3 ms·
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
by graemep 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.