43

Please go easy on the downvotes—the point here is to try to understand a perspective that many of you probably won't share.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] SapereAude@anarchist.nexus 18 points 17 hours ago

Rephrase of what I think you're trying to ask: Should a society allow any person to accumulate wealth and power in the amount that today's billionaires have?

There's a huge amount of socioeconomic theory and history behind this apparently very simple question. In general, I think there's a lot more benefit to all of us when advances do not flow entirely into the hands of a few people. Taxation has been the major form of wealth redistribution in the western world for a while now - since the Gilded Age robber-barons decided that helping society by building libraries, museums, and universities was preferable to having the government take 95% of money they made over a certain high amount.

The current system has been so perverted by that accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few that it's become self-reinforcing, and is backed up by educational "reform" and propaganda from end to end. The result is that while the world may be continuing to get better overall, it's either stalled, or is actively getting worse for many of us normal folks.

Without writing a novel, I think it would be a good idea to tie tax brackets to the poverty and average income levels, and then tax anything over like 100x the baseline amount at 99.98% or so. Also close all the tax loopholes like borrowing against assets being untaxed even if it's the only source of income. Try to re-balance the system for all of us, and add as much buffer as possible to keep it from being re-fucked by those dragons hoarding all the gold.

[-] DandomRude@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

Well, I wasn’t so much getting at what you’re saying—which I completely agree with btw—but rather, I’m trying to understand what prevents people from realizing that the reason for their poor living conditions is the accumulation of capital in far too few hands.

The reason for my question: the global resurgence of fascism, which, in my opinion, is the direct consequence of the influence of billionaires, because they use this mindless ideology with all their might to pit people against one another and thus distract them from where the real problem lies.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that there are so many democracies where people view immigration as the most pressing problem. Absurdly, this is also the case in my home country, Germany, even though the German labor market needs far more foreign workers in a wide variety of sectors.

This is classic fascist ideology, which we unfortunately know all too well in this country. What’s frightening, however, is that the billionaires wield their influence so effectively that even the German masses no longer remember their inhuman faces and now still parrot whatever the algorithm—or rather, the will of the billionaires—presents to them.

It’s a tragedy, and my question in this post simply seeks to understand how this can be—how people fail to grasp that it is the powerful, and by no means the powerless, who should be despised.

[-] SapereAude@anarchist.nexus 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

There has been a concerted effort by fascists since at least 1965 to reduce education, buy up the entire media apparatus so it can be used for propaganda, break down government regulations so that they can aquire more power and wealth, create foundations and think-tanks that pump out quasi-scientific crap supporting fascism, dilute and distort scientific progress if it does not agree with them.

Studying history makes the efforts and trends clear. This isn't people supporting fascism in a vacuum, it's the result of society-wide manipulation of the entire world population, or at least, any part of it that votes. In that environment, I think it's pretty remarkable that they've only managed to fuck up 35-40% of people at most. They've had to cheat political systems to make that minority act like a democratic majority.

[-] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Count me in this bracket. A progressive income tax should prevent billionaires in the first place, and for less controllable things like an IPO a wealth tax will do the rest.

[-] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

At "Billionaire" (or even hundreds of millions of dollars) levels of wealth the government should implement a different tax scale based on net worth. Simpler and harder to manipulate. An annual minimum tax bill of 1% of your net worth that cannot be reduced, offset, deferred or otherwise mitigated per billion annually to do buisness in the country, per country.

Just stop them rorting loopholes. I think people would probably hate billionaires a whole lot less if they just paid a FAIR amount of tax.

Edit: actually the math works pretty much all the way down. Everyone should have a minimum income tax bill every year of 1% of their net worth with the only exemption being your primary residence.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 9 hours ago

I would like progressive rules that make it very difficult the higher you get but theoretically allow people to dream of vast wealth. Sorta like a soft cap in an mmo. Im talking taxes here of course.

[-] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago

People who think billionaires should exist generally don't believe in the common good as much as they believe in Big Strong Man IS Cool and Sexy. Or they don't know how labor works

[-] aburrito@sh.itjust.works 2 points 16 hours ago

There’s absolutely something to this, in that religions that enforce hierarchies are going to be more attractive to people who desire hierarchies (befitting from them or not). There’s no form in which you can be a billionaire without believing in hierarchy because it’s about as peak of human power as you can get

[-] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 8 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Billionaires in themselves aren't the problem. The circumstances creating them are. And not taxing them appropriately even more so.

