• Chriskmee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      9 months ago

      Most of their billions is ownership in companies they grew into what they are today. It’s not like they have billions to spend, it’s that their ownership is worth billions according to the market.

        • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          9 months ago

          So what? We should take away that ownership because they can leverage it? Also the same people suggesting we tax wealth like this want to also close those “loopholes” of low interest loans on shares.

              • Enma Ai@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Taking away (extreme) wealth. There’s no reason one person should have that much. There’s countless better ways to use that money/wealth than for one persons extravagant lifestyle. And even if they don’t have an extravagant lifestyle, what are they gonna do with it? Doubt they will build infrastructure out of good will with it.

                • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  So take away ownership of a company just because it’s too successful? That wealth is mostly in company ownership, so are you really suggesting we steal away legitimate ownership in successful companies?

                  • someacnt
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I mean, why do we have 'too big to fail" companies? Isn’t that counterproductive to having a robust society?

                  • Enma Ai@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Yes. Fuck Capitalism.

                    It’s not stealing their legitimate ownership. They don’t have legitimate ownership.

          • TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            No, they can keep them, but those loopholes need to be closed. Maybe don’t allow using ownership of a company as collateral for a loan? If you want to use your massive stored wealth as money you need to sell it. You want to get it back buy it. I’m not a finance or policy person, but there has to be a way to make these people pay the propert tax on their wealth.

            • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              So they can keep their ownership, but we are going to remove their way to loan money against it, and still expect them to pay billions in taxes without giving away any ownership? How do you expect them to pay billions in taxes when the only billions they have in value is company ownership? You are forcing them to sell company ownership to pay this ridiculous tax.

              • Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                To be fair, if billionaires could no longer use their stocks as collateral to borrow insane amounts, maybe they’d have to give themselves taxable salaries.

                • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I don’t think the government would ban the practice, since the middle class uses the same thing for stuff like reverse mortgages. I can see them limiting the amount though.

                  If they did ban it though, billionaires would still be billionaires, they probably don’t need much of an actual salary when most of their stuff is paid for.