• @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

                  • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago
                    1. So all those times I’ve gotten mail about using my shares to vote, what was that about exactly?

                    2. Of course they do, I don’t expect a given employee who isn’t the owner or high level exec to have a larger fraction of ownership.

                    3. So what? What’s your point?

                • 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?

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

                    That’s how you compete in the world. Imagine for a second if the US didn’t bail out the automotive companies, I think Ford would have survived, but that’s about it, no more American competition for them. If they also failed, then we might not have any US car companies, how bad would that have been for our society?

                    Or the banks, could you imagine how screwed we would be if the whole baking system collapsed? Even the small banks were in trouble, it’s not a solution to just split them all up.

        • @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?

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

                    Wealth in this case is ownership in companies that have a massive worldwide presence. If wealth is ownership in the companies you own, then yes, I don’t think they should be forced to give that up. What they decide to spend their wealth on is up to them.

                • 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.

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

                    So how do we calculate wealth if it isn’t based on what the market says it’s worth? If we are going to tax Musk on his wealth, most of which is stock, how do you figure out the “real” wealth to tax?

        • 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.