4 ms·

We stop allowing the rich to become so rich. Billionares are not compatible with democracy or the greater good.

CamperBob2 11mo ago
What happens when you get what you want, and rather than magically solving every problem confronting society, it doesn't solve anything at all, and in fact creates several more problems, as generally happens when such ideas are put into practice? What's plan B? Lower the threshold to a million dollars?
- snek_case 11mo ago
  Also how do you avoid billionaires worldwide? Not everyone lives under your government. Even if you could, how do you know for a fact that some people don't secretly control hidden assets? Is Xi openly a billionaire? China is a "communist" country on paper. How does he hold so much power? The sad reality is that the world has a nonzero percentage of power-hungry narcissists. We need governments that are more democratic and robust. We all know that the current government processes are broken and corrupted.
- iovrthoughtthis 11mo ago
  We iterate.
- tock 11mo ago
  > as generally happens when such ideas are put into practice Is this true? Lots of countries with high living standards have high taxes. It doesn't need to solve every problem but it does help solve the problem of one unelected person holding too much power and influence. > What's plan B? Lower the threshold to a million dollars? 1B = 1000M. I think thats high enough. Don't see why you need to make it 1000x smaller to try and make a point.
  - CamperBob2 11mo ago
    It doesn't need to solve every problem but it does help solve the problem of one unelected person holding too much power and influence. It does? Really? What are they teaching kids in school these days? According to the books I studied, nominally-egalitarian leaders racked up an eight-digit body count in the 20th century alone.
    - tock 11mo ago
      > It does? Really? Yep. > nominally-egalitarian leaders racked up an eight-digit body count in the 20th century alone You don't believe in democracy and equal rights? Anyway billionaires love their 10 digits not 8.
      - CamperBob2 11mo ago
        You don't believe in democracy and equal rights? Not if it gets us a Trump, twice. What has democracy done for us lately? It appears that democracy just devolves into mindless yet profitable populism, given enough time and technology. Stupid voters are easier for ill-intentioned people to herd, using the modern tools we've built to do just that. Social media has made it possible for the first time to exploit a fatal bug in democracy that we always knew was there. AI will slam the coffin lid shut. I don't see a way back, personally, but confiscatory taxation of everybody that you think has too much money isn't a way forward. The people being taxed will demand a return on their investment, and now they know how to get it. The problem isn't the money, the problem is the power.
  - criley2 11mo ago
    Taxes are ~irrelevant to billionaires. When you say "you can't be a billionaire" what you're saying is "you cannot own any significant amount of a large business" because billionaires aren't liquid, their status is based on their assets and primarily their shares in large businesses. I agree that wealth inequality is horrible and taxes on the wealthy should be much higher. But if someone owns 10% of a trillion dollar company, that's $100B in shares. They can sell off 900M$ worth of shares and "not be a billionaire" in terms of income and money (and thus taxation). So what do you do? - Seize control of their shares and thus their control over private industry - Or, accept that billionaires exist This is basically the core fight between capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) and communism (government control of the means of production). Most people hate the idea of billionaires, but people generally also hate a centrally planned government where the government owns a controlling stake in all businesses preventing any insider from having any real control.
    - tock 11mo ago
      > So what do you do? We should be discussing strategies to tackle this. Not just go "oh lets just accept it". Just how many people have 100B+? Do you see them trying to interfere in governance and elections? Maybe we can have annual wealth taxes. Just like property taxes. There are many ways to tackle this. That's what we should be discussing. Not just giving up. Absurd wealth inequality will cause societal collapse. > This is basically the core fight between capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) and communism (government control of the means of production). No it isn't. It's taxation. Does the presence of property taxes and inheritance taxes make the west a communist region? Communism is the govt "owning" a company. Some rich guy selling his shares on the stock market to pay his taxes doesn't mean the govt owns the company.
      - criley2 11mo ago
