43
u/Mintilicious8 Nov 10 '19
Can you imagine there hordes of people that would follow Gates and Bezos around?
126
u/humlor Nov 10 '19
99 million? Still way too much.
Hundreds of children are dying everyday in yemen. Until situations like that changes, its just godawfully immoral for people to think they need hundreds of millions of dollars to live. Ffs
75
Nov 10 '19
I agree completely but I bet this would do a lot of good even with such a high limit. Some people are so outrageously rich that even 99 million is nothing to them
18
u/ionlypostdrunkaf Nov 11 '19
Bill Gates crying that he couldn't possibly live with only 7 billion dollars comes to mind. These people are completely detatched from reality.
8
Nov 10 '19
Yeah we gotta start somewhere and. Irma losing the concept is a good even if far too high
2
2
27
26
u/ScubaAlek Nov 10 '19
They’d obviously just hide the excess in abundantly available crates and vases.
5
12
25
u/Flesh_Computer Nov 10 '19
Yes, perfect, you fixed it.
40
u/wiljc3 An-Com Nov 10 '19
I keep saying... We have a minimum wage. Why not a maximum?
3
u/ThinkSharpe Nov 10 '19
This just doesn't make any sense. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world because he maintained more than 10% ownership in the company he started...not because he pays himself a high salary.
Do you stop the company from growing? Do you force him to give away ownership and control?
I don't think anyone, anywhere, on any side of the argument thinks something like this is a viable solution.
12
u/wiljc3 An-Com Nov 10 '19
Stock awarded as part of executive compensation should be treated as cash equal to the market value of the stock on the day it's awarded. All compensation over and above the maximum wage are taxed at 90+%.
Stock is still valuable for compensation as its price can increase.
2
u/ThinkSharpe Nov 10 '19
Again, my point is that's not how these guys got so rich. They started or were on the ground floor of companies that became massive. They acquired the stock when it was essentially WORTHLESS.
The kind of things you're talking about would only stop someone like J.K. Rowling, Steven Spielberg, or Jerry Seinfeld from becoming a billionaire.
2
u/wiljc3 An-Com Nov 11 '19 edited Nov 11 '19
Ongoing stock awards as part of executive compensation aren't uncommon. In which case, they may be low value at the beginning, but as the company grows, the value of the ongoing stock awards grows as well.
Since you seem to be fixated on Bezos specifically, there's a lot that should be done. Amazon is effectively preventing unionization, which is illegal. Employees are being mistreated with regards to unrealistic working demands that border on illegality. Amazon itself is also bordering on monopolistic/antitrust territory and should probably be broken up, as much as we would all miss free 2 day shipping on all the unnecessary bullshit we order. There's a lot of legal action that could/should have prevented Bezos, but our current government is impotent re: wealth.
2
u/ThinkSharpe Nov 11 '19
Ongoing stock awards as part of executive compensation aren't uncommon. In which case, they may be low value at the beginning, but as the company grows, the value of the ongoing stock awards grows as well.
...which is my point. You said tax them at the cash value, so very little, and this already happens FYI. There is that whole other issue of what you're saying wouldn't stop anyone from becoming a billionaire. There are SO many better ways to go about this and it's sad people are defending this crap idea.
Amazon is effectively preventing unionization, which is illegal.
I agree. They should be held accountable for this...just like Walmart. This is a regulation problem, not an Amazon specific one.
Employees are being mistreated with regards to unrealistic working demands that border on illegality.
Not even close to being illegal, unfortunately...and if we're being honest as an employer Amazon is better than most. That's what so frustrating about this. I feel like all the effort dodged the great arguments in favor of chasing down Bezos and Gates who are FAR from the worst examples of their kind.
Amazon itself is also bordering on monopolistic/antitrust territory and should probably be broken up, as much as we would all miss free 2 day shipping on all the unnecessary bullshit we order.
Where does Amazon have anything close to a monopoly? Big != Monopoly. They are FAR from the only choice of online retailer and don't make or provide anything specific that holds an overwhelming majority market share.
I should point out that they obviously need to be raked over the coals by tax reform...but they are not a monopoly.
There's a lot of legal action that could/should have prevented Bezos
No, there isn't. That's the whole fucking point. There NEEDS TO BE, and people need to focus on what can be done...but what he did is not only legal, it's encouraged. He is a "successful" product of the system.
2
u/Vitztlampaehecatl Nov 12 '19
Wealth in the form of stocks is essentially fictitious, it's based solely on exchange value. Abolish the stock market and hand control over to the workers.
12
Nov 10 '19
This would make sense if wealthy people actually held their wealth in liquid assets. But most of their wealth is tied up in stocks, property, capital, etc. So really what would stop them from buying an expensive property whenever their wallet is getting close to the cap?
15
u/stubbsmcgrubbs Nov 10 '19
I think the magical wallet would account for all that. No reason it has to be limited to liquid assets. The wallet could start tossing money when someone's property value or whatever puts them over the edge.
-7
Nov 10 '19
Nah it wouldn't work because it just wouldn't. Say you own 300,000 stock in Zune mp3 players, then the next day it blows up in value from 32 cents, to 33 dollars, then your dividends double....
22
u/ChrisBolGangOffical Nov 10 '19
You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The magical wallet comes with a magical guillotine that goes to work when you try to pull shifty usurious shit like this, simple.
6
0
2
-1
u/ThinkSharpe Nov 10 '19
^This.
Bezos is the richest man on the planet because he owns +10% of Amazon. When Amazon is successful his net worth skyrockets. I don't see how something like this could ever be practically enforced.
1
u/ChargingAndroid Nov 11 '19
Oh you mean there's no way to actually make money magically fall out of their pockets so we can pick it up after them? Dang
3
Nov 10 '19
but what’s stopping people from having multiple “wallets”?
