![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonlady7via https://ift.tt/2MKiHYP
synekdokee:
bogleech:
fandomsandfeminism:
whenandwhereienter:
twodotsknowwhy:
fandomsandfeminism:
aflawedmind:
fandomsandfeminism:
caosdth:
fandomsandfeminism:
cardboardfacewoman:
So you are saying 0% of the world should be billionaires?
Yes.
Why shouldn’t their be billionaires? That makes no sense.
Because the existence of billionaires is predicated on the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable environmental harm. That level of wealth hoarding is harmful to economies, as it reduces the amount of money in circulation. No one person, no family, could ever conceivably even SPEND a billion dollars anyway, and it is inherently immoral to accumulate wealth so narrowly while so much of the world lives in abject poverty.
Better then to create a wealth ceiling, a point at which all wealth over a certain point is taxed at or very near 100% to incentivize people to actually spend their money rather than hoard it, stimulating the economy and bettering the lives of far more people. Better even still to create and regulate economic systems that protect workers and the environment in a way that such extreme levels of wealth accumulation aren’t even feasible.
The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to actually do fiscally well. What’s the point of starting a business if you can’t become wealthy?
There is a very real difference between “reasonably wealthy” and A BILLIONAIRE
No one is saying you shouldn’t have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral.
I’ll never understand why this concept is hard for people. I think it’s because they can’t actually fathom how much $1 Billion is.
Seriously.
Let’s say you have a badass job. A great job. You make $100 AN HOUR. You work 10 hours a day ($1000 A DAY), 5 days a week ($5000 a week!!!), every week ($20,000 A MONTH), thats $240,000 Every Year.
It would take you 4,167 years to make a billion dollars.
Yeah I think people seriously just don’t understand how big a billion is.
There is literally no reason a single human could ever possibly need a billion dollars, and there is no conceivable way for a single human to “earn” a billion dollars. You can ONLY get a billion dollars by accumulating money from thousands of other laborers beneath you, all of whom deserve to share that wealth.
It shouldn’t be legal to be able to decide your own salary with no limitations whatsoever. When you have the power to increase your own pay you should be REQUIRED to increase the pay of every single person you employ along with it, down to the last toilet scrubber. No exceptions.
There isn’t a single ethical billionaire that ever lived and there never will be.
I agree with the sentiment, but it puts a massive hamper on most of our conveniences. People would stop developing companies because why innovate if you know once your company grows, your income will be capped at a million. Your shareholders too. Companies require investments, but who’s gonna invest if they know their rewards will end up capped? Can you imagine Apple, Samsung or Sony if their owners were told ”after your company reaches X value, you can’t have any of it”? Companies cost money, especially in the early stages. Why put money into it at that point?
It’s not just technology. Real estate. Travel. Dining. Clothing. Medicine. Entertainment. Some of this stuff could be replaced by local, grass roots entrepeneurs, but in all honesty if we banned billionaires, modern society would probably collapse. No one would want to develop multimillion companies because there’d be nothing in it for them past a certain mark. If anything people would develop niche companies, hike up the product prices, and then only sell a small amount of product to people who can afford the exclusivity.
What used to happen is that up until the 80s, corporate profits were taxed at an extremely high level. So companies didn’t… stop growing, or do any of the things you suggest above– they just reinvested the profits back into the company to avoid paying the taxes, instead of disbursing the money to shareholders. It worked pretty well; the workforce was well-trained, facilities were safe, companies diversified their product lines and tried new things. But then Reagan changed the tax laws, so now profits aren’t taxed, which now incentivizes keeping worker pay low, keeping overhead low, and basically running companies into the ground to extract as much profit as possible before selling the company’s assets, firing everyone, and acquiring a new company. (See Toys R Us, 2018, which was a profitable company who could have continued indefinitely, but was leveraged to extract assets and now people’s jobs of 20 years are gone overnight.)
(Your picture was not posted)
synekdokee:
bogleech:
fandomsandfeminism:
whenandwhereienter:
twodotsknowwhy:
fandomsandfeminism:
aflawedmind:
fandomsandfeminism:
caosdth:
fandomsandfeminism:
cardboardfacewoman:
So you are saying 0% of the world should be billionaires?
Yes.
Why shouldn’t their be billionaires? That makes no sense.
Because the existence of billionaires is predicated on the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable environmental harm. That level of wealth hoarding is harmful to economies, as it reduces the amount of money in circulation. No one person, no family, could ever conceivably even SPEND a billion dollars anyway, and it is inherently immoral to accumulate wealth so narrowly while so much of the world lives in abject poverty.
Better then to create a wealth ceiling, a point at which all wealth over a certain point is taxed at or very near 100% to incentivize people to actually spend their money rather than hoard it, stimulating the economy and bettering the lives of far more people. Better even still to create and regulate economic systems that protect workers and the environment in a way that such extreme levels of wealth accumulation aren’t even feasible.
The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to actually do fiscally well. What’s the point of starting a business if you can’t become wealthy?
There is a very real difference between “reasonably wealthy” and A BILLIONAIRE
No one is saying you shouldn’t have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral.
I’ll never understand why this concept is hard for people. I think it’s because they can’t actually fathom how much $1 Billion is.
Seriously.
Let’s say you have a badass job. A great job. You make $100 AN HOUR. You work 10 hours a day ($1000 A DAY), 5 days a week ($5000 a week!!!), every week ($20,000 A MONTH), thats $240,000 Every Year.
It would take you 4,167 years to make a billion dollars.
Yeah I think people seriously just don’t understand how big a billion is.
There is literally no reason a single human could ever possibly need a billion dollars, and there is no conceivable way for a single human to “earn” a billion dollars. You can ONLY get a billion dollars by accumulating money from thousands of other laborers beneath you, all of whom deserve to share that wealth.
It shouldn’t be legal to be able to decide your own salary with no limitations whatsoever. When you have the power to increase your own pay you should be REQUIRED to increase the pay of every single person you employ along with it, down to the last toilet scrubber. No exceptions.
There isn’t a single ethical billionaire that ever lived and there never will be.
I agree with the sentiment, but it puts a massive hamper on most of our conveniences. People would stop developing companies because why innovate if you know once your company grows, your income will be capped at a million. Your shareholders too. Companies require investments, but who’s gonna invest if they know their rewards will end up capped? Can you imagine Apple, Samsung or Sony if their owners were told ”after your company reaches X value, you can’t have any of it”? Companies cost money, especially in the early stages. Why put money into it at that point?
It’s not just technology. Real estate. Travel. Dining. Clothing. Medicine. Entertainment. Some of this stuff could be replaced by local, grass roots entrepeneurs, but in all honesty if we banned billionaires, modern society would probably collapse. No one would want to develop multimillion companies because there’d be nothing in it for them past a certain mark. If anything people would develop niche companies, hike up the product prices, and then only sell a small amount of product to people who can afford the exclusivity.
What used to happen is that up until the 80s, corporate profits were taxed at an extremely high level. So companies didn’t… stop growing, or do any of the things you suggest above– they just reinvested the profits back into the company to avoid paying the taxes, instead of disbursing the money to shareholders. It worked pretty well; the workforce was well-trained, facilities were safe, companies diversified their product lines and tried new things. But then Reagan changed the tax laws, so now profits aren’t taxed, which now incentivizes keeping worker pay low, keeping overhead low, and basically running companies into the ground to extract as much profit as possible before selling the company’s assets, firing everyone, and acquiring a new company. (See Toys R Us, 2018, which was a profitable company who could have continued indefinitely, but was leveraged to extract assets and now people’s jobs of 20 years are gone overnight.)
(Your picture was not posted)
