4 ms·

My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much? If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not

My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much? If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k? The upper amount can’t really be agreed upon so we can’t set an upper limit.

antisthenes 2y ago
> My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much? That's not an actual argument though. It's your gut justification that no one should be able to set the amount posed as a question. You are presuming that just because there's no perfect agreement on an arbitrary number, then the problem somehow becomes not worth solving. > If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k? Good questions. We can have a discussion about it, but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon.
- fsflover 2y ago
  We simply increase the number until 95-99% of population agree with it.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    Population of where?
    - xracy 2y ago
      Is this a real question? You can't imagine any population that can make this determination for itself? If only there were organizations responsible for populations that could determine this locally for places in the world. Guess we just got to take a "world vote".
      - kcplate 2y ago
        It’s a real question. If it’s not worldwide you haven’t eliminated the ultra-wealthy, you have just relocated them. Their wealth is still tied up and unavailable for the redistribution the original premise hopes to achieve. In those local places where you have made the ultra wealthy illegal, you have also discouraged them to invest in your locality. In other words, you shot yourself in the foot.
        fsflover 2y ago
        At least the relocated ultra-wealthy will not be able to influence your politics directly.
        kcplate 2y ago
        “Directly”
        fsflover 2y ago
        Yes, this is far from perfect. At the same time, it's much better than doing nothing.
        xracy 2y ago
        I am glad we got to your real answer. Which appears to be "we can't do that, we need the ultra-wealthy to spend money on us." One of the lessons of the pandemic is your economy is actually better serviced by many people spending money than by 1 person hoarding it. You can make the cost of doing business in your country that they have to be worth less than your cap. But the effect of this is actually that we would realize we don't need the ultra-wealthy. We would likely do better because it would be a significant downward pressure on inequality in the countries that enforced it, and more people would have opportunities to make it big.
        kcplate 2y ago
        > I am glad we got to your real answer. Which appears to be "we can't do that, we need the ultra-wealthy to spend money on us." If there are going to be ultra wealthy, then yes, locales benefit where they invest. > You can make the cost of doing business in your country that they have to be worth less than your cap. Correct, so they just don’t do business in your country and do business with the countries elsewhere that are happy to accept their investment.
    - madmannewnew 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - madmannewnew 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - madmannewnew 2y ago
      [dead]
    - madmannewnew 2y ago
      [dead]
    - ryandvm 2y ago
      The population with the logistical wherewithal to do something about it.
- kcplate 2y ago
  > That’s not an actual argument though… If you can’t answer it you can’t move forward with the plan. It might be an interesting intellectual discussion, but it’s pointless beyond the cerebral exercise because it’s impossible to implement. “It’s impossible to implement” simply trumps all other arguments. > but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon There is no way to get to an agreement on a specific amount because you theoretically apply the same “pro” arguments to wealth limitation to a billion dollars to $100k or even to $14,001. The alternative is a prohibition against any individual wealth accumulation. I’m absolutely not for that, so you and I will never agree on a number, because there isn’t a number where I would say “that is too much”. I am dead set against any wealth limitation.
  - xracy 2y ago
    There's an old joke where a man asks a woman M: "Would you sleep with me for $1M" W: "for $1M dollars? Yeah, I guess I could be convinced for $1M." M: "What about for $10" W: "No, what do you take me for!" M: "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over price." I don't think this is that funny of a joke, but the point I'm making is that picking a number is a detail that comes after we decide that there needs to be a number. And I think if you agree that there needs to be a number, the gov't is the one that could set it (or the voting public). The most likely answer is you pick some multiple of minimum wage, and then some number of years at that number. 1000x minimum wage, 10 years of earnings at that value. That's the maximum you can have. You want more? You gotta raise minimum wage.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Who gets to set the multiple?
xnx 2y ago
Good questions. I wouldn't expect planetary agreement, but we've already self-organized into different groups for deciding these types of things. Even the US came close to this with a top marginal tax rate of 90% during WWII.
ryandvm 2y ago
That's kind of a lazy argument and it falls apart when you go the other way. Do you ever feel like we should intervene? What about if we have a trillionaire? A 10 trillionaire? A 100? Is there no conceivable amount of wealth hoarding that you would find excessive?
pllbnk 2y ago
It's a baseline which, given the current value of money in mind, in most people's heads defines someone as obscenely/aspirationally wealthy (or even having a multi-generation wealth), yet not someone who could just be endlessly spending this wealth on stupid stuff (having several megayachts, for example) without eventually running out. Hypothetically, if some government some day sets this amount, then it will pave the way for further adjustments.

antisthenes 2y ago

> My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much? That's not an actual argument though. It's your gut justification that no one should be able to set the amount posed as a question. You are presuming that just because there's no perfect agreement on an arbitrary number, then the problem somehow becomes not worth solving. > If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k? Good questions. We can have a discussion about it, but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon.

fsflover 2y ago
We simply increase the number until 95-99% of population agree with it.
- kcplate 2y ago
  Population of where?
  - xracy 2y ago
    Is this a real question? You can't imagine any population that can make this determination for itself? If only there were organizations responsible for populations that could determine this locally for places in the world. Guess we just got to take a "world vote".
    - kcplate 2y ago
      It’s a real question. If it’s not worldwide you haven’t eliminated the ultra-wealthy, you have just relocated them. Their wealth is still tied up and unavailable for the redistribution the original premise hopes to achieve. In those local places where you have made the ultra wealthy illegal, you have also discouraged them to invest in your locality. In other words, you shot yourself in the foot.
      - fsflover 2y ago
        At least the relocated ultra-wealthy will not be able to influence your politics directly.
        kcplate 2y ago
        “Directly”
        fsflover 2y ago
        Yes, this is far from perfect. At the same time, it's much better than doing nothing.
      - xracy 2y ago
        I am glad we got to your real answer. Which appears to be "we can't do that, we need the ultra-wealthy to spend money on us." One of the lessons of the pandemic is your economy is actually better serviced by many people spending money than by 1 person hoarding it. You can make the cost of doing business in your country that they have to be worth less than your cap. But the effect of this is actually that we would realize we don't need the ultra-wealthy. We would likely do better because it would be a significant downward pressure on inequality in the countries that enforced it, and more people would have opportunities to make it big.
        kcplate 2y ago
        > I am glad we got to your real answer. Which appears to be "we can't do that, we need the ultra-wealthy to spend money on us." If there are going to be ultra wealthy, then yes, locales benefit where they invest. > You can make the cost of doing business in your country that they have to be worth less than your cap. Correct, so they just don’t do business in your country and do business with the countries elsewhere that are happy to accept their investment.
  - madmannewnew 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - madmannewnew 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - madmannewnew 2y ago
    [dead]
  - madmannewnew 2y ago
    [dead]
  - ryandvm 2y ago
    The population with the logistical wherewithal to do something about it.
kcplate 2y ago
> That’s not an actual argument though… If you can’t answer it you can’t move forward with the plan. It might be an interesting intellectual discussion, but it’s pointless beyond the cerebral exercise because it’s impossible to implement. “It’s impossible to implement” simply trumps all other arguments. > but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon There is no way to get to an agreement on a specific amount because you theoretically apply the same “pro” arguments to wealth limitation to a billion dollars to $100k or even to $14,001. The alternative is a prohibition against any individual wealth accumulation. I’m absolutely not for that, so you and I will never agree on a number, because there isn’t a number where I would say “that is too much”. I am dead set against any wealth limitation.
- xracy 2y ago
  There's an old joke where a man asks a woman M: "Would you sleep with me for $1M" W: "for $1M dollars? Yeah, I guess I could be convinced for $1M." M: "What about for $10" W: "No, what do you take me for!" M: "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over price." I don't think this is that funny of a joke, but the point I'm making is that picking a number is a detail that comes after we decide that there needs to be a number. And I think if you agree that there needs to be a number, the gov't is the one that could set it (or the voting public). The most likely answer is you pick some multiple of minimum wage, and then some number of years at that number. 1000x minimum wage, 10 years of earnings at that value. That's the maximum you can have. You want more? You gotta raise minimum wage.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Who gets to set the multiple?

xnx 2y ago

Good questions. I wouldn't expect planetary agreement, but we've already self-organized into different groups for deciding these types of things. Even the US came close to this with a top marginal tax rate of 90% during WWII.

ryandvm 2y ago

That's kind of a lazy argument and it falls apart when you go the other way. Do you ever feel like we should intervene? What about if we have a trillionaire? A 10 trillionaire? A 100? Is there no conceivable amount of wealth hoarding that you would find excessive?

pllbnk 2y ago

It's a baseline which, given the current value of money in mind, in most people's heads defines someone as obscenely/aspirationally wealthy (or even having a multi-generation wealth), yet not someone who could just be endlessly spending this wealth on stupid stuff (having several megayachts, for example) without eventually running out. Hypothetically, if some government some day sets this amount, then it will pave the way for further adjustments.