• RangerJosey@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      And the people he’s talking about have multiple billions.

      $999,999,999+

      $14,000,000 is a lot. But that’s construction company owner money. Not buying whole rows of politicians money.

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Maybe we collectively need to recognize billionaires like they recognize their workers. I propose the following:

    1. “Becoming a billionaire” is still a thing that the most aggressive, ambitious sociopaths among us can aspire to. Because they and the broken people that idolize them will insist that great things cannot happen without the promise of great rewards. And obviously the only “reward” of any meaning to them is money.

    2. Once you are a billionaire, you get a nationally broadcast pizza party on CSPAN and we engrave your name into a plaque in some “hall of smart winners” somewhere in DC. You are declared a champion of the economy and the President shakes your hand and declares a one-time national day to be in your honor. Or they read your name during the superbowl that year or whatever. Your place in history is locked in.

    3. Assets and earnings in excess of 1 billion are seized and given to charity, or infrastructure, or healthcare or whatever. Used for the betterment of society. It should be done responsibly in a way that won’t ruin the assets, for example not liquidating billions in stock all at once.

    4. The government publishes a leaderboard every year that shows which Champions of the Economy™️ gave the most back to society that year in the form of excess earnings. And we all pretend that we’re REALLY impressed.

    They can have their on-paper status and their superficial adoration they hunger for. And they can even be stupidly rich by ANY standard.

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Can anyone argue this is not a great idea? Even by being devil’s advocate, I genuinely can’t see any reasons why this would be worse than it currently is for anyone. 1 Billion still grants you A LOT of luxury and influence, just about as much as any single human should reasonably ever need or desire. And the best part is that we wouldn’t even need to pretend to be impressed! Imagine a parallel universe where Nole Ksum “contributed” 400 fucking billions to improving infrastructure, healthcare, and research. Wouldn’t you actually like the guy who has made the world, or at least your side of it, measurably better?

      • CouncilOfFriends@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        Usually when people are asked when America was Great™ they’ll point to the burgeoning middle class of the post-war economy of the 1950s. Sometimes they’ll point to separate drinking fountains however we’ll ignore racists for now. The economic nationalists won’t like it when you point out the thriving economy was partly the result of other economies still receiving from war, but more importantly for the middle class there was a 94% marginal tax rate for income over $200,000 in 1945, which meant dollars were circulating and demand was created for more jobs. The trickle-down clowns who insistent the rich getting richer is good for the economy would be slightly more credible, if they weren’t the very same people saying the poor demanding higher wages is bad for the economy. As Nick Hanauer put it:

        We plutocrats need to get this trickle-down economics idea behind us; this idea that the better we do, the better everyone else will do. It’s not true. How could it be? I earn 1,000 times the media wage, but I do not buy 1,000 times as much stuff do I? I actually bought 2 pairs of these pants, what my partner Mike calls my manager pants. I could’ve bought 2,000 pairs, but what would I do with them? How many haircuts can I get? How often can I go out to dinner? No matter how wealthy a few plutocrats get, we can never drive a great national economy. Only a thriving middle class can do that.

        • unphazed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          1950s were also heavily unionized. Unions have declined by 80% since then, and “right to work” laws didn’t exist. (Also, the 40s were when unions began to realize they should be inclusive of marginalized groups. Not due to racism, but because those groups would be more likely to scab unless included)

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Yep. I didn’t want to make the post much longer, but I almost went on about how this could easily be a win-win scenario.

        The one speed bump I wonder about is that loss of shares means loss of control of the company and its board, which your “founder & CEO” types will not like.

        …but I guess reasonable people may consider that a feature, not a bug.

        And btw, thanks!

        • metaldwarf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          Billionaire wealth tax. No one needs a a net worth over 1B. Tax any amount over 1B. There is an easy solution to the “next dollar” over 1B while the owner remains in control. Value the shares each quarter. Any amount over 1B is converted from a common share worth $XXX to a preferred voting share with a par value of $1. The difference in value is treated as income or a capital gain and subject to tax. The owner retains their vote/control.

    • WagyuSneakers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      The more you donate the more you’re celebrated. Our heros should be the people building schools and hospitals, not the people robbing them.

  • Dezzillion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    CEOs could maintain control of society while avoiding bad press simply by providing people with what they need—living wages, healthcare, and secure retirement plans. They could still rule while ensuring a fairer system. BUT THEY WONT.

    • Darkblue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      They won’t, because greed doesn’t get punished. Even worse, the law protects money. And the sociopaths/narcissists/psychos are the ones getting rich (of course) and the don’t have empathy, care, or believe in ‘fair’.

    • aeshna_cyanea@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      No, any CEO that tried to do this would get eaten alive, if not immediately by their board/investors then a bit later by competition from more ruthless ceos. In a capitalist system they literally have no other choice.

      I don’t really see any way to fix it from the inside. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and not by methods they’re going to like. I’m with bill burr here

      • unphazed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        Worked for Rockefeller. Dude was probably richer than Musk with inflation considered, and practically threw money towards charities (admittedly, using that money to improve cost of living and wages would have been better, but the rich gotta make their hoard still)

    • commander@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      living wages

      We should start saying respectable wages instead of living wages.

      Nobody should be living off of beans and rice while there are billionaires in the world.

  • schizolol9@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Billionaire dont deserve our respect nor loyalty. They can go fuck themselves for all I care. Dogs however are loyal and love us unconditionally.😂

        • abbadon420@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          Billionaires also suffer. It’s an unrecognised mental illness. They sacrifice everything for the pursuit of money, friends, family, happiness. They are a danger to themselves and others. The problem is the illness enables them to buy off any legal or medical consequences. Money is power, but in this case that means power goes to the insanitarium.

  • hsakaa@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Lol it’s funny when plebs get envious and jealous of billionaires

  • Noxy@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Disagree. Rabid dogs who must be euthanized deserve care, compassion, and respect when doing so. Rabies isn’t a life choice a dog makes.

    Billionaires deserve no such care, compassion, or respect.

    also did Bill Burr ever apologize for all the transphobic shit he’s said recently? Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy with anyone of any walk of life gaining class consciousness, especially if they talk about it. But it’d be even better if he’s stopped being transphobic on top of that.

    • thisisnotgoingwell@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      I’m pretty sure the only anti lgbtq comments bill burr has ever made was a bit about how when you watch something intimate the mind tries to place you in the scenario and when it’s two guys kissing it’s really hard to stomach, but Bill Burr has always leaned left and I honestly doubt he cares in the slightest about other people’s gender or sexuality

      • Crikeste@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        I don’t think you can come off as rational as he does while being partisan, you know? Plus, the left deserves some harsh words, to put it lightly lol

        • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          I’m in a union that is about 70% women. A woman leads the union. Women get special delegates to the general meeting as do other minorities. You cannot criticize this without getting into some trouble.

          I’m a lefty and I cannot safely discuss this. It’s very frustrating.

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Imagine if we gave hoarders the same status we give wealthy people.

    Like you’re invited over for dinner.

    You get to the door and ring the bell. They yell, “come in.” You push the door open against 10000 stacked news papers pushing back at you. You’re instantly hit with the smell of animal feces and urine. You unironically say, “wow, so decadent.” You climb over a pile of furniture and to get to a small clearing in with a couch and a coffee table covered in clutter. You tell your host, “So much stuff, I’m so jealous, you truly possess all the worlds material goods.” They heat up some discount canned ravioli on a hot plate because the only place in the entire house you can habitate is that small clearing with the couch.

    After you finish your fine dining experience you leave and you realize you never once saw any animals.

    Hoarding is a disease. Doesn’t matter if it’s useless garbage or the idea of a pile of money you’ll never use.

  • sumguyonline@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Me: EAT THE RICH! Bill Burr: I got you fam…

    1. To be clear, the 1% I am speaking about are NOT the 1% of your neighborhood, county, or city(necessarily). I speak of the Global 1%. The 1% that make your retired home owning uncle with just under 1million in his retirement look like the firmly lower middle class that he is.