[-] DandomRude@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

Aren't the circumstances that give rise to them simply the fact that societies allow individuals to become so wealthy in the first place?

[-] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Yes, and that's exactly what I'm getting at: One does not become a billionaire without exploiting a system that allows such exploitation to begin with. Nobody gets to where they are without any form of help; I'm fairly well off, and I am very aware of where I got help along the way. Becoming a billionaire is simply the result of taking any help offered to you without paying back your fair share, and that's where the faults lie: The society that hands out government subsidies with no stipulation past a "trust me bro".

Laws and policies need to be enacted that stifled an individuals economic growth past a certain point, effectively preventing people from becoming billionaires in the first place.

[-] DandomRude@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

And who do you think has the greatest interest—and the resources—to set up the system you're talking about in such a way that it essentially serves only the interests of billionaires?

I'd say the U.S. demonstrates quite impressively how this works.

To me, the saddest aspect of this nation's decline is that the people who are paying the price have resigned themselves to their fate, since their ideology seems to make it appear inevitable to them.

[-] Pamasich@kbin.earth 5 points 18 hours ago

If competent people were in charge, you'd benefit greatly from their taxes.

[-] DandomRude@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago

The problem, however, is that the world's largest corporations pay virtually no taxes, which gives rise to the very serious problem the world is facing today.

[-] Pamasich@kbin.earth 2 points 17 hours ago

Absolutely, that's why I said if competent people were in charge. Because then those would be paying taxes. The fact they don't is laws being too weak, non-existent, or poorly enforced.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] AskewLord@piefed.social 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

competent people are in charge.

that's why they pay very little tax.

[-] Pamasich@kbin.earth 1 points 15 hours ago

I think we have differing ideas of competency in a representative democracy.

[-] AskewLord@piefed.social 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

money is speech, that's the law of the land. more money = more representation.

always has been, always will be.

[-] Pamasich@kbin.earth 1 points 14 hours ago

But you can prevent that with laws and taking corruption serious.

A politician taking bribes from rich people is corruption and wouldn't be allowed with competent people in charge.

Rich people influencing politics through ads and such can be outlawed by politicians taking election integrity serious.

Money buys representation because the elite in charge prefers corruption over doing their jobs as politicians. Not because it inherently does. There are actions that can be taken to prevent it, they're just not being taken.

[-] AskewLord@piefed.social 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

You assume those are necessarily wrong/bad things, you are working off some ideal, that doesn't really exist.

Things have always been corrupt, it's just a matter of degree and nakedness you find objectionable. I guess you'd prefer more of the backroom dealing of the early 20th USA century politics, and the massive lack of transparency therein.

[-] Pamasich@kbin.earth 1 points 14 hours ago

Corrupt politicians are incompetent politicians. That's my point here.
Competent politicians wouldn't be corrupt. They might not exist, but that doesn't make this untrue.

You're right that what I'm describing is an ideal. But OP asked a philosophical question, not one about today's realities, or at least that's how I interpreted their question.

If politicians were competent, then they would redistribute the wealth from billonaires to social programs that would benefit the people.

That said, I disagree with you on this being unsolvable. Like I said, laws can go a long way. And not everywhere does money buy you everything.

There are countries with progressive wealth taxes on the rich, with the rate going higher the wealthier they are.
Many countries, including rich ones like Switzerland, were in favor of the OECD minimum corporate tax deal until the US withdrew, which would have unfairly impacted their economies and caused every company to pack up and leave. But at least in my country, can't speak for others, it still got implemented except for one aspect which is postponed indefinitely.

But based on the news I've been seeing, isn't New York also taking great steps in this direction? So I don't think it's quite the impossibility for politicians to go against big money even in the US.

Money is powerful in the current world, but it's not omnipotent. You can go against them, and you can create a world where it is powerless. You just need people willing to do so.

[-] schwim@piefed.zip 3 points 17 hours ago

Its not that billionaires should or shouldn't exist. Its the corrupt system that creates and protects them from citizens negatively impacted by their existence that needs to be addressed.

[-] DandomRude@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

And who do you think has the greatest interest in this? Who do you think has the power to make it happen?

[-] schwim@piefed.zip 2 points 16 hours ago

I don't know where you're located but if you paid any attention to the current US political system, neither of those questions would need to be asked.