        > "Annual wealth taxes" So, the government steals a percent of private businesses every year? What does the government do with this? Are you suggesting that the government forces business owners to liquidate their own shares to give to the government? So on a long enough time line, no one is allowed to own a business. > No it isn't. It's taxation. Does the presence of property taxes and inheritance taxes make the west a communist region? Communism is the govt "owning" a company. Some rich guy selling his shares on the stock market to pay his taxes doesn't mean the govt owns the company. The business is already paying taxes (i.e. property taxes). You're proposing a new tax on top of the existing taxation scheme, an ownership tax that likely requires the owner to reduce their ownership. Imagine if you had to sell 1% of your house every year because "home ownership is unfair". Most middle class folks would never end up owning their home. Communism is when you're not allowed to own private businesses, and the wealth that is problematic is the ownership of private businesses. Skin this cat however you want, but if you want a skinned cat, the skin has to come off. Again, I agree that billionaires are bad. I don't think taxation or incentive structures will fix it. I do think that revolution/wars that destroy the oligarchy and reset wealth are the only times in history that the middle and working class truly prosper. It is what it is. In an ideal world, business ownership is broadly spread across employees and wealth and power are shared broadly. But that's not an outcome that is ever achieved without significant force.
afarah1 11mo ago
This seems to be more about political power and government overreach than money. The narrative seems to be focused solely on concentration of the later, lately.
- dymk 11mo ago
  Money is political power. A billionaire can afford to lobby and “donate” as much as they want.
- catlikesshrimp 11mo ago
  I expect economical and political power to get along well. You normally acquire both organically; except in some cases, suddently acquiring much of one will buy some of the other. TLDR: Billionaires hold political power.
- eptcyka 11mo ago
  Billionaires inherently get political power. When they’re more socially adept than Musk, they can even have the power without having the plebs notice.
  - lazide 11mo ago
    Yup, going full autist in public is a good way to get the public angry at you and try to find a way to make your life more difficult.
    - hn_acc1 11mo ago
      You mean, going full asshole. Not all autists are assholes.
      - lazide 11mo ago
        The issue isn’t that he was being an asshole - plenty of politicians can be assholes and be cheered for it. He was being straightforward, direct, matter of fact, technical, and an asshole. You gotta lube up the plebes, or they get butthurt, and that is what is causing the issue.
impossiblefork 11mo ago
It's too bad we can't withdraw our votes for a politician continuously, with the politician having to leave office if the vote changes enough. I'm not sure it can be solved without everybody writing down their vote, but this would be one way that would make pushing through unpopular policies, whether because of changing opinions, mismatches where politicians misrepresent their plans or corruption, much more difficult.
- layer8 11mo ago
  That would just strengthen the incentives for continual populism and propaganda.
- thewebguyd 11mo ago
  If not continuously, there needs to be mechanisms to recall a politician (or an entire government), and re-hold elections for both failing to govern and failing to represent the interests of the people over the interest of billionaires. To use the recent US shutdown as an example. Passing a budget is like one of the basic requirements of governing. If the current government cannot accomplish that, it should immediately dissolve and elections be held. Every single position in power at the time, gone, the whole thing gets re-elected because they have proven that the current group cannot adequately govern. The ability to recall needs to work similarly. Vote should be able to be initiated by the people at anytime, and a successful vote means the government dissolves and new elections are held. We could also have a "cooling off" period after a piece of legislation (like chat control) fails. It failed the first time, it should not be able to be immediately reintroduced whether in the same or a different form. There should be some sort of cooling off period where that piece of legislation (or its goals) cannot be reintroduced for x number of years.
  - thesuitonym 11mo ago
    These are good ideas, but they do have some pretty big sticking points. The ability to trigger a re-election has the same problems we're trying to avoid in the larger thread: If a bad actor (say a business) wants a politician out, they can just continually issue recall votes until they wear out the population and get lucky. Unfortunately, I think the only solution here is exactly what we have: Politicians have to be re-elected every couple of years. The cooling off period also has problems, because sometimes a piece of legislation is a good idea, but has a major flaw that causes people to vote against it. What happens when people want a law passed, but not in the form it's presented in?
hcurtiss 11mo ago
It seems more likely to me this is being pressed by intelligence agencies than billionaires. Billionaires have secrets too.
- bergfest 11mo ago
  But they have ways to evade the law. And my dystopian inner oracle tells me, that when the pervasive online identification will soon be reality, certain people's IDs will have a special "all access, no logs" status that will allow them stay under the radar.

