The super-wealthy are a cancer on society, and just like cancer, they suck up all of the resources while killing the patient.
Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager who has backed President Donald Trump in the past, on Thursday pledged to use his money to bankroll a challenger to Mamdani in the general election.
Case in point.
This might induce me to donate to Mamdani’s campaign. I live in fucking Illinois btw.
I absolutely am
And how did he get those billions? How many peoples necks did he have to step on to climb his way up. It’s not so much what you do with your billions, it’s how you got them that makes you evil. The only exception to this is probably Bezos ex wife, maybe.
lol. I don’t think she is as innocent as you make it seem 😂
Hence the maybe at the end. I always use qualifiers MOST of the time so I can weasel out of any statement I make.
He’s absolutely right. Billionaires should not exist.
Wealth concentration is bad for everyone but the wealthy. https://inequality.org/facts/
IDK even they don’t seem happy. Elon seems fucking miserable. I mean, I don’t feel bad for them, but knowing that literally everyone thinks the world would be a better place without you can’t feel great.
And one of the reasons why there’s so much more wealth inequality now is what conservatives have done to the tax code. Take a loot at this chart on the highest tax bracket over time.
Good, I agree.
He has painted a target on his own back though and he should be careful, lest he gets JFK’d or RFK’d.
Nobody asked me, but I agree with him.
Do you think we should have billionaires?
deleted by creator
But could this really be done? As far as I’ve understood, billionaires typically don’t have a billion liquidized and ready for spending. Rather, their value is distributed in ownership of several companies. How would the 100% taxes on ownership in companies be applied?
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see it work, but I feel like it’s a lot more complicated than stated. And if a good way of applying those taxes would be introduced, I’m sure the billionaires would either find new ways to make the money untouchable or personally move to a country with looser tax laws.
That’s what conservatives always claim. Most of them won’t move and even if they do, good riddance. Simply tax their wealth beforehand.
Imagine life was a game. You lived for 2025 years. You worked 260 days / year. You made the median US salary.
You would need to relive that process 3,145 times to match an Oligarch.
That amount of wealth is unethical while humanity suffers. No one can really fathom “1b dollars.”
Once you go beyond $100,000,000, there is no measurable difference in lifestyle. However, power accumulates. That amount of power shouldn’t be in the hands of so few.
I would disagree, 100 millionaires don’t own F1 teams or have boats so large and so much money they can take down bridges to get them out of port.
The problem is people like myself and many other can’t fathom even desiring things so absurd… And many of these billionaires won’t rest until they own the entire world.
You’re right, of course. I think it’s more like there isn’t much of an upgrade in lifestyle in general. Sure, it’s an order of magnitude more wealth, but you can do basically all of the most luxurious things in life.
For most luxury, you’re staying at the same presidential suite and driving the same car and that kind of thing. It’s not diminishing returns necessarily. I dunno.
I agree with him. there’s no morally good reason to be hoarding that much money
Even the billionaires would be better off without billinaires. It their relative ranking was the same they would still have more money than they could spend but it would now come with clean air, water, land, better infrastructure, a healthier world, happier people to interact with.
What do the billionaires buy that pollutes nature that much?
The pollution comes from millions of cars, chemicals for products like clothing and intense agriculture so that everybody can eat some form of meat.
Billionaires allow us to feel helpless while we could agree with our neighbors to reduce the ecological footprint of society to a minimum.
Im not saying that. Its the wealth inequality that stunts society. People don’t have the resources to make decisions based on whats best and have to deal with what they can afford. Lack of infrastructure and regulators results in more pollution.
People don’t have the resources to make decisions based on whats best
People have still more than many others on the world. Illegal immigrants have less, and they have to pay off their traffickers.
This mindset is a prison. The people have the power, they are just sure that they don’t have it. A beautiful display of mind control.
