What are the best steps to reduce the wealth of billionaires?

There are a myriad of news articles here on Lemmy that display the abhorrent influence billionaires have on our society (especially the US, where I reside). I consistently read comments where the posters appear hopeless and despondent of the situation, while others jokingly refer to the guillotine.

As for myself, I have recently found myself with a lot of free time on my hands after being laid off and want to gather ideas on what would be the best hypothetical route to solve this issue. Let me be clear: These are only THEORETICAL IDEAS and I do not condone any illegal activity.

Historical precedent: While I am not intimately familiar with the inner workings of the Occupy Movement, I do know that they were constantly attacked as being unorganized and lacking structure. It would be wise to not fall into the same pitfalls if those were accurate assessments.

Logical formulation: The foundations of the key points of the movement must be logically sound to withstand any external (and internal for that matter) scrutiny.

Motto: If a motto or slogan is chosen, it must be unambiguous so that attacks are directed to the movement, not the motto itself.

I am also aware that most people can’t spare any time to these kind of movements. Similar to the Texas seceding news, many commentators have noted that most Texans are living paycheck to paycheck and wouldn’t be able to dedicate any time to their cause. I would understand that would be same for this cause as well. However, since I have the time right now, I only ask for your ideas.

Broad issues: High cost of living (mortgages, rent, groceries, etc.) Inflation Homelessness

Philosophical underpinnings: Is there a Threshold of Greed? If so, what is too much wealth?

Possible means of reductions: Voluntary donation or renunciation of wealth past a certain point (highly unlikely) Taxation (also unlikely) Seizing assets (illegal and would most likely set a poor precedent)

It might also to organize an open database of billionaires with their respective fields (Forbes is closed) to help organize a boycott of some sort Though I suspect their fingers are in everything and it would be highly impractical.

Sorry for the word diarrhea. What are your thoughts?

ohwhatfollyisman,

we need to change the parameters of success.

the current “world’s richest persons” list is actually the “world’s greediest persons” list. we need to all start calling it exactly that. we need to, as society, understand that having those levels of wealth is more a symptom of a sick and twisted mind rather than a consequence of “business acumen”.

the world’s richest persons list should be recalibrated to what percentage of one’s income has been given away in taxes and donations. think about it, if you can indulge in all your necessities, comforts, and luxuries on 10% of your income and still afford to give away the other 90%, are you not 9 times “richer” than you need to be?

separately, any company that turns an obscene profit has done so only by overcharging their customers. these companies should be vilified therefore, and not celebrated.

DecarbonatedOdes,

So true. And a national change in perspective is definitely achievable.

Modern_medicine_isnt,

I doubt it is really greed. They are competitive. It’s a different driver.

bazmatazable,

No matter if it is greed, competitiveness, narcissism, another personality trait or some combination of them the point was that we as a society should not consider becoming a billionaire as model behavior. By all means be the best sports player or musician or top surgeon and make as much money as you are legally allowed. Most tech billionaires are just not that impressive to justify their current net worth.

intensely_human,

Focus on making the poor people richer instead. Then you’ll realize things are going pretty good.

jaek,

Hard to make the poor people richer when the rich are taking an increasingly large share of the pie.

intensely_human,

Actually with the wonders of math it’s not. Because if the pie gets bigger faster than their portion increases, we all win.

And, as it turns out, the poorest people in the world are indeed getting richer.

Urist,
@Urist@lemmy.ml avatar

Resources are ultimately finite, regardless of method of extraction. The poor people would get richer faster with better distribution and research supports basic reasoning that the pie would get bigger if distribution was better.

intensely_human,

Not sure which resources you’re referring to that would be at their limit such that poor people can’t get any richer.

Also no, all the times the economic system has been built around optimizing distribution, production has dropped to almost zero. Under redistribution schemes, the poor tend to die horribly.

Urist,
@Urist@lemmy.ml avatar

I reiterate: All resources are ultimately finite. There is however more than enough for all if extracted sustainably and shared somewhat equally. Under redistribution schemes, the poor stop being poor because having basic needs met increases social mobility. Also production increases because it is in many cases artificially restricted due to the consumers being too poor to buy the things they want and/or need.

