4 ms·
What we need is to cap all wealth at $200k. Any more than that and it is 100% taxed away. Inequality is the number one problem. And it should apply to unrealize
by renewiltord 8mo ago
What we need is to cap all wealth at $200k. Any more than that and it is 100% taxed away. Inequality is the number one problem. And it should apply to unrealized gains as well. E.g. houses should not be more than $100k. And if you have a beneficial interest in something it should count as owning the whole thing. The taxes should be distributed to the poorest.
Of course if you oppose this you are wealthy and are a money hoarder. Inequality is the number one problem.
- _alternator_ 8mo agoIt doesn't feel like you’ve thought through the nuances and implications of this policy, and the tone makes me think you don’t really want to.
- croes 8mo agoI guess it’s sarcasm
- zug_zug 8mo agoAgree on both counts… but I do. I’m sure there are systemic changes that are possible, and it’s a topic worthy of brainstorming
- renewiltord 8mo agoWhat do you mean? We all agree that billionaires shouldn’t exist. I just think that millionaires also shouldn’t. Though now that I think of it, is it okay that hundred thousand aires should exist? This Aires is definitely not Buenos.
- saulpw 8mo agoBillionaires are gross, millionaires are fine. You're committing the "slippery slope" fallacy in defense of excessive wealth inequality. (And if you genuinely believe what you're saying, recognize that your words are being taken as either disingenuous or foolish, and are having the opposite effect of promoting your cause).
- renewiltord 8mo agoAnother thing I’ve thought about is having everyone wealthier than me have a 100% wealth tax. And it’s a pity that people consider caring about inequality disingenuous and foolish while people argue that some people should be millionaires while others are starving. Millionaires should not exist.
- saulpw 8mo agoYou think you're being clever in calling me out but you're just being a troll.
- renewiltord 8mo agoCall me names but it won’t change the facts.
- Tanjreeve 8mo agoPersonally I think we should allow billionaires to exist but there's plenty of nuances and implications to the political choice of allowing individuals to accumulate more money than countries to the point they get to put their thumb on the scales of politics and make markets less free but we aren't trained to reflexively dismiss discussion of that as absurd.
- twolegs 8mo agoWhy 200k? Why not 100k? Or just $10. Let's just burn all the money, that way our problems will be solved for sure.
- thot_experiment 8mo agoI agree with you 100% at least in spirit, I don't think any such simplistic solution would function. That being said the current system desperately needs balance changes to nerf the stacking buffs from having money. It should be the opposite, the more money you have the harder it should be for you to get any additional money, and this difficulty curve should be asymptotic.
- krapp 8mo agoI agree in principle, but I think the limit should be $1 million. You get to be a millionaire but that's it. Enough money to live well, but not enough to run a pedophile island. Not enough to purchase a government. Not enough to be above the law. Certainly not enough to keep you from working and entirely alienate you from the human condition if you do want to live well.
- saulpw 8mo agoThe limit should not be a fixed dollar amount, but rather relative to what it gets you. We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age, including healthcare costs (not included in the US), children's higher education, etc etc. $1m is nowhere near enough for that. So let's not try to figure that, say, $3.6m is the appropriate wealth cap for 2026. Let's speak in terms of orders of magnitudes. $1m is not enough. $10m is. Let's let the minimum wealth maximum be $10m.
- renewiltord 8mo agoOh yeah, of course you want early retirement so others can slave away to create the world you live in without doing anything. No. This is why equality is important. $200k is enough.
- saulpw 8mo agoYes, it is reasonable for some people not to have to work for survival. A person can earn non-work through age (retirement), vulnerability (disabled, children), lottery, or contribution. We want neither pure communism nor pure capitalism. (I've seen other comments from you on here, you know you're being an unreasonable edgelord.)
- renewiltord 8mo agoI think it’s quite clear you want to place the limit at the the limit of your own achievable targets. Which sure, I’m on board with no taxes on people with the name Rene. Very self serving but not too different from yours.
- fennecbutt 8mo agoEhehe look how downvoted you are - which literally proves the point. Humans are a bunch of greedy selfish tribal bastards, aren't we? Don't worry, I've had similar down voting whenever I've suggested that owning more than one home in a broken housing market shouldn't be allowed. People make noises about being all in this together but will work against it actually happening, especially Americans (see: your tragic healthcare system). Actually laughable that in 2026 we could automate most if not all basic human needs to the point that they're free. But you know, we don't.