▲ 79 ▼ Google co-founder Sergey Brin has now spent $100 million to fight the billionaire tax (techcrunch.com) submitted 2 weeks ago by nemeski@mander.xyz to c/usa@midwest.social 18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children) Hold on. I feel like I'm misunderstanding this. Are you saying we shouldn't tax the wealthy now? What is it that we shouldn't be offering them exactly? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Let's say someone steal $1k from you. You know it's them, you go and confront them, and ask for your money back. They tell you to piss off and refuse to give your money back You call the cops, and then the thief finally offers you $20 if you leave them alone... They're only offering the $20 because if the cops show up they may have to pay back all $1k and actually go to jail. What's happening right now, is the oligarchs are offering us $20, so we stop asking for me because we're making progress It ain't enough, because all their wealth belongs to us. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) I'm confused by the analogy and that last part. How do you mean they've stolen money from us and "all" their wealth belongs to us? Could you elaborate there a bit? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) How do you mean they’ve stolen money from us and “all” their wealth belongs to us? Wealth is finite. 70 years ago, the wealth that billionaires currently have was in circulation, the rest of us would be paid it, and subsequently spend it, which would then be used to pay others. That is what the (now mythical) "self sustaining economy" is. Instead, the same small number of people take huge chunks of wealth out of circulation, they may invest in the stock market, but stock prices increases don't get used to pay salaries, they only translate to money if cashed out. So in the pursuit of raising stock prices, more and more wealth is removed from circulation Wealth inequality is when a few remove an oversized amount of wealth from circulation, which is stealing from the rest of us If someone "earned" a billion dollars and spent it, that wouldn't be such a big deal. The problem is that wealth being removed from circulation making it literally inaccessible to anyone else unless we unite and take it as a society, done peacefully this is called "taxation". When that stops being an option, historically there are other options permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) I don't know if I agree with the reasoning here. This is more an inherent problem with capitalism, right? You have to sell goods and services for a profit. But if everyone makes a profit, the money will lose value, and there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to be bigger and bigger winners, and the losers likewise in the other direction. Throw in the stock market and you've got a recipe for disaster. But I don't know if I agree that the money is "ours". Rather, a reasonable portion of it should be shared for the benefit of all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago This is more an inherent problem with capitalism, right? You have to sell goods and services for a profit. But if everyone makes a profit, the money will lose value, and there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to be bigger and bigger winners, and the losers likewise in the other direction. Throw in the stock market and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. That's unregulated capitalism... Where people are able to accumulate significantly more wealth and that snowballs on its own. For most of America's history, once people started accumulating that level of wealth, we started taxing the shit out of them, up to 94% just like a century ago. But I don’t know if I agree that the money is “ours”. Rather, a reasonable portion of it should be shared for the benefit of all. "Ours" as in society's.... Would you agree that the purpose of money is to facilitate that exchange of goods and services amongst members of a society? Or do you think it should be used as a competition to see who can accumulate the most even well after the point they could spend it all if they tried to? Because people die if they don't have money, the obsessive co pulsives could just go collect beanie babies or pokemon, pretty much anything else other than the one thing society depends on to function without having to revert to the fucking barter system permalink fedilink source parent [–] lemmyseikai@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) They are saying that we would offer them a "sudden drop and a short stop" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) Mmkay. I'd rather their money go back into rotation though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) The point is that a lot of this money doesn't exist. So if someone were to call it all in, the financial system would suddenly be faced with some very difficult truths. Calling in a reasonable portion of it shouldn't be an issue. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) I don't understand all that. The money they have doesn't exist? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) One of the examples: Amazon promised $4 billion to OpenAI as an investment. OpenAI then invested in AWS for infrastructure/training. The money never changed hands, never existed, but is talked about as if it's real. In reality AWS gives computing power to OpenAI in return for some stake in their business. A brief explainer: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-ai-circular-deals/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* I feel like that should be illegal when dealing with that much money. You can't just invent that much new money as if it exists or as if you paid someone. It's bad enough that banks do that. How about I go and "promise" I'll pay the grocery store for all the food I'm about to take home. They'll say I'm "sTeALiNg". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Let's say someone steal $1k from you. You know it's them, you go and confront them, and ask for your money back. They tell you to piss off and refuse to give your money back You call the cops, and then the thief finally offers you $20 if you leave them alone... They're only offering the $20 because if the cops show up they may have to pay back all $1k and actually go to jail. What's happening right now, is the oligarchs are offering us $20, so we stop asking for me because we're making progress It ain't enough, because all their wealth belongs to us. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) I'm confused by the analogy and that last part. How do you mean they've stolen money from us and "all" their wealth belongs to us? Could you elaborate there a bit? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) How do you mean they’ve stolen money from us and “all” their wealth belongs to us? Wealth is finite. 70 years ago, the wealth that billionaires currently have was in circulation, the rest of us would be paid it, and subsequently spend it, which would then be used to pay others. That is what the (now mythical) "self sustaining economy" is. Instead, the same small number of people take huge chunks of wealth out of circulation, they may invest in the stock market, but stock prices increases don't get used to pay salaries, they only translate to money if cashed out. So in the pursuit of raising stock prices, more and more wealth is removed from circulation Wealth inequality is when a few remove an oversized amount of wealth from circulation, which is stealing from the rest of us If someone "earned" a billion dollars and spent it, that wouldn't be such a big deal. The problem is that wealth being removed from circulation making it literally inaccessible to anyone else unless we unite and take it as a society, done peacefully this is called "taxation". When that stops being an option, historically there are other options permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) I don't know if I agree with the reasoning here. This is more an inherent problem with capitalism, right? You have to sell goods and services for a profit. But if everyone makes a profit, the money will lose value, and there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to be bigger and bigger winners, and the losers likewise in the other direction. Throw in the stock market and you've got a recipe for disaster. But I don't know if I agree that the money is "ours". Rather, a reasonable portion of it should be shared for the benefit of all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago This is more an inherent problem with capitalism, right? You have to sell goods and services for a profit. But if everyone makes a profit, the money will lose value, and there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to be bigger and bigger winners, and the losers likewise in the other direction. Throw in the stock market and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. That's unregulated capitalism... Where people are able to accumulate significantly more wealth and that snowballs on its own. For most of America's history, once people started accumulating that level of wealth, we started taxing the shit out of them, up to 94% just like a century ago. But I don’t know if I agree that the money is “ours”. Rather, a reasonable portion of it should be shared for the benefit of all. "Ours" as in society's.... Would you agree that the purpose of money is to facilitate that exchange of goods and services amongst members of a society? Or do you think it should be used as a competition to see who can accumulate the most even well after the point they could spend it all if they tried to? Because people die if they don't have money, the obsessive co pulsives could just go collect beanie babies or pokemon, pretty much anything else other than the one thing society depends on to function without having to revert to the fucking barter system permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) I'm confused by the analogy and that last part. How do you mean they've stolen money from us and "all" their wealth belongs to us? Could you elaborate there a bit? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) How do you mean they’ve stolen money from us and “all” their wealth belongs to us? Wealth is finite. 70 years ago, the wealth that billionaires currently have was in circulation, the rest of us would be paid it, and subsequently spend it, which would then be used to pay others. That is what the (now mythical) "self sustaining economy" is. Instead, the same small number of people take huge chunks of wealth out of circulation, they may invest in the stock market, but stock prices increases don't get used to pay salaries, they only translate to money if cashed out. So in the pursuit of raising stock prices, more and more wealth is removed from circulation Wealth inequality is when a few remove an oversized amount of wealth from circulation, which is stealing from the rest of us If someone "earned" a billion dollars and spent it, that wouldn't be such a big deal. The problem is that wealth being removed from circulation making it literally inaccessible to anyone else unless we unite and take it as a society, done peacefully this is called "taxation". When that stops being an option, historically there are other options permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) I don't know if I agree with the reasoning here. This is more an inherent problem with capitalism, right? You have to sell goods and services for a profit. But if everyone makes a profit, the money will lose value, and there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to be bigger and bigger winners, and the losers likewise in the other direction. Throw in the stock market and you've got a recipe for disaster. But I don't know if I agree that the money is "ours". Rather, a reasonable portion of it should be shared for the benefit of all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago This is more an inherent problem with capitalism, right? You have to sell goods and services for a profit. But if everyone makes a profit, the money will lose value, and there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to be bigger and bigger winners, and the losers likewise in the other direction. Throw in the stock market and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. That's unregulated capitalism... Where people are able to accumulate significantly more wealth and that snowballs on its own. For most of America's history, once people started accumulating that level of wealth, we started taxing the shit out of them, up to 94% just like a century ago. But I don’t know if I agree that the money is “ours”. Rather, a reasonable portion of it should be shared for the benefit of all. "Ours" as in society's.... Would you agree that the purpose of money is to facilitate that exchange of goods and services amongst members of a society? Or do you think it should be used as a competition to see who can accumulate the most even well after the point they could spend it all if they tried to? Because people die if they don't have money, the obsessive co pulsives could just go collect beanie babies or pokemon, pretty much anything else other than the one thing society depends on to function without having to revert to the fucking barter system permalink fedilink source parent
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) How do you mean they’ve stolen money from us and “all” their wealth belongs to us? Wealth is finite. 70 years ago, the wealth that billionaires currently have was in circulation, the rest of us would be paid it, and subsequently spend it, which would then be used to pay others. That is what the (now mythical) "self sustaining economy" is. Instead, the same small number of people take huge chunks of wealth out of circulation, they may invest in the stock market, but stock prices increases don't get used to pay salaries, they only translate to money if cashed out. So in the pursuit of raising stock prices, more and more wealth is removed from circulation Wealth inequality is when a few remove an oversized amount of wealth from circulation, which is stealing from the rest of us If someone "earned" a billion dollars and spent it, that wouldn't be such a big deal. The problem is that wealth being removed from circulation making it literally inaccessible to anyone else unless we unite and take it as a society, done peacefully this is called "taxation". When that stops being an option, historically there are other options permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) I don't know if I agree with the reasoning here. This is more an inherent problem with capitalism, right? You have to sell goods and services for a profit. But if everyone makes a profit, the money will lose value, and there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to be bigger and bigger winners, and the losers likewise in the other direction. Throw in the stock market and you've got a recipe for disaster. But I don't know if I agree that the money is "ours". Rather, a reasonable portion of it should be shared for the benefit of all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago This is more an inherent problem with capitalism, right? You have to sell goods and services for a profit. But if everyone makes a profit, the money will lose value, and there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to be bigger and bigger winners, and the losers likewise in the other direction. Throw in the stock market and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. That's unregulated capitalism... Where people are able to accumulate significantly more wealth and that snowballs on its own. For most of America's history, once people started accumulating that level of wealth, we started taxing the shit out of them, up to 94% just like a century ago. But I don’t know if I agree that the money is “ours”. Rather, a reasonable portion of it should be shared for the benefit of all. "Ours" as in society's.... Would you agree that the purpose of money is to facilitate that exchange of goods and services amongst members of a society? Or do you think it should be used as a competition to see who can accumulate the most even well after the point they could spend it all if they tried to? Because people die if they don't have money, the obsessive co pulsives could just go collect beanie babies or pokemon, pretty much anything else other than the one thing society depends on to function without having to revert to the fucking barter system permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) I don't know if I agree with the reasoning here. This is more an inherent problem with capitalism, right? You have to sell goods and services for a profit. But if everyone makes a profit, the money will lose value, and there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to be bigger and bigger winners, and the losers likewise in the other direction. Throw in the stock market and you've got a recipe for disaster. But I don't know if I agree that the money is "ours". Rather, a reasonable portion of it should be shared for the benefit of all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago This is more an inherent problem with capitalism, right? You have to sell goods and services for a profit. But if everyone makes a profit, the money will lose value, and there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to be bigger and bigger winners, and the losers likewise in the other direction. Throw in the stock market and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. That's unregulated capitalism... Where people are able to accumulate significantly more wealth and that snowballs on its own. For most of America's history, once people started accumulating that level of wealth, we started taxing the shit out of them, up to 94% just like a century ago. But I don’t know if I agree that the money is “ours”. Rather, a reasonable portion of it should be shared for the benefit of all. "Ours" as in society's.... Would you agree that the purpose of money is to facilitate that exchange of goods and services amongst members of a society? Or do you think it should be used as a competition to see who can accumulate the most even well after the point they could spend it all if they tried to? Because people die if they don't have money, the obsessive co pulsives could just go collect beanie babies or pokemon, pretty much anything else other than the one thing society depends on to function without having to revert to the fucking barter system permalink fedilink source parent
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago This is more an inherent problem with capitalism, right? You have to sell goods and services for a profit. But if everyone makes a profit, the money will lose value, and there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to be bigger and bigger winners, and the losers likewise in the other direction. Throw in the stock market and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. That's unregulated capitalism... Where people are able to accumulate significantly more wealth and that snowballs on its own. For most of America's history, once people started accumulating that level of wealth, we started taxing the shit out of them, up to 94% just like a century ago. But I don’t know if I agree that the money is “ours”. Rather, a reasonable portion of it should be shared for the benefit of all. "Ours" as in society's.... Would you agree that the purpose of money is to facilitate that exchange of goods and services amongst members of a society? Or do you think it should be used as a competition to see who can accumulate the most even well after the point they could spend it all if they tried to? Because people die if they don't have money, the obsessive co pulsives could just go collect beanie babies or pokemon, pretty much anything else other than the one thing society depends on to function without having to revert to the fucking barter system permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lemmyseikai@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) They are saying that we would offer them a "sudden drop and a short stop" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) Mmkay. I'd rather their money go back into rotation though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) The point is that a lot of this money doesn't exist. So if someone were to call it all in, the financial system would suddenly be faced with some very difficult truths. Calling in a reasonable portion of it shouldn't be an issue. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) I don't understand all that. The money they have doesn't exist? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) One of the examples: Amazon promised $4 billion to OpenAI as an investment. OpenAI then invested in AWS for infrastructure/training. The money never changed hands, never existed, but is talked about as if it's real. In reality AWS gives computing power to OpenAI in return for some stake in their business. A brief explainer: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-ai-circular-deals/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* I feel like that should be illegal when dealing with that much money. You can't just invent that much new money as if it exists or as if you paid someone. It's bad enough that banks do that. How about I go and "promise" I'll pay the grocery store for all the food I'm about to take home. They'll say I'm "sTeALiNg". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) Mmkay. I'd rather their money go back into rotation though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) The point is that a lot of this money doesn't exist. So if someone were to call it all in, the financial system would suddenly be faced with some very difficult truths. Calling in a reasonable portion of it shouldn't be an issue. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) I don't understand all that. The money they have doesn't exist? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) One of the examples: Amazon promised $4 billion to OpenAI as an investment. OpenAI then invested in AWS for infrastructure/training. The money never changed hands, never existed, but is talked about as if it's real. In reality AWS gives computing power to OpenAI in return for some stake in their business. A brief explainer: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-ai-circular-deals/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* I feel like that should be illegal when dealing with that much money. You can't just invent that much new money as if it exists or as if you paid someone. It's bad enough that banks do that. How about I go and "promise" I'll pay the grocery store for all the food I'm about to take home. They'll say I'm "sTeALiNg". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) The point is that a lot of this money doesn't exist. So if someone were to call it all in, the financial system would suddenly be faced with some very difficult truths. Calling in a reasonable portion of it shouldn't be an issue. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) I don't understand all that. The money they have doesn't exist? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) One of the examples: Amazon promised $4 billion to OpenAI as an investment. OpenAI then invested in AWS for infrastructure/training. The money never changed hands, never existed, but is talked about as if it's real. In reality AWS gives computing power to OpenAI in return for some stake in their business. A brief explainer: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-ai-circular-deals/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* I feel like that should be illegal when dealing with that much money. You can't just invent that much new money as if it exists or as if you paid someone. It's bad enough that banks do that. How about I go and "promise" I'll pay the grocery store for all the food I'm about to take home. They'll say I'm "sTeALiNg". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) I don't understand all that. The money they have doesn't exist? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) One of the examples: Amazon promised $4 billion to OpenAI as an investment. OpenAI then invested in AWS for infrastructure/training. The money never changed hands, never existed, but is talked about as if it's real. In reality AWS gives computing power to OpenAI in return for some stake in their business. A brief explainer: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-ai-circular-deals/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* I feel like that should be illegal when dealing with that much money. You can't just invent that much new money as if it exists or as if you paid someone. It's bad enough that banks do that. How about I go and "promise" I'll pay the grocery store for all the food I'm about to take home. They'll say I'm "sTeALiNg". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) One of the examples: Amazon promised $4 billion to OpenAI as an investment. OpenAI then invested in AWS for infrastructure/training. The money never changed hands, never existed, but is talked about as if it's real. In reality AWS gives computing power to OpenAI in return for some stake in their business. A brief explainer: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-ai-circular-deals/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* I feel like that should be illegal when dealing with that much money. You can't just invent that much new money as if it exists or as if you paid someone. It's bad enough that banks do that. How about I go and "promise" I'll pay the grocery store for all the food I'm about to take home. They'll say I'm "sTeALiNg". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* I feel like that should be illegal when dealing with that much money. You can't just invent that much new money as if it exists or as if you paid someone. It's bad enough that banks do that. How about I go and "promise" I'll pay the grocery store for all the food I'm about to take home. They'll say I'm "sTeALiNg". permalink fedilink source parent