4 ms·

The UK government spends £1.3 trillion per year. The total wealth owned by UK billionaires is estimated at a small fraction of that (£300b?). Even seizing all

by bluescrn 11mo ago

The UK government spends £1.3 trillion per year. The total wealth owned by UK billionaires is estimated at a small fraction of that (£300b?). Even seizing all of it isn't going to solve anything long-term (but will create new long-term problems) Billionaires are a symbol of unfairness, but eliminating them won't make a significant long-term difference to those at the bottom. Unless they're put out of work as all that wealth, mostly tied up in companies, is liquidated.

graemep 11mo ago
Billionaires are a very small group. There is far more wealth held by people with assets of, say, over £100m, or even £10m? > Unless they're put out of work as all that wealth, mostly tied up in companies, is liquidated. No one is going to close down profitable businesses because they have to pay more tax. The value of shares might fall a bit, that is all. I do not even think that, because money will just shift around, not disappear. > but will create new long-term problem I do not think it will. IMO it would be a net benefit.
- bluescrn 11mo ago
  > Billionaires are a very small group. There is far more wealth held by people with assets of, say, over £100m, or even £10m? Which is precisely why we can't 'eliminate billionaires'. Because before long it's a push for full-on communism, and even owning £100k is too much. And unless you can destroy capitalism on a global scale, there'll always be countries eager to take in very wealthy people.
  - graemep 11mo ago
    > Because before long it's a push for full-on communism, and even owning £100k is too much. Why? It does not follow at all. > And unless you can destroy capitalism on a global scale, there'll always be countries eager to take in very wealthy people. So what? Let them take them. There are few consequences of that because non-financial assets are mostly not portable.

graemep 11mo ago

Billionaires are a very small group. There is far more wealth held by people with assets of, say, over £100m, or even £10m? > Unless they're put out of work as all that wealth, mostly tied up in companies, is liquidated. No one is going to close down profitable businesses because they have to pay more tax. The value of shares might fall a bit, that is all. I do not even think that, because money will just shift around, not disappear. > but will create new long-term problem I do not think it will. IMO it would be a net benefit.

bluescrn 11mo ago
> Billionaires are a very small group. There is far more wealth held by people with assets of, say, over £100m, or even £10m? Which is precisely why we can't 'eliminate billionaires'. Because before long it's a push for full-on communism, and even owning £100k is too much. And unless you can destroy capitalism on a global scale, there'll always be countries eager to take in very wealthy people.
- graemep 11mo ago
  > Because before long it's a push for full-on communism, and even owning £100k is too much. Why? It does not follow at all. > And unless you can destroy capitalism on a global scale, there'll always be countries eager to take in very wealthy people. So what? Let them take them. There are few consequences of that because non-financial assets are mostly not portable.