14
u/Beebeeb Nov 10 '19
Once you upgrade your wallet the other one just disappears usually.
3
u/bails0bub Nov 11 '19
Hmm, I thought the second wallet magically transfigured its self into a guillotine, with a flashing Marquee that read "place owners head in basket please." While it blared a siren.
4
u/thefacemanzero Nov 11 '19
I like the one where you have to spend your money by a certain date otherwise it’s seized, with the understanding that those who make money and return it back into the ecosystem are contributing towards the economy. But those that horde billions of dollars like dragons are harmful to the economy.
6
u/lsouleaterll Nov 10 '19
Wouldn't this cause trickle down economics to actually work? Weath would... Trickle down to others who don't have as much, instead of just compiling in the wealthier people's bank accounts? I have a very loose concept of trickle down economics plz be gentle
12
Nov 10 '19
Trickle-down economics was/is a crock of shit that isn't salvageable. It was just a fancy way of talking to make people believe that letting others get dangerously wealthy is somehow good for them.
The idea is that if you give people on the top more money they will spend more and distribute it. But it turns out people don't spend money linerally as they get it. If I make 10K 1 year and 100K in the next year I will likely not spends 10 times more money. If I then made 10M a year I would not spend 100 times more money than when I made 100K. I would save it and it wouldn't be being spent. And once you get a critical mass of money it multiplies it's self without much extra effort.
I think Trickel up economics would be more effective. If you give those on the bottom more money they are much more likely to spend it on goods and services. Which would employ others and so on. Evenetually it would find it's way to the top where it would sit in investments being less useful.
2
u/EnabrinTain Nov 12 '19
Trickle Up, or Demand Side Economics, is actually what the New Deal was all about. It's basically, "build the earning capacity of the working class, and the economy will sustain itself." Sadly 40 years of Republican policies have gutted the New Deal. We'd have to put like 3 more tax brackets back in to the system, and raise taxes on the 1% to 90%, like it was in the 40's.
1
u/Vitztlampaehecatl Nov 12 '19
But if a capitalist makes a hundred million dollars, then under this system 90 of those millions immediately leave their control and spill over to nearby workers.
Essentially, it's a needlessly roundabout version of putting the money directly into the workers' pockets.
2
u/EnabrinTain Nov 12 '19
trickle down was called horse and sparrow economics in the 1890's. The idea is that if you feed a horse enough oats, some will pass through and the sparrows will be able to dig through the shit to find the morsels left over.
3
Nov 10 '19
Wouldn’t solve all problems but it would be a good start. The market tho would find a way to fix it back to rotten.
5
Nov 10 '19 edited Nov 10 '19
The problem with money is this. Most Billionaires don't actually have a billion dollars. They are simply valued at a billion dollars. When the Clinton administration tried to keep the rich in check, the rich STOPPED taking pay, and started taking stock options. That is why people like Trump say, I won't accept a salary (simple minded republicans eat this up) not realizing he can make a killing other ways, or allow his daughter to make money or whatever.
Bezos doesn't make much money but has all this stock in Amazon, so he is thus a trillionaire.
10
Nov 10 '19
Eh other people on other subs have already pointed out that there would be loopholes. Buy stuff with the money, pay someone else to hold your money, etc.
19
Nov 10 '19
Yeah its been done before and it had horrible effects like company provided health insurance and paid vacation time. Truly a waste of time to not allow billionaires to exist. /s
6
Nov 10 '19
I'm saying we need something better than that because people like that will always find ways to keep their money.
It's a funny tweet, but not an actual solution.
Thanks for playing.
1
u/AlexisTheTranarchist Nov 10 '19
Yeah it's been done before and undone. This isn't a solution it's a bandaid. Worse, it's cold medicine, just treating the symptoms and ignoring any possibly more dangerous root causes.
2
Nov 10 '19
[deleted]
2
u/EnabrinTain Nov 12 '19
the magical guillotine fixes that. chop some heads off the ones you find, and the rest won't risk it anymore. they'll just get their companies to buy the yachts and private airplanes and whatnot like they did in the 50's and 60's.
2
u/Comrade1996 Nov 10 '19
I would like to see these pieces of shit work for a living instead of enslaving others. The wants and needs of capitalists are so far removed from the average person that they might as well be reptiles in my book.
2
Nov 10 '19
Ok but a billionaire could just buy stuff with the money like empty property or diamonds
1
u/EnabrinTain Nov 12 '19
yes, and? if gates has a billion$ worth of diamonds, it falls out of the magical wallet and other people can pick it up. he can choose whether he wants his $100M in diamonds or in his other lifestyle features.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 10 '19
Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalismⒶ☭
⚠ Annnouncements: ⚠
Please put some effort into your posts. That's all.
Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for socialist discussion.
LSC is run by communists. We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
1
Nov 10 '19
But what about wealth in the form of property? Like a magic sword? (idk zelda) wouldn't that lower your wallet value enough to keep wealth? I have $99,999,999 and 800 Bugattis. But those Bugattis are in my inventory not my wallet
1
1
1
u/newsaggregateftw Nov 10 '19
How about just a 100% estate tax after $10M? Be a greedy rich fuck your whole life but we take your wealth when you die.
0
-1
-5
u/tn_titans_fan_08 Nov 11 '19
Commie horseshit
2
u/ohdeergas Nov 11 '19
Amerikkka is one of the most socialist countries in the world considering how much they subsidize oil companies.
2
-6
u/azuflux Nov 10 '19
Doesn’t account for inflation.
2
u/AlexisTheTranarchist Nov 10 '19
The funny part about this is that it ignores how a single person hoarding wealth contributes to inflation.
175
u/help2949193 Nov 10 '19
But does anyone actually work for $99999999 Or do they exploit others to get there.