What happens when you get what you want, and rather than magically solving every problem confronting society, it doesn't solve anything at all, and in fact creates several more problems, as generally happens when such ideas are put into practice? What's plan B? Lower the threshold to a million dollars?

snek_case 11mo ago
Also how do you avoid billionaires worldwide? Not everyone lives under your government. Even if you could, how do you know for a fact that some people don't secretly control hidden assets? Is Xi openly a billionaire? China is a "communist" country on paper. How does he hold so much power? The sad reality is that the world has a nonzero percentage of power-hungry narcissists. We need governments that are more democratic and robust. We all know that the current government processes are broken and corrupted.
iovrthoughtthis 11mo ago
We iterate.
tock 11mo ago
> as generally happens when such ideas are put into practice Is this true? Lots of countries with high living standards have high taxes. It doesn't need to solve every problem but it does help solve the problem of one unelected person holding too much power and influence. > What's plan B? Lower the threshold to a million dollars? 1B = 1000M. I think thats high enough. Don't see why you need to make it 1000x smaller to try and make a point.
- CamperBob2 11mo ago
  It doesn't need to solve every problem but it does help solve the problem of one unelected person holding too much power and influence. It does? Really? What are they teaching kids in school these days? According to the books I studied, nominally-egalitarian leaders racked up an eight-digit body count in the 20th century alone.
  - tock 11mo ago
    > It does? Really? Yep. > nominally-egalitarian leaders racked up an eight-digit body count in the 20th century alone You don't believe in democracy and equal rights? Anyway billionaires love their 10 digits not 8.
    - CamperBob2 11mo ago
      You don't believe in democracy and equal rights? Not if it gets us a Trump, twice. What has democracy done for us lately? It appears that democracy just devolves into mindless yet profitable populism, given enough time and technology. Stupid voters are easier for ill-intentioned people to herd, using the modern tools we've built to do just that. Social media has made it possible for the first time to exploit a fatal bug in democracy that we always knew was there. AI will slam the coffin lid shut. I don't see a way back, personally, but confiscatory taxation of everybody that you think has too much money isn't a way forward. The people being taxed will demand a return on their investment, and now they know how to get it. The problem isn't the money, the problem is the power.
- criley2 11mo ago
  Taxes are ~irrelevant to billionaires. When you say "you can't be a billionaire" what you're saying is "you cannot own any significant amount of a large business" because billionaires aren't liquid, their status is based on their assets and primarily their shares in large businesses. I agree that wealth inequality is horrible and taxes on the wealthy should be much higher. But if someone owns 10% of a trillion dollar company, that's $100B in shares. They can sell off 900M$ worth of shares and "not be a billionaire" in terms of income and money (and thus taxation). So what do you do? - Seize control of their shares and thus their control over private industry - Or, accept that billionaires exist This is basically the core fight between capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) and communism (government control of the means of production). Most people hate the idea of billionaires, but people generally also hate a centrally planned government where the government owns a controlling stake in all businesses preventing any insider from having any real control.
  - tock 11mo ago
    > So what do you do? We should be discussing strategies to tackle this. Not just go "oh lets just accept it". Just how many people have 100B+? Do you see them trying to interfere in governance and elections? Maybe we can have annual wealth taxes. Just like property taxes. There are many ways to tackle this. That's what we should be discussing. Not just giving up. Absurd wealth inequality will cause societal collapse. > This is basically the core fight between capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) and communism (government control of the means of production). No it isn't. It's taxation. Does the presence of property taxes and inheritance taxes make the west a communist region? Communism is the govt "owning" a company. Some rich guy selling his shares on the stock market to pay his taxes doesn't mean the govt owns the company.
    - criley2 11mo ago
      > "Annual wealth taxes" So, the government steals a percent of private businesses every year? What does the government do with this? Are you suggesting that the government forces business owners to liquidate their own shares to give to the government? So on a long enough time line, no one is allowed to own a business. > No it isn't. It's taxation. Does the presence of property taxes and inheritance taxes make the west a communist region? Communism is the govt "owning" a company. Some rich guy selling his shares on the stock market to pay his taxes doesn't mean the govt owns the company. The business is already paying taxes (i.e. property taxes). You're proposing a new tax on top of the existing taxation scheme, an ownership tax that likely requires the owner to reduce their ownership. Imagine if you had to sell 1% of your house every year because "home ownership is unfair". Most middle class folks would never end up owning their home. Communism is when you're not allowed to own private businesses, and the wealth that is problematic is the ownership of private businesses. Skin this cat however you want, but if you want a skinned cat, the skin has to come off. Again, I agree that billionaires are bad. I don't think taxation or incentive structures will fix it. I do think that revolution/wars that destroy the oligarchy and reset wealth are the only times in history that the middle and working class truly prosper. It is what it is. In an ideal world, business ownership is broadly spread across employees and wealth and power are shared broadly. But that's not an outcome that is ever achieved without significant force.

afarah1 11mo ago

This seems to be more about political power and government overreach than money. The narrative seems to be focused solely on concentration of the later, lately.

dymk 11mo ago
Money is political power. A billionaire can afford to lobby and “donate” as much as they want.
catlikesshrimp 11mo ago
I expect economical and political power to get along well. You normally acquire both organically; except in some cases, suddently acquiring much of one will buy some of the other. TLDR: Billionaires hold political power.
eptcyka 11mo ago
Billionaires inherently get political power. When they’re more socially adept than Musk, they can even have the power without having the plebs notice.
- lazide 11mo ago
  Yup, going full autist in public is a good way to get the public angry at you and try to find a way to make your life more difficult.
  - hn_acc1 11mo ago
    You mean, going full asshole. Not all autists are assholes.
    - lazide 11mo ago
      The issue isn’t that he was being an asshole - plenty of politicians can be assholes and be cheered for it. He was being straightforward, direct, matter of fact, technical, and an asshole. You gotta lube up the plebes, or they get butthurt, and that is what is causing the issue.

impossiblefork 11mo ago

It's too bad we can't withdraw our votes for a politician continuously, with the politician having to leave office if the vote changes enough. I'm not sure it can be solved without everybody writing down their vote, but this would be one way that would make pushing through unpopular policies, whether because of changing opinions, mismatches where politicians misrepresent their plans or corruption, much more difficult.

layer8 11mo ago
That would just strengthen the incentives for continual populism and propaganda.
thewebguyd 11mo ago
If not continuously, there needs to be mechanisms to recall a politician (or an entire government), and re-hold elections for both failing to govern and failing to represent the interests of the people over the interest of billionaires. To use the recent US shutdown as an example. Passing a budget is like one of the basic requirements of governing. If the current government cannot accomplish that, it should immediately dissolve and elections be held. Every single position in power at the time, gone, the whole thing gets re-elected because they have proven that the current group cannot adequately govern. The ability to recall needs to work similarly. Vote should be able to be initiated by the people at anytime, and a successful vote means the government dissolves and new elections are held. We could also have a "cooling off" period after a piece of legislation (like chat control) fails. It failed the first time, it should not be able to be immediately reintroduced whether in the same or a different form. There should be some sort of cooling off period where that piece of legislation (or its goals) cannot be reintroduced for x number of years.
- thesuitonym 11mo ago
  These are good ideas, but they do have some pretty big sticking points. The ability to trigger a re-election has the same problems we're trying to avoid in the larger thread: If a bad actor (say a business) wants a politician out, they can just continually issue recall votes until they wear out the population and get lucky. Unfortunately, I think the only solution here is exactly what we have: Politicians have to be re-elected every couple of years. The cooling off period also has problems, because sometimes a piece of legislation is a good idea, but has a major flaw that causes people to vote against it. What happens when people want a law passed, but not in the form it's presented in?

hcurtiss 11mo ago

It seems more likely to me this is being pressed by intelligence agencies than billionaires. Billionaires have secrets too.

bergfest 11mo ago
But they have ways to evade the law. And my dystopian inner oracle tells me, that when the pervasive online identification will soon be reality, certain people's IDs will have a special "all access, no logs" status that will allow them stay under the radar.