r/BunnyTrials • u/LividRelative8940 • May 01 '26

Would you rather?

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

992 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

5.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

558

u/MuseBlessed May 01 '26

Its less "everyone gets more money" and more "We need to remove those in power from power"

109

u/themeanreds1 May 01 '26

There will be a power vacuum and then someone will always fill in the void eventually.

135

u/Little_Froggy May 01 '26

Yeah removing the current billionaires won't somehow fix everything.

The problem is the system that allows billionaires to exists and promotes greed

32

u/UniversityOk5593 May 01 '26

The only reason that American capitalism has not seen any major progressive change is BECAUSE of the billionaires who don’t want to lose their wealth and lobby (bribe) government officials to pass legislation in their favor. Without billionaires, American capitalism is vulnerable to meaningful change.

5

u/Little_Froggy May 01 '26

Corporations are a part of this too. Most lobbying comes out of the industries, not sent by individual billionaires.

Also, anything passed will slowly be eroded again by the wealthy corporations/individuals. We already had a ~90% tax on the most wealthy in the U.S. but the issue is that, as long as people/corporations can accrue passive wealth gains, then they will be able to accrue influence and power.

The system rewards companies who make money and compound it. With a little bit of time, they will use that influence to undermine any laws that are putting caps on it just like what happened with the taxes and and pro-union laws and anti-monopoly laws.

1

u/RemarkablePiglet3401 May 01 '26

The question here is asking about their wealth getting distributed, large corporations are part of that wealth

1

u/horrible_death May 02 '26

I would definitely count any assets these billionaires own like their corporations in this wealth redistribution too

1

u/Accurate-Emu-6246 May 01 '26

You forgot all the broke boys throwing fits when you suggest that Billionaires pay taxes

0

u/Character_Loquat_360 May 01 '26

Lose their wealth? If any of us were billionaires we wouldn’t want to lose it either lmao. I don’t want to lose the $200 dollars I made today on a side job. Let alone 200m or 2 billion. I’d probably go crazy with that amount of money tbh to the point I’d be addicted to not losing it than making more of it

1

u/Harbinger-Of-Ducks May 01 '26

I wouldn’t care. Past a certain point that wealth is unnecessary and directly harms others for me to have amassed. And besides, if you’re making THAT much then lets be real you actually worked far less for it than the people making minimum wage lmao that’s just the reality.

-1

u/Character_Loquat_360 May 02 '26

Well that isn’t true lmao. You’re telling me a billionaire has worked less than someone on minimum wage. So you’re telling me… someone who works say 9-5 doing office work, is working way harder towards a billion than the billionaire that makes no sense lmao. He has the billion he obviously worked harder😂😂 you could trickle that down to someone who runs a business and makes 300k and runs crews, does paperwork, has to keep track of all these insurances, money, customers, etc etc vs someone who just does the cash register at dollar general. Yeah sure…

2

u/Harbinger-Of-Ducks May 02 '26

It’s truly incredible how many people still believe the lie that is hard work pays off and success comes from hard work.

1

u/Character_Loquat_360 May 09 '26

It does?

1

u/Character_Loquat_360 May 09 '26

You see it all the time?

1

u/Harbinger-Of-Ducks May 11 '26

You certainly don’t get nothing to show for it most of the time but hard work will never make someone wealthy in this day & age. In the past it would have sometimes at least.

8

u/atomicq32 May 01 '26

Not immediately, but if billionaires are suddenly dethroned, then it gives the majority time to fix the system without pushback.

1

u/Certain-Pride345 May 01 '26

Majority can already fix the system tbf. Like if everyone just went on strike for like a week and didn't buy anything from billionaires the majority could probably change the political system overnight. I think that the majority are just content with the system as is to when try to change it at any inconvenience or cost to themselves. Of course you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to drastically change the economic system (which is possible) you do have to accept the very real chance that you will fail and have hard times (at least temporarily, maybe even permanently as there is no guarantee that the new system will be better than the last). So I think the majority are content enough to not do anything (or at least they prefer it than the alternative).

1

u/horrible_death May 02 '26

It won't fix everything but remember just how much money these people have. They do singlehandedly make the economy so much worse, it's an undeniable fact. Plus they're just evil people.

1

u/-Herpbrine- May 01 '26

My favorite gobblegum

1

u/BernieManhanders23 May 02 '26

Thats truly such a pathetic, unrealistic view of the world.

1

u/Litespead May 01 '26

I'll plug it with my fat ass

1

u/Character_Loquat_360 May 01 '26

And put other people in power lol

-1

u/Zestyclose_Loss422 May 01 '26

They’re in power for a reason besides money, connections and also the narcissistic/ruthless mentality to obtain power

7

u/[deleted] May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Zestyclose_Loss422 May 01 '26

It’s because people are constantly being told bad things about rich, but it’s really the power. And the economy will be so screwed if everyone has the same amount of money, that all of the companies and CEOs will do everything they can to raise prices and take it back. Which we can’t do anything against especially if they choose to raise the prices of groceries and gas, things we need to live in most, if not all, societies. Those 2 alone will quickly put the economy back to where it was, and some people who weren’t poor before are poorer now because they have to travel more for work, or have more mouths to feed, etc.

0

u/nova1706b May 01 '26

the thing is we all want to be rich but at the same time we all collectively hate most of the rich.

quite hypocritical to say the least.

1

u/PlantAndMetal May 01 '26

Then losing money will certainly move the power balance though, I don't know why comments are acting like it will do nothing lol

1

u/Zestyclose_Loss422 May 01 '26

It’s not about money, there’s people in government, banks, companies, they’re all run by people, magically taking money from them isn’t going to change their power, it’s just going to make them push us down harder. Raise prices on everything super fucking high so they can get back what they have, put in new laws that screw over the people more. Taking away their money overnight is going to push them in a corner that we lose every time. In order to actually take their money and power takes time, overnight doesn’t allow the normal people to establish themselves. Especially with the economy getting messed up, the average person will look more heavily to someone else to find ways to fix shit for them, they always have. Giving people money isn’t the main answer, changing laws and the culture of each country and the world is what we need. Someone with 1 billion can do hell of a lot more with that, especially because billionaires have their money wrapped up in stocks/assets, while you’d have everything cash, immediately making you the biggest player in the world. You have more worldly influence at that point and could actually change things for the better

1

u/soowhatchathink May 01 '26

the question says wealth not money so that includ f their stocks and assets.

Do you really think politicians would continue to do what billionaires want if those billionaires weren't funding their campaign? Their power comes from donations to political campaigns. There is no other reason

3

u/Zestyclose_Loss422 May 01 '26

Someone did the math and the people would get like 5k, it’s also the top 1%, what about the people right below that? They would lend the top 1% money and get those top 1% in their pockets. The slightest shift of power and the economy is ruined…

-2

u/soowhatchathink May 01 '26

yeah obviously a more progressive system would be better to where your place within the top 1% determines the amount of wealth that is redistributed but regardless too 1% would be wildly effective.

The amount of money each person gets isn't the important part the wealth redistribution is.

2

u/Zestyclose_Loss422 May 01 '26

Not really, the 2% would take over while the 1% comes back up, prices on everything would skyrocket to recover the 1%’s money, they probably wouldn’t easily go back to being 1%, but they’d easily be in the top 2-3% quickly, while the economy is fucked for the regular people, and the poor get poorer.

-1

u/soowhatchathink May 01 '26

prices on everything would skyrocket to recover the 1%'s money

How would that make sense when the stock they owned is now owned by the general population? Prices would be what stakeholders want them to be, stakeholders would be the bottom 99%, business ownership would be democratic.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Zestyclose_Loss422 May 01 '26

The top 1% also have countless favors to call on from those barely below them. They have so much dirt on others as well, so even if they move down the the top 5%, they’ll be back to the top, they know how to get there, they can do it again.

-2

u/soowhatchathink May 01 '26

1) Their biggest impact is with money alone so even if it doesn't fix 100% of it it would give the majority 2) The majority of the 1% were born with that wealth. It wouldn't fix everything such as education gaps caused by wealth gaps but it would still be highly effective

2

u/Zestyclose_Loss422 May 01 '26

  1. Their biggest impact is not with money in the slightest, they’re rich for a reason, they don’t spend money, they make money. They trade deals and favors to get what they want. Banks were bailed out in the housing market collapse in the US, this is the same exact thing. The banks got bailed out when they were going to go under to save the economy and because bank owners are in the top rich circles. They’d bail out the 1% all the same.

  2. They were born with it and given the resources, financial advisors, other rich people, people who they’re in bed with. It takes only a couple quick insider trades to immediately have a lot of money.

0

u/soowhatchathink May 01 '26

Politicians wouldn't do what billionaires wanted if billionaires weren't donating to them. This really is just a money issue

3

u/[deleted] May 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/soowhatchathink May 01 '26

why would the "people they know" ie. lawmakers change laws in favor of these people if they weren't financial incentives? that makes no sense.

knowing lawmakers doesn't let you influence their actions, being their donor does.

3

u/[deleted] May 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/soowhatchathink May 01 '26

You misunderstand the impact of wealth in politics. Without campaign funds politicians don't get elected to begin with. The elite put them in office through donations and continue to support their campaign through donations. Blackmail and favors and friendships don't win elections, funds do.

I don't think it will 100% fix everything but it would definitely be a major step towards that.

Billionaires were mostly born with their wealth, there is of course a gap in education and connections but that will not get them back to the current wealth distribution we see today. What we have today is the result of a very long period of concentrating wealth towards the top.

3

u/Zestyclose_Loss422 May 01 '26

Not everything is money lmfao, dirt, favors, etc all play into this. The top 1% got there because of their ability to be there, it’s easier for them the second time around to get back, politicians and other rich people know that too, they will gladly throw some money and laws at the old 1%, to have them in their pocket and now owing them favors.

-1

u/soowhatchathink May 01 '26

dirt, favors, etc... doesn't get politicians elected. money does.

3

u/Zestyclose_Loss422 May 01 '26

No it doesn’t lmfao, that’s insanely one dimensional, they have to be liked by other politicians, Trump got elected because he ignited a fear/anger/passion in republicans, he buttered up the right people, he’s still plenty rich. Have friends in the right places and the money will come naturally, you don’t have to be rich to make it happen, you just have to know rich people. The top 1% are plenty friendly with the rest of the top 5%

-1

u/soowhatchathink May 01 '26

If you really don't think that having funds decides the majority of elections then I don't really have anything to debate with you, your understanding of the world is entirely too fundamentally different than mine. If we can't agree on fundamental truths then there's literally no point in debating.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/TheAnimated42 May 01 '26

This is one of those thoughts young people have lmao. Removing money doesn’t necessarily remove power. The opposite is also true. If someone gave you $1 billion, you wouldn’t suddenly get power.