• GarbageShoot [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        161 year ago

        The proportional difference is the same, i.e. the same number of orders of magnitude separate them, but in absolute terms, someone with $10B is closer in wealth to your or I than to Bezos (which, to be clear, does not mean we shouldn’t take it, merely that the height Bezos is at is unfathomable)

    • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      271 year ago

      Most of their billions is ownership in companies they grew into what they are today. It’s not like they have billions to spend, it’s that their ownership is worth billions according to the market.

      • MattsAlt [comrade/them]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        451 year ago

        They could go to any bank and leverage that asset for a loan for more than everyone who posts on this platform will make in their lifetimes no problem. That is a nonsense talking point

        • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          What’s your point? So because they can leverage their ownership of their own company we need to take away that ownership?

          • fox [comrade/them]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            411 year ago

            Yes, if you can control more wealth than a mid size city earns in ten lifetimes, you should not be allowed to do that

            • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              I don’t think the stock market should be determining if we take away companies from their owners, no matter how much it’s worth. Why does having more wealth than a certain size city matter? Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

              • very_poggers_gay [they/them]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                281 year ago

                Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

                Why do those employees get the bare minimum? Why are the working majority excluded from ownership and decision-making in the companies they run?

                • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else. Many companies even have employee stock purchase programs. What’s the problem ?

                  • silent_water [she/her]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    261 year ago
                    1. those shares don’t give you voting rights

                    2. those shares amount to a tiny fraction of the total value of the company

                    3. without the employees there would be no company

                    you try to square those three facts

                  • very_poggers_gay [they/them]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    161 year ago

                    Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else.

                    And vote with what money? Income inequality is arguably as worse as it has ever been. More and more workers are forced to live on wages that can’t even cover their basic needs, let alone buying power, while the capitalist/owning class is hoarding unbelievable wealth.

                    How can workers vote with their money to overturn a system designed by wealthy employers to make themselves as wealthy as possible (a system that involves keeping employee wages as low as possible, btw)? That’s the fucking problem, lmao.

                    Consider this: Wealth inequality in America today is worse than it was in ancient Egypt. Your “solution” is like asking asking what’s the problem with the slaves of ancient Egypt not buying their way into power.

        • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          So what? We should take away that ownership because they can leverage it? Also the same people suggesting we tax wealth like this want to also close those “loopholes” of low interest loans on shares.

              • Enma Ai
                link
                fedilink
                English
                121 year ago

                Taking away (extreme) wealth. There’s no reason one person should have that much. There’s countless better ways to use that money/wealth than for one persons extravagant lifestyle. And even if they don’t have an extravagant lifestyle, what are they gonna do with it? Doubt they will build infrastructure out of good will with it.

                • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  So take away ownership of a company just because it’s too successful? That wealth is mostly in company ownership, so are you really suggesting we steal away legitimate ownership in successful companies?

                  • Enma Ai
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    71 year ago

                    Yes. Fuck Capitalism.

                    It’s not stealing their legitimate ownership. They don’t have legitimate ownership.

                  • @someacnt@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    61 year ago

                    I mean, why do we have 'too big to fail" companies? Isn’t that counterproductive to having a robust society?

          • @TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            No, they can keep them, but those loopholes need to be closed. Maybe don’t allow using ownership of a company as collateral for a loan? If you want to use your massive stored wealth as money you need to sell it. You want to get it back buy it. I’m not a finance or policy person, but there has to be a way to make these people pay the propert tax on their wealth.

            • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              So they can keep their ownership, but we are going to remove their way to loan money against it, and still expect them to pay billions in taxes without giving away any ownership? How do you expect them to pay billions in taxes when the only billions they have in value is company ownership? You are forcing them to sell company ownership to pay this ridiculous tax.

              • @Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                To be fair, if billionaires could no longer use their stocks as collateral to borrow insane amounts, maybe they’d have to give themselves taxable salaries.

                • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  I don’t think the government would ban the practice, since the middle class uses the same thing for stuff like reverse mortgages. I can see them limiting the amount though.

                  If they did ban it though, billionaires would still be billionaires, they probably don’t need much of an actual salary when most of their stuff is paid for.

      • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        While that may be technically true, is running defense for these people who would happily see you and everone you care about die if it would make them another buck really something you want to be doing?

        • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          311 year ago

          also assets count as wealth if you tried to explain to king Solomon that he wasn’t actually rich because his money was tied up in land and cattle he would call you and idiot and explain that land and cattle are his wealth

        • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          I don’t mind defending what I see as theft, even if it’s from people I don’t like. Is it crazy to defend something you see as wrong even if you don’t like the person? I don’t think right and wrong changes based on if the act is being done to someone I like vs don’t like

          • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            271 year ago

            If you were actually against theft you would be against Bezos Musk and Gates stealing billions in profits from the people who are working for them.

            • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              You have no idea what you are talking about… profits aren’t theft, paying people less than the money you make from their work also isn’t theft. Being worth billions because the stock market values your ownership in a big company as worth billions also isn’t theft.

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                261 year ago

                paying people less than the money you make from their work also isn’t theft

                Why would someone agree to sell their labor for less than it’s worth thonk

                • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  What you are worth is less than the profit you make. If a company paid you exactly the money they made from you, they would make no money and cease to exist. It’s really not that complicated.

                  It’s like asking why do stores sell products for more than it costs them to buy. It’s such a simple question that even you should know the right answer.

              • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                221 year ago

                The fact that you willingly debase yourself like this says everything that is needed to know about the system we live under.

                You are better than this.

          • Kynuck97 [he/him, comrade/them]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Why is theft inhereintly wrong? Would you see Robin Hood as the villain of his story? It’s not a matter of whether you like them or not, their exorbitant wealth is a bad thing in of itself. Why should they sit on so much wealth when most have so little?

            • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Do you mind if I steal your property? Would that be wrong? Or is it fine as long as I’m poorer than you?

              • fox [comrade/them]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                251 year ago

                The difference is between private property and personal property. Private property is the means of production that produce wealth by extracting a profit margin from the labor of the workers that operate that means. Seizing private property is just democratizing the ownership of it between all the workers that use it, because you can’t really steal a corporation or a factory, just change ownership. Seizing personal property is taking someone’s toothbrush or car or books.

                • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Stealing ownership is still stealing though. You are suggesting we steal personal ownership in a company, ownership which is only worth a certain amount because the stock market says it is.

                  • Kynuck97 [he/him, comrade/them]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    181 year ago

                    It’s not like they’re going to just give it up. Do you think that the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people is a good thing? Is it a good thing that billionaires get to waste money shooting off rockets while so many people go without a roof over their head?

                  • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    121 year ago

                    ownership which is only worth a certain amount because the stock market says it is.

                    Market value and use value are not the same thing. Cases like Musk obviously display wild overvaluing, but the practical use a repatriated asset can provide is not the same as its price tag unless your only use for it is to sell it.

          • Judge_Jury [comrade/them, he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            131 year ago

            Just to compare, what’s your moral read on all the people we deny housing to, who regularly die of exposure while empty housing units outnumber them?

            • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I’m not against giving people a chance, and helping them get that chance, but that doesn’t include taking away houses from rightful owners and giving them away to homeless people. It’s no coincidence that the homeless tend to destroy wherever they set up, so they need to set up in government run shelters that can handle it.

              • Judge_Jury [comrade/them, he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                111 year ago

                So in the moral system you’re proposing, it would be an offense to use those buildings without their owner’s permission. The fact that people denied access to those buildings will die as a result, though, is just a part of nature

                So, why would you expect a perspective which values property more than people to stir anyone’s moral feeling? If you don’t expect that, then why are you bothering to frame it in terms of right and wrong?

                • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  So in the moral system you’re proposing, it would be an offense to use those buildings without their owner’s permission. The fact that people denied access to those buildings will die as a result, though, is just a part of nature

                  Well, yes. Do you donate every least penny you have to the homeless, since it would save lives? Or do you instead spend your money on luxuries for yourself? There are right and wrong ways to go about helping people like the homeless, stealing and ruining property isn’t one of those ways.

                  So, why would you expect a perspective which values property more than people to stir anyone’s moral feeling? If you don’t expect that, then why are you bothering to frame it in terms of right and wrong?

                  I assume you have some property, right? If you are an adult you are probably at least renting an apartment and have some basic stuff like a TV. Why don’t you let a homeless person sleep on your couch every night? If you don’t have your own place yet, would you allow some random homeless person access to your couch for free every night?

                  It’s much easier when it isn’t your property in question, but when it’s your place you might start to care about random people living rent free in your place.