LemmyKnowsBest,

Money is infinite though. The wealthy people know how to tap into all the manipulative ways of increasing their own wealth. What we need is education for everyone to know how to do this. But of course a problem with that is that if everyone is wealthy, no one is wealthy because wealth doesn’t exist without something to contrast it with, which are the poor financially-illiterate people who do all the hard labor which generates wealth for their CEOs. Which is why the wealthy people don’t want to educate poor people on financial literacy.

mojofrododojo,

You know what’s free?

SHAME. Shame these selfish fucks every fucking second they are in the public. I want to see a 4 year old give musk the finger. I want to hear a 7 year old shout “SELFISH CUNT” at bezos. I want everyone they interact with who’s not on their payroll to roll their eyes and say “oh no everyone watch out, mr “I need to horde billions” is here. What do you fucking want?”

invective has always been a valuable tool against the arsehole polity.

hark,
@hark@lemmy.world avatar

They feel no shame. If they even acknowledge, they just call it “jealousy” from “haters”.

mojofrododojo,

so? if they feel no shame, treat them like the greedy assholes they are. at least everyone else will see the object lesson.

hark,
@hark@lemmy.world avatar

They will not stop if they determine that the cost is outweighed by the benefit, that’s what makes them greedy. They need to be suitably punished or they’re just going to continue their ways.

rusticus, (edited )

Nearly all billionaires have unrealized wealth, meaning they own a large percentage of a giant corporation (ie Bezos, Musk). So taxing them for money they don’t really own won’t work. But there is a better solution.

There are 38 companies in the US whose yearly revenue is greater than 100 BILLION dollars. In fact, the total amount of revenue over 100 billion for these companies combined is a bit shy of the US government yearly budget.

No company needs to revenue that much. Tax the revenue (ie 5%) over 100 billion revenue. This has the added benefit of helping to prevent monopolies and “too big to fail”.

Here is the list and revenue in case you think these companies don’t need to be taxed lol. …wikipedia.org/…/List_of_largest_companies_in_the…

Edit: Extra easter egg: The tax rate that you set could be changed each year to meet the amount of the federal deficit (ie the amount the government “overspends”). This would have the added advantage of limiting excessive government spending because politicians would have to explain to the largest corporations why they are spending their money. And you get a guaranteed balanced budget every year!

aramus,

Suddenly they all make 99.999 billion…

uriel238,
@uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

So many thoughts on this. I’ll try to parse some out, one post at a time.

Part of the problem is the standard of legality. Late-stage capitalism is defined by the state serving the ownership class rather than the public. It’s why the state cares very little about wage theft, or addicts dropping dead from opioid overdose, or homeless freezing to death in sub-zero Minnesota but are arresting immigrants who are otherwise well-behaved (and paying their taxes) or raiding repair shops that fix iPhones without an Apple authorization. It’s why media agencies are so worried about piracy even as they try to lay off their development teams if they can be replaced with AI software.

Laws and the legal system work for the ownership class, not the public. Any legal efforts to strip billionaires of their wealth, or even reduce their profits is going to quickly get neutered. This is why the protections afforded by the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments of the Constitution of the United States have been thoroughly gutted with carve-outs. It’s why asset forfeiture is not only a thing, but takes more from Americans than burglaries.

And this is why law enforcement is already attacking mutual aid organizations based on licensing issues, because it’s not actually illegal but facilitates other threats to the ownership class, such as labor actions. There is no rule of law in the US. Your rights go only as far as your lawyer’s means to enforce them, and if you’re depending on a public defender, they just don’t have the time or funding.

The ownership class will (according to Marx) tremble before a communist revolution because we will have ruled out all other alternatives, though we may try a fascist autocracy and a massive genocide machine to dispose of all the underclasses, first.

