-
No one should be allowed to accumulate more than $100 million, period. And we should have a maximum income of $10 million per year, with no borrowing to get over that amount. Max inheritance of $10 million per beneficiary.
-
It should be progressively more expensive to remain rich.
Figure out a baseline of what’s required to provide comfortable subsistence.
Set a tax rate of 0.01% for income above 10x the baseline.
Set the tax brackets to:
- 0.1% for >100x
- 1% for >1,000x
- 10% for >10,000x
- 100% for >100,000x
If you want to earn more and pay less tax, you work toward raising the baseline.
An economy is a construct provided by the society to help facilitate its function. Hoarding wealth denominated in its currency is intrinsically sociopathic, and societies which tolerate it are suicidal.
-
So zero critique but to me these numbers still seem insurmountably huge. I wonder what makes $10/100 million your cut off points?
I ask because it's hard for me to imagine how one individual can amass $100 million in wealth without theft from those actually producing value. But I’m also aware that somewhere along the way actual lines have to be drawn and don't necessarily have my own metric for where that should be.
-
I ask because it's hard for me to imagine how one individual can amass $100 million in wealth without theft from those actually producing value.
Services and intangible property.
If I write and record a song, and 100 million people like it enough to pay me a dollar for it, that's $100 million right there. If I then tour and sell out stadiums and arenas and negotiate a cut of $10 per ticket (and make sure that the staff that actually makes the event possible gets paid fairly, and incorporate that into the ticket price), and end up selling 10 million tickets, that's another $100 million to myself.
I'd argue that there's no exploitation or theft there. It's just scaling to a huge, almost unfathomable volume of sales.
The same can be true with other forms of intellectual property. A popular book may sell billions of copies. A popular piece of software might be downloaded billions of times. Even without copyright, one can imagine a patron/tip/donation model raising billions for some superstars.
Other services might not have a property model, but can still scale. There are minor celebrities making a living doing Cameos for $500 per video, who can easily do 20 a day. Nobody is getting hurt when someone does that.
So I'd argue it is possible to earn a billion without exploitation. They should still be taxed, though.
-
-
This one always goes hard
-
When the French did this it was also extremely bad for their country and lead to a horrible power vacuum. Shouldn't let history repeat itself.
-
Right, but as a counterpoint. The French weren't facing certain global annihilation brought on by Megacorporations who convinced every person in the world to voluntarily spy on themselves for the last 2 decades in order to amass more power, wealth and influence than every individual country in the world. Those, whose mere existence has accelerated global warming to the point that the purposeful act of ecocide has become their main goal, after they force us into world war 3, strip mine the globe for resources in order to fuck off and terraform Mars. All to live out a South African-Apartheidist-with-a-botched-penis-implant's grandfather's wet dream of enslaving humanity into a technocratic hellscape before Larping the provably erroneous Ugenix "hypothesis" of hyper-diffusion. So, you know, maybe give The French Revolution a break?
-
-
it's obvious who's the female and who's the male in this partnership
Edit: Because of the holes!
Edit2: I hope the downvotes are because of wary lurkers wondering if I'm misgendering inanimate objects, and not because the joke was bad.