[-] DandomRude@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

In and of itself, it doesn't matter at all which country someone lives in, as long as you're aware of the answer to the question I asked.

The answer is simply: the billionaires—even if you think you can undermine that reality with a counter-question (in Europe, where I live, there are certainly billionaires as well).

However, if—knowing all this—you don’t come to the same conclusion, I can’t understand why not.

That’s what my original question was about, and so far no one in this thread has answered it: How does society as a whole benefit from the existence of billionaires?

I know my answer to that.

Do you know yours, since you say it wouldn’t make any difference whether they exist or not....

[-] 87Six@lemmy.zip 1 points 14 hours ago

A: they shouldn't

Though I think the real issue with combating that is scale. These fuckers have the whole world available to them.

If their country raises their taxes to 99%, they just flee.

You can't have one country implementing reforms while others sit idly be, because of that...so it's really hard to make a reform, then lose X massive amount of investment from these soggy fucks that would pull out their investment money just out of spite, then somehow justify the move when business starts corroding in your country - in the short term of course...because in the long term I'm sure it's beneficial.

But with how things are going nowadays I wouldn't be surprised to see them fighting back too. I'd expect a fight on all fronts, from political, to economical, to societal, against any country that tries that sort of thing...

They're such a fucking plague.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

The solution isnt taxes.

The solution is Woodchipper

[-] 87Six@lemmy.zip 1 points 12 hours ago

well yea but it's not gonna happen

Americans could always use violence against them because they're armed to the teeth, but they don't. The people don't rebel unless they're literally starving.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Because Americans are the most propagandized, passive people on the planet.

Until it comes to respecting gay or trans or liberals, then a small portion get insanely violent.

[-] zxqwas@lemmy.world -1 points 11 hours ago

Sweden has more billionaires per capita than USA.

Billionaires existing does not mean you can't have a reasonable social welfare state. You're wasting your time thinking taxing away billionaires will solve anything.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago

Billionaires aren't the problem. They aren't good, but even eliminating them would not move the needle.

The only real fix for a significant portion of the current affordability problems is a sizeable Land Value tax. Henry George was mostly right, he wrote that shit out for us more than century ago, and we're still ignoring him while we fuck everything up because we keep treating land as this giant pyramid scheme of investment.

[-] DandomRude@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

But why wouldn't it solve the problem if top tax rates were imposed that would make it impossible for such parasitic investment firms to emerge in the first place?

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 hours ago

Go run the math. If you were to tax away say everything people own that's greater than $50 million dollars, and give it to everyone else, the total amount each person gets is something... but not as much as you would think. On the order of tens of thousands of dollars in the US for example. That would happen one time.

The most significant problem with housing costs isn't that corporations can invest, it's that ANYONE can invest. Investments require that an asset appreciate faster than inflation, and if that happens by definition it will always become increasingly more expensive than people can afford. Homes cannot be an investment for anyone, or they will always become too expensive.

[-] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 2 points 17 hours ago

In a lot of countries 10 000 dollars is the salary for about 5 000 days. Or in other words, far over 10 years. And you were talking about several tens of thousands, which means several decades of life when distributed among 300 million people, about a decade per person if distributed among a billion people.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 16 hours ago

Those numbers are for US billionaires divided by US population. If you were to try to divide global wealth from billionaires vs global population it likely wouldn't even be a thousand dollars.

[-] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Not everyone on this planet is poor. I don't need that money. But maybe roughly 2 billion people do. And "not even a thousand dollars" is two years' salary. In this case we're talking about a quarter of the world's population, so you "not even a thousand dollars" becomes "not even four thousand dollars".

And that means: "Not even the salary for 8 years. Possibly only 5 years!"

I mean, the money is enough to completely eradicate poverty from this planet. That's all that really matters.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 13 hours ago

It's not even close to enough to eradicate poverty from this planet. You vastly overestimate how much small amounts of money affect things. It may pull some of the ultra-poor out of poverty, but a single $2,000 payment wouldn't manage to get anyone in the first world out of poverty, and there are plenty of people living in the first world.

Cost of living varies by country, you're trying to suggest that redistribution would help people, and it would, but A) that's not how any sort of tax would be redistributed and B) the amount of money relative to each country isn't enough to solve any of the problems we're seeing.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
43 points (95.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

40143 readers
1879 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS