Even if you hypothetically kill a Billionaire, the number of Billionaires doesn’t go down at all. You’d have 1,000,000x the effectiveness if you hypothetically killed somebody who passes tax cut laws.
This above list shows 1 Billionaire per Country. There are roughly 3,028 total. And since wealth is transient, passing from one generation to the next, you would have to kill off entire families including some innocents. The math just doesn’t work out unless you and your allies are a 7/10ths majority because you’re going to face fierce resistance, and you will never get that much support.
And it wouldn’t last. A few years down the line it would simply reassemble, because no real changes have been made.
News flash, literal tons of people get killed off systematically every day, and entire families disappear. What would change is who is getting rich off of it, that’s all. We NEED to tax rich people out of existence, that’s the only way.
This depends on how that wealth is transferred, how its distribution is selected by people’s legal documents such as wills, how legal challenges play out, and whether they are successful in evading taxes.
Obviously a possibly ideal option is just 100% tax over some limit, for example $1B net wealth without regard for liabilities.
I’d happily accept any stifling of innovation that causes.
I’m not going to make a statement about the ethical basis for such calls to action here.
I’m certain, however, that abolishing the levels of extreme wealth we see in the world today in another way would make the lot of them about as happy. Can’t be mad at billionaires if there are none.
But by “removing” billionaires you have not made there none. That’s the problem with it. It’s like covering a sore and refusing to treat the disease that causes sores.
And now i shall refer to my original statement. If you keep removing something, regardless of the means by which you do, you can get pretty close to zero.
It’s kind of like gardening. Weeding a garden is a regular maintenance task a gardener accepts as part of life. The weeds will never stop trying to grow but we must continue to remove them nonetheless. We can plan a selection of plants and garden infrastructure to discourage them but they still show up. We could salt the field or pave over it but then we have no garden. Eventually, with enough pressure and time, the weeds become less obnoxious. So, if you want a garden, you keep weeding. The weeds will still there but there will be less of them and they’ll be slower to cause harm.
And if it’s not clear the analogy is the weeds are people who seek to obtain extreme wealth.
you would have to kill off entire families including some innocents
You’ve already sold me you don’t have to keep selling
In all seriousness, you think the people saying that we should kill billionaires don’t think there should also be other changes as well? You think they aren’t actively trying to push that reform? You’re just assuming people are violent and not trying to fix it, which is kinda judgemental on your part. Just because you want tax reform doesn’t mean other people haven’t figured that out as well.
Ah, maybe you don’t know this, but when someone says “but in all seriousness”, that’s a cue for you to realize the first part was a joke.
So let’s try this again from a different angle: tax reform is an ineffectual way to deal with billionaires and does not work. The rich always influence politics and will always change the rules for taxation for their benefit. And if one country does manage to have a unified front and stop billionaires, they will simply move to a country that will take them, or who’s politicians can be bribed. We have had tax reform to stop monopolies and the ultra wealthy and that inevitably becomes undone.
Your strategy is naive, and your attitude towards any other option is juvenile.
Children are dying by the thousands every day because of these people and you’re fine with it. You’d even let the system perpetuate to avoid feeling uncomfortable.
Obviously if the rich people went up against the wall we wouldn’t have to kill their children, if we did the thing I suggested and also change how money works legally.
Too bad you’re too high up on your horse to see the forest for the trees.
So… we need Super Luigi?
Even if you hypothetically kill a Billionaire, the number of Billionaires doesn’t go down at all. You’d have 1,000,000x the effectiveness if you hypothetically killed somebody who passes tax cut laws.
Well if you stop after the first one yeah
This above list shows 1 Billionaire per Country. There are roughly 3,028 total. And since wealth is transient, passing from one generation to the next, you would have to kill off entire families including some innocents. The math just doesn’t work out unless you and your allies are a 7/10ths majority because you’re going to face fierce resistance, and you will never get that much support.
And it wouldn’t last. A few years down the line it would simply reassemble, because no real changes have been made.
I love how you think a killing spree that eliminated all the richest people in the world and their families wouldn’t cause anything to change at all.
News flash, literal tons of people get killed off systematically every day, and entire families disappear. What would change is who is getting rich off of it, that’s all. We NEED to tax rich people out of existence, that’s the only way.
This depends on how that wealth is transferred, how its distribution is selected by people’s legal documents such as wills, how legal challenges play out, and whether they are successful in evading taxes.
Obviously a possibly ideal option is just 100% tax over some limit, for example $1B net wealth without regard for liabilities.
I’d happily accept any stifling of innovation that causes.
Yes, I’m very pro-tax, which is why I’m always arguing with the “kill every rich person” crowd because very few of them seem to agree.
I’m not going to make a statement about the ethical basis for such calls to action here.
I’m certain, however, that abolishing the levels of extreme wealth we see in the world today in another way would make the lot of them about as happy. Can’t be mad at billionaires if there are none.
But by “removing” billionaires you have not made there none. That’s the problem with it. It’s like covering a sore and refusing to treat the disease that causes sores.
And now i shall refer to my original statement. If you keep removing something, regardless of the means by which you do, you can get pretty close to zero.
It’s kind of like gardening. Weeding a garden is a regular maintenance task a gardener accepts as part of life. The weeds will never stop trying to grow but we must continue to remove them nonetheless. We can plan a selection of plants and garden infrastructure to discourage them but they still show up. We could salt the field or pave over it but then we have no garden. Eventually, with enough pressure and time, the weeds become less obnoxious. So, if you want a garden, you keep weeding. The weeds will still there but there will be less of them and they’ll be slower to cause harm.
And if it’s not clear the analogy is the weeds are people who seek to obtain extreme wealth.
You’ve already sold me you don’t have to keep selling
In all seriousness, you think the people saying that we should kill billionaires don’t think there should also be other changes as well? You think they aren’t actively trying to push that reform? You’re just assuming people are violent and not trying to fix it, which is kinda judgemental on your part. Just because you want tax reform doesn’t mean other people haven’t figured that out as well.
What I’m saying is, we can do both.
Thanks for supporting my point that only bloodthirsty idiots want that.
Ah, maybe you don’t know this, but when someone says “but in all seriousness”, that’s a cue for you to realize the first part was a joke.
So let’s try this again from a different angle: tax reform is an ineffectual way to deal with billionaires and does not work. The rich always influence politics and will always change the rules for taxation for their benefit. And if one country does manage to have a unified front and stop billionaires, they will simply move to a country that will take them, or who’s politicians can be bribed. We have had tax reform to stop monopolies and the ultra wealthy and that inevitably becomes undone.
Your strategy is naive, and your attitude towards any other option is juvenile.
You joke about killing children, this isn’t a miscommunication in the least.
Children are dying by the thousands every day because of these people and you’re fine with it. You’d even let the system perpetuate to avoid feeling uncomfortable.
Obviously if the rich people went up against the wall we wouldn’t have to kill their children, if we did the thing I suggested and also change how money works legally.
Too bad you’re too high up on your horse to see the forest for the trees.
So more billionaires to kill, cool