And that’s the problem. The Holocaust was legal too. Leaving workers hungry and cold to the elements during the Great Depression was totally legal, and at the time communism as per the Soviet Union was looking pretty good to those of our great grandparents who weren’t Carnegie or Rockefeller. This is not our first rodeo. What the state likes (id est, what is legal ) is not a fair moral standard. Nor is what religious ministries like (id est, what is sin ). We have to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, and if we’re willing to die for our pacifistic standards when law enforcement decides we are intrinsically unlawful

This is why some are arguing the climate crisis warrants resorting to violent sabotage (say, blowing up oil pipelines) since the alternative is to let industry pollute us to global catastrophic risk (of extinction). If you want a sustainable civilization, if you want wealth and power distributed fairly, if you want a public-serving government, then you’re going to have to give up on lawful action. And if you want to stay within the confines of law, you’ll have to give up on equality, a functional state or a future.

DecarbonatedOdes,

Great answer. I’m getting strong Thoreau Civil Disobedience vibes.

bazmatazable,

Great reply, thank you. OP points out that the situation appears hopeless and I often leave feeling that capitalism has truly captured all the regulators and is now free to grind all value out of society. Assume we get a decent amount of the population on the same page what is the next step? Is there no room for reforms? I have a feeling that only when public discussion consistently prioritizes human well-being above all else can any progress be even attempted.

stoy,

To help our poor billionaires I will take one for the team and help them reduce their burden, for a small administrative fee, I will take ownership of 10% of their fortune, I’d imagine there are several other people who gladly would agree to help in slmilar ways.

Thorny_Insight,

But then you’d be a billionaire aswell and would need to be excecuted for the horrible person you are.

stoy,

I’d obvously vet my clients based on their fortune:

A bilionaire with a fortune up to 9 billion, then I’d manage to deal with 10%

But at 10 billions to 99 billions, I could only manage to deal with 1%

Also, I would disperse the money, sharing it with the world, while at the same time gathering cameras, computers, and other things I enjoy, thus ensuring that the wealth is not just collected, but actively used and taxes are paid.

Then as the funds I have been tasked with reducing are gone, I am able to accept a new client for this most noble of task.

BrianTheeBiscuiteer,

A wealth tax does seem warranted for billionaires. I don’t like the idea of taxing something inert but honestly that’s how they make money. They borrow against thousands of shares at a time and pay zero taxes on the loan.

Joker,

The wealth tax has never sat well with me either. We are talking about taxing someone based on the value of an asset that they would need to collateralize or liquidate to pay the tax bill. That doesn’t seem right or fair to me.

On the other hand, I read today about Trader Joe’s and their suit against the NLRB and I’ve changed my mind. They engaged in a bunch of shady union-busting behavior, they got caught, and now they’re arguing the NLRB is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the NLRB has been wielding this power for like 90 years.

Where we’re at is, obscenely wealthy people who break the law are essentially giving the government the finger and saying they should be allowed to do it. They’re acting as if they believe they are powerful enough that they are no longer subject to laws. Trump and Musk are no different. I’m sure there are plenty more.

It used to be people like that were mostly normal. They would make contributions, get their way most of the time, get some pushback when they went too far, maybe kicked and screamed a little bit, but they would eventually get in line.

Now, they simply say the rules are bullshit and they shouldn’t have to follow them anymore. These people are undermining our government and subverting the rule of law. It’s time they get kicked in the teeth.

They derive their power from wealth. Although our government has plenty of problems, it’s still ours if we can hold onto it. It’s time to make a statement to anyone who dares threaten that. FAFO. I’m all for taxing these fuckers.

QuarterSwede,
@QuarterSwede@lemmy.world avatar

When the billionaires themselves are telling us to tax the crap out of them then why aren’t we?

damnthefilibuster,

Don’t have time for a longer post right now. But here’s my question about the wealth tax -

Trickle down BS and Invisible Hand BS all say that if people have wealth, they WILL reinvest it. That’s the correct thing to do.

When you drive a car, the correct thing to do is drive safely and at a logical speed. If you do irrational driving, you get a ticket.

So why isn’t it logical that if you are participating in a capitalist economy, and not doing the correct thing of constantly reinvesting your money, then the govt should fine you for it?

Wealth shouldn’t just sit around and do nothing, specially in foreign bank accounts. If it does, it should be fined… or taxed.

barryamelton, (edited )

Tax the income of corporations not the profit. The same way you get taxed your VAT. That means that corporations can’t tax evade: if they make income in a country, they get taxed. They can’t go an declare the profit in the Netherlands or Ireland and skip paying taxes.

Create and use parallel institutions to allow society to thrive without needing to play the billionares economy game. Example: communication tools outside of a market involvement such as Lemmy, Element (matrix). Economy tools. Association tools. See the application of Dual Power by socialists, which is what you are proposing here, a redistribution of power and wealth.

Vote for those pushing for these.

QuarterSwede,
@QuarterSwede@lemmy.world avatar

This is brilliant in its simplicity.

LopensLeftArm,
@LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works avatar

The last step into the guillotine generally does the trick.

DecarbonatedOdes,

Wouldn’t the wealth necessarily just be distributed to their heirs?

bionicjoey,

That’s why the French revolution was so… Thorough

maniacalmanicmania,
@maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone avatar

Heirs are finite and have a shelf life. Guillotines are reusable.

XEAL,

That’s it.

Extinguish the bloodline, cut heads until there’s no hoarder, tax evading billionare.

kureta,

If you are at the point of guillotining billioners, you can also seize their wealth.

faintwhenfree,

Just shows how complicit people are, even when guillotineing a billionaire, we don’t know how to acquire their wealth, anyway other comments explain how to do that.

SheerDumbLuck, (edited )

Immediate impact:

  • wealth tax.

Medium term:

  • death tax.
  • nonprofit land developments.
  • redefinition of the goal of a public corporation from maximizing profit for shareholders to something that makes sense.

Long term:

  • effective antitrust legislation, policy, and enforcement.
  • worker owned co-ops
  • civic education

Edit: I forgot unions and labour protection in immediate impact.

Silentiea,

redefinition of the goal of a public corporation from maximizing profit for shareholders to something that makes sense.

Any suggestions?

SheerDumbLuck,

I’d rather leave it to the experts who study this stuff.

The only one I’ve heard of is called the “triple bottom line”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line

SuperSpruce,

A focus on long term profitability over the next quarter’s profits would go a long way in making things better.

Sterile_Technique,
@Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world avatar

Step 1: Slay the dragon.

Step 2: Redistribute its mountain of gold back into the community.

MyDogLovesMe,

Easy to say “re-distribute”, harder than hell to do equitably and fairly.

Sterile_Technique,
@Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world avatar

While true, what’s your point? Being difficult doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.

MyDogLovesMe,

I like that thinking.

an0nym0us,
@an0nym0us@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

No. It really, really isn’t. Stop allowing those same billionaire dragons dictate the narrative. The reason wealth redistribution seems so fraught with issues is that billionaires pay to spread that falsehood.

return2ozma,
@return2ozma@lemmy.world avatar

Bezos didn’t buy the WaPo because he likes to read the news.

Modern_medicine_isnt,

I don’t think movements succeed based on being organized. I think the core factor is people having nothing to lose.

DecarbonatedOdes,

That could be true. I’m only repeating what I heard en mass during the Occupy Protests of the perceived reason of failure.

foggy,

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    DecarbonatedOdes, (edited )

    Wait, who is deleting posts? Edit: Nevermind, it’s the lemmy.world mods.

    GBU_28,

    “billionaires” wouldn’t be so bad if they just:

    • paid the taxes expected, with no shenanigans
    • were obligated to activate their cash in the economy. No hording, get that cash moving through the economy.
    EdyBolos,

    Also if they didn’t exploit their workers and paid them fairly.

    moistclump,

    But then they wouldn’t be a billionaire!

    GBU_28,

    Sure, if they are explicitly running a business

    Iceblade02,

    I’d make personal asset-backed debt above a certain amount per capita taxable. The real reason they pay so little tax is that they never actually realize their assets - they just borrow against them, and all that debt is then slowly deleted through inflation.

    So, when they use asset-backed debt instead of income - tax it.

    EdyBolos,

    All the people saying taxes or caps on income are missing the point. Who should impose those taxes or caps? The government is basically controlled by billionaires, it doesn’t matter what the ordinary citizens want.

    WanderingVentra,

    Hence the guillotines answer I’ve seen float around

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • asklemmy@lemmy.world
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #