doing so, and they're not doing so because they're scared to. When a country's government is scared of a single individual, that individual wields unconstitutional power over every other person in the country (cf: Musk). As for whether billionaires could ever be a "good person" - I'd argue that if you become a billionaire and then stay a billionaire, you are by definition not a good person because you've become that unconstitutional power and decided to hold on to it.

snapplebobapple 2y ago
Your scale is wrong because the economy is around 29 trillion a year just in the usa so the present value of the future is around 322 trillion. Even the richest billionaire has wealth that is only 0.09 percent of that and a bunch of his wealth is global not just usa based. They would be a rounding error except their wealth is usually concentrated in large companies they have founded giving them outsized control of the company (or their ancestor founded) that are themselves concentrated in a small set of industries or one industry. Even then they wouldnt matter except for the market power the company exerts to unfairly benefit itself and ruin a level playing field stopping a better but smaller company from outcompeting them. The solution is the same one i already recommended: remedy the market power abuse situation of the company by breaking it up (my defacto preference) or rwgulating it more aggressively (not as good because it opens up political corruption/extortion weakening democracy).