I would argue the trap is in the other way. Your reply reminds me a lot of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6vjaimSK4E . You may think you know how good the average american has it but you may not understand stand the unique challenges of various americans in many different situations. Wealth disparity is the trap and the only way toward freedom is a society were it is not so extreme.
and the only way toward freedom is a society were it is not so extreme.
That is not a way. Who should create the society?
OP argued that there are no resources left. Well, then that’s the way till the robots make humans unnecessary.
If people want to get out, they have to do something. Don’t work harder, consume smarter. Not the poorest have to start but those who make two vacations per year. Spend that money wisely and grow from there.
Thanks for the song.
we should create such a society with taxation and regularion. resources are finite but we have them left and I agree we have to use them wisely. I often point out that we would get in excess of a barrels worth of oil for every one spent in the heyday of the oil age but now we just get a few but wind/solar/etc lets us recoup way more energy per barrel again.
we should create such a society
The problem is that nobody knows how.
I’m not against people having money, but to have a thousand times more than most people can make in their entire lifetime is just taking it too far. There should be a cap after which you pay 90% tax or something
Problem is billionaires don’t make “income” and it’s quite difficult to even know what they own, let alone how to tax something like unrealized gains on stock holdings that they are using as leverage to get loans
At some point, somebody convinced people that unrealized gains were not actually income because you don’t know for sure that you’d make that money, and I think that was a bad idea. Maybe unrealized gains aren’t 1:1 the same thing as income, but the calculations of an income equivalent aren’t going to be complicated.
Somehow property taxes are okay, though, even though we haven’t realized the gains!
This exactly. At some threshold of worth, you should get taxed an amount based on your worth that will be big enough to force you to realize some gains in order to pay it.
The issue with realizing the gains is that you have to relinquish control of your company bit by bit. However, you could have the company (which you likely control) give out dividends, or you could use the stock as collateral for a loan. Or just pay yourself a bigger salary.
No wealth above a certain amount should be inherited. There is no moral justification for absurd amounts of intergenerational wealth.
deleted by creator
Hoarding = mental illness = billionaires
well I have mental illness and some hoarding but I’m not a billionaire, so I don’t think this equation works 😔✊
Centrists already hated him, and now he said their gods shouldn’t exist.
“Centrist” is just a masquerade for Republicrats to pretend to still be on the left.
I’m pro LGBTQ, anti-israel, against consumerism/capitalism, pro socialism. Pro government control on key infrastructure (water, gas, electricity) and better housing and support services. Pro climate policies, pro taxing the rich.
But I’m also against fossil fuel bans, against bans on firearms, pro military for defence, pro free-speech, pro strict immigration, against ‘PC’ culture, against trans-women in women’s sports, pro merit success.
Am I left or right? …Or centrist?
Am I left or right? …Or centrist?
Judging by the down-votes : not-left.
On trans athletes: it’s a non-issue.
On guns: these three videos always spring to mind.Can you substantiate the remainder of your last paragraph a bit?
Those are some great linked videos.
I agree with a lot of points in the video on trans-athletes. I wonder if the meta-study that I’ve been refering to was one of the studies mentioned, and there certainly needs to be more research into the topic to settle the matter for good. I think social and low stake competition should most certainly be non restricted especially for kids, the fact they are restricted in some places is obscene. But I’m still on the fence with professional and Olympic level sports. The part that currently holds me back from changing stance, is how many Olympic sports have either banned or heavily restricted participation. Perhaps they are in the wrong themselves but I suspect they are being cautious until more studies have confirmed one way or the other. Overall, I certainly don’t hold my view in high regard and I’m just waiting for more evidence, but like I said, anything other than professional or Olympic shouldn’t be restricted at all, any strength difference there is negligible.
With the guns part I agree with everything mentioned. I don’t think a free gun ownership system like what America has, is a smart idea. My country is very restrictive which is why I dislike the idea of completely banning them. Where I am, even the plastic toy guns were made illegal. Only if you live on a farm and need to protect livestock or produce, then you’re allowed to own some. Good thing is, no mass shootings here and only some gun crime. It would be nice if tough but fair licensing was more-so available, but nothing like America.
I’ll try substantiating the last paragraph without it getting too long. Fossil fuel bans are just not possible at the moment and even when it is, there will likely be some things we will never replace, even backup generators when black outs happen for hospitals. Making it really expensive and hard to acquire should be all that’s needed. Military for defence because I don’t think the world will be truely at peace for a while longer. Free-speech so ideas don’t go suppressed, but that doesn’t mean people have to respect that free-speech. Strict immigration to bring in valuable skills not just people (pronounced problem where I am). ‘PC’ culture ties into free speech but also reducing diversity hires (not requiring names and personal information in hiring to make such decisions truely unbias would be a better solution). Keeping some merit success with a socialist system to reward people to achieve more.
But I’m still on the fence with professional and Olympic level sports.
At that level you have lots of money involved, which means, among other things, steroids, corruption and lack of sportsmanship (oh gee maybe it’s sportspersonship now…). So, really, not what i would consider sport so i don’t give a damn; they can all “compete” with llamas for all i care.
On everything else, it’s a sport, you’re doing it for sport, so who cares?
Of course some cultures are more competitive than others.backup generators when black outs happen for hospitals
Good point.
Making it really expensive and hard to acquire should be all that’s needed.
All that ever does is limit access to the rich.
Free-speech so ideas don’t go suppressed,
Bare in mind that in english (especially murican english culture), “free-speech” is often used as “i can say whatever i want, including bigoted shit”. I do see a significant increase in the number of easily-offended people in the last decade, must be a generational thing.
make such decisions truely unbias
No such thing, there’s always a bias, but trying to minimize it is indeed a good goal imho.
Keeping some merit success with a socialist system to reward people to achieve more.
I’d say places where merit is actually and properly valued are few and far between.
And “socialist” red-scares muricans.
I’m pro LGBTQ
against trans-women
Right
In women’s sport, I just don’t think it’s fair to women to compete against trans-women* who are stronger than them. I only beleive that out of fairness, but I think people have every right to do what they want with their bodies and be accepted for who they are.
Where another person’s rights begin, another’s ends type of thing.
** EDIT: Clarifycation of ‘trans-women’ at the astrick, was just ‘women’ before
You’re right, it’s completely unfair for women to compete against women who are stronger than them. For the weightlifting they should test every woman’s strength, and only the weakest woman competes. That’s fair.
and,
We definitely shouldn’t let trans women compete in women’s chess, because of the biological advantage/s
That is not what I am saying. You’re trying to make an enemy out of me when I am not, it’s almost a strawmans argument you just made.
https://womeninsport.org/transgender-inclusion-womens-sport/
After 12 months: In studies which recorded the retained muscle mass/strength, there was an average of 25% residual advantage for transgender women at 12 months treatment compared with reference a group of females. After 12 months of testosterone suppression, transgender women remained 48% stronger, with 35% larger quadriceps mass compared with the control population of females. After more than two years of follow-up on testosterone suppression recent research citing retrospective data from military personnel in the US has shown that transgender women retain an advantage in running speed, at a residual of some 12% faster than the known normative values for females.
What is your opinion on this, truely? This organisation literally supports trans-women being in sport but has to admit that they are uniquely stronger and faster than born-women. It’s an unfortunate reality but I personally believe that we can support transgender women without disenfranchising born-women. I’m just being pragmatic about it.
And for clarifycation, I don’t think there should be classes in chess.
That is not what I am saying.
No, it is what you said. It’s just not what you mean. It’s not my fault the two are separate. It’s your responsibility to speak clearly if you don’t want the silly things you say to be mocked.
There are a number of other genes linked to athletic outcomes that are way more influential than “12% above average”. Steroid usage is rampant in top teir sports for instance and people with like genetic kidney conditions that overproduce some hormones have a far greater advantage.
The people doing the sports should be making the rules about sports, not a bunch of armchair theorists with calipers. Most the guys who have A LOT OF OPINIONS on how to gatekeep womens sports don’t actually watch any women’s sports.
deleted by creator
Let’s take the obvious “Pro military for defense” first since that’s the most insane thing to think is a contentious political issue.
There are 30% of people in the US that think aliens are real and have visited their asshole but you will not find 5% of people in america that oppose the military as a concept.
What you’re doing here is being manipulated by people who want you to think some of these things are Important Issues™
The trans women in sports is a great example of propaganda. It was cooked up by a conservative think tank. How many people are affected by this “problem”? Maybe 200? And in most cases sports organizations themselves often have rules in place like “how long you’d have to have been on hormone therapy to qualify.” That is already more or less a solved problem for most the people it actually affects. People playing sports didnt come up with the “trans people in sports issue”, a think tank did.
So what you are …is manipulated by think tanks and propaganda and in a way that causes you to oppose people who otherwise have common interests with you.
There’s only two real political philosophies and they can be summed up as “fuck you, I got mine” and “we’re all in this together.” I will tell you right now only the “fuck you, I got mine” group has any real interest in dehumanizing people by say, having the government ban trans people from public spaces and public activities like sports.
And yet the comments and downvotes shows how contentious it is which I knew it would be when I wrote it.
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Personally I agree with you. I always vote left and am more of a “we’re in in together” mindset.
Either way, thank you for you insight!
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Says the person who brought it up.
It was simpily an argument for me being centrist and therefore legitimate centrist existing.
It clearly worked in demonstrating what a centrists opinions are like and no one has so far argued I fall on one side or the other.
Sure. just bring up divisive right wing talking points. And then call yourself a centrist.
It tracks.
I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.
Not to surprising, since it is a standpoint that lays the foundation for oppressing and dehumanising one of the most vulnerable groups if society.
First it was just Trans people in sport, then it is trans people in bathrooms and the next step is eradicating trans peoples existence from public spaces.
Which is very sad and I’m not for that.
The only point I was making was for fair competition in women’s sport, and broader still that centrist exist with non black and white opinions.
I believe we are as a society, getting better at accepting people. In my country we’re decently accepting I think, although there is still the intolerant person here and there. Overall I do hope one day everyone is accepting of everyone else.
Thanks for your thoughts though.
centrist exist with non black and white opinions.
On the internet?! Impossible!|
The only point I was making was for fair competition in women’s sport
Which you don’t seem to have researched, or you would have known about the standards already in place to keep competition fair.
And yet the comments and downvotes shows how contentious it is which I knew it would be when I wrote it.
Probably extra contentious because it’s trans discrimination on Pride weekend. And there’s the fact that some research (backed by the International Olympic Committee) suggests that trans-women may perform worse than cis-women.
Even if more research comes out that shows otherwise (entirely possible considering that it’s hard to get a decent sample population of elite trans athletes as there are so few), discrimination is not a solution. The simplest solution would be to get rid of gendered leagues and group athletes by measureable athletic abilities. Probably would make most people with an actual vested interest happy, with exception of those who want to keep paying women less.
pro LGBT
against trans-women in women’s sports
You sound like an Idiot to me.
Not very helpful, why is that?
Because lemmy isn’t reddit and as a result has little patience for anti-trans bigotry.
You’re a liar, that’s what you are. Can’t even properly set up the troll.
Huh!? This isn’t a troll, I’m an example of a centrist. The term ‘centrist’ exists for a reason, and plenty of people such as myself think this way although I will admit, I have met very few unfortunately.
What makes me seem like a liar?
The term ‘centrist’ exists for a reason
Yeah, it gives conservatives something to call themselves on dating sites.
So what else is new? I had an imaginary friend when I was little, I got over that. So can others.
I think you may be misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m saying that centrists worship and obey